mercedes / pirelli tribunal thread

sunama said:
They had to come up with some reason.
They either say, "We didnt want other teams to find out that we were using the 2013 car, along with the 2013 drivers, to get additional testing miles on a car which shredded its tyres at an unprecedented rate."

OR they make up a story, and use "security" as the reason for using unmarked helmets.

;)

Merc knew exactly what they were doing and decided to go ahead with the test anyway - remember, this test was on the day after the Spanish GP - a GP where they qualified in pole and went backwards at an astonishing rate.

Take a look at this interview with Rosberg, after the race
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SM4201rpX8

He is completed perplexed on why the car is shredding the tyres. Hamilton had no idea either. Neither did the team.

Merc desperately needed additional test data. Any data would've helped them.

Brawn is a smart guy - more than you or I - and to suggest that he'd be foolish enough not to know the in-season testing rules with the current car, is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, I did already know all of that though :)

Ross knows he won't be around at Mercedes forever with all their personnel shuffling, probably doesn't care too much which way it goes for Mercedes in the long term because of this and probably thought it was worth taking the gamble with the test. He knew it wasn't declared legal by the relevant authorities and that it could end up like this, at the Tribunal.

He may have thought that the car is so **** anyway (in terms of deg) that it was a risk worth taking adopting the "do or die" mentality... I firmly believe that their tyre deg issues are mechanically induced and that they have gathered relevant data from the 1000km worth of testing in a desperate bid to rectify this. A tribunal was worth the risk, a flimsy note and a phone call from Charlie Whiting he felt was evidence enough, but perhaps it left something to be desired in terms of his risk assessment.

Brawn has even said today...

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.

Merc will most likely get a hefty fine, but they'll recover that money back by having an advantage over the other teams and finishing ahead in the WCC and WDC than they would have had they not took part in the test.
 
sunama said:
Can you give more information on this?
Are all races, available to watch, live on bbc website, from other countries?
Where are these races broadcast - online, TV?
More information please.
Click to expand...
SuperSport (SA) gets live feed & with commentary from the BBC team
 
Nismo said:
Really? :confused:
Click to expand...


Really ;)

sunama said:
Can you give more information on this?
Are all races, available to watch, live on bbc website, from other countries?
Where are these races broadcast - online, TV?
More information please.
Click to expand...


I was just browsing the net just before the start of Monaco and another race not on the BBC web site but another well know place
I cam across the sound of DC and yes it turned out to be the BBC LIVE at Monaco and at other races.

So the TAX payers are footing the bill then the BBC make cash(I hope) from broadcasting it live to other countries.
 
...using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year...
Click to expand...


How much exactly is substantially?

I'd bet that a 2011 car significantly complies with the 2012 regulations. We've had reasonably static regs for a while now.

Hell, HRT used the same chassis for pretty much 3 years, that's a pretty substantial bit of the car.

Caterham's tub this year is essentially the 2012 tub.

Just a thought...
 
smr said:
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..
Click to expand...

"it would not have been a competitive advantage because they did not know what tyres they were testing"

I'll finish the sentence off for you ;)

Also with the ruling of the French court "supplier/third party they cannot be subject to the regulations"

And as the test was held by pirelli the FIA rules don't count.If Merc did break the rule then Ferrari did to as Flibster said.
 
Flibster said:
How much exactly is substantially?

I'd bet that a 2011 car significantly complies with the 2012 regulations. We've had reasonably static regs for a while now.

Hell, HRT used the same chassis for pretty much 3 years, that's a pretty substantial bit of the car.

Caterham's tub this year is essentially the 2012 tub.

Just a thought...
Click to expand...

I agree in the most part - but wouldn't the nose height changes (which I think are part of the tub) would be different from 11 to 12 certainly?

(Im thinking that the tub is the most difficult part of the whole chassis to change in this regard)



In general - as Ive argued previously - Merc knew all along they were breaking the rules and had a perfect excuse that Pirelli were "hosting" the test.

1) Black Helmets
2) 2013 Car
3) Current Drivers

So its ended up as a spat between Pirelli and Merc each blaming the other party with FIA in the middle scratching their ***.

It would take a complete idiot not to realise just how much each driver as well as the team have benefitted from this, but the FIA cant admit to this without potential law-suits from all those teams that end up below Merc in the final standings. So its against the FIA's own interests to come to a truthful resolution (how "independent" the panel is - is a completely separate question)


deuse said:
"it would not have been a competitive advantage because they did not know what tyres they were testing"
.
Click to expand...

Only a lawyer wouldn't be able to see the gaping hole through the middle of that statement hahaha

• Regarding the use of its 2013 car, Mercedes argued that if this is considered a breach of the regulations, then so should Ferrari’s test with Pirelli earlier this year using a 2011 car, claiming that the changes between a 2011 car and a 2013 car are “miniscule” in terms of performance. Article 22.1 precludes the use of cars “which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year."
Click to expand...

Surely the logic in this goes against Merc as well.

If the above is correct - why even risk the possibility of anything (from Merc's point of view) of being considered wrong by using a '13 chassis instead of an '11 one in the first place....... unless they were hoping it would remain secret!!
 
Last edited:
So it's come out that Mercedes offered a 2011 car, Pirelli said it wouldn't be representative.

FIA vulture... sorry, lawyer said that the rules could be interpreted in the way and that result was given to Merc by the FIA representatives.

It was a Pirelli test, so the FIA rule on competitor testing doesn't apply, Pirelli aren't a competitor.

