2013 has been a great year for F1 intrigue and speculation. James Allison leaving Lotus had many believing he was bound for Ferrari or Red Bull. TJ13 now believes McLaren were way ahead of the game. Sources are briefing that they knew about meetings between Woolff and Lowe prior to the offer made by Mercedes to Toto.
Contrary to vehement assertions from certain F1 writers and their sources, it appears James Allison is off to McLaren sorry Honda. At the time of Allison’s departure from Enstone, TJ13 was one of the few F1 news sites to report McLaren did indeed have a significant interest and this was dismissed as nonsense by some of those who claim to be ‘in the know’.
Luis Vasconelos, of Finnish publication Turun Sanomat, writes today, “According to our sources, Allison has accepted the [Honda] offer, and leads to a small group of engineers who will produce a car that Honda’s will use to test they’re new turbo engine with”.
Honda are not yet a participant in F1, and as such until they register on the 14th November 2014, they are not bound by F1 regulations, sporting or design. So what will happen? Could it be Allison will produce a car for them which they will be able to test in Suzuka indefinitely?
Of course Woking and Minato are such a long way from each other, there could be no possibility of F1 technology knowledge transfers.
ZitatHonda is snatching Allison right in front of Ferrari
F1 | Turun Sanomat 11.6.2013 21:16
Up to Canadian Grand Prix -weekend it looked certain that James Allison is going to Ferrari, but according to latest information the deal didn't go through and Allison is heading to Honda's camp.
Information from McLaren spread out that Allison will join Honda once the mandatory vacation from his Lotus-contract is over. Honda supplies turbo engines to McLaren starting from year 2015.
Allison resigned from Lotus already in the beginning of the season and he was put on a mandatory vacation before Spain GP. He was apparently offered three contracts. Ferrari wanted Allison as leading technical worker underneath technical manager Pat Fry and McLaren would had wanted Allison to replace their technical manager Paddy Lowe.
Some rumours were even taking Allison to Red Bull, where he was claimed to replace Adrian Newey since he was believed to retire after season 2014.
Right now it looks as if Honda snatched Allison in front of everybody else.
Honda will become officially McLaren's engine-supplier on November 15th in 2014, since by that time no testing limitiations will tie the Japanese company and that's why Honda can drive their F1-car as much as they want. This is a good place to test the new engine.
It's believed that tests will take place in Japan both in Suzuka and Motegia under wraps from Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault.
According to our sources Allison has already accepted the offer and he is leading a small designing group with the job of producing a car which will serve Honda when they start testing their new turbo engine.
There is no specific clarification about Honda's plans with Allison, but he is believed to work as a middleman in Honda's and McLaren's cooperation work, due to his long experience of F1-cars which is valued highly.
Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi, Abu Dhabi, Austin, Montreal, Melbourne and Mokpo; the Formula 1 caravan sure does get about and some unlikely places host glamorous races.
Weehawken probably won’t be joining that list anytime soon.
During the last 40 years F1’s visionary leader Bernie Ecclestone has achieved it all. He’s transformed a sport comprising a bunch of scruffy, amateur, oily-rag racers tooling around in sheds and racing mainly in Europe into a sporting global behemoth, backed by the world’s greatest mega-brands, all desperate to get a share of the sport’s unrivalled media reach. No other year-on-year world championship comes close.
For all Bernie’s achievements, the putative grand prix around the streets of New Jersey – read New York – will (most likely) be the one that got away.
Sure I know it sounds negative of me, especially in the face of such effervescent positivity and exuberant over-hyping by just about everyone in F1. But five minutes – just five minutes – research and rational thinking may make even the most excitable high-fiving, fist-pumping dude pause for a reality check.
The scale of what’s being proposed by the Grand Prix of America promoter, media multi-millionaire Leo Hindery, is simply immense.
Widening the roads and flattening their sizeable crowns; ripping up pavements, light stands and landscaped areas; rerouting drainage pipes; constructing new (moveable) walkways; building sizeable platforms in the Hudson River; repaving the circuit length with expensive F1-standard Tarmac; building pit garages, hospitality and media areas; getting the notorious US unions (to say nothing of New Jersey crime gangs) on side – I could go on.
