Mercedes and Ferrari in 'secret' Pirelli tyre tests

[Chad Stewarthill]

But the above you have stated, is a lot less worse than getting 1000km testing with the current car, with current and next years tyres, as those are loopholes rather than anything else.

Is that not yet more supposition? Brawn has claimed that the test was carried out by Pirelli for Pirelli, using the Mercedes cars and drivers (because Pirelli don't have any representative ones of their own) on tyres that are for next year not this year. The inference from that is that Mercedes took no data for themselves and therefore gained no advantage from the tests.

There are plenty of armchair experts about, saying things like, 'There's no way Mercedes can have done 1000km of testing and not gained anything from it' but can we be absolutely categorical about that and therefore brand them as guilty? To my mind, it is at least possible that they operated blind, as Brawn says, and did not gain any significant knowledge that would help their own performance (however unlikely that might seem).

The 'evidence' which seems superficially overwhelming, doesn't necessarily always turn out to be so. 'Twelve Angry Men' springs to mind.

 

[The Pits]

There are a lot of real experts saying that they would have got a lot from the tests too. That there were no observers there, and no one can corroborate what is being stated regarding what data was taken and by whom, that kind of highlights the problem, no?

 

[Bill Boddy]

Learning may not be unlearnt, but that application of it can be.

All the teams must use some method of version control, from this information can be extracted showing exactly when new work or work on an existing programme took place. If development involving the tyres suddenly took a new direction the day after the tests completed then questions could be asked. Similarly if there were no change of direction were made it would probably show that the testing did not affect the development of the car.

Beware computers, they are neither your friend nor your foe and are very good at telling what you have been doing.

 

[Slyboogy]

Pirelli have said they did test this years tyres, 90% of the tyres where for next years and 10% were for this years.

Mercedes may not have learned anything, but their drivers on the other hand definitely learned and got much more time & experience in the car even if they didn't know what compounds they were running, they still got valuable time in the car.

1000km equates to more than 3 Grand Prixs worth race distance at the Catalunya circuit.

Add to that, both Mercedes and Pirelli keep changing their stories from what I've read and heard, they went to Charlie Whiting, that doesn't make anything solid from the FIA, as we have seen many times in the past, that he's got things wrong.

Also, not all the teams have been approached.

Obviously they are innocent until they are proven guilty.

 

[The Pits]

How many times have we heard that teams run things past Charlie Whiting, that turns out later to be illegal/incorrect etc. Surely the teams have learnt by now that the input of Charlie Whiting is almost completely irrelevant?

They may as well get advice from Charlie Whiting on Twitter, at least they may get an amusing answer. It would certainly be no less binding.

 

[sushifiesta]

Mercedes gaining something from it doesn't necessarily make the test illegal, though.

 

[The Pits]

No, but using the argument that they did not learn anything does not make the test legal.

 

[F1ang-o]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22894591
Situation explained by BBC Andrew Benson

 

[Galahad]

The regulation is clear and Mercedes have admitted that they breached it, so on the face of it I consider their position to be weak.

But until all the evidence has been gathered and considered I can't call the verdict with any certainty.

Hopefully the evidence will be shared publicly following the tribunal, then we can decide for ourselves whether the ruling was right or wrong, and whether any external consideration (i.e. the need to keep Mercedes and Pirelli in F1) influenced the decision(s) made.

 

[Brogan]

The regulation is clear and Mercedes have admitted that they breached it, so on the face of it I consider their position to be weak.

The same view I have held since the story broke and the details were made public

 

[sushifiesta]

Which regulation have they breached and what have they said to admit it?

 

[Brogan]

In season testing using a current car is prohibited.

Mercedes have admitted they carried out in season testing using a current car.

 

[Galahad]

They're in breach of 22.4: No track testing may take place during the season with the exception of the official young driver test, straight-line or constant-radius aero testing, or in the case of a substitute driver needing to be used.

22.1 confirms that "testing" is defined as track running of a car that has been designed to comply substantially with the current year's rules, those of the previous year or any future year.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/2013-F1-SPORTING-REGULATIONS-111212.pdf

 

[F1ang-o]

'Pirelli had been concerned by a series of delaminations in early races including one that broke the rear suspension of Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes in practice at Bahrain.
Pirelli said there was no safety issue,but admitted that it wanted to change the tyres because the failures looked bad from a public relations point of view.'....
Text taken from above link written by Andrew Benson.

IMo....I expect the broken suspension from the suspect tyres....looked bad to LH...especially when he was having brake problems too.

 

[sushifiesta]

There's ambiguity when it comes to tyre testing though, that's the issue. Pirelli have some agreement that doesn't really appear in the sporting regulations to my knowledge.

 

[Galahad]

As I say, I don't know how it will go. If past experience is any guide, there will be lots more revelations to come, probably those will decide it.

But Pirelli's agreement with whomever doesn't absolve Mercedes of their responsibility to abide by the Sporting Regulations.

 

[sushifiesta]

Even if the agreement explicitly says that the tests can be done with current cars, which may or may not be the case?

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well said Soumya Banerjee at last someone who talks sense, you are correct this issue has turned into blame the accuser and not the wrongdoer and you are also correct about the demographic touting it.

 

[The Pits]

The Pirelli contract with the FIA is one thing, the Mercedes obligation to stick to the rules is another.

My understanding is that it is the latter point which is at issue in the instance.

 

[Blog Zbod]

Sport Bild online has an article claiming their print issue contains a copy of the 2013 testing agreement which bears the signature of Ross Braun, stating that teams may not engage in testing of any new tires without the unanimous consent from the teams and the FIA.