planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote: How many people went from Ferrari to Mercedes the last 2 years that would have access to such info? Wouldn't be dfficult to find out who it was. But until we find out the truth, I think I will just wait, don't want to upset Greenman further

.

Again your lack of neutrality is showing - why the lack of criticism of Ferrari's inability to co-operate and be open ?

.

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: How many people went from Ferrari to Mercedes the last 2 years that would have access to such info? Wouldn't be dfficult to find out who it was. But until we find out the truth, I think I will just wait, don't want to upset Greenman further

.

Again your lack of neutrality is showing - why the lack of criticism of Ferrari's inability to co-operate and be open ?

.

Its not a crime to support Ferrari though, not quite sure why Siao7 has to be neutral. Neither the FIA nor Ferrari have covered themselves in glory I think that is a given.

The FIA's latest move in this game of poker:
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-announces- ... cisions-17

The Council expressed unanimous support for the FIA President and the FIA Technical Department in regard to the overall management of the case, and strongly opposed any comments that undermine the reputation and image of the FIA and the Formula One World Championship.

My interpretation is that the FIA are accusing the seven teams of undermining the reputation and image, in their responses to the FIA's clandestine investigation and surprise initial statement.

As others suggested before, if the FIA would be happy to have no Concorde agreement lose their premier series in 2021, or promote FE to F1, this wouldn't be a bad start to driving seven teams into a rebellion.

If Ferrari had done nothing wrong why didnt the FIA just say that...!!!

Hmmm

Clarky wrote:If Ferrari had done nothing wrong why didnt the FIA just say that...!!!

Hmmm

The FIA don't think Ferrari have done nothing wrong. They just don't think it's worth the effort to find out. Not with 2021 regs to pass and Ferrari able to veto them and all.

It needs to be noted that the The FIA world council only has one team member on the board.

Option or Prime wrote:It needs to be noted that the The FIA world council only has one team member on the board.

François FILLON / Mattia BINOTTO
Président de la Commission des Constructeurs FIA / ou le représentant de Ferrari SpA President of the FIA Manufacturers' Commission / or the Ferrari SpA Representative

You couldn't make this up. F1's governance is corrupt to its core.

How is having Ferrari as the sole F1 team representative on motorsport's legislative body not a massive conflict of interest?

Option or Prime wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: How many people went from Ferrari to Mercedes the last 2 years that would have access to such info? Wouldn't be dfficult to find out who it was. But until we find out the truth, I think I will just wait, don't want to upset Greenman further

Again your lack of neutrality is showing - why the lack of criticism of Ferrari's inability to co-operate and be open ?

.

Its not a crime to support Ferrari though, not quite sure why Siao7 has to be neutral. Neither the FIA nor Ferrari have covered themselves in glory I think that is a given.

Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

j man wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:It needs to be noted that the The FIA world council only has one team member on the board.

François FILLON / Mattia BINOTTO
Président de la Commission des Constructeurs FIA / ou le représentant de Ferrari SpA President of the FIA Manufacturers' Commission / or the Ferrari SpA Representative

You couldn't make this up. F1's governance is corrupt to its core.

How is having Ferrari as the sole F1 team representative on motorsport's legislative body not a massive conflict of interest?

It is still a 30 person council that votes. It includes current drivers like Massa, or former like Kristensen and Mouton. But yeah, it should be changed, you should not have current participants voting, it is a massive conflict or interest.

Genuine question; is Binotto is there as a team representative, or just a Ferrari representative? As in, do they rotate, is next year going to be Horner or something? Or does Ferrari have a permanent FIA delegate? Does anyone know?

Siao7 wrote: Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

.

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

.

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Siao7 wrote:The FIA certainly did no favours to anyone with this statement. They should have been more discreet.

It does stink to high heavens, but I am not sure it is 100% as it seems, I have a soft spot for Ferrari and I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt! Apart from joking, it may mean that they have discovered a loophole, took advantage of it and when pressed by the FIA, they helped to plug it in exchange for not losing their points. Someone mentioned Benetton '94 and it could be exactly like that: the traction control business I mean. So cheating or ingenious?

I am not sure that the FIA would allow a team to cheat, have them investigated so many times, installed extra sensors, etc., only to then come out and say that yeah, they were cheating but we let them off. Even considering that they were pampering Ferrari because of the veto, it just doesn't add up coming out now with this statement, it makes them look like idiots.

