Pirelli 2013

[turbof1]

From skysports:

"Basically Mercedes made the request to run the 2013 car to the FIA, Charlie Whiting then had an exchange with the in-house legal team at the FIA and it's fascinating to hear the email reponse that came back from Sebastian Barnard, who's the FIA's legal advisor. It goes along the lines of 'in my view any such testing could not actually be undertaken by competitors, it would be argued that this was done by Pirelli. Would we be able to take this position?'

"The response from Sebastian Barnard was 'yes we could take this position, it is not an undertaking from the competitor'. So on the face of it if that's some advice that's been given out there it does seem to suggest that there was this potential loophole that it could be a Pirelli test governed by their commercial contract with F1 and it wouldn't involve the competitor Mercedes and they wouldn't be in breach of the regulations."

So the in-house legal team acknowledged that a Pirelli test would allow the usage of the 2013 car. So even if this was informal, it has been established that it effectively is a loophole allowed by the FIA. This can't be denied anymore or be put aside. It isn't like Mercedes tried to go around the testing rules, saying it is a pirelli test and the FIA not happy about it; the FIA clearly stated they can do that!
Furthermore, it also shows it goes beyond charlie whiting. If it is allowed by the FIA department that judges such cases, then you can't put your own decisions aside anymore.

[astracrazy]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

[skoop]

according to ams red bull gave FIA documents stating what you could learn from a test like this.
seems like a b*tchy move from RB. or is this common curtasy?

[skoop]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

right now they're arguing that merc learned about reliability and stuff like that.

[Huntresa]

So Merc has shut this case down now ? Cause i cant see this going any other way especially not since we have to hear Pirellis side and i cant think they will say anything else then that they ran the test and Merc were involved as litle as possible, or as much as needed.

[astracrazy]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

right now they're arguing that merc learned about reliability and stuff like that.

but so what if they did, they were allowed to do the test. theres nothing else to be gained from this carrying on

[turbof1]

I find that a none-argument. So Mercedes learned they have outstanding quality in terms of material. Wow. The FIA can't prove anything at all on that front. The only thing they have is that the data is in hands of Mercedes, but only because Brawn said he, and only he, has it on a private server.

[Phil]

Not sure if that is a general question at the forum or if it is unclear from the Sky ticker (assuming you're not reading the AMuS one), but apparently, the FIA prosecutor is now questioning Brawn of scope of the tests and the data. He's especially interested to know, if the test could be used at the least to show that your components work 1000km.
Apparently, the FIA prosecutor has data supplied by RedBull of what advantages a 1000km test-run could yield.

Brawn responded that most top teams have developed different and more efficient techniques to see if components last or not. If testing km was that much of an advantage, he questions why RedBulls car broke down 3 times in the second half of the 2012 season - considering they had a lot more km run at that point.

The prosecutor is now questioning on the security concerns around the delamination and why other teams might have been hesitant to test for Pirelli, perhaps because they didn't want the tyres to change too much and lose their advantage. Brawn responded that that might be true to some degree, but that all teams had concerns over the delemination problems.

[banibhusan]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

To summarize:
FIA says: Mercedes are in the breach of regulations and needs to be penalized.
Mercedes: We did what Pirelli asked us to do and that complies with the rules.
Mercedes: If we gained advantage, then so did Ferrari. Punish them first.
FIA: Ferrari test is irrelevant. They gained advantage legally. You gained illegally. Hence you are screwed.
FIA: Why didn't you inform the teams in a legal way.
Mercedes(or Brawn): That's Pirelli's responsibility and not ours.

Even I am confused where it's heading now.

[astracrazy]

i just don't see what the fia now hope to gain. from the fia's point for view, they have made a complete mess of this.

Pirelli are going to take responsibility for the test and that will prove merc were within the rules. case closed.

[turbof1]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

To summarize:
FIA says: Mercedes are in the breach of regulations and needs to be penalized.
Mercedes: We did what Pirelli asked us to do and that complies with the rules.
Mercedes: If we gained advantage, then so did Ferrari. Punish them first.
FIA: Ferrari test is irrelevant. They gained advantage legally. You gained illegally. Hence you are screwed.
FIA: Why didn't you inform the teams in a legal way.
Mercedes(or Brawn): That's Pirelli's responsibility and not ours.

Even I am confused where it's heading now.

No, it's basicially like this:
-FIA smashes mercedes that they ran an illegal test, running the 2013 car and getting data out of it. They claim Mercedes is in breach with both the testing rules and article 151c, which goes about sporting fraud and prejudice. Crucially, the claim about 151c is on grounds of getting an unfair advantage due the data mercedes gathered. They also mention that teams had to be given the same oppertunity and the chance to observe (but as it now turns out, Pirelli did not have to do that).
-Mercedes refutes both those breaches, claiming Pirelli ran the test and minimizing both the impact and spread of the data. They do go deep into that.
-About 151c, Mercedes claims that if they are in breach of that, so must Ferrari be because they also gathered data during a test.
-FIA claims that because Ferrari did not broke the testing rules, they also didn't have broken the 151c rule.

[iotar__]

If the rules changed substantially, at least in terms of aerodymanics, but the relative gap in performance remained quite close. But that ain't a fault of the FIA. This point is totally irrelevant. I wonder how its not been challenged in the hearing. The rules explicitly says you can use 2 years old car and that's what Ferrari did.

I think the whole point in attacking Ferrari is by nature of what they are being accused of: Gaining an unfair advantage, by using a 2013 car in Pirelli's test. They're pointing out, that they had less of an advantage than Ferrari, who although tested with a 2011 car, complies with the majority of rules for this year, with a similar lap performance, also with a race-driver (Massa) and in 2 not only 1 test. Also that their test wasn't much more transparent and also importantly, that Ferrari had more control over their test, than Mercedes did. It is also mentioned that Ferrari conducted this test on the track, before the race, not after.

I think it's a valid defence point, even if, by the rules, Ferrari was within the written rules. It's debatable if Mercedes had a bigger advantage solely by using their current car in a more constraint/controlled environment.

EDIT: This point might not get them free, but it puts into context perhaps how much of an advantage Mercedes could have in what is proposed to be an illegal test, vs what was a legal sanctioned test by Ferrari. If the legal one was deemed to be within the spirits and have no advantage, then why should Mercedes's be? If anything, this might limit the scope of fine if they get one - if it's deemed that the advantage is not substantially bigger.

I think it's more of a legal distraction than anything else. It may look good but it won't matter in the end. Even if we limit it to the dilemma about whether 2011 car can be compared to 2013 car and to what extend. IMO it can't be, legally and technically. We can go back in time even more (as AMUS did to exlpain Vettel/RB being beaten in Australia) and pretend Renault's/Lotus's Pirelli test car can give them advantage. If we're talking about putting into context but a little bit outside of reality.

I agree though, both lines of defence, ambiguity of rules about who conducts the test and advantage gained by the team ("Ferrari did it too" part) are there to create impression of a lesser crime and hopefully result in a smaller punishment.

The more interesting part is why out of the three parties involved only Pirelli's position makes sense. From FIA's point of view although they try to distance themselves from it now, it's pretty clear they were trying to encourage this situation. They may say it was just their opinion but why would Whiting and FIA's lawyer be pointing out some loopholes in the rules? To make a test happen? Why would Mercedes take part in a test without gain and based on a loophole?

[Phil]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

Even I am confused where it's heading now.

Maybe the prosecutor is looking for holes in Brawns/Mercedes defence to exploit... Trying to claim that this and that could be used as an advantage (now they're effectively asking why they used Hamilton and Rosberg - to which Brawn answers that they both would be more representative in how they used the tyres than a test-driver, and Pirelli were happy with that. Also that it would have taken more time to change seats etc to fit for a test-driver etc), and Brawn is shooting that down with nice explenations IMO.

[Huntresa]

so i'm a bit lost now whats the fia are now arguing?

To summarize:
FIA says: Mercedes are in the breach of regulations and needs to be penalized.
Mercedes: We did what Pirelli asked us to do and that complies with the rules.
Mercedes: If we gained advantage, then so did Ferrari. Punish them first.
FIA: Ferrari test is irrelevant. They gained advantage legally. You gained illegally. Hence you are screwed.
FIA: Why didn't you inform the teams in a legal way.
Mercedes(or Brawn): That's Pirelli's responsibility and not ours.

Even I am confused where it's heading now.

No, it's basicially like this:
-FIA smashes mercedes that they ran an illegal test, running the 2013 car and getting data out of it. They claim Mercedes is in breach with both the testing rules and article 151c, which goes about sporting fraud and prejudice. Crucially, the claim about 151c is on grounds of getting an unfair advantage due the data mercedes gathered.
-Mercedes refutes both those breaches, claiming Pirelli ran the test and minimizing both the impact and spread of the data. They do go deep into that.
-About 151c, Mercedes claims that if they are in breach of that, so must Ferrari be because they also gathered data during a test.
-FIA claims that because Ferrari did not broke the testing rules, they also didn't have broken the 151c rule.

And that FIA acknowledge that you can run Pirelli tests under this rule/loophole.

[turbof1]

That is a big game changer over there. That sole piece of information that not only Whiting, but also the in-house legal team of the FIA claimed that it would be considered a Pirelli test, makes it MUCH easier for Mercedes to convince Pirelli actually did the test and not Mercedes. The FIA clearly has the better lawyer, but Mercedes has the elements in their favour.