FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[rosberglks]

I have a stupid question about this part of the FIA statement: "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times. The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.".
Could FIA say anything more than that if they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU?

[Mattchu]

This was posted by catv in the Ferrari power unit thread so credit to them.

The regulator changed TR-2020 in December, compared to April (highlighted in bold):
19.8.2 Fuel density will also be checked and must be within 0.25% of the figure noted during pre-approval analysis of the fuel that is declared to be in use.
19.8.3 Fuel samples taken during an Event will be checked for conformity by using a gas chromatographic technique, which will compare the sample taken with an a reference sample of the fuel that is declared to be in use (older "approved fuel"). ...
19.8.4 ... If the deviations observed (above) by GC indicate that they are due to incidental mixing with another Formula One fuel to the one declared, but which has been approved by the FIA for use by the team, the fuel sample will be deemed to comply, provided that the adulterant fuel is present at no more than 10% in the sample. Any systematic abuse of mixed fuels will be deemed not to comply.

Whether this change to the regs has any bearing on the "situation" is debatable but not beyond the realms of possibility! I`d imagine there are some frantic discussions going on behind the scenes to "put a lid on this" so to speak!

[izzy]

I have a stupid question about this part of the FIA statement: "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times. The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.".
Could FIA say anything more than that if they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU?

why "more"? count the adjectives, adverbs and qualifications:

• extensive
  thorough
  raised suspicions that
  could be considered
  at all times.
  not fully satisfied
  not necessarily
  a conclusive case
  the complexity of the matter
  material impossibility
  unequivocal

see? if they'd said LESS then it might've sounded a bit less suspicious

[Xwang]

I'm wondering if the seven teams are so angry because they feel to be in an iterated prisoner's dilemma in which Ferrari has already discovered to FIA how F1 teams works in the grey areas and so now they risk more.

[turbof1]

I have a stupid question about this part of the FIA statement: "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times. The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.".
Could FIA say anything more than that if they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU?

why "more"? count the adjectives, adverbs and qualifications:

• extensive
  thorough
  raised suspicions that
  could be considered
  at all times.
  not fully satisfied
  not necessarily
  a conclusive case
  the complexity of the matter
  material impossibility
  unequivocal

see? if they'd said LESS then it might've sounded a bit less suspicious

I do think that second statement was better. It was more specific and also cited regulation. Still quite unsatisfactory at it neither absolved or convicted Ferrari, but better. Atleast it was an admission of their inability. From that admission they could have worked forward, either by scrapping that rule all together, as some suggested, or find the correct independent expertise. But that credit went down the drain because of their first, very clumsy statement.

[rosberglks]

I have a stupid question about this part of the FIA statement: "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times. The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.".
Could FIA say anything more than that if they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU?

why "more"? count the adjectives, adverbs and qualifications:

• extensive
  thorough
  raised suspicions that
  could be considered
  at all times.
  not fully satisfied
  not necessarily
  a conclusive case
  the complexity of the matter
  material impossibility
  unequivocal

see? if they'd said LESS then it might've sounded a bit less suspicious

Ok , but joking aside. By more, I mean clearer. Can you give a better(clearer) formulation to that statement given that "they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU"?

[izzy]

I do think that second statement was better. It was more specific and also cited regulation. Still quite unsatisfactory at it neither absolved or convicted Ferrari, but better. Atleast it was an admission of their inability. From that admission they could have worked forward, either by scrapping that rule all together, as some suggested, or find the correct independent expertise. But that credit went down the drain because of their first, very clumsy statement.

yes it just made it a bit obvious they didn't want to find anything, didn't it

[turbof1]

I do think that second statement was better. It was more specific and also cited regulation. Still quite unsatisfactory at it neither absolved or convicted Ferrari, but better. Atleast it was an admission of their inability. From that admission they could have worked forward, either by scrapping that rule all together, as some suggested, or find the correct independent expertise. But that credit went down the drain because of their first, very clumsy statement.

yes it just made it a bit obvious they didn't want to find anything, didn't it

Call me naive, but I do believe they made a genuine effort to investigate. If you ask for my honest opinion, they just didn't want to admit they couldn't understand it fully.

Makes me also wonder how high tech these power units are. We might be looking at the most technological (partly) ICE's in history (should fossil fuel engines dissapear in the future).

[izzy]

Ok , but joking aside. By more, I mean clearer. Can you give a better(clearer) formulation to that statement given that "they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU"?

they haven't said that have they? they said they were suspicious but couldn't absolutely prove it, and what they said was all decorated with woolly qualifications for their findings, against a standard they set themselves for guilt that was stunningly absolute

then obviously the other F1 power unit makers think they could prove it, if they wanted

and then FIA have added the second sensor, which has a weight cost and everything, which they did in good faith credit to them, but it does rather nail it as 'they know really', doncha think?

So my view is FIA took a step towards doing the right thing, but sadly for Jean that's actually made the others more hopeful about getting rid of the bias altogether, and with it being huge crucial contract time they've decided now is the time to strike back

And now FIA have helpfully lit up a huge spotlight on how open to corruption their FIFA-like structure is, with another amazingly unanimous vote from WMSC blindly supporting themselves

[izzy]

Call me naive, but I do believe they made a genuine effort to investigate. If you ask for my honest opinion, they just didn't want to admit they couldn't understand it fully.

