Pirelli 2013

[Dragonfly]

I hear now Pirelli are also charged and will appear in front of the IT on June 20.

[turbof1]

I hear now Pirelli are also charged and will appear in front of the IT on June 20.

They probably have to turn up as a witness. Remember, Pirelli has no connection what so ever with the rules, technical or sporting, and is bound by a private contract. The Tribunal has no juristiction concerning Pirelli.

[strad]

It would appear from everything I have read, that the sport is governed by one rule on testing and the type of car used, and a contract with the supplier that expected and demands a different even diametrically opposed rule.
And that is the FIAs problem and something they need top address..Not the teams or Pirelli

[WhiteBlue]

I hear now Pirelli are also charged and will appear in front of the IT on June 20.

You can read it in the original FiA statement.
http://www.fia.com/news/international-tribunal

Hearing of the International Tribunal: Disciplinary procedure against Mercedes and Pirelli (2013 FIA Formula One World Championship)
Mon 10.06.13, 5:05PM

The following hearing of the International Tribunal will take place in Paris:

Hearing

Disciplinary procedure against Mercedes and Pirelli (2013 FIA Formula One World Championship)

On 5 June 2013, further to protests lodged during the 2013 Monaco GP by Red Bull Racing and Ferrari Scuderia Team against cars n°9 and 10 (Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team) for having conducted with Pirelli a three day tyre testing using a 2013 car on 15, 16 and 17 May in Barcelona, the President of the FIA, acting as the FIA Prosecuting Body, sent to the President of the International Tribunal a notification of charges against Pirelli and a notification of charges against Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team.

On 5 June 2013, Pirelli and Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team have been convened by the President of the International Tribunal to appear before a judging panel of the International Tribunal.

When

09.30 hrs

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Where

FIA Salle du Comité,

8, place de la Concorde,

75008 Paris

Decision

The decision of the International Tribunal will be published as soon as possible after the hearing.

The way I read it Pirelli and Mercedes are both required to appear to a hearing of the IT. The difference is the possible consequence in the applicability of any action that the IT will suggest.

Mercedes will be immediately concerned with the judgement. If they disagree with the judgement they will have to take it to the international court of appeal (also an FiA institution).

Pirelli would have to expect a letter from the president of the FiA telling them that they are in breach of contract and what the FiA are intending to do about it. If they disagree they would have to follow up in a French court. But those are only differences in procedure. Both Merc and Pirelli do not want a negative verdict.

It would appear from everything I have read, that the sport is governed by one rule on testing and the type of car used, and a contract with the supplier that expected and demands a different even diametrically opposed rule.
And that is the FIAs problem and something they need top address..Not the teams or Pirelli

I would not say that the rules are opposed, but they leave a grey area because they expose the tyre supplier to the bickering of the teams that will never agree on a testing procedure that fits the needs of the supplier. So Pirelli took it in their hands to to escape from this situation by a bold interpretation of the rules. They convinced Mercedes to try the loop hole argument I have to assume. Or even Mercedes proposed it to them to gain additional testing opportunity from the grey area.

I think if the IT sees it in the same way they will tell the FiA to clarify the rules with regard to this particular problem. At least I think that would be a good outcome from the hearing. All three parties could accept that without loss of face.

[xpensive]

...
Or even Mercedes proposed it to them to gain additional testing opportunity from the grey area.
...

More like MrE coersed Pirelli to it, in order for Mercedes to gain five races worth of mid-season testing time.

Or so I think.

[WhiteBlue]

...
Or even Mercedes proposed it to them to gain additional testing opportunity from the grey area.
...

More like MrE coersed Pirelli to it, in order for Mercedes to gain five races worth of mid-season testing time.

Or so I think.

It looks more like three race distances to me, but generally you seem to have hit the nail on the head.

[FoxHound]

Is Pirelli's contract re testing viewable by the teams?

[GTSpeedster]

It couldn't be simpler. How some people insist on defending Merc and Pirelli is beyond impressive as the rule was obviously and unquestionably broken.

This sort of rule cannot be unbroken and the fairness of the situation rebalanced if not by an adequate punishment. And let me try to be a little clearer: it's futile to ponder whether or not some advantage was gained because the very nature of the infringement renders the point irrelevant from any legal perspective.

