Eddie Jordan mentioned that apparently the drivers used plain helmets.
I'm only going to re-state everything I just did, and if you want sources to back it up, then you'll have to find the introduction BBC coverage to the Canadian GP qualifying as that is where this very topic was discussed in some detail by Eddie Jordan, David Coulthard and Gary Anderson. All of whom were saying what I just said.
Maybe Merc hadn't tried the rear tyre swaps until Pirelli tried doing it in the test, I don't know. That was only an example of what can be done in a 1-to-1 test where you can try things.
Sure you can try things in a practice session. But a practice session is no where near 1000km and involves 10 other teams on track. And it doesn't include special 1-to-1 communication with a tyre manufacturer.
That's a hypothetical with the rear tire swapping, and it is much more safer to believe or inclined that they would try the swapping method early on due to the fact they had issue from the first round to now. Also who cares how many are on the track. The results that they get from being in a race simulation that practice provides is much more realistic than a open track with just a single car.
Also yet again they are not current tires so whatever 1-on-1 they got isn't going to help their current form, and it was obvious at Canada. It will probably become even more apparent when Silverstone hits.
I don't see any inconsistency in my saying "big or small" - it's a fact. You go testing and you might not find anything out. You might find a huge revelation or you might only find a few small tweaks.
Let me explain again then, the issue is you seem to think or feel that Merc GP have gained a big advantage through you writing. Yet later on you seem to step back from it by saying that you don't quite know which it is but an advantage either way is wrong. The latter I can agree with an advantage is an advantage, however I follow the line for the most part of if you don't have proof that says otherwise, then why state it with an implied feeling.
The point is the potential is there to find bigger and more effective fixes to your problems when you have extra testing and even more so when you have a track to yourself and a tyre manufacturer on hand who is getting directly involved in the testing.
If it is proven that more than future spec tires were tested, such as upgrades...which you still have yet to explain or hypothesis how they got them past the FIA, then I will agree with you. However, it hasn't and at this juncture for what has been said and come to light, I still only see fault in Pirelli more so than anything else. Also the point still stands what help could they gain from non-2013 spec tires, to current 2013 problems? The functionality is different, thus the problem fix is different if this was a test of current spec tires, I'd be on board with you. However, it still isn't and you've done nothing to show how an improvement can be gained from a situation that doesn't address the problem -2013 tires.
Anyway, whether Mercedes get penalised or not, its really about Pirelli. Pirelli have no contract for next year and pulling a stunt like this may well jeopardise that. Perhaps they can argue that they had to, in order to design better tyres but it puts a few people in a difficult position. Certainly the other 10 teams don't sound impressed. The problem is, is there any other tyre supplier willing to jump in? And if so, are they really going to get enough time?
Which I've already said, and it seems that other tire providers have been shut down. Hankook just rejected and unless Bridgestone feel they are getting the right price to come back I don't know who else will. Mich is doing big things in WEC, Goodyear has plenty of suppliers via all of Nascar and feeders. Who knows, but just like this we'll have to wait and see. We knew Bridgestone would be leaving June 2010 thus meaning deals and contracts were finalized and Pirelli were probably working on it early 2010. I agree with you that it would seem whoever comes after, wont have that same cushion.