This little list would be difficult enough in some rural backwater, but we’re talking about a busy commuter hub used every day by thousands upon thousands of people to get to work in Manhattan. The disruption will be immense. In addition to the effect on commercial activities, on either side of the proposed circuit route are hundreds of residential homes. They must be looking forward to the planned mess with relish!
You may have seen pictures of construction captioned as F1-related sites. They’re not. New condominiums, shops, offices and a multi-level car park are actually what’s been photographed.
Now consider that New Jersey isn’t Melbourne or Monaco. Seasonal temperature fluctuations are extreme: hot and humid summers followed by arctic-like winters doesn’t bode well for a year-on-year F1 standard track surface, does it? Think of the everyday use by thousands of cars, trucks and buses and you’ll probably not need me to tell you what that will do to the newly laid asphalt…
Politically the road doesn’t appear too smooth, either. I know Hindery has said there’ll be no cap-in-hand visits to municipality, government or state offices, but are elected officials going to be willing to deal with disgruntled New Jersey home owners (still occupied with the damage caused by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy) when they see hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on a race they have no interest in?
Whether privately funded or state backed, perception is all.
Famously keen on controlling New Jersey’s purse strings is state governor Chris Christie. An ardent supporter of projects that benefit his electorate, Christie has been supportive of a privately funded grand prix, but, with momentum gathering apace for the Republican politician to challenge for a 2016 Presidential nomination, he’ll want to steer well clear of any perceived interests in ventures that don’t have majority support.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d welcome the opportunity to photograph a grand prix against a New York city skyline and hope one day to do so, but it’s been a long time coming.
Ecclestone has long harboured the desire to race in the Big Apple. Way back in the ’80s Bernie proposed a two-day F1 extravaganza racing around the streets of lower Manhattan using Wall Street as the focal point. It never happened.
Others have tried...
Philip Morris – owner of the Marlboro cigarette brand – during the ’90s poured close on US$100M into various New York arts and cultural projects, not just as a clever way of promotion (and of course a tax write-off) but also to create goodwill towards a possible Formula 1 race and subsequently a CART (Champ Car) event in the city.
It never happened.
In this age of overly keen, superficial newsgathering, many people who should know better blindly believe everything they’re told. The regularity of this trend is only increased when a story is reported on and subsequently read by people who want the project they’re concerned with to come to fruition.
Just think back to the fantastically effective London Grand Prix story of 12 months ago.
The Santander-funded stunt involved some historical plans, a video featuring McLaren drivers Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton, some funky graphics, clever marketing and a whole load of hype.
It was bought, hook, line and sinker by all ’n’ sundry. Thirty seconds of thought might have made people aware that such an event was about as likely as a Caterham driver winning the 2012 world title!
Bernie’s answer to the BBC – on the grid at last Sunday’s Canadian Grand Prix – when asked if we’re having a race in New Jersey in 2014 may be revealing: “We’re trying, we’re trying, it’s not easy…” was his less than positive reply.
A group of guys willing to chase the dream. They may just make it happen. If, and it’s a big if, they can convince potential investors with plenty of ‘dumb’ money to front-up the cash – for a modest return – then within a month or so we could see GP America on a provisional 2014 F1 calendar.
Of course, having the money in place doesn’t guarantee a race but it certainly makes the event a whole lot more likely.
I hope Bernie, Leo and their team keep trying and I hope Formula 1 does have the skyscrapers of New York as a backdrop in 2014, ’15, ’16 and on, but I’m a realist…
With the tribunal hearing for Mercedes and Pirelli set to happen in 7 days time, evidence is building up against the Mercedes F1 Team, as a leaked gentlemen's agreement now also seems to have been breached.
Germany's SportBild has published a document that seals a gentlemen's agreement between all current F1 teams. The document states that if any team wanted to run development testing for 2014, any test would have to be jointly approved by the testing committee - the teams - and the FIA.
Although Ross Brawn denied at Canada the test was actually "secret" but rather "private", the agreement requires any team that is out to test elements for 2014 is bound to inform all other competitors beforehand. This not obviously didn't happen, as Red Bull Racing for one heard from the press at Monaco that a test had taken place.
Furthermore, Pirelli have said that the testing was aimed to develop 2014 tyres and had nothing to do with resolving the safety issues that appear to be going on with the current set of 2013 tyres.
The problem essentially is that it is Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn who signed the agreement, while he also clearly stated that it was him who approved the Pirelli test with the Mercedes AMG F1W4 at Barcelona. And even though the agreement is not enforceable in court, it severely undermines the position of Ross Brawn, and Mercedes as a trustworthy competitor in Formula One.
Zitat von Vauhdin MaailmaThe Finns are the people of formula. The slogan has been hammered so deeply into the nation's the subconscious, it will blur the realism. Many young people the promise of going to force formula side, while the other compass might come undone by running the wort rest of their lives. Just ask Toni Vilander or Markus Palttala. Vauhdin Maailma magazine asked
I just love Webber's brutal honesty! ha" title="haha" /> Webber says new type of F1 racing is less exciting now By Jonathan Noble Monday, June 17th 2013, 11:41 GMT
Zitat Mark Webber thinks that Formula 1's more experienced drivers are struggling to get much satisfaction from the state of racing at the moment.
With tyres becoming such a dominant factor in 2013, Webber believes that the way that degradation has to be managed through a race has taken away some of the pleasure of battling wheel-to-wheel.
"I think as a group, especially for the guys north of 100 grands prix, we've seen a different make-up of how grands prix are run these days," said Webber, when asked by AUTOSPORT about how satisfying the racing is this year.
"It's in our skill set to have to deal with some of these challenges, as we always have, whether its V10s, V8s, refuelling, one-lap qualifying; Q1, Q2, Q3.
"I've seen most of the scenarios we've had to play with, and it is important for a driver to deal with them.
"But you saw in Monaco I started to look after my first set of tyres when we got to Turn 3! And we could see Nico [Rosberg] doing that as well.
"It [the racing] is different. Monaco was quite an extreme case for that in terms of pace, as I think it around GP2 pace, and that's getting quite extreme you'd say.
"It is also very strategic from the pitwall, as in this is where the tyres are, this is what we're capable of doing, can you please get us there?"
Webber admits that there are times when drivers are able to push to the limit and fight hard for position, but thinks that is really limited to the closing stages of races.
"You see drivers racing like Lewis [Hamilton] and I did with three or four laps to go in Bahrain," he said. "We wouldn't race like that on lap seven, because you're just cutting your own wrists - killing the tyres and your stint range.
"But when you've got three or four laps to go, you try and finish in what position you can.
"It is a really different type of racing, no doubt about it. You still have some nice moments in the car but it's hard to put your finger on the satisfaction side of things now. It's just different."
Despite his reservations about the racing, Webber says that finishing at the front is still worth as much, simply because of the quality of the oppositions.
"To be successful and win at this level, they're not going to hand results out," he said.
"You're going to have to beat some decent operators, and that's always been the case in F1.
"You have to beat other teams as well, not just the drivers. That's a hugely satisfying part of the job. You know that when you're on the top step of the podium, generally it's a very proud moment."
ZitatF1 tyre test tribunal: FIA says it never granted official permission
The FIA insists that Mercedes and Pirelli were never granted official permission by the governing body to run its 2013 car during the post-Spanish Grand Prix test.
Furthermore, it claims that that any indication of approval Mercedes had to use its current car by F1 race director Charlie Whiting was 'irrelevant'.
As the hearing into whether or not Mercedes and Pirelli breached the rules in running a 2013 car for a tyre test at Barcelona got underway in Paris, motor racing's governing body laid out its reasoning for bringing the matter in front of the International Tribunal.
And with one of the key issues of the case believed to relate to approval it may have had from Whiting, the FIA's legal representative Mark Howard QC made it clear that only the World Motor Sport Council would have the right to waive the rules.
"Whether or not Whiting consented, it is irrelevant, because testing in relation to Article 22 is a breach, unless it [a rule change] is granted by the World Motor Sport Council," he said.