This rule in particular is in place not to inhibit "confirmed" or "proven" gains of advantage but the mere prospect of one. And additionally, it is simply impossible to deny that there is always the potential for such advantage to gained, regardless of how big or small it can be, in any kind of actual test on a track. Did Mercedes receive some advantage? In my personal opinion yes, but in actuality it doesn't matter one bit! Even if they did not get any real advantage from testing, the rule remains broken as a current car was undisputed used on track, driven by Mercedes main two drivers, with the assistance, and undisputed at least for some extent, by Mercedes technical team, without any knowledge and scrutiny from all of the other teams and without supervision from a FIA official on site.

And let me address this hypothesis that some FIA official may have given the go ahead to Mercedes to proceed with testing exactly as it’s turned out to be. Does it render the rule unenforceable? Please… It may eventually entitle Mercedes to some financial reparation but it would be a completely different matter.

As far as I'm concerned that’s all that should really matter for any proper court of law. Will the International Tribunal agree with me? I think so but if you take politics into account it may not for a number of reasons. But regardless for anyone else, not really holding a political stance in the matter, to try and deny simple logic and undisputable facts it is pretty silly.

[Pierce89]

I hear now Pirelli are also charged and will appear in front of the IT on June 20.

You can read it in the original FiA statement.
http://www.fia.com/news/international-tribunal

Hearing of the International Tribunal: Disciplinary procedure against Mercedes and Pirelli (2013 FIA Formula One World Championship)
Mon 10.06.13, 5:05PM

The following hearing of the International Tribunal will take place in Paris:

Hearing

Disciplinary procedure against Mercedes and Pirelli (2013 FIA Formula One World Championship)

On 5 June 2013, further to protests lodged during the 2013 Monaco GP by Red Bull Racing and Ferrari Scuderia Team against cars n°9 and 10 (Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team) for having conducted with Pirelli a three day tyre testing using a 2013 car on 15, 16 and 17 May in Barcelona, the President of the FIA, acting as the FIA Prosecuting Body, sent to the President of the International Tribunal a notification of charges against Pirelli and a notification of charges against Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team.

On 5 June 2013, Pirelli and Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team have been convened by the President of the International Tribunal to appear before a judging panel of the International Tribunal.

When

09.30 hrs

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Where

FIA Salle du Comité,

8, place de la Concorde,

75008 Paris

Decision

The decision of the International Tribunal will be published as soon as possible after the hearing.

The way I read it Pirelli and Mercedes are both required to appear to a hearing of the IT. The difference is the possible consequence in the applicability of any action that the IT will suggest.

Mercedes will be immediately concerned with the judgement. If they disagree with the judgement they will have to take it to the international court of appeal (also an FiA institution).

Pirelli would have to expect a letter from the president of the FiA telling them that they are in breach of contract and what the FiA are intending to do about it. If they disagree they would have to follow up in a French court. But those are only differences in procedure. Both Merc and Pirelli do not want a negative verdict.

It would appear from everything I have read, that the sport is governed by one rule on testing and the type of car used, and a contract with the supplier that expected and demands a different even diametrically opposed rule.
And that is the FIAs problem and something they need top address..Not the teams or Pirelli

I would not say that the rules are opposed, but they leave a grey area because they expose the tyre supplier to the bickering of the teams that will never agree on a testing procedure that fits the needs of the supplier. So Pirelli took it in their hands to to escape from this situation by a bold interpretation of the rules. They convinced Mercedes to try the loop hole argument I have to assume. Or even Mercedes proposed it to them to gain additional testing opportunity from the grey area.

I think if the IT sees it in the same way they will tell the FiA to clarify the rules with regard to this particular problem. At least I think that would be a good outcome from the hearing. All three parties could accept that without loss of face.

There is only one rule, the one in the sporting regs. I don't see how Merc could argue that the contract between the FIA and Pirelli could alleviate the need for Merc to follow the sporting regs. Pirelli's contract is just that: A contract with an outside supplier. That has nothing to do with the requirement for teams to follow the regs.

[turbof1]

It couldn't be simpler. How some people insist on defending Merc and Pirelli is beyond impressive as the rule was obviously and unquestionably broken.

For now that is still an opinion. Public communication from the FIA showed it really is not that black and white, and Mercedes claims to have proof that, in their communications with the FIA, they got allowed to use the 2013 car. Because this got reïterated quite alot by them and Pirelli, it looks like they are really convinced about that one.

No doubt Mercedes and Pirelli went somewhere wrong, intentionally or not, but if they can convince the Tribunal that essentially Pirelli was running the test, the situation instantly gets much more complicated, as Pirelli does not fall under the sporting rules. If that is the case, strictly speaking the Tribunal cannot convict Pirelli and the matter will have to be settled in front of the French court.

