Montezemolo keen for Mercedes “prosecution”

2013 F1 season

Luca di Montezemolo, Ferrari, Circuit de Cataunya, Barcelona, 2013Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo hopes the FIA will prosecute Mercedes for carrying out a three-day test for Pirelli.

Speaking at the opening of a new Ferrari museum, Montezemolo said: “I do not wish to comment, but I note with satisfaction that the federation is following this incident well.”

“Let?óÔéĽÔäós hope Formula One can maintain its professionalism and we have faith that those who attempt to circumvent the regulations are pursued and prosecuted, or rather more prosecuted than pursued.”

“We have faith in the FIA,” Montezemolo added.

Ferrari are one of two teams which protested against Mercedes. The FIA International Tribunal will meet on June 20th to examine whether the rules were broken.

Montezemolo said he is keeping a close eye on the team’s performance following Fernando Alonso’s second place finish on Sunday:

“Between today and tomorrow, I will hold a long and detailed meeting with [team principal Stefano] Domenicali and all the engineers: they know what we must do to improve and I am convinced that right to the very last race, Ferrari will be competitive and a contender, that we will not give up and that we have all the elements in place to improve.”

Mercedes and Ferrari Pirelli tyre test row


Browse all Mercedes and Ferrari Pirelli tyre test row articles

Image ?é?® Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

106 comments on Montezemolo keen for Mercedes “prosecution”

  1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th June 2013, 13:23

    Luca’s comments do not sit well with me, given the level of protection that Ferrari has enjoyed from the FIA in the past. As recently as just a few years ago, Ferrari would have avoided prosection altogether had they carried out a test like the one Mercedes did, or at least gotten a slap on the wrist.

    • jason101 said on 11th June 2013, 13:59

      +1

      FIA = Ferrari International Assistance

      I do find it funny when people start an answer with “I don’t want to comment but…” and then proceed to tell you what they think.

      Its a bit like someone who starts with “I’m not racist but…” you know exactly where its heading.

      • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 11th June 2013, 14:15

        My personal favourite is “No offense, but…” ;-)

      • Gaz said on 11th June 2013, 15:04

        Luca should keep his mouth shut. That said, the FIA does not show bias towards Ferrari at present (or any other team for that matter) and the continual belief that Ferrari always get what they want is tiring!

        • kpcart said on 11th June 2013, 17:20

          That is true.
          In the past, it seemed they did get preference, but since the last few years of Brawn and double diffusers and red bulls dominating years, it seems that the FIA are not as interested. If Mercedes get away with this, it will mean Mercedes is more important to FIA and making money then Ferrari is. Red Bull is the most important, but Mercedes are making a huge push, and are pushing the rules at the same time to try to be competitive.

        • RACERNORRISKI (@racernorriski) said on 11th June 2013, 21:17

          On the contrary, FERRARI did get a pass because SUPPOSEDLY they used an older car …. however the rules clearly state NO TESTING … nothing about the car status, NO TESTING. Thanks, Ray

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 12th June 2013, 10:51

            @racernorrisk – Actually, teams are allowed to use older specifications of cars for certain extra-curricular activities, like filming days.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th June 2013, 21:52

          True, their position has gone into decline over the last few years. But Luca is a part of the old guard at Ferrari, one of they key players who managed to get that preferential treatment for the team, and if he had his way, Ferrari would still be under the FIA’s protection.

    • Luca Nuvolari (@nuvolari71) said on 11th June 2013, 18:52

      what are you talking about?! Vettel overtaking under yellow flags in brazil and nothing happened?!! MacLaren steeling drawings and telemetry of an entire season from Ferrari?! Tell me ONE episode that is clearly a help of FIA to Ferrari in the last 2/3 years!! Explain it with intelligence, please!!

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2013, 18:57

        @nuvolari71

        Vettel overtaking under yellow flags in Brazil and nothing happened?

        Because he didn’t break the rules.

        McLaren stealing drawings and telemetry of an entire season from Ferrari?

        They were expelled from the constructors’ championship and fined $100m – one of the most severe punishments handed down to a team in F1 history. And you think this constitutes the FIA being soft on Ferrari’s rivals? You must be joking.

        • Luca Nuvolari (@nuvolari71) said on 11th June 2013, 19:00

          Still waiting for scientific examples of favours of FIA for Ferrari. To say FIA plays for Ferrari is a very immature and unfounded statement.

