FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[214270]

Does anyone know if this statement/settlement mess is Masi or is it a different grouping within the FIA? I don’t know much about the FIA heirachy.

Anyone?

[Chene_Mostert]

You are all reading it wrong, like you want to read it.

"The FIA has conducted detailed technical analysis on the Scuderia Ferrari Power Unit as it is entitled to do for any competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship."

"The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times."

The suspicion was not raised within the FIA because of their findings. Suspicions was raised among competitors and in the "court" of public opinion due to the "continual" investigations. they actually use the word Suspicions and not Suspicion.
They also do not state "we found areas that we found as suspicious". only that "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions"

The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.
The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

This is also quite simple, they now know what they are doing,they don't agree with it, but as the rules are written there is no regulation covering it. the FIA knows this will fail in court, and issuing a TD on this matter would clearly expose something that Ferrari considers their intellectual property and for the FIA to clarify this would also open them up to possible legal action from Ferrari.
They also found it a "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"
so according to this portion that is conveniently ignored by most, the FIA found no evidence of breech.

We will probably find that with the next revision of PU rules, this loophole will quietly be closed.

[TAG]

You are all reading it wrong, like you want to read it.

"The FIA has conducted detailed technical analysis on the Scuderia Ferrari Power Unit as it is entitled to do for any competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship."

"The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times."

The suspicion was not raised within the FIA because of their findings. Suspicions was raised among competitors and in the "court" of public opinion due to the "continual" investigations. they actually use the word Suspicions and not Suspicion.
They also do not state "we found areas that we found as suspicious". only that "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions"

The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.
The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

This is also quite simple, they now know what they are doing,they don't agree with it, but as the rules are written there is no regulation covering it. the FIA knows this will fail in court, and issuing a TD on this matter would clearly expose something that Ferrari considers their intellectual property and for the FIA to clarify this would also open them up to possible legal action from Ferrari.
They also found it a "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"
so according to this portion that is conveniently ignored by most, the FIA found no evidence of breech.

We will probably find that with the next revision of PU rules, this loophole will quietly be closed.

Why are they installing a second sensor as part of the monitoring system? It's not just for giggles. Ferrari has acknowledged that they will be down on power, wonder why.

[dans79]

For a billion dollar operation involving some of the largest companies on the planet, releasing a statement like this plus the timing is edging towards incompetence....

This is what I fear. It doesn't matter if Ferrari is found guilty or not. It's that those in charge of governance is incompetent.

On several occasions I have voiced a negative opinion on the FIA's competency, and taken a lot of gruff for it. The FIA has none more in the last two press releases to prove right that I ever thought possible.


The Primary issue with the FIA, is that it's a collection of pit lane washouts, once weres, and wannabees. Not to mention a butt covering old boys club.

[Chene_Mostert]

To be honest, the FIA mostly. Should Ferrari have done something dodgy, it's best for them to shut up right now. The FIA on the other hand handled it like utter morons.

They should have published the last statement initially and the controversy would have been way smaller.

I'm sure Ferrari co wrote the first statement. The entire point was to not declare guilt, it sort of back fired. When even some genuine Ferrari fans are now admitting the obviousness of guilt. It's a bad way to begin a season for all parties involved.

further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

Where do you see the obviousness of guilt?
I know you made up your mind, hell you even did before you had facts. but as it stands there is no guilt to admit to by anyone.

[Polite]

Not Masi m8, but Nicolas Tombazis, former DT of Ferrari..

and now someone here will say "it s a secret plot! a former Ferrari, like Jean Todt, will never punish Ferrari"... yes, yes, yes.. but for what we know Mercedes and Rbr never lost a technical discussion with FIA (Rbr for the tyre change in 2012.. rubber nosecone... and more; AMG with a selfsuited tech regulation in 2014.. blowing rims = limited irregularity... secret tyre test with Pirelli which was the first time Fia and a team made a secret agreement but in that case they also claimed Pirelli and AMG guilty!.. and go on.. i can continue )

[Polite]

You are all reading it wrong, like you want to read it.