Howard revealed that Whiting was first phoned by Mercedes team manager Ron Meadows on May 2 about the possibility of running a 2013 car, with team principal Ross Brawn holding a follow-up conversation later in the day.
Howard added: "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 purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyre and he would check."
Whiting emailed FIA lawyer Sebastian Bernard the following day to enquire about the situation, and was informed that such a scenario could be possible, but would be subject to Pirelli inviting all the others team to test and demonstrate that it has done so.
Howard said that Whiting informed Brawn of the FIA's legal position, but reiterated that it was not a binding stance.
"This communication was not an agreement by the FIA – it was nothing more than Whiting and Bernard's interpretation of [article] 22."
The FIA argues that rival teams were not invited to take part in the Barcelona test with a current car subsequent to the Whiting discussions, even though Pirelli had offered other teams the possibility to test back in 2012.
ZitatTed Kravitz has popped out of the hearing to go live with an update on Sky Sports following the FIA's prosecuting case:
"The FIA have started by setting out the case for the prosecution. They have started by establishing the facts that we know and they have been going through Mercedes’ ‘excuses’ if you like – Mercedes’ points as to why they thought it was legal to do so," Ted reports.
"The FIA’s QC has point-by-point been actually disapproving Mercedes’ excuses. Mercedes’ excuse number one was that they had permission via an informal communication with the FIA’s Race Director Charlie Whiting, but the FIA said that permission, even if it was to be given, was conditional on the approval of all the other teams – and that approval was never sought nor given. So that’s Mercedes excuse number one supposedly done away with.
"Mercedes’ excuse number two was that they didn’t learn anything from the test that would be useful or beneficial from making Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg’s cars go quicker on track. To that the FIA say ‘I’m afraid you can’t give that excuse because even if you didn’t learn anything, you’re learning something, because in a way there’s nothing you need to change on the car’. So even by not learning anything in a way you are learning something.
"The FIA have been going through their prosecution in a very meticulous way with their QC. They’re about to wrap their prosecution up and we’re about to hear what Mercedes have got to say themselves in their defence."
ZitatTed has also been explaining what's likely to be the crux of the whole case - Article 151c of the International Sporting Code governing aspects prejudicial to competition:
"What the FIA have also been doing is setting out the case against Mercedes and Pirelli in terms of Article 151c - and that is acting in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of competition. Now that's the important thing. That's the rule, that if it's proved they have broken, carries the big penalties. That carries the race bans, the removal of all constructors' points or even the exclusion from the FIA World Championship itself.
"I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's that rule that carries the big penalties. So we will see if that is proved if Mercedes and Pirelli broke that rule concerning interests prejudicial to competition."
ZitatThe fact that the FIA have brought up the infamous Article 151c of their International Sporting Code - effectively the catch-all 'bringing the sport/competition into disrupte' clause - is now clearly emerging as the major revelation from the governing body's case.
According to Craig Slater, the FIA's QC stated this in relation to that clause: "Undoubtedly Mercedes obtained information during this test and it is self-evidently prejudicial to the sporting competition for one competitor to be able to be able to run its car for three days when others can not." by James Galloway 10:37 AM
ZitatAsked if the citation of Article 151c was potentially the most damaging aspect of the case, Ted Kravitz replied: "Undoubtedly so. Just to be clear, this is a kind of catch-all regulation the FIA has to make sure that everybody behaves well, nobody brings the sport into disrepute and no one gains an unfair competitive advantage.
"Crucially, the FIA are accusing Mercedes-Benz - a major team in Formula 1 - and Pirelli - Formula 1's official tyre supplier - of acting in a way prejudicial to the interests of competition in Formula 1. So this is a big thing.
