FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Restomaniac]

If that’s true then the FIA are not fit for purpose as they are no longer a fair broker. How can they be when they are in bed with 1 team and together they are policing the other 9?

Is that fundamentally different from all teams using common ECU made by McLaren?

Yes obviously. All teams know about it and in fact build their own code for it and it’s specs are mandated by the FIA which each team have the details for it so it’s all very much above board.

Ferrari and the FIA have a SECRET deal in which the FIA and Ferrari are the police of the grid.

If you cannot see the difference in that then there not a lot I can tell you!

[ecapox]

.......snip.......
If this is true (which I think it is, as I already thought they meant that in the official FIA statements) the 7 other teams should immidiately boycot and start their own series. Because you can be damn sure Ferrari will be teaching the FIA all the tricks the other 7 are using while not teaching them anything that can be used against Ferrari themselves.

What it said was that Ferrari completely opened their doors,in the sense that everything they will be doing will be visible and scrutinized. They are under a microscope as well....is assumed.

I think we can all agree that these top teams have engineers that are WAY smarter than anyone the FIA can find. I think this was their way of getting up to speed on things....they specifically highlited flexible wings and engine tricks.

Its all a bit odd but from the looks of it, the motorsports code permits this.

[Just_a_fan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrari faced a protest in Oz. Then they have to demonstrate to the stewards that the car is legal. No fudging allowed then.

but they already demonstrated it to the FIA. the stewards are part of the FIA?
The stewards will come up with exactly the same statement."we could find no material proof that the Ferrari PU operates outside of the regulation"

Article 2.7 says that the team must demonstrate to the stewards that the car complies at each event.

That means the team has to prove it is legal. The stewards don't have to show it is illegal. Different burden of proof and it means the team can't just say "it's legal but we won't show you why" as they did with the FIA investigation.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Question:
How would the current rules deal with a Bennetton traction control software type of situation? Say a hypothetical situation where a device could allow illegal operation but it can't be proven that said device was "active" during running even though it is physically embedded in the hardware ?

For example, if a team is found to have a fuel flow meter bypass valve but claim it was never actively used, is there anything the FIA can do other than ask them to get rid of it ? I am not suggesting this is what happened, I just want to understand how the rules protect against this hypothetical scenario.

[GPR-A]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrari faced a protest in Oz. Then they have to demonstrate to the stewards that the car is legal. No fudging allowed then.

but they already demonstrated it to the FIA. the stewards are part of the FIA?
The stewards will come up with exactly the same statement."we could find no material proof that the Ferrari PU operates outside of the regulation"

Article 2.7 says that the team must demonstrate to the stewards that the car complies at each event.

That means the team has to prove it is legal. The stewards don't have to show it is illegal. Different burden of proof and it means the team can't just say "it's legal but we won't show you why" as they did with the FIA investigation.

When FIA themselves admitted that they might be unable to prove their own thoughts about illegality of the PU due the complexity of the system, what different are the stewards going to do to find or prove any kind of illegality? They will be invited to check the PU in Melbourne and they would scratch their heads, look at each other and go back to stick with FIA's statement.

It's not like Stewards would call Andy Cowell and say, hey come let's go and check Ferrari PU. Viola' Ferrari is cheating!

[Chene_Mostert]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrari faced a protest in Oz. Then they have to demonstrate to the stewards that the car is legal. No fudging allowed then.

but they already demonstrated it to the FIA. the stewards are part of the FIA?
The stewards will come up with exactly the same statement."we could find no material proof that the Ferrari PU operates outside of the regulation"

Article 2.7 says that the team must demonstrate to the stewards that the car complies at each event.

That means the team has to prove it is legal. The stewards don't have to show it is illegal. Different burden of proof and it means the team can't just say "it's legal but we won't show you why" as they did with the FIA investigation.

That's easy then.
They take the regulations and they start with point one and they tick of each item as it appears in the regulation.
I'm sure that is exactly what the FIA did.
If they do anything that is not covered. in the regulation, then its still proven to be legal in terms of the regulation.

[dans79]

Reminds me a friend i had in my youth that he was flirting everything female every moment and i was embarrassed but by doing that he was hitting 1 in 15 woman's at least so he was winning.