          • Luca Nuvolari (@nuvolari71) said on 11th June 2013, 19:09

            as expected, no answers….
            I am surprised that a mature and expert eye like yours Mr Collantine decided to attack my comment and let other spit judgements on entire organisations, based on assumptions and itches… You’re better than that!!

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 11th June 2013, 19:10

            @nuvolari71 – I also disagree with the “Ferrari International Assistance” rubbish, but you chose to counter it with poor arguments (i.e. a non-event, and an incident that Mclaren was punished for).

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2013, 19:14

            @nuvolari71 I never said they are, don’t put words in my mouth.

            I was just pointing out that to use McLaren’s punishment in 2007 as an example of the FIA not prosecuting Ferrari’s rivals is ludicrous.

        • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 19:11

          And I differentiate spygate from the Pirelli tire test in that it wasn’t McLaren that did the dirty deed, it was a few rogue individuals under the radar who thought they could get away with something. I highly doubt Mercedes as an entire F1 team and globally iconic company, as well as Pirelli, another globally iconic company, would collectively collude in an underhanded way given the massively dire consequences vs. what would be imho a relatively small gain in the grand scheme of things.

        • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 11th June 2013, 21:35

          Was there a worse punishment than 100 mill and expelled from the constructors?

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2013, 22:09

            Tyrrell were banned and excluded from the championship entirely in 1984.

            Various charges were thrown at them including having lead ballast in their water tank, refuelling during the race and using illegal fuel. When the matter came before the FIA Appeal Court the charges were changed and some new charges introduced before they were found guilty.

            Many people believed their exclusion was politically motivated. Tyrrell had been the only team blocking a retention of the existing maximum fuel tank capacity, which was to the benefit of Tyrrell with their normally aspirated engines and to the detriment of their turbo-powered rivals.

            The irony being that Tyrrell were accused of (among other things) illegally refuelling during a race when in reality they were the last team in the paddock which needed to do so! They often started the race with a less than full tank.

          • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 12th June 2013, 18:40

            wow well that’d take some beating and thanks for the story.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 11th June 2013, 20:12

        He didn’t say there were any from the last 2/3 years, he said in the past. Although since you ask, Ferrari getting off after Hockenheim 2010 is the most recent example in my opinion, although plenty wouldn’t see an issue with that.

    • DaveD (@daved) said on 11th June 2013, 22:53

      A GIANT +1

    • Marco (@aandrewaa) said on 13th June 2013, 17:17

      It’s impossible to compare Mercedes and Ferrari tests, the first with 2013 car and drivers, the second with a 2011 car and secondary driver… the first BREAKING rules, the second RESPECTING it!
      If someone disagree, is lying to himself.

  2. jh1806 (@jh1806) said on 11th June 2013, 13:43

    I very much hope this goes the way of the Double Diffuser…another superb interpretation of the rules by Ross Brawn.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 11th June 2013, 15:12

      I hope not

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 11th June 2013, 16:39

      @jh1806 I don’t like this one as it wouldn’t therefore be an interpretation of the technical regulations, rather the sporting code. Also, the very fact this didn’t seem to be available to most other teams and of course that testing costs lots of money I don’t feel the same way about this incident as I do the double diffuser, fan car or off-throttle EBD.

      I feel this incident holds more parallels to “crashgate” than any of the aforementioned technical interpretations, which isn’t good company to be in.

    • dkpioe said on 11th June 2013, 17:45

      how did he interpret “no testing inseason” to mean “testing inseason” ? I more hope this is the end of Brawn and his immoral sports ethic in f1. i still remember incidents like in 2003 when Juan Montoya passed Schhumacher in a ferrari, and schumacher spun, brawn couldnt handle that and called Montoya unclassy. I also remember in the same year his absolutely pathetic unsporstmanlike “Spin” when the tyre rules were changed with 3 races to go to support Ferrari and Bridgestone, hearing his interviews at that time i thought who is this jerk?, and what is he doing in this sport?
      So many people think he is great, but not me. He bought a greatly engineered car designed by Honda, which won him the championship with Brawn, but under his leadership, the team went backwards as the year went on. the same has happened between 2010-2012 as he has led Mercedes. The same was likely to happen this year until the illegal tyre test.
      Soon he will join Briatore on a boat in Monaco having been kicked out of the sport for not being a sport.

      • Broom (@brum55) said on 11th June 2013, 22:58

        @dkpioe Great post
        I echo your sentiments. Brawn is talked about far too highly for someone who has been involved in so many controversies. Lets not forget the 1994 Benetton which was illegal where he was technical director.

      • James (@iamjamm) said on 12th June 2013, 12:01

        He bought a greatly engineered car designed by Honda, which won him the championship with Brawn, but under his leadership, the team went backwards as the year went on.

        Brawn joined Honda at the end of 2007? The 2009 car was completely overseen by Brawn, which they began 6 months before any of their rivals because the 2008 car was a complete dog. It was funded by Honda, by designed by Ross and the rest of the design team. If it wasn’t for Ross coming in, in the first place, Button would not be a world Champion and Vettel would already be a 4 time champion. Yes, the car went backwards as the year progressed, due to huge budget cuts caused by the withdrawal of Honda which meant hundreds of people lost their jobs and productivity dropped significantly.

        The same was likely to happen this year until the illegal tyre test.

        Can you see the future? Do you know the same still won’t happen this year?

        Ironic how you accuse Ross of ‘spin’ and then go on to do some spinning of your own.

    • As it was the case with the difuser; the intention of the testing rule is clear as the Sahara sky. What you are saying means that you hope the wording in the regulations are written so poorly that they can be twisted and manipulated. No matter how much I wish for certain teams and drivers to win, I would never wish to see them win in an unsporting way like that.

      I certainly don’t see how Brawn made a superb interpretation of the difuser because, like I said, the intention was rock solid but unfortunately FIA failed to properly express and control it which made 2007 a farce beyond belief and seriously impacted F1′s integrity.

      Be careful what you wish for. Others might learn!

  3. HiPn0tIc (@hipn0tic) said on 11th June 2013, 14:00

    If not i expect a big war from the manufacturers. In one side Mercedes on the other Ferrari and RedBull.
    If Mercedes get punished, Brawn should be too.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 15:25

      i expect a big war from the manufacturers. In one side Mercedes on the other Ferrari and RedBull.

      Did I miss something??? What car does Red Bull make??? They are a Drinks company that just happened to get a name of a car manufacturer such as Infinity to fit in there but they are far from being manufacturers themselves. Mercedes and Ferrari, yes, they are car manufacturers. I just had to make it clear.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 17:56

      I don’t expect a war between the manufacturers, but rather an arms race between the teams utilizing testing once more!

  4. thatscienceguy said on 11th June 2013, 14:05

    Luca I think you spelt it wrong mate. You meant persecution.

  5. Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 11th June 2013, 14:42

    And who better to oversee the proceedings and decide that Mercedes should stand trial while Ferrari is automatically exonerated than the very impartial Jean Todt who has no ties to Ferrari whatsoever other than the fact that every penny he has saved has a prancing horse stamped on it…

    • Gaz said on 11th June 2013, 14:59

      Ferrari did nothing wrong. Mercedes have done something wrong. It isn’t really any more complicated than that.

      My only hope is that if Mercedes are prosecuted, that their punishment fits the crime. I’d like to see no Friday running for Mercedes on 3 GP weekends or something along those lines.

      • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 11th June 2013, 15:25

        I’ve said it before but I think, if found guilty, the best punishment would to deprive Mercedes of the next 1,000 kms of track time. I’ve not calculated to be 100% accurate but that would probably equate to FP1, FP2, FP3, qualifying and the race itself for each of the 2 subsequent GP’s.

        This would mean that every other team on the grid would “catch up” with Mercedes in terms of track time.

        Any other punishment such as, say, reducing Mercedes involvement in practice at future GP’s would not immediately penalise them as the effects would be gradual as their time on track reduces. It would also still give them the chance to (unfairly) score points in the first few Grands Prix before the lack of track time takes its toll.

        • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 11th June 2013, 15:29

          I don’t see how this would redress the balance when:

          1 – We have no idea how much advantage (if any) was gained by Mercedes from this testing

          2 – 90% of the testing was focused on tyres for next year, meaning that potentially Mercedes could be carrying an advantage through to the end of 2014, which certainly wouldn’t be in any way addressed by simply kicking them out of chunks of this year’s championship.

          • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 11th June 2013, 16:57

            I can see what you are saying but if the FIA feel that Mercedes has breached the rules then, to a degree, they will have to make assumptions about what Mercedes gained from the test. The point being that they may have to over punish in order to be sure that they have dealt with the matter sufficiently and to send out a strong message. A little like fining a team $100,000,000!

