Paris has been a buzz of activity today, particularly around the FIA's headquarters where the hotly anticipated International Tribunal case on the controversial private test conducted by Pirelli and participated in by Mercedes took place.
All sides were able to argue their case with both Mercedes and Pirelli pleading their innocence following some heated debate. The FIA says that a verdict will be revealed on Friday (21st June).
It was the first ever sitting of the FIA International Tribunal under chair of judges Edwin Glasgow QC. Mercedes were called to answer a charge that breached the F1 Sporting Regulations on in-season testing whilst Pirelli were called to Paris to explain the secrecy of the test and why it was not opened up to other teams.
Here are the basics on what went on during what was seven hours of grilling, interrogating and debating.
The FIA started off by explaining their case, stating that Mercedes had not been given formal permission to test with a 2013 car. The FIA's lawyer Mark Howard QC argued that only the World Motor Sport Council had the power to authorise such a test.
Mercedes asked FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting in a phone call whether they could use a 2013 car for the test. He consulted with an in-house lawyer who said that it would be possible providing that Pirelli asked all other teams to the test and to show that the other teams had been invited.
Howard argued that "There was no attempt whatsoever by Mercedes to involve the other teams in order to ensure that no perception of an advantage was obtained," and added that Whiting had told Mercedes Team Principal Ross Brawn that only the World Motor Sport Council could authorise it.
He also argued that Mercedes' enquiries were vague and that they must have benefited from the test.
Ross Brawn spoke for Mercedes and the main point he tried to get across was that the test was not conducted by his team, it was in fact Pirelli who conducted it.
Mercedes' QC Paul Harris brought up Article 22.1 that said reads: "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 confirm substantially with the current Formula One Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year."
Harris argued that "this was not a test undertaken by Mercedes. They are critical words in text of (Sporting Regulations) Article 22.1 - ''undertaken by'. The Pirelli test was not a test 'undertaken by' Mercedes. It is irrefutable it is a test 'undertaken by' Pirelli."
He also brought up the use of two previous Pirelli tests with Ferrari in the past two years that used two year old cars. The Maranello based squad took part in a similarly private test after the Bahrain Grand Prix using a 2011-spec car. It was also revealed that Felipe Massa drove in a test last season in a two year old car.
He argued that performance differences between two year old cars are around half a second which show the minuscule changes in the regulations. This could show that Ferrari gained information on car performance from the two tests because of this.
It was a revelation as Mercedes tried to turn the tables on Ferrari who originally protested against them. Harris also claimed that information between Ferrari and Pirelli was exchanged and that it was subject to a lack of transparency.
Brawn admitted that Mercedes "didn't know what the tyres were" but let slip that it was "unavoidable" not to learn anything when running the 2013 car. The team did apologise for using black helmets to disguise their drivers which - in hindsight - they thought was a mistake but put down to "lack of security personnel."
They also admitted that they fought, due to their "good faith" in trying to check with the FIA, that an acceptable punishment should they be found guilty would be a reprimand or exclusion from the up-coming Young Driver Test.
Pirelli were blunt in opening their argument, they were unhappy with being brought to the International Tribunal because "we do not come under the jurisdiction or authority of the FIA," as they are not a competitor in the sport, merely a supplier.
Howard dismissed this point as "confusing and missing the point" in what was a slightly heated debate. Paul Hembery said on his departure from FIA HQ "It was a good hearing, we have always acted in good faith and we will have the result tomorrow."
Ross Brawn said on his departure: I'm please that Mercedes were able to demonstrate that we acted in good faith and that we gained no sporting advantage,"
"I'd like to thank the Tribunal and its president for a very fair hearing and we're expecting a result tomorrow."
Christian Horner was a surprise attendee of the hearing, with Ferrari only bringing legal representatives, and when asked if he was convinced by Mercedes case, he said: "Not really, but it's down to the tribunal now. They've got all the facts so we trust them to make the appropriate decision."
After a long wait for the hearing, we have another much shorter wait to hear the result.
 |
| (c) Sky Sports F1 |
It was the first ever sitting of the FIA International Tribunal under chair of judges Edwin Glasgow QC. Mercedes were called to answer a charge that breached the F1 Sporting Regulations on in-season testing whilst Pirelli were called to Paris to explain the secrecy of the test and why it was not opened up to other teams.
Here are the basics on what went on during what was seven hours of grilling, interrogating and debating.
The FIA started off by explaining their case, stating that Mercedes had not been given formal permission to test with a 2013 car. The FIA's lawyer Mark Howard QC argued that only the World Motor Sport Council had the power to authorise such a test.
Mercedes asked FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting in a phone call whether they could use a 2013 car for the test. He consulted with an in-house lawyer who said that it would be possible providing that Pirelli asked all other teams to the test and to show that the other teams had been invited.
Howard argued that "There was no attempt whatsoever by Mercedes to involve the other teams in order to ensure that no perception of an advantage was obtained," and added that Whiting had told Mercedes Team Principal Ross Brawn that only the World Motor Sport Council could authorise it.
He also argued that Mercedes' enquiries were vague and that they must have benefited from the test.
Ross Brawn spoke for Mercedes and the main point he tried to get across was that the test was not conducted by his team, it was in fact Pirelli who conducted it.
Mercedes' QC Paul Harris brought up Article 22.1 that said reads: "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 confirm substantially with the current Formula One Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year."
Harris argued that "this was not a test undertaken by Mercedes. They are critical words in text of (Sporting Regulations) Article 22.1 - ''undertaken by'. The Pirelli test was not a test 'undertaken by' Mercedes. It is irrefutable it is a test 'undertaken by' Pirelli."
He also brought up the use of two previous Pirelli tests with Ferrari in the past two years that used two year old cars. The Maranello based squad took part in a similarly private test after the Bahrain Grand Prix using a 2011-spec car. It was also revealed that Felipe Massa drove in a test last season in a two year old car.
He argued that performance differences between two year old cars are around half a second which show the minuscule changes in the regulations. This could show that Ferrari gained information on car performance from the two tests because of this.
It was a revelation as Mercedes tried to turn the tables on Ferrari who originally protested against them. Harris also claimed that information between Ferrari and Pirelli was exchanged and that it was subject to a lack of transparency.
Brawn admitted that Mercedes "didn't know what the tyres were" but let slip that it was "unavoidable" not to learn anything when running the 2013 car. The team did apologise for using black helmets to disguise their drivers which - in hindsight - they thought was a mistake but put down to "lack of security personnel."
They also admitted that they fought, due to their "good faith" in trying to check with the FIA, that an acceptable punishment should they be found guilty would be a reprimand or exclusion from the up-coming Young Driver Test.
Pirelli were blunt in opening their argument, they were unhappy with being brought to the International Tribunal because "we do not come under the jurisdiction or authority of the FIA," as they are not a competitor in the sport, merely a supplier.
Howard dismissed this point as "confusing and missing the point" in what was a slightly heated debate. Paul Hembery said on his departure from FIA HQ "It was a good hearing, we have always acted in good faith and we will have the result tomorrow."
Ross Brawn said on his departure: I'm please that Mercedes were able to demonstrate that we acted in good faith and that we gained no sporting advantage,"
"I'd like to thank the Tribunal and its president for a very fair hearing and we're expecting a result tomorrow."
Christian Horner was a surprise attendee of the hearing, with Ferrari only bringing legal representatives, and when asked if he was convinced by Mercedes case, he said: "Not really, but it's down to the tribunal now. They've got all the facts so we trust them to make the appropriate decision."
After a long wait for the hearing, we have another much shorter wait to hear the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment