F1 » Mercedes 'gained advantage' from Pirelli test

The FIA's International Tribunal rules that Mercedes did gain an advantage from its tyre test with Pirelli

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Mark _

June 21, 2013 7:11 PM
Last Edited 1047 days ago

If I am not mistaken there are logs from the Ferrari test and proof that Ferrari paid for the track rental which supports Merc's claim. I am not stating that it was illegal just that it was a Ferrari test as opposed to a Pirelli test.

I disagree that a precedent has been set. These were a very unusual set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. The whole verdict was greatly influenced by the role that Charlie and Sebastian Bernard played in appearing to give FIA approval for the test.


June 21, 2013 7:45 PM

Mark, fully agree that the verdict was conditioned by the rule Charlie Whiting played giving “QUALIFIED” approval.
I have great faith that JT will cleanse the last remnants of the old guard, the last bastion will be putting a total stop of interference by MR F1 with FIA matters, the functioning and the voting on the penalty of the NEW IT is a testimony of the way JT function/run things.


June 21, 2013 7:47 PM

jamal. a car used in a test has to be a car dissimilar to the current car (per sporting regs) this is accepted by all teams (bar merc of course) to be a two year old model. in Ferrari case it was a 2011 car with pushrod front suspension and fully blown diffuser. rbr were asked if they wanted to test a car, and they declined asthey knew it was in breach of what were supposed to be the rules. merc said that they had no 2011 car available, indicating that they knew that it was a supposed to be a 2011 car, but said they could supply a 2013. merc asked Charlie, who tacitly agreed but with conditions that were not met.
that is what the tribunal was about....the use of a 2013 car, in contravention of the rules.


June 21, 2013 8:15 PM

lets not forget Ferrari tested at the track they raced at before the race and ended up winning that race hands down, but lets all pretend they gained no advantage cause their car was 2 years older.... laughable. The ignorance is sky rocketing.


June 21, 2013 8:18 PM

Pirelli said they didn't ask Mercedes to test with a current car.
Mercedes (Ross Brawn) is a signatory to an agreement between teams that says (if any team wants to test an item/part/s pertaining to 2014 agreement has to be sought from all other teams and the FIA.
2014 intended tyres were tested by Mercedes and to rub salt into the wound they tested with current drivers with BLACK HALMETS.


June 21, 2013 8:29 PM

jamal. please read the sporting regs and codes! merc were found GUILTY of using a 2013 car. do you know something that the tribunal are unaware of?

sunny. yes, both merc and Pirelli originally claimed that they were testing 2014 tyres, then it was watered down a bit and they said 10% of tyres were 2013. in the hearing, Pirelli and merc said they weretesting 2013 tyres as it"!was a safety issue", referring to delamination! they just could not get their story right and the "safety" aspect was thrown in to try and justify the test. but I hadn't realised that the 2014 tyres had a safety issue!!

the end story is that Pirelli and merc were both found guilty.

on the f1 show on sky, they are again pointing out that Charlie did not have the right to ok anything. but merc claimed ignorance of that as mitigation, and got away with it!

Mark _

June 21, 2013 8:40 PM

It wasn't just Charlie. The FIA lawyer said, " Mercedes could use its 2013 car as, for the purposes of the test, it would not be seen as a competitor's car." It sounds like they have two rogue employees who are still acting like Max is in charge. Given that Todt appears to be a mute who could blame them.

The best part though is Lauda's attempt at a backroom deal with Bernie to avoid the hearing. I bet that Lauda will be gone before Brawn.

Page 2 of 5
« 1 2 3 4 5  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.