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 20:07

            @mazdachris I personally think the potential of Mercedes carrying an advantage through to the end of 2014 is virtually zero…assuming of course that Pirelli didn’t share data with them, because if they are found out to have done that then Pirelli shouldn’t even be the tire maker for 2014.

            If it is as NR and Brawn have said, with only generic information on the tires, which were ‘coded in batches’ as Brawn put it, then not only did the Mercedes drivers not know much about the 2014 tires, they weren’t running them on a 2014 chassis/engine package, nor would they know if the tires they were on would end up being the final product or not. I’m confident that by the time the teams have their new cars on the track by the end of next January/beginning February, everyone will be on exactly the same playing field, figuring out how their car treats the tires, and at what venues and under what conditions which cars do better than others. I believe Hemberey has already hinted that the tires won’t need to nearly be the factor they have been in stirring up the grid because the newness of the regs for next year should go a long way to doing that. ie. imho this test is so far removed from Mercedes actually having the real 2014 tires on their 2014 car that anything they gleaned at one Pirelli test of presumably no data sharing at one venue this May will be irrelevant.

        • jackal40 (@jackal40) said on 11th June 2013, 15:34

          I will not watch any race, FP, or qualifying in which Mercedes is punished in this manner. Such a punishment (in my opinion) would do great damage to the sport.

          Should Mercedes loose Constructor points or receive a fine, I can support – if they are found to have broken the rules.

        • Dave (@davea86) said on 11th June 2013, 15:47

          It’d be interesting if they did get a 2 race ban. Imagine a team that’s based in Britain and owned by a German company, with British and German drivers missing out on the British and German GP’s. I’d imagine there’d be a lot of furious sponsors, not to mention disappointed race fans who can’t see their home grown hero’s race.

          Not saying it should have any bearing on the FIA’s decision, it’s just interesting.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 11th June 2013, 16:45

            @davea86 it’d be a powerful message to say the least! Really, the incredibly fishy aspect to me is why it was so shrouded in secrecy and why apparently the FIA weren’t properly notified.

          • kpcart said on 11th June 2013, 17:32

            which would be the perfect punishment to show that these rules can not be breached.

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 17:44

            @vettel1

            the incredibly fishy aspect to me is why it was so shrouded in secrecy and why apparently the FIA weren’t properly notified.

            My thoughts exactly!!! It just makes you wonder with whom else has Pirelli done these sort of tests before now besides the 2 now known teams! How can you trust them now? I say bring back Michelin, bring back Bridgestone or heck… bring back Goodyear for that matter! One tyre supplier cannot be trusted!

          • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 11th June 2013, 17:59

            Not saying it should have any bearing on the FIA’s decision, it’s just interesting.

            Of course it should have a bearing on what decision is taken! F1 is an entertainment business venture first and foremost, presented under the guise of an impartially-governed sporting event. A decision as outlandish and outrageous as preventing Merc GP sponsors, fans and supporters from seeing their team compete in the next two GP’s would be quite the self-inflicted wound, especially as we wait to hear whether or not Bernie will stand trial in Germany.

            At last, count Ecclestone and/or others linked to the sport faced no fewer than six separate court cases or inquiries, with one (Constantin Medien vs. Bernard Ecclestone; Stephen Mullens; Bambino Holdings Ltd; and Gerhard Gribkowsky) making lawyer.com’s top-20 2013 cases, being ranked up there with litigation involving convicted Ponzi scammer king Bernard Madoff.

            Although the legal actions have underscored Formula 1′s image as a money-grabbing, corrupt activity, presided over by suits with little regard for the consequences of their actions, in this instance I believe that will be to Mercedes team’s benefit, as the sport’s owners will not want to risk alienating their clients in Stuttgart.

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 11th June 2013, 20:17

            Not saying it should have any bearing on the FIA’s decision

            The FIA won’t be making the decision though, the International Tribunal will. It is – at least in theory – an independent body and not controlled by FIA politics.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 18:03

      Uhm, @michael, its the FIA Tribunal that will be doing the procedure, and Todt is not in charge of it. In his position as FIA chairman is is in charge of laying out the case against Mercedes. But its the Tribunal that weighs the evidence presented and decides.

