F1technical.net

Cocles wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108155

Score one for Harris. Article 22 states, "any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship." The event was not undertaken by a competitor; it was undertaken by Pirelli. Therefore Mercedes in not in breach.

Fine loophole that Sad if the FIA didnt realize that...

skoop wrote:this can get pretty messy.
if the teams are allowed to test wehen pirelli asks them to, everyone wants to get asked.

Yeah ofc, Pirelli asked last year aswell and then everyone said no so

becouse everyone thought it was illegal with an '13 car and becouse of that pointless. but if it's legal now i can see teams crying for pirelli tests. this could put pirelli in some king makers position "merc helped us once so we'll ask them again to test for us. but red bull? they coused some serious bad press for us so no testing for red bull"
i'm not saying that this is how it will get, i'm just typing my thoughts

The FIA will close this loophole up pretty quickly due to embarrassment

Funny that this loophole has been discussed in this topic before
If this nails the case for Mercedes then damn, the FIA is gonna be really embarrassed

i love this. I can see why the FIA wanted to make a deal with Merc before this started

spadeflush wrote:If this nails the case for Mercedes then damn, the FIA is gonna be really embarrassed

how can it not? the FIA have no argument. Its there own rules.

We cannot know if the point will stand. It all depends on how the test was set up. If Merc had their race engineers on site and they had some input to the testing they are truly guilty IMO. But if they fire walled Merc completely from involvement except for the drivers they could win the argument. So it all depends.

a very interesting turn. i thought they were screwed, but now it kinde looks like they could get away with that.
of course it sounds like that becouse harris interprets the rules his way and it's his job to make us say "uh, that sounds logical and i can't see why anything is wrong"
what the judges think of this is yet to be seen.

harris now brings up safety issues and shows an e-mail from FIA asking pirelli if the tires were safe for the canadian gp. hes building up the argument that not only merc was worried about safety, but also the FIA.

astracrazy wrote:The FIA will close this loophole up pretty quickly due to embarrassment

Or say it never existed:
"Whiting was asked a general and non-specific question - the general question on the permissibility of using a 2013 car.

"His preliminary response was that such a test would comply with Article 22 providing purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyre and he would check.

"This communication was not an agreement by the FIA - it was nothing more than Whiting and Bernard's interpretation of [article] 22."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/878 ... ermission-

I doesn't look like a solid loophole anyway, more like a lawyer's talk. Involvement of F1 team, car and drivers makes it it this team's test as well.

iotar__ wrote:

astracrazy wrote:The FIA will close this loophole up pretty quickly due to embarrassment

Or say it never existed:
"Whiting was asked a general and non-specific question - the general question on the permissibility of using a 2013 car.

"His preliminary response was that such a test would comply with Article 22 providing purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyre and he would check.

"This communication was not an agreement by the FIA - it was nothing more than Whiting and Bernard's interpretation of [article] 22."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/878 ... ermission-

I doesn't look like a solid loophole anyway, more like a lawyer's talk. Involvement of F1 team, car and drivers makes it it this team's test as well.

I dont think it makes a Merc test, since Pirelli asked them, asked them for a relevant car, and asked them for drivers, nothing about the test was on Mercs own behalf and they didnt take any desicions regarding the test, more then saying yes or no to it.

FIA Tribunal: Mercedes challenges Ferrari's tyre test with 2011 car

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... um=twitter

Harris said: "Our position is if we are wrong on interpretation of what [article] 22 means and there was track running by us, such as we are in breach, it follows that Ferrari were also in breach.

"They ran their car on track and we argue their car followed substantially with the regulations... I put the marker down.

"It does not follow that if Ferrari runs on track a 2011 car, that that 2011 car does not confirm substantially to either the 2012 or 2013 regulations.

"There was only half [a second] difference between the 2011 cars and 2013 cars, showing the changes between 2011 and 2013 are minuscule in terms of performance."

I gotta say Merc has a good lawyer

Huntresa wrote:I gotta say Merc has a good lawyer

He's pulling off the chewbacca defence

More from the above article

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.

The respective speed of the car's should not even come in to it.. If the regs say 2013 are not allowed then thats it

Case looks a little less bleak. Still, this is an all or nothing attempt: if mercedes fails to convince the tribunal that it was a Pirelli test, then they have absolutely nothing. High risk in there, and it isn't very solid. The argument could go either way. Though the FIA very obviously did not prepare for that. And the talk about an unfair advantage is rubbish. It does not break a rule, except in the very far fetched case of article 151C, to have an advantage. Ferrari would btw be in the same boat then. That they were allowed to do so without complaint must act as precedence on that front. The FIA cannot hold on to that point.

Also note that article 151C holds the brunt of the biggest punishments. The punishment will be much lower, probably a fine, if mercedes gets convicted, but not on grounds of breaching that rule.