Pirelli 2013

[SectorOne]

What they should do also in the future (with Pirelli or other manufacturer) is to do a lottery on who gets to give their car to the tire manufacturer.
Giving a 13 car for a 14 season might not be ideal but a 14 car to test tires for 15 would definitely work.
So you have a cap with car manufacturers and the name that gets pulled out will have to assist Pirelli in developing the tires for the upcoming season.
They are never going to be able to decide who should give out a car and they can barely decide on a 2 year old ancient car.
A lottery would make things as fair as it can be for all teams.

Just my 2 cents.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107817

Hankook out of the running for 2014. That makes it a pirelli vs Michelin bid.

[MOWOG]

spectacle would be for sure better in rainy conditions

In the dark of night, when the world is asleep and the wild things roam about, I sometimes fantasize that all the corners at every Formula One track have sprinklers installed and that Charlie Whiting can control each one individually during the race.

Charlie: "Here comes that annoying little twerp, Sebastien Vettel. Let's see how he likes THIS! (Turns on sprinkler) Oh dear. He has spun into the kitty litter. Poor baby.

Ahhh, here is Alonso. I like Fred. He is a magnificent driver. I shall turn off the sprinklers for him."

Perhaps I should seek psychiatric help?

[timbo]

Today, that has been refined further still. I would argue it's substantially the same. It's not fundamentally different. Would you agree?

The amount of the DF recovered is the same, but the airflow is VERY different.

To test tyres you need to load them in a representative way - how (with what flow) you achieve the load it is not relevant to tyres. Tyre shape could affect load instead

The exhaust flow affects tyre temperatures and the tyre shape affects airflow.

[Richard]

I´d love to discuss with you but it seems everytime i quote you or GTSpeedster my posts get downvoted.

Coincidence?

Yes it was a coincidence. As it happens your posts were in a block of 11 consecutive posts that were all given a negative vote last night. That member has admitted drink was involved. He/she will not be voting again for a while.

[Richard]

The test ban does not apply to cars that are 2 years old or more. It doesn't matter what you or I think the car looks like, the 2 year cut off is absolute.

That's why we see teams running old cars in modern livery at demonstration events.

Correct, but they run those events on demo tyres.

In Ferrari's case, I don't think it is about what car they ran but rather what advantage they could have gotten by running race tyres.

I thought the demo tyres only applied to cars for this year and previous year, with limited mileage too. As I recall there is a speed limit too?

Otherwise a team can run an older car anywhere on any tyres? For example Button at Bathurst.

Admittedly they can't use actual F1 race tyres because Pirelli keep ownership of those, but I imagine they can get hold of replica F1 tyres from another manufacturer.

[Ferrari2183]

The test ban does not apply to cars that are 2 years old or more. It doesn't matter what you or I think the car looks like, the 2 year cut off is absolute.

That's why we see teams running old cars in modern livery at demonstration events.

Correct, but they run those events on demo tyres.

In Ferrari's case, I don't think it is about what car they ran but rather what advantage they could have gotten by running race tyres.

I thought the demo tyres only applied to cars for this year and previous year, with limited mileage too. As I recall there is a speed limit too?

Otherwise a team can run an older car anywhere on any tyres? For example Button at Bathurst.

Admittedly they can't use actual F1 race tyres because Pirelli keep ownership of those, but I imagine they can get hold of replica F1 tyres from another manufacturer.

The issue is that Ferrari actually ran race tyres supplied by Pirelli.

[Ganxxta]

The issue is that Ferrari actually ran race tyres supplied by Pirelli.

Ferrari says:
The fundamental aspect is the compliance with Article 22 of the Sporting Code, that doesn't allow any in-season testing with this years or last years car. Everything else are irrelevant details.

"Die fundamentale Frage bezieht sich auf die Einhaltung von Artikel 22 des sportlichen Reglements, der den Einsatz eines aktuellen oder letztjährigen Autos für jegliche Testfahrten während der Saison nicht erlaubt", lautete das weitere Statement. "Das ist der einzige entscheidende Aspekt. Alles andere sind irrelevante Details."
Source

[Cam]

Uh, in this case it is. Back in 2011 teams could very precisely inject the exhaust gasses underneath the floor. Today, those same gasses influence rear tyre temperature.

However, I find I find it appaling this discussion is about car relevance. ALL those cars aren't relevant in any way! Let's not forget they tried out 2014 tyres, a year in which the whole damn car changes. DF levels will get a big crunch, engines wil have high torque, etc.

Relevance is a key issue to the legality of any test, so I disagree with you there.

Questioning 2014 tyre testing though, spot on. Hembrey asked for a representative car. Well, none exist. Not for 2014 anyway, unless I'm missing something. So any data would be worthless.

So here's a very controversial assumption: a compound would only need to change very slightly to be not be the exact same as 2013. So you could state truthfully that the 2013 compounds were not tested. Maybe really really close ones were? Maybe these were "considered" for 2014, then conveniently disregarded as a possibility after one team does a full test? Symantecs, yes, but that's how F1 roles. Food for thought.

[toshinden]

What is the consequences for this matter? Could it be so severe that it can resulting disqualification through out 2013 season?

[Sombrero]

The point is not about the car hat Mercedes was using. The point is "has the Mercedes Team gained an unfair advantage for the rest of this season ? This could also well apply for the Scuderia's 1000 km run. The italian team could have also gained an unfair advantage for this season even with a 2011 car because they ran 2013 tyres...

I don't think that the FiA will further investigate these cases. The current economic situation is tense for F-1 and it's not the right time to start a war against the only two manufactureers that are 100% (chassis and engines) involved in F-1.

[FoxHound]

So here's a very controversial assumption: a compound would only need to change very slightly to be not be the exact same as 2013. So you could state truthfully that the 2013 compounds were not tested. Maybe really really close ones were? Maybe these were "considered" for 2014, then conveniently disregarded as a possibility after one team does a full test? Symantecs, yes, but that's how F1 roles. Food for thought.

This tortured right here. How can you hypothetically extrapolate something and say "that's how F1 ""roles"", when every bit of information we have thus far suggests no cheating was involved.

What you are levelling at Pirelli and Mercedes, is that tyres where made specifically to assist Mercedes, under the premise that they are "2014" tyres, which are in essence 2013 tyres? Wow...thats more than a leap of faith.
In a nutshell, everything you keep posting about in this thread is regard to Pirelli and Mercedes cheating.
You do not leave any scope for this to be a classic communication error or the possibility of FIA incompetence. And you haven't mentioned a certain Bernard Ecclestone, who also has a hand in this.

There are wider issues at play.

Food for thought.

[Dragonfly]

Due to lack of more and reliable information this one and similar threads on other forums just go in spiraling circles full of speculations and rules interpretations to fit someone's agenda. The end result is frustration and bursts of not polite behavior.
ATM we know:
- Pirelli & Mercedes have conducted a 1000 km test
- If not secret, the fact of the test has been kept carefully concealed from the public and rival teams until they couldn't deny it anymore.
- Two teams protest.
- In a document from FIA it is said that contacts have taken place about the test, including using the 2013 car and the answer was that it COULD be possible provided some preconditions are met, main accent on not damaging sporting fairness as per the sporting and testing rules. No further official information to FIA has been provided.
- All sides thereon give moot explanations and no official documents have been made publicly available AFAIK.
- Media and fans go into speculations.

I think we should refrain from making this thread a mess and wait for some new facts to surface.

(BTW, as non-native English speaker I think the usage of past tense (could) is not random and means a possibility but not approval.)

[lebesset]

Uh, in this case it is. Back in 2011 teams could very precisely inject the exhaust gasses underneath the floor. Today, those same gasses influence rear tyre temperature.

However, I find I find it appaling this discussion is about car relevance. ALL those cars aren't relevant in any way! Let's not forget they tried out 2014 tyres, a year in which the whole damn car changes. DF levels will get a big crunch, engines wil have high torque, etc.

Relevance is a key issue to the legality of any test, so I disagree with you there.

Questioning 2014 tyre testing though, spot on. Hembrey asked for a representative car. Well, none exist. Not for 2014 anyway, unless I'm missing something. So any data would be worthless.

So here's a very controversial assumption: a compound would only need to change very slightly to be not be the exact same as 2013. So you could state truthfully that the 2013 compounds were not tested. Maybe really really close ones were? Maybe these were "considered" for 2014, then conveniently disregarded as a possibility after one team does a full test? Symantecs, yes, but that's how F1 roles. Food for thought.

as only one generic compound was used , how would the team know which of the 4 race tyres it would be close to , or do they have crystal balls ?

thinking about it logically though , wouldn't be pirelli have used a compound which was harder than anything which could be considered possible for a race tyre ? something capable of withstanding any forces which might be imposed by the new cars ?

[Shakeman]

I remember watching an interview with Alguersuari about his role as test driver and he said he and test car team had no idea what tyres they were being asked nor were they told what particular aspects of the tyre the tyre team were interested in. He would fill out a questionnaire after each run on tyres.

It seems to me the teams who were asked if they'd be interested in a test session for Pirelli, they ignored it and are now crying foul but it's debatable how much real information that Merc got if any at all. The Pirelli test driver didn't appear to have much of a clue about the exact data that Pirelli were after so....

The Ferrari situation is more likely to have been beneficial i.e. a very well understood car testing current race tyres.

Merc might have more questions to answer if their 1000 kms were a full on aero test and car development too.