https://www.quotidiano.net/blog/turrini ... lpa-5.6189It may be that my four readers are interested in my interpretation (eye on the word: interpretation) on what I will call the Fia-Ferrari dispute.
First of all, I repeat the perplexity (euphemism!) On the Friday press release of the FIA itself. Objectively incomprehensible, at least for ordinary mortals.
I start from the record, clarified: during the 2019 season, reservations (another euphemism!) Had been made regarding the performance of the Ferrari power unit.
The FIA, as it usually does, had started an inspection.
The matter of the dispute concerned, as far as I know, the petrol flow meter and beyond.
Here the dispute began, having Ferrari kept the point, i.e. argued that its solutions were legal.
The FIA has also kept the point and a controversy has opened up, to understand us, to the tax disputes.
The Treasury does not consider your deductions valid, you insist, the issue is hyper-technical and in the specific case, ours, also requires huge costs between checks and counter checks.
Not infrequently, the taxman and the taxpayer find a ... settlement, a word not surprisingly present in the Friday document, which is then the agreement on a disagreement, it being understood that the knife on the part of the handle has the taxman, pardon, the FIA.
And in fact, as you know, pending the dispute, the FIA has changed the rules, by the way, look a little, of the flow meter. And not only.
Question.
But isn't it that as a result of this "settlement" the SF1000 has gone so far?
Answer: no, there are other reasons.
Question.
Did Ferrari win or lose this game?
He lost it if you think that his technical solution led to the revision of the rules (which obviously also apply to Mercedes, Honda and Renault).
He equalized it if instead it is acknowledged that there have been no disqualifications, which implies, at least, the recognition of good faith.
Finally, what follows is an opinion, as such very personal, that is, supported by zero findings.
Throughout the story, while doing its job, the FIA has moved as if it had information worthy of a whistleblower, to put it in Anglo-Saxon.
Translated.
An informant.
A mole.
Guess where.
I am not John le Carré. And I'll never be as good at writing as he is.
But I don't think I'm wrong
Well, Sassi worked in engine dpt. Surely there were things in development while he was still there..jumpingfish wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 07:50Woah, Leo Turrini suggests that there may be a spy inside the Ferrari
https://www.quotidiano.net/blog/turrini ... lpa-5.6189It may be that my four readers are interested in my interpretation (eye on the word: interpretation) on what I will call the Fia-Ferrari dispute.
First of all, I repeat the perplexity (euphemism!) On the Friday press release of the FIA itself. Objectively incomprehensible, at least for ordinary mortals.
I start from the record, clarified: during the 2019 season, reservations (another euphemism!) Had been made regarding the performance of the Ferrari power unit.
The FIA, as it usually does, had started an inspection.
The matter of the dispute concerned, as far as I know, the petrol flow meter and beyond.
Here the dispute began, having Ferrari kept the point, i.e. argued that its solutions were legal.
The FIA has also kept the point and a controversy has opened up, to understand us, to the tax disputes.
The Treasury does not consider your deductions valid, you insist, the issue is hyper-technical and in the specific case, ours, also requires huge costs between checks and counter checks.
Not infrequently, the taxman and the taxpayer find a ... settlement, a word not surprisingly present in the Friday document, which is then the agreement on a disagreement, it being understood that the knife on the part of the handle has the taxman, pardon, the FIA.
And in fact, as you know, pending the dispute, the FIA has changed the rules, by the way, look a little, of the flow meter. And not only.
Question.
But isn't it that as a result of this "settlement" the SF1000 has gone so far?
Answer: no, there are other reasons.
Question.
Did Ferrari win or lose this game?
He lost it if you think that his technical solution led to the revision of the rules (which obviously also apply to Mercedes, Honda and Renault).
He equalized it if instead it is acknowledged that there have been no disqualifications, which implies, at least, the recognition of good faith.
Finally, what follows is an opinion, as such very personal, that is, supported by zero findings.
Throughout the story, while doing its job, the FIA has moved as if it had information worthy of a whistleblower, to put it in Anglo-Saxon.
Translated.
An informant.
A mole.
Guess where.
I am not John le Carré. And I'll never be as good at writing as he is.