      That was one of the crucial parts of why the Tribunal was installed after Briatore won his case against the FIA over the procedures leading to his banning, that there is not one person who is making the case against the culprit, and also presides over the procedures and the making the desicions.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 19:01

        Hmmm…I could be wrong but my understanding is that this is an International Tribunal set up by the FIA and the FIA itself will be asked to answer some questions pertinent to the circumstances surrounding the tire test. At least…that would be logical to me.

        Questions to FIA: Did you allow a clause in Pirelli’s contract that they could do an in-season test in spite of there being a ban for teams to do in-season testing? Did Pirelli approach you about exercising that clause and doing a test? Did Mercedes approach you about doing a test? What parameters if any did you spell out to either company with respect to the nature of and logistics of said test? What are your specific concerns regarding the test? Was an FIA rep there as Lauda has suggested there was?

        Questions to Pirelli: Did you approach FIA to do this test? Why? Did you feel you had permission and/or legal standing to do this test? If so why? Did you ask other teams to test? Why Mercedes? Did you reassure Mercedes they were legally fine given that they would have had concerns about breaching the in-season testing ban rule? Did Mercedes ask why them, or how they would be able to do a test without fear of prosecution for breach of the rules? Did Mercedes make this a Mercedes test or was this a Pirelli test with Pirelli engineers? Prove that you didn’t share data with Mercedes or help them advance their Championship run.

        Questions to Mercedes: Did you do this test? On what grounds did you do this test knowing in-season testing is banned? Did you use 2013 cars and primary drivers? If so, who decided that? Did Pirelli share data with you? What did Pirelli share with you? Why did you do this test? Did you gain advantage from this test? Mr. Lauda, what is the name of the FIA rep that was at the test?

        • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 11th June 2013, 21:45

          Prove that you didn’t share data with Mercedes or help them advance their Championship run.

          @robbie – Jesus, dude, what kind of legal system did you grow up under, where the innocent have to prove that they’re not guilty and show absence-of-evidence to prove they haven’t committed a crime, while the prosecuting authority can simply declare that they did absent evidence (proving-a-negative) that they didn’t??

          Kangaroo court much?

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 12th June 2013, 15:25

            @joepa You needn’t jump on me and hold me to a comment I made like we are both in real court. I worded that sentence that way because many of the people on this forum, to my shock, are assuming that the test was a Mercedes test and insisting that Pirelli shared data with them and that Mercedes gained an advantage that way. I’m assuming Pirelli will strongly state their own case at the tribunal that they didn’t share data with Mercedes and that it was strictly a tire test.

        • Baron (@baron) said on 13th June 2013, 14:35

          And why were the drivers’ helmets obscured?

    • Broom (@brum55) said on 11th June 2013, 23:01

      Before getting your tin-foil hat out, remember that Todt worked with Brawn for 10 years and was integral to Ferrari’s success.

      • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 12th June 2013, 14:17

        I never wear my tin-foil hat out on forums to avoid any damage being done to it. As another person just mentioned, we have no clue of how many other tests like these were done and whether any were done last year, not just this year. We are aware of at least 2 tests this year one in which Ferrari participated. During the race, the commentators made some excellent points about the ridiculous testing situation that exists today where teams can’t test the tires until they have built their car at which point it is too late. Same with Pirelli who can’t develop the tire since they have no clue how the tire will behave on current or next year’s cars.

        Apparently Red Bull was also invited to a secret test that they declined. Ferrari engaged in a secret test with an older chassis and no one would have known about it if the Mercedes test had not become public. As Horner stated, clarity of the rules is more important than any punishment.

        There is really no way to prove that Mercedes benefited from the test or to quantify those benefits. We still saw that Mercedes and Ferrari had better pace than the Mercedes and a Force India can finish the entire race on 1 set of tires…

        Like I’ve said before, the FIA cannot and will not win this one. An unfair penalty could result in a kneejerk reaction from Mercedes that crushes Formula 1 and will pretty much lead to the departure of everyone in the FIA who was involved in it.

        In regards to your comment about the relationship between Todt and Brawn, Steve Matchett commented that he wonders if this is the last time we’ll see Brawn wearing the Mercedes uniform…

  6. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 11th June 2013, 15:28

    So just to clarify:

    Other F1 teams aren’t happy about this “private test” because Mercedes used their current car?

    But it would’ve been fine if they’d used an older model (like Ferrari did post Bahrain)?

    Coz they’re allowed to do the test, just so long as they’re not using current machinery, right?