"What they are doing is saying that 'by testing with the 2013 car and Mercedes' current drivers Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg Mercedes gained an unfair advantage which is inconsistent with acting in a fair away of the sport and in the interests of competition'. Pirelli were involved in that too by doing that and not informing all the other teams." by James Galloway 10:47 AM
ZitatMercedes commence defence at testgate hearing with reiteration that it was a Pirelli test and it was Pirelli alone who set the parameters of the test by Pete Gill 11:04 AM
ZitatMercedes have acknowledged they did have access to telemetry during the test but that was ‘immaterial’ because the data was essential to the safe running of the car. by Pete Gill 11:07 AM
ZitatMercedes claim that because the test was theirs, it was not 'essential' they received it. However, because Ross Brawn showed an 'abundance of caution, he thought he should check with Mr Whiting and the FIA's legal department. They said yes, end of story In essence, Mercedes are arguing that because this wasn't their test, they cannot be prosecuted under the terms of the sporting regulations by Pete Gill 11:11 AM
ZitatF1 tyre test tribunal: Mercedes claims it didn't break rules By Jonathan Noble Thursday, June 20th 2013, 09:58 GMT
Mercedes Pirelli F1 2013Mercedes has argued that its running of a 2013 car during the post-Spanish Grand Prix test at Barcelona was not a breach of the regulations.
After hearing the submissions of the FIA to the International Tribunal judges, Mercedes lawyer Paul Harris QC argued that the Brackley-based outfit did not break the rules because the track run was a Pirelli test.
The FIA believes that Mercedes may have breached Article 22 of the Sporting Regulations by running its current contender.
The rules state explicitly that testing is classified as "any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship."
Harris says that the fact the test was organised, paid for and run by Pirelli means that Mercedes cannot be ruled to be in breach.
"This was not a test undertaken by Mercedes. They are critical words in text of Article 22 - 'undertaken by'," he said.
He added: "The Pirelli test was not a test undertaken by Mercedes, it is irrefutable it is a test undertaken by Pirelli."
Harris said that Pirelli directed, controlled and paid for the test, and that Mercedes was only doing what it was requested to by the Italian tyre manufacturer.
"This evidence is confirmed by Pirelli, so the people who were present on the day all unanimously given the same evidence about what was going on, who was doing it, and who was in charge of it. It is undeniable the testing was undertaken by Pirelli."
Harris said that Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn and team manager Ron Meadows did have permission from F1 race director Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer Sebastien Bernard that it was allowed to run its 2013 car at the test.
Mercedes claims that its view that the test was being 'undertaken' by Pirelli and not Mercedes was backed in correspondence between Whiting and Bernard.
In an email on May 3 that Whiting wrote to Bernard, Harris quoted the F1 race director as saying: "In my view any such testing would not actually be undertaken by the competitors, it would be/could be be argued that this was done by Pirelli. Would we be able to take this position?"
Bernard replied: "Indeed we could take this position...[it is] not an undertaking from the competitor."
ZitatFIA hearing into Testgate in session in Paris; FIA stress they did not approve the test and Mercedes did not receive explicit permission to stage the test; 'informal communications' held with Charlie Whiting via phone but governing body maintain that permissible conditions in which the test could take place were not met.
Mercedes reiterate test was conducted by Pirelli and that tyre firm set session's parameters; Team claim they didn't need to check test was permissible but 'cautious' Ross Brawn did anyway and was given the green light; Mercedes admit asking drivers to run in unmarked helmets was wrong; Insist if they should be charged with Article 151c then so should Ferrari for their Barcelona test, as 'not substantial difference' between 2013 and 2011 cars. by Pete Gill edited by James Galloway 11:53 AM
ZitatMercedes claim that whereas they only tested tyres during their Barcelona test, Ferrari tested other components. by Pete Gill 12:07 PM
The dogfight getting intense
ZitatRoss Brawn: Charlie Whiting is the reference point on all matters concerning the Sporting Regulation
ZitatLots has happened in regards to the details emerging from Mercedes' defence over the last hour or so but here's a lucid explanation from Craig Slater on how the Brackley team have essentially set out their case:
"The basis for their defence it now emerges is that [they are saying] it wasn't a Mercedes test, it was a Pirelli test undertaken by [them] the key words he points out in the FIA regulations. He maintains that this test was undetaken by Pirelli: they were in charge of organising and running the test and specifying what track action took place and what tyres were being used. They in effect were governing the telemetry and even though Mercedes had access to the data that was coming back from the car that was only to ensure the safety of the car during the test.
