Pirelli 2013

[strad]

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

+1

[Richard]

Let's not forget the political conjecture happens to fit due to the lack of information. As it happens, conjecture that it was a cock-up fits just as neatly as conspiracy.

To my mind, the lack of a compelling narrative indicates accidental cock-up or lapse of judgement has a large part to play. If it was a conspiracy the conspirators would have a strong back story to make the final coup de grace.

I guess I'm saying this doesn't have the same noise from the mob or stench that accompanied previous stitch ups and vendettas, that sense of a storm about to break.

Of course saying its primarily a cock-up doesn't preclude people from making political capital from it.

Do you see what I did there? Inquired rather than advocated, open to the shades of grey rather than shrill absolutes. Admittedly it helps to have Tomba's special moderator drugs, or just read some Donald Schon, or perhaps Karl Weick. Some people prefer Pirsig, but that way madness lies.

[MOWOG]

Oh, well.....if the issue is F1 politics, THAT is a subject about which volumes can be written. All of the foibles that can beset wealthy, powerful people are on display for all to see. And typically, those wealthy, powerful folks make complete asses of themselves - because they can! Personally, I ALWAYS suspect Le Grand Bernard of chicanery in the third degree, not to mention mopery on the high seas.

I always thought the public humiliation of Ron Dennis had everything to do with Mad Max settling an old score before slipping into retirement and little to do with a few drawings that found their way from Maranello to Woking.

So if you feel like probing the dark side of Formula One machinations, I say, 'Have at it, lads!" But perhaps that should be the subject of its own thread?

[WhiteBlue]

So if you feel like probing the dark side of Formula One machinations, I say, 'Have at it, lads!" But perhaps that should be the subject of its own thread?

+1

[GTSpeedster]

Just found this:

Bernie Ecclestone: Mercedes should have said no to Pirelli test

Bernie Ecclestone has made it clear that he believes that Mercedes rather than Pirelli is to blame for the testing controversy.

Although initially reluctant to express an opinion, Bernie emphasised that Mercedes could have turned down the chance to risk breaking the FIA’s Sporting Regulations.

Ecclestone is known to have an uneasy relationship with Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn after a commercial disagreement during the Brawn GP days, and some have suggested that he wouldn’t mind seeing the former Benetton and Ferrari man carry the can for what happened.

“Wait until the tribunal, they’ve got all the facts,” Ecclestone told this writer. “If you offer me stolen goods, it’s up to me to decide whether I want to accept them or not. It’s not up to anyone to tell me what I should do. I should know what I should do.

“Pirelli were doing the right thing, obviously. They couldn’t get out of a tyre problem, if there had been proper testing, which there should be, they wouldn’t be in this problem. It’s only because there’s no proper testing that they’re in this problem. As people have been complaining, the obvious thing to do was to get out of it by testing. And they asked.”

Asked if he felt Pirelli had done anything wrong, he added: “Not at all.”

Ecclestone and the F1 organisation have a significant commercial deal with Pirelli for signage and so on, but he denies that has impacted his opinion.

“I don’t care. It makes no difference to me. What is right, is right, you know. The one thing an unmarried girl has got is the right to say ‘no.’ You would have to reckon that Mercedes were in that position…”

Meanwhile Ecclestone played down suggestions that Michelin – a company known to be friendly with Jean Todt – is waiting in the wings to replace Pirelli.

“No idea. I haven’t got a clue. I haven’t spoken to anyone. We have a long-term contract with Pirelli, as the FIA do. And I think most of the teams have – I think they’ve done a deal with all the teams they want to do a deal with.”

and this:

Teams scupper Pirelli’s plans to change construction

Pirelli has finally admitted defeat in its attempts to change to Kevlar-belted rear tyres from the British GP, due to ongoing opposition from some teams.

The intention was to use the switch to last year’s construction in an attempt to address the delamination issue, but instead Pirelli has changed its production process – in other words the method of bonding.