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 15:43

      But it would’ve been fine if they’d used an older model (like Ferrari did post Bahrain)?

      Exactly! The issue here is that Mercedes used their current car and both their WDC drivers! Ferrari used a 2 year old car and their reserve driver, who also runs their simulator program. I see no wrong doing in what Ferrari did, they were just smarter about interpreting the rules as some other team has done so for the past couple of years!

  7. DASMAN (@dasman) said on 11th June 2013, 15:37

    Before the haters jump in with knives drawn, remember that prosecution is defined as:
    noun
    1.
    Law.
    a.
    the institution and carrying on of legal proceedings against a person.
    b.
    the body of officials by whom such proceedings are instituted and carried on.
    2.
    the following up of something undertaken or begun, usually to its completion.

    Don’t know why he felt he had to say that tho, as Mercedes are being prosecuted.

  8. richly said on 11th June 2013, 15:54

    I wonder if old Monty wants an investigation and punishment applied should it be determined that Alonso passed under the yellow the past Sunday, just saying.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 17:20

      Rubish! Clearly it was a yellow/red flag! And if he were to be punished, shouldn´t HAM be punished as well? As I recall, they both passed the same car at the same moment… Jesus… what is it with these people! Go crawl back to your cave, just saying…

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 11th June 2013, 21:08

        @karter22 I was a bit confused by that incident: I thought it must’ve been a yellow flag but why would they be showing a slippery surface flag? Spilled oil?

        • karter22 (@karter22) said on 12th June 2013, 4:03

          @vettel1
          There is a video floating around somewere. The LED board lit up half yellow and half red. It is har to really notice because there is also a yellor Pirelli billboard in the image so it makes it dificult but unless you are color blind, you can clearly see the yellow red blinking. Why they were showing it, I do not know but that is what was “waved”.

    • kpcart said on 11th June 2013, 17:30

      oh come on richly…..

    • caci_99 said on 11th June 2013, 20:46

      No, he wouldn’t want that. Nobody wants his best employee, his best asset, his most beloved, in short what is close to him being prosecuted, including you.
      Secondly, there is no such issue like passing under yellow flags, that is most probably how you want to see that particular event.

  9. Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 11th June 2013, 16:10

    To quote Alan Baldwin, “So Montezemolo wants Jean Todt to punish Ross Brawn. That would have been quite a headline 10 years ago.”

    For what it’s worth, I still think it’s more likely than not that Mercedes will not get significantly punished. Don’t ask me why – it’s just my gut feel.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 17:24

      @journeyer

      That would have been quite a headline 10 years ago.”

      Very true but I agree with you, I doubt they´ll get significantly punished as well. Mercedes is to “big” to make an example out of them although they should just to set a precedent!

  10. Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 11th June 2013, 16:21

    Ooh, I just don’t like Luca. His attitude is repugnant and his desire for retribution here is unbecoming for a company president.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 17:17

      @timothykatz

      His attitude is repugnant and his desire for retribution here is unbecoming for a company president.

      Why is it “unbecoming” for a company president?? Do you honestly believe he is just speaking on behalf of Ferrari? Your comment is way off. Why look at it that way?? Why not just look at it like: We (constructors in F1) are competing in a WCC, somebody broke the rules and they must be punished! It is not fair for all teams! Simple as that!

      Oh but wait, you can´t see past the fact that beause it´s the president of the biggest manufaturer competing in F1 that is saying it and you just happen not to like him? Seriously… Some people are just blinded by their hate. I hate Vettel but, I can say he had a great race on sunday, I may no have liked how he achieved it but, it was a great race.

      • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 11th June 2013, 22:03

        I’m sorry, I really didn’t mean to upset you or anyone else.
        I just don’t like Luca’s attitude. As a president of a company, he ought to try to rise above the doings of other teams. After all, Domenicalli is in charge of the team, Montezemolo is in charge of the company.
        As the matter is now in the hands of the FIA, I think it would have been better for him to have expressed trust in the eqanimity and fairhandedness of the FIA’s disciplinary tribunal, and his certainty that no team should be allowed to test current cars and drivers in-season . . . and leave it at that. However, now seems as though he is baying for Mercedes’ blood, no better than a footballer. Not a pretty sight.
        I dislike him, not hate him. Actually, I *do* hate his silly hairdo – he’s too old for that style. Tell me why you hate Vettel though?

