Pirelli 2013

[Pierce89]

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.

The articles I've seen said they had access to the data coming back from the car for the purpose of safety. That's not the same as saying they only had access to the bare minimum of data necessary to run the car safely. From what I've read, I think Brawn thought they found a loophole where if Pirelli officially decided on the run program for the test, then they could generate a whole lot of track data which would help them and maybe even help them with their tire issues.

[turbof1]

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.

Remember, only 3 clauses were mentioned. We do not know the content of the complete contract. Be careful with assuming!

[myurr]

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?

I don't think Pirelli have argued that. Ferrari and the FIA argue that a 2011 car does not conform substantially with the 2013 rules. Given some of the rest of the info about how the FIA were trying to leverage catch all clauses in order to snare Mercedes, I hope the tribunal shows a little more independence and neutrality. All the evidence I've seen so far, which naturally is based on a handful of internet articles rather than being present at the hearing, suggests that Mercedes tried to gain official authorisation and thought they had it. Everything else seems to be lawyers arguing over precise wordings, technicalities, and interpretation in on way or another of various conflicting clauses whose precedence is unclear.

[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.

Remember, only 3 clauses were mentioned. We do not know the content of the complete contract. Be careful with assuming!

Everything we're all doing on this subject is an assumption of some kind. Should that mean we can't comment? I'm surprised we got those clauses. Might only be a matter of time until we get the rest. Roll on verdict.

[turbof1]

Everything we're all doing on this subject is an assumption of some kind. Should that mean we can't comment? I'm surprised we got those clauses. Might only be a matter of time until we get the rest. Roll on verdict.

Yes, but we know very little of the contract. Commenting and assuming is fine, just there are many unknowns, so do take that into account.
I do not believe we get more to see of the contract; that tribunal is the only possible way the public would get some insight into its content. Unless the Tribunal quotes some other clauses in its verdict, we'll have to make do with those 3 unfortunaly.

[lebesset]

anybody had a bet on the verdict being anything but a fudge ?

[banibhusan]

When will the verdict come out by the way? I know its today, but any time deadline set for the verdict? I am getting restless.

[FoxHound]

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

Pirelli set the objectives for the test, and did not share it's tyre information.
Pirelli paid for the test.
Pirelli initiated the test.

Mercedes did not have access to all data. Mercedes had access to data required to make the car run, and that can be proven from information Brawn has kept on a secure server.

[astracrazy]

about midday paris time, so 11 uk

[SectorOne]

Some very interesting comments from Mercedes, alot of the points they bring up has been discussed here earlier like it being a Pirelli test rather then Merc test.

[rssh]

Though it is a Pirelli 2013 discussion thread , the IT discussion is more interesting than the tyres itself . The IT can go in only 2 ways and I think Merc will be only reprimanded because the clause of article 22 is not clear and Pirelli and Merc both claim that the test was "performed by Pirelli" and in the article it prohibits teams to test in season . Due to this point Merc can get away but then there will be uprising's by all other teams and they will beg Pirelli to let them test the 2014 tyres.

If IT does not get into the contractual clauses of FIA and Pirelli then Merc has done sporting crime and it needs a sporting justice and not a monetary one . Merc themselves are kind of guilty telling they won't participate for YDT (Its like commit a mistake and punish yourself).

IMO Merc should be banned from atleast 2 of the next year pre-season testing which fits the crime
Intresting read below
http://www.pitpass.com/49300-We-do-not- ... es-Pirelli

[Richard]

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

Pirelli set the objectives for the test, and did not share it's tyre information.
Pirelli paid for the test.
Pirelli initiated the test.

Mercedes did not have access to all data. Mercedes had access to data required to make the car run, and that can be proven from information Brawn has kept on a secure server.

This comes up every couple of pages. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

You say "can be proven", but it can't be proven because there were no witnesses. The problem arises because Merc and Pirelli discarded the usual safeguards.

We know that a race driver who said he needed more track time in his new car got his wish. It is possible that Merc could have bolted on development parts to test for durability. It can't be proven, and it can't be denied.

None of us know what actually happened, so we're unable to explicitly state what advantage Merc might have gained. We're also unable to explicitly say they didn't get an advantage.

[Phil]

Well, IMO, I hope that if Mercedes do get punished, that an honest assessment was made on how big any advantage could be that they gained as a result. If it is true that Ferrari in their test also had some advantage that is similar to what Mercedes had, then I think the punishment should be lower.

[FoxHound]

@Richard

Brawn does have the data that Mercedes where exposed to. We know there is data, and we know Brawn has it. We also heard Brawn say that he "doesn't see how it could be of any use", given the team where "in the dark" over compounds and objectives.

The critical point here, is that Pirelli did not share objectives or information with the team other than the driver. The driver must be part of the loop, or you have no corroboration. What benefit a team running 2014 compound rubber, the likes of which they do not even know is anyone's guess. But Brawn shot down the myth of this being a full scale "secret" Mercedes test, it so evidently was not.

Re: upgrades.....Mercedes would have a perfect baseline for Spain after the GP weekend, a whole weekends worth of tyre data that can be used by Pirelli to directly compare against the 2014 rubber used. So why would you bolt on upgrades that will distort this information which would hinder Pirelli, who's test this is in the first place?
Doesn't make any sense.

[banibhusan]

Brawn said he has the data in a private secure server! But again, under whose supervision? How do we know for sure the team didn't have a look at it or analyzed it? AFAIK, if its my server I can do whatever the hell I want with it and no one can prove that I am guilty. I believe Merc shouldn't have kept the data with themselves. This is just my interpretation.

Also, Rosberg said he was aware of the tyres he was testing. I guess we can safely say the same for Lewis also. If the drivers knew what they were testing, then the same knowledge may have been passed to the engineers. In what way it was beneficial is unknown and we can't be certain about it at all.

In all these "may have", "would have" scenarios, I still believe it's extremely difficult to prove that Mercedes are not guilty and they were just doing it because Pirelli asked.

@Foxhound:

During the hearing Mercedes lawyers claimed the test was to intentionally produce tyre flat spots. In that case can you explain why would it be difficult to test certain new components?