Pirelli 2013

[Huntresa]

What I am trying to understand is how is 2013 car relevant for what explanation is given. Apologies if I didn't convey myself properly.

Yeah thats true, maybe Pirelli initally thought they wouldnt bring a 2013 car?

[Huntresa]

where is this AMuS ticker people are using to see whats happening?

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... al-updates

[astracrazy]

where is this AMuS ticker people are using to see whats happening?

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... al-updates

cheers

[Phil]

where is this AMuS ticker people are using to see whats happening?

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... al-updates

Here it is:
http://ticker.auto-motor-und-sport.de/?id=1

I'm not sure, but I think the AMuS has a bit more information, which is why I'm reading that. There is some good stuff in the Sky one too.

[Cam]

Go back and read the FIA statements.

And thats not the statement you linked on the previous page, which is the statement i answerd on.

What, going back and reading the FIA statements? I just showed you what the FIA stated, which is what I quoted, which is what you've missed.

[Huntresa]

Go back and read the FIA statements.

And thats not the statement you linked on the previous page, which is the statement i answerd on.

What, going back and reading the FIA statements? I just showed you what the FIA stated, which is what I quoted, which is what you've missed.

I thought what you qouted under was the statement you were refering to

[banibhusan]

What I am trying to understand is how is 2013 car relevant for what explanation is given. Apologies if I didn't convey myself properly.

Yeah thats true, maybe Pirelli initally thought they wouldnt bring a 2013 car?

They specifically asked for a 2013 car to test the delamination issues.

Latest from the hearing (sorry for google translation):
Evil tip against the FIA. The accusation that Mercedes have collected telemetry data is quashed by Paul Harris. "The car had to be equipped with telemetry to give Pirelli the required data and to allow safe operation of our cars. Lotus and Ferrari have their tests for Pirelli also have full access to the telemetry data."

Harris takes FIA prosecutor Howard under fire. "The prosecution tried to lead us on the wrong track. The purpose of the test is completely irrelevant. Important in this context is only those who have taken the test. This was undoubtedly Pirelli. Whether Pirelli had a test target, three or four, does not role., if the solution of the problem out also 2014er 2013er tires tires were tested, then that does not change the fact that Pirelli was the organizer of the tests. "

I sense some desperation from Mercedes now. The points that telemetry data was not collected and Pirelli organised the test will simply not overrule the fact that "they used a 2013 car to test with no formal conversation with the FIA".

[iotar__]

The problem is that even though Whiting allowed it, it isn't automatically allowed or conforming with the rules. Remember Spa 2008; hamilton was given the green light from Whiting to overtake raikkonen at the next corner, even though he cut the previous one. The fia later that day refuted that, going right against Whiting.

That same can and probably will happen today.

I'm pretty sure it did not happen as you described, if anything it happened after the move. It's irrelevant and test gate is different not only in this regard to the biggest BS, pointless, hair-splitting, clear case - aka Spa 2008

Did anyone record this call? It's easy now to point the finger at Mercedes and laugh but you have to wonder how many technical grey area problems were OKed by telephone conversations. I mean genuinely solved, by some teams only of course and followed by more official correspondence.

[stefan_]

Picture from the hearing:

via antonioboselli

Jennie Gow
Merc response: "This test was undertaken by Pirelli. They directed, controlled, stopped the car - call it what you like. They did it all
"Mercedes was the equivalent to a sub-contractorof Pirelli for the test; they were akin to a temporary employee of Pirelli."

[turbof1]

So basicilly mercedes is saying it wasn't their test. Interestingly about that is that the fia hasn't spoken about that. Their QC has been heavily focussing why mercedes wasn't allowed to test, but nothing went to bypassing that by saying it was a pirelli test.

[banibhusan]

Mercedes-attorney Harris makes attack. He accused the FIA not to know their own sports law. In Article 4.1, the word "TEST RIDE" is explained. It applies only to applicants who are subject to Section 22 of the Sports Act. Section 4.2. other hand, speaks of tire testing, the organizer must be logically Pirelli. And not be subject to Article 22.

So does that mean teams can test if the tyre supplier conducts it? Can anyone shed some light on the said discrepancy between article 4.1 and 4.2?

[Phil]

Mercedes defence attorny, Paul Harris on full attack mode now:

11:47 Harris believes Article 22 was not breached because the test was organized, payed and conducted by Pirelli. They put together the whole program on what to test, also including bringing Brake-pads (Bremsplatten?) to learn their effect.

11:53 Harris attacks Howard: "The prosecution is trying to derail the case. The goal of the test is irrelevant. What is relevant in this context is who conducted the test. This was Pirelli. If Pirelli had 1 test goal, or 3 or 4, is not relevant. If the test went beyond the scope of the 2013 tyre problems to 2014, doesn't change the fact that it was Pirelli who conducted the test."

11:58 "Mercedes had access to telemetry data because they were needed to give the results to Pirelli and also, to be able to run their car in a safe maner. Lotus and Ferrari had full access to their telemetry at their tests for Pirelli as well"

12:00 "Regardless if the FIA calls it a test or test-drive or whatever, should not distract from the fact that it was Pirelli who organized and conducted this test. It was their wish, that Mercedes would supply a relevant car, with relevant driver for their test-case. When Mercedes realized that their 2011 would not be usable for the test, they offered to use the 2013 car. Mercedes was only the supplyer."

12:05 Harris continues the attack on the FIA: "The FIA must be unaware of their own rules. In article 4.1 it is described what test-runs mean and are. It's exclusive to teams that are underlined by paragraph 22 of the sporting regulations. Article 4.2 however talks about tyre-tests, who's organizer, in this case tyre-supplier Pirelli, does not fall under paragraph 22.

....

[astracrazy]

Mercedes-attorney Harris makes attack. He accused the FIA not to know their own sports law. In Article 4.1, the word "TEST RIDE" is explained. It applies only to applicants who are subject to Section 22 of the Sports Act. Section 4.2. other hand, speaks of tire testing, the organizer must be logically Pirelli. And not be subject to Article 22.

So does that mean teams can test if the tyre supplier conducts it

is what i'm seeing it as

[Cocles]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108155

Score one for Harris. Article 22 states, "any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship." The event was not undertaken by a competitor; it was undertaken by Pirelli. Therefore Mercedes in not in breach.

[skoop]

this can get pretty messy.
if the teams are allowed to test wehen pirelli asks them to, everyone wants to get asked.