FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vaptin]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Yeah, basically stating that the level of transparency between Ferrari and the officials were more or less the same as Mercedes this year and the officials. Furthermore, Ferrari were in charge of the tests, i.e. Ferrari were conducting the test, not Pirelli. So if the FIA lower the boom on Mercedes this time around, they can turn around and point at yet another lack of consistency in treatment of the FIA towards Ferrari VS Others.

Well, he doesn't say if Ferrari told the FIA about the test, nor does he say, they are obiligied to inform the other teams when running a 2 year old car, from what I see, being open is related to using the current car.

He may have a point that a current car isn't too different than a 2 year car, maybe, but I can't remember the wording on using an old car, I think the regulations specifically say more than 2 years is allowed?

[spankyham]

How can it be proven that Ferrari ran new parts on their test car? What's to say that Mercedes didn't do exactly the same? it would be very difficult toprove unless there were obvious changes to the bodywork or someone on the inside spills the beans.

EDIT: vaptin beat me to the punch.

Ferrari tested with Massa last year and its only just come to light. This year it seems they tested parts not just tyres. That's not good.

The tested using their 2011 car which is perfectly legal. Can you prove Ferrari tested new components rather than just tyres?

Perfectly legal? How do you know that? That's not what the rules say. They do not say using a 2011 car is perfectly legal! I can't prove they treated other parts no, I can only go on heresay like the rest of you.

There is no way you can run current parts on the F-150 and get anything of value. Do you remember how much trouble Ferrari had trying to correlate data last year when they moved to pull-rod suspension? After 3 full pre-season test sessions plus data from their own and Toyota's wind tunnels they had zero reliable data. IMO Merc are damaging their own credibility running this argument.

[What's Burning?]

How can it be proven that Ferrari ran new parts on their test car? What's to say that Mercedes didn't do exactly the same? it would be very difficult toprove unless there were obvious changes to the bodywork or someone on the inside spills the beans.

EDIT: vaptin beat me to the punch.

Ferrari tested with Massa last year and its only just come to light. This year it seems they tested parts not just tyres. That's not good.

The tested using their 2011 car which is perfectly legal. Can you prove Ferrari tested new components rather than just tyres?

Perfectly legal? How do you know that? That's not what the rules say. They do not say using a 2011 car is perfectly legal! I can't prove they treated other parts no, I can only go on heresay like the rest of you.

There is no way you can run current parts on the F-150 and get anything of value. Do you remember how much trouble Ferrari had trying to correlate data last year when they moved to pull-rod suspension? After 3 full pre-season test sessions plus data from their own and Toyota's wind tunnels they had zero reliable data. IMO Merc are damaging their own credibility running this argument.

Why would they need to test "balance" on an old car then?

[andrew]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Using a 2011 spec car! The ruling is perfectly clear. Using a 2013 car is illegal, using a 2011 car is legal as long as it is substanially different to the current reg's.

Again, can it be proven that Ferrari carried out balance tests? Accussing Ferrari of testing other areas than tyres is just as spurious as the claim that Mercedes tested with a new exhaust configuration. Both cloud the real issue - was the tyre test legal? If it wasn't, who is in the wrong?

[spankyham]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Yeah, basically stating that the level of transparency between Ferrari and the officials were more or less the same as Mercedes this year and the officials. Furthermore, Ferrari were in charge of the tests, i.e. Ferrari were conducting the test, not Pirelli. So if the FIA lower the boom on Mercedes this time around, they can turn around and point at yet another lack of consistency in treatment of the FIA towards Ferrari VS Others.

Ferrari didn't run the test, nor where they even present at the test. The car used, is owned by Corse Clienti and they provided the car and facilities for Pirelli.

[racechick]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Yeah, basically stating that the level of transparency between Ferrari and the officials were more or less the same as Mercedes this year and the officials. Furthermore, Ferrari were in charge of the tests, i.e. Ferrari were conducting the test, not Pirelli. So if the FIA lower the boom on Mercedes this time around, they can turn around and point at yet another lack of consistency in treatment of the FIA towards Ferrari VS Others.

Well, he doesn't say if Ferrari told the FIA about the test, nor does he say, they are obiligied to inform the other teams when running a 2 year old car, from what I see, being open is related to using the current car.

He may have a point that a current car isn't too different than a 2 year car, maybe, but I can't remember the wording on using an old car, I think the regulations specifically say more than 2 years is allowed?

It's not that specific, it doesn't say two years old is ok, it's says something like it shouldn't be compatible with a current car ( something like that can't remember exactly, can't be bothered to check)

[Hammer278]

@vaptin

No, Mercedes' lawyer is saying that there is another section in the rulebook stating that the 2 year old car needs to be substantially different compared to the current spec...and their point is the 2011 car isn't so different since the difference in pace is about 0.5-1 second. Thus, in a way the rule book has 2 points which provides a chance to conflicts one another! This is what Merc is pointing at and I don't know how the FIA can blame them for interpreting this the wrong way.

[spankyham]

Why would they need to test "balance" on an old car then?

What balance test?

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari didn't run the test, nor where they even present at the test. The car used, is owned by Corse Clienti and they provided the car and facilities for Pirelli.

come now. anyway, Ferrari isn't on trial here, it's Mercedes being made a scapegoat for a facktard FiA process. So there's enough blame to go around, and when you take the lowest common denominator of culpability that's the ruling that should be issued, which is damn near a zero sum when you look at the paper trail.

