Mercedes and Ferrari in 'secret' Pirelli tyre tests

[pirateplunder]

When reading comments/statements from other teams it seems to become a lot muddier - Ferrari for example add the word 'formally' to being asked to test a current car.

"That's why, even if they didn't formally ask us, we did not believe that it was possible to do it."

So if they didn't think it was possible, the idea must have come up?

Horner says

We never believed it complied with the regulations.....So any requests to test have always been, in the view of the majority of the teams in the paddock, outside of the regulations - so not possible.

which again suggests that some informal requests were made? I've read somewhere else that Redbul turned down a test opportunity because they believed they couldn't use the current car.

To me the issue is becoming more, did other teams turn down the offers to test (formal requests that we know went out last year and presumably Ferrari had one this year, as they tested with Pirelli and infomral requests following up those formal ones last year) because they assumed they couldn't use the 2013 car? But Mercedes decided that they could? Yet the FIA have clearly stated that subject to conditions, the 2013 car can be used.

What is the crux of the issue? That it was a 2013 car, that all teams weren't offered? It seems that using the 2013 car isn't necessarily a no-no. It appears that some level of offer has been made to other teams, but perhaps they assumed it wasn't possible with a 2013 car. Did all the other teams get offered the chance to test when Ferrari did? Did Pirelli suggest using the 2013 car then but Ferrari said no based on their interpretation of the rules?

if Merc are in trouble for other teams not being explicitly given the opportunity to test on these dates then did they and other teams get the same explicit opportunity in Bahrain? If not is that Ferrari's fault? If they are in trouble for using a 2013 car then why did the FIA say a 2013 car could be used. If they are in trouble for doing the test themselves, for not checking the FIA were fully aware etc then fair enough. But then we don't have all the facts about that yet. I still think when you break it down into the component issues its a lot less clear cut.

 

[Brogan]

Details on the tribunal process: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107743

 

[Fenderman]

Whilst pirateplunder was working on and posting I was working on this so apologies for duplication of thoughts!

Maybe I'm being a bit thick.

As regular Clip folk know, I've moaned about the tyres for one and a half seasons with my gripes reaching a crescendo because I believe that at best they skew the racing and at worst one of the constructions is potentially dangerous. I haven't been alone with many other people equally or more annoyed. It seemed to take an age before F1 insiders started piping up and it was interesting that suddenly Vettel and Horner became the bad boys for joining us moaners.

The fact is the tyres are crap. Pirelli designed them to be crap as instructed by the FIA. But at least one construction (the medium I think) is too crap and potentially dangerous with its delamination problem. So then we have a "mystery" tyre test and the usual drip feed of information about what went on mixed with highly dubious innuendo from those who delight in frothing up the mix.

Well, from where I sit it is a bit rich that Pirelli and Mercedes are being pilloried as guilty before trial for doing something that the FIA should have arranged. It should have been explored as an option as soon as safety became an obvious issue to anyone watching this season with their eyes open - notwithstanding the fact that they have been talking about changes to the tyres for weeks now. Indeed, holding the test at one of the same tracks as used in pre-season testing was a perfectly logical thing to do and it amazes me that the FIA did not instigate it.

As others have noted it is somewhat strange that no-one other than Merc' and Pirelli in F1 knew the test was happening. I think that's a crock of BS since F1's house has more leaks in it than a tin shack in a 1950's cowboy movie. Who is kidding who?

So what is it about the test that we should really be worried about?

1. Should we be concerned that it happened?
2. What tyres were tested and why?
3. Did Pirelli invite all of the teams in the spirit of their contract if not the wording?
4. Did Pirelli and Mercedes knowingly flout the rules or did they just bend them?
5. Was the test carried out by Pirelli in the spirit of the contract?
6. Did Mercedes extract useful telemetry that gives them an advantage?

Well I believe it should have happened regardless of the obvious cock up in communications, but I am concerned that the test having been initiated in such a cloudy way may not have been designed to deal with the current tyre concerns. So it would be very nice if we were told categorically what tyres were tested and why. From what I've read thus far there seems to have been an invitation prior to the season with teams invited to express an interest. I'm sure Pirelli will have kept the resulting shortlist so not inviting all of the teams directly prior to the test would not necessarily be unreasonable. In which case they may have flouted the wording but not the spirit of the regulations and their contract. So far Pirelli and Mercedes have been singing from the same song sheet that it was a Pirelli test. Nothing has come from what I would call a reliable source, in the context of this case, to contradict the idea that Pirelli ran the test using a team's car and drivers. Nowhere does it say that Pirelli need to run their own car and driver, and in fact they are expected to use a team's car and driver.

So what am I actually worried about? I am concerned about the possibility of returning to the dark days of F1 where a catalogue of small errors and a communication fiasco turns into a witch hunt to screw a team out of well earned points and contention for a championship. I said back in 2007 that supporting the FIA and Ferrari in their witch hunt of McLaren would come back to bite another team and this has the potential to be another example. Whipping up the flames is very easy but putting them out is much harder. This sort of crap should have been dealt with when Mosley went and the "independent" International Tribunal set up to replace The World Motor Sport Council. A cloud will be hanging over F1 for 40 days or so until the IT sits and I do hope that they are properly independent and do come to a sensible judgement. I further hope that if any penalisation goes on that it will not only be just but will also have the good of the sport, teams and fans at its heart.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Not sure if anyone saw this earlier - story from Adam Cooper regarding 'tyre swapping'.

http://adamcooperf1.com/2013/05/28/...eal-change-will-handicap-tyre-swapping-teams/

 

[cider_and_toast]

Just had a quick scan of the FIA's very own regs and found this little gem.

22.6 No track testing is permitted at sites which are not currently approved for use by Formula 1
cars. In order to ensure that venue licence conditions are respected at all times during track
testing, competitors are required to inform the FIA of their test schedule in order that an
observer may be appointed if deemed necessary.

So, Mercedes (and or Pirelli) were obligated to tell the FIA what there test schedule was going to be so that the FIA could then send an observer if they thought it was required. Surely in the case of an in season out of the ordinary test the FIA would have sent an observing delegate to ensure that the testing rules as stipulated in their agreement with Pirelli were being followed?

 

[sushifiesta]

This is the single strangest thing about this for me. If the FIA didn't know this test was going to take place then sod the tyre issue isn't this a massive breach of regulations on safety grounds?

I find it impossible to believe that the FIA didn't know this test was going to take place and as such they should have been there to check everything was being done in the right way. And why haven't we seen a single picture?!

I guess people have seen it but I've just noticed this article with comments from Ross Brawn and Toto Wolff: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107697 . To me Mercedes' side of the story is the one that makes the most sense.

 

[The Artist.....]

cider_and_toast

Add to that

22.7 During all Formula One track testing :
a) Red flag and chequered flag procedures must be respected.
b) No other type of vehicle is permitted on the track.
c) Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that the recommendations
concerning emergency services detailed in Article 16 of Appendix H to the Code are
followed.

- the key thing here being the emergency services - essentially, for it to be legal, there needed to be a full set of marshalls and medical staff available.... It's still barely credible that this could be a "secret" test...

 

[cider_and_toast]

Toto Wolff makes a very good point in the article. It's a bit hard to hide what you're doing when the entire team doesn't leave the circuit at the end of the GP. You always see the pictures of Eddie nearly getting flattened by a passing fork lift truck at the end of the race, such is the speed with which the mechanics strip the whole thing down ready to be packed up and shipped out. Obviously, no one wondered why Mercedes were leaving every thing where it was.

Strange days indeed.

 

[snowy]

 

[The Pits]

There is a big difference between doing something, and waiting to be asked what you are up to, and telling everyone what you are doing.

Being cynical, one may suggest that other teams knew, or assumed what was going on, and said nothing at the time, knowing that there was something in the back pocket to bring up later when they run out of ammunition.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I reckon the devils in the detail here. I think everyone knew what the Bobby Moore was, (Merc, the FIA, the teams etc) I think the real issue was that Mercedes weren't supposed to use either Nico or Lewis. That's maybe where the problem has come from. I don't think any team who had heard of this in advance would not have protested it there and then if it wasn't above board. Why let another team have a free 1000km of testing and then protest? What if it turned out to be all above board?

From the sounds of it, I'm getting the impression that most teams were asked in some sort of "what if...." round about way and turned it down but Merc jumped at the chance given their recent tyre woes and used the opportunity. There seem to be some i dotting and t crossing issues that have caused most of the issues here.

That's the way the wind seems to be blowing to me.

 

[Fenderman]

I must have missed something. Can someone tell me where to look for anything that says who the driver should or should not be?

 

[Brogan]

It's in the FIA directive sent to all the teams.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107708

 

[The Artist.....]

Brogan

I think that phrase is up for interpretation. My interpretation is that it is the car and driver that is provided by the team, but the test is run by Pirelli...

possible if carried out by Pirelli, as opposed to the team that would provide the car and driver,

The lack of comma between team and that suggests that it is the team which provides the car AND driver....

 

[Fenderman]

If you mean this bit:

"Pirelli and Mercedes-AMG were advised by the FIA that such a development test could be possible if carried out by Pirelli, as opposed to the team that would provide the car and driver, and that such tests would be conditional upon every team being given the same opportunity to test in order to ensure full sporting equity."

I've seen that already and it implies the FIA expects a team to provide "the car and driver". It does not exclude a race driver. I don't subscribe to Autosport so if it's buried in their sub's only bit I don't have access.

 

[Brogan]

I agree.
It can be interpreted several ways.

 

[snowy]

The FIA seem intent on deliberately making all their regulations ambiguous. As with the double-deck diffuser and flexible front wing when it is pointed out that there is a massive hole in the regulation they simply shrug their shoulders. Keeping the teams at each others throats and in litigation is part of their Divide and Rule Strategy... DRS.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I may have muffed up here, I'm sure I read somewhere in black and white that they couldn't use a current driver. I don't remember it being as ambiguous as that statement above. Maybe I was reading someones interpretation of it. Hmmmm. Confused.

 

[Brogan]

I have already posted it but here it is again, the official FIA letter (to the media).

Monaco, May 26th

At the beginning of May, the FIA was asked by Pirelli if it was possible for it to carry out some
tyre development testing with a team, using a current car. Within the contract Pirelli has with the
FIA as single supplier, there is provision for them to carry out up to 1000km of testing with any
team – provided every team is offered the opportunity to do so.

Pirelli and Mercedes-AMG were advised by the FIA that such a development test could be
possible if carried out by Pirelli, as opposed to the team that would provide the car and driver,
and that such tests would be conditional upon every team being given the same opportunity to
test in order to ensure full sporting equity.

Following this communication, the FIA received no further information about a possible test from
Pirelli or from Mercedes-AMG. Furthermore, the FIA received no confirmation that all teams had
been given an opportunity to take part in this test.

In addition, with regard to the application of the sport’s rules, including principles of sporting
equity, it should be remembered that the International Sporting Code provides that on the basis
of a report of the stewards of the meeting, or on its own initiative, the prosecuting body of the
FIA may bring a matter before the International Tribunal.

The Tribunal may decide to inflict penalties that would supercede any penalty the stewards of
the meeting may have issued. Such procedure would be followed in pursuance of the FIA
Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.

Matteo Bonciani
F1 Head of Communications & Media Delegate

http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f1-2013/f1-2013-06/2013 Monaco GP - SUPER DEF NOTE to the media.pdf

I'll see if I can find the letter sent to the teams April 2012.

Edit: The letter text isn't available, just an article on it: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107726

"Within our agreement with the FIA there is a provision to invite all teams to perform 1000km of tyre testing," wrote Pirelli motorsport chief Paul Hembery.

"If this is something your team would be interested in pursuing, please advise your interest so an eventual test date could be set. We would provide the track and service support."

Mercedes is adamant that it had more recent authority from the FIA to run its 2013 car at the Barcelona test, which took place in the week after the Spanish Grand Prix.

 

[Quintessentially]

Good job Max whiplash ain't about eh