Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali claims that the protest his outfit has lodged against Mercedes is motivated by a desire to clarify the Formula 1 test ban regulations.
The Scuderia, along with Red Bull, lodged a protest before the Monaco Grand Prix, alleging that Mercedes conducted a three-day track test at Barcelona on May 15-17.
Domenicali believes that the sporting regulations do prevent such a test, but that should the stewards deem it legal he will be keen for Ferrari to benefit from such running.
"We lodged a protest because it is the only way to understand the clarification on a regulation where we are in doubt," said Domenicali.
"For us, there was no doubt that a 2013 car, and the previous two years' cars, are not possible to be used during the season.
"We just want to know if this is possible.
"If it is, we will be the first to raise our arms and do the same because Ferrari has always been pushing to have in-season testing on the track.
"This is the reason why we want to understand the situation.
"If the decision will be the opposite to what we believe is the right interpretation, then we need to react immediately and ask for a test to happen."
|MERCEDES SECRET TYRE TEST ROW|
|Mercedes in secret tyre test row|
|Red Bull demands answers over tyre test|
|Pirelli insists Mercedes got no advantage|
|Rivals protest Mercedes over tyre test|
|Mercedes angry at tyre test criticism|
Domenicali was unwilling to suggest what the penalty for Mercedes should be if it were to be found to have broken the regulations.
He suggested that a 'sporting penalty' would be appropriate even though there is no precedent, but hinted that any action should extend beyond simply affecting a single race weekend.
"It's interesting, because when there is something in the sporting regulations, you expect a penalty," said Domenicali when asked by AUTOSPORT what would be an appropriate penalty.
"It is not really obvious what would be the effect on the race weekend, it is bigger than that.
"I do not know what the solution is because there is no precedent."