FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Chene_Mostert]

Okay, can you please extract the exact phrasing, since you are much more experienced in legal terms, where in both FIA statements Ferrari has been exonerated and the PU is and has been legal. Please quote this.

You don't get exonerated, you are found guilty if there is evidence to support.
The default is not guilty.... Untill PROVEN guilty.
That's just how it works. Standard legal requirements.
It prevents prossicution based on feelings, thoughts, bias and vindictiveness.

Okay, one way or another, therefore the entire blame, for utter incompetence and vagueness in such a sensitive matter, is the FIA. Where does that leave Ferrari then?

I don't get your point?

What is vague?
The FIA did not find material evidence to support a claim that Ferrari operate their PU outside of the regulation.
That's what they stated, its clear.

Were does it leave Ferrari? Well I guess where they always were, same as the other teams.
Why should no evidence of guilt have any effect on them?

[JordanMugen]

" Can walk away and start a series with a governing body of their choosing". You certainly don't know what you are talking about.

Motor racing series don't need to be FIA sanctioned, or more specifically, there is no compulsory requirement for national motor racing sanction bodies to be affiliated with the FIA, and there is nothing to stop the "Grand Prix World Championship" having a different sanctioning body than the FIA.

[JordanMugen]

The FIA did not find material evidence to support a claim that Ferrari operate their PU outside of the regulation.
That's what they stated, its clear.

How is that clear? The above statement is very different then:

The FIA is satisfied the evidence presented confirms that Ferrari operated their PU within the regulation at all times.

[nzjrs]

The rate at which this thread is growing is faster than what is possible if people were actually reading what is written.

We are at the close ones eyes and scream phase.

[Wustenfuchs]

I think it's unfair and unethical that the majority of people who follow the sport as well as a certain number of journalists are making this story more than it is, forcefully. I agree that the bad communication as well as vagueness in FIA's statement doesn't help with pubic's reception of the matter, but it is just as bad that all of the above mentioned are contorting with reality and accusing Ferrari of wrongdoing still after this clarification and facts that there are discrepancies with "their story" about how Ferrari gained and lost speed in 2019 when it realistically hasn't (examination of the acceleration curves of qualifying prove this even in races after TDs have been issued). There's really no other explanation of why fans, a vast majority of them, are hating so hard on a team that while it's had a rough history, hasn't done much damage in terms of politics and success in F1 in the recent years.

Ferrari might be the most "popular" team per se but it is also a team fans of the sport hate the most. It's like people basically wait for any opportunity they get today to hate on the Ferrari, in a much more extreme way than any other team. Now I'd go as far to argue its nationality based, but I don't care about such a discussion, I honestly just wish that the F1 community of today wasn't in such low quality, man. I understand casualness but holy smokes, it's not the sport I love.

Something to think about — imagine the hate train that would ensue if Ferrari was actually winning. I think that'd be total chaos.

[Chene_Mostert]

For me, the entire situation is simple. Ignoring the absolute shameful PR stunt pulled by the FIA with the first statement, there are two key aspects here which can not be refuted, changed or ignored.

If a governing body uses the term “SETTLEMENT” it automatically involves both parties at a loss of something and at a gain. A settlement cannot be conceived by both parties not having these two key aspect in the matter. Which ultimately proves that Ferrari had irregularities and the FIA had severe structural problems in both managing, enforcing and investigating set issues in a timely manner to produce a conclusive report. Something a governing body should do, regardless of complexity and political positions of both parties involved.

And last but not least. There is another key aspect here. With a small plus one. The complexity of the issue generated a complex answer. Therefore landing the most ambiguous result i have seen in my life when it comes to legality. The FIA has not stated the following line. “The Scuderia Ferrari PU investigation has determined the PU is within regulations”. This is what is missing. Regardless of what fencing side all categories of people involved would like to choose. As long as that statement does not exist, the complete exoneration of the team seems and it is impossible. Given the current situation, and linking both legal terms intelligently used in set statements ( 1&2) by the FIA it is no longer just an assumption that the Ferrari PU (2019) is not fully within FIA’s understanding of the regulations. That is my understanding of the whole mess.

In Malaysia GP 1999, FIA was sure that Ferrari's bargeboards were illegal and DQ them, but then at the appeal court it was proven that FIA had made wrong measurements.
So if FIA has not DQ the Ferrari engine, it means it is not sure that something wrong has ever happened (no definitive prove exists) and in case that it can be proved in valid legal terms in a court.

Lime and lemon. The FIA does not have the competence to declare legality aka lost all ability to control and enforce regulations. And this still DOES NOT clear Ferrari’s PU legality in any way.

That's just your thaugts and feelings, displaying your clear bias.

you failed to supply material evidence to support your claim. Therefore carries no legal impact.
It makes it just another uniformed comment.

[CRazyLemon]

Which also means it can't prove it didn't breach the rules. And, crucially, Ferrari wasn't able to prove it hadn't broken the rules.

That last bit is the bit that most people, including all Ferrari fans, are ignoring.

If Ferrari could prove they were legal, there wouldn't be an issue would there? They would demonstrate it and the FIA would say ""they're legal". That they can't do so doesn't mean they're legal, it means they're probably illegal but the prosecutor (the FIA) couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were cheating.

The distinction is subtle (actually it isn't) but it's key to legal proceedings.

If I accuse you of eating the last pie and you say you didn't. I may not be able to prove you ate it, but my 'suspicion' still stands against you, also you may not be able to prove you didn't eat it. So then are you guilty because you cannot prove your innocence? I don't think it isn't being ignored, I think it's difficult to prove you didn't do something if there's no evidence. Surely if no evidence can be found against, evidence to exonerate could also be lacking.

That is a poor analogy IMO. The issue here is of a technical nature. Ferrari should be able to prove the legality of the engine in technical terms (i.e., measurements, computations, simulations) based on the actual engine unit. They for example do not need to prove they are only using x amount of fuel within the regulations, they need to prove how they are able to extract y amount of power given that fuel flow rate (if the issue is indeed in fuel flow).

The variable y of s calculated how though? GPS tracking? As accurate as it is getting it isn't super accurate. Acceleration is affected by throttle input, traction of the vehicle at a certain time with certain track characteristics and certain tyre characteristics. Then add fuel load, rubber and debris pickup, wind interference for or against., mileage of the PU is also a significant factor. None of this is identical ever again. So one has to surmise or guess what power the engine is supposed to produce. So best estimation is not a good place to start.

So then I use a theory proposed in here as an analogy. The expanding fuel line. Let's say the FIA suspect that the fuel line expands. They test for it and it does. Ferrari then says OK our fuel line expands but that isn't by design, just happens to be a property of the fuel line we selected based on what we required.

How would Ferrari prove retrospectively that they never used the expanding property of the fuel line? You can never recreate the same racing conditions again. So the FIAs suspicion will never be completely resolved, and that's what they've basically stated, also they cannot prove it, also what they have stated.

The only way forward is to settle, which is what has happened, otherwise how would the season start? Ferrari even if innocent wouldn't really be able to get on with their season, so in mNy ways are forced to settle regardless of innocence.

FIA state Ferrari has maintained their innocence throughout.

To conclude guilty because of the word settlement is to exclude being at an impass IMO.

[DChemTech]

No, that's where you are very wrong, they only need to prove that they comply with the control measures put in place as per the regulation.

There is absolutely no legal need for them to prove to anyone how they are achieving their performance.

That idea is absolutely juvenile and crazy.
Was any team ever required to disclose their performance achievements?

Should Mercedes disclose how they achieve good tyre warmup/management.
Should RB disclose what training they do to achieve fast pitstops?

I find the absolute lack of knowledge regarding basic governance and legal process requirements shocking.
I can see why most spend their time providing legal assessment on here, and are not in a courtroom arguing actual matters...
Time to close this. "I don't like them therfore they are guiltily." mess.

Okay, can you please extract the exact phrasing, since you are much more experienced in legal terms, where in both FIA statements Ferrari has been exonerated and the PU is and has been legal. Please quote this.

You don't get exonerated, you are found guilty if there is evidence to support.
The default is not guilty.... Untill PROVEN guilty.
That's just how it works. Standard legal requirements.
It prevents prossicution based on feelings, thoughts, bias and vindictiveness.

Innocent until proven guilty, but we're not talking mathematics here. It's not a black and white situation where there is either watertight proof, or there is not. Courts frequently rely on circumstantial proof in lieu of direct evidence of a violation, and sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence -can- be used to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now, the FIA statement says that they did not find sufficient proof to claim wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt, but they also state that they could not establish no violations of the rules have been made definitively - indicating there is some circumstantial evidence hinting at a possible violation.

Since we don't know what that is (we don't even now the alleged violation), all we can do is speculate - towards either side. You keep talking like your interpretation is somehow superior and others have no right to vent their concerns and frustrations. You're speculating as much as anyone about what exactly is going on, and why Ferrari opted to go for a settlement, etc. So let's just be fair. We're all speculating, and we can call come up with hypotheses of what has transpired - and try to convince others that our hypothesis is the most credible based on the circumstantial evidence (statements, observations, ...). But let's keep away from calling others juvenile and so on. And let's also remember we are not only taking about legal guilt here - we are hypothesizing what actually happened. That someone gets away with a crime doesn't mean they are innocent. They questions "do we expect Ferrari to have violated a rule" (which is definitely just speculation) and "is there sufficient evidence to prove this violation" (which would turn speculation into substance) are different questions.

