FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[lh13]

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

If they have figured it out,

a) Why don't they do the same with their own PU, since it cannot be traced.

b) Why are they waiting for FIA and not protesting whatever Ferrari is doing?

[Polite]

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

Not really.. u are wrong. If something can operate illegally, the judge have to prove it was illegally operated

what you say only applies to what is regulated with dimensional measurements for example.

[izzy]

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.

I think this is 100% about power, and how up till now FIA have been able to make it up as they go along, interpreting and selecting rules or making new ones

So i don't think 'the rules' help with your prediction. If it was Renault, they'd be nuked obviously and WMSC would vote unanimously to nuke them

But it was actually progress that Ferrari were stopped, with the second sensor, so Jean is probably a bit disappointed nobody seems at all grateful

[bonjon1979]

I don't think the protest can go anywhere; what would happen if the case is taken to the court?
FIA had a look at the fuel system of SF90 and couldn't find anything. Ferrari will definitely object demonstrating their fuel system to the competitors, on the grounds of revealing their technical know-how. In 2007 McLaren case there were some details disclosed, but they were relatively minor. And without the competitors' involvement, new pieces of evidence are unlikely to be found.
Something can be reached if fuel systems of all four manufacturers could be presented and compared, but is it possible?

If it went to court, Ferrari would be required to make legal deposition and in defending themselves say why what they have done isn’t cheating and why. If they’re innocent this is no problem, if they’re not and lie about it then they’re into perjury territory in a court of law. All it takes is one former engine employee to say, ‘yeh, this is what we were doing’ and they would be fubar’d.

[bonjon1979]

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.

This is the point I think a lot of people are missing. The FIA announced that they were not satisfied that the car was eligible to be entered, therefore they are in contravention of the rules. They were found to be at fault but the FIA didn’t have the stomach for the fight if they took action afterwards. They don’t need to prove anything, the onus is on Ferrari to prove their car meets the regulations and they have failed to do so. That’s why the teams are so cross.

[Polite]

I don't think the protest can go anywhere; what would happen if the case is taken to the court?
FIA had a look at the fuel system of SF90 and couldn't find anything. Ferrari will definitely object demonstrating their fuel system to the competitors, on the grounds of revealing their technical know-how. In 2007 McLaren case there were some details disclosed, but they were relatively minor. And without the competitors' involvement, new pieces of evidence are unlikely to be found.
Something can be reached if fuel systems of all four manufacturers could be presented and compared, but is it possible?

If it went to court, Ferrari would be required to make legal deposition and in defending themselves say why what they have done isn’t cheating and why. If they’re innocent this is no problem, if they’re not and lie about it then they’re into perjury territory in a court of law. All it takes is one former engine employee to say, ‘yeh, this is what we were doing’ and they would be fubar’d.

not really..

there is something called burden of proof.

a lot of people here dont understand laws..

[Chene_Mostert]

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.

This is the point I think a lot of people are missing. The FIA announced that they were not satisfied that the car was eligible to be entered, therefore they are in contravention of the rules. They were found to be at fault but the FIA didn’t have the stomach for the fight if they took action afterwards. They don’t need to prove anything, the onus is on Ferrari to prove their car meets the regulations and they have failed to do so. That’s why the teams are so cross.

When and where did they announce that?

[timbo]

All it takes is one former engine employee to say, ‘yeh, this is what we were doing’ and they would be fubar’d.

Yes, indeed. However, so far there's none. It would be interesting to see if anyone really talks with time.
It can be a story similar to Benetton's TC.

[turbof1]

I don't think the protest can go anywhere; what would happen if the case is taken to the court?
FIA had a look at the fuel system of SF90 and couldn't find anything. Ferrari will definitely object demonstrating their fuel system to the competitors, on the grounds of revealing their technical know-how. In 2007 McLaren case there were some details disclosed, but they were relatively minor. And without the competitors' involvement, new pieces of evidence are unlikely to be found.
Something can be reached if fuel systems of all four manufacturers could be presented and compared, but is it possible?

If it went to court, Ferrari would be required to make legal deposition and in defending themselves say why what they have done isn’t cheating and why. If they’re innocent this is no problem, if they’re not and lie about it then they’re into perjury territory in a court of law. All it takes is one former engine employee to say, ‘yeh, this is what we were doing’ and they would be fubar’d.

not really..

there is something called burden of proof.

a lot of people here dont understand laws..

Years ago, a woman in Belgium was convicted for a parachute murder. There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords.

A lot of people who claim "alot of people don't understand laws" don't understand law themselves. For starters, there is no uniform "law". In Belgium, despite the example above, the practice of "innocent until proven" is for the vast majority of cases true. In Iran that is only true for the male populace and in China the judge basically convicts whatever the prosecutor, the government, wants.

Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority? People always believe things end with the FIA when it comes down to law and order in F1. Ask for instance Briatore how much he abided his lifelong exclusion from F1.

[Unc1eM0nty]

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

Thanks for posting, some great stories there

[Polite]

If it went to court, Ferrari would be required to make legal deposition and in defending themselves say why what they have done isn’t cheating and why. If they’re innocent this is no problem, if they’re not and lie about it then they’re into perjury territory in a court of law. All it takes is one former engine employee to say, ‘yeh, this is what we were doing’ and they would be fubar’d.

not really..

there is something called burden of proof.

a lot of people here dont understand laws..

Years ago, a woman in Belgium was convicted for a parachute murder. There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords.

A lot of people who claim "alot of people don't understand laws" don't understand law themselves. For starters, there is no uniform "law". In Belgium, despite the example above, the practice of "innocent until proven" is for the vast majority of cases true. In Iran that is only true for the male populace and in China the judge basically convicts whatever the prosecutor, the government, wants.

Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority? People always believe things end with the FIA when it comes down to law and order in F1. Ask for instance Briatore how much he abided his lifelong exclusion from F1.

" There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords." - They were sure that the cords were cutted but only circumstantial proof tied the certain fact with who could have done it. OK. But here we are talking about the "the cutted cords"

I'm a lawyer and I was talking about the FIA ​​sporting regulations. here too many comments distort the same legal rules to use it to your advantage, but they are witch-hunting methods.

"Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority?" - cant happen, FIA has both the judicial and legislative powers according to the federal statute to which the houses have already decided to join: if they do not accept it they lose their license.

The only way to force FIA is a regular protest, as required by the rules, in which someone describes the irregular mode of operation and when it occurred.
if this happens, Ferrari has a duty to prove its legality specifically to what is raised.

Ferrari must prove to be legal only in this case and not as has been imaginatively said in many comments

[Schumix]

not really..

there is something called burden of proof.

a lot of people here dont understand laws..

Years ago, a woman in Belgium was convicted for a parachute murder. There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords.

A lot of people who claim "alot of people don't understand laws" don't understand law themselves. For starters, there is no uniform "law". In Belgium, despite the example above, the practice of "innocent until proven" is for the vast majority of cases true. In Iran that is only true for the male populace and in China the judge basically convicts whatever the prosecutor, the government, wants.

Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority? People always believe things end with the FIA when it comes down to law and order in F1. Ask for instance Briatore how much he abided his lifelong exclusion from F1.

" There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords." - They were sure that the cords were cutted but only circumstantial proof tied the certain fact with who could have done it. OK. But here we are talking about the "the cutted cords"

I'm a lawyer and I was talking about the FIA ​​sporting regulations. here too many comments distort the same legal rules to use it to your advantage, but they are witch-hunting methods.

"Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority?" - cant happen, FIA has both the judicial and legislative powers according to the federal statute to which the houses have already decided to join: if they do not accept it they lose their license.

The only way to force FIA is a regular protest, as required by the rules, in which someone describes the irregular mode of operation and when it occurred.
if this happens, Ferrari has a duty to prove its legality specifically to what is raised.

Ferrari must prove to be legal only in this case and not as has been imaginatively said in many comments

Thanks for your clarification. This helps to understand what is going. We can also imagine that some teams know what they have to do if they are not happy with Ferrari PU but don't act. Why?

[turbof1]

not really..

there is something called burden of proof.

a lot of people here dont understand laws..

Years ago, a woman in Belgium was convicted for a parachute murder. There was no direct proof of here cutting the cords, but circumstantial proof was so much prevalent it deduced the case to the only possibility that she cut the cords.

A lot of people who claim "alot of people don't understand laws" don't understand law themselves. For starters, there is no uniform "law". In Belgium, despite the example above, the practice of "innocent until proven" is for the vast majority of cases true. In Iran that is only true for the male populace and in China the judge basically convicts whatever the prosecutor, the government, wants.

Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority? People always believe things end with the FIA when it comes down to law and order in F1. Ask for instance Briatore how much he abided his lifelong exclusion from F1.

I'm a lawyer and I was talking about the FIA ​​sporting regulations. here too many comments distort the same legal rules to use it to your advantage, but they are witch-hunting methods.

"Also, what happens if the authoritive body loses authority?" - cant happen, FIA has both the judicial and legislative powers according to the federal statute to which the houses have already decided to join: if they do not accept it they lose their license.

The only way to force FIA is a regular protest, as required by the rules, in which someone describes the irregular mode of operation and when it occurred.
if this happens, Ferrari has a duty to prove its legality specifically to what is raised.

Ferrari must prove to be legal only in this case and not as has been imaginatively said in many comments

You completely ignored my example set above. Briatore went to a public court and got the decision made by the FIA overturned. The FIA was powerless.

Also back in 2009, the FIA had to bind in when several teams decided to start up a separate racing series (which was ultimately a bluf, but whatever). Despite this being in clear violation with the regulations of the FIA (that no series can be founded to compete directly with F1), FIA was powerless and had to give in to the demands of the F1 teams.
The point I am trying to make too is that despite everyone pointing at legal rules, legal rules can be overruled on their own, be either through other legal means, show of force or even blackmailing/ultimatums. Ultimately, the FIA is up against teams of which 3 probably have more budget for their lawyer's department, than the entire FIA's budget. In analogy with 2009, concorde agreements negotiations are going. Those 7 teams will use that hard in their own advantage.

Another example: Guido van de Garde was very close to winning his public court case against Sauber back in 2015 despite both Sauber and FIA opposing it. That court case was deciding about an earlier court's decision made in Switserland. Ultimately the FOM stepped in and bought off the case (a settlement if you will). See how the FIA was put aside in its own sport despite it being the authoritive body (and yes, this was a matter for the FIA too because contracts of drivers have to put in front of the FIA before a driver is allowed to race)?

For the record, what I am trying to show here is things can (and emphasis on can, there's no telling what will go on in the future) go very far away from the principle of "innocent until proven otherwise". And for the record, there is a SETLEMENT in place. If a company with abnormal tax constructions settles with a country's proscecutor, does anybody believe they are "innocent until proven otherwise"? No everybody thinks "they paid off their case"?

[Just_a_fan]

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.

They would have to prove that each bit was legal. Just saying "it's legal, honest guv" isn't proving anything.

[Just_a_fan]

I think this is 100% about power, and how up till now FIA have been able to make it up as they go along, interpreting and selecting rules or making new ones

I think this is, in some way, about the position of Ferrari in the forthcoming Concord Agreement (for want of a better term). I think the teams want to end Ferrari's special treatment in the Agreement. No veto, no "special money" etc.

It's about putting down a line that says "here is the governing body, and here are the teams and no-one sits on both sides of the line".