GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Scott on May 23, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
-
...unless the teams accept their terms and sign the contracts.
Sounds like Pirelli have taken on Bernie's tactics. Although I do see their side of it as well...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107609
-
Does Pirelli realise it has to give 12 months' notice of its comings and goings, according to regulation? Otherwise the FIA will fine them for forcing them to rush the tendering process for Pirelli's replacement.
-
It would certainly be fun to watch the various teams scramble for independent tire suppliers
-
Does Pirelli realise it has to give 12 months' notice of its comings and goings, according to regulation? Otherwise the FIA will fine them for forcing them to rush the tendering process for Pirelli's replacement.
Why wouldn't PIRELLI just walk away and laugh at the FIA and say "try to collect a fine".
-
Funny ain't it the FIA gives 3 or 4 years notice to teams of big engine and spec changes to the cars for next year, but then just forgets about the boots these new cars will need. :confused:
Taken together with the present outcry, from some, about Pirelli doing what the FIA/FOM asked them to do, who would blame them if they walked out.
-
I think Pirelli's contract is up at the end of the year. If memory serves, they signed a three year contract at the beginning of the 2011 season. If so, they should be able to walk away at the end of the contract without legal recourse on the FIA's part.
-
I think Pirelli's contract is up at the end of the year. If memory serves, they signed a three year contract at the beginning of the 2011 season. If so, they should be able to walk away at the end of the contract without legal recourse on the FIA's part.
Yeah, I think that's what they mean with the threat. They can't wait any longer to make a commitment, and they have fulfilled their contract. Good luck on getting another tire supplier for next March.
-
And ex Bridgestone motorsports director is just happens to be present in Monaco Grand Prix. ;)
http://sutton-images.com/searchresult.asp?folderid=5009&hidefc=1&search=13gp06b&op=1&caption=MONACO%20GRAND%20PRIX%20FRIDAY%20-%20FIA%20Formula%20One%20World%20Championship,%20Rd6,%20Monaco%20Grand%20Prix%20Friday,%20Monte-Carlo,%20Monaco,%2024%20May%202013.&credit=
And I think Pirelli is pressuring FIA to give a verdict of a new contract, so I think there is no point talking FIA able to fine them.
In my opinion Bernie does not like the spotlight of the sports put into Pirelli instead of him. That is why they are pushing Pirelli to pull out of the sports, which makes me sad, because last one and have year has been an awesome experience. I guess Red Bull is trying to pressurize the deal with other supplier, and as there is only one other available option of Bridgestone, Ferrari would not mind having them back, given their records with them before.
If Pirelli leaves the sports, I would give them a standing ovation, will say you are too honest for FIA, FOAM & Bernie's F1 politics which makes you pay for doing your job properly.
-
Isn't all this a bit premature? I just view it as part of a wider problem involving the teams, Pirelli, the FIA, and Ecclestone over who has the most power in Formula 1. I think that it's far too soon to say anything more about Pirell's apparent threat, since it could just all be smoke and mirrors.
-
This according to Pitpass;
[ftp]http://www.pitpass.com/49114-Pirelli-in-quit-threat[ftp]
It seems that F1 eats tire manufacturers with the big ones walking away for lack of return on investment or being treated poorly.
How long before they are scrambling to find a company that is willing to supply the required tires with all the regulations involved.
-
Does Pirelli realise it has to give 12 months' notice of its comings and goings, according to regulation? Otherwise the FIA will fine them for forcing them to rush the tendering process for Pirelli's replacement.
Why wouldn't PIRELLI just walk away and laugh at the FIA and say "try to collect a fine".
Because it's a commercial contract enforceable in the French civil courts. If Pirelli break it, they will be liable - it's not exactly as if the FIA changed terms on them. Blaming a third party for the problem (termination through frustration) only works in certain circumstances. Nothing any of the teams has said prevents Pirelli from providing a supply in 2014. It might not be a team-pleasing supply, but Pirelli has not been prevented from supplying tyres that meet the FIA's criteria - and remember the contract is between the FIA and Pirelli, not the teams.
