Boring answer but we really need another race to judge.

100% agree

COTA is a lot like Silverstone which was also a poor race for ferrari

I'd like to hope they haven't been doing anything dodgy. It did seem strange though how both Ferrari's struggled off the line and had a race pace inconsistent with the second half of the year.

_________________
Should I grow a beard?

I've read a couple of news articles that mention this but haven't really seen any details on what this concerns more specifically. Are there any documents released that explain this in more detail?

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”

Agree with all those above who say "too early to tell" it would be nice if they just came out and said it like it is!

Are there any speed trap figures from Austin?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Here ya go. It's a PDF file so I can't post it in the forum.

https://www.fia.com/file/106230/download

_________________
Mission WinLater

This tweet is all I’ve seen: https://twitter.com/thomasmaheronf1/sta ... 49281?s=21

So an advantage but not the advantage theyve has recently.

Lewis, Toto, and Max all voice their opinions over the weekend that Team Red's lack of pace had something to do with complying with the directive. We may never know if Ferrari was exploiting a previously grey area or if they were infringing on a regulation and backed off because of the FIA's scrutiny.

It will certainly be interesting to see if Ferrari can regain their previous straightline speed advantage in Brazil or Abu Dhabi.

_________________
Mission WinLater

I think it was mostly because the track. This track punishes the tires and Ferrari's weakness compared to the other top cars is their tire degradation anyway. I reckon Leclerc would have had pole if he had a current spec power unit. Vettel did say he left time on the table and I believe him.

That's the second detailed explanation today ATH, Albon's tyres being the other one, thanks. Whilst its seems that this whole incident might not just be a coincidence and Ferrari might have been 'fiddling the books' there is no clear , proof as yet.
Max saying that 'Ferrari cheated' is typical Max , he is playing a dangerous game really, not only blotting his copybook with Ferrari but open to legal challenge if he is wrong. Hamilton and Mercedes have said the same but a bit more cautiously.
Of course both Mercedes and Red Bull might have more info than the rest of us but there is going to be a lot of 'egg on faces' if Ferrari disappear down the straight in Brazil.

It is odd though that is such a difference in Ferrari's performance in practice and race. More to follow I'm sure.

Thanks. Without knowing what kind of tows each car had though, I'd say this is inconclusive.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Another one of the "too early to say" brigade here , but the coincidence is hard to ignore. A drop off off in qualifying after a run of car being the car to beat, and they they were nowhere in those opening laps although that did seem more grip related.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss

My understanding was that Ferrari's straight line speed changed overnight from Friday to Saturday, which was reported by Red Bull and Mercedes whose data showed that they were suddenly losing much less time to Ferrari down the back straight in qualifying compared to practice. I believe this was reported on the Sky broadcast at some point in the weekend. If true, it's pretty damning evidence.

Yes I read somewhere that the straight-line difference on Friday was double that on Saturday. Obviously could be engine modes but I'd guess that would be unlikely

If what we hear is true -- that their advantage was cut in half between Friday and Saturday -- it's an awfully long coincidence to be anything else. I agree we'll have to wait and see, but my gut instinct says they were doing exactly what the directive says you can't do.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

This from Toto : "“We just had a discussion about the data from the race, and the speed trace looks totally different to the last few races, whether it’s down to the technical directive or down to another issue, I honestly don’t know as we can’t look into what Ferrari has done.”

The argument of higher down force for better cornering isn't exactly helped when Hamilton literally drove round Vettel around a corner either, unless you fully buy that can't get-heat-in-the-tyres suggestion.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss

Leclerc's start/finish speed would suggest there is still a substantial advantage in acceleration. The gap was similar in qualifying.

I'm not totally convinced but I think this was just a tyre issue. The Ferrari really didn't like the yellow stripes for whatever reason.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany

It's hard to be sure from one race, but given that they actually looker faster Friday than the rest of the weekend, I'm willing to believe that it may have something to do with a regulations breach (or potential regulations breach, I suppose).

