FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Jambier]

For those who are in support of B teams, note the conspicuous absence of Haas and Alfa Romeo.

This is one of the pitfalls of cartelisation.

They are running Ferrari engines...

I don’t think they are running whatever contraption Ferrari are using to get extra power. Though I’m not certain of it.

Likewise.
I remember that Ferrari had a "special" fuel with Shell.

Other team had a normal fuel. Even though Shell also proposed them to have it, but it was way too expensive

[CRazyLemon]

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.

I'd say the situation is they suspect Ferrari was in the room and no one saw them leave the room either. Ferrari cannot prove the where not in the room however so they remain under suspicion. Doesn't make Ferrari guilty though.

[Chene_Mostert]

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".

And, what does it make it then, legal or illegal?

[Just_a_fan]

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".

And, what does it make it then, legal or illegal?

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

[Chene_Mostert]

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".

And, what does it make it then, legal or illegal?

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

And "not proven" means the alternative hypothesis can not be accepted and is therfore rejected, which means the original hypothesis of legal remains.

[izzy]

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 all the teams were aware of and measured via GPS, noise, speed comparisons, etc, etc.
The whole thing has been handled in a completely absurd and amateur way and created an existential crisis!

Oh great find. Fancy Jean forgetting this Article just at the critical moment!!

[Red Rock Mutley]

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

A better analogy would be "decline to prosecute" as not proven is usually associated with a judgement of court, while this case never got past the investigation stage

[snowy]

I posted that in the wrong thread! I thought I was in the FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy thread!

Sorry, my bad!

Mod edit: fixed

[snowy]

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!

[Just_a_fan]

And, what does it make it then, legal or illegal?

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

And "not proven" means the alternative hypothesis can not be accepted and is therfore rejected, which means the original hypothesis of legal remains.

No. It specifically means that "not guilty" is not available as an outcome. So the FIA are deliberately not saying that it wasn't legal just as they are deliberately not saying it was legal.

If the FIA could have proved it was legal they would have done and said so. The fact that Ferrari haven't been able to prove it was legal is the interesting issue. That must mean they know it's not and thus kept their mouths shut knowing the FIA wouldn't figure it out, or it's so close to the boundary between legal and not legal that no-one is sure what it is.

[e30ernest]

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.

No obviously they haven't proven that they had complied while the FIA couldn't prove that they are illegal, hence the settlement. If they had proven that they had complied, there would have been nothing to settle.

[Schumix]

They did something clever - they are breaching the fuel flow limits in such way that it cannot be considered illegal. In other words - they have found a way how to store fuel after the fuel flow sensor measuremens.
Actually it was Mercedes who came with the idea to store fuel after measurements, but then the rules was changed and everyone ware thinking that this path/loophole was closed. But apparently Ferrari found a crack in it and exploited it...

And no it's not about Ferrari, it's classic F1...

If so why fia lying about investigation? If it is found why they are saying found nothing, if this kind of something legal why they don't declare it.
In the other hand it is very simple not clever. How much fuel you can store? Can you store in a normal pipe as much as enough to keep ham at back for whole monza straights?

IIRC - Last year Mercedes was saying this - "We (both Ferrari and Mercedes) are accelerating in the same way but then we go flat (top speed) and them (Ferrari) keeps accelerating longer"

This is in sync with the idea - I assume their fuel line is expandable (in diameter) so during the lap, when there's lower demand for fuel they keep pumping more fuel through the fuel flow sensor than actually needed and keep expanding the fuel line. Once they reach straight they go to the max with the flow limit so the acceleration is the same, but then they use up the saved fuel and continue in acceleration a bit longer...

How much? I don't know how the usual fuel line looks like, but the rumour is that the new rules will limit it to 2dl. So I assume this is the volume of typical fuel line. Regarding the expansion - I would say it's between 0.5 - 2 times of the diameter (I think this is possible with current materials)...

According to some engine specialists and thermodynamics experts, apparently Ferrari innovation is not dealing with fuel accumulation or fuel flow rate. It deals with the enthalpy properties of their fuel mixture in interface with the intercooler. It is then something that is sitting between their combustion system and their cooling system.
May be the expansion you are speaking about is the result of that enthalpy properties. Nobody knows the details so far...

[DChemTech]

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

And "not proven" means the alternative hypothesis can not be accepted and is therfore rejected, which means the original hypothesis of legal remains.

No. It specifically means that "not guilty" is not available as an outcome. So the FIA are deliberately not saying that it wasn't legal just as they are deliberately not saying it was legal.

If the FIA could have proved it was legal they would have done and said so. The fact that Ferrari haven't been able to prove it was legal is the interesting issue. That must mean they know it's not and thus kept their mouths shut knowing the FIA wouldn't figure it out, or it's so close to the boundary between legal and not legal that no-one is sure what it is.

The two of you are just arguing different aspects of legality know. Chene_Mostert clearly argues from the judicial definition "innocent until proven guilty". In which he is correct, Ferrari is not proven guilty, so by that definition is innocent. It's not proven with direct evidence they are guilty, and FIA does not seem to have enough circumstantial evidence either.

You and most others (myself including) argue from the perspective of what has potentially transpired, whether this is provable or not. And from that perspective, there are definitely pieces of circumstantial evidence that something was amiss (the need to settle, for one), even if not sufficient to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.

As long as we're arguing different aspects, there is not going to be any agreement. We've gone around in circles several times now, and it's not heading anywhere.

[Chene_Mostert]

In legal terms I believe it's known as "not proven".

And "not proven" means the alternative hypothesis can not be accepted and is therfore rejected, which means the original hypothesis of legal remains.

No. It specifically means that "not guilty" is not available as an outcome. So the FIA are deliberately not saying that it wasn't legal just as they are deliberately not saying it was legal.

If the FIA could have proved it was legal they would have done and said so. The fact that Ferrari haven't been able to prove it was legal is the interesting issue. That must mean they know it's not and thus kept their mouths shut knowing the FIA wouldn't figure it out, or it's so close to the boundary between legal and not legal that no-one is sure what it is.

Unfortunately the legal system just does not work that way, and this is what it ultimately is. A legal (legality) matter.
It does not matter how you feel about it, or how you think it should be done, the fact is, that is the legal standard adopted worldwide.
Legal or innocent is the default.
The alternative must be proven
Now you can continue to try and create your own legal standard, but it won't change anything. All it really does is confirm your lack of actual reasoning around legal process.
This makes you nothing more than a commentator with clear bias, and no legal knowledge, who is unhappy that the law is not providing him with his desired outcome.
But, you are not the first to feel that way, it is absolutely normal for some with limited knowledge to feel "there is no justice" if legal matters don't take their desired path.
That feeling of course is driven by no clear understanding of legal process.

[Schumix]

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.

Thanks a lot, your reply is confirming what I said : I never said that Ferrari raced all F1 races or that they won the first championships. I just said that Ferrari are there since they arrived in F1, either they win or they loss. This is not the case with Mercedes or Alfa Romeo who left F1 and came back some years ago...

I didn't say either that Ferrari must have a special treatment from the FIA. I am just trying to express the fact Ferrari can innovate, as Mercedes and Reb Bull do. It is not good for the sport that someone may feel that people are suspicious when it is Ferrari who is innovating and the same people applaud with admiration when it is another team who is innovating.
In clear, no one has the monopole or intrinsic superiority when it comes to innovation. And this is what the FIA is trying to preserv despite their very poor communication