Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Australian GP

[Juzh]

looks like a circus so far, judging from the google translated live feed

anyone find it weird that a Mercedes attorney (if the google translate is accurate) is asking questions and Mercedes engineer is testifying there in the court, when they are direct competitors to RB and beneficiary if the appeal is denied?

Maybe they believe they'll gain even more advantage if flow meters were to be removed or something along that lines.

from what I read it looks like merc is on the fia's side of the fence?

Ah, okey. I misinterpreted.

[turbof1]

Now it's getting very personal out there actually. Mercedes going as far as claiming that this a worse offense then what BAR did in 2003 for what it did with its fuel tanks. BAR got a 3 race ban for that. AMUS claims mercedes is acting this fierce because red bull asked for severe punishment a year ago in the testgate affair.

The hearing is done. A verdict will probably be tomorrow, with a motivation being brought out around friday.

[Juzh]

Now it's getting very personal out there actually. Mercedes going as far as claiming that this a worse offense then what BAR did in 2003 for what it did with its fuel tanks. BAR got a 3 race ban for that. AMUS claims mercedes is acting this fierce because red bull asked for severe punishment a year ago in the testgate affair.

That's predictable. Merc however is going all out nutz here though. Did any of the RB personnel testify in front of the tribunal?
It's also kinda funny how mercedes is indirectly accusing themselves with the BAR.

[astracrazy]

So is that it now? Just waiting for judgement in a day or two? or even later today?

so its clear now why Merc was there and Ferrari weren't? a bit of payback was in order in Mercs eyes....

you can almost see a new war brewing. Espcially if the fia take note of Mercs comments.

[NTS]

Now it's getting very personal out there actually. Mercedes going as far as claiming that this a worse offense then what BAR did in 2003 for what it did with its fuel tanks. BAR got a 3 race ban for that. AMUS claims mercedes is acting this fierce because red bull asked for severe punishment a year ago in the testgate affair.

2005 right? And indeed, Mercedes is going on full attack. If the FIA refers to this in a negative verdict for RB I expect an all out PR-war between Mercedes and RB.

[turbof1]

Now it's getting very personal out there actually. Mercedes going as far as claiming that this a worse offense then what BAR did in 2003 for what it did with its fuel tanks. BAR got a 3 race ban for that. AMUS claims mercedes is acting this fierce because red bull asked for severe punishment a year ago in the testgate affair.

2005 right? And indeed, Mercedes is going on full attack. If the FIA refers to this in a negative verdict for RB I expect an all out PR-war between Mercedes and RB.

2005 yes, my bad.

I also believe Mercedes has a direct performance stake in this. If Red Bull succeeds in its appeal, and gets to set a precedence about technical directives being irrelevant, the fuel flow rate could become very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately being measured by the fia. Mercedes gains the most out of the fuel flow rate. That being dropped means they'll loose that advantage.

Truth to be told, mercedes doesn't belong at that court, just as much as red bull didn't belong on the testgate case last year.

[astracrazy]

Mercedes gains the most out of the fuel flow rate. That being dropped means they'll loose that advantage

you can't know that for sure. I'd expect merc to gain just as much if not more if this was removed. But its in the interest of the sport it stays and merc won't loose out with that either. Mercs there for one thing and its a form of payback from last year (and backing the FIA doesn't hurt in the long run either).

Merc are giving Red Bull a taste of there own medicine.

[WhiteBlue]

Truth to be told, mercedes doesn't belong at that court, just as much as red bull didn't belong on the testgate case last year.

Actually they do belong if you read the statutes. The FiA tribunals have always heared the competitors which did unearth most of the relevant facts in the past.

[turbof1]

Truth to be told, mercedes doesn't belong at that court, just as much as red bull didn't belong on the testgate case last year.

Actually they do belong if you read the statutes. The FiA tribunals have always heared the competitors which did unearth most of the relevant facts in the past.

Didn't know this was in the statutes. I knew other teams could be present at the hearings, but didn't knew it is settled in the statutes atleast one has to be heared. Good notice, WB. I still feel though a competitor shouldn't have the potentional to influence the verdict of an other competitor. I can understand they bring another team along for technical expertise, but mercedes took the moment to try to convince the jury to put down a hard punishment.

Who decides which competitor should be heared? I mean, concerning relevant facts Marussia hasn't less to offer then Mercedes. If the fia decides on this, then they intentionally picked the team with the most reason to get red bull punished. That isn't fair. Mercedes would always be biassed after last year, less concerned actually with the relevant facts.

[FoxHound]

Red bull gave testimony in mercedes trial last year I believe.

[dans79]

I still feel though a competitor shouldn't have the potentional to influence the verdict of an other competitor. I can understand they bring another team along for technical expertise, but mercedes took the moment to try to convince the jury to put down a hard punishment.

Why not, the verdict has the potential to effect every other team on the grid in several ways, so they should be allowed to say something. If RBR wins, they get points back, and those 15 points could swing the WCC standing at the end of the season. Those 15 points could be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Who decides which competitor should be heared?

I think any team can speak if they want to.

[NTS]

I think any team can speak if they want to.

Then I'm curious why only Mercedes showed up and not Ferrari (enough resources there) or McLaren (gains the most points out of the disqualification)?

[dans79]

I think any team can speak if they want to.

Then I'm curious why only Mercedes showed up and not Ferrari (enough resources there) or McLaren (gains the most points out of the disqualification)?

Who knows, maybe they didn't want to, maybe they knew Merc was going to speak. From what I have read, several Merc powered teams had representatives present at the hearing.

http://www.racer.com/indycar/345-latest ... s-underway

Rival teams Mercedes, McLaren, Lotus, Williams and Force India are also part of the hearing, several choosing to send senior technical personnel. Lotus technical director Nick Chester and trackside operations director Alan Permane, along with Williams chief technical officer Pat Symonds, McLaren trackside systems engineer Filippo Sappa and Mercedes race team electronics leader Evan Short are among those listed by the FIA as present.

[jz11]

Ferrari would not gain much by going against RBR, even McLaren, they both don't have (IMHO) what it takes at the moment to beat RBR in constructors (or even drivers) championship, which is like the only reason to go and speak there, Mercedes on the other hand hold the grudge and may be threatened if Renault miraculously make their PU work soonish

[turbof1]

Why not, the verdict has the potential to effect every other team on the grid in several ways, so they should be allowed to say something. If RBR wins, they get points back, and those 15 points could swing the WCC standing at the end of the season. Those 15 points could be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Exactly what I mean with biased. A hearing should be about making the right decision about red bull. How this influences a third party should not matter. Ever. The FIA is there to defend their case, and Red Bull theirs. What influence this has on Mercedes, Ecclestone or Kim Kardashian is of no matter: none are involved.

Take this as an example: A certain company A is accused for fraud (accused, but not proven in advance). The accuser brings a random competitor B in to plead against company A (so not for technical expertise). Competitor B of course has all the reason to get A convicted for fraud and let them go bankrupt due to it. Do you think that is fair?!?

Above all else, neutrality is essential if you want a fair trial.