- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
Doesn't driver feedback count towards Mercedes generating data? I think we can put that line of defense to rest.WhiteBlue wrote:We just had a very interesting statement by Toto Wolf on Sky Germany. He said:
That seems to stipulate that Merc handed their telemetry over to Pirelli and had independent legal observers on site to testify for that. It could be one explanation for their confidence.Toto Wolf wrote:If Pirelli generate data it is a Pirelli test. If Mercedes generates data it is a Mercedes test. We did not generate any data.
I don't think that driver feed back counts as data towards determining who ran a test. And you can pipe driver feed back into a Pirelli data base as easily as you can feed it into Merc's development department. I'm sure the tribunal will require a lot of communication to determine exactly these kind of things. Wolf also said that Merc has a small team of people permanently working towards the 20th of June in order to prepare all the documentation.GTSpeedster wrote:Doesn't driver feedback count towards Mercedes generating data? I think we can put that line of defence to rest.WhiteBlue wrote:We just had a very interesting statement by Toto Wolf on Sky Germany. He said:
That seems to stipulate that Merc handed their telemetry over to Pirelli and had independent legal observers on site to testify for that. It could be one explanation for their confidence.Toto Wolf wrote:If Pirelli generate data it is a Pirelli test. If Mercedes generates data it is a Mercedes test. We did not generate any data.
I think they have improved but Canada is not the most difficult track for their problems and it was not particularly hot. That means the race wasn't a good benchmark. If they easily beat Lotus in Silverstone I would say they have cracked the problem.GTSpeedster wrote:Coincidence or not everyone certainly must agree that, in terms of race pace, Mercedes is not the same team after the secret test. And by a long distance. Or not?
I guess people forgot that Montreal had very low degradationr last year on the soft and super-soft, While this year we had medium and super soft with higher deg. I think Silverstone will be back to very high degradation.WhiteBlue wrote:I think they have improved but Canada is not the most difficult track for their problems and it was not particularly hot. That means the race wasn't a good benchmark. If they easily beat Lotus in Silverstone I would say they have cracked the problem.GTSpeedster wrote:Coincidence or not everyone certainly must agree that, in terms of race pace, Mercedes is not the same team after the secret test. And by a long distance. Or not?
The Merc engineers would have had to at least see the data real-time just to keep the car alive.WhiteBlue wrote: I'm sure the tribunal will require a lot of communication to determine exactly these kind of things. Wolf also said that Merc has a small team of people permanently working towards the 20th of June in order to prepare all the documentation.
So if we simply assume that Ross Brawn was clever enough to foresee the kind of data sanitation that will be required to make it a Pirelli test we would have identified the way that would avoid a conviction for Mercedes. I think the guy is clever enough to have all of this planned ahead of his decision making.
Well, we cannot know how they organized the whole thing. Who can tell us what kind of fire wall effort they actually did. There are many things that one can imagine. Merc could have taken the time to school Pirelli test engineers in the use of their own equipment. They certainly had enough time to do it. They had two or three days between the race and the test. What if the Merc engineers were not even involved?Pierce89 wrote:The Merc engineers would have had to at least see the data real-time just to keep the car alive.WhiteBlue wrote: I'm sure the tribunal will require a lot of communication to determine exactly these kind of things. Wolf also said that Merc has a small team of people permanently working towards the 20th of June in order to prepare all the documentation.
So if we simply assume that Ross Brawn was clever enough to foresee the kind of data sanitation that will be required to make it a Pirelli test we would have identified the way that would avoid a conviction for Mercedes. I think the guy is clever enough to have all of this planned ahead of his decision making.
The way you represent things I wouldn't be surprised if you claim that their drivers were not involved also. Get real, please.WhiteBlue wrote:They had two or three days between the race and the test. What if the Merc engineers were not even involved?
WB's post offered an alternate view on the possible test scenario. It's unlikely (IMO), but it should be considered. Merc and Pirelli seem too darn sure they've done nothing wrong. These are not dumb guys, and unless they've both walked into a honey-trap, they have a loophole. I doubt it will fly - but they do have something they're proposing is valid. What would make the most sense?Dragonfly wrote:The way you represent things I wouldn't be surprised if you claim that their drivers were not involved also. Get real, please.WhiteBlue wrote:They had two or three days between the race and the test. What if the Merc engineers were not even involved?
Are you serious? I'm only following a logical chain of points as a lawyer would who will defend Merc in the tribunal and I do it based on what the team officials have said about their defence strategy. Obviously the drivers according to the published information have both run in that test. Their statements do not contradict my theory about a potential Merc defence. Nico has said that he knew what he was testing. If the driver race engineers were not present and the drivers were engineered by Pirelli engineers in that test there would have been no harm to Merc's claim that they have done nothing wrong. So what's your gripe? I'm not saying it has all happened that way because I do not know. But you obviously have no facts that would prove my theory wrong at this point. Actually the next question on my mind would be the question of debriefing after the test. Did Merc engineers debrief the drivers at all? I would have advised against it, if I were Ross Brawn.Dragonfly wrote:The way you represent things I wouldn't be surprised if you claim that their drivers were not involved also. Get real, please.WhiteBlue wrote:They had two or three days between the race and the test. What if the Merc engineers were not even involved?
Possible, but very unlikely. Why would they do such a thing? It sounds a bit far fetched to me.radosav wrote:Is it possible that Pirelli brought changed tyres in Canada and didn't say anything to teams?
It is just an idea! We had 'secret' Mercedes test ,too! Tyres behave differently in Canada, probably due specific track layout, but ...WhiteBlue wrote:Possible, but very unlikely. Why would they do such a thing? It sounds a bit paranoid to me to suggest it.radosav wrote:Is it possible that Pirelli brought changed tyres in Canada and didn't say anything to teams?
I think there is a big difference between conducting a confidential private test of development technologies for 2014 and deliberately breaking the rules of the tyre supply contract, which you proposed they did. Even if the Pirelli test is subject to legal challenges few people would deny it was entirely legitimate. How is a tyre company supposed design the tyres for next year if they cannot test? Pirelli had to have a meaningful test. But they have no need or motivation to cheat on their supply contract by falsifying the published specification.radosav wrote:It is just an idea! We had 'secret' Mercedes test ,too! Tyres behave differently in Canada, probably due specific track layout, but ...