There is only one rule, the one in the sporting regs. I don't see how Merc could argue that the contract between the FIA and Pirelli could alleviate the need for Merc to follow the sporting regs. Pirelli's contract is just that: A contract with an outside supplier. That has nothing to do with the requirement for teams to follow the regs.

Well, because Pirelli is an outside supplier and because it has nothing to do with teams obliged to follow the rules, the sporting might not apply here. The FIA did half-hearted admitted that the use of the 2013 car and the current drivers, was allowed under certain conditions (of which the FIA claims they weren't all met), for Pirelli to test. If -and I say IF- the verdict is that Pirelli tested and not Mercedes, the sporting rules are not in effect.

There is even more: if the Tribunal concludes the matter is ambigious, then Mercedes can't be convicted either. Ambiguity is always in favour of the defending party.

I think many of you peeps confuse the spirit of the rules with the word of the rule; there is always a possibility that rules can be circumvented. Testing rules included.

[FoxHound]

@gtspeedster

Toto Wolff summed it up.

"If Pirelli generate data, it's a Pirelli test. If Mercedes generate data, it's a Mercedes test."

Pirelli have their mandate as it was written up in their contract with the FOM.
If they excercises said mandate, and have verified it prior to excercising it(Mercedes too), where does this leave the FIA?
As has been said before, this has all the hallmarks of power play.

The big question is to what ends are the powerplayers playing?
Who, what and why are the targets of this power brokerage.

Mercedes and Pirelli are mere pawns in my opinion.

[WhiteBlue]

There is only one rule, the one in the sporting regs. I don't see how Merc could argue that the contract between the FIA and Pirelli could alleviate the need for Merc to follow the sporting regs. Pirelli's contract is just that: A contract with an outside supplier. That has nothing to do with the requirement for teams to follow the regs.

You need to read the thread to understand why the regulations probably have not been broken at all. The regulations prohibit competitors to run in season tests. Mercedes will argue that they did not run the test and that Pirelli was the party that ran the test using Merc's cars and drivers. So it is not a question of the Pirelli contract alleviating the requirement for teams to follow the regs. The simple question for the tribunal to discover is who ran the test. Was the team sufficiently fire walled from the running of the test to claim no significant involvement. I find it entirely possible that the tribunal will find that. The only team members closely involved in the test so far seem to be the drivers and they have no team responsibility under their FiA license. If some other team members with FiA license such as the directors or race engineers were involved that would be a much bigger problem. In that case Mercedes would be guilty as hell.

It couldn't be simpler. How some people insist on defending Merc and Pirelli is beyond impressive as the rule was obviously and unquestionably broken.

You are obviously wrong! Read the thread!
Edited for grammar. WB

[xpensive]

...
Or even Mercedes proposed it to them to gain additional testing opportunity from the grey area.
...

More like MrE coersed Pirelli to it, in order for Mercedes to gain five races worth of mid-season testing time.

Or so I think.

It looks more like three race distances to me, but generally you seem to have hit the nail on the head.

Correct, but it is sad that Mercedes is to such a value for MrE that he takes a page out of Vince McMahon's book.

[WhiteBlue]

As has been said before, this has all the hallmarks of power play.
The big question is to what ends are the powerplayers playing?
Who, what and why are the targets of this power brokerage.

There are a number of things that are known.
Todt is a player as he is negotiating with Ecclestone over the 2013-2020 Concord as well as the next tyre supply contract and the change of control clause. Those are the big issues in the back ground.
Todt is known to want Michelin as a tyre supplier. Ecclestone obviously wants Pirelli. The thing we do not know is how much genuine interest Todt and the FiA have to promote Michelin. There could be two issues behind this.
Firstly, there could be simply the desire to keep the decision making powers over tyre supply contracts to the FiA and not loose it to the commercial rights holder. In order to support that claim Todt would have to actively engage in negotiations or he would effectively loose that power. He could be simply exercising his muscle to make the point.
Secondly, the tyre supply contract could be a bargaining chip in the wider game for revenues and power the FiA continually plays with FOM.
It is everyone's guess to make IMO.

[strad]

I think if the IT sees it in the same way they will tell the FiA to clarify the rules with regard to this particular problem. At least I think that would be a good outcome from the hearing. All three parties could accept that without loss of face.

Damn WB...I think we are in agreement for a change.