The revised tyres were tested on Friday in Canada, although wet conditions for much of the day limited mileage.

They were also tested by Mercedes at its infamous Barcelona session, although Pirelli says that 2013 race compounds were not used on that occasion.

Pirelli had been suggesting that its planned change would go ahead, but it was always relying on full support from the teams, as outlined here in previous stories.

A Pirelli statement said: “The tyre construction will remain unchanged, contrary to Pirelli’s initial plans. This decision is due to the fact that the new tyres, which were brought to the Friday free practice sessions in Canada, could not be tested sufficiently due to rain – and that the teams failed to agree unanimously about introducing the changes. Instead a change in the tyre production process should now ensure that the delamination issue has been addressed.”

Meanwhile tyre choices for upcoming races are hard/medium for Silverstone, medium/soft for Nurburgring, and hard/medium for Hungary.

SOURCE:
http://adamcooperf1.com/2013/06/13/bern ... elli-test/
http://adamcooperf1.com/2013/06/13/team ... struction/

[FoxHound]

So Mercedes have the right to say "no", and where in such a position....Means they should have said "no"?

Cooper is better than this..

[WhiteBlue]

deleted

[Richard]

So Mercedes have the right to say "no", and where in such a position....Means they should have said "no"?

It all comes down to what they were told by the FIA and Pirelli. It does seem very odd to change a rule without consent of all the teams, and Merc knew that was the convention. Also Merc knew previous tests were carried out in a more open manner without race drivers or engineers.

So one would expect a reasonable person to question if the testing was allowed. A "reasonable person" in this context would be an established F1 TP who knows the rules and knows precedent for changing those rules and the precedent for previous tests. IMHO a defence of "we didn't ask" would not be sufficient.

Lets say Merc did ask for verification and maybe FIA said "Yes on the grounds of x, y, z". Again it would be a very weak defence for Merc to not check those conditions had been met.

I think Merc's defence would need correspondence with the FIA saying "are you sure about this?" and unequivocal response from the FIA saying "go ahead". But even then we have a reasonableness test asking what would a reasonable person do with that information?

None of us know the extent of comms between the parties. So we don't know if Merc have a watertight defence, or if they adopted an 'ask no questions' policy. The former would be not guilty, the latter would be guilty. Reality is likely to be somewhere between the two and the reasonableness test would determine the level the mitigation provided by Merc-FIA correspondence.

In my mind the real question is why didn't Brawn/FIA/Pirelli inform the other teams? Then it could all have been above board. So who's idea was it to hide behind confidentiality? That would help identify who was the instigator, who was a conspirator and who was a mere accessory.

So I agree they could have said no, and asking no questions is not an adequate defence.

[autogyro]

The problem is the huge commercial interest vested in the results of such tests and the overly complex and non technical aim of the FIA F1 technical regulations that are totaly against the principles of F1.

It has been stated that Charlie Whiting may be replaced and that Charlie's shoes would be almost impossible to fill.
I agree that a replacement for Charlie would not meet the needs of FOM the FIA or the teams.
Nobody else has been in such a position as Charlie having to balance all the diverse interest as F1 has developed over the years, his experience is second to none.

For what it is worth, my guess is that Pirelli and Merc were and to an extent still are both experiencing huge problems from excess tyre wear and dangerous delaminations.
This situation was arrived at by the complete lack of sensible testing forced by regulations that were aimed at cost restriction and not technical reasons as the heading for these regulations clearly describes them.
All this has resulted because of the teams refusal to accept a 50 percent downforce restriction tabled by Max Mosley and his suggestions for cost caps over all.

The complete lack of strong leadership shown by the FIA President Todt, has allowed the situation on tyres to decline to such a point that Merc and Pirelli has had no choice but to act in the way they have within the practicaly unworkable mine field of the current technical and sporting regulations, simply to remain in the competition at all.

Charlie Whiting has found himself the scape goat in this matter with no room to balance all the diverse demands forced on him.
At one time the FIA had the right President, that is no longer the case.