        • karter22 (@karter22) said on 12th June 2013, 4:21

          @timothykatz

          Tell me why you hate Vettel though?

          Well, for starters, I feel he is overrated. I for one feel that he needs a “newey-jet” to perform the way he does. His racecraft is terrible when starting from behind, clear example is Brazil 2012 and abu dahbi does not count since everything played into his hands and RBR changed his settup to better use the DRS. 2011 was all car. Sure the car does not drive itself but it is tailored to his needs, hence why Webber has a hard time in it.
          Most of his wins are boring, I have yet to see him put in a performance similar to what Alonso has produced.
          And to top it all off, I feel he is a “product” made to publicize F1 and get new “fans”, example of this is how SKY has an opening featuring him. F1 is not the SV show and should not and “they” should not shove him down everybody´s throat. Oh last but not least, I hate his fake long speaches after a win and the finger… That has got to be the most boring celebration ever. Schumi´s jump was much classier!!

          But hey, this is just my opinion.

  11. gerry said on 11th June 2013, 16:29

    I ask again, where was the FIA representative when the test was being carried out?
    Did the FIA not authorise the test? It seems to me that any team can carry out ‘in season’ if they so wish ’cause the FIA does not ‘police’ these things . If they did, Mercedes would not be in this predicimen. This is an incredible situation!!.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2013, 16:39

      The FIA have said they were not told about the test. That being so, how were they supposed to send someone to monitor it?

      You can’t expect them to have a representative at every track every day on the off chance Brawn, Hamilton and Rosberg rock up with a spare W04 and a truck full of Pirellis.

      • karter22 (@karter22) said on 11th June 2013, 17:37

        You can’t expect them to have a representative at every track every day on the off chance Brawn, Hamilton and Rosberg rock up with a spare W04 and a truck full of Pirellis.

        True @keithcollantine but, somebody should have noticed that someone was not packing their gear after the race and that somebody didn´t make it to the airport!

        @gerry
        Mercedes wouldn´t be in this predicament if they would have been smart about it and would´ve used a 2 year old car with the reserve driver!

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 18:08

          somebody should have noticed that someone was not packing their gear after the race and that somebody didn´t make it to the airport!

          From all that has been learnt so far @karter22, mercedes did indeed pack up and send their trucks away from the track. And it seems at least Hamilton flew away (to a Blackberry PR event in Florida – see the Italian press mentioning his tweet), before returning a couple of days later after all teams had finished packing.
          They did their best to make it as secretive (or as they say “private” or “confidential”) as they were able to.

        • celeste (@celeste) said on 11th June 2013, 21:18

          @karter22 You can´t expect for the other teams to literaly be a police to see who packet or who didn´t packed.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 12th June 2013, 11:00

            But you can expect them to keep their eyes open, if only to see where they’re going. It’s not like Mercedes are at one end of the paddock and everyone else is at the other and they only walk past the Mercedes pits when they need to use the necessary. Mercedes are square in the middle of the pits, and there has been even more cross-over since Bernie had the motorhomes shuffled to force people to interact more often. At the very least, somebody had to notice that Mercedes weren’t going anywhere, even if they simply assumed Mercedes were staying behind to use up one of their filming days.

    • kpcart said on 11th June 2013, 17:34

      are you saying the FIA is meant to have people policing every race track in the world 24/7 to see if someone is testing? guess what, they were found out to have tested anyway, and will likely get punished.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 13th June 2013, 15:27

        It’ll be interesting to see how it all comes out. I personally believe that the FIA did know that Pirelli wanted to exercise the clause in their contract to test, and was going to test, but apparently didn’t know when the test was going to take place. But then why would Lauda say there WAS an FIA rep there? The tribunal should ask Lauda for the name of the FIA rep that was allegedly there.

  12. MDian said on 11th June 2013, 17:33

    Montezemolo is a t0ssball, end of!

  13. James (@jaymz) said on 11th June 2013, 18:09

    Yes! Prosecute Mercedes!

  14. BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 18:13

    I find it a highly suspect and strange formulation from Montezemelo:

    “Let’s hope Formula One can maintain its professionalism and we have faith that those who attempt to circumvent the regulations are pursued and prosecuted, or rather more prosecuted than pursued.”

    He is not saying that he even thinks Mercedes did anything against the rules, but makes it seem as if they just went more on the edge when looking for an advantage over the competition. From that I would argue that much of the “clever” things teams have done in the past couple of years – including all of those extra flexing rear-wings, front wings, the heavily blowing engine mappings and the double diffusor – would all fall in this definition of “teams who attempt to circumvent the regulations

    Which would all but make the last 4 years championships questionable!

