Pirelli Tire Testing Controversy (Split from 2013 Monaco Thread)

[Pezzarinho17]

Also, Autosport have made a full article from the fact that Horner is to himself represent Red Bull. That at least confirms this being out of the ordinary...

 

[Samus]

Is every F1 thread on here going to be ruined by Red Bull conspiracy nonsense? Because it's getting rather tiresome.

 

[Hun200kmh]

^^^^ this. A few years back it was annoying that every thread got Ferrari hate and FIA jokes, now it's Red Bull. I get it, we all get it, you (JGreens) don't like Red Bull. You are entitled to such a dislike and to express it, but (I think, I'm no mod) you are not entitled to ruin every thread with it.

Now, do you mind if we go back to a normal discussion where facts are discussed and opinions worthy of neuronal activity are presented?

 

[Samus]

Indeed. So, what I posted above:

FIA counsel Mark Howard says that although race director Charlie Whiting indicated to Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn that testing a 2013 car would be permissible, Whiting took advice from the FIA legal department, which said that it would only be allowed if all other teams were copied in on correspondence so they could indicate their agreement and had an equal opportunity to test.

'No attempt was made by Mercedes to involve the other teams in order to ensure that no perception of an advantage was obtained,' Howard says."

It seems the issue for the FIA is still that they used a 2013 car but that they could have only done that with the teams permission which they didn't get. I don't have the rulebook handy but I believe it says testing must be done with a two year old or greater car, hence why Ferrari were ok.

 

[JGreens]

Let's stick to the facts then.

Ross is claiming Ferrari have done in-season tests both in '11 & '12 (What good it did them - fecking up Nando's rightful title) would you care to reply Domenicali? Oh, wait, you're not there...

 

[R5]

Let's stick to the facts then.

Ross is claiming Ferrari have done in-season tests both in '11 & '12 (What good it did them - fecking up Nando's rightful title) would you care to reply Domenicali? Oh, wait, you're not there...

Ok. I'm slightly confused by this. Is it just me, or does intake no sense?

 

[JGreens]

Ok. I'm slightly confused by this. Is it just me, or does intake no sense?

"Mercedes also revealed that Ferrari had another testing opportunity in 2012 with Pirelli, when Felipe Massa was used in its pre-Spanish Grand Prix test and that the team conducted more than 1000 kilometres."

Domenicali isn't there to reply...
...but one team principal is there, to cause as much damage and penalties as he can get away with.

 

[Samus]

1. Ferrari are not on the tribunal so they don't have to answer anything.
2. Ferrari have a legal representative there and Stefano could have been there if he wanted.

 

[JGreens]

1. Ferrari are not on the tribunal so they don't have to answer anything.

What, other than potentially committing the same "crime" that Mercedes are accused of? If they can waste money on this charade, they can afford one for that accusation...

have said it time and time again, this is a by-the-book-definition of bringing the sport into disrepute. Action should be taken against those who are maliciously lying about rival competitors.

2. Ferrari have a legal representative there and Stefano could have been there if he wanted.

But a lawyer and a team principal are two very different people. Which then prompts the question, Horner has attended as a representive - what is he trying to hide/defend against?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Mercedes are making use of the Ferrari thing like I mentioned earlier. Makes FIA look like they are making arbitrary rules up due to car being 2013 one.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

There is a very big difference in testing a 2011 car and a 2013 car (within the 2013 season). Regardless of who conducts the test, it is more miles added to a car with limited mileage against adding miles to a car that could be run constantly if necessary. The laptimes may not be very different, but I would say that is somewhat irrelevant anyway. the gap is smaller than the distance to Marussia and caterham. Should they be testing based on not being at the current pole time pace?

 

[R5]

Horner will not speak. This has been made clear to you. I imagine he will just sit and hear what they have to say at AMG, as what RBR-R has to say is already known and has been taken as evidence. RBR-R will not be able to increase the damage. This is the FIAs choice, not RBR-Rs, and they will look at evidence from all parties. It would be the same with any other team; including Red Bull Racing.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ok, so Mercedes' defense consists of:

a) pointing their finger at Ferrari's test;

b) saying the FIA (Charlie and a lawyer he contacted) told them it was "ok" to use the current 2013 car.

Both lines of defense are very weak. Nobody but themselves seem to think Ferrari should be punished, because they used a 2 year old car, they used PdlR, and the team that conducted the test was not the F1 team. There's no comparison to the use of the current car, race drivers and race team.

About the FIA granting permission, I think it's a lawyer's joke, no more.

 

[R5]

So two people said the test could go ahead…?


Surely they would need a whole body of people, as is the way with F1 nowadays…

 

[JGreens]

because they used a 2 year old car, they used PdlR, and the team that conducted the test was not the F1 team.

No, this is about an 2012 test, not the one with PdlR. No new information about that test (Car, Tyres, etc...) has been revealed, only the existence of it by Ross.

Totally separate but equally damning to the FIA - who either must of known and kept quiet, or doesn't and now should pay for another charade of an inquest.

As for Whiting, it appears he gave the green light after speaking with the FIA legal team

 

[R5]

No info, just Braun's word?

Conclusive enough then! *sarcasm*

 

[JGreens]

No info, just Braun's word?

Conclusive enough then! *sarcasm*

Well I can't find any other evidence, which means Domenicali needs to clarify or we'll have another wasteful inquest into it.

 

[Samus]

Mercedes are making use of the Ferrari thing like I mentioned earlier. Makes FIA look like they are making arbitrary rules up due to car being 2013 one.

Like I said earlier I don't have the rulebook to hand but Ferrari were pretty clear in saying using a two year old car was within the rules but testing a current season car is not. I'm sure someone can pull up the actual rule..

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Like I said earlier I don't have the rulebook to hand but Ferrari were pretty clear in saying using a two year old car was within the rules but testing a current season car is not. I'm sure someone can pull up the actual rule..

That is correct, you are prohibited from testing the current season's car, a car entered into the previous season or to be used the next season. 2 years falls outside of this.

Rule 22.1: Track testing shall be considered any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year. The only exception is that each competitor is permitted up to eight promotional events, carried out using tyres provided specifically for this purpose by the appointed supplier, to a maximum distance of 100kms per event.

I also believe it was clarified by Mercedes that Pirelli were running the test, trying to avoid this ruling which clearly states it only applied when undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship.

 

[Samus]

So there you go then, they don't compare to the Ferrari tests, assuming the 2012 test they're talking about was also with a 2+ year old car.

That is the whole debate here clearly, whether Mercedes were ok to test in a 2013 car.

 

[daan]

Let's stick to the facts then.

Ross is claiming Ferrari have done in-season tests both in '11 & '12 (What good it did them - fecking up Nando's rightful title) would you care to reply Domenicali? Oh, wait, you're not there...

You have an odd definition of the word "fact."

The word in bold means this isn't fact. It's also off-topic.

 

[Samus]

I also believe it was clarified by Mercedes that Pirelli were running the test, trying to avoid this ruling which clearly states it only applied when undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship.

Ahh but then that is where it's the classic F1 rule open to interpretation. You could either interpret that as who is overseeing the test or you could see the fact it was the Mercedes team drivers and that means it was "undertaken by a competitor".

Like I say, classic F1 rule open to interpretation and probably one key part of where this whole thing is hinging on.

 

[JGreens]

You have an odd definition of the word "fact."

The word in bold means this isn't fact. It's also off-topic.

How is spoken word by the team principal in the tribunal off topic ?
Also, how is that dialogue that has been reported and documented in the tribunal 'opinion' ?

And now, funnily enough, we're not getting a verdict today?!
If I were Merc, I'd be tracking Horner all evening, just in case he 'accidentally' has five minutes with any of the judges in private...
...Mercedes are strung up ever so conveniently

 

[Samus]

"The Mercedes' defence contained some key points. As far as they are concerned, they asked Charlie Whiting who then checked with the FIA legal department and who then came back to Mercedes to say that 'as long as this is run under the guise of a Pirelli test then we don't have a problem with that'.

"But we had this point addressed by the FIA earlier in the day when they said that the only people who can give an exemption to the rules are the FIA World Council or the Tribunal themselves.

"So have you those two points going up against each other.

"And then we have the point made by Mercedes that they didn't learn anything from the test. As a rebuttal to that, the FIA's lawyer asked whether they gained 'knowledge' from that. Ross Brawn didn't want to answer that but was pressed on the point and did have to concede they did gain 'knowledge' from the test. So, again, we had a stand-off on that point"

Update from Craig Slater: 'The FIA have responded to Pirelli's testimony by saying they are confused and have missed the point. They say that Pirelli's contract is subject to the Sporting Regulations and they can't be ignored, especially if they are involved with a current team. [According to the FIA], it is one thing for Pirelli to test tyres, but quite another to involve an entrant - and if they do that, it is effectively an in-season test, which is banned.'

The FIA have also responded to Ross Brawn's testimony by thanking Brawn for being "frank and truthful" but claimed that what he said had "given the game away".

....

 

[Pezzarinho17]

The counter argument by Pirelli is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the FIA due to being a third party / supplier.

 

[Samus]

The second quote above is the FIA adressing that claim.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

I posted it before seeing your post, however I would agree completely. They can't claim they fall outside the FIA's jurisdiction when they have affected a team that is within it.

 

[Samus]

Indeed. I still think no matter what the outcome is for Pirelli they won't be in the sport next year.

As for Mercedes well from what we've heard they don't seem to have much left to stand on. Charlie was not authorised to give them the clearance to do the test and Ross has admitted they gained 'knowledge' from the test.

I still don't see the punishment being that harsh, it doesn't seem in the best interests of the FIA to ban them in any way.

International Tribunal ends. Decision tomorrow, announces chairman Edwin Glasgow QC

No real surprise, they need time to analyse all of the evidence and reach a decision.

 

[niky]

No, this is about an 2012 test, not the one with PdlR. No new information about that test (Car, Tyres, etc...) has been revealed, only the existence of it by Ross.

2012 is not the subject of the tribunal. If Brawn has information of something underhanded, he should complain and bring it up.

As for Whiting, it appears he gave the green light after speaking with the FIA legal team

And it has already been explained that he asked Mercedes to get the go-ahead from the other teams.

-----

The evidence is pretty damning. Brawn didn't ask for the permissions he needed because he knew he wouldn't get them. They used their current cars in the tests. They used their current championship drivers in the test. They learned stuff from the tests.

I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, on the thought that if the testing was carried out completely by Pirelli, but seeing as MGP's involvement was deeper than previously admitted, it seems the only question now is what the punishment will be.

-

Constructor's points, please. Not driver's.





The "-gate" meme follows Hamilton around like a broken record. Must be sick of the controversy, by now.

 

[Samus]

I certainly don't see them getting any ban, especially not with the British and German GPs up next. Well, perhaps a suspended ban.