Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+

[Polite]

OK. So now Mercedes have both championships wrapped up, do you think we'll see wheel rims with holes next race?

From Mercedes PoV, it might be better to get an inevitable appeal done and dusted before the start of next season. They could even get persuade an engine customer team to appeal if Ferrari don't.

They might well use them. And they probably won’t be protested. What would Ferrari gain if they protested them? Better wait for next year and if they are still there protest them in a race where Mercedes will lose points vital to their championship bids.

Right!.. Using them in the last 2 races will only expose AMG to a clarification that can be usefull to all teams for 2019 (to copy the tech) or to make the rims be illegal for all for the 2019.

[Polite]

It's not illegal. Stop trolling.

I think this is wrong and i also think this is bias!

Actually, you are wrong (it's not illegal as it has never been declared to be illegal which is how this works) and you are obviously biased against Mercedes judging by previous posts.

let me explain.

In F1 is all legal till the stewards have the order to judge something. Ofc only if we are talking about something new and never considered in the regulation.

If there is something really new, only a protest and a judgement of the stewards can confirm the alleged legality or the complete illegality.

You are arguing good but only if u talk about something already considered in the regulations.

So im not saying you are completely wrong but u are wrong in this situation: is a new tech, never considered but against some aero laws at a first look, so this is alleged legal and till they not run them in a gp, and take the protest and the controls, we cant say rims are legal or illegal.

hoping im writing clear. I dont have nothing against u or AMG..

[henry]

What would Ferrari gain if they protested them? Better wait for next year and if they are still there protest them in a race where Mercedes will lose points vital to their championship bids.

Which is why they should get a "friendly opponent" to protest it this year. Then they can go in to next year knowing either a. - they're fully ok to run them, or b. - they can't use them again.

An interesting thought. It would need to be a team that would gain, or at the very least not lose, if the Mercedes were disqualified. It would have to go to appeal to cement the interpretation as case law.

I would imagine a design goal for next year would be to reduce the cause of the tyre problems and get rid of the need for a challangeable band aid.

[Just_a_fan]

so this is alleged legal and till they not run them in a gp, and take the protest and the controls, we cant say rims are legal or illegal.

They have run them in Grands Prix, that's the point. They have passed scrutineering a number of times so they are, at this point, legal.

[PhillipM]

Scrutineering is not a declaration of legality, it's just declaration that the scrutineers are happy that is appears to conform to the rules and they're happy that it's safe to compete.

[Mattchu]

so this is alleged legal and till they not run them in a gp, and take the protest and the controls, we cant say rims are legal or illegal.

They have run them in Grands Prix, that's the point. They have passed scrutineering a number of times so they are, at this point, legal.

While I don`t wish to get into any argument about whether the rims/spacers/system is illegal or not the point I think Polite is trying to make is that they have never been ran then officially protested against by another team.
The fact said item has passed scrutineering and been deemed OK makes this whole thing another of them grey area subjects that will only be sorted by either a technical directive or the process discussed.

I personally think Mercedes just wanted to get the championships sorted and may have other options in the pipeline for next year, they`ve done their job now, or was that Mercedes just turing it on when they needed to...

[subcritical71]

This isn’t against your comment, but wouldn’t that mean the presumption should be that all cars are not legal since they can all be subject to protest and interpretation going against them?

Also, it appears even a TD is not enough to help with a legal status, as the TD would need to be interpreted.

[Just_a_fan]

Scrutineering is not a declaration of legality, it's just declaration that the scrutineers are happy that is appears to conform to the rules and they're happy that it's safe to compete.

The car is checked by the scrutineers. If they find anything that is against the rules, they refuse to allow the car to race. If they allow the car to race then they consider it complies with the rules. Ergo, it is legal.

Now, a higher power can deem it illegal later if it is protested. This is similar to an appeal in a court of law. Someone is found not guilty by the lower court. At that point they are innocent (they have not broken the law - their actions were legal). If that decision is appealed to a higher court, then they might later be found to be guilty and punished (their action has now been considered to be illegal).

At the moment, Mercedes's wheel design is legal because the "lowest court" (the stewards) have said so. There is no argument here, it is legal.