FIA stating different things from different areas... *no change there then. FIA protesting the FIA Stewards comes to mind*

It appears that Ferrari tested a 2011 car with Massa at the wheel for over the allowed 1000km, in a private test last year for Pirelli - Hmmm....

Can the FIA themselves be brought up on charges relating to Article 151c? ;) Or the lawyers who drew up the regulations in such a moronic way?

It's getting a bit late too for any other tyre manufacturers to come into the sport for 2014, and Pirelli haven't got a 2014 contract yet. Could be an interesting couple of days.
 
Last edited:
FrankJH said:
I agree in the most part - but wouldn't the nose height changes (which I think are part of the tub) would be different from 11 to 12 certainly?

(Im thinking that the tub is the most difficult part of the whole chassis to change in this regard)
Click to expand...

Most of the teams haven't changed the chassis height, it's the height of the nose that has changed.

I've seen several 2010 cars fitted with 2012 style noses for demo runs.
 
deuse said:
Really ;)




I was just browsing the net just before the start of Monaco and another race not on the BBC web site but another well know place
I cam across the sound of DC and yes it turned out to be the BBC LIVE at Monaco and at other races.

So the TAX payers are footing the bill then the BBC make cash(I hope) from broadcasting it live to other countries.
Click to expand...

Your lack of understanding of how this works is showing though, again.

The TV feed is not the BBC, its the FOM feed and is the same feed broadcast globally to whoever will pay for it.

The commentary feed is then added ontop by the local broadcaster. But a lot of countries that have the live FOM feed don't send people to the race, so they buy a commentary feed from another broadcaster, like the BBC. The UK comentary feed has been sold to other english speaking countries for years, even back when it was ITV doing it.

The BBC are not broadcasting the race live in other countries when not here, they are simply selling the live commentary, which they will create at every race anyway regardless of if its broadcast in the UK live, and selling it to other broadcasters who want it. There is no 'broadcasting' being done by the BBC at all. A lot of the BBC's products are sold to other countries through the BBC's commercial arm, this is nothing new.

But hey, feel free to email them crying about it.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
So the TAX payers are footing the bill then the BBC make cash(I hope) from broadcasting it live to other countries.
Click to expand...

The BBC aren't broadcasting it, they're merely providing the commentary feed (the same feed you get in highlights) for some extra income. It will have been part of the deal they originally signed with FOM and will have subsidised the original deal. The "taxpayer" (oh lord) would have been paying more for the same had the BBC not done this (arguably we're now paying the same for less as an F1 fan, but that's another different matter).

They've done it for years - BBC and ITV. Australia have on and off had the the BBC/ITV commentary feed for decades. The likes of Setanta Ireland do now.

In the case of Setanta, they only get the commentary, none of the pre-show or post-show and they have to license the F1 from FOM themselves, not just giving the BBC a fiver to slip it across to Ireland. It's money coming in for sod all extra work. It's a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
sunama said:
Brawn is a smart guy - more than you or I - and to suggest that he'd be foolish enough not to know the in-season testing rules with the current car, is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said, but this wouldn't just be Brawn - a test such as this is big enough to have to have been sanctioned by the top level Mercedes motorsport personnel. Brawn knew he would have been bending the rules (or perhaps outright breaking them. If you look at the 'bent' rules over the past 20 years, he's been involved in many, if not the majority) and as part of his role he must have reported to his superiors, even if only for permission to test.

The ironic thing is many are predicting that if Mercedes are found guilty in any way, then Brawn will be the scapegoat. Before the season had even started it seemed Brawn's position in the team was unlikely to make it beyond Melbourne, let alone Interlagos.


Flibster said:
How much exactly is substantially?

I'd bet that a 2011 car significantly complies with the 2012 regulations. We've had reasonably static regs for a while now.

Hell, HRT used the same chassis for pretty much 3 years, that's a pretty substantial bit of the car.

Caterham's tub this year is essentially the 2012 tub.
Click to expand...

The tub is sod all though. It's basically a safety cell which the important bits (performance wise) bolt on to.

As recent as a couple of years ago the Force India tub was even rumoured to still be the Jordan chassis which came through the Midland and Spyker days. Heavily modified I'm sure and obviously strengthened, but still.

That said, I think you've got the right mindset. Pirelli wanting to use a 2013 car because it's more representative is pretty much worthless in my opinion, purely down to the power unit replacing the current engine - nothing in the power delivery will be even remotely similar - even the semi-blown diffusers will be massively different, so I don't think there's much to be learned from using a 2013 car over a 2011 one. Presumably Pirelli see some reason, but I'm struggling to think what myself.
 
this_is_gav said:
The tub is sod all though. It's basically a safety cell which the important bits (performance wise) bolt on to.
Click to expand...

So what exactly constitutes a "2011" car? How would you stop a team turning up to a legal test in a "2011" car, but with a "new" front and rear wing, "new" engine cover etc? If they have never been on the 2013 car, surely they aren't part of the 2013 car, and thus don't break the rules of testing? They could just say they were parts never officially used in 2011. ;)

this_is_gav said:
Pirelli wanting to use a 2013 car because it's more representative is pretty much worthless in my opinion, purely down to the power unit replacing the current engine
Click to expand...

But most of the 2011 cars had full exhaust blown diffusers, which are now fairly restricted, and the EBD makes a big change on rear tire wear. Next year's semi-blown will be much closer to this year than to 2011.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom