Pirelli 2013

[CHIUNDA]

It all comes down to which set of rules are applicable. If Pirelli ran the test, Mercedes did nothing wrong, if Mercedes ran the test, then they broke the rules. Simple as.

Currently it looks like the FIA don't have a leg to stand on since an in house legal team said "Yeah, that's cool" to Mercedes. If they don't get reprimanded and the loop-hole is closed, will other teams feel hard done by? Most likely.

Personally I think Mercedes did nothing wrong technically, although it was treading a fine line but when it comes down to it, Pirelli arranged the test, ran the test and collected the data. The only way they could really put it beyond doubt is if Pirelli ran it's own test drivers instead of Mercedes using Hamilton and Rosberg.

I said the same thing on another forum several hours ago before the Pirelli submissions. Unfortunately Pirelli have not come out clearly as to whether they consider it to have been their test. Leaves room for FIA appointed IT to abuse. It also puts in perspective why Bernie was calling for a punishment against Mercedes but was exonerating Pirelli.

[lebesset]

It all comes down to which set of rules are applicable. If Pirelli ran the test, Mercedes did nothing wrong, if Mercedes ran the test, then they broke the rules. Simple as.

Currently it looks like the FIA don't have a leg to stand on since an in house legal team said "Yeah, that's cool" to Mercedes. If they don't get reprimanded and the loop-hole is closed, will other teams feel hard done by? Most likely.

Personally I think Mercedes did nothing wrong technically, although it was treading a fine line but when it comes down to it, Pirelli arranged the test, ran the test and collected the data. The only way they could really put it beyond doubt is if Pirelli ran it's own test drivers instead of Mercedes using Hamilton and Rosberg.

I said the same thing on another forum several hours ago before the Pirelli submissions. Unfortunately Pirelli have not come out clearly as to whether they consider it to have been their test. Leaves room for FIA appointed IT to abuse. It also puts in perspective why Bernie was calling for a punishment against Mercedes but was exonerating Pirelli.

mercedes allow someone else's drivers in their cars ? what team would ever allow that if they were in their right mind ? and what would pirelli have learned by doing that anyway ?

[xpensive]

...., so it's not like this test was only to help out Mercedes, that's ridiculous.

Good Lord such naivety...of course it was.

[bhall]

It is even worse than that ... Mercedes were not looking for the loophole.

If Mercedes didn't think it could reap a reward by taking part in the test, they would not have taken part in the test. That much is simple. The only question, in my view, is whether or not the loophole they (and Pirelli) claimed to have found actually exists.

[turbof1]

It is even worse than that ... Mercedes were not looking for the loophole.

If Mercedes didn't think it could reap a reward for taking part in the test, they would not have taken part in the test. That much is simple. The only question, in my view, is whether or not the loophole they (and Pirelli) claimed to have found actually exists.

We'll see for that tomorrow, but if you have the big-boss-scrutineer (whiting) and the in-house legal department telling you that it is a loophole and that they, in the holy name of the fia, deemed it allowable, then imo you have a case. The FIA QC can scream all day that Whiting has nothing to say, but you can't just simply go against people who represent your organisation, especially not if they are backed with in-house legal counceling.

The FIA should be shame-red for this. Maybe they should drag themselves in front of the IT, because their inability to make up their mind seems to be in breach with article 151c "putting F1 into disrespute".

[WhiteBlue]

Whatever the verdict is tomorrow the FiA will have done the right thing by having the tribunal. It was an opportunity for all sides to say what they have to say and for the facts to be appreciated. That is a good thing by itself.
One can argue that the FiA by not being pro-active have some responsibility for the mess. On the other hand it is not for the FiA to solve the problems that the competitors create for Pirelli and themselves by proposing and initiating all these rules and by blocking Pirelli from adequate testing.
So all parties involved have some reason to think about their prior actions and the IT judging panel would be prudent to take that into account when they set their verdict.
It is difficult to gage Bernies role in the events. I can very well imagine that he encouraged both Mercedes and Pirelli to go ahead with the test. He is said to have an interest to continue with Pirelli as the tyre supplier for 2014-2016. He is also in dispute about who is to negotiate the tyre contract with Jean Todt and has an axe to grind with Ross Brawn. So one can imagine that he gave some no so altruistic advise on the issue. But it is a fact that he is not responsible for the rules. Hence I see very little legal relevance in what he did or said before the test.
I just hope the IT judges make a sensible decision that considers the mitigating circumstances and future implications.

[Cam]

FIA needs to keep better track of their lawyers i assume after this ---, cause if a legal department of a corporation answer my question and its an answer i like i would ofc move forward with what i was doing.

Thats clearly what has happend here.

Not clearly at all. If the FIA had published a document, with its logo, stating it officially sactioned the test, then it is clear. Verbal means nothing. We see many technical documents from the FIA clarifying this or that, and its this document Merc should have got. "Get it in writing" would have been the first thing any decent lawyer said. With good reason.

Getting an opinion versus getting official approval. Big difference.

[Cam]

Looking at past examples, the FIA clearly publish a 'Technical Directive' - this clarifies any ambiguity.

The holes contravene regulations that were introduced in 2011 to ban double diffusers, but Red Bull boss Christian Horner said there was a "grey area" in the rules that his team was exploiting. However, the FIA technical directive stated the governing body disagrees with Red Bull's interpretation as it would make Article 3.12.5 "superfluous".

The teams know full well what flies and what doesn't.

Notice the "All Formula One Teams".

[turbof1]

Looking at past examples, the FIA clearly publish a 'Technical Directive' - this clarifies any ambiguity.

The holes contravene regulations that were introduced in 2011 to ban double diffusers, but Red Bull boss Christian Horner said there was a "grey area" in the rules that his team was exploiting. However, the FIA technical directive stated the governing body disagrees with Red Bull's interpretation as it would make Article 3.12.5 "superfluous".

http://adamcooperf1.files.wordpress.com ... g_0003.jpg

The teams know full well what flies and what doesn't.

Notice the "All Formula One Teams".

We don't know if something like a "sporting directive" exists. There are some unwritten rules out there, yes, but I believe it isn't as widespread as TD's. The existance of one about this matter is pure speculation, and seems unlikely; surely someone at red bull or fia would have brought it up if it did exist.

To further make my point, notice the name "Charley Whiting" stands on the paper. Surely he would not first give out a Sporting Directive, and afterwards give the green light to Mercedes?

[Cam]

The point was - Merc should have got that document first. The FIA publish them to clarify rules. It's their official word.

[ecapox]

Word has it that Lauda had agreed with Bernie, RedBull, and Ferrari to settle this out of court. Toto Wolf and Ross gave that agreement the big nay-no and refused to settle. Now they find themselves in court, in a pejorative light.

terrible call.

[turbof1]

The point was - Merc should have got that document first. The FIA publish them to clarify rules. It's their official word.

In that case: Red Bull neither waited for that document and just went ahead with their hole-in-the-floor. They got away with it.
Cam, I do understand your point, but it's not how things go in F1. Teams just ask clarification on things to Charley, if he deems it ok, they just go ahead with it. Waiting for an official document which essentially gives other teams to block it or to copy it, is no team their intent. This is normal, and has been so for years.

[Cam]

The point was - Merc should have got that document first. The FIA publish them to clarify rules. It's their official word.

In that case: Red Bull neither waited for that document and just went ahead with their hole-in-the-floor. They got away with it.
Cam, I do understand your point, but it's not how things go in F1. Teams just ask clarification on things to Charley, if he deems it ok, they just go ahead with it. Waiting for an official document which essentially gives other teams to block it or to copy it, is no team their intent. This is normal, and has been so for years.

The FIA publish them. They go to all teams. This whole saga could have been avoided if Merc saught one. A flexi wing is one thing, 3 days testing with a current car is quite another. A phone call just seems stupid, to rely on as proof.

[Richard]

The tribunal is the sporting equivalent of the technical scrutineers.

With the tech regs it is established practice that teams ask the FIA "What if" questions, but the formal acceptance of any the car only occurs at scrutineering at each and every race. That's when the judgement is made and sanctions handed out.

In this case the parties asked the FIA "What if" and the FIA said they needed to inform all teams. The parties didn't follow that advice. So they have been called into the tribunal for a formal decision to be made, just like the DDD teams were called into see the scrutineers.

[Huntresa]

FIA needs to keep better track of their lawyers i assume after this ---, cause if a legal department of a corporation answer my question and its an answer i like i would ofc move forward with what i was doing.

Thats clearly what has happend here.

Not clearly at all. If the FIA had published a document, with its logo, stating it officially sactioned the test, then it is clear. Verbal means nothing. We see many technical documents from the FIA clarifying this or that, and its this document Merc should have got. "Get it in writing" would have been the first thing any decent lawyer said. With good reason.

Getting an opinion versus getting official approval. Big difference.

Yeah but i didnt mean it was an approval, i meant that if they see the rule this way and we see the rule this way then if we get protested agaisnt we will just say that, and they did.