"So in effect what he is saying is this wasn't a test by an entrant and regulation 22, which refers to in-season testing, is not relevant because this wasn't a test by a team. It was a test solely by a tyre manufacturer." by James Galloway edited by Pete Gill 12:23 PM
ZitatHere's more from Craig Slater on how Mercedes' legal defence has also shed more light on the communications with the FIA which they believe gave them clearance to test.
"We heard this morning from the FIA about details of exchanges between the Mercedes and the FIA as Mercedes sought to clarify the position about whether a 2013 car could be used. Paul Harris in his submissions this afternoon explained exactly what email traffic had gone on between Mercedes and the FIA, and perhaps while conceding that Charlie Whiting wasn't in a position himself to authorise the test, he does say he was in a position to be led to believe by him there was this potential to run the 2013 car.
"Basically Mercedes made the request to run the 2013 car to the FIA, Charlie Whiting then had an exchange with the in-house legal team at the FIA and it's fascinating to hear the email reponse that came back from Sebastian Barnard, who's the FIA's legal advisor. It goes along the lines of 'in my view any such testing could not actually be undertaken by competitors, it would be argued that this was done by Pirelli. Would we be able to take this position?'
"The response from Sebastian Barnard was 'yes we could take this position, it is not an undertaking from the competitor'. So on the face of it if that's some advice that's been given out there it does seem to suggest that there was this potential loophole that it could be a Pirelli test governed by their commercial contract with F1 and it wouldn't involve the competitor Mercedes and they wouldn't be in breach of the regulations." by James Galloway edited by Pete Gill 12:34 PM
ZitatLunchtime update from Sky Sports F1's Ted Kravitz:
"The Mercedes' defence contained some key points. As far as they are concerned, they asked Charlie Whiting who then checked with the FIA legal department and who then came back to Mercedes to say that 'as long as this is run under the guise of a Pirelli test then we don't have a problem with that'.
"But we had this point addressed by the FIA earlier in the day when they said that the only people who can give an exemption to the rules are the FIA World Council or the Tribunal themselves.
"So have you those two points going up against each other.
"And then we have the point made by Mercedes that they didn't learn anything from the test. As a rebuttal to that, the FIA's lawyer asked whether they gained 'knowledge' from that. Ross Brawn didn't want to answer that but was pressed on the point and did have to concede they did gain 'knowledge' from the test. So, again, we had a stand-off on that point" by Pete Gill 1:37 PM
ZitatPirelli begin their defence in the bluntest terms by stating that "we do not come under the jurisdiction or authority of the FIA".
Tyre supplier's lawyers also cites 2009 FIA case against former Renault boss Flavio Briatore as proof the FIA can't take action against third parties/non-licence holders.
by James Galloway edited by Pete Gill 2:09 PM
ZitatPirelli lawyer Dominque Dumas also argues that there are no restrictions in Pirelli's agreement with the FIA about what car can be used for its permitted tests. by James Galloway 2:25 PM
ZitatThe FIA's QC, Mark Howard, has however countered Pirelli's argument by claiming 'Pirelli's submissions are confused and miss the point'. by James Galloway 2:37 PM
ZitatThe FIA have also responded to Ross Brawn's testimony by thanking Brawn for being "frank and truthful" but claimed that what he said had "given the game away". by Pete Gill 3:16 PM
Summing up now going on by all three respective parties, starting with the FIA. Their case is as much as previously stated - namely that Mercedes didn't test and the event was in breach of the sporting regulations, with Charlie Whiting only able to give an opinion rather than formal permission.
Mercedes' final submissions are now underway with a tetchy exchange between its lawyer and the FIA QC kicking things off. by James Galloway 3:15 PM
Update from Craig Slater: 'The FIA have responded to Pirelli's testimony by saying they are confused and have missed the point. They say that Pirelli's contract is subject to the Sporting Regulations and they can't be ignored, especially if they are involved with a current team. [According to the FIA], it is one thing for Pirelli to test tyres, but quite another to involve an entrant - and if they do that, it is effectively an in-season test, which is banned.' by Pete Gill 3:14 PM
Print view
Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:35 am
reply
ha" title="haha" />
" title="annoyed" />
