A very interesting contribution from Joe Saward
A curious turn of events
May 28, 2013 by Joe Saward
The FIA statement after the Monaco GP that suggested that Pirelli and Mercedes-Benz might not have had proper permission to go testing after Barcelona rang alarm bells on Sunday night in Monte Carlo. The original stories about illegal testing were clearly a storm in a teacup, but the FIA announcement that evening raised eyebrows.
Firstly, the FIA rarely does anything quickly when it comes to Formula 1 and the press release came out with such alacrity after the stewards ruling that it seemed decidedly out of character. The statement seems to have taken Mercedes and Pirelli rather by surprise as well, as they clearly thought that what they were doing was OK. There is, logically, no reason for either organisation to do anything to get themselves into trouble with the federation and while other teams may have squawked about the test that took place there was no obvious reason to suggest that any advantage had been gained. It was just another opportunity to squawk, just as Red Bull did after the Spanish GP.
So what on earth, if anything, was going on? An FIA Tribunal will examine the matter at some point in the next few weeks, although it will probably not happen before Canada. We will see in Montreal whether Mercedes has really made such a huge leap forward in terms of tyre performance, or whether the win in Monaco was more to do with the nature of the track than the tyres. It will still be hard to judge because teams make progress all the time, but if the cars fade in the race as they have at other tracks, then there will be indication.
The FIA says that while approval was given for the test, there are aspects of what happened that are questionable. There is no doubt that in the Sporting Regulations it says that teams are not allowed to test current cars during the season, except for a number of straight line aerodynamic tests and the Young Driver test. They are, however, allowed to run cars that are two years old or more. Pirelli says that in its contract, it is allowed to ask a team to supply a car for testing if there is a safety issue involved. There is an argument that this was required after some tyre failures in Bahrain, although Pirelli itself has said that safety was not compromised by the treads coming off. Ferrari did agree to do a test for Pirelli in Barcelona with a 2011 car driven by Pedro de la Rosa. Given that Pirelli says that old cars are not much use for testing 2013 tyres, it is an odd thing to have done, although it is always possible that Pirelli reached that conclusion during the Ferrari test. Whatever the case, plans were then made for Mercedes to do a three day test, between May 15 and 17 in Barcelona, using a 2013 car.
The tests were not announced because it seems that Pirelli was worried that any attempt to test would be met with the kind of uproar and bad publicity that was heard in Monaco on Sunday. It was a better idea to get the job done on the quiet and not have to deal with a storm of noise in the media. That argument makes a lot of sense.
The FIA is disputing that it agreed to the test that occurred, which suggests that Mercedes and Pirelli took advantage of the situation. However Pirelli argues that it did not inform Mercedes what tyres were being tested and that these were a combination of work that was useful for 2014 and in an effort to solve the problem of the tread coming off, as was seen in Bahrain. These tyres were likely to have been different constructions, profiles and compounds and as we have seen on many occasions this year the 2013 tyres behave very differently in different temperatures and so arguing that Mercedes will have gained an advantage is stretching the argument.
So it is fair to say that the problem is not about the tyres, but rather about how and why the test came about. The technical people at the FIA know that it is unlikely that Mercedes gained any advantage from the test, so if there is trouble it is for reasons other than those being stated by the rival teams.
All of this is occurring against a backdrop of negotiations for a new tyre deal for 2014-2015-2016. Pirelli is making the point that it is a bit too late to change and that the teams need to agree to the financial deals on offer or the sport could find itself without a tyre supplier, if Pirelli decides to walk.
So the real question is whether or not it is too late for another tyre company to replace Pirelli.
Turn back the clock three years to May 2010 and there was a similar story going on. The sport had yet to agree whether to use Pirelli or Michelin. The French company’s offer was attractive, both technically and financially, but there was a political game going on in the background. Bernie Ecclestone wanted Pirelli, FIA President Jean Todt wanted Michelin. The question was really over who had the right to decide.
Was it a commercial matter or a sporting one?
In some championships the FIA asks for bids from suppliers, in others it leaves it up to the commercial rights holder. It is not clear who should decide. In 2010 the deal for 2011-2012-2013 went to Pirelli. The FIA accepted the situation after Michelin backed away from the negotiations. It was in many respects a victory for Ecclestone but the FIA had no choice but to accept the deal in the circumstances. The announcement was made on June 23 after the deal had been signed off by the World Motor Sport Council. In the press release at the time the FIA noted that “the sole supplier will undertake to strictly respect the sporting and technical regulations implemented by the FIA”. It was an odd statement. Now that there has been a glitch it sounds almost threatening.
Conspiracy theorists in F1 circles are now suggesting that the minor kerfuffle in Monaco has become something rather bigger, not because Mercedes gained any great advantage as rival teams are arguing, but rather because it has presented the FIA with an opportunity to reassert its power on the question of who decides on the technical partnerships of the Formula 1 World Championship. Both the FIA and FOM claim the right, but the outcome is more to do with who plays a better political game at the moment the deal is done.
If Pirelli was able to bang out the right kind of tyres in 2010-2011 despite the decision not being made until the World Council meeting in June, the same must be possible for Michelin in 2013-2014.
The other elements of this so-called scandal can be written off as being a sign of the disjointed nature of the sport at the moment, with the teams fighting over anything and everything because they are unhappy with one another about commercial deals struck and other political games played.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
For me the main take away points from JS blog are:
- Merc are unlikely to have profited from the test
- the FiA statement came very quickly, in fact with a worrying speed
- there is a likely coalition Pirelli/FOM against Michelin/FiA for the next tyre contract
- Michelin should be capable to supply tyres for 2014 (which I thought less possible until now)
- the FiA might use this to push Michelin (which I thought unlikely until now)
If Joe is right the problem will rather lie with Pirelli than with Merc. The tyre supply contract will become a bargaining chip in the wider Concord negotiations.
