Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[dans79]

FERRARI car 16 was fully compliant on track as evidenced/confirmed by ‘after race checks of all cars’ by the FIA and as per their (FIA) ‘after race’ document. (The FIA confirmed that all cars were in conformity of the regulation) Either FERRARI documents presented to FIA were wrong or the FIA weighing/calculations were wrong – so they (FERRARI) paid a fine for it. Simple and enough.

Helmut Marko Disagrees
https://www.grandprix.com/news/red-bull ... -2020.html

"The rules are clear," he told Auto Bild. "The mild punishment for that offense was a joke."

He also made it sound like Redbull is far from done with the matter.

He warned that Red Bull could step up its confrontation with Ferrari in 2020.

"If we suspect that there are any irregularities, we will definitely protest, and then Ferrari will have to disclose everything and the FIA deal with it accordingly," said the Austrian.

[Phil]

The issue is, that Ferrari was "warned" about the discrepancy found in what they claimed to be in the tank and what was actually there. If there was any intent of using that amount of fuel, being informed prior to the race, means they could have avoided that, knowing that they are under suspicion.

This sets a very bad precedent. It effectively means that teams can get away with declaring wrong amount of fuel, then getting warned about it before the race and only having to pay an insignificant fine if they get caught.

[SiLo]

They should just have an FIA rep be there when they fuel the cars for the race.

[izzy]

if they'd been checked like that 10 times already, as Mattia says, how likely is it they'd chance it? Even being let off by FIA it's created all kinds of bad publicity and suspicion. I mean that whole check procedure was put in as a check on the fuel consumption in the first place. So on reflection i'm inclined not to think it was sinister

[subcritical71]

if they'd been checked like that 10 times already, as Mattia says, how likely is it they'd chance it? Even being let off by FIA it's created all kinds of bad publicity and suspicion. I mean that whole check procedure was put in as a check on the fuel consumption in the first place. So on reflection i'm inclined not to think it was sinister

No one over fuels a car unless they have an intention to use that fuel. I guess the question is, when did they plan to use the excess fuel. Ferrari don't seem to be protesting the finding officially so I can only conclude that they agree with the matter.

[izzy]

No one over fuels a car unless they have an intention to use that fuel. I guess the question is, when did they plan to use the excess fuel. Ferrari don't seem to be protesting the finding officially so I can only conclude that they agree with the matter.

I read somewhere (I can't quickly find it now) that Mattia is pointing out FIA announced it 16 minutes before the race so there was no time to double-check the test result. I don't think we can be sure it was intentional anyway. It's one of four mistakes isn't it?

1. Jo Bauer screwed up the test, or Ferrari staff or whoever was involved.

2. Someone in Ferrari put too much fuel in, accidentally

3. Someone in Ferrari recorded less fuel than they should have

4. Someone in Ferrari thought it was worth a punt to put some extra fuel in and hope they wouldn't get tested

Since they'd been tested a lot already, and with all the talk about it, it seems to me Mistake 4 is the least likely of them. The test was introduced for them after all

[henry]

I mean that whole check procedure was put in as a check on the fuel consumption in the first place.

This isn’t right. It was put in place as a check on the reliability of the FFS.

The fuel consumption in the race is reported by the FFS.

I agree with @Phil. Once the discrepancy was found it should have been kept secret by the FIA. Instead they told the world and Ferrari had an opportunity to modify consumption if they needed to. I’m not saying they did but they had the opportunity.

[saviour stivala]

FERRARI car 16 was fully compliant on track as evidenced/confirmed by ‘after race checks of all cars’ by the FIA and as per their (FIA) ‘after race’ document. (The FIA confirmed that all cars were in conformity of the regulation) Either FERRARI documents presented to FIA were wrong or the FIA weighing/calculations were wrong – so they (FERRARI) paid a fine for it. Simple and enough.

Helmut Marko Disagrees
https://www.grandprix.com/news/red-bull ... -2020.html

"The rules are clear," he told Auto Bild. "The mild punishment for that offense was a joke."

He also made it sound like Redbull is far from done with the matter.

He warned that Red Bull could step up its confrontation with Ferrari in 2020.

"If we suspect that there are any irregularities, we will definitely protest, and then Ferrari will have to disclose everything and the FIA deal with it accordingly," said the Austrian.

So says the good doctor. Sounds like he is determined to take the next and proper step next time he have proof of fuel wrong-doings. And doing so nobody could blame him being that a car of his was the only one from on the grid having had results disqualified for fuel flow infringement, not once but twice.

