Pirelli 2013

[WhiteBlue]

Who do you actually mean by your criticism, Strad? I would think that all forum users have invested in a TV license. But not all users show the kind of bias that you picture. I think that some of us tried to use common sense and avoid prejudging the tribunal outcome.

[xpensive]

The point everybody seems to be missing is that F1 is show and MrE is the ringmeister, losing the three-pointed star would be almost like losing the prancing horse. On the prospect of Daimler losing patience of not winning, let's give MGP a freebe and cock up some horse-story to cover it up.

Let's see if Mateschitz buys it, wouldn't be surprised if he don't.

[WhiteBlue]

The panel of judges ruled that there was no malicious intend and Mercedes were actually thinking they were not breaking the rule. You have clearly precluded such a verdict and announced to all that by your legal expertise Merc must be punished severely. It appears that you still have no notion how a legal system actually works. I leave it to the distinguished users of this forum to evaluate your other remarks.

[turbof1]

[...] The punishment shouldn't be underestimated. While mercedes did gain data, it would be safe to assume that they were limited in what they could test. Pirelli certainly would not have appreciated it if mercedes bolted on upgrades. At the YDT you don't have to worry about that. Secondly, at a 3 day test without restrictions you can rack in much more km's. A simple calculation learns that if a team does 100 laps each day on silverstone, times 3 days, it travels around 1,750km. [...]

[WhiteBlue]

Whiteblue, I understand the frustration, but please stop giving in the urge! It ends up contrary what you want when you constantly want to adress GT. Next to that, I sincerely believe we post to contribute to the matter, not to have up- or downvotes.

I agree with you and take your point on board. It was purely frustration with the way GTSpeedster voiced his opinions. I would have appreciated a more polite approach. I will refrain from further remarks over personal style. It isn't an appropriate contribution and not in line with the lofty principles of this technical forum.

[lebesset]

so what are pirelli going to do ? as far as they are concerned they conducted the test in line with their remit ..and the FIA have no right to stand in judgement over them anyway
am I the only one who thinks this isn't over ?

personally I think that , unless pirelli gets the new contract they want [ they have already got the testing they see as necessary pencilled in ] , this is off to a real court ; or maybe pirelli will refuse to accept the reprimand anyway and take it to court

at least that will be in line with Todt's frenchification strategy ...it will be a FRENCH court of law

[iotar__]

there was more in the phone conversations with Whiting they did not want to reveal.

From the internal FIA e-mails between Charlie and the legal dept you can cleary see they want the test to go ahead, it's them who are looking for loopholes with it being a "Pirelli" test.

I think they had genuine safety worries about the delaminating tyres

I can understand that but at some point FIA's involvement stops and Mercedes were on their own. Going back to "not deliberately" gaining an advantage, deliberate part is showing up for the test. Why, to help F1, Pirelli and human race? I doubt it. Pirelli's part is understandable, they need to test tyres in something more resembling current/future cars than 2010 Renault. They learned the hard way that in F1 you can't do anything in a normal way, waiting for a decision from Ecclestone/FIA/teams is a futile exercise so they might as well go for this. But Mercedes?

Perhaps FIA wanted the test, but maybe not they way it happened. They gave a list of requirements that were not met. Whether they made it up afterwards is irrelevant to the repercussions of illegal test, the whole informal conversations vs formal approval. Safety? I thought it was more about 2014 tyres?

It's really an example of how badly run and random F1 is. No one to make a decision and do something the proper way. Test must happen and F1 teams can't agree how? Make a pool of cars from 2013, choose one through lottery, put reserve driver in it and provide full data security in a transparent way. Not perfect but better than this storm in a tea cup.

[xpensive]

So Mercedes got rewarded for their craftiness! The 2013 F1 season will remain forever tainted. But at least Hamilton's worshipers must be flying high with joy just above a white cloud in the blue sky. Good.

Finally a voice of reason, I find it unfathomable that other members fails to see how this "tire test" was staged by the powers that be to give MGP a chance to catch up, while this judicial "loophole" about Pirelli undertaking the test, and not MGP, is so pathetic that you don't know if to laugh out loud or cry your eyes out.

As for certain members acting like volunteer-moderators, think nothing of it, has been that way for years.

[MOWOG]

It's really an example of how badly run and random F1 is. No one to make a decision and do something the proper way. Test must happen and F1 teams can't agree how? Make a pool of cars from 2013, choose one through lottery, put reserve driver in it and provide full data security in a transparent way. Not perfect but better than this storm in a tea cup.

Well said and an eminently sensible suggestion. =D>

When you come right down to it, all human experience can be described as a search for power and, once acquired, to preserve said power. Imposing a strong central authority and ruling with an iron fist is an excellent way to do this. (think Josef Stalin here. Or Max Mosely!) Absent such a strong central authority, the possibilities for skirmishes among the parties involved are virtually endless. We have just witnessed such a skirmish and we will witness many more within our beloved sport, sadly.

In the end, this was more about defining the power relationship between Pirelli, the teams, Bernie and the FIA than about tires. :-"

Xpensive and I are saying pretty much the same thing here. So I gave him a +1, in the hopes that he will give me one in return, thus increasing my power on this board from undetectable to miniscule.

[xpensive]

...
Xpensive and I are saying pretty much the same thing here. So I gave him a +1, in the hopes that he will give me one in return, thus increasing my power on this board from undetectable to miniscule.

I would certainly do that, but my voting privileges has been revoked by the real moderators.

[pob]

I'm disappointed Mercedes weren't pressed on why the drivers used plain helmets. The reason given by the lawyer was "to lessen interest from fans due to a lack of security and bodyguards" which makes no sense when Pius Gasso had to climb a hill 2km away to get photos of the test because security was so tight at the circuit. I would say that it is clear evidence Mercedes were not acting in good faith

[WhiteBlue]

You basically do not want spectators at a private development test. You want absolutely nobody but the engineers and drivers. It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened in Montmelo if the helmets of the F1 drivers had been spotted. It had attracted many more people that Pirelli could do perfectly without. IMO it has nothing to do with the question whether Mercedes acted in good faith. That question was primarily dependent of the the legal conundrum. The helmet issue was a mere side show of a side show.

[Cam]

You basically do not want spectators at a private development test. You want absolutely nobody but the engineers and drivers.

Disagree - charge admission and make some money out of it. Heaven knows they need it. F! is a 'show' isn't it?

[Cam]

I'm disappointed Mercedes weren't pressed on why the drivers used plain helmets. The reason given by the lawyer was "to lessen interest from fans due to a lack of security and bodyguards" which makes no sense when Pius Gasso had to climb a hill 2km away to get photos of the test because security was so tight at the circuit. I would say that it is clear evidence Mercedes were not acting in good faith

There is no "spirit of the rules".

• Mercedes breached the regs = punished.
• Pirelli handled it badly = reprimanded.
• Lessons were learned.
• Future changes to be made to prevent happening again.
• No one is appealing.

Story ends. Even I'd now like this thread to move on to PIrelli and their tyres.

[turbof1]

You basically do not want spectators at a private development test. You want absolutely nobody but the engineers and drivers.

Disagree - charge admission and make some money out of it. Heaven knows they need it. F! is a 'show' isn't it?

Not for companies who want to keep their products discrete.