Overall, even if it is circumstantial evidence, it is pretty damning, isn't it?

Option or Prime wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

.

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Siao7 wrote:The FIA certainly did no favours to anyone with this statement. They should have been more discreet.

It does stink to high heavens, but I am not sure it is 100% as it seems, I have a soft spot for Ferrari and I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt! Apart from joking, it may mean that they have discovered a loophole, took advantage of it and when pressed by the FIA, they helped to plug it in exchange for not losing their points. Someone mentioned Benetton '94 and it could be exactly like that: the traction control business I mean. So cheating or ingenious?

I am not sure that the FIA would allow a team to cheat, have them investigated so many times, installed extra sensors, etc., only to then come out and say that yeah, they were cheating but we let them off. Even considering that they were pampering Ferrari because of the veto, it just doesn't add up coming out now with this statement, it makes them look like idiots.

Overall, even if it is circumstantial evidence, it is pretty damning, isn't it?

Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

.

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Siao7 wrote:The FIA certainly did no favours to anyone with this statement. They should have been more discreet.

It does stink to high heavens, but I am not sure it is 100% as it seems, I have a soft spot for Ferrari and I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt! Apart from joking, it may mean that they have discovered a loophole, took advantage of it and when pressed by the FIA, they helped to plug it in exchange for not losing their points. Someone mentioned Benetton '94 and it could be exactly like that: the traction control business I mean. So cheating or ingenious?

I am not sure that the FIA would allow a team to cheat, have them investigated so many times, installed extra sensors, etc., only to then come out and say that yeah, they were cheating but we let them off. Even considering that they were pampering Ferrari because of the veto, it just doesn't add up coming out now with this statement, it makes them look like idiots.

Overall, even if it is circumstantial evidence, it is pretty damning, isn't it?

Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Not saying it's the case here but some people seem to think it inherently wrong to support or to even tolerate Ferrari.

Covalent wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Thank you mate, I've made my position very clear, but it seems some people only read what they want.

.

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Siao7 wrote:The FIA certainly did no favours to anyone with this statement. They should have been more discreet.

It does stink to high heavens, but I am not sure it is 100% as it seems, I have a soft spot for Ferrari and I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt! Apart from joking, it may mean that they have discovered a loophole, took advantage of it and when pressed by the FIA, they helped to plug it in exchange for not losing their points. Someone mentioned Benetton '94 and it could be exactly like that: the traction control business I mean. So cheating or ingenious?

I am not sure that the FIA would allow a team to cheat, have them investigated so many times, installed extra sensors, etc., only to then come out and say that yeah, they were cheating but we let them off. Even considering that they were pampering Ferrari because of the veto, it just doesn't add up coming out now with this statement, it makes them look like idiots.

Overall, even if it is circumstantial evidence, it is pretty damning, isn't it?

Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Not saying it's the case here but some people seem to think it inherently wrong to support or to even tolerate Ferrari.

Being seen to be getting away with cheating makes people angry. It always will. I think for a number of factors people get even angrier when it's to do with Ferrari in F1.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Greenman wrote: .

You claimed to be "neutral" - but it is obvious that you are pro-Ferrari, or don't you read your posts ?

.

Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Siao7 wrote:The FIA certainly did no favours to anyone with this statement. They should have been more discreet.

It does stink to high heavens, but I am not sure it is 100% as it seems, I have a soft spot for Ferrari and I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt! Apart from joking, it may mean that they have discovered a loophole, took advantage of it and when pressed by the FIA, they helped to plug it in exchange for not losing their points. Someone mentioned Benetton '94 and it could be exactly like that: the traction control business I mean. So cheating or ingenious?

I am not sure that the FIA would allow a team to cheat, have them investigated so many times, installed extra sensors, etc., only to then come out and say that yeah, they were cheating but we let them off. Even considering that they were pampering Ferrari because of the veto, it just doesn't add up coming out now with this statement, it makes them look like idiots.

Overall, even if it is circumstantial evidence, it is pretty damning, isn't it?

Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Not saying it's the case here but some people seem to think it inherently wrong to support or to even tolerate Ferrari.

Being seen to be getting away with cheating makes people angry. It always will. I think for a number of factors people get even angrier when it's to do with Ferrari in F1.

This is true and the fact that they have privileges does not help either. Still, that shouldn't paint me as the villain here, especially if I don't want to condemn them without definite proof. I did not advocate cheating, just have my reasonable doubts which I explained. I think I'll leave it here and not drag this off topic

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Not saying it's the case here but some people seem to think it inherently wrong to support or to even tolerate Ferrari.

Being seen to be getting away with cheating makes people angry. It always will. I think for a number of factors people get even angrier when it's to do with Ferrari in F1.

This is true and the fact that they have privileges does not help either. Still, that shouldn't paint me as the villain here, especially if I don't want to condemn them without definite proof. I did not advocate cheating, just have my reasonable doubts which I explained. I think I'll leave it here and not drag this off topic

I guess that was the aim of the settlement for there to be reasonable doubt for Ferrari fans, for there to be no definite proof that Ferrari did wrong, however it's not looking good the way things appear to be escalating, it does appear to be a bit of a cover up.

pokerman wrote: I guess that was the aim of the settlement for there to be reasonable doubt for Ferrari fans, for there to be no definite proof that Ferrari did wrong, however it's not looking good the way things appear to be escalating, it does appear to be a bit of a cover up.

I disagree, I would imagine that the aim of the settlement was more like "we can't prove it, but tell us what you did and we'll ban it without consequences", not to appease the fans. They have reasonable doubts because they've been on their case for almost two years without finding anything, don't forget how many times they were investigated. I am reasonably convinced myself that they did something fishy, but I equally don't want to go down the way where every time an accusation is thrown around, a team get's done without definite proof

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:
Does he really say that? I'm not sure why this is a such big deal but this is a post earlier in this thread.

Thanks mate, I don't think I want to answer to Greenman again, there is no point. It is pretty ironic that he accuses me of not reading my posts when he clearly hasn't done any reading himself.

In any case, as you said, what does it even matter? I mentioned that this whole case is crap from both Ferrari and the FIA, but that's not enough it seems. Anyway, I appreciate the support.

Not saying it's the case here but some people seem to think it inherently wrong to support or to even tolerate Ferrari.

Being seen to be getting away with cheating makes people angry. It always will. I think for a number of factors people get even angrier when it's to do with Ferrari in F1.

This is true and the fact that they have privileges does not help either. Still, that shouldn't paint me as the villain here, especially if I don't want to condemn them without definite proof. I did not advocate cheating, just have my reasonable doubts which I explained. I think I'll leave it here and not drag this off topic

Oh I agree, I was just speaking generally. I think you've been very reasonable.

There are a number of issues that have combined to make this an issue, the FIA's comment that they don't understand what Ferrari have been doing is patently ludicrous.

In sport it is the ability to be objective irrespective of your allegiance that for me gives that person credibility and integrity. Blind allegiance following an incident is a common feature whatever the team you follow but most fans can identify when their own team has bungled. Lets face it all teams do it.

Historically Ferrari were influential and established a presence on the board of the governing body. For me that time has passed and for the sake of the sport the imbalance should now be corrected. What I find disappointing about the whole thing is that Ferrari as a major sporting icon haven't recognised the balance themselves. They could and should have taken steps to rectify that but instead are a little too comfortable to retain their influence.

At the same time the FIA should have had the integrity to introduce proper representation before announcing edicts.

Competing on a fair and impartial platform within a set of rules is what sport is all about.

Option or Prime wrote:There are a number of issues that have combined to make this an issue, the FIA's comment that they don't understand what Ferrari have been doing is patently ludicrous.

In sport it is the ability to be objective irrespective of your allegiance that for me gives that person credibility and integrity. Blind allegiance following an incident is a common feature whatever the team you follow but most fans can identify when their own team has bungled. Lets face it all teams do it.

Historically Ferrari were influential and established a presence on the board of the governing body. For me that time has passed and for the sake of the sport the imbalance should now be corrected. What I find disappointing about the whole thing is that Ferrari as a major sporting icon haven't recognised the balance themselves. They could and should have taken steps to rectify that but instead are a little too comfortable to retain their influence.

At the same time the FIA should have had the integrity to introduce proper representation before announcing edicts.

Competing on a fair and impartial platform within a set of rules is what sport is all about.

Completely agree with you. That is why I mentioned it before; how can you have Ferrari on the board? Or Massa (who is currently racing)? How can you have active competitors in the board??? (I understand these are only 2 "people" out of 28, but it still doesn't sit well with me)

Even if Ferrari is innocent, the idea that they have someone on the board is going to get people suspicious, as it should. They enjoy a lot of privileges, so it is time to even it out a bit, but this is another discussion altogether.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Option or Prime wrote: Defensive, basically the FIA 'bottled it'.

