FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Wil992]

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)...

I think you need to put to bed the idea that what (if anything) Ferrari were doing wrong was something as simple as an expanding fuel line. Whatever the FIA were investigating, it seems that they lacked the expertise/resources to get down to the technical complexities of the system they were investigating. However incompetent they may be, the FIA could definitely identify something as simple as an expanding pipe, and any such pipe is clearly illegal.

5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

NB, it clearly states the "effect", so with this wording, they wouldn't even need to prove it was deliberate, just that it has this effect.

Whatever was being investigated, it certainly wasn't this.

[snowy]

The fuel flow is regulated and that flow is measured by a sensor, you are not supposed to cheat the sensor. If the fuel is being modified to circumnavigate the regulations and the sensor then Ferrari should explain how this is an innovation and compliant or legal.

In which case the FIA can accept that or they can reject that. If Ferrari - as is stated in the settlement agreement - denies any transgression and hasn't offered any explanation for why other teams and the FIA may be suspicious, then more investigation is warranted. And more seizures of data, documents and intellectual property and necessary. You don't just make a settlement and hope that nobody recognises that there is a profound problem with how the sports rules can be policed!

[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.

hi

I really struggle to understand point.
it totally goes against all accepted legal Norms
I just hope you never get put in a position where you need to defend someone or yourself.
You might as well say " I'm guilty, prove me wrong"

[bonjon1979]

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.

I think it's exactly the same as the Benneton situation. They've found something that makes them believe the power unit wasn't legal, however in legal terms they can't retrospectively go back in time to those past events to prove that Ferrari was using it so in legal terms it becomes non-provable. Anyway, the unbiased, unblinkered amongst us already know that Ferrari were gaining an unfair advantage, as evidenced by their drop in performance and subsequent shady cover up statements. The court of public opinion in the main has already concluded their judgement and I have no doubt in due course the full facts will come out as this continued silence from Ferrari is simply untenable. Only the Ferrari devotees are screaming innocence from the rooftops and their opinions will never change; it's like the Trump supporters who never believe any negative press about him because they're incapable of objective reasoning. Each to their own though, and I respect the passion with which you make your continued and in some senses valid arguments but I fear you might find that the evidence against becomes insurmountable.

[bluechris]

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...

Oh i google that and the analysis of this is beyond my physics & chemistry cababilities.. can anyone chime in that knows this stuff?

[Chene_Mostert]

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.

I think it's exactly the same as the Benneton situation. They've found something that makes them believe the power unit wasn't legal, however in legal terms they can't retrospectively go back in time to those past events to prove that Ferrari was using it so in legal terms it becomes non-provable. Anyway, the unbiased, unblinkered amongst us already know that Ferrari were gaining an unfair advantage, as evidenced by their drop in performance and subsequent shady cover up statements. The court of public opinion in the main has already concluded their judgement and I have no doubt in due course the full facts will come out as this continued silence from Ferrari is simply untenable. Only the Ferrari devotees are screaming innocence from the rooftops and their opinions will never change; it's like the Trump supporters who never believe any negative press about him because they're incapable of objective reasoning. Each to their own though, and I respect the passion with which you make your continued and in some senses valid arguments but I fear you might find that the evidence against becomes insurmountable.

It remains to be seen if there is a drop in performance.
The drop in performance scenario, atm is just used to try and justify the bias assumption that "they were cheating!"

[bluechris]

It remains to be seen if there is a drop in performance.
The drop in performance scenario, atm is just used to try and justify the bias assumption that "they were cheating!"

You know my 1st reaction was that they will sandbag a bit in the 1st races to calm the things down and then (with the 1st races results inhand they will act accordingly, exactly what MB is doing with their monster engine since 2014) but as a i think it over, to clear the air on their name they need to be full throttle from the day 1.

[Chene_Mostert]

It remains to be seen if there is a drop in performance.
The drop in performance scenario, atm is just used to try and justify the bias assumption that "they were cheating!"