[MOWOG]

In my mind the real question is why didn't Brawn/FIA/Pirelli inform the other teams? Then it could all have been above board. So who's idea was it to hide behind confidentiality? That would help identify who was the instigator, who was a conspirator and who was a mere accessory.

That's a really good question, the kind a trained investigator would ask. Mercedes has behaved in a way that suggests they had guilty knowledge. Will Buxton made a statement on air following Canada saying that F1 teams issue press releases about anything and everything that effects the team. After Barcelona, all the teams were, as usual, issuing a blizzard of press releases about when they would be leaving and what they would be doing before Monaco. All but Mercedes, that is. They said nothing. Not a peep. To you or me,that may mean nothing, but to a journalist who covers the sport full time, that is a surprising omission.

It's like a man who is planning to meet another woman after work. If it is completely innocent, he will tell his wife/girlfriend/significant other, "I am meeting Rosie Risque for drinks after work. We're gonna knock back a few Coca Colas, smoke some cigars and dance the Funky Chicken. You're welcome to join us if you like. I should be home around 10."

But if he intends to on cheat on her, he says nothing, just rolls in around 10, stinking of cigar smoke, with his shoes off so he doesn't make a sound as he creeps across the foyer. And if she happens to be awake, he makes up some lame ass excuse about traffic on the freeway.

I think Mercedes had guilty knowledge and that as much as anything may seal their fate.

[lebesset]

yawn

don't agree with that , more zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[WhiteBlue]

You will probably find that Pirelli wanted to keep the test private until it was done. At least that makes some sense. You have to ask yourself why they kept it private in the first place? Obviously because otherwise they would have never got it done. So that is your most likely answer, Richard.

[turbof1]

I fear that will still not help them at the Tribunal. Perhaps it will also not work against them, especially if that was Pirelli's duty to do.

It's pretty reasonable that they didn't announce it; at a certain point you do have to question the target of the rules: are they there to protect honesty and integrity, or are they used to abuse? Blocking necessary testing sounds to me like abuse. Unfortunaly the tribunal will not take a statement on that.

[WhiteBlue]

Blocking necessary testing sounds to me like abuse. Unfortunaly the tribunal will not take a statement on that.

I believe a fair trial may have to look into this question. The defence obviously will be that the test was conducted by Pirelli and not by Mercedes. The central legal question is still whether the tribunal will accept that interpretation due to what it finds after hearing all the facts.

If we assume that they find some Mercedes participation - as most people think likely - they will have to come to a judgement how serious the violation is. Obviously in that case blame will partially go to Mercedes because they partly ran the test and to Pirelli because they also have a big part of the responsibility. For the Pirelli blame the testing block has to count as mitigating circumstances. So if they say Mercedes ran 20% of the test because they got some knowledge and Pirelli ran 80% the penalties should consider that shared responsibility. The Merc punishment should not be severe because they had such a small percentage and Pirelli's fault should be mitigated by the test block.

I'm not predicting the outcome of the central legal question. Actually I still do not know the circumstances and so I can't predict how they will find. But whatever they find it would be better for F1 if the verdict is not so controversial and all parties can live with it.

[turbof1]

If I am correct, the Tribunal will only make a judgement about a possible violation of the sporting rules. I do not think an informing duty is stated in these regulations. I think, and fear, alot of elements we so heavily discussed will simply be put aside because they don't have anything to do with the sporting rules. It of course depends how conservative this tribunal really is, but to avoid dissapointed I'll just assume they'll only take a look at who tested; pirelli or mercedes. The verdict will probably be a black and white answer in what iin reality is a massively grey area.

Remember also: this is the first time this tribunal is happening. It has alot of freedom concerning judging and convictions before the verdict has been given to mercedes, but when that verdict falls the tone will be set for future cases. In a way this will decide the procedures and protocols of the tribunal, so this is something that will weight in too.