It's not a court of Law for goodness sake. Its for the FIA as the authority to rule and for Ferrari as a competitor to comply. Frankly it pathetic to say its too complicated to investigate.

It just looks like the FIA are frightened to act or decide anything in case they upset the Ferrari organisation. I had little respect for the FIA before, even less now.

Would you have more respect for them if they had ruled against them without being confident that they got it right?

The point is the regulations belong to the FIA. Its for them to rule as the organising body and for Ferrari to prove they are compliant. Its for the FIA to rule what is right and what's wrong. Its for the FIA to rule what is legal and what's illegal.

They are treating Ferrari almost as equals. Ferrari are throwing up arguments to confuse the governing body. The result is that the people who make and apply the regulations are confused!

Its the tail wagging the dog!

Not really, you are forgetting that the FIA investigated them a number of times during the year. Came up empty handed every time. So you would want them to now just punish a team that they have investigated during a year, without any solid evidence that they got it right, based on a rumour from another team? (I will admit that the word "rumour" may not be correct here, but I used it for lack of better word)

Frankly, I wonder why Ferrari didn't "settle" by telling the FIA that they'd veto every single thing I could if the FIA pulled that cr*p...

I think your last sentence may get quite close to the nub of the FIA's problems and shows once again the absolute absurdity of Ferrari's veto power.

Spot on. In light of these events it makes it more clear that ever that the veto must go. If Ferrari spits the dummy and goes with it, then so be it. If F1 wants to maintain any semblance of relevance in the modern world it must make a stand for the future, and clean up its act.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I guess that was the aim of the settlement for there to be reasonable doubt for Ferrari fans, for there to be no definite proof that Ferrari did wrong, however it's not looking good the way things appear to be escalating, it does appear to be a bit of a cover up.

I disagree, I would imagine that the aim of the settlement was more like "we can't prove it, but tell us what you did and we'll ban it without consequences", not to appease the fans. They have reasonable doubts because they've been on their case for almost two years without finding anything, don't forget how many times they were investigated. I am reasonably convinced myself that they did something fishy, but I equally don't want to go down the way where every time an accusation is thrown around, a team get's done without definite proof

You may be underestimating how much some of the other teams might know about what Ferrari were doing in reference to it being said there might have been 1 or 2 whistle blowers.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I guess that was the aim of the settlement for there to be reasonable doubt for Ferrari fans, for there to be no definite proof that Ferrari did wrong, however it's not looking good the way things appear to be escalating, it does appear to be a bit of a cover up.

I disagree, I would imagine that the aim of the settlement was more like "we can't prove it, but tell us what you did and we'll ban it without consequences", not to appease the fans. They have reasonable doubts because they've been on their case for almost two years without finding anything, don't forget how many times they were investigated. I am reasonably convinced myself that they did something fishy, but I equally don't want to go down the way where every time an accusation is thrown around, a team get's done without definite proof

You may be underestimating how much some of the other teams might know about what Ferrari were doing in reference to it being said there might have been 1 or 2 whistle blowers.

I'd imagine that it would make it easy to prove then. Or easier if you want, if they knew all the details of the Ferrari engine. Again, how many employees that made the journey from Ferrari to Merc had the inner knowledge of the Ferrari engine? Especially any shady stuff? Cannot be that many people, it would be very easy to track that whistle blower.

What seems more plausible to me is that it could be someone that suspected something and had a theory, with a bit of grudge for his/hers ex employer. Connected the dots, but did not have the knowledge of the inner works of the Ferrari engine. Enough to alert Merc and the others though, but never the exact info, otherwise they would be able to prove how it worked.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I guess that was the aim of the settlement for there to be reasonable doubt for Ferrari fans, for there to be no definite proof that Ferrari did wrong, however it's not looking good the way things appear to be escalating, it does appear to be a bit of a cover up.

I disagree, I would imagine that the aim of the settlement was more like "we can't prove it, but tell us what you did and we'll ban it without consequences", not to appease the fans. They have reasonable doubts because they've been on their case for almost two years without finding anything, don't forget how many times they were investigated. I am reasonably convinced myself that they did something fishy, but I equally don't want to go down the way where every time an accusation is thrown around, a team get's done without definite proof

You may be underestimating how much some of the other teams might know about what Ferrari were doing in reference to it being said there might have been 1 or 2 whistle blowers.

I'd imagine that it would make it easy to prove then. Or easier if you want, if they knew all the details of the Ferrari engine. Again, how many employees that made the journey from Ferrari to Merc had the inner knowledge of the Ferrari engine? Especially any shady stuff? Cannot be that many people, it would be very easy to track that whistle blower.

What seems more plausible to me is that it could be someone that suspected something and had a theory, with a bit of grudge for his/hers ex employer. Connected the dots, but did not have the knowledge of the inner works of the Ferrari engine. Enough to alert Merc and the others though, but never the exact info, otherwise they would be able to prove how it worked.

Well it's being said that any information the whistle blower had was deemed inadmissible as he had not gone through the proper channels as in he didn't go directly to the FIA with the information, so by that I guess they didn't even see the evidence?

Marko apparently has said that Mercedes have the evidence but why it's not been presented to the FIA I don't know, again might there be legality concerns in how the evidence was obtained to prevent the FIA from considering it, who knows?

Where is the outrage over the illegal MB 2020 race car? MB had to change brake ducts to comply with technical regulations. Now we have factual evidence that MB "cheated". I tend to look at things as not cheating however taking the rule book to the max. In this case RB was able to show and the FIA issued a directive around brake ducts. Now in the Ferrari case we now know that the FIA could not prove the allegation from RB that the engine was illegal and Ferrari would have a hard time convincing the FIA that the engine is fine. My point is neither MB nor Ferrari did anything wrong they just read the rule a certain way. Interesting times for sure.

AstoriaisBACK wrote:Where is the outrage over the illegal MB 2020 race car? MB had to change brake ducts to comply with technical regulations. Now we have factual evidence that MB "cheated". I tend to look at things as not cheating however taking the rule book to the max. In this case RB was able to show and the FIA issued a directive around brake ducts. Now in the Ferrari case we now know that the FIA could not prove the allegation from RB that the engine was illegal and Ferrari would have a hard time convincing the FIA that the engine is fine. My point is neither MB nor Ferrari did anything wrong they just read the rule a certain way. Interesting times for sure.

There are huge differences.

1. Mercedes have not raced with their brake ducts.
2. The issue of Mercedes brake ducts came down to an interpretation of a regulation. It's most similar to the issue surrounding Ferrari's bargeboards in 1999.
3. What Ferrari have been accused of doing is not having a different interpretation of a regulation, (the regulation in question is stated that the fuel flow rate should never exceed 100kg/h in any given 100th of a second interval) - they have been accused of tampering with the FIA mandated sensor for confirming there is no breach of regulation. It's the equivalent of trying to sneakily hand Vettel a 25kg dumbbell before being weighed at the end of the race and building the car 25kg underweight.

When did Merc have to change their brake ducts?

JN23 wrote:When did Merc have to change their brake ducts?

I think just before the Barcelona testing or during it.

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:When did Merc have to change their brake ducts?

I think just before the Barcelona testing or during it.

Well that completely passed me by!

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:When did Merc have to change their brake ducts?

I think just before the Barcelona testing or during it.

Well that completely passed me by!

I think the Ferrari saga was monopolising the headlines at the times!

Alienturnedhuman wrote:3. What Ferrari have been accused of doing is not having a different interpretation of a regulation, (the regulation in question is stated that the fuel flow rate should never exceed 100kg/h in any given 100th of a second interval) - they have been accused of tampering with the FIA mandated sensor for confirming there is no breach of regulation. It's the equivalent of trying to sneakily hand Vettel a 25kg dumbbell before being weighed at the end of the race and building the car 25kg underweight.

This is something a lot of people supporting Ferrari in this matter don't seem to (or don't want to) get. The allegations against Ferrari are nothing like an ordinary loophole. The allegation is that they deliberately bypassed the fuel sensor, something the regulations state in black and white that you cannot do.

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.
5.10.4 Homologated sensors which directly measure the pressure and temperature of the fuel supplied to the fuel injectors must also be fitted, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
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.

There is no loophole to be found there. If the allegations are true, it is cheating, not a clever idea the FIA didn't think of. That's why it's different from something like Red Bull's flex wing or Mercedes' brake ducts. Those were areas where either the part was able to pass the test (Red Bull) or the rules were unclear (Mercedes). This is more like when Red Bull deliberately ran their car over the fuel flow rate at Australia 2014 because 'we wouldn't have been competitive if we obeyed the sensor.'