The 12-month requirement, as far as I know, was not removed when the contract system was put in. The FIA is not obliged to give Pirelli the contract. However, Pirelli, having not told the FIA it wishes to leave in the correct timeframe, is obliged to be ready in case it's called upon to do F1 contract again. It implied through its actions it was ready to, at the very least, be the backstop candidate.
So at this point, Pirelli would be wise to shut up and do the tyres for 2014 as contracted, lest they pick up the bad publicity of a major international court case and the resulting fine. Given the lack of information it's had, it would then be perfectly entitled to ditch F1 if the FIA is unhappy with the resulting bands of rubber (assuming said tyres are safe and not delaminating like the tyres from the last 2 races), due to the governing body lacking sufficient precision with its requirements ;)
As for "getting a tyre supplier before March", that would be a doddle if the FIA let go of the need to control the tyres so much. (If they don't, nine years' notice probably won't help them, never mind nine months). Getting a supplier is pretty easy, but the tendering process would need to be done by the end of September or so if the tyres are going to be ready in time for testing in February.
Willy, the FIA had to scramble to get Pirelli for 2011 (other tyre companies considered F1, but demanded to do it on their terms and not the FIA's).
-
:good: You're always the goods Alia. :good:
-
Why should be Pirelli be making 2014 tyres when there is nothing that bounds them to do so? What if FIA chooses not to select Pirelli but someone else? I think the reason for Pirelli's push is justifiable, as without an agreement they would not be investing in building a new compound for the cars that will be a revolution for F1.
How come Pirelli can occur a fine, when they have fulfilled their contract? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
Kate Walker have this to say, and in certain way, FIA's reluctance to renew Pirelli's contract may be due to such agreement.
http://blogs.espnf1.com/The_Inside_Line/
-
Pirelli are in a very difficult situation. They have only done what was asked of them and they are getting pilloried, I wouldn't mind betting it is affecting sales and that is not what they have signed up for.
The people doing the pillory-ing are the ones who should take a long hard look at themselves. Red Bull should be charged for bringing the sport into disrepute, because as soon as Dieter Mateschitz and Webber make the sorts of comments they have been making they give a legitimacy to the chattering classes and the talk down spiral's out of control.
Red Bull are coming of age in F1 at the moment, and it's not pretty, I would love to see someone pinch Adrian Newey and then watch the rest of the house of cards fall over. Pirelli do not deserve to be treated the way they are being treated at the moment.
-
Why should be Pirelli be making 2014 tyres when there is nothing that bounds them to do so? What if FIA chooses not to select Pirelli but someone else? I think the reason for Pirelli's push is justifiable, as without an agreement they would not be investing in building a new compound for the cars that will be a revolution for F1.
How come Pirelli can occur a fine, when they have fulfilled their contract? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
Pirelli failing to notify the FIA is what's binding them. If they walk out they'll have broken their contractual obligation (the September 1 thing is not there without reason!) and that's why they'd be fined. The FIA's free to use someone else for 2014, but Pirelli is not free to simply walk out.
If the FIA chooses another team, Pirelli will simply have to throw away any investment they've made which depended on the FIA choosing them. Pirelli is bound to the FIA, but the FIA is by no means bound to Pirelli. It's not a very nice deal, but Pirelli signed it...
Though after their bungle with Mercedes, I think it's a moot point. Pirelli will be lucky if it is permitted anywhere near a 2014 tender for any FIA racing series, let alone F1. If it does get the F1 contract again it'll be because the FIA will have driven away all alternatives.
-
Pardon me Alia, but isn't Pirelli repeatedly asking FIA to sort out things from the beginning of the season? How else they may be able to notify FIA? I think if there is someone to blame that should be FIA
-
It's beginning to look as though Pirelli is done. The teams (most of them) are unhappy, Bernie would apparently like Hancook to be the new supplier, and now Pirelli has run an illegal test with Mercedes, though they claim they asked permission. Sound like a conspiracy? :DntKnw:
-
Pardon me Alia, but isn't Pirelli repeatedly asking FIA to sort out things from the beginning of the season? How else they may be able to notify FIA? I think if there is someone to blame that should be FIA
Pirelli were given permission to sort it out in a specific way. It does not appear to have been done that way. Either the FIA instructed them wrongly or Pirelli exceeded their permitted boundaries. Or both.