If someone appeals to the FIA in the form of a protest, then the higher court may decide that the stewards were wrong. At that point the wheels would be illegal. But at the moment, that hasn't happened so the wheels are legal.

[Just_a_fan]

This isn’t against your comment, but wouldn’t that mean the presumption should be that all cars are not legal since they can all be subject to protest and interpretation going against them?

No. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

[subcritical71]

This isn’t against your comment, but wouldn’t that mean the presumption should be that all cars are not legal since they can all be subject to protest and interpretation going against them?

No. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

I’m with you on that. I was more being a little broader in thinking that if someone thinks it’s illegal on the Mercedes because a feature hasn’t been through all the courts, then the same illegal status would apply to all cars on the grid. Which in my opinion is not how things should work.

The presumption should be legal unless proven otherwise.

[Big Tea]

Scrutineering is not a declaration of legality, it's just declaration that the scrutineers are happy that is appears to conform to the rules and they're happy that it's safe to compete.

The car is checked by the scrutineers. If they find anything that is against the rules, they refuse to allow the car to race. If they allow the car to race then they consider it complies with the rules. Ergo, it is legal.

Now, a higher power can deem it illegal later if it is protested. This is similar to an appeal in a court of law. Someone is found not guilty by the lower court. At that point they are innocent (they have not broken the law - their actions were legal). If that decision is appealed to a higher court, then they might later be found to be guilty and punished (their action has now been considered to be illegal).

At the moment, Mercedes's wheel design is legal because the "lowest court" (the stewards) have said so. There is no argument here, it is legal.

If someone appeals to the FIA in the form of a protest, then the higher court may decide that the stewards were wrong. At that point the wheels would be illegal. But at the moment, that hasn't happened so the wheels are legal.

It seems to be more 'there is nothing there against the rules' than the car does not contravene any rules.
As posted earlier, it can be in the gray and go through, but if a clarification is requested a thick line is applied and it is one way or the other.

[Just_a_fan]

It seems to be more 'there is nothing there against the rules' than the car does not contravene any rules.

If there is nothing against the rules then by definition there is no contravention.

As it stands, as it has not been found to contravene then it must, by definition, be legal.

As I said, this can change on appeal to a higher court. But, today, the wheel is legal.

[Big Tea]

It seems to be more 'there is nothing there against the rules' than the car does not contravene any rules.

If there is nothing against the rules then by definition there is no contravention.

As it stands, as it has not been found to contravene then it must, by definition, be legal.

As I said, this can change on appeal to a higher court. But, today, the wheel is legal.

Not contravening the rule is not strictly 'legal', although it does not make sense.

[subcritical71]

Any idea what Hamilton was nursing during the GP? Multiple reports that he was 1 lap away from the engine expiring, but the quotes from Toto don’t reveal much.

Autosport;

"We have the engine guys here in the back, and then we have them back at base," team principal Toto Wolff explained.

"I have about 10 channels open, and what I could hear on the meeting channel was 'Lewis Hamilton, power unit failure imminent. It's going to fail within the next lap.'

"And I put the volume up and said, 'Excuse me, what?' And they said, 'Yeah, we have a massive problem on the power unit, it's going to fail on the next lap.'

"But it didn't fail the next lap, and I said, 'When you guys have a minute, tell me what's happening.'

"[They said] 'Well, our exhaust is just about to fail, and we're overshooting all the temperature limits.' I said, 'So what's the fix?'

"They started to fix it by turning the whole thing down. The temperatures went down to below 1000, to 980 degrees. But it's still too high! That was truly horrible."

[henry]

Scrutineering is not a declaration of legality, it's just declaration that the scrutineers are happy that is appears to conform to the rules and they're happy that it's safe to compete.

The car is checked by the scrutineers. If they find anything that is against the rules, they refuse to allow the car to race. If they allow the car to race then they consider it complies with the rules. Ergo, it is legal.

Not quite. The Scrutineers are the Police not the Judiciary. If they find something wrong they report it to the Stewards and they, the Stewards, decide on legality and permission to race.

On safety issues the Scrutineers may be judge and jury, I’m not sure on that.