Pirelli 2013

[ecapox]

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.

This is the Wookie Defense. While it worked well in a cartoon, it wont fly in a real court.

The lawyers can say whatever they want, but the judge knows that Ferrari testing with a 2011 car has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case, therefore he would ignore it. If there was a hand picked jury, it would be striken from record. (In the US)

If Mercedes is found guilty, AND if the FIA wanted to, they could go after Ferrari. Two separate issues. It looks great in the headlines of a newspaper and the Internet, but it is completely irrelevant to the this case against Mercedes.

[skoop]

13:00 FIA-Anwalt Howard unterbricht den Redefluss seines Kollegen Harris von Mercedes. Er erklärt, warum Ferrari anders behandelt wurde als der Angeklagte. "Mercedes hat sich unserer Meinung nach einer Verletzung von Artikel 22 schuldig gemacht. Erst dann wird Punkt 1.5.1. relevant, der Mercedes die Erlangung eines unfairen Vorteils beschuldigt. Ferrari hat nach unserer Ansicht legal getestet. Demzufolge trifft die Vorteilsnahme auch nicht zu. Herr Harris versucht hier vom Thema abzulenken."

howard states that becouse ferrari was spoken free on breaching §22 §1.5.1 wasn't investigated and doesn't come in play

[dave34m]

Does anyone have a link to the BBC feed, I cant find it

[banibhusan]

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.

Agreed. But, Harris himself claimed that Mercedes cars were fire walled in the same way as the Ferrari and Lotus cars were. So my understanding is if Ferrari were able to extract data then so were Mercedes. If Ferrari gained unfair advantage, then so did Mercedes. At least they may have. Isn't it??

FIA lawyer Howard interrupts the flow of speech of his colleague Harris from Mercedes. He explains why Ferrari was treated differently than the accused. "Mercedes has in our opinion a violation of Article 22 are guilty. Only then Mercedes will point 1.5.1. Relevant, accused of obtaining an unfair advantage. Ferrari has tested legally, in our view. Consequently, taking advantage also is not true. Mr. Harris tries to distract from the topic here. "

[Phil]

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.

I think the whole point in attacking Ferrari is by nature of what they are being accused of: Gaining an unfair advantage, by using a 2013 car in Pirelli's test. They're pointing out, that they had less of an advantage than Ferrari, who although tested with a 2011 car, complies with the majority of rules for this year, with a similar lap performance, also with a race-driver (Massa) and in 2 not only 1 test. Also that their test wasn't much more transparent and also importantly, that Ferrari had more control over their test, than Mercedes did. It is also mentioned that Ferrari conducted this test on the track, before the race, not after.

I think it's a valid defence point, even if, by the rules, Ferrari was within the written rules. It's debatable if Mercedes had a bigger advantage solely by using their current car in a more constraint/controlled environment.

EDIT: This point might not get them free, but it puts into context perhaps how much of an advantage Mercedes could have in what is proposed to be an illegal test, vs what was a legal sanctioned test by Ferrari. If the legal one was deemed to be within the spirits and have no advantage, then why should Mercedes's be? If anything, this might limit the scope of fine if they get one - if it's deemed that the advantage is not substantially bigger.

[astracrazy]

could we be opening a can of worms where teams will test on tracks with a 2 year old car before the event to get data and gain an advantage because the rules allow it?

[turbof1]

Agreed. But, Harris himself claimed that Mercedes cars were fire walled in the same way as the Ferrari and Lotus cars were. So my understanding is if Ferrari were able to extract data then so were Mercedes. If Ferrari gained unfair advantage, then so did Mercedes. At least they may have. Isn't it??

The point is that it works in both ways. Having a legal or non-legal test has nothing to do with 151c being breached based on gathering data and out of that an advantage. Basicilly they are saying "you have gained an advantage, they have gained an advantage, but only you breached 151c because you gained that advantage due breaking the testing rules". If we went that way, you can absolutely cling 151c on every breach of even the smallest rule. Speeding in the pit lane? 151c. Ignoring blue flags? 151c. throwing you tear off into the opponents FW? 151c.

151c has come up here for the sole purpose to get Mercedes convicted with the highest achievable punishment.

[banibhusan]

could we be opening a can of worms where teams will test on tracks with a 2 year old car before the event to get data and gain an advantage because the rules allow it?

Precisely. This will get real ugly if the rules are not rectified immediately.

I initially believed the idea was to prove whether Mercedes broke the rules by testing 2013 car and not whether they gained any advantage, though one might say that these two are inter related.

[stefan_]

They might have a base for doing that, but I don't like this pointing the finger at Ferrari thing. They should have filed a complaint against them, not bring it in the hearing to defend themselves.

[CHIUNDA]

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.

This is the Wookie Defense. While it worked well in a cartoon, it wont fly in a real court.

The lawyers can say whatever they want, but the judge knows that Ferrari testing with a 2011 car has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case, therefore he would ignore it. If there was a hand picked jury, it would be striken from record. (In the US)

If Mercedes is found guilty, AND if the FIA wanted to, they could go after Ferrari. Two separate issues. It looks great in the headlines of a newspaper and the Internet, but it is completely irrelevant to the this case against Mercedes.

Only this is not a real world court ... an attribute we should not lose sight of

[CHIUNDA]

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.

OK but the contract is not the rules. To me its irrelevant what the contract says.

On the contrary the contract is stronger than the rules since it has jurisdiction beyond the sport out here in the normal world

[Cocles]

They might have a base for doing that, but I don't like this pointing the finger at Ferrari thing. They should have filed a complaint against them, not bring it in the hearing to defend themselves.

It's a legitimate strategy for establishing what's "reasonable". Ferrari's actions were considered reasonable by the FIA. If Merc's actions can be proven to be less extreme, then Merc's actions must logically be considered reasonable as well. It's nothing personal against Ferrari... although it's certainly fortuitous that it IS Ferrari of all teams.

[FoxHound]

Craig slater

We heard this morning from the FIA about details of exchanges between the Mercedes and the FIA as Mercedes sought to clarify the position about whether a 2013 car could be used. Paul Harris in his submissions this afternoon explained exactly what email traffic had gone on between Mercedes and the FIA, and perhaps while conceding that Charlie Whiting wasn't in a position himself to authorise the test, he does say he was in a position to be led to believe by him there was this potential to run the 2013 car.

"Basically Mercedes made the request to run the 2013 car to the FIA, Charlie Whiting then had an exchange with the in-house legal team at the FIA and it's fascinating to hear the email reponse that came back from Sebastian Barnard, who's the FIA's legal advisor. It goes along the lines of 'in my view any such testing could not actually be undertaken by competitors, it would be argued that this was done by Pirelli. Would we be able to take this position?'

"The response from Sebastian Barnard was 'yes we could take this position, it is not an undertaking from the competitor'. So on the face of it if that's some advice that's been given out there it does seem to suggest that there was this potential loophole that it could be a Pirelli test governed by their commercial contract with F1 and it wouldn't involve the competitor Mercedes and they wouldn't be in breach of the regulations."

[turbof1]

Yeah exactly. This isn't about bashing Ferrari, but more about using the Ferrari case as precedence. If Mercedes can get the similiarities going, then the court cannot ignore previous events in the past.

[astracrazy]

They might have a base for doing that, but I don't like this pointing the finger at Ferrari thing. They should have filed a complaint against them, not bring it in the hearing to defend themselves.

i don't think you using it as a direct defense but more to show or make out the fia's rules don't make sense and perhaps merc are being victimized. They are trying to prove that this is no different to ferrari's previous tests an such hoping this will be taken into account for the verdict.