[izzy]

I mean that whole check procedure was put in as a check on the fuel consumption in the first place.

This isn’t right. It was put in place as a check on the reliability of the FFS.

The fuel consumption in the race is reported by the FFS.

I agree with @Phil. Once the discrepancy was found it should have been kept secret by the FIA. Instead they told the world and Ferrari had an opportunity to modify consumption if they needed to. I’m not saying they did but they had the opportunity.

it's the same thing: a check on the fuel consumption as reported by the sensor.

Ferrari knew it was a fair likelihood to happen, why would they chance it?

[henry]

I mean that whole check procedure was put in as a check on the fuel consumption in the first place.

This isn’t right. It was put in place as a check on the reliability of the FFS.

The fuel consumption in the race is reported by the FFS.

I agree with @Phil. Once the discrepancy was found it should have been kept secret by the FIA. Instead they told the world and Ferrari had an opportunity to modify consumption if they needed to. I’m not saying they did but they had the opportunity.

it's the same thing: a check on the fuel consumption as reported by the sensor.

Ferrari knew it was a fair likelihood to happen, why would they chance it?

It’s a subtle point but it’s a check on the sensor and not the absolute consumption.

I don’t care what Ferrari did or didn’t. I’m interested in the protocols used to ensure the regulations are adhered to.

[turbof1]

I don’t care what Ferrari did or didn’t. I’m interested in the protocols used to ensure the regulations are adhered to.

I think that is the best approach. I frankly feel it a pointless excercise now to determine with Ferrari did or didn't, because nobody is going to know whether this was a clerical error or an intentional discrepancy. Also, people like Marko know exactly as much as we do. I don't put more weight on their words just because they blab into the media (although I personally agree the penalty was too low, given other fuel related transgressions were always punished by DSQ).

I like to invoke Schrödinger's cat on this one.

[izzy]

This isn’t right. It was put in place as a check on the reliability of the FFS.

The fuel consumption in the race is reported by the FFS.

it's the same thing: Ferrari knew it was a fair likelihood to happen, why would they chance it?

It’s a subtle point but it’s a check on the sensor and not the absolute consumption.

I don’t care what Ferrari did or didn’t. I’m interested in the protocols used to ensure the regulations are adhered to.

it's the first step in a check on [the fuel consumption as reported by the sensor] and it's absolute not relative. it doesn't matter whether you're interested in the protocol or like me in the probability of Ferrari making a simple cockup. it's a second test of fuel consumption, to corroborate the first one.

so given it was testing the overall flow sensor data, and all the fuss there was around that already, it'd be pretty insane to deliberately under-report the fuelling wouldn't it? Even if they were fiddling the flow sensor, surely they'd have settled for just using it in bursts at key moments. Is my point.

for your point, FIA, yes well they're not going to box themselves in are they, to a DQ situation, and yes if F1 were pure and honest they would've i agree. But - superlicence points, Bianchi investigation, etc etc...

[karana]

I agree with @Phil. Once the discrepancy was found it should have been kept secret by the FIA. Instead they told the world and Ferrari had an opportunity to modify consumption if they needed to. I’m not saying they did but they had the opportunity.

But the teams know if they are checked or not, so if they intentionally put in more fuel than declared, they will know that they are under suspicion.

I'm pretty sure that Ferrari knows, at least now, how much fuel actually was in the car before leaving the pits: They probably know how much fuel was left after the race, and they certainly know how much fuel they burned in the race.

This would mean that now that they are apparently still claiming that their declaration was correct, they are either saying the truth and the FIA made a mistake or are downright lying.

[gruntguru]

Including this most-telling statement in the same report

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.

If this is true, there are a limited number of possibilities:

1. Ferrari was right and the FIA measured the pre-race fuel incorrectly.
2. The fuel quantity as measured by the FIA was correct, Ferrari's declaration was incorrect AND the fuel flow sensor reported incorrectly so as to agree with Ferrari's pre-race declaration. The chances of the fuel flow sensor having an error that tallied EXACTLY with Ferrari's erroneous declaration are ALMOST ZERO.

[Phil]

If that were true, why were they fined? A fine is a submission of guilt.

I also wonder how much can go wrong of the proposed method of weighing the car, emptying the fuel, weighing it again. One could argue that if there was an inaccuracy, they’d be more likely to measure too little fuel (not completely drained) rather than overfueling by a not insignificant amount. You cant drain more than there is physical supposed to be in the car.