FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[gshevlin]

Anybody engaging in semantic sophistry about "suspicions" is wasting their time. The answer is hiding in plain sight, in the use of the word "settlement" in the initial announcement. The word "settlement" would not be used if the FIA had investigated Ferrari and found no evidence to support claims that they were abusing or violating the technical regulations.
If the FIA had exonerated Ferrari, the statement would have said that. In fact, Ferrari would have insisted on that wording being used. Any other wording, as is the case here, would have led to continuing suspicion that Ferrari had in some way violated, or attempted to violate, the rules and regulations.
The word "settlement", in legal documentation, means that evidence or events led to a legal or commercial disagreement between parties, and actions were taken on both sides to terminate the disagreement.

[Chene_Mostert]

Anybody engaging in semantic sophistry about "suspicions" is wasting their time. The answer is hiding in plain sight, in the use of the word "settlement" in the initial announcement. The word "settlement" would not be used if the FIA had investigated Ferrari and found no evidence to support claims that they were abusing or violating the technical regulations.
If the FIA had exonerated Ferrari, the statement would have said that. In fact, Ferrari would have insisted on that wording being used. Any other wording, as is the case here, would have led to continuing suspicion that Ferrari had in some way violated, or attempted to violate, the rules and regulations.
The word "settlement", in legal documentation, means that evidence or events led to a legal or commercial disagreement between parties, and actions were taken on both sides to terminate the disagreement.

The answer lies here, you are avoiding it like the plague.

"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."

[Anony Mous Engineerd]

Ferrari was matching pulses 180 degrees out of phase from a fuel pump to the frequency of the fuel flow meter in such a way it only read the "valleys" of the flow . Average flow rate exceeded limits, but impossible to measure.


--or--

They figured out something clever with the fuel sensor's ability to read bi directional flow,,,, I wonder what time frame that is averaged over.

--or--

Temperature/ density of the fluid... mm... uneven temp distributions across the pipe,,, something something...

[dans79]

"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."

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and thus it should be dropped, is generally not an acceptable answer in most fields.

[gshevlin]

My comment from yesterday was that the original statement did Ferrari no favors, since it clearly said (and the new FIA statement repeats this) that the FIA suspected Ferrari of violating the technical regulations, but lacked the proof to formally sanction them.
The original statement looks like something written in a hurry and issued quickly to head off ...something. The second version is what should have been the first version. It is much better written. It doesn't actually say any more than the first statement, other than quoting the FIA regulations that the FIA thinks will justify its refusal to disclose details, but it is much better and more precisely written.
IMHO, the original statement was issued rapidly to head off an event that would have blown the whole incident wide open. I suspect a whistleblower was about to reveal some or all of the details of the events, and Ferrari could not afford that, since it would have exposed not only their 2019 activities, and their own IP, but also the IP of one or more third parties, thus endangering those relationships (the most obvious third party being their fuel and/or lubricant suppliers). So I suspect that some frantic negotiation took place, where Ferrari agreed to a non-detailed admission of some attempt to circumvent the technical regulations, and paid money, so that the FIA would declare the matter closed and neutralize the impact of a whistleblower.

[nzjrs]

Ferrari was matching pulses 180 degrees out of phase from a fuel pump to the frequency of the fuel flow meter in such a way it only read the "valleys" of the flow . Average flow rate exceeded limits, but impossible to measure.

Many more, and many more plausible ways of cheating the sensor were discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28491

[Mr.G]

Ferrari was matching pulses 180 degrees out of phase from a fuel pump to the frequency of the fuel flow meter in such a way it only read the "valleys" of the flow . Average flow rate exceeded limits, but impossible to measure.

Did you take a look at the specification of the sensor? It's digital CAN connected sensor...

[Chene_Mostert]

"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."

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and thus it should be dropped, is generally not an acceptable answer in most fields.

Just a normal legal standard. It prevents prosecution based on feelings, thoughts and bias.

[gshevlin]

Anybody engaging in semantic sophistry about "suspicions" is wasting their time. The answer is hiding in plain sight, in the use of the word "settlement" in the initial announcement. The word "settlement" would not be used if the FIA had investigated Ferrari and found no evidence to support claims that they were abusing or violating the technical regulations.
If the FIA had exonerated Ferrari, the statement would have said that. In fact, Ferrari would have insisted on that wording being used. Any other wording, as is the case here, would have led to continuing suspicion that Ferrari had in some way violated, or attempted to violate, the rules and regulations.
The word "settlement", in legal documentation, means that evidence or events led to a legal or commercial disagreement between parties, and actions were taken on both sides to terminate the disagreement.

The answer lies here, you are avoiding it like the plague.

"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."

We are talking past each other. You are arguing that the FIA cannot prove anything. That is not at issue. My point remains, that people do not reach settlements with each other when one party has nothing to hide, or does not appear to have misbehaved. The FIA did not say "after extensive investigations, we have concluded that Ferrari did not attempt to, or violate, the technical regulations". That is what they would have said if they found no evidence. They did not declare Ferrari guilty of anything, but the statement does not exonerate them.

[214270]

Interesting point made here: If we (Merc & RB) brought this to the attention of the FIA, can we really be considered a third-party and excluded from the terms of settlement?

Yes, the dispositions of the FIA regulation allow the FIA to close an investigation with a confidential agreement (settlement).

I believe missing from your statement is the aspect about third-party’s.

[dans79]

Just a normal legal standard. It prevents prosecution based on feelings, thoughts and bias.
what "fields" are you referring to? circus field?

Any field where technical expertise is mandatory.

[gshevlin]

"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."

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and thus it should be dropped, is generally not an acceptable answer in most fields.

Just a normal legal standard. It prevents prosecution based on feelings, thoughts and bias.
what "fields" are you referring to? circus field?

A really smart and visionary governing body would have pledged to either (a) simplify the regulations (since it is clearly very difficult to determine when a party to the regulations is violating them) and/or (b) improve their ability to measure compliance to the regulations.

[Anony Mous Engineerd]

Ferrari was matching pulses 180 degrees out of phase from a fuel pump to the frequency of the fuel flow meter in such a way it only read the "valleys" of the flow . Average flow rate exceeded limits, but impossible to measure.

Did you take a look at the specification of the sensor? It's digital CAN connected sensor...

Yeah, the signal it sends out, but the actual sensor is ultrasonic, and thus has to operate at some know Hz... or kHz...

[Chene_Mostert]

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and thus it should be dropped, is generally not an acceptable answer in most fields.

Just a normal legal standard. It prevents prosecution based on feelings, thoughts and bias.
what "fields" are you referring to? circus field?

A really smart and visionary governing body would have pledged to either (a) simplify the regulations (since it is clearly very difficult to determine when a party to the regulations is violating them) and/or (b) improve their ability to measure compliance to the regulations.

Yes, that is one of the "problems" with over regulation, it becomes almost impossible to regulate, then they add more measure and rules... that requires more regulation... and so on, and so on.
Then they get to a point of, lets just make every thing standard.

[saviour stivala]

Following accusations from rival teams (but with no team having protested). The governing body (FIA) said it wasn’t confident that it could prove FERRARI had been in breach of the rules. (Material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach).