danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It SHOULD be a black and white verdict that they
> go unpunished IMHO.
>
> If there is a rule that states Pirelli are allowed
> to call upon an individual team at THEIR
> discretion, as is believed, then they are able to.
> Simple. Why put such a clause in the rules. They
> can't be punished for that at all.
>
> Ferrari went unnoticed, abeit with a 2 year old
> car. So that means the actual test procedure
> itself is LEGAL and not sneaky at all if Pirelli
> call for it. But if the team initiated it, or did
> the test on their own, then that's against the
> rules.
>
> Where the rules are grey is whether they were
> allowed to use the latest car.
>
> My guess is that the loophole here whereby Pirelli
> can request a 1000km test would override the
> requirement of there needing to be a 2 year old
> car.
>
> The fact Pirelli are saying the tyres tested were
> of unspecified type to the team is huge. If they
> said they were 2013 tyres, then yes. They are in
> the wrong. But they aren't of any compound to do
> with the current season they claim, and what
> reason would Pirelli have to lie and favour
> Mercedes?
>
> If they were for 2015 spec, then they are
> technically using a 2 year old car, aren't they?
>
> I've heard reports Pirelli say they were for a
> 2014 spec, but that too is a totally different
> ball game. So in theory, Mercedes were working
> with a year old car, on various different tyres
> that had nothing to do with the current car spec
> or season.
>
> Ross Brawn isn't a stupid guy, but a master of
> working to loopholes and grey areas. And if the
> alleged FIA were indeed informed, as the rules
> state, then they are OK.
>
> Teams are going nuts because they wish they had
> been approached instead. Pirelli said they had.
> I've heard Force India were asked but declined. I
> don't hear the likes of Williams or Force India
> causing a stir. And why would Pirelli favour one
> team over another? Especially a German team.
> They're a multinational company based in Italy.
>
> So testing of any formed is banned, only straight
> line type? In which case, what if a team did a
> demo run on a new track in Russia for PR purposes
> on, say, Avon tyres? Or what if Mercedes turned
> their trump card in and called it a studio shoot
> day or whatever they are allowed to. Is that not
> effectively the same? If they had 2013 spec tyres,
> its a test. With unknown tyres, theres no proper
> benchmark.
>
> I really hope they don't get punished, because its
> just a very clever exploitation of the rules,
> which is brilliant. If anyone should be punished
> its Pirelli. If a stranger offered some kid random
> sweets, and lured them away, the stranger is the
> one commonly seen as in the wrong. Pirelli lured
> Mercedes away and fed them mystery sweeties. Its
> hardly Mercedes to blame.
>
> Don't forget, Ferrari won in China AND Spain just
> around the test they did at the end of April. I
> wonder if they tested 2013 spec tyres, or
> unspecified tyres like Mercedes? Don't hear much
> complaints there.
Your whole text is pointless because of this simple fact:
Quote
Testing can only take place at FIA-approved sites and, ahead of a session, teams must inform the governing body of their schedule so that an observer can be appointed if deemed necessary.
And what comes to "unspecified tyres like Mercedes had":
Quote
Although Rosberg refused to comment on speculation that both he and Hamilton wore 'anonymous' helmets during the test, the German was more forthcoming on its purpose but raised plenty of eyebrows after claiming he knew what type of tyres were deployed on his W04. "Of course, I was aware of what their ideas were and what they were testing because I needed to know that to be able to pinpoint for them what was going on," he said.
Oh and age of car is not related to tyres. Only to actual year that we're living in.
Kimi, so, Massa Fernando Sebastian is faster than you. Can you confirm you understood that message?