FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[LRW]

On the Sky F1 show this evening, the FiA issued a statement saying they are now also calling FERRARI to the disciplinary enquiry......

Dun dun dun....!!!

[andrew]

Perhaps the FiA should call themselves?

[LRW]

Perhaps the FiA should call themselves?

Ive got to be honest, it is starting to sound like a typical FiA event.

[What's Burning?]

The FIA has asked Team Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 and Scuderia Ferrari Team which have taken part in tyre tests in the 2013 season to reply to a disciplinary inquiry in pursuance of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.

This follows the Stewards' Report from the Monaco Grand Prix and represents supplementary information required by the FIA in the light of the replies received from Pirelli, who were asked for clarifications on Tuesday May 28th.

FiA Statement

[Hammer278]

Now the Ferrari fans will finally go quiet.

[vaptin]

Damn Kobayashi

That statement barely says anything, why do they want Ferrari then? It just says for supplementary information or something.

[LRW]

Damn Kobayashi

That statement barely says anything, why do they want Ferrari then? It just says for supplementary information or something.

It's wants them both as they've both carried out tyre tests. And, as you say, it's both for 'supplementary information' following clarifications that Pirelli gave on Tuesday.

[vaptin]

Where does this fit in with the International Tribunal? Is it the same thing, is it in lieu or some sort of investigation before that?

[LRW]

Where does this fit in with the International Tribunal? Is it the same thing, is it in lieu or some sort of investigation before that?

Not sure. Maybe it's an additional meeting beforehand ?

[vaptin]

I am sure Mercedes are not going to purge all the information from the test so they are going to have some data.

What I do not get is that if it was all legal and above board why not let everyone know before hand it was happening.


Sent from Turing Colossus using Tapatalk 2

I think the letter says the statement says they did let everyone know. You're saying that the right thing to do was to let the teams know after Barcelona that a test was being conducted and they should be invited to stick around and watch. maybe... but did they invite other teams to stick around and watch the test they did with Ferrari? You should also be asking that question.

No, but Ferrari were using a 2 year old car.

[LRW]

I am sure Mercedes are not going to purge all the information from the test so they are going to have some data.

What I do not get is that if it was all legal and above board why not let everyone know before hand it was happening.


Sent from Turing Colossus using Tapatalk 2

I think the letter says the statement says they did let everyone know. You're saying that the right thing to do was to let the teams know after Barcelona that a test was being conducted and they should be invited to stick around and watch. maybe... but did they invite other teams to stick around and watch the test they did with Ferrari? You should also be asking that question.

No, but Ferrari were using a 2 year old car.

But that not the only supposed rule that's been broken. You can't pick and chose which rules you can and can't break.

[vaptin]

What is the rule they broke then? As far as I can see, the FIA condition on inviting all teams was specific to the 2013 car being used.

[LRW]

What is the rule they broke then? As far as I can see, the FIA condition on inviting all teams was specific to the 2013 car being used.

Well that's not what I heard .....

[racechick]

But isn't it the , 'not tellin all teams about it' , thats the bad thing?

[vaptin]

It added that under the terms of its contract with the tyre manufacturer it had allowed Pirelli to carry out some tyre development testing with a team, using a current car, "provided every team is offered the opportunity to do so".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22728232

My reading is if situation A exists (current car), provision B must exist for legality (providing every team the opportunity to do so). I don't read, provision B needing to be in place, when provision A isn't valid, but that doesn't mean provision B doesn't exist for a 2 year old car, just that as far as I understand, the FIA statement isn't telling us that is the case.

Also, Ferrari protested Mercedes tyre test, I hope they aren't crazy enough to do that if their own test was illegal.