[Just_a_fan]

Do you know how many teams arrived in F1, did some racings or stayed some years, and then disappeared while Ferrari has been there since the begining of F1?

A: They didn't even attend the first World Championship race, so hardly "been in it from the start".
B: Alfa Romeo and Mercedes have just as much claim to being important. Heck, Alfa drivers won the first two World Championships. Alfa drivers also came first and second in the first post-War GP in Turin. Ferrari weren't even there - they didn't exist, indeed.
c: Having been there for a long time doesn't mean they should get special treatment. Indeed, they should be setting an example to others.

[Chene_Mostert]

The FIA did not find material evidence to support a claim that Ferrari operate their PU outside of the regulation.
That's what they stated, its clear.

How is that clear? The above statement is very different then:

The FIA is satisfied the evidence presented confirms that Ferrari operated their PU within the regulation at all times.

It was written by lawyers
In legal terms, you disprove the negative, you don't acknowledge the positive.
"Found not guilty" , not, "found innocent."
Found to be illegal, not found to be legal
You never prove innocence in legal matters, have you ever seen proven not guilty?
Also have you ever seen proven to be legal?

[Just_a_fan]

" Can walk away and start a series with a governing body of their choosing". You certainly don't know what you are talking about.

Motor racing series don't need to be FIA sanctioned, or more specifically, there is no compulsory requirement for national motor racing sanction bodies to be affiliated with the FIA, and there is nothing to stop the "Grand Prix World Championship" having a different sanctioning body than the FIA.

They'll need to speak to Bernie about the name (or perhaps Liberty these days) as he, through FOM, trademarked a whole load of F1 / Grands Prix style word combinations around the time the last breakaway was mooted.

Not that it stops them doing a separate series, of course.

Back when Bernie was in charge, ISTR there were moves by him (using the FIA) to prevent any F1-certified tracks being used by a breakaway series. Sort of a "if you let them race then we'll remove your FIA certification for all races" type threat. Again, doesn't stop them going elsewhere but it's the sort of stumbling block that is thrown around to make life tricky.

[Chene_Mostert]

OK, so now we moved on to a breakaway series because a team is not happy that another team managed to accelerate for longer on the straits...

[Just_a_fan]

No, that's where you are very wrong, they only need to prove that they comply with the control measures put in place as per the regulation.

That's exactly what I said. If Ferrari were innocent, they could have easily proved they complied with the regulations. The "pie eating" analogy was poor because unlike that example, Ferrari could have used concrete data and examples to prove they complied with the regulations. But They couldn't, hence the settlement.

Well obviously they proved that they complied, otherwise the would have been found in breech of a stipulated regulation.

If they'd proved that they were in compliance, the FIA would have said so. In effect, Ferrari have "pleaded the Fifth" and said to the FIA "you find it, if you think it's there". Of course they know that the FIA couldn't find its own backside even with written instructions!

In legal terms, the FIA know that someone was shot and killed and they know that Ferrari were in the room at the time, but the CCTV wasn't working and there were no other direct witnesses although someone heard a gunshot and saw Ferrari leave the room. The gun was never found.

Now, we'd all say "they obviously killed him" but the law says "not guilty without proof beyond reasonable doubt".

In effect, it's the perfect crime and the complexity of the cars these days makes these sorts of "crimes" more and more tricky to deal with.

It analogous to the issue faced by tax inspectors in many countries. The people who help other avoid tax know the rules better than the people who have to enforce them. This is mostly because they have the time and resource to really go in to the possibilities where the tax inspectors are all working flat out trying to keep up.

[Just_a_fan]

The FIA did not find material evidence to support a claim that Ferrari operate their PU outside of the regulation.
That's what they stated, its clear.

How is that clear? The above statement is very different then:

The FIA is satisfied the evidence presented confirms that Ferrari operated their PU within the regulation at all times.

It was written by lawyers

Exactly. Which is why it doesn't say "the Ferrari PU is perfectly within the rules and there is no issue at all". What it says is "we can't be sure and they aren't telling".

[snowy]

I keep coming back to Article 2.7

Article 2.7: It is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event."

Even if they can't prove anything wrong, there must have been reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt there is no reason for the absurd timing of the announcement of an agreement and a settlement, the details of which are cloaked in secrecy!

Surely all Ferrari had to prove and all the FIA had to ask is how they got the extra power from their engine that the FIA had observed and the other teams had measured via GPS, noise, and speed comparisons, etc, etc.

The whole thing has been handled in a completely absurd and amateur way and created an existential crisis!