But I don't think I'm wrong
They start making a car before the end of the season. Lot's of decisions and design occurs that makes it very hard to change mid winter. The FIA supposedly confiscated a Ferrari engine at the end of the 2019 season to test for themselves and figure out what is going wrong.
I don't think FIA is able to run the engine without Ferrari's personal... Those engines are so complicated that the startup procedure take about 2 hours... It's not a commercial product with specification and data sheet...drunkf1fan wrote: ↑03 Mar 2020, 14:16They start making a car before the end of the season. Lot's of decisions and design occurs that makes it very hard to change mid winter. The FIA supposedly confiscated a Ferrari engine at the end of the 2019 season to test for themselves and figure out what is going wrong.
IE the FIA figured out whatever they figured out long after Ferrari were deep into developing a new car, you can't just decide to go another way late in the game. The simple fact is Ferrari couldn't compete last season as while they had enough power to win power tracks they didn't have the downforce/tire wear combination to compete at too many other tracks so it was nearly a certainty that their concept for this year would be aimed at achieving higher downforce.
In terms of there being a whistleblower, someone else already stated it pretty much right after the story broke but the explanation that the whole investigation reads like there had to be a whistleblower is incredibly inaccurate.
Teams made complaints, the FIA checked and added a few technical directives aimed at stopping any cheating around fuel flow IF that is what Ferrari were doing. The FIA seemed unsure what Ferrari were doing in general and as a result took an engine at the end of the season for both closer inspection and the ability to hook it up in a lab and run it and monitor exactly what it did and what it took to run. This would provide hugely more detail than simply checking it during a race weekend. It would also allow them to get a few FIA technical people in and take it apart piece by piece.
The idea that only a whistleblower could have told them how they were cheating is simply false, a whistleblower could have told them, but that any such information could only come from a whistleblower is daft.
This are my thoughts too.gshevlin wrote: ↑04 Mar 2020, 02:47Everything about the announcement was designed to give it minimum exposure and provide the minimum of information.
1. It was announced at the very end of the last pre-season testing day, at a point where most media outlets would already have wrapped their stories for the week. This is an old trick from business. Announce awkward or bad news when everybody is asleep, unable to respond, or on vacation.
2. The announcement is vague and non-specific in the extreme. It is the closest I have seen to a content-free major announcement.
I lean towards believing the explanation in the German press; that the FIA had determined in general terms how Ferrari had been using the letter of the regulations and the mandated hardware and measurement systems to increase top end power, but that they lacked sufficient detail technical information about the exact way in which Ferrari had implemented their solution to be able to charge Ferrari with a violation of regulations, in a way that would satisfy the FIA technical and sporting bodies AND a court of law, should Ferrari mount a legal challenge to any verdict and any punishment.
So the FIA did a deal with Ferrari where Ferrari paid a "fine" in the form of funding certain FIA initiatives, and revealed all of the details of their solution, so that the FIA can be sure that no powerplant supplier can implement the same solution and still comply with the regulations.
The introduction of a second fuel flow sensor into the technical regulations late last year was not coincidental.
Neither the FIA or Ferrari want to reveal any additional details, and it is very possible that the Ferrari agreement to fund the initiatives is conditional on no further information being revealed.
However, the other teams are not happy, because some of them could have earned a lot more money if Ferrari had been found guilty of a violation of the regulations and had constructors points taken away. This will rumble on for a while.
One final cynical idea. The leaks from several weeks ago that the Ferrari 2020 aero was "not working" could well have been a trailer that Ferrari would, at least initially, be operating with less peak power this season, and Ferrari needed a cover story for why their car had lost straight line speed. This is exactly what I would expect a top F1 team to do. Spread misinformation. They are that competitive.
I don't think FIA is able to prove Ferraris guilt. They found something, a way to operate the engine outside of the intended rules, but they have no way of proving Ferrari actually did. So deeming them innocent is no go. But you cannot deem them guilty for the suspicion only.
Looks like this could be headed to the courts if the FIA don't release their findings. This could get ugly.Wouter wrote: ↑04 Mar 2020, 12:27Full statement signed by 7 teams
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESQdK6LXkAE ... me=900x900
https://www.renaultsport.com/renault-sp ... 14535.html
