Pirelli 2013

[iotar__]

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

Same thing as before: illegal test with some possible, unspecified advantage? And counter-arguing Mercedes' points:
1. Despite the contact between Whiting and Merc no FIA's permission
2. Test involving F1 team and 2013 car. Different to Ferrari test and not strictly only tyre manufacturer test
3. "It is difficult to say that Mercedes gained no benefit from the test,” Sounds like proving negative

[Phil]

Interesting:

13:55 Tony Scott Andrews, ein Mitglied des Gerichts, will vom Mercedes-Anwalt wissen, ob er zustimme, dass die Prozeduren wie sie Pirelli von der FIA auferlegt wurden, nicht korrekt befolgt worden seien. Harris stimmt nach kurzem Zögern zu.

Tony Scott Andrews, a member of the court, wants to know from the Mercedes defence, if he agrees, that the *procedures given to Pirelli by the FIA, were not followed by the book. Harris, after a pause, agrees.


* I assume procedures that outline their contract and how such a test would need to be communicated or conducted?

[Huntresa]

Lunchtime update from Ted Kravitz:

"The Mercedes' defence contained some key points. As far as they are concerned, they asked Charlie Whiting who then checked with the FIA legal department and who then came back to Mercedes to say that 'as long as this is run under the guise of a Pirelli test then we don't have a problem with that.

"But we had this point addressed by the FIA earlier in the day when they said that the only people who can give an exemption to the rules are the FIA World Council or the Tribunal themselves.

"So have you those two points going up against each other.

"And then we have the point made by Mercedes that they didn't learn anything from the test. As a rebuttal to that, the FIA's lawyer asked whether they gained 'knowledge' from that. Ross Brawn didn't want to answer that but was pressed on the point and did have to concede they did gain 'knowledge' from the test. So, again, we had a stand-off on that point"

[wunderkind]

Lunchtime update from Ted Kravitz:

"The Mercedes' defence contained some key points. As far as they are concerned, they asked Charlie Whiting who then checked with the FIA legal department and who then came back to Mercedes to say that 'as long as this is run under the guise of a Pirelli test then we don't have a problem with that.

"But we had this point addressed by the FIA earlier in the day when they said that the only people who can give an exemption to the rules are the FIA World Council or the Tribunal themselves.

"So have you those two points going up against each other.

"And then we have the point made by Mercedes that they didn't learn anything from the test. As a rebuttal to that, the FIA's lawyer asked whether they gained 'knowledge' from that. Ross Brawn didn't want to answer that but was pressed on the point and did have to concede they did gain 'knowledge' from the test. So, again, we had a stand-off on that point"

The Mercedes contingent could argue that no useful knowledge was gained from the test. Furthermore, they were at the behest of Pirelli and they were entirely reactive to the orders of the Pirelli personnel.

[astracrazy]

"As far as they are concerned, they asked Charlie Whiting who then checked with the FIA legal department and who then came back to Mercedes to say that 'as long as this is run under the guise of a Pirelli test then we don't have a problem with that.

"But we had this point addressed by the FIA earlier in the day when they said that the only people who can give an exemption to the rules are the FIA World Council or the Tribunal themselves.

so the fia should of said that to Merc instead of saying that its ok. You can't say its ok then turn around and say sorry we werent meant to say it was ok, so we are going to punish you for listening to us when we said it was

[Huntresa]

Pirelli begin their defence in the bluntest terms by stating that "we do not come under the jurisdiction or authority of the FIA".


Which hopefully will lead to them saying it was their test.

[dave34m]

Pirelli makes for hilarity

[wunderkind]

Pirelli begin their defence in the bluntest terms by stating that "we do not come under the jurisdiction or authority of the FIA".


Which hopefully will lead to them saying it was their test.

I like their style! Bravo Pirelli!

[astracrazy]

Tyre supplier's lawyer also cites 2009 FIA case against former Renault boss Flavio Briatore as proof the FIA can't take action against third parties/non-licence holders.

Regarding Pirelli argument that the FIA can't take action against non-licence holders, the governing body did introduce licences for senior team personnel in wake of the Renault 'Crashgate' saga after Briatore had his lifetime bans overturned in external courts, but this regulation also obviously doesn't extend to the sole tyre supplier.

Pirelli lawyer Dominque Dumas also argues that there are no restrictions in Pirelli's agreement with the FIA about what car can be used for its permitted tests.

[Phil]

lol

Pirellis lawyer sais 'it's rediculous to claim Pirelli has been unfair/unsporting. Pirelli delivers the same product to everyone. it's not in the interest of Pirelli to give one team an advantage... because regardless who wins, we are always the winner"

[CBeck113]

Quick thought: for Pirelli to run a relevant test, they have to test to their setup recommendations (pressure, temperature, wheel & suspension settings), and in doing so on a current car with the drives that know their cars so well, a data transfer automatically occurs, not as 0s and 1s but through the drivers in the debriefing - right? Whether or not Mecredes had tested this exact setup before would then be relevant information. But then again, these are lawyers and not engineers.
I think the loophole is clear, but I can't see Mercedes not having an advantage: 1000km in their car on a test and race circuit, and their drivers are not stupid - they see what is being done to the car between stints.

I just hope that this doesn't force any of the involved parties out of the championship

[Phil]

Even if those 1000km yielded an advantage - if it is considered to be a loop-hole (like what enabled the double-diffoser, or the F-duct or the flex-front-wings) and there's no rule to punish them, I don't see how that could make a difference...? Is it right? No of course not, but you can only punish them accoarding to the rules and if this goes beyond the rules that are in place (because they can be intepreted that it was Pirelli's test), I'm not sure if they are punishable...?

[astracrazy]

the gaining an advantage argument is irrelevant now i think, they surely can't punish them for gaining an advantage doing something they were allowed to do.

[turbof1]

Pirelli lawyer Dominque Dumas also argues that there are no restrictions in Pirelli's agreement with the FIA about what car can be used for its permitted tests.by James Galloway 3:25 PM

Yeah it effectively is starting to boil down to that. The case will be decided on whether pirelli or mercedes tested. Seeing that the fia did not made a single word in that regard, and that both mercedes and pirelli are basing themselves on pirelli's tribunal immunity, things are starting to look bleak for the fia. If the verdict is that pirelli tested, then the unfair galn of data will most likely also be whiped off the table, which doesn't seems to breach the rules anywhere.

[Huntresa]

Further ammunition from the FIA QC: 'Ross Brawn's contributions were frank and honest and have given the game away.'