Exediron wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:3. What Ferrari have been accused of doing is not having a different interpretation of a regulation, (the regulation in question is stated that the fuel flow rate should never exceed 100kg/h in any given 100th of a second interval) - they have been accused of tampering with the FIA mandated sensor for confirming there is no breach of regulation. It's the equivalent of trying to sneakily hand Vettel a 25kg dumbbell before being weighed at the end of the race and building the car 25kg underweight.

This is something a lot of people supporting Ferrari in this matter don't seem to (or don't want to) get. The allegations against Ferrari are nothing like an ordinary loophole. The allegation is that they deliberately bypassed the fuel sensor, something the regulations state in black and white that you cannot do.

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.
5.10.4 Homologated sensors which directly measure the pressure and temperature of the fuel supplied to the fuel injectors must also be fitted, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
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.

There is no loophole to be found there. If the allegations are true, it is cheating, not a clever idea the FIA didn't think of. That's why it's different from something like Red Bull's flex wing or Mercedes' brake ducts. Those were areas where either the part was able to pass the test (Red Bull) or the rules were unclear (Mercedes). This is more like when Red Bull deliberately ran their car over the fuel flow rate at Australia 2014 because 'we wouldn't have been competitive if we obeyed the sensor.'

The problem with this is you can not prove they did anything wrong. The FIA would have taken action if they could prove the engine was illegal. Ferrari could have simply said we are taking the engine development in a different direction or felt they couldn't adequetly proved to FIA that engine was legal. We do not know and you could make your opinion.

MB on other hand complied with the directive and changed the brake system to comply. that's the difference

AstoriaisBACK wrote:Where is the outrage over the illegal MB 2020 race car? MB had to change brake ducts to comply with technical regulations. Now we have factual evidence that MB "cheated". I tend to look at things as not cheating however taking the rule book to the max. In this case RB was able to show and the FIA issued a directive around brake ducts. Now in the Ferrari case we now know that the FIA could not prove the allegation from RB that the engine was illegal and Ferrari would have a hard time convincing the FIA that the engine is fine. My point is neither MB nor Ferrari did anything wrong they just read the rule a certain way. Interesting times for sure.

Like Mercedes could hide what they were doing with the brake ducts, something that is in plain sight.

pokerman wrote:

AstoriaisBACK wrote:Where is the outrage over the illegal MB 2020 race car? MB had to change brake ducts to comply with technical regulations. Now we have factual evidence that MB "cheated". I tend to look at things as not cheating however taking the rule book to the max. In this case RB was able to show and the FIA issued a directive around brake ducts. Now in the Ferrari case we now know that the FIA could not prove the allegation from RB that the engine was illegal and Ferrari would have a hard time convincing the FIA that the engine is fine. My point is neither MB nor Ferrari did anything wrong they just read the rule a certain way. Interesting times for sure.

Like Mercedes could hide what they were doing with the brake ducts, something that is in plain sight.

Also a difference, Mercedes didn't turn a wheel during a race weekend with an illegal car. And the FIA full decision was public.

Here's a good article from RaceFans about the new sensor, which also explains in better detail what Ferrari may have been doing:

"The new device incorporates anti-aliasing technology and full data encryption,” according to Sentronics. “The anti-aliasing technique randomises when the device makes its measurements, ultimately making it impossible to synchronise any ancillary parts to the measurement frequency. Full encryption ensures the authenticity of the data and privacy to the FIA."

It sounds like Ferrari were using some sort of interference to fool with the sensor since they knew its precise measurement intervals.

That is a good article in that it explains hoe Ferrari might have been able to deliver more fuel to the be consumed without the FIA meter detecting it.
surely though the over a given longer period the amount of fuel left in the tank would be less so you calculate the the rate over a longer period rather than selected windows of measurement.

It has to be suspicious that Ferrari are using a specific way of measuring the rate. Don't you just say to Ferrari, "prove you have not exceeded this rate overall. If the can't do that then they are outside the regulations.

Isn't it a bit wimpy of Ferrari to say "prove we are wrong". Surely the governing body should say "prove over your lap you are not using more than 'x' litres of fuel.

Or have I misunderstood?

Option or Prime wrote:That is a good article in that it explains hoe Ferrari might have been able to deliver more fuel to the be consumed without the FIA meter detecting it.
surely though the over a given longer period the amount of fuel left in the tank would be less so you calculate the the rate over a longer period rather than selected windows of measurement.