Makes me also wonder how high tech these power units are. We might be looking at the most technological (partly) ICE's in history (should fossil fuel engines dissapear in the future).

yes it's hard to really know isn't it, and FIA know this and expected to get away with that feeble community service penalty. And yes i agree they wanted to stop it. I don't think they wanted or dared to really go after Ferrari tho. The three things that make me feel you're being a bit generous are:
The other engine makers are furious, i think they reckon FIA know
FIA did give Ferrari a penalty
FIA did add the second sensor

so imo FIA could have gone after them harder. but just an opinion, tho if they had DQ'd them, there'd have been such a riot, you can understand why. this was the easy way out, until Toto

[MachineCo.]

Ok , but joking aside. By more, I mean clearer. Can you give a better(clearer) formulation to that statement given that "they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU"?

they haven't said that have they? they said they were suspicious but couldn't absolutely prove it, and what they said was all decorated with woolly qualifications for their findings, against a standard they set themselves for guilt that was stunningly absolute

then obviously the other F1 power unit makers think they could prove it, if they wanted

and then FIA have added the second sensor, which has a weight cost and everything, which they did in good faith credit to them, but it does rather nail it as 'they know really', doncha think?

So my view is FIA took a step towards doing the right thing, but sadly for Jean that's actually made the others more hopeful about getting rid of the bias altogether, and with it being huge crucial contract time they've decided now is the time to strike back

And now FIA have helpfully lit up a huge spotlight on how open to corruption their FIFA-like structure is, with another amazingly unanimous vote from WMSC blindly supporting themselves

No. I think if the other manufacturers could prove it they would have lodged a protest when they had the chance and not just asked for a clarification. The fact that the FIA have stated they could not prove any illegality means that they found nothing wrong with the PU. But they have some suspicions of how Ferrari were getting their extra power from so they added a second sensor to try and close that loophole. I'm not sure how this 'spotlights' FIA corruption or is it another Ferrari/FIA conspiracy theory?

[rosberglks]

I have a stupid question about this part of the FIA statement: "The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times. The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations.The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case due to the complexity of the matter and the material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach.".
Could FIA say anything more than that if they found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU?

why "more"? count the adjectives, adverbs and qualifications:

• extensive
  thorough
  raised suspicions that
  could be considered
  at all times.
  not fully satisfied
  not necessarily
  a conclusive case
  the complexity of the matter
  material impossibility
  unequivocal

see? if they'd said LESS then it might've sounded a bit less suspicious

I do think that second statement was better. It was more specific and also cited regulation. Still quite unsatisfactory at it neither absolved or convicted Ferrari, but better. Atleast it was an admission of their inability. From that admission they could have worked forward, either by scrapping that rule all together, as some suggested, or find the correct independent expertise. But that credit went down the drain because of their first, very clumsy statement.

Ok fair enough. The part with the cited regulation came to me as defensive too.
I was trying to address the first part of statement as an exercise or case study if you want.
Let's assume FIA "found absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU". Now, we know their PU "raised suspicions" (the competitors, experts, media, spectators they all saw this). We also know the competitors made public hints about what they might be doing, that FF meter "thingy". So it's reasonable to assume this was on their list when Ferrari PU was scrutinized during the winter. We also know the PU was scrutinized several times over 2019 season and nothing was found. But not "all times"(every race or qualifying) and assuming the FF meter can't be checked ex post facto(maybe "material impossibility to provide the unequivocal evidence of a breach"), how could FIA have presented a clearer statement?

[Red Rock Mutley]

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.

I agree. There are, I think, two distinct circumstances in which this applies.
...
In the scenario @Mudflap suggests if the competitor says, it’s not a bypass valve it’s an emergency pressure relief device, unless there is a record of it being operated the regulating authorities would need to accept their explanation. If the operation isn’t monitored however, the authorities might think that increases suspicion. The competitor might think that the circumstances look bad but not incontrovertible and so agree to a no fault settlement.
...

The FIA statement raises an interesting point, the PU system has become so complex it's blurred the line between being designed to be fully compliant and being able to operate in a non-compliant manner. Gone are the days of old where you could hold a part in your hand and ask is it possible to cheat with this. There are so many inter-dependant components, some combination of operations may break the rules. Taking the FIA statement at face value, it had some difficulty in reconciling the modern way an F1 team works with the rules

By way of explanation of @Mudflap original question: That's part of the reason why there are 2 distinct phases to the process - the technical investigation and the judicial proceedings. Take DAS for example, IF that was protested, the technical delegate would be asked to inspect the vehicle. IF it was deemed technically non-compliant a report would be raised without consideration of whether the device had been used - the vehicle would be declared non-compliant to the regulations. It would be up to the judicial hearing to consider any argument the entrant may put forward

[Titchener]

Do the rules cover intent at all? So if something was wrong, proving it was used was not necessary but as it was fitted, that showed intent?

[dans79]

Call me naive, but I do believe they made a genuine effort to investigate. If you ask for my honest opinion, they just didn't want to admit they couldn't understand it fully.

This is my stance as well. I'm sure there are individuals within the FIA that have biases for various teams. However I see no way that as an organization an individual team could be favored. A high ranking individual might be able to skew opinion, but that always gets found out eventually.