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 19:25

      Well said. I was going to ‘defend’ LdM for at least not pointing fingers and stating specific concerns or accusations about Pirelli and Mercedes, and qualify it by saying I had no desire to defend him but that was my observation from his quotes.

      You could add Mercedes F-ducts last year that exposed holes behind the DRS wing when it opened, which also stalled out the front wing through tubes going all the way up to the nose. That was very controversial and RBR was the most vocal because they thought, as did I, that having the DRS wing affect another part of the car other than the rear wing, opened up a whole new can of worms regarding a voluntarily opened (by the driver) device affecting other parts of the car.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 19:50

        You could add Mercedes F-ducts last year that exposed holes behind the DRS wing when it opened, which also stalled out the front wing through tubes going all the way up to the nose.

        indeed, that and the original F-duct from McLaren, and numerous things teams came up with in the past!

    • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 11th June 2013, 19:52

      I would argue that much of the “clever” things teams have done in the past couple of years – including all of those extra flexing rear-wings, front wings, the heavily blowing engine mappings and the double diffusor – would all fall in this definition of “teams who attempt to circumvent the regulations”

      You could argue that, or anything you like. But you’d be, you know, wrong. The “flexing wings” were repeatedly tested and found to be within spec. The engine mappings were likewise perfectly legal.

      You’re on more solid ground with the double diffuser – introduced by Brawn. It probably should have been ruled illegal, but the FIA has a habit in interpreting its own rules to help teams on the bottom (Brawn and Williams in 2009) and hurt the teams on top (McLaren and Ferrari in 2009).

      Circumventing the regulations is breaking the rules, it is not the same thing as “looking for an advantage over the competition”.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 20:13

        Circumventing the regulations is breaking the rules, it is not the same thing as “looking for an advantage over the competition”.

        But we’re talking about LdM’s wording of “attempting” to circumvent the regulations, which is the same as looking for an advantage over the competition. Of course circumventing the regs is breaking the rules as you have said.

        • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 11th June 2013, 20:22

          “Circumventing the regulations” is just a more polite way of saying “breaking the law”. “Attempting to circumvent the regulations” is a more polite way of saying “attempting to break the law”. Which is not the same as “looking for an advantage over the competition” any more than “attempting to rob the bank” is the same as “looking for additional streams of income”.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2013, 20:40

            lol…fair enough. Wordplay. Governments call new taxes ‘additional streams of income’ and I call it ‘robbery.’

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2013, 23:10

        You could argue that, or anything you like. But you’d be, you know, wrong. The “flexing wings” were repeatedly tested and found to be within spec. The engine mappings were likewise perfectly legal.

        No, @jonsan.

        I am not wrong. I wanted to show how Luca’s words seem to point to him wanting to stop all teams from exploiting loopholes, and all of those are indeed about exploiting loopholes that were in the rules at the time.

        Red Bull used their understanding of the test, Brawn used that the floor had to “look” without interruption seen from below, McLaren used the fact that the driver himself cannot be deemed a “move-able aerodynamic component”, etc. Mercedes is also trying to exploit a loophole they think there is (I am highly skeptical that loophole is in fact there), so its the same kind of looking for the very edge to get an advantage over their competitors.

        “Circumventing the law” is not the same as breaking the law. Its the difference between avoiding taxes by using off-shore holding companies and falsifying your books to pay less taxes. The effect on your taxes can be equal, but the first is not actually a crime, while the latter clearly is. As for the ethics of it, that is quite another story. But that is not something we should expect of a company (and we have all excepted, or even admired racing teams doing that in the past.)

      • Baron (@baron) said on 14th June 2013, 12:06

        The double diffuser tweak was well known throughout the paddock and the FIA deemed it legal in advance. The fact that Williams Toyota and Brawn were the only three teams that used it, and that out of these three only Brawn’s design worked, is hardly evidence of the FIA “favouring the bottom teams” with rule interpretations. The question is not that Brawn ‘circumvented the rules’ but who it was actually convinced the FIA that they should actually ban the DD from 2010 and why. ?????

  15. Pandaslap (@pandaslap) said on 11th June 2013, 19:38

    Montezemolo looks like Carl Sagan’s evil twin brother.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.