ZitatVerdict awaited after Mercedes hearing Adam Cooper
The International Tribunal hearing into the Mercedes testing case has concluded in Paris after a day of testimony, and it remains to be seen whether a verdict emerges later today or is postponed until tomorrow.
Proceedings began this morning with Mark Howard QC presenting the FIA’s case. Intriguingly, in addition to outlining the breach of Article 22, related to testing a current car, he also mentioned Article 151c, which involves bringing the sport into disrepute, or more specifically bans ‘fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motorsport generally.’
f1 Verdict awaited after Mercedes hearing
Howard argued that “without the knowledge, consent and participation of other competitors, Mercedes and Pirelli may have engaged in activity that was prejudicial to the competition.”
In essence he repeated what the FIA said in a media statement on Sunday evening in Monaco, essentially that conversations took place between Mercedes and Charlie Whiting in early May, but Whiting did not formally sanction the Barcelona test with the current car. Howard stressed the FIA’s requirement that other teams be informed and invited.
He said: “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 the purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyre and he would check.”
He added that even though Pirelli has a contract with the FIA which allows for 1000kms tests to be conducted by teams, the Sporting Regulations should take precedence.
Howard also argued that Mercedes had gained some knowledge from the test, saying: “We would suggest that it is difficult to say Mercedes obtained no benefit from the test.”
f1 Verdict awaited after Mercedes hearing
Speaking on behalf of Mercedes, Paul Harris QC claimed that the team did not break the rules, in essence because the test was arranged and run by Pirelli, and not by Mercedes in its role as a competitor.
The rules state: ‘Track testing shall be considered any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year.’
Indeed after talking to both Mercedes team manager Ron Meadows and Ross Brawn on May 3 Whiting had checked with FIA layer Sebastian Bernard on the relevance of the phrase ‘undertaken by the competitor’, and was told that if the test was deemed to be undertaken by Pirelli, it could be permissible.
Harris even claimed that Mercedes didn’t have to check with the FIA, given that it was a Pirelli test, claiming that Brawn took a cautious approach.
Harris also argued that if Mercedes is deemed to be in the wrong then the pre-Spanish GP Ferrari test should be considered a breach in that, despite the fact it was done with a two-year-old car, the car did ‘conform substantially with the current Formula 1 technical regulations’, which is what the rules forbid.
f1 Verdict awaited after Mercedes hearing
Harris also pointed out that the Ferrari test was booked and paid for by the Italian team, and this was in contrast to Pirelli’s arrangements for the Mercedes test.
Intriguingly he also revealed that in 2012 Felipe Massa had taken part in a similar test on Pirelli’s behalf at Barcelona.
Ross Brawn was adamant initially that Mercedes gained no benefit from the test and that Pirelli had not told the team what tyres it was running, although under question he conceded that inevitably there was some benefit.
Meanwhile Pirelli lawyer Dominque Dumas argued that it does not come under the jurisdiction of the FIA as a non-licence holder, citing the 2009 ‘Crashgate’ case – which led to senior team personnel being licensed and thus subject to punishment. Briatore was banned by the FIA, but that was overturned in the French courts.
There’s no clear indication as to which way the International Tribunal will go after a fascinating day of exchanges.
Thanks YiNing for your effort! " title="hug" /> Now we wait for the verdict! " title="holy" /> I hope the punishment is not just a slap on the old fox wrist. " title="roll" />
Wrist h" title="hih" /> I was expecting something else " title="lol" />
It will be very offensive for the rest of the teams and the F1 followers if there's no harsh action. I mean, if drivers get penalties over nothing... " title="tap" /> Is like Kimi said, "you always learn in tests, otherwise we wouldn't do them". " title="doh" />
ZitatMercedes in secret Pirelli Formula 1 tyre test row By Jonathan Noble Sunday, May 26th 2013, 08:26 GMT
Mercedes is at the centre of a growing controversy ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix after it emerged the team had conducted a private 1000 kilometre tyre test at Barcelona after the last race.
The Brackley-based outfit has struggled to work out why its race form is no match for its qualifying efforts this season, having now secured four consecutive pole positions but struggled with tyre wear in the races.
AUTOSPORT can reveal that rival outfits have been left deeply unhappy that Mercedes was given a golden chance to boost its understanding of the issue with a private test at Barcelona last week. Due to weather interruptions, it extended over three days.
Although in-season testing is banned, it is understood that Mercedes was requested by Pirelli to help work through the issues that the Italian tyre manufacturer has experienced in the last few races.
According to sources at Mercedes, the test was allowed because Pirelli can call upon one outfit for a private test to help it with products if circumstances dictate.
Mercedes is adamant that its running at Barcelona was totally within the regulations, but high-level sources have revealed that other teams are not convinced and the matter has now been taken up with the FIA.
Team principal Ross Brawn said that his outfit had worked tirelessly on the tyre issue since Barcelona - but did not make reference to the test when asked about what the team had done since the Spanish GP.
"I think when we got back from Barcelona we had some pretty long and deep meetings and decided a course of action," he explained.
Ross Brawn"There were a lot of things going on already, so I don't want to create the impression that we got back and all of a sudden we started work. There was a lot of work going on already.
"I think some of the work was refocused in areas that we thought were maybe more relevant and in the last couple of weeks, Bob [Bell] has been directing all the engineering team to make sure that they focus on the areas that we felt were most important.
"We have come here with changes, and it is almost impossible at Monaco to judge those changes but we believe that they are relevant and give another snap shot of that at Montreal.
"But it won't be until we get to Silverstone that I think we can judge where we stand and there are more changes that we are trying - and trying to establish those changes in the best possible way with the limitations of going to races."
ZitatMercedes' Niki Lauda says he attempted to avoid the team having to face the International Tribunal by agreeing an out-of-court settlement with Bernie Ecclestone.
The tribunal investigating the tyre test carried out by Mercedes and Pirelli took place on Thursday in Paris, with the judging panel saying it would deliver a verdict on Friday. While the FIA claimed it did not give approval for the test to take place, Mercedes argued that clearance from FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting - clarified by the FIA's legal team -was sufficient permission.
However, Lauda admitted he did not want the issue to get as far as the tribunal and that a solution was in place for Mercedes to settle beforehand, only for the team's hierarchy to reject it.
"Let's see, I tried the whole weekend in Montreal to avoid the process," Lauda told Blick. "Red Bull lodged the protest against us with Ferrari, agreed an out-of-court deal with Bernie Eccle¬stone and to make it happen it needed a letter from Mercedes to FIA boss [Jean] Todt. But our bosses Toto Wolff and Ross Brawn refused. Now they have to live with it."
Only Brawn, chief race engineer Andrew Shovlin and team manager Ron Meadows were present for Mercedes at the hearing on Thursday.
That's embarrassing in my opinion. For all of the positives in this sport, this is the ugly side that shows itself from time to time. Mercedes lawyer asked specifically for this punishment yesterday. And that's what they received.
Why are potential young drivers penalized for what Merc did? The rookies are all ready quite poor, except Bottas (who had car time in FP last year), so why compound that situation?
I know there was a lot of lawyer speak that helped lessened the penalty..
But the rules in my opinion were quite clear that a 2013 car should NOT have been run without checking the boxes of approval from each team. Merc failed to do that. They also failed to gain adequate approval from the FIA - NOT Charlie Whiting - the FIA. Then they run their test under complete closure of the circuit and secrecy from other teams. Teams didn't even know about it, therefore it was impossible to send observers. And the drivers wore black helmets. It's quite obvious merc was trying to hide something. And it's also apparent other big teams weren't willing to take the same risk.
I'm really struggling to understand how they got let off of the hook.
ZitatFerrari’s Horse Whisperer stirred by Mercedes verdict…
Ferrari has made no formal response to the International Tribunal verdict but the colourful mouthpiece of its official website – the mysterious equine commentator known as the Horse Whisperer – has made the feelings of the team clear in a column.
He wrote: “Today we learned, that even if one is guilty and in this case that is an indisputable and verified fact, there is always a way of muddling through as best one can. One only has to suggest to the judge what the penalty should be and even better, why not make it something light like a rap across the knuckles.
“It is somewhat perplexing to say the least to see that the guilty party can get away virtually scot free for having derived “an unfair sporting advantage.” Don’t tell me that testing for three days on your own at the Catalunya circuit is the same as doing so with nine other teams at Silverstone with a host of young hopefuls at the wheel, in an area where the weather can still be changeable even in the height of summer. And what if this whole incident had taken place after the young driver test, what would have been the penalty then? Would they have been forbidden from holding an end of year dinner?”
He adds: “The way things are going in Formula 1 at the moment is becoming boring: you make a mistake, you race with an illegal component, but then you are told to just change it for the next race and we’ve seen what we’ve seen…
“All this reminds the Whisperer that if he ever finds himself running a Formula 1 team in the near future and that he gets off to a difficult start to the season, then all it needs is to organise a nice week of testing at the right moment and then maybe have to skip a later session, by which time, everything could be done and dusted. What do you reckon?”
Finally he could not avoid a dig at the references made by Mercedes to the Ferrari testing: “Oh, and to those who jabber on about transparency and credibility, the Whisperer would remind them that the rules are very clear: you cannot test with a car from the current year. With those that are at least two years old, you can run when you like, where you like, with any driver you like, dressed how you like, inviting who you like.”
ZitatFIA Tribunal: Mercedes did breach rules despite best intentions By Jonathan Noble Friday, June 21st 2013, 12:17 GMT
FIA TribunalMercedes did gain an "unfair sporting advantage" from its use of a 2013 Formula 1 car in the secret Pirelli test even though that had not been the original intention, claims the FIA International Tribunal.
In its official decision on the matter, the International Tribunal explained that Mercedes and Pirelli had both acted in good faith in regards to the test, but that did not get around the fact that regulations had been broken.
That is why it elected to give both Mercedes and Pirelli a reprimand, while also banning the Brackley-based team from taking part in July's young driver test at Silverstone.
In the 20-page document that explains its finding, the Tribunal argues that although both team and tyre supplier had made enquiries with the FIA regarding the use of a 2013 car, neither had followed through properly on conditions laid down by the governing body.
However, the Tribunal was adamant that there was no deliberate intent from either party to cheat.
It said: "The track testing, which is the subject of these proceedings, was not carried out by Pirelli and/or Mercedes with the intention that Mercedes should obtain any unfair sporting advantage."
The ruling continued: "Neither Pirelli nor Mercedes acted in bad faith at any material time... Both Pirelli and Mercedes disclosed to FIA at least the essence of what they intended to do in relation to the test and attempted to obtain permission for it; and Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given."
TEST SECRECY CRITICISED
However, the fact that other teams were not invited to that specific Barcelona test meant that Mercedes did gain an advantage, and Pirelli had a role to play in that too.
The judgement stated: "Mercedes did obtain some material advantage (even if only by way of confirmation of what had not gone wrong) as a result of the testing, which, at least potentially, gave it an unfair sporting advantage, to the knowledge and with the intention of Pirelli.
"In the light of the data which Pirelli did in fact pass to Mercedes by way of the confidential email referred to under paragraph 37.8 above [relating to trackside engineering reports], it is plain beyond sensible argument that Pirelli had intended confidentially to pass some data to Mercedes, which Pirelli expressly regarded as being of high importance even if, as we accept, it was in fact of limited value to Mercedes because it was unaware of the tyre(s) to which the report related. (vii)
"Both Mercedes and Pirelli, accordingly, did act in breach of articles 1 and 151 ISC."
NO CRITICISM OF WHITING
Charlie Whiting's responses to Mercedes were key to the team's evidenceThe Tribunal added that F1 race director Charlie Whiting had also acted correctly in suggesting that a 2013 car could in theory be used if such an opportunity was offered to every team.
"The actions taken on behalf of FIA by Charlie Whiting (having taken advice from the legal department of FIA) were taken in good faith and with the intention of assisting the parties and consistent with sporting fairness," added the ruling.
The Tribunal also said it could not be proved whether or not Ferrari's Pirelli testing in 2012 and '13 had been done in the correct manner either.
"The Tribunal is unable to express any opinion as to whether or not the testing carried out by Ferrari in 2012 and 2013 was properly authorised but, it would appear to be equally unsatisfactory that this consent was also given by Charlie Whiting," it said. "The Tribunal has no evidence before it which indicates that his opinion in that case had in fact been wrong."
Print view
Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:30 pm
reply
" title="ty" /> for the articles!
" title="waiting" />
" title="hug" /> 
" title="holy" /> 
" title="roll" />
h" title="hih" /> I was expecting something else 
" title="lol" />
" title="tap" /> Is like Kimi said, "you always learn in tests, otherwise we wouldn't do them". 
" title="doh" />
" title="annoyed" />
" title="fury" /> 
" title="blink" />
my" title="ohmy" /> the fury face?! 
" title="nails" /> 
