Pirelli 2013

[Richard]

FH - That is a possible scenario but its just your conjecture. We don't know what actually happened because the usual safeguards were not followed.

I'd say the same to someone claiming that they did get an advantage.

[FoxHound]

@Banhibusan

The data was not Pirelli generated data. It was the data collected in order to run the car safely, as has been explained in the Tribunal.

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?

How are these 2 items linked? If Pirelli want flat spots, what would a new component achieve for this objective?
In my mind I would assume the brake setting would be adjusted to accomplish this objective.

[turbof1]

Verdict should be now anytime soon.

[CBeck113]

What data is necessary to insure that the car operates safely? My theory:
- all engine data including KERS
- all cooling system data
- all brake system data
- all steering system data
- GPS (=> key element in my opinion)
- status of all other systems in the car

So, what's missing?

Testing is correlating data with the input from the driver to evaluate the performance of the test object against base data (i.e. control group). This can be done under almost any conditions, since the control data exists, the drivers know the control data and their view of this status, and, with the data from above, can determine the performance change to the control group.

Don't get me wrong - I live in Germany and am a fan of Mercedes (but moreso of Ferrari, McLaren or Lotus ). I want to see the sport grow and prosper, and not have it turn into legal battles which decide the outcome of the races. But every once in a while the teams / suppliers make fundamental errors in finding an advantage, even though they interpret the rules in a way that makes it legal. The FiA is there to set the limits, and this is, in my opinion, one of those cases in which a limit must be drawn. I don't think that a punishment will bring too much here, unless Pirelli is forced to send the data to all teams (nothing won from the data, so this shouldn't be a problem, right? ).

But we'll see.

[Unc1e_M0nty]

Reallistacally what can the FIA do to Pirelli, any fine is not leagally binding, any ban would shut down F1

I think Pirelly have them over a barrel and they know it.

The intrernal e-mails inside the FIA were very intresting, charlie & the legal dept musing over the idea of a "Pirelli" test being outside the usual rules, I think they wanted Pirelli to test over safty fears and were trying to find a way round this.

[WhiteBlue]

If Mercedes wanted to have a bomb proof claim that it wasn't their test they could have done more to firewall themselves from the running. They could have handed the cars over to another organization that does not do the car control in the race. They could have destroyed all data instead of putting it on a privat server. They could have made sure that independent legal observers (for instance from the FiA) observed the test. All that did not happen. So in my view there is some ground for a guilty verdict. Mercedes lawyer conceded that much by asking for an exclusion from the young driver test as punishment and compensation for the sporting advantage to the other teams.
I think that is an excellent proposal and I hope that the tribunal will lean that way. The principle should be upheld that you may not test, but the tribunal should recognize when considering the penalty that the FiA screwed up this case by sending conflicting messages. So I say there was little or no malice in the decisions taken by Mercedes which needs to be considered. I hope that the FiA as an organization remembers that confrontation in such cases is not a prudent way to solve the underlying conflict.

[FoxHound]

but the tribunal should recognize when considering the penalty that the FiA screwed up this case by sending conflicting messages. So I say there was little or no malice in the decisions taken by Mercedes which needs to be considered.

Agree with that assessment fully.

If anything should be taken out of this, is to learn from what happened. The FIA should not be vague, it needs to be clear.
Had Whiting not been so ambiguous in his communications with Mercedes, this test would not have taken place with a W04.

[Richard]

What's ambiguous about the FIA saying the other teams needed to be told? We know rules can be changed if everyone agrees then it could have been done above board.

If Merc or Pirelli had told people what they were doing then it wouldn't have been a problem ... although most likely it would have been blocked.

[FoxHound]

Who's duty is it to inform the teams Richard?

Pirelli's test remember.

[Richard]

We've been through all this many times, nothing changes by repeating the same arguments.

[MOWOG]

While we are waiting for the decision to be rendered, which is now scheduled for Friday - I would like to know more about who the members of the Council are and what their bona fides is. In American arbitration, a three member panel is common practice. One member is appointed by each party and they select a third, supposedly neutral, arbitrator. The two appointed arbitrators are presumed to be champions for the litigant who appointed them. And they better be. There's good money in being an arbitrator and you don't get appointed again if you don't rule in favor of your sponsor.

So who are these guys? How many of them are there? How many are in Bernie's pocket? How many in Todt's pocket? How many in Pirelli's pocket? And so on......And how many of them know anything about the sport, the rules and the culture of F1?

Do they have to reach a unanimous decision? A majority decision? Is there some minimum percentage agreement - 60% maybe - that has to be reached in order to render a decision?

Note to Jean Todt: In the future, I am available to serve on any such tribunals. It is a long time since I set foot on the Champs Elysee and I am betting I wouldn't have to bring a lunch from home in a brown paper bag if I were a member of such a panel. Call me, Jean. Let's talk! [-o<

[Richard]

So the result is that Merc are banned from Young Driver Test.

It means they lose a valuable opportunity for proper mid-season development testing in exchange for a private test with limited benefit.

http://www.fia.com/news/international-tribunal-0

[Unc1e_M0nty]

Merc have to be pleased with that.

Pirelli reprimaned too - whatever that means

[astracrazy]

i think thats a decent result for Merc

[Jonnycraig]

So the result is that Merc are banned from Young Driver Test.

It means they lose a valuable opportunity for proper mid-season development testing in exchange for a private test with limited benefit.

http://www.fia.com/news/international-tribunal-0

a 3 day unsupervised test with race drivers, versus 3 supervised days with kids and paydrivers. I'm sure Mercedes are gutted.