Pirelli 2013

[FoxHound]

Seems apt to place this story here.

http://puref1.com/2013/06/12/has-red-bu ... -too-far/?

Masters of hyperbole.

[turbof1]

I have to admit, that gentleman's agreement does change the perspective a bit. Although such an agreement has no juridical value and indeed has been broken already in the past, ethically it is highly valued, even in F1.

It's not inmediately going to add up at the IT, but will bring distrust towards Mercedes among the teams.

I hate the title about the subject on this website. It is by no means evidence. The International Tribunal can't use it, and I doubt any other court would validate it as evidence.

[dave34m]

I have to admit, that gentleman's agreement does change the perspective a bit. Although such an agreement has no juridical value and indeed has been broken already in the past, ethically it is highly valued, even in F1.

It's not inmediately going to add up at the IT, but will bring distrust towards Mercedes among the teams.

I hate the title about the subject on this website. It is by no means evidence. The International Tribunal can't use it, and I doubt any other court would validate it as evidence.

Yes, it also raises the question about what tyres Ferrari was testing, I would be interested to now why Perelli has refused to disclose what tyres were run the that test. If they were 2014 tyres then Ferrari have also broken this Gentlemans agreement

[turbof1]

I also find the content of the agreement just hilarious. All teams need to agree with it. The agreement could just as well have stated that all teams are prohibited from testing 2014 tyres, because that group of toddlers will never unanimously allow one of them to do that.

[bhall]

[...]
Masters of hyperbole.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind when I read about Christian Horner bemoaning another team's "underhanded" ways.

[diffuser]

I have to admit, that gentleman's agreement does change the perspective a bit. Although such an agreement has no juridical value and indeed has been broken already in the past, ethically it is highly valued, even in F1.

It's not inmediately going to add up at the IT, but will bring distrust towards Mercedes among the teams.

I hate the title about the subject on this website. It is by no means evidence. The International Tribunal can't use it, and I doubt any other court would validate it as evidence.

Yes, it also raises the question about what tyres Ferrari was testing, I would be interested to now why Perelli has refused to disclose what tyres were run the that test. If they were 2014 tyres then Ferrari have also broken this Gentlemans agreement

I believe the agreement doesn't include testing with 2 year old cars. Just this years car.

[FoxHound]

[...]
Masters of hyperbole.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind when I read about Christian Horner bemoaning another team's "underhanded" ways.

Precisely.

Ferrari have acted appropriately. Domenicalli has not been calling for penalties, or his team taking every opportunity to put the pressure on.

“I can understand why Pirelli would want to test, and I can understand why the FIA might be in favour of that.

If he understands, why not keep quiet until the tribunal delivers it's verdict?

"Our issue is nothing to do with Pirelli," he is quoted by the Mirror. "It is about a current entrant breaking the rules by using a current car."

If it is found that Pirelli conducted the test with sufficient firewall protections, and Mercedes gained nothing other than it's drivers having more experience in the car...what would Horner have to say I wonder?

But moving on...

I see Todt has lined up Ascanelli to replace Whiting.

Auto Motor und Sport reports rumours that FIA president Jean Todt is moving to replace race director Charlie Whiting - who supposedly told Brawn the highly controversial Barcelona test would be in compliance - with Giorgio Ascanelli.
Italian Ascanelli is a highly experienced F1 engineer who most recently was Toro Rosso's technical director.
But a paddock voice said: "That (replacing Whiting) would be the most stupid thing Todt could do.
"Charlie has the most difficult job in the world, and he does it well."

Behind this story, there is a glimpse into what is going on behind the scenes.

[diffuser]

If at Silverstone, Merc still show that they've made little headway in the tire degradation issue, to me it makes this whole tire situation less important.


Whether they broke the rules or not, it makes little difference if they haven't gained anything from it. In Canada it appeared that Lewis had learned something while Nico hadn't. Although, the Canadian track being what it is, it hard to really get a fair comparison.

[MOWOG]

My, my. So much heat and so little light.

As far as I can tell, some here have the opinion that Mercedes sinned. Others have the opinion that Mercedes did NOT sin. So the conversation has degenerated into each camp accusing the other of having opinions contrary to their own. But from everything I have read so far (and I have read most of it), nobody actually KNOWS anything.