If it weren't for the difference between Friday and Saturday/Sunday, I'd suspect the unexpectedly low - although very pleasant for attending the race! - temperatures were more of a factor, since this year and last the Ferrari generally seems to perform better when it's warmer. It's also hard to be sure, given that Vettel was out so quickly, rather this was just Leclerc being off the pace for some reason or a general lack of pace from the Ferrari. So, yeah; no way to be sure just from this race, but it does look suspicious.

_________________

Qualifying Prediction Game 2019 Champion [8 wins]
Pick 10: 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 3rd | 2019: 20th
Top Three: 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: 4th [4th] | 2019: 3rd [1st]

Marc Priestley's youtube video talks abiut Ferrari's pace in Austin from the start and the issue with Vettel's car. I dont know how to link videos but worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/TarVSio8jqc

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018

It could be that they had to make some changes to the car because of the restriction FIA imposed and their car got even worse than expected. 52secs off in a 56lap race is a huge drop in performance compared to Mexico where the difference was only 2secs.

_________________
Sir Stirling Moss "Quite frankly, Kimi Raikkonen is the fastest driver in the world"

Is the Pope catholic?

_________________

Thanks! If it's true that Ferrari triggered some clarifications in retaliation, then it might very well be that they were up to no good, or why else would they have reacted that way?

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”

So practically how would such a device work? Is it hard wired or perhaps switchable, locally or remotely. Is it a component on a circuit board or a little black box? Does it automatically switch to allow standard flow when monitored? I'm just wondering if it would be visible on scrutineering. If it exists of course!

Yes that's the information that would interest me; how exactly is the alleged cheat technically working.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Mark Hughes wrote this in the comments under his race report:

"Tec Directive 0035/19.
In response to Red Bull asking if it would be legal to run a pulsing electrical signal to interfere with the fuel flow meter so that in between the 2000Hertz frequency measuring points, it could momentarily (and repeatedly) exceed the nominal fuel flow regulation limit (sort of like momentarily doing 80mph in a 70mph limit but still staying within a 70mph limit as measured between two points).

The FIA said no TD 0035/19, citing the following regs.

5.10.3 All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA. Furthermore, all fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through this homologated sensor, and must all be delivered to the combustion chambers by the fuel injectors described by article 5.10.2.

5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited."

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018

One question : If you manage to cheat by bypassing the fuel flow sensor, and so get a "much higher" fuel flow rate than allowed, doesn't it imply that your fuel consumption is higher than allowed. The total fuel consumption being limited and controlled, you should run dry before the end of the race. Or did I miss something ?

As for Verstappen comment... Let's say he will never win a WDC. I may find some WDC more likeable than others, but can't name one who had a neuronal deficit (yes, not even Mansell...). As I wrote elsewhere, statistics let very little chance to see Verstappen Junior win one.

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

I know they wouldn't do it constantly. But anyway, using a higher fuel flow "only" when exiting corners or at key moments, and using a normal fuel rate the rest of the time should result in a higher global consumption. There's not much petrol left in the tank at the end of the race in cars using a "strictly legal" fuel flow, so "cheating" even 6 to 8 times a lap during a small number of laps should dry the tank, hence my question. Or the Ferrari PU is quite abstemious when run "legally".

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

Ferrar did look very slow on sunday but I am willing to put this down to an off Vettel weekend and Leclerc lacking track time and on an old power unit. We will get the answer next race anyway. It does seem very suspicious though. Even without any trick, judging by customers performance and the works teams the Ferrari is still probably the best engine, however the Mercedes chassis is quite a way ahead of the Ferrari one.

Still taking all of this with a grain of salt but if the above is a true reflection of what Ferrari were doing, then it's blatant cheating IMO.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

No he isn't.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

I think this makes back to back seasons where, as soon as the FIA took steps to "clarify" their approach, they lost performance noticeably. If you recall, the same thing happened when the FIA temporarily installed a second sensor to monitor their battery output last year. So at the very least, it seems that Ferrari are fairly consistently trying to circumvent the regulations. From there, whether or not you choose to call them cheaters is more about semantics.

He isn't Jewish or Muslim......

_________________