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.
Yeah but the rules are contradicting, one states you can use 2 year old cars but at the same time we have the rule for gainging an unfair advantage etc.PNSD wrote:The respective speed of the car's should not even come in to it.. If the regs say 2013 are not allowed then thats it
Merc admited they ran a number of their engineers behind the computers to monitor the cars essential functions.WhiteBlue wrote:We cannot know if the point will stand. It all depends on how the test was set up. If Merc had their race engineers on site and they had some input to the testing they are truly guilty IMO. But if they fire walled Merc completely from involvement except for the drivers they could win the argument. So it all depends.
banibhusan wrote:If the rules changed substantially, at least in terms of aerodymanics, but the relative gap in performance remained quite close. But that ain't a fault of the FIA. This point is totally irrelevant. I wonder how its not been challenged in the hearing. The rules explicitly says you can use 2 years old car and that's what Ferrari did.
OK but the contract is not the rules. To me its irrelevant what the contract says.turbof1 wrote:Thsi is bigger: according to amus, the contract was reported NOT to oblige pirelli to give the same oppertunity to the other teams, nor that they had to be informed.
To be more precise, this statement relates to the contract between the FIA and Pirelli.turbof1 wrote:Thsi is bigger: according to amus, the contract was reported NOT to oblige pirelli to give the same oppertunity to the other teams, nor that they had to be informed.
Yes, but this isn't about the testing rules themselves. This is about article 151c, which is known to be the "catch-all" rule, which states that none fraudulent or prejudical act is allowed. The FIA claims Mercedes breached this rule by getting data out of the test. But every test is just that. Also the allowed Ferrari test.banibhusan wrote:If the rules changed substantially, at least in terms of aerodymanics, but the relative gap in performance remained quite close. But that ain't a fault of the FIA. This point is totally irrelevant. I wonder how its not been challenged in the hearing. The rules explicitly says you can use 2 years old car and that's what Ferrari did.
Nonetheless it has been brought up there. If it's irrelevant, then the FIA should came up with it in the first place and shouldn't be complaining about it, because nothing in the rules is stated that Pirelli has to inform or invite all teams.Tim.Wright wrote:OK but the contract is not the rules. To me its irrelevant what the contract says.turbof1 wrote:Thsi is bigger: according to amus, the contract was reported NOT to oblige pirelli to give the same oppertunity to the other teams, nor that they had to be informed.
Only changes you would need to do to a 2011 car is move the exhaust, lower nose and make more rigid FW if you need to.Cocles wrote:Article 22 states, "...using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula 1 technical regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year."
Harris claims that the 2011 cars do indeed substantially conform with the current regulations, thus rendering Ferrari in complete breach of the rules as well.
Obviously, the question then is, "Define substantially." How much would you have to alter a 2011 car for it to race in a 2013 grand prix? If the answer is "not much", then Harris may have the FIA against the ropes.
The nose stays the same. The only difference now is that it is hollow. Performance wise there isn't a difference.Huntresa wrote:Only changes you would need to do to a 2011 car is move the exhaust, lower nose and make more rigid FW if you need to.Cocles wrote:Article 22 states, "...using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula 1 technical regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year."
Harris claims that the 2011 cars do indeed substantially conform with the current regulations, thus rendering Ferrari in complete breach of the rules as well.
Obviously, the question then is, "Define substantially." How much would you have to alter a 2011 car for it to race in a 2013 grand prix? If the answer is "not much", then Harris may have the FIA against the ropes.
