Pirelli 2013

[xpensive]

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

In the case of MGP getting a mid-season freebe, that is most plausible actually.

I also find it obvious that Wolff and Brawn had some inside info, before they turned down the deal Lauda tried to bargain.

[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?

Not for companies who want to keep their products discrete.

Discrete for whom? Sole supplier. No competitor. Who on earth are they hiding from? Paranoia much?

If F1 wants to ensure financial security, its through opportunities like this where hardcore fans can get up close without huge crowds. It's an opportunity begging and typical of poor management and poor understanding of the fan base.

Secret does not equal exclusive. It upsets everyone.

[turbof1]

[
Discrete for whom? Sole supplier. No competitor. Who on earth are they hiding from? Paranoia much?

If F1 wants to ensure financial security, its through opportunities like this where hardcore fans can get up close without huge crowds. It's an opportunity begging and typical of poor management and poor understanding of the fan base.

Secret does not equal exclusive. It upsets everyone.

You would suprised how paranoia companies are. They really fear getting R&D into the open. Even if there is no inmediate competitor near, they would still reason that a competitor on the public market could get some info out of it. I agree, it's a missed oppertunity, and paranoia has more then once destroyed big companies, but that's just how it goes.

[MOWOG]

I also find it obvious that Wolff and Brawn had some inside info, before they turned down the deal Lauda tried to bargain.

I would agree with that. And I would posit the inside information came from Uncle Bernie. He was keen not to embarrass Mercedes publicly. And to resolve the issue of tire supplier sooner rather than later. Didn't it strike you as odd that, the day before the IT tribunal met, he casually announced he had a signed contract with Pirelli for next season and beyond? MGP dutifully fell on its sword, but it was a pretty small sword. Not large enough to do much real damage.

We casual fans will never know the amount of high stakes gamesmanship that went on behind the scenes. But I bet it would make for a pretty interesting story. The outcome was preordained before the IT even convened, of that you may be sure. Bernie takes the term "Machiavellian" to a whole new level.

The key to the plot is that the panel imposed precisely the penalty that Ross Brawn suggested at the hearing. Don't you find that interesting?

[xpensive]

...
The key to the plot is that the panel imposed precisely the penalty that Ross Brawn suggested at the hearing. Don't you find that interesting?

Perhaps as interesting as it was MrE's old spannerman who supposedly gave MGP and Pirelli the nod for this "tire test"?

These guys all go a long way back, MrE, CW, Brawn, Lauda and don't forget MrM, who's still in the FIA senate.

Just compare this "penalty" to the 100 MUSD fine slapped at McLaren for receiving some Ferrari drawings.

[WhiteBlue]

It was the obvious solution as I have pointed out before. We should not forget who is running the FiA. The little french man is clever. He showed Bernie the finger, did not get involved in the team infighting and avoided a bad reputation that he would have collected if he had personally brokered a solution. The tribunal was just a very elegant implementation to an obvious solution that has been sitting there since Monaco.

[xpensive]

It was the obvious solution as I have pointed out before.
...

Oh, excuse me then.

[WhiteBlue]

It was the obvious solution as I have pointed out before.
..

Oh, excuse me then.

My pleasure. I must admit I love your cynical view of things, although I think that sometimes not all is conspiracy.

When I read Joe Saward's blog after Monaco the basic plot was very clear. And the three page legal piece from Pitpass shed some light on the legal aspects that would be compelling.

The only bit that transpired and surprised me was the role of the FiA legal counsel. With that chink in the armoury Todt really had no leg to stand on if he seriously wanted to punish Pirelli and Mercedes. Any independent court would have taken a verdict apart. With Pirelli involved and not falling under the jurisdiction of the FiA the case would have rather sooner than later ended in a French court.

So giving in and making some hay as the sun was shining was the better way for Todt to get even. As it stands he can still make Pirelli's life very difficult unless they get Bernie to offer some concessions to him. And that will help Todt in the game he plays with Bernie.

Something to take away from the case is the role of the regular courts if there is potential of an appeal and how that will keep the power players in F1 honest. It has all happened before. Williams vs Mosley in the customer chassis debate and Briatore vs the FiA come to mind. A regular court review is the joker in the pack if you are a player in the shark pond.

[turbof1]

Everybody should atleast agree that Charley Whiting and the in-house legal department never should have given the green light (with conditions). Persons who believe Mercedes had malicious intents nad gained huge advantages out of it, should not forget they were given an excuse to do so.
A nice metaphore would be that an owner of a safe gives to a particular burglar a key to open the safe. The burglar is on certain conditions allowed to take the cash, but he does get the key before those are met. He knows the burglar is only interested in his own behalf and should not be trusted. The burglar does not meet the conditions, just uses the key and raids the safe. While stealing is illegal, the owner of the safe was partly responsible for the misfortune.
Same here: Mercedes was given a means to test, even though against the rules, by people who decide if you apply the rules correctly. Are you going to punish people who did, with your own support, wrong?

Conspiracy or not, the FIA did very much help to create this situation.

[xpensive]

Your romantic view of the FIA legal system is almost eye-watering WB, but just because you "have already pointed it out",
doesn't necessarily make everything today's truth you know.

[WhiteBlue]

Your romantic view of the FIA legal system is almost eye-watering WB, but just because you "have already pointed it out",
doesn't necessarily make everything today's truth you know.

Nevertheless it is nice to enjoy things coming together along the lines you anticipated. Next time you make a big point like you did with USF1 I will be the first to congratulate.

[turbof1]

The sporting rules also are made for racing teams, not for an independent supplier. They are bound to the sporting code, but I think a breach even on that will go French court if they really wanted to punish Pirelli. Which makes much more sence then Tribunal: what punishment are they gonna give?

-Reprimand: they did, but that's nothing more then a public statement they acted faulty.
-Fine: possible
-Grid penalty? Every car on the grid 10 places back?
-Disqualifying? Every car on the grid gets the black flag?
-Point deduction? I do like a championship reset mid season!
-Race bans? No races at all will keep Pirelli more out of the news.
-Exclusion from the world championship? Let's all drive on stone wheels.

Point is: you cannot convict a supplier for infringements on a rulebook specifically made for the teams.

[WhiteBlue]

Point is: you cannot convict a supplier for infringements on a rulebook specifically made for the teams.

=D>
But you can deny him what he really wants, a contract for F1 supply unless he plays ball.

[strad]

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.

You can read this thread and doubt the validity of my statement?

[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.

You can read this thread and doubt the validity of my statement?

There is some fanboy waste in it, thats for sure. I wasn't sure you meant that.

For those interested in the finer points of the verdict I recommend: this legal analysis at pitpass