Today's unveiled Mercedes AMG F1 W09 resembles a lot its sucessful predecessor, the championship winning W08. And this is no coincidence, as team boss Toto Wolff reveals. However, there are some interesting changes to come this year with the new car.
turbof1 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:12Just so you guys know, it has been confirmed:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... i/3200594/
Seems they just did not wish to get a protest lodged against them, even though it has been declared legal.
The only difference is that italian media claimed it was silicone which was used to modify the rims whereas the british/global one doesn't tell how the rims were changed.dans79 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:37turbof1 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:12Just so you guys know, it has been confirmed:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... i/3200594/
Seems they just did not wish to get a protest lodged against them, even though it has been declared legal.
lol, that's drastically different from what was reported earlier.
No, earlier people where saying its because the fia had changed their minds.LM10 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:43The only difference is that italian media claimed it was silicone which was used to modify the rims whereas the british/global one doesn't tell how the rims were changed.dans79 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:37turbof1 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2018, 23:12Just so you guys know, it has been confirmed:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... i/3200594/
Seems they just did not wish to get a protest lodged against them, even though it has been declared legal.
lol, that's drastically different from what was reported earlier.
But the FIA, after looking closely at the clever Mercedes design, was satisfied that it was fully legal and informed both outfits that it saw no need to intervene.
However, sources have now revealed that Ferrari remained unhappy with the FIA’s standpoint and, during discussions over the Austin weekend, it questioned the governing body's interpretation.
As a follow-up to this, and aware that Ferrari had the option of taking the matter further by lodging an official protest after the race, the FIA advised Mercedes that there remained questions about its design so there could be potential for trouble.
Aware that the risk was there for a protest – even though there was no suggestion Ferrari actually threatened to do so – it is understood that Mercedes decided its safest option would be to modify its wheel rims to ensure that the areas of contention were addressed for now.
Although the FIA’s stance that the wheel rims are legal would have given the team a solid ground for feeling confident should a protest have been lodged, it is well known that the views of the governing body are only ever advisory and the final decision comes down to race stewards.
Mercedes likely felt that, on a day when it hoped to wrap up the world championship, that it would be best to avoid the chance of any post-race trouble that could overshadow its success.
I think you are looking at it way too black 'n white. Technically it is legal as long as it isn't deemed as a moveable aero device. FIA says it is not, Ferrari puts doubts at it. Mercedes decided to remove because if they were crowned champions at COTA and Ferrari lodged official protest, it would be bad publicity because they are only conditionally champions. Not running it meant they could be crowned champions without anything to challenge that.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
FIA were so uncertain of Ferrari's battery system that they put in an additional sensor. The FIA were so certain that Mercedes's wheels are legal that they have done nothing at all. You do see the difference there, right?zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
I think that Mercedes will run the wheel, or a revised version of it, in future races. Of course, if there are one or two wet races (Mexico might be wet, it seems and Brazil often throws up a wet period) then it might be moot anyway. The Mercedes has been the better car in the wet this year, especially with Hamilton at the wheel.turbof1 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:40I think you are looking at it way too black 'n white. Technically it is legal as long as it isn't deemed as a moveable aero device. FIA says it is not, Ferrari puts doubts at it. Mercedes decided to remove because if they were crowned champions at COTA and Ferrari lodged official protest, it would be bad publicity because they are only conditionally champions. Not running it meant they could be crowned champions without anything to challenge that.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
Now they have more time to iron out the issues and more importantly adress Ferrari's doubts. Maybe they will run the openings at the next race, maybe not. I do believe that once they are crowned champions, they will definitely be running it again.
Let's not turn this into some kind of moral discussion, or team specific tactics. It's not the time or the topic to do so. There's just a lot of distrust between those 2 teams. I think that's the core of why Mercedes decided to cover up the holes. Expect this to be cleared up in a couple of weeks at the latest.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:50Ferrari know they have lost the driver's title so they're hoping they can win the constructor's title and are using threats and politics to try to do so. It's like Ferrari of old, which is a shame because they had the car this year to do it all cleanly.turbof1 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:40I think you are looking at it way too black 'n white. Technically it is legal as long as it isn't deemed as a moveable aero device. FIA says it is not, Ferrari puts doubts at it. Mercedes decided to remove because if they were crowned champions at COTA and Ferrari lodged official protest, it would be bad publicity because they are only conditionally champions. Not running it meant they could be crowned champions without anything to challenge that.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
Now they have more time to iron out the issues and more importantly adress Ferrari's doubts. Maybe they will run the openings at the next race, maybe not. I do believe that once they are crowned champions, they will definitely be running it again.