Journalists are hardly reliable sources. Lawyers are hardly the incorruptible solons some seem to think they are. Judges? They put their pants on in the morning the same as you and me. For the record, I am a retired attorney and have witnessed countless instances of chicanery, bribery, buffoonery and general malfeasance by all involved in the legal process. As my old Irish grandfather used to say, "a man can steal more money with a briefcase than a gun."

I suggested a few pages back that everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down a bit until we actually have some reliable facts and information to discuss. No one paid the slightest attention to my suggestion. The result has been a contentious mishmash that serves only to promote disharmony with no redeeming social purpose. For myself, I will wait until the facts are laid on the table at the Tribunal before commenting further. But the rest of you are free to carry on. And on, and on, and on...........

[turbof1]

My, my. So much heat and so little light.

As far as I can tell, some here have the opinion that Mercedes sinned. Others have the opinion that Mercedes did NOT sin. So the conversation has degenerated into each camp accusing the other of having opinions contrary to their own. But from everything I have read so far (and I have read most of it), nobody actually KNOWS anything.

Journalists are hardly reliable sources. Lawyers are hardly the incorruptible solons some seem to think they are. Judges? They put their pants on in the morning the same as you and me. For the record, I am a retired attorney and have witnessed countless instances of chicanery, bribery, buffoonery and general malfeasance by all involved in the legal process. As my old Irish grandfather used to say, "a man can steal more money with a briefcase than a gun."

I suggested a few pages back that everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down a bit until we actually have some reliable facts and information to discuss. No one paid the slightest attention to my suggestion. The result has been a contentious mishmash that serves only to promote disharmony with no redeeming social purpose. For myself, I will wait until the facts are laid on the table at the Tribunal before commenting further. But the rest of you are free to carry on. And on, and on, and on...........

The discussion did proved to be interested, but sadly as you pointed it has dwindled a bit down due some mut throwing. Still it is useful to keep discussing until the verdict tells that either everybody was right or that everybody was wrong .

[lebesset]

My, my. So much heat and so little light.

As far as I can tell, some here have the opinion that Mercedes sinned. Others have the opinion that Mercedes did NOT sin. So the conversation has degenerated into each camp accusing the other of having opinions contrary to their own. But from everything I have read so far (and I have read most of it), nobody actually KNOWS anything.

Journalists are hardly reliable sources. Lawyers are hardly the incorruptible solons some seem to think they are. Judges? They put their pants on in the morning the same as you and me. For the record, I am a retired attorney and have witnessed countless instances of chicanery, bribery, buffoonery and general malfeasance by all involved in the legal process. As my old Irish grandfather used to say, "a man can steal more money with a briefcase than a gun."

I suggested a few pages back that everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down a bit until we actually have some reliable facts and information to discuss. No one paid the slightest attention to my suggestion. The result has been a contentious mishmash that serves only to promote disharmony with no redeeming social purpose. For myself, I will wait until the facts are laid on the table at the Tribunal before commenting further. But the rest of you are free to carry on. And on, and on, and on...........

+1

but wouldn't that spoil the fun that posters here are having , analagous to the journalists oath ...never let the facts get in the way of a good story ?

maybe I should add my own conspiracy theory , this is all part of the continuing drive by Todt to restore the french control of F1 by returning a french company as tyre supplier ? give the nod to mercedes / pirelli to conduct the test , then accuse them of breaking the rules ? after the appointment of someone french with no motor racing experience as head of medical services I am beginning to wonder

[FoxHound]

We can wait for a verdict.

But what interests me is the ongoing war behind the scenes.

The facts as I know it are that Pirelli have separate contracts with the FOM, the teams and the FIA rather than an overarching agreement.
It's no secret that the FIA favoured Michelin and the FOM Pirelli. In 2010, Pirelli signed an agreeement with the FOM and the teams, the tender process was bypassed as a result which left the FIA no option.

There seems to be a similar situation arising, as now the FOM have signed Pirelli up for trackside advertising from 2014 through 2018.
However teams have yet to sign due to article 25.1 A single tyre manufacturer will be chosen by the FIA for subsequent seasons following an invitation for tenders to supply tyres to all the cars entered in Championship Events for the duration of such subsequent seasons.
For anyone with Twitter, check Michelin's twitter feed over the last month. Polls asking fans if they wanted to see them back racing.

It looks as if the FIA are manipulating the situation so as to force Pirelli to submit into a tendering process against Michelin.
But with the FOM not wanting to ditch Pirelli, there is a vacuum which the teams now find themselves in.

My view here is the FIA and the FOM are waging cold war, and this test was the result of the protagonists playing chess with the other.
The FIA have refuted involvement and have gone on record to say this. Mr Ecclestone was rumoured to have told Mr Hembrey that speaking to the press in Canada was "not a good idea" hence missing the Press conference.
Pirelli have said and maintain they are within their rights as a supplier to test their products for 2014.
Mercedes have gone on record as to say they had clearance from the FIA after having being approached by Pirelli(under the FOM agreement).

Mercedes and Pirelli have both yet to provide any evidence, but have stated publicly they have sufficient evidence.
If it implicates the FIA in any shape or form, Todt's position will be near untenable...even if he makes Whiting a scapegoat.
Clearing the way for Pireli to continue supply through 2018.

Bernie at his magnificent best/worst?

[WhiteBlue]

I found this interesting quote about possible Mercedes test objects.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/06/06/r ... e-testing/

We had nothing to do with the test. Pirelli was there and they were saying ‘we need to do this for this many laps, and now this, and that, and that…’ We had nothing that we could do. It was completely a Pirelli test and for them to learn about their tyres.

This sounds to me like there was a water tight Pirelli test program with no opportunity whatsoever for Mercedes or Merc drivers input into the test program. If my theory about the likely Mercedes defence is correct they will further elaborate on this.

Regarding the track side advertising contract between FOM and Pirelli I would say its an interesting detail that confirms earlier news about a conflict between the FiA and FOM.

Replacing Whitehead would be particularly dumb in my view, as he does one of the most difficult jobs in the world and he does it well. But as the sacking of Gary Hartstein from the job of the medical delegate and the medical car shows the FiA politics can be completely in-transparent and wonderfully asinine. So I would not put it beyond Todt to make such a brain dead decision for bigger political gains.

The gentleman's agreement story explains why many teams are so furious, but legally it has no ramifications. Those things are signed to be broken at will. Ferrari founded the FOTA and GPMA just to screw them over when it suited their economic and competitive interests. For such papers to have any consequences they must be furnished with sanctions and be enforcible by the FiA mechanisms or by the courts. As long as we continue to have conflicting regulations about tyre testing there is an incentive to find loop holes. It would be better for F1 if the tribunal makes some constructive proposals how to deal with the underlying problem.

[turbof1]

My question: how big is this political war on the background? Clearly the test was just a part of it exploding to the public surface, but to what extent is the complete story stretching and for how long is this going on? Pirelli was already insisting last year to quickly renew the contract, so it isn't far fetched to think it was already brewing back then, is it?

Obviously the teams are involved. Telling is that only 2 teams officially protested. If all teams protested, mercedes would have been knee-deep into the trouble, but only 2 high profile teams did. I feel the rest wants to work against rbr and ferrari, possibly to put pressure on the concorde agreement.

I also feel like Red Bull is less concerned about the advantages mercedes got, and more about doing damage to mercedes.

[WhiteBlue]

I also feel like Red Bull is less concerned about the advantages mercedes got, and more about doing damage to mercedes.

IMO Red Bull see a good opportunity to keep Mercedes at arms length. If Merc manage to exploit the speed of their cars in the race it will become very dangerous for Red Bull. So they need sporting sanctions to stop Merc. They also have a problem that Merc will always put some pressure on them for the services of Vettel. A German world champion in a German car is a combination that would be attractive for Merc. So Red Bull is very wary of that and moved quickly to secure Vettels services for some more time. But if the Merc engine is superior next year the cards will be dealt again. I see Red Bull vs Merc as a relationship that will be strained for some time.
At least that is the reason I see for Red Bull's stance in the Pirelli testing affair.