You know my 1st reaction was that they will sandbag a bit in the 1st races to calm the things down and then (with the 1st races results inhand they will act accordingly, exactly what MB is doing with their monster engine since 2014) but as a i think it over, to clear the air on their name they need to be full throttle from the day 1.

Agreed. a day one come out and face the music, state your claim approach will be the best.
Taking it slow will just fuel further suspicion under the "hysterical" masses that they had to redevelop, and of course "they must be ceating" again.

[bonjon1979]

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.

I think it's exactly the same as the Benneton situation. They've found something that makes them believe the power unit wasn't legal, however in legal terms they can't retrospectively go back in time to those past events to prove that Ferrari was using it so in legal terms it becomes non-provable. Anyway, the unbiased, unblinkered amongst us already know that Ferrari were gaining an unfair advantage, as evidenced by their drop in performance and subsequent shady cover up statements. The court of public opinion in the main has already concluded their judgement and I have no doubt in due course the full facts will come out as this continued silence from Ferrari is simply untenable. Only the Ferrari devotees are screaming innocence from the rooftops and their opinions will never change; it's like the Trump supporters who never believe any negative press about him because they're incapable of objective reasoning. Each to their own though, and I respect the passion with which you make your continued and in some senses valid arguments but I fear you might find that the evidence against becomes insurmountable.

It remains to be seen if there is a drop in performance.
The drop in performance scenario, atm is just used to try and justify the bias assumption that "they were cheating!"

It would be a strange decision to move to an engine with less power than the previous year if there were no issues with the previous year's power unit. So yes, if we do see that the power unit is not as powerful as it was last year, it will be another piece of evidence that is forming a very clear picture of what has gone on and that Ferrari were indeed cheating.

[Chene_Mostert]

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

Actually, in regulatory environments the governing body acts as the Judge and performs investigative duties.
What they do is judge the competitor against the set rules, then makes a determination or judgement against these rules
Sould a competitor not accept the judgment, they can appeal, at which point the matter could be referred to an outside court.
But initial judgement always takes place within the covering body.

[3jawchuck]

The fact that the FIA haven't said that Ferrari were perfectly within the rules is probably as close to proof that we will get that they did something that bent or broke the rules. The fact that the FIA are not penalising Ferrari shows (to me) that the FIA couldn't replicate, in isolation, or figure out whatever it was Ferrari may have done. So we get this limbo situation that upsets everyone. Can there really be any doubt that if Ferrari were completely within the rules, they would be up in arms about this press release nonsense? Honestly, the FIA would have just said so, and that would be it.

All this talk of guilt and innocence is nonsense, this isn't a criminal trial. The FIA have failed to do their job of declaring a competitor's technology within the rules or not. The way they have handled it is poor and we won't get anywhere with this until something new comes out. Until then, this thread is going nowhere and will be filled with comments like this one and lots of petty squabbling and mincing of words.

[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

Actually, in regulatory environments the governing body acts as the Judge and performs investigative duties.
What they do is judge the competitor against the set rules, then makes a determination or judgement against these rules
Sould a competitor not accept the judgment, they can appeal, at which point the matter could be referred to an outside court.
But initial judgement always takes place within the covering body.

That's true in part, however there's a separation between the investigation phase and the judgement. It's certainly not the case that the FIA can decide arbitrarily on guilt as there's a well defined (due) process. While both parts are under the FIA umbrella, they are treated separately. Once the FIA has completed its investigation and provided it is satisfied it could prove a rule transgression a hearing would be convened and the case argued before a panel. In the Ferrari PU case, the processes was stopped at the investigation phase and not taken further - the reasons given was there was no realistic possibility of proving the case

[Xwang]

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.

Maybe you could do a settlement

[turbof1]

Maybe you could do a settlement

Xwang strikes again

[DChemTech]

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.

Maybe you could do a settlement

+1