Mainly the reason why Mercedes got another Brit to drive along Lewis next year. The FIA is mainly British and we all know who they favour when they have to make a call. I could go on and on about the FIA consistency and how Mercedes gets away with stuff. Most laws do not pass strict scrutiny as both parts have very high standards to pass. Which clearly indicates that it was in fact illegal. These levels are: Strict Scrutiny For a law to pass strict scrutiny, the legislation must have a compelling state interest that is done though the least restrictive means. The rules are clear when it comes to moveable aero and yet it was allowed for Mercedes and banned the next so no other team could use it. nothing.ĭAS system approved in 2020 for Mercedes changed ride height and it was proven by RBR. Other teams laid complaints about Mercedes flexi wings and. And Lewis only had to mention that it looks bendy. The flexi wings have never been taken seriously but when RBR had scrutiny the FIA placed dots on their wing and scrutinised it. Thats why he ran to them when there was an impending penalty for Lewis earlier this year. It means that Toto's friends are hanging with him. The fact that there are always FiA at Mercedes doesn't mean they are more scrutinised. The FIA has never taken parts from a Mercedes after a race. Binotto isn't wrong when he said they were scrutinised more aggressively than what Mercedes is now.

'To all these Mercedes fans commenting in this forum. While the FIA argued that the reason for the findings not being made public was because nothing could be proven, the dramatic drop-off in performance at the end of 2019, which continued throughout most of 2020, told everyone all they needed to know.Ĭheck out our Thursday gallery from Monza, here. Of course, the findings of the infamous fuel flow limit investigation in 2019 were never made public, the FIA controversially reaching a 'secret' agreement with the Italian manufacturer, a move that caused uproar among rival teams. 'But I think it is important to underline that what happened then is no different from what is happening now, and has always happened in Formula 1.' 'Getting to the kind of tone used in 2019 is still wrong,' he admitted. 'Perhaps then we were too exposed to the media and suffered an attack from our competitors. 'Why are there differences in attitude?' he asked. And all of this is no different from what happened in 2019. 'The FIA measures (technical directives) were necessary because there were those who had a different interpretation to the principles of the regulation. 'We had some doubts and we discussed them with Red Bull - I personally spoke to Christian Horner - but we did not submit any clarification questions to the FIA.'Ĭomparing the current situation with that of his own team in 2019, he said, according to. 'Like all teams and all manufacturers, we try to understand what our rivals are doing, we analyse the images and look at the GPS data,' said Binotto of the investigation into Mercedes. 'They were on another planet,' admits Ferrari pair.Hamilton refuses to take the Alonso bait.Seidl denies morale at McLaren has been compromised.

Horner thanks Wolff for technical directive.

Belgian Grand Prix in Words, Stats and Pictures.

Audi chairman explains thinking behind separate programme for Porsche.

Piastri conspiracy claims 'sad and annoying' says Alonso.

This was a rare but appropriate response to an unusual kind of law, one that singles out a particular class and imposes an unprecedentedly broad disability upon it. It looked past that heuristic device to the underlying purposes of equal protection. The equal protection analysis upon which the Court did rely, the lesser-used “bare desire to harm” doctrine, had nothing to do with levels of scrutiny. The Court avoided this rationale for its result, probably because it did not want to reach the question of whether states could deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Sex-based classifications are presumptively unconstitutional. DOMA makes no reference to sexual orientation, but it does speak of “man” and “woman.” It classifies on the basis of sex. That question however was not even presented. Windsor, the Supreme Court left many people unsatisfied when it failed to identify the level of scrutiny to apply to laws that classify by sexual orientation.

Levels of scrutiny