It has to be suspicious that Ferrari are using a specific way of measuring the rate. Don't you just say to Ferrari, "prove you have not exceeded this rate overall. If the can't do that then they are outside the regulations.

Isn't it a bit wimpy of Ferrari to say "prove we are wrong". Surely the governing body should say "prove over your lap you are not using more than 'x' litres of fuel.

Or have I misunderstood?

Surely when you accuse of someone, the onus is on you to prove it, not them.

I haven't read the article yet, but it is interesting if they have a different way to measure the rate. I'll try to find some time to read this, especially if we'll be forced to stay home soon!

Exediron wrote:Here's a good article from RaceFans about the new sensor, which also explains in better detail what Ferrari may have been doing:

"The new device incorporates anti-aliasing technology and full data encryption,” according to Sentronics. “The anti-aliasing technique randomises when the device makes its measurements, ultimately making it impossible to synchronise any ancillary parts to the measurement frequency. Full encryption ensures the authenticity of the data and privacy to the FIA."

It sounds like Ferrari were using some sort of interference to fool with the sensor since they knew its precise measurement intervals.

It does make you wonder why anti tamper sensors were not used in the first place?

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:That is a good article in that it explains hoe Ferrari might have been able to deliver more fuel to the be consumed without the FIA meter detecting it.
surely though the over a given longer period the amount of fuel left in the tank would be less so you calculate the the rate over a longer period rather than selected windows of measurement.

It has to be suspicious that Ferrari are using a specific way of measuring the rate. Don't you just say to Ferrari, "prove you have not exceeded this rate overall. If the can't do that then they are outside the regulations.

Isn't it a bit wimpy of Ferrari to say "prove we are wrong". Surely the governing body should say "prove over your lap you are not using more than 'x' litres of fuel.

Or have I misunderstood?

Surely when you accuse of someone, the onus is on you to prove it, not them.

I haven't read the article yet, but it is interesting if they have a different way to measure the rate. I'll try to find some time to read this, especially if we'll be forced to stay home soon!

Doesn't it depend on what the administrators set up as a system?

I would have thought that with something like F1 where at some point you have to be authoritative to protect lives that it should be authoritative. This is not about just Ferrari but a general point.

If you take an authoritative stance then as the authority you lay out the rules and the participants comply.

Eg In school, 'No running in the corridor' if you break that rule you get detention. Not a discussion about whether it was a fast walk or you were avoiding something just a clear rule.
I realise it a bit simplistic but its not a "life and death" or "lose of freedom " issue that needs protection of the accused. Its just sport and these are the rules of this particular sport.
My view is that is the model that should be used by the FIA.

Option or Prime wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:That is a good article in that it explains hoe Ferrari might have been able to deliver more fuel to the be consumed without the FIA meter detecting it.
surely though the over a given longer period the amount of fuel left in the tank would be less so you calculate the the rate over a longer period rather than selected windows of measurement.

It has to be suspicious that Ferrari are using a specific way of measuring the rate. Don't you just say to Ferrari, "prove you have not exceeded this rate overall. If the can't do that then they are outside the regulations.

Isn't it a bit wimpy of Ferrari to say "prove we are wrong". Surely the governing body should say "prove over your lap you are not using more than 'x' litres of fuel.

Or have I misunderstood?

Surely when you accuse of someone, the onus is on you to prove it, not them.

I haven't read the article yet, but it is interesting if they have a different way to measure the rate. I'll try to find some time to read this, especially if we'll be forced to stay home soon!

Doesn't it depend on what the administrators set up as a system?

I would have thought that with something like F1 where at some point you have to be authoritative to protect lives that it should be authoritative. This is not about just Ferrari but a general point.

If you take an authoritative stance then as the authority you lay out the rules and the participants comply.

Eg In school, 'No running in the corridor' if you break that rule you get detention. Not a discussion about whether it was a fast walk or you were avoiding something just a clear rule.
I realise it a bit simplistic but its not a "life and death" or "lose of freedom " issue that needs protection of the accused. Its just sport and these are the rules of this particular sport.
My view is that is the model that should be used by the FIA.

I guess so. This is the issue with F1, it is kind of cool to try and find a "workaround" and use it until it is banned. Then it tends to get a blurry line when they cross to illegal...