Mercedes and Ferrari in 'secret' Pirelli tyre tests

[jez101]

For me, the story goes a bit like this.

1. Pirelli, facing criticism for the delaminations in Bahrain, stated publicly that part of their problem was the lack of a current car to test with. At this time, they were still trying to "work with" everyone to get the tyres "right" for this year after a bit of a shaky start in the first 4 races.

2. Mercedes say, "you can borrow our car". They chat and agree to ask Charlie if they can do this. It is inconceivable that they did not ask Whiting if they could go ahead. What is less clear is exactly what they asked to do and how specific they were about whose personnel would run the car during the test.

3. Charlie says yes.

4. They do the test.

5. During a driver's briefing they were probably discussing tyres and Nico might have said something like, "oh, we tried the new tyres, they are much better".

6. All hell breaks loose.

7. Everyone blames Pirelli, but the piranha club have realised that they can leverage this to get the testing they want next year.

My guess is that the reason the FIA have gone to an independent tribunal rather than dealing with it themselves is because their (Charlie's) actions are part of the defence. You can't have the judge acting as the defence's alibi.

I doubt that the tribunal will be able to find any guilt anywhere if Charlie did give the test his approval.

 

[Brogan]

Charlie's approval does not supersede the regulations.

No-one's approval does.

 

[KekeTheKing]

5. During a driver's briefing they were probably discussing tyres and Nico might have said something like, "oh, we tried the new tyres, they are much better".

I think it's highly unlikely that any scenario played out like this.

If, by some unbeknownst reason, a Merc driver was indeed the "leak", that would clearly imply they felt their actions were fully above board and beyond repute.

 

[jez101]

Charlie's approval does not supersede the regulations.

Maybe in theory, but there are plenty of grey areas in practice where Charlie's approval is the regulations.

[they] felt their actions were fully above board and beyond repute.

I certainly believe that they thought that there was nothing wrong with the test, given Charlie's approval.

 

[Brogan]

The only time Charlie's approval is valid is when it complies with the regulations.

 

[Josh]

sushifiesta

There's also Lotus, which most people seem to forget (funny that).

Hard to say, as the situations are completely incongruous. One team has dominated the sport for longer than the other one has even been a Constructor. Like it or not, this is a pertinent aspect of the story.

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but are you saying it would be worse if a team which has dominated the sport (in this case Red Bull) had a "secret" tyre test?

 

[jez101]

Which is basically where I think the tribunal has to go.

Was Charlie correct in his approval of the test? Was he deceived in any way about the nature or content of the test? Was anyone economical with the truth asking him for the test? The answer might be no to all three questions and you then get into the problem of trying to pin guilt on anyone at all. Even Charlie, who was acting in good faith.

The regulations would be a farce without Whiting as a sounding board for what would and what wouldn't be allowed. There would be protests at the first race every year as teams turn up with no idea how what is written will be interpreted.

I think Charlie just made a mistake on this one. After all he has done for F1 over the years, I'd be inclined to forgive him too.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

The only time Charlie's approval is valid is when it complies with the regulations.

And even then sometimes it's not, when they change the regulations retrospectively to make sure.

 

[Wombcat]

Canis said they wouldn't be found guilty in a court of law. That they've done nothing wrong.

But I agree with you, on an excellent analysis by Canis!

I misread that. And reading it correctly I disagree with him on that aspect. Usually if there's something in an agreement it's nullified. Which means that if testing is illegal, that paragraph is nullified and testing is still illegal. Imo if the signing party conducts a test, it's still illegal, and hence they would be found guilty. But the FIA majorly screwed up.

The reason I think that it's still illegal is that when the dutch government would sign a contract with, let's say, UPS in which they demand very strict delivery times and in which is said they can drive with 150 km/h. When they UPS gets a speeding ticket, I'm pretty sure that still the law would be applied to them and in court the ticket would still stand. It's their own responsibility to know the law. But also the minister responsible for the agreement would have to do a lot of explaining in parliament.

 

[Mephistopheles]

At least Kwik-Fit would supply tyres that last more than 30 miles .

That maybe true but in my experience the front wheels will fall off in less than ten miles and not even joking it happened after I had them fit a new set of alloys and they used the old steel studs instead of the ones specific to the new wheels, and I was on the M1 when it happened...

 

[teabagyokel]

Why did Mercedes ask the Race Director about testing? That's got to be well outside his remit...

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Charlie seems to be the 'go to' guy in these cases. McLaren have been hoisted by the Charlie petard several times in the past too I seem to recall.

 

[FB]

Never forget who Charlie used to work for.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I thought Charlies job was to oversee the races end of, I had know idea he could make decisions on behalf of the FIA..

 

[Brogan]

He can't.

But irrespective of that, even if he was the head of the FIA, he still can't override the sporting regulations.

Even if Jean Todt had told Mercedes it was OK, it still wouldn't have been legal.

 

[Mephistopheles]

So in other words that type of decision is above any single persons pay grade and Merc should have known this...?

 

[Dario Resta]

The only time Charlie's approval is valid is when it complies with the regulations.

Which makes his approval pointless. This again begs the question, why do teams ask him? Maybe he should be asked to stick to starting races and making SC calls. If they want him to earn his salary, maybe he could replace stubbly man who hands out the watches, water and caps in a nice suit? That has to be THE best job in F1.

 

[Brogan]

Which makes his approval pointless.

Which is exactly what I've been saying for a long time.

 

[Dario Resta]

Which is exactly what I've been saying for a long time.

So why do teams ask him? Do they not understand the rules? Do they think he knows more than they do? It's been proven in the past that he appears to be as in the dark about his employer's regs as anyone else, so why chance it?

 

[Brogan]

During a race he is the logical person, being the race director.
Despite the fact that the stewards ultimately make the decisions.

At any other time though, I can't imagine why he would be consulted, especially by someone like Ross Brawn who has been around for a long time and knows the rules and regulations.