I think that Mercedes will run the wheel, or a revised version of it, in future races. Of course, if there are one or two wet races (Mexico might be wet, it seems and Brazil often throws up a wet period) then it might be moot anyway. The Mercedes has been the better car in the wet this year, especially with Hamilton at the wheel.
They did, they told Mercedes to cover holes to be sure. So it's not so obvious that it's 100% legal.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:46FIA were so uncertain of Ferrari's battery system that they put in an additional sensor. The FIA were so certain that Mercedes's wheels are legal that they have done nothing at all. You do see the difference there, right?zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
I don't think that covering up is a good solution. They should be running with holes. Ferrari should protest and in few days we would see if everything was fine or not. Because if it isn't then it wasn't for all races since Singapore so WDC and WCC would be achieved with illegal car. They can celebrate titles after the last race, who cares if it's in doubt for few hours, 3 races to go.turbof1 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:40I think you are looking at it way too black 'n white. Technically it is legal as long as it isn't deemed as a moveable aero device. FIA says it is not, Ferrari puts doubts at it. Mercedes decided to remove because if they were crowned champions at COTA and Ferrari lodged official protest, it would be bad publicity because they are only conditionally champions. Not running it meant they could be crowned champions without anything to challenge that.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
Now they have more time to iron out the issues and more importantly adress Ferrari's doubts. Maybe they will run the openings at the next race, maybe not. I do believe that once they are crowned champions, they will definitely be running it again.
No, they didn't. They told Mercedes that Ferrari weren't happy and might protest so Mercedes decided to do something themselves. That's entirely different. You can keep trying to spin it that Mercedes have been found "guilty" but that isn't the case at all.
Ferrari won't protest it - Mercedes have a letter from the FIA saying that the wheels are legal. Go in to the "court" and wave that about - even if the "court" decides otherwise (which is so unlikley as to be negligible), they don't apply retrospective action. I.e the points would still stand and from that point on the wheel couldn't be used again.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 11:04Ferrari should protest and in few days we would see if everything was fine or not. Because if it isn't then it wasn't for all races since Singapore so WDC and WCC would be achieved with illegal car. They can celebrate titles after the last race, who cares if it's in doubt for few hours, 3 races to go.
That can be said basically about anything on the car. Against any part on the car can be lodged an official protest. It's up to the stewards to decide a that point, and funny enough the FIA is not involved in this process. Only if the stewards decide that any given part is illegal and the team appeals the decision, like HAAS did, the FIA gets involved in the court of appeal.zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:59They did, they told Mercedes to cover holes to be sure. So it's not so obvious that it's 100% legal.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 10:46FIA were so uncertain of Ferrari's battery system that they put in an additional sensor. The FIA were so certain that Mercedes's wheels are legal that they have done nothing at all. You do see the difference there, right?zokipirlo wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 06:12So it is something wrong. Why would you change otherwise? Ferrari didn't do nothing to their battery system because they know it's legal. Mercedes changed as soon as protest was scheduled. And without a protest we don't know if it is really legal or not. It would be a huge PR nightmare for Mercedes explaining driving illegal car in previous races if the protest would be successful (in Ferrari POV). Hope that holes returns and Ferrari put a protest so that we will know if it's legal or not.
If Ferrari protests and the stewards decide unfavorable for Mercedes, things will definitely go to the court of appeal, just like with HAAS (the issue with HAAS is much more black 'n white though). That will take atleast 2 months. I can very well understand Mercedes is not fancying that, although the stewards more likely would give a favorable decision for Mercedes I think.I don't think that covering up is a good solution. They should be running with holes. Ferrari should protest and in few days we would see if everything was fine or not. Because if it isn't then it wasn't for all races since Singapore so WDC and WCC would be achieved with illegal car. They can celebrate titles after the last race, who cares if it's in doubt for few hours, 3 races to go.
If you want to advocate on winning the Championship on the table/court and not on the track, then be my guest, but F1 would lose a lot of fans if that happens.turbof1 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2018, 11:16If Ferrari protests and the stewards decide unfavorable for Mercedes, things will definitely go to the court of appeal, just like with HAAS (the issue with HAAS is much more black 'n white though). That will take atleast 2 months. I can very well understand Mercedes is not fancying that, although the stewards more likely would give a favorable decision for Mercedes I think.
