Pirelli 2013

[turbof1]

hey 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.

I believe there is also some email traffic involved, which states both whiting and the fia in-house legal team. That is proof.

Basicilly the reason why teams go to whiting is to keep the matter away from all teams. Imagine how things would turn out if they first had to inform the others. They would constantly block eachother from doing anything, no matter what it is. From putting holes in the floor to sharpening pencils. They would especially have blocked this case (aside from being wrong or right).

I can't blame that it has been handled in this discrete way. After all, the teams are like a class of toddlers, and if you don't want the group aroused, you better not tell which kid has the candy.

Not withstanding Mercedes and/or Pirelli made mistakes. Like Richard pointed out, a condition was to inform the others. Question remains which party had that duty?

[xpensive]

In the days of MrM, a preposterous situation like this would never have occurred, he would just decide the matter for himself and persecute everyone in opposition to his call, naming them "halfwits" or something.

The problem is of course that he would have supported his old milling-machine operator and his germanic employer wholeheartedly in this case, probably fining Christian Horner a million dollars for "bringing the sport into disrepute".

[turbof1]

I got grabs on some clauses out of the Pirelli contract. I'd rather not tell the source in public; dunno if I go against copyright. Just PM me if you absolutely want to be sure it's legit.

Clause 4.1 – To facilitate tests by competitors, the provider (Pirelli) will be present at its own expense at a maximum of 20 test days nominated by the FIA with all necessary personnel and equipment to fit and service tyres.

Clause 4.2 - Each of the competitors from the previous year's championship should be invited to make available up to 1000km of tyre development testing at the provider's request, subject in each case to the agreement of the FIA. The provider undertakes to treat all competitors equally with respect to anything which affects the performance of the cars.

clause 6 of the FIA's contract with Pirelli states that the Italian tyre company "must abide by the International Sporting Code and the Sporting Regulations."

Pirelli made a very good point concerning clause 6: clause 4.1 is a given right, but article 22 in the sporting rule actually blocks it from happening. In lawyer's terms that is a restrictive practice, which is by itself is a very negative meaning in juridicial cases, and outright forbidden in many countries.

[iotar__]

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.

[This turned into extreme blame everyone but Mercedes exercise. Pirelli. FIA, Whiting. What's going on?] In a word: what FIA no legal leg to stand on? On the contrary. Unsanctioned by FIA test with an F1 2013 car happened, physically.

This "loophole" of who conducted test is a really weak one, even if it was FIA who noticed ambiguity, and even if you ignore all other requirements to conduct such test. Legally it means little or nothing. As already pointed out those two lines of defence (second: Ferrari test) were presented in order to plead for leniency and create better image. We did it but without bad intentions, even your highest authorities were aware of some "possibilities", we discussed it etc., that's a good argument but not strictly legal one, it's more about circumstances.

You can't say Mercedes did nothing wrong technically, on the contrary technically they did everything wrong. Phone call from Whiting is not legally binding even if usually it works like that (DDRS) . You can't just say it was only Pirelli test, again: involvement of F1 team's cars, drivers and engineers plus some data security irregularities make it also a Mercedes test. You can't test with 2013 car, they did, end of story, the leg to stand on but not Mercedes'.

Their main defence point is based on the assumption that real life gains for the team are negligible or don't exist. Are they? I have no idea, apart from some noise from Red Bull and Sauber how everything can be useful and Rosberg knowing what tyres they used I didn't see attempts to quantify those gains. And why the circus with helmets?

I also can't make a judgement about this test because I don't understand the part about FIA's and Mercedes' involvement. IMO possible penalty should be based on whether or not and how much Mercedes really gained from it. Forget legality, if there wasn't any gain (100% certainty) no real penalty. But if there was even as a possibility or difficult to asses than maximum theoretical gain should be the reference point for punishment.

[MOWOG]

Iirc, the "gain" McLaren realized from the purloined Ferrari drawings was miniscule. And they got a $100,000,000 fine!

My guess is that the so-called tribunal is mere window dressing for a cat fight between Ecclestone and Todt to see who is the real holder of power in the sport. I personally would never bet against Adrian Newey and I probably would not bet against Bernie either.

We'll know by tomorrow, apparently.......

[Richard]

Pirelli made a very good point concerning clause 6: clause 4.1 is a given right, but article 22 in the sporting rule actually blocks it from happening. In lawyer's terms that is a restrictive practice, which is by itself is a very negative meaning in juridicial cases, and outright forbidden in many countries.

Clause 6 says be available. Sporting regs forbid recent cars, but Pirelli are free to use 2011 and older.

Clause 4.2 has an awkward "should", ie not compulsory. Does that mean "should do tests", or "should invite each team", or both?

Anyway 4.2 also says "subject in each case to the agreement of the FIA". It appears that there is no written evidence complying with that.

[Cam]

Also, it says it only has to provide people to do the tyres only, not run the car. Doubt there's any firewall there, so the whole team can be present, learning. Plus it says days nominated by the FIA. Did the FIA nominate Barcelona?

Clause 4.1 – To facilitate tests by competitors, the provider (Pirelli) will be present at its own expense at a maximum of 20 test days nominated by the FIA with all necessary personnel and equipment to fit and service tyres.

[pob]

I think 4.1 refers to preseason testing and young drivers test when it says "nominated by the FIA".

[dave34m]

Not to do with this IT but I wondered why they specify last years competitors and not the current competitors.

Clause 4.2 - Each of the competitors from the previous year's championship should be invited to make available up to 1000km of tyre development testing

[abw]

All the teams should chip in to buy an HRT chassis and give it to Pirelli. I'm mostly joking.

This has been a fascinating saga. I am eager to hear the IT ruling... and then read the deconstruction here.

[Cam]

One real juicy bit of info was Merc (Harris) stating that a 2011 car is 'substantially close' to a 2013 car. This is something we discussed in this thread a while ago - and while the regs allow it, the actual reality of how similar the cars are, was never really disputed.

Harris said: "Our position is if we are wrong on interpretation of what [article] 22 means and there was track running by us, such as we are in breach, it follows that Ferrari were also in breach.

"They ran their car on track and we argue their car followed substantially with the regulations... I put the marker down.

"It does not follow that if Ferrari runs on track a 2011 car, that that 2011 car does not confirm substantially to either the 2012 or 2013 regulations.

"There was only half [a second] difference between the 2011 cars and 2013 cars, showing the changes between 2011 and 2013 are minuscule in terms of performance."

Given this, how could Pirelli argue that a 2011 car was not 'representative', when Merc claims, under oath, that it is? Further more, if that's is the case, why didn't Merc just use their 2011 - or 2012 car for that matter?

[spadeflush]

Not to do with this IT but I wondered why they specify last years competitors and not the current competitors.

Clause 4.2 - Each of the competitors from the previous year's championship should be invited to make available up to 1000km of tyre development testing

Maybe its referring to testing of next year's tyres hence current year becomes the previous year.

All the teams should chip in to buy an HRT chassis and give it to Pirelli. I'm mostly joking.

This has been a fascinating saga. I am eager to hear the IT ruling... and then read the deconstruction here.

In fact Pirelli bought one of the chassis Dnt think its representative enough

[Clew]

FIA can't and won't lose.....and Bernie.E. will ensure Pirelli won't lose.

Merc is as good as dead in the water with this one. The real question is...how severe will the penalty be to Merc?

[Pierce89]

I think the fact that Merc had access to the data from the car means they were also testing, not just Pirelli testing.

[Huntresa]

I think the fact that Merc had access to the data from the car means they were also testing, not just Pirelli testing.

Thats not what they said, they said they had their enginners at the computers/ECUs to run the car safe, so it was the bare minimum, like it would have been if it had been an approved Pirelli test with Mercedes.