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

[SiLo]

Mercedes are there to stop any changes to the rules. Red Bull may get reinstated, but Merc don't want to rule to be scrapped.

They will of course take the opportunity to push home that Red Bull should not be reinstated.

[dans79]

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

This is more like a class action lawsuit than a criminal case.

It's the FIA, it's never been fair and unbiased! RBR did the same thing last year.

[turbof1]

Mercedes are there to stop any changes to the rules. Red Bull may get reinstated, but Merc don't want to rule to be scrapped.

They will of course take the opportunity to push home that Red Bull should not be reinstated.

They made it pretty clear they wanted a harsher punishment. They compared it the 2005 fuelgate affair and implied a similar 3 race ban should be put on red bull.

I don't think you can misinterpret mercedes their intentions. Of course they don't want the rules to be changed, but I feel their primary objective is to count out red bull for the title through the court. That smells like a very personal vendetta, which doesn't belong in such a professional business.

This is more like a class action lawsuit than a criminal case.

It's the FIA, it's never been fair and unbiased! RBR did the same thing last year.

Yes, and I had the exact same comments against red bull back then.

class action, criminal case or getting a speeding ticket, I feel your basic right always is neutrality. Very unfortunate that doesn't exist in F1. The FIA specifically lets the teams speak that have the most to gain with a verdict in favor of the fia.

And the fia does pick them out. The reason why they have to chose simply boils down to time restraints. If they had to let the other 10 teams have a word the trial could easily take half a week.

[Juzh]

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

This is more like a class action lawsuit than a criminal case.

It's the FIA, it's never been fair and unbiased! RBR did the same thing last year.

As far as I remember horner was the only one from RB at the tribunal hearing and he didn't even provide any testimony. He was there just as an "interested observer" as he put it.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/06/m ... -tribunal/

[dans79]

I don't think you can misinterpret mercedes their intentions. Of course they don't want the rules to be changed, but I feel their primary objective is to count out red bull for the title through the court. That smells like a very personal vendetta, which doesn't belong in such a professional business.

Personally, I don't think they are trying to knock RBR out of tittle contention, as they are pretty much already out IMO. I think it's more of a payback for last year.

With regards to business practices, this is pretty standard among large companies and countries for that matter, warfare by proxy.

[dans79]

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

This is more like a class action lawsuit than a criminal case.

It's the FIA, it's never been fair and unbiased! RBR did the same thing last year.

As far as I remember horner was the only one from RB at the tribunal hearing and he didn't even provide any testimony. He was there just as an "interested observer" as he put it.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/06/m ... -tribunal/

I was referring to Horner's PR comments against Merc, not testimony.

[turbof1]

I don't think you can misinterpret mercedes their intentions. Of course they don't want the rules to be changed, but I feel their primary objective is to count out red bull for the title through the court. That smells like a very personal vendetta, which doesn't belong in such a professional business.

Personally, I don't think they are trying to knock RBR out of tittle contention, as they are pretty much already out IMO. I think it's more of a payback for last year.

With regards to business practices, this is pretty standard among large companies and countries for that matter, warfare by proxy.

So it's still a personal vendetta. In a fair trial that would be the last team that gets the chance to speak (of course I understand this isn't a fair trial, but you get my point.)

Of course it's common to have proxy warfare, but we are speaking of lawsuit cases. An issue between a government and a certain company isn't going to bring in other companies which aren't involved in the affair, to plea against that company. For technical expertise, yes of course, but not to openly try to get the hardest punishment possible. A judge would inmediately dismiss that. A witness or a technical expert are there to bring more clarity, not to force through a verdict.

[Phil]

Just a very minor point, but I wouldn't take Mercedes lawyer as any point about Mercedes (as a racing team or entity) intentions. The lawyer is there, at the very least, to represent his client and use the legal system in any way he can. What he pointed out might be harsh (a 3 race ban or comparing them to BAR) but ultimately, it's the judge or jury who will have to decide upon facing all facts and arguments what is the proper penalty, sanction if it deems so necessary. I personally didn't find the arguments of the Mercedes to be all that fair - but then again, I can only judge that through a translated 3rd party reflection (AMuS ticker). I'm sure lots of details are lost in that translated transcript which perhaps would make some of the arguments more sound etc.

Still, I'm quite intruiged to see how the verdict will fall out. I'm a bit split if I'm honest. I think some of the arguments by RedBull (or better; Adrian Newey) are quite valid - but on the other hand, letting the team messure it on their own can not be the solution either...

[dans79]

Of course it's common to have proxy warfare, but we are speaking of lawsuit cases. An issue between a government and a certain company isn't going to bring in other companies which aren't involved in the affair, to plea against that company. For technical expertise, yes of course, but not to openly try to get the hardest punishment possible. A judge would inmediately dismiss that. A witness or a technical expert are there to bring more clarity, not to force through a verdict.

We are getting off topic but it happens in law suits. for example when Amazon executives testified in the Apple ebook price fixing case. if you're not aware, Amazon was selling ebooks below cost to drive up Kindle sales, and that was all legal because how they purchased the books from the publishers. The publishes didn't like that so they colluded with Apple to fix pricing, and then the U.S. government went after them for it, and had Amazon executives testify for the prosecution. Like I said it happens all the time, and is typical big business.

[ChrisM40]

I suspect Mercedes are there to say what the other teams did and how it affected them. Specifically they will say that they turned down their flow like good little boys, and it wasnt a problem at all.

[FoxHound]

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

This is more like a class action lawsuit than a criminal case.

It's the FIA, it's never been fair and unbiased! RBR did the same thing last year.

As far as I remember horner was the only one from RB at the tribunal hearing and he didn't even provide any testimony. He was there just as an "interested observer" as he put it.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/06/m ... -tribunal/

Yes, an interested observer. He was not on trial, nor did he have evidence other than how the story broke when Rosberg said something in passing to Sebastian Vettel....which is how the story broke so far as I recall.
Suffice to say, Horner wanted a crucifixion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23069937

Horner's protest led to the international tribunal hearing last week at which Mercedes were given a reprimand and banned from July's young driver test.

Horner said: "The verdict was, I believe, right. They found them guilty of breaking the sporting regulations and sporting code.

However he was unhappy that he couldn't have his pound of flesh.

What is slightly confusing is the leniency of the penalty. The problem with the penalty such as the one Mercedes have been given is that it is not a particularly strong deterrent to break the sporting regulations. I should think it was met with a huge sigh of relief at Brackley

So Mercedes are laying the boot back into Red bull by protecting their advantage and at the same time exacting a form of revenge. Horner had alot to say for something he was not involved in after all.
What goes around, comes around.
In the end, let's hope it transpires in a fair verdict to give Ricciardo some points back, but RBR no constructors points(Oz GP) and a severe suspended sentence should this transgression occur again.

[turbof1]

In the end, let's hope it transpires in a fair verdict to give Ricciardo some points back, but RBR no constructors points(Oz GP) and a severe suspended sentence should this transgression occur again.

That was my point - a fair verdict. It would be laughable if the jury actually listened to mercedes and puts down a race ban.

[bonjon1979]

In the end, let's hope it transpires in a fair verdict to give Ricciardo some points back, but RBR no constructors points(Oz GP) and a severe suspended sentence should this transgression occur again.

That was my point - a fair verdict. It would be laughable if the jury actually listened to mercedes and puts down a race ban.

Why should he get points back IF red bull are guilty?

[jz11]

guilty is a strong word

speculation: he might get points back because they didn't actually go over the limit according to the team knowledge, the team however, would have been penalized (no contructors championship points) for not following FIA directions, something around those lines

[FrukostScones]

In the end, let's hope it transpires in a fair verdict to give Ricciardo some points back, but RBR no constructors points(Oz GP) and a severe suspended sentence should this transgression occur again.

That was my point - a fair verdict. It would be laughable if the jury actually listened to mercedes and puts down a race ban.

Why should he get points back IF red bull are guilty?

because he is smiley smiley cute and everbodies darling; and also he didn't even knew that his car was 0.4 sec per faster than allowed... (and because we all want him to finish the season a head of VET and may win the WDC...)