-
I think the answer is both, and now I am looking how FIA conduct an investigation against themselves, and if they are found guilty, how would they implement a punishment themselves?? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
If the time of Pirelli is coming to an end, I think they did put a great show in this short tenure, where they were able to snatch the spot-light from Bernie, remain talk of the season :good: :good:
-
I think the answer is both, and now I am looking how FIA conduct an investigation against themselves, and if they are found guilty, how would they implement a punishment themselves?? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
In Max's day everyone would be punished with a good thrashing from Miss Whiplash. :D It's why so many things go wrong. ;) :DD
-
I think the answer is both, and now I am looking how FIA conduct an investigation against themselves, and if they are found guilty, how would they implement a punishment themselves?? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
The FIA has tacitly admitted error exactly twice that I can remember since I started watching F1, and both of them were decisions that went in Jordan's favour on appeal back in the early 2000s*. They never admit fault nor punish themselves, but they sure are good at shifting the blame elsewhere.
* - The first one was USA 2001, when Jarno Trulli would have been thrown out for plank wear, had one of the stewards not gone home early and thus not signed the paperwork. The official appeal was won on the grounds of unsafe conviction. His 5th place was thus reinstated and I think the AWOL steward lost his licence. Then, in Brazil 2003, Giancarlo Fisichella would have lost the race had Jordan not been in a position to provide telemetry that proved the version of events originally used by the FIA was wrong. Fisico was given the win and the timing provider was quietly sacked at the end of the year.
-
Does Pirelli really want to be left out of F1? It is the pinnacle of racing and F1 does huge PR boost for them. For them not to be there anymore is probably damaging for their brand and reputation. They will work something out.
-
My first comment is : who says the Mercedes test was illegal?
It is under investigation but it is obvious that the FIA knew of the intention to carry out a test with current cars so informed opinion says it will be ratified as legal and necessary.
Regarding why Pirelli may chose to go; involvement in F1 costs them millions and the PR has been mostly bad - have any of you rushed out to buy Pirelli tyres because of F1? I have Goodyear Eagle F1 tyres on my sports car and Continental Sports on my saloon both chosen because they are rated to be the best tyres for the cars.
-
I confess to not having read the whole thread, so apologies if this is repeating what's already been said.
Regardless of all the intricate legal schmegal (which usually gets 'bent' a bit anyway because one clause or another isn't 100% binding), I remember Pirelli at the beginning of the season, saying words to the effect: 'We need to know by June if we're producing tyres for 2014, or we will struggle to develop them in time.'
Well, it's June.
-
I agree Monty the test in question is the subject of investigation because some teams protested it and has yet to be declared illegal.
I know teams push regulations to the limits. and even exceed them on a regular basis, however is it really plausible that Merc would have run a whole three day test without some sort of nod from someone in authority? It now looks like Charlie certainly knew of the test, supposedly a reference he made to it in a drivers association meeting led to the cat leaping from the bag. :D
-
It looks like the FIA, in their usual fashion, have made it more trouble than it's worth. I don't see any other manufacturers queuing up to supply tires.
-
My first comment is : who says the Mercedes test was illegal?
It is under investigation but it is obvious that the FIA knew of the intention to carry out a test with current cars so informed opinion says it will be ratified as legal and necessary.
If the FIA wasn't informed of the exact date and location so that it could send an observer to check the rules were followed, the test was illegal.
If FIA permission was not acquired for the exact test once all relevant details (date, location, resource commitment necessary etc) were confirmed, it was illegal.
If not all teams were informed of the test once all relevant details (date, location, resource commitment necessary etc) were confirmed, it was illegal.
If the test wasn't offered to all teams equally once all relevant details (date, location, resource commitment necessary etc) were confirmed, it was illegal.
If the test was set up without regard to the correct clearance procedures as defined in the regulations, it was illegal.