"The FIA has conducted detailed technical analysis on the Scuderia Ferrari Power Unit as it is entitled to do for any competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship."

"The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times."

The suspicion was not raised within the FIA because of their findings. Suspicions was raised among competitors and in the "court" of public opinion due to the "continual" investigations. they actually use the word Suspicions and not Suspicion.
They also do not state "we found areas that we found as suspicious". only that "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions"

The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.
The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

This is also quite simple, they now know what they are doing,they don't agree with it, but as the rules are written there is no regulation covering it. the FIA knows this will fail in court, and issuing a TD on this matter would clearly expose something that Ferrari considers their intellectual property and for the FIA to clarify this would also open them up to possible legal action from Ferrari.
They also found it a "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"
so according to this portion that is conveniently ignored by most, the FIA found no evidence of breech.

We will probably find that with the next revision of PU rules, this loophole will quietly be closed.

Why are they installing a second sensor as part of the monitoring system? It's not just for giggles. Ferrari has acknowledged that they will be down on power, wonder why.

because of you conspiracy theorists who only want to pollute the next championship. maybe?

[Chene_Mostert]

You are all reading it wrong, like you want to read it.

"The FIA has conducted detailed technical analysis on the Scuderia Ferrari Power Unit as it is entitled to do for any competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship."

"The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times."

The suspicion was not raised within the FIA because of their findings. Suspicions was raised among competitors and in the "court" of public opinion due to the "continual" investigations. they actually use the word Suspicions and not Suspicion.
They also do not state "we found areas that we found as suspicious". only that "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions"

The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.
The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

This is also quite simple, they now know what they are doing,they don't agree with it, but as the rules are written there is no regulation covering it. the FIA knows this will fail in court, and issuing a TD on this matter would clearly expose something that Ferrari considers their intellectual property and for the FIA to clarify this would also open them up to possible legal action from Ferrari.
They also found it a "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"
so according to this portion that is conveniently ignored by most, the FIA found no evidence of breech.

We will probably find that with the next revision of PU rules, this loophole will quietly be closed.

Why are they installing a second sensor as part of the monitoring system? It's not just for giggles. Ferrari has acknowledged that they will be down on power, wonder why.

For the same reason they increased the static load tests on wings, teams found a way to be legal during scrutineering. but still managed to have flex when on track. its called closing a potential loop hole

[hugobos]

Looking at the FIA statutes it’s very strange, to make such an exception.

ARTICLE 1 – The FIA

1.3 The FIA shall respect the highest standards of governance, transparency and democracy, including anti- corruption functions and procedures.

ARTICLE 2 – Aim of the FIA

2.3 Promoting the development of motor sport, improving safety in motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing - common- rules applicable to the organisation and the fair and equitable running of motor sport competitions.

[Chene_Mostert]

Looking at the FIA statutes it’s very strange, to make such an exception.

ARTICLE 1 – The FIA

1.3 The FIA shall respect the highest standards of governance, transparency and democracy, including anti- corruption functions and procedures.

ARTICLE 2 – Aim of the FIA

2.3 Promoting the development of motor sport, improving safety in motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing - common- rules applicable to the organisation and the fair and equitable running of motor sport competitions.

your point being?

[214270]

Not Masi m8, but Nicolas Tombazis, former DT of Ferrari..

and now someone here will say "it s a secret plot! a former Ferrari, like Jean Todt, will never punish Ferrari"... yes, yes, yes.. but for what we know Mercedes and Rbr never lost a technical discussion with FIA (Rbr for the tyre change in 2012.. rubber nosecone... and more; AMG with a selfsuited tech regulation in 2014.. blowing rims = limited irregularity... secret tyre test with Pirelli which was the first time Fia and a team made a secret agreement but in that case they also claimed Pirelli and AMG guilty!.. and go on.. i can continue )

Thanks

[Mr.G]

Ferrari probably found a way how to legally store fuel after FFS measurement. FIA asked for additional sensor which proves that there is sometime more fuel directly into ICE but in the same time the mandatory sensor is measuring correctly and because rules doesn't prescribe two sensors they're legal. FIA confiscated fuel lines from Ferrari in the hope to find the "storage" but wasn't successful as the storage is probably the fuel line itself (expandable diameter) but it is still only fuel line so legal.
For the next year they will add second sensor before ICE as mandatory and also restrict the amount of fuel in fuel line to 2 dl.

EDIT1: it's similar to flexible wings - they knew they're bending from video footage (as they know there is higher flow from second fuel sensor) but in rules there was only statistical test (there is only one mandatory sensor)... So if RedBull was legal then, Ferrari is legal now...

EDIT2: if it is the fuel line trick, Mercedes will implement it soon get to the same level and will be quite about it. Or as they will have the same power it will look like Ferrari lost power...

[Schumix]

Test the rule the FIA have quoted to cover themselves in this statement. The point (again) is that I doubt this will vanish as it’s over Millions of Pounds and I get the impression Red Bull (for a start) are never shy of sticking it to others.

I get that as a Ferrari fan you want this to stop. However unfortunately I think you’ll be disappointed.

I'll not be disapointed and I made screenshot of this page for memory. H. Marko will threaten with protests and appeals to the court, but will not achieve anything.

We have a saying where i come from. If one person tells you you’re drunk, it’s okay to not believe him. If more start telling you the same thing, maybe it’s time for you to go to sleep. I refuse to believe, all the F1 teams would have come together in an unprecedented way unless they had a solid understanding of either a breach, or they way it can be done. I also refuse to believe this block of teams will now simply back off. They will simply not, due to money, sportsmanship and time invested.

I will repeat what has already been said in this forum: all the 7 teams (in fact, 3 engine manufacturers) are all interested to understand what the Ferrari innovation is about. As all the teams will be looking to understand how Mercedes DAS is working and its advantages.

The regulatory body has now detailed its position. If the "block of teams" is willing to continue with claims or legal action, he will then have to provide proofs. And according to what FIA is saying, this is not going to be easy to achieve.

Always keep in mind the big poltical fight in F1.

[TAG]

For the same reason they increased the static load tests on wings, teams found a way to be legal during scrutineering. but still managed to have flex when on track. its called closing a potential loop hole

Ferrari?

[DChemTech]

You are all reading it wrong, like you want to read it.

"The FIA has conducted detailed technical analysis on the Scuderia Ferrari Power Unit as it is entitled to do for any competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship."

"The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times."

The suspicion was not raised within the FIA because of their findings. Suspicions was raised among competitors and in the "court" of public opinion due to the "continual" investigations. they actually use the word Suspicions and not Suspicion.
They also do not state "we found areas that we found as suspicious". only that "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions"

The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.
The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.

This is also quite simple, they now know what they are doing,they don't agree with it, but as the rules are written there is no regulation covering it. the FIA knows this will fail in court, and issuing a TD on this matter would clearly expose something that Ferrari considers their intellectual property and for the FIA to clarify this would also open them up to possible legal action from Ferrari.
They also found it a "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"
so according to this portion that is conveniently ignored by most, the FIA found no evidence of breech.

We will probably find that with the next revision of PU rules, this loophole will quietly be closed.

You have a rather passive-aggressive way of dealing with other's interpretations. Their interpretations are speculative, as are yours. Noone can be accused of 'reading it wrong' without any definitive insight in the matter at hand.

You are fully entitled to your interpretation, and so is everyone else. In my view
- a team which solely exploits a loophole does nothing illegal.
- a team that does nothing illegal would not settle and accept community service (unless they actually gain from that, which is even worse).
- stating whether or not something is legal can be done without disclosing any information on the tech itself, so I don't buy the technology protection argument.
Hence, my interpretation remains that it's more than solely exploitation of a loophole.

But that, I fully admit, is speculation. As is every other statement in this topic. Now, we can try and convince eachother that one speculative option is more likely than another based on the statements provided and observations made, or we can just accept that we have different interpretations and await further clarity, but I don't think statements like "you're all reading it wrong" contribute a lot to either of those options.