Indeed, it is understood that a post race check of the fuel remaining in the car and how much had been used in the race tallied with Ferrari's original declaration.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Formula One's governing body has announced that it has come to a settlement with Scuderia Ferrari after investigations into its 2019 power unit, considered the most powered in F1.
Indeed, it is understood that a post race check of the fuel remaining in the car and how much had been used in the race tallied with Ferrari's original declaration.
The FIA confirmed that ‘all cars’ were in conformity of all regulations that were checked (Checked items are documented in the race scrutineering report). They cannot confirm something that was not checked.saviour stivala wrote: ↑04 Dec 2019, 22:44According to FIA documents, a number of other fuel checks were carried out on ‘all cars’ afterwards too – these covered meter calibration checksums, instantaneous fuel mass flow, fuel temperature and total fuel mass consumed by ‘all cars’. The FIA confirmed that ‘all cars’ were in conformity of all regulations.
Binotto said that was like the tenth time this year they were checked like that.zibby43 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 07:39Another story emerging about the Ferrari fuel saga:
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ontroversy
"To exploit an illegally high fuel flow in giving you more power, you'd need more than 100kg in the tank. Otherwise you'd run out of fuel. So you put in 105. But you say you've only put 100 in. So when it's weighed afterwards, it's consistent with you having put 100 in. Even though you've used 105."
"If a team was to make use of an ability to run an illegally high fuel flow, it could burn off any difference between declared and actual."
"[The FIA] measures flow in real time. Flow is an instantaneous measure. That 100kg/hour is just a way of expressing the maximum permitted flow rather than how it is measured. It’s measured at incredibly high frequency – 2000Hz – all the time."
How can the FIA know if Ferrari has put more fuel than reported if the fuel flow sensors have been tampered with? They would have to physically check the car.
Which, in Abu Dhabi they finally did. They conducted a surprise check on Leclerc's car. LEC's fuel load was 4.88kg under-reported.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/site ... i_race.jpg
He's had some weird quotes lately.MtthsMlw wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 09:17Binotto said that was like the tenth time this year they were checked like that.zibby43 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 07:39Another story emerging about the Ferrari fuel saga:
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ontroversy
"To exploit an illegally high fuel flow in giving you more power, you'd need more than 100kg in the tank. Otherwise you'd run out of fuel. So you put in 105. But you say you've only put 100 in. So when it's weighed afterwards, it's consistent with you having put 100 in. Even though you've used 105."
"If a team was to make use of an ability to run an illegally high fuel flow, it could burn off any difference between declared and actual."
"[The FIA] measures flow in real time. Flow is an instantaneous measure. That 100kg/hour is just a way of expressing the maximum permitted flow rather than how it is measured. It’s measured at incredibly high frequency – 2000Hz – all the time."
How can the FIA know if Ferrari has put more fuel than reported if the fuel flow sensors have been tampered with? They would have to physically check the car.
Which, in Abu Dhabi they finally did. They conducted a surprise check on Leclerc's car. LEC's fuel load was 4.88kg under-reported.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/site ... i_race.jpg
He got only ICE, but MGU-h-k, Turbo, CE, ES were old.zibby43 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 09:51Asked by Motorsport.com why the team had spent much of the race in engine mode 4, Binotto said: 'We had an engine failure in Austin with Charles, and we know that in terms of mileage we could have been at risk.'"[/i]
Didn't Charles get a new engine in Brazil? How could there be mileage concerns lol?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... o/4606139/
That can’t be true. It would mean the FFS overall consumption estimate did not match the physical measurements made by the FIA.
"The FIA confirmed that 'all cars were in conformity of all regulations that were checked" Yes. checked items are documented. As per document 36 17:06 before the race and document 42 22:11 after the race. "FIA formula 1 world championship 2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 28 November - 1 December 2019".subcritical71 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 02:30The FIA confirmed that ‘all cars’ were in conformity of all regulations that were checked (Checked items are documented in the race scrutineering report). They cannot confirm something that was not checked.saviour stivala wrote: ↑04 Dec 2019, 22:44According to FIA documents, a number of other fuel checks were carried out on ‘all cars’ afterwards too – these covered meter calibration checksums, instantaneous fuel mass flow, fuel temperature and total fuel mass consumed by ‘all cars’. The FIA confirmed that ‘all cars’ were in conformity of all regulations.
Actually this makes things look even more weird. They had engine failure and replaced ICE. So if we think logical they had to replace the part which had failure and can not function any more and the part that is the cause of the failure. They know that there are two races left, they will have some grid penalty in Brazil and will not replace any other part that will be the cause of failure in COTA or will be on the edge of surviving last two races. Actually they had to be really stupid doing that and this is something that I personally do not believe......jumpingfish wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 10:00He got only ICE, but MGU-h-k, Turbo, CE, ES were old.zibby43 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2019, 09:51Asked by Motorsport.com why the team had spent much of the race in engine mode 4, Binotto said: 'We had an engine failure in Austin with Charles, and we know that in terms of mileage we could have been at risk.'"[/i]
Didn't Charles get a new engine in Brazil? How could there be mileage concerns lol?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... o/4606139/
https://sun9-47.userapi.com/c855020/v85 ... oTVddA.jpg
Yes, Leclerc also was on mode 4 at 17 lap. Source on Italian: https://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2019/1 ... 2705078125
Furthermore, in 17 they asked him (Leclerc) to switch to a more conservative ICE mapping (Engine 4) compared to the normally used Engine 1, probably to better control the consumption given the absence until then of Virtual or Safety Car.