[spankyham]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Yeah, basically stating that the level of transparency between Ferrari and the officials were more or less the same as Mercedes this year and the officials. Furthermore, Ferrari were in charge of the tests, i.e. Ferrari were conducting the test, not Pirelli. So if the FIA lower the boom on Mercedes this time around, they can turn around and point at yet another lack of consistency in treatment of the FIA towards Ferrari VS Others.

Well, he doesn't say if Ferrari told the FIA about the test, nor does he say, they are obiligied to inform the other teams when running a 2 year old car, from what I see, being open is related to using the current car.

He may have a point that a current car isn't too different than a 2 year car, maybe, but I can't remember the wording on using an old car, I think the regulations specifically say more than 2 years is allowed?

It's not that specific, it doesn't say two years old is ok, it's says something like it shouldn't be compatible with a current car ( something like that can't remember exactly, can't be bothered to check)

The rules reference that the cars must be different. The two years come from a determination that a 2 year old car is different and can be used for demonstrations etc. Ferrari ran the F150 with Kobi at the wheel in Moscow - perhaps they were testing new parts there. Red Bull ran 2 year old cars at quite a few demonstrations. Pastor ran one last year also.

[vaptin]

Also listen guys, you need to listen to the verdicts wording, that will tell you (if it is gulity) which parts of the accusations are considered against the rules, the drivers thing I think just pisses of the teams, the central argument appears to be Mercedes were told the test was legal under certain conditions, that weren't conformed too. Which was informing the other teams.

Mercedes primary defence appears to be, they were told the test was legal, countered by the FIAs argument, that Whiting gave a general go ahead, a go ahead with conditions and made it clear his opinion was not legally binding.

They are also arguing a 2013 car is not really any different to a 2011 car, they are arguing Ferrari's testing was legal so ergo, Mercedes must be, because it is not that different.

I argue there is a difference between a 2013 and 2011 car, because I think the rules say there is, that a 2 year old car can be tested with.. Obviously I know very little though, but I like to talk on this forum.

Red Bull's protest is under article 22.4 of the sporting regulations, which dictates that no on-track testing may take place during a season other than a designated three-day 'young driver test' or straight-line aerodynamic testing.
The only exception is if a car of at least two years old is used.
A Ferrari spokesman added: "Pirelli can offer to the teams the chance to do 1,000km of testing for tyre development and safety. But the fundamental aspect is the year of the car because if you use a current car it should be allegedly a breach of article 22.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22672228

[vaptin]

@vaptin

No, Mercedes' lawyer is saying that there is another section in the rulebook stating that the 2 year old car needs to be substantially different compared to the current spec...and their point is the 2011 car isn't so different since the difference in pace is about 0.5-1 second. Thus, in a way the rule book has 2 points which provides a chance to conflicts one another! This is what Merc is pointing at and I don't know how the FIA can blame them for interpreting this the wrong way.

That doesn't mean you get to run with a 2013 car though.

[racechick]

I've read that article and whether the test is legal with a 2011 car is open to interpretation ( like most of the FIA rules)
The article also says Ferrari organised and paid for the test, NOT Pirelli, as was the case with Mercedes. Also Ferrari conducted balance tests...NOT just tyre tests.

Yeah, basically stating that the level of transparency between Ferrari and the officials were more or less the same as Mercedes this year and the officials. Furthermore, Ferrari were in charge of the tests, i.e. Ferrari were conducting the test, not Pirelli. So if the FIA lower the boom on Mercedes this time around, they can turn around and point at yet another lack of consistency in treatment of the FIA towards Ferrari VS Others.

Well, he doesn't say if Ferrari told the FIA about the test, nor does he say, they are obiligied to inform the other teams when running a 2 year old car, from what I see, being open is related to using the current car.

He may have a point that a current car isn't too different than a 2 year car, maybe, but I can't remember the wording on using an old car, I think the regulations specifically say more than 2 years is allowed?

It's not that specific, it doesn't say two years old is ok, it's says something like it shouldn't be compatible with a current car ( something like that can't remember exactly, can't be bothered to check)

The rules reference that the cars must be different. The two years come from a determination that a 2 year old car is different and can be used for demonstrations etc. Ferrari ran the F150 with Kobi at the wheel in Moscow - perhaps they were testing new parts there. Red Bull ran 2 year old cars at quite a few demonstrations. Pastor ran one last year also.

But the cars aren't that different. And a demonstration isn't the same as a test. Ferrari did a test. And last year Massa drove the car and the test was secret. How is that so different?

[vaptin]

Interestingly, if Mercer's do win, it might just be a way for all teams to start testing with 2013 cars . . . since Merecede's are basically arguing testing with 2013 cars is the same as the stuff teams do with 2011 cars.

Not sure the rules contradict hammer? It says, 1, the car must be two years old, 2, the 2 year old car must be substantially different, no? Both clauses can co-exist if I've read them right.

[Hammer278]

Interestingly, if Mercer's do win, it might just be a way for all teams to start testing with 2013 cars . . . since Merecede's are basically arguing testing with 2013 cars is the same as the stuff teams do with 2011 cars.

Not sure the rules contradict hammer? It says, 1, the car must be two years old, 2, the 2 year old car must be substantially different, no? Both clauses can co-exist if I've read them right.

Which isn't the case according to Mercedes. I mean if you have wording which is vague in this manner, almost anything can be contested. In this case Mercedes have interpreted it as "not substantially different"...how do the FIA counter that?