That is a disturbing definition of winning!

[holeindalip]

As long as the racing is good,they’ll look the other way....

[Fulcrum]

Given the apparent difficulties policing the fuel flow limit, why does it still exist?

I know the arguments in the past were, generally, to prevent 'unlimited' qualifying modes that might endanger participants, but is that a realistic outcome of no-limit fuel flow considering the engines have to maintain unprecedented (in F1 terms) levels of reliability as well?

How large a differential in performance could be achieved with these engines were fuel flow to be unregulated?

[saviour stivala]

Who knows what limits would be reached with no fuel flow restrictions?. What we know is that there is a lot more untapped power left in the fuel used.

[LM10]

So in their second statement the FIA wrote this:

“To avoid the negative consequences that a long litigation would entail especially in light of the uncertainty of the outcome of such litigations and in the best interest of the Championship and of its stakeholders, the FIA, in compliance with Article 4 (ii) of its Judicial and Disciplinary Rules (JDR), decided to enter into an effective and dissuasive settlement agreement with Ferrari to terminate the proceedings.

This type of agreement is a legal tool recognised as an essential component of any disciplinary system and is used by many public authorities and other sport federations in the handling of disputes.“

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this pretty much means game over for the Seven, doesn’t it? Considering this kind of agreement is a legal thing to do and is in compliance with the rule book, I don’t see the scandalous part of it.

Now there are 2 options left why the 7 teams are mad:

1. Mercedes and/or RBR know exactly what Ferrari have been up to because there was a nice little whistleblower playing a key role, but they can’t tell detailed infos, otherwise it would be them in trouble due to espionage.

2. The teams actually don’t know how Ferrari might have operated or might be operating their PU, but desperately want to know it in all it’s details in order to make Ferrari lose the advantage.

[Mrdobolina]

Now there are 2 options left why the 7 teams are mad:

1. Mercedes and/or RBR know exactly what Ferrari have been up to because there was a nice little whistleblower playing a key role, but they can’t tell detailed infos, otherwise it would be them in trouble due to espionage.

2. The teams actually don’t know how Ferrari might have operated or might be operating their PU, but desperately want to know it in all it’s details in order to make Ferrari lose the advantage.

I think the teams still think there is an uncertainty in whether Ferrari is still able to do whatever they did as well. It comes from the secret settlement. I'd expect FIA will be forced to say whether they are confident that Ferrari won't use the same trick.

[dans79]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this pretty much means game over for the Seven, doesn’t it? Considering this kind of agreement is a legal thing to do and is in compliance with the rule book, I don’t see the scandalous part of it.

All depends how much time money and manpower they are willing to throw at it.


An actual court might stomp all over the the FIA, because this "and in the best interest of the Championship and of its stakeholders" is pretty much a conflict of interest. In other words they put fairness, sportsmanship and justice aside because they have their eye on the bottom line.

1. Mercedes and/or RBR know exactly what Ferrari have been up to because there was a nice little whistleblower playing a key role, but they can’t tell detailed infos, otherwise it would be them in trouble due to espionage.

2. The teams actually don’t know how Ferrari might have operated or might be operating their PU, but desperately want to know it in all it’s details in order to make Ferrari lose the advantage.

Or option 3 the Engineers at other teams aren't dumb, and given enough time they figured out what Ferrari was doing.

[Polite]

This is a hate campaign aimed only at Ferrari secrets and FIA money, carried out by avid scammers who stir up choruses of ignorant technicians and laws.

Mercedes is a sore looser, they have insider infos of the Ferrari PU but dont want to protest it officially: those who shout at ferrari here should ask themselves why AMG didn't protest.

[Red Rock Mutley]

Question:
How would the current rules deal with a Bennetton traction control software type of situation? Say a hypothetical situation where a device could allow illegal operation but it can't be proven that said device was "active" during running even though it is physically embedded in the hardware ?

It's not necessary to show the device was in use during competition. The technical non-compliance lies in having the device fitted, or in this case installing software capable of breaching the regulation. Although if the entrant was able to demonstrate satisfactorily that the device was never used, it may mitigate the judgement