If the test was obtained on false grounds, it was illegal. (Getting vague permission for non-specified tests from half the teams five months beforehand does not make this specific one legal).
If the test caused Pirelli to exceed its total permitted test running of 1000 km per year, it was illegal.
If the test occurred without a FIA observer, it was illegal (as there is no method of verifying independently whether such rules as the "no experimental aero components" one were followed).
If attempts are made to hide the nature or primary findings of the test (beyond the usual ones to prevent premature release of information to teams with good spies), it was illegal.
Evidence has been given suggesting all of the above rules were broken. That's why Pirelli have a problem.
(I've heard a number of rumours as to how word escaped of the true nature of the test, including painting both drivers individually, an anonymous Mercedes shareholder and a journalist who happened to overhear a conversation some Merc people thought was private and mistaking it for common knowledge. The only common thread being that the drivers' briefing and/or adjoining GPDA meeting at Monaco is always the place, or at least the time, where the leak happened).
-
Pirelli failing to notify the FIA is what's binding them. If they walk out they'll have broken their contractual obligation (the September 1 thing is not there without reason!) and that's why they'd be fined. The FIA's free to use someone else for 2014, but Pirelli is not free to simply walk out.
If the FIA chooses another team, Pirelli will simply have to throw away any investment they've made which depended on the FIA choosing them. Pirelli is bound to the FIA, but the FIA is by no means bound to Pirelli. It's not a very nice deal, but Pirelli signed it...
I'm not sure that is quite right, the legitimacy of a contract can only apply whilst you are in contract. Should the contract period end without renewal any notice period will become null and void. The present contract for this season clearly does not have 12 months left to run.
Whilst future options can obviously exist, for them to be enforceable a contract must have been created addressing the responsibilities of the parties involved for the future. No lawyer's going to allow a publicly owned company to sign an enforceable one sided agreement that could cost millions if the other party just chooses to walk away, not sure any court would, or even could, enforce such an agreement either. Also should the FIA put 2014 out to competitive tender any future agreement becomes null and void, negating any detailed future notice period.
-
Haven't we all had enough experience to know that F1 contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on? There is always a loophole a Lawyer can use to dump it.
-
Nothing is 'illegal' until a court of law deems it to be.
The latest reports seem to suggest what we all feared - the FIA burying their 'corporate' head in the sand and letting a few individuals take the can.
Nobody has denied that Charlie Whiting knew about, and agreed to, the test but now they are saying this is 'irrelevant'.
So Charlie could be one of the individuals that gets hung.
-
If Pirelli needs to start now to have the 2014 tires ready on time, how long would it take for a newcomer to start from scratch and develop 4 different dry compounds plus inters and full wets?
-
While Mercedes seems content to skip the young drivers test and end the issue of illegal testing, Pirelli is said to be furious at being dragged before the FIA Tribunal, saying under the terms of their contract they committed no wrong. They are considering bringing suit against the FIA for breach of contract. Todt's preferred firm Michelin is said to be ready to provide tires for 2014. I don't think we have heard the last of this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/10135936/Pirelli-may-take-FIA-to-court-after-being-reprimanded-for-secret-tyre-test-with-Mercedes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/10135936/Pirelli-may-take-FIA-to-court-after-being-reprimanded-for-secret-tyre-test-with-Mercedes.html)
-
Neither do I.
I get the impression that the FIA is trying to call Pirell's bluff, and make them throw in the towel, so that they can offer the contract to another supplier. In view of how poorly Michelin was treated by the FIA in the past though, I'd be surprised if they were willing to make a return.
-
Given the way FIA has been conducting themselves specially with the tyre issue, says a lot about the mismanagement as well power struggle in FIA. But I think the appeal of the sole supplier of F1 tyres and thus the following PR is simply too much to ignore for the tyre companies.
So even though they were badly treated, Michelin will surely set them aside and begin a new endevour
-
That is ironic that of all suppliers the FIA might have up their sleeve, it is actually Michelin. Suckers for punishment, I guess. :DntKnw: :DntKnw: