Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
that is highly unlikely... the tech work behind that would have to be enormous...ringo wrote:This may add some spin to the situation, but i don't think Mercedes were using a fully specced 2013 car.
The car they used may have had the 2014 engine in it.
The same goes for ferrari.
Well that indeed is an interesting suggestion. Just how plausible could it be? Nice new direction to consider.ringo wrote:This may add some spin to the situation, but i don't think Mercedes were using a fully specced 2013 car.
The car they used may have had the 2014 engine in it.
The same goes for ferrari.
Yes, lots of issues at play. This is plainly not cut and dry nor black and white. Agreed?FoxHound wrote:Cam wrote: 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.
true, but with the kind of torque being developed by the new engines, it wouldnt make sense using the current cars to test 2014 tyres. There must be some rigging involved to simmulate the type of loads going through the tyres from the engine.Goran2812 wrote:that is highly unlikely... the tech work behind that would have to be enormous...ringo wrote:This may add some spin to the situation, but i don't think Mercedes were using a fully specced 2013 car.
The car they used may have had the 2014 engine in it.
The same goes for ferrari.
It's too easy to simply accept that a team or supplier does the right thing - because they said they did. They're all looking for an advantage however they can get it, whether that's through a design breakthrough, rule bending or politics. Certainly teaming up to achieve a quid-pro-quo is very common - you scratch my back.....lebesset wrote: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 ?Cam wrote:Relevance is a key issue to the legality of any test, so I disagree with you there.turbof1 wrote: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.
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.
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 ?
well, we'll probably newer know the details from the testringo wrote:true, but with the kind of torque being developed by the new engines, it wouldnt make sense using the current cars to test 2014 tyres. There must be some rigging involved to simmulate the type of loads going through the tyres from the engine.Goran2812 wrote:that is highly unlikely... the tech work behind that would have to be enormous...ringo wrote:This may add some spin to the situation, but i don't think Mercedes were using a fully specced 2013 car.
The car they used may have had the 2014 engine in it.
The same goes for ferrari.
I feel it may be against the sporting code, but the possibility is still there.
If pirelli and mercedes find it mutually beneficially to run the 2014 engine with 2014 tyres, they could keep it a secret. haha.
at this point everything is possible... even 2014 engines, wings and all... 
Looks to me like it´s the good old 2013 wing there..bhallg2k wrote:Here are two awful pictures of Mercedes' "secret" test taken by Pius Gassó. I upscaled the frontal shot, because it looks like they ran a 2014-spec front wing. Maybe. It's hard to tell.
If they did, in fact, run a 2014-spec front wing, I think that's a serious issue, because doing so does not serve to further tire development in any way.
http://i.imgur.com/WUW57qM.jpg
So although Pirelli claims "everybody" could see the test, they did put in quite some effort nothing leaked out. So it was infact shrouded in secrety. there is more to it just then stating that everybody could see something was going. Pirelli didn't made a secret of it that something was going on, but they made a secret of WHAT was going on.“At the Mercedes test the door was fully closed at New Holland, covered with a red canvas that made it impossible to see who it was. There were people from ISS, a company dedicated to the monitoring and control of the circuit, who did not let me stay over 10 minutes in the ‘street’ by the gate. I recorded the audio, and decided to climb a mountain to make those pictures.”
Hembery says that his company wants to protect “proprietary information for Pirelli,” even from the attention of teams.
And yet he also says that there was little to be gained from inviting observers from other teams to the Mercedes session – as it did with previous Renault/Lotus testing – because they wouldn’t know what tyres were being used.
In other words Pirelli believes that rival F1 engineers, invited to attend a test and watch from the pitlane, would learn nothing useful about the tyres.
Therefore one wonders quite what anybody standing outside the gate – or sitting in the grandstand – could have learned about Pirelli’s R&D by watching a Mercedes droning round.
So why the excessive security measures? Why stop members of the public from observing from outside the venue, never mind wandering around the spectator areas, enjoying the chance to see the car that was on pole a few days before?
One might conclude that this was little to do with Pirelli protecting its IP – and rather more with not letting the outside world know which car/driver combination was going round, or indeed what was going on in the garage between runs.
Crucially, what invited observers from other teams would be able to do at such a test of course is a) verify that everything was being run to the data protection standards promised with the Lotus testing (see earlier story), and b) confirm that Mercedes was not testing different parts and set-ups, and thus this was a genuine tyre test…
You must be joking.lebesset wrote:why does everyone keep on about a secret test ?
pirelli seem to have made a reservation for a public race track , hired local staff , and stayed 3 days
how could you keep that secret ?
private , of course , what else would you do if you wanted to keep what you learned from any possible competitor ?
try to get on any tyre manufacturers test track to watch testing and see how welcoming they are
A 'normal' W04 blurred:bhallg2k wrote:Here are two awful pictures of Mercedes' "secret" test taken by Pius Gassó. I upscaled the frontal shot, because it looks like they ran a 2014-spec front wing. Maybe. It's hard to tell.
If they did, in fact, run a 2014-spec front wing, I think that's a serious issue, because doing so does not serve to further tire development in any way.
http://i.imgur.com/WUW57qM.jpg
He was even prepared to use a GP2 Car!"We need a baseline that we can trust so that we can start building information," he continued. "Maybe we can convince the teams that a three-year-old car, or something like that might be more suitable alternative if they can all agree on which brand it is. June 24th 2010
And again - he knows full well the regs:"There has been a bit of press about [us using the Toyota chassis] but it has probably come from them because they are trying to get someone to use the car maybe..." Hembery told AUTOSPORT. "No we are going to start with a GP2 car, the new GP2 car.
"Having discussed with the F1 teams the level of performance of the new GP2 car, it's not so far off as you've probably seen. As a test-bed, particularly for integrity reasons, reliability and stability, it's probably a good starting point." June 24th 2010
You would assume that included his own contract rules, not just the Sporting Regs - and I'm fairly confident all the teams would have discussed any 'advantage' issues that may have arisen from using a Lotus car - so it was an acute point of contention for all teams at the time - why would that change?"There is some ongoing progress [using the Lotus car], but I cannot tell you anything about it yet," said Hembery. "It would appear that you can run a 2010 car without contravening any rules and regulations." February 13, 2012
