Mercy pleas in tyre tribunal

2013-06-21 14:35

PARIS, France - Mercedes pleaded Thursday, June 20, for leniency from the governing body of motorsport, saying it deserves no more than minor punishment for taking part in tyre testing that rival Formula 1 teams claimed was unfair.

Lawyers for Mercedes, tyre manufacturer Pirelli and the International Automobile Federation (FIA) rifled through thick binders of evidence as they debated back and forth at an all-day disciplinary tribunal hearing in Paris.

The hearing president, Edwin Glasgow, promised the FIA tribunal's decision by Friday.


A thrust of the FIA's argument was that the 1000 kilometres of private tyre testing with Pirelli in May in Barcelona offered an advantage to Mercedes that other teams didn't get. F1 bans the use of current-season cars for track tests.

In response, Mercedes portrayed itself as having done a service to the whole of F1, because by offering up its car and drivers, it was helping Pirelli make its tyres safer.

The tyre manufacturer, for its part, outright rejected the FIA's case, calling the charges against it "totally inadmissible."

Immediately at stake was whether Mercedes and Pirelli would be sanctioned. A longer-term worry for F1 was whether the case risked antagonising two big players in the sport - the German auto manufacturer that also supplies engines to other F1 teams and Pirelli, which supplies all of the tyres for motorsport's premier series.

Mercedes lawyer Dominique Dumas told the panel of four judges and a hearing president: "Pirelli cannot accept and will not accept that its image and the quality of its products and its credibility be tarnished because of a case which is not admissible and which is unfounded."


For the FIA, lawyer Mark Howard said Pirelli trialed a variety of tyres, organised the test and paid for the Barcelona circuit. But Mercedes' 2013 car, driven by current drivers Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton, was used and this offered an advantage to the German team, Howard argued. The testing could have provided Mercedes with potentially valuable information about its cars and their reliability, he said.

Howard said: "They have been enabled to do something which the other teams have not done.

"By testing the 2013 car for three days with the current drivers and engineers, Mercedes may be said to have obtained an unfair advantage.

"Clearly there was data that was available to Mercedes. It is difficult to say that Mercedes gained no benefits from the test."

He noted that Mercedes has suffered with the wear and failures of Pirelli tyres tin the 2013 season. That has given a comparative performance advantage to other teams, he said. To preserve that advantage, those teams might have objected in advance about the Mercedes test had they known about it. Red Bull and Ferrari protested about the test after it happened.

Mercedes lawyer Paul Harris insisted the German team got no sporting advantage, not least because they didn't know what tyres Pirelli had put on their car. He argued these were purely and simply Pirelli tests: "They did it all; they were in charge of it all."

He also suggested the tests were warranted to help Pirelli improve the safety of its tyres that have shed chunks of rubber, disintegrated on occasion, and faced criticism from some drivers in the 2013 season.


"Our motivation was safety," said Harris. "We should actually be applauded for having that as our motivation."

Any rules-breach by Mercedes "is, in the scheme of things, a minor infringement," he argued. "If there is to be any sanction, then it has to be a minor one."

Harris suggested nothing more serious than a reprimand, a suspended sanction or, at most, preventing Mercedes from joining other F1 teams when they run their cars in July at a three-day test for young drivers.

Harris also spoke at length about tests Ferrari conducted in 2102 and with Pirelli in 2013, but wasn't charged for by the FIA. His suggestion appeared to be of double-standards. Ferrari driver Felipe Massa drove in at least one of the Italian team's tests with Pirelli, and they ran "significantly more" than 1000 kilometers, he said.

"If we did these nefarious things to the fundamental principles (of sporting fairness) it cannot be the case that Ferrari didn't also do them," Harris said.

Howard, for the FIA, called the Ferrari test "a complete red herring." The FIA said it did look into a Pirelli tyre test involving Ferrari in Barcelona early in April. But FIA President Jean Todt, who worked for Ferrari from 1993 to 2009, closed that case. The FIA said the Italian team used its 2011 car for the test, which didn't violate the ban on current cars being used for track testing.

Harris said 2011 and 2013 cars are very similar, the performance differences "miniscule."

"They haven't even been charged by the FIA," he said of Ferrari. "It is not fair, we respectfully suggest, to treat us in a disproportionate manner different to Ferrari. It would send completely the wrong message out to the sport and to the world."


Another bone of contention was whether Mercedes got prior approval for the test from the FIA. The team insisted that it did - from Charlie Whiting, a veteran FIA executive who directs the running of F1 races, backed by the FIA's legal department. Howard, however, said Whiting's opinion wasn't binding and that he wasn't the right person to authorize such a test.

Howard said none of the other F1 teams were invited to the testing and none were aware it was taking place.

"If Pirelli and Mercedes had been transparent and open about what was going on" other teams would have been able to say beforehand if they objected, he said.

Harris, for Mercedes, conceded: "We can see now with the benefit of hindsight how other teams may have become suspicious."

He acknowledged that Rosberg and Hamilton were asked to wear black helmets, masking their identity, for the testing. Mercedes now regrets that "and we apologise for that," Harris said.

"That was not the smartest move, and I can see that, and we take that on the chin."

Stay with Wheels24 for the 2013 F1 season – fresh reports every day.