FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Restomaniac]

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.

I’m not sure it is.
The first statement pretty much said ‘yeah it’s a secret between us and Ferrari what’s transpired and we decided to stop but we now can’t say anything’.
The second statement pretty much said ‘yeah we think they were cheating. They said they weren’t. We don’t believe them but as we can’t prove it we’ve given them community service which includes them policing the grid with us’.

I’m not sure what’s worse? The 1st statement which is dodgy as hell and comes across and dealing under the table or the 2nd which shows the FIA who are teethless who have now got in bed with 1 team to police the other 9?

[izzy]

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?

the other manufacturers think FIA could prove it

the fact FIA have said they couldn't prove it means either they couldn't OR they didn't wanna, it doesn't mean anything once you doubt their integrity, same with WMSC and their usual unanimous vote. It's not conspiracy theory it's just seeing what's there to be seen. There was a penalty, after all

[Ringleheim]

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).

Remember back when traction control was illegal, but it was suspected that some times were using it and had a trick around the rules? The FIA response was to say "If we can't police it correctly and effectively, we can't outlaw it, and therefore we are making traction control legal again."

That made sense to me at the time. If you can't enforce a rule effectively, get rid of the rule.

If these power units are so sophisticated now that even the FIA technical people don't understand them sufficiently to enforce the rules, then how about...

...throwing them all in a large dumpster and bringing back 3 liter NA engines with none of the electric motor garbage? Choice of cylinders up to the manufacturers. No rev limit. No limit on engines built/used in a season.

Such engine would be massively more simple, easier to police, the fans would be happy, everyone wins.

[rosberglks]

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?

My take on this:
If FIA found "absolutely nothing illegal with Ferrari PU" or if they found something and couldn't prove it, the first part of the statement would have been the same, and in my opinion the best way in which it can be phrased (their only chance was to prove the illegality). On it's own, the first part would have been an admission of great incompetence, so they had to make a deal with Ferrari to save a little bit of their dignity(and falling victim to their own laws by doing so). But of course, all parts involved already knew that, as the pages were already written. The seven teams would have been both "shocked and surprised" no matter the outcome(FIA statement with the Ferrari deal, FIA statement without the Ferrari deal or Ferrari cheating)
To wrap things up sounds like an attempt at FIA credibility and then at Ferrari in a lesser degree.
Bernie's Ecclestone take on this, according to F1 insider, it's pretty straightforward:
"The teams must sue the FIA. It is about millions of dollars, which I think they are entitled to. If Ferrari was so innocent, why didn't they make the settlement with Jean Todt public? To me, that looks like a confession. There have always been fires that I had to put out as a fireman. In my time, however, it was always possible to find a middle way with the teams, the FIA ​​and myself. Now that is too late"
Just politics!

[Mandrake]

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.

Late reply, but it's impossible to keep up here in real time

The difference between your example and the Ferarri case is: The FIA does not know if there has been a murder for which there might have been cut cords. There are suspicions there has been a "murder", but they are unable to prove it and how it would have been done.

I think the other 7 teams are one the one hand getting worried there is now someone helping the FIA to clear out trickery.

On the other hand all these teams (excluding Mercedes) are just plain suckers for money. I know that a possible penalty for Ferrari would be a complete disqualification. But just looking at the car's performance I doubt that even RedBull would have beat Ferrari over the whole season if the engine ran as it did from Austin onwards - at least not with these 1.5 drivers they have. All other teams are way off in terms of performance.

So anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is making a complete joke of themselves!

[Restomaniac]

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.

Late reply, but it's impossible to keep up here in real time

The difference between your example and the Ferarri case is: The FIA does not know if there has been a murder for which there might have been cut cords. There are suspicions there has been a "murder", but they are unable to prove it and how it would have been done.

I think the other 7 teams are one the one hand getting worried there is now someone helping the FIA to clear out trickery.

On the other hand all these teams (excluding Mercedes) are just plain suckers for money. I know that a possible penalty for Ferrari would be a complete disqualification. But just looking at the car's performance I doubt that even RedBull would have beat Ferrari over the whole season if the engine ran as it did from Austin onwards - at least not with these 1.5 drivers they have. All other teams are way off in terms of performance.

So anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is making a complete joke of themselves!

Not when you consider that some past cases have meant disqualification. So yes if Ferrari are found to be cheating in 2091 it DOES mean a very real chance of expulsion for the 2019 season. Which is very much worth chasing.

[turbof1]

On the other hand all these teams (excluding Mercedes) are just plain suckers for money. I know that a possible penalty for Ferrari would be a complete disqualification. But just looking at the car's performance I doubt that even RedBull would have beat Ferrari over the whole season if the engine ran as it did from Austin onwards - at least not with these 1.5 drivers they have. All other teams are way off in terms of performance.

So anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is making a complete joke of themselves!

An infringement to the technical regulations, which it will be if there is been tampered with the fuel flow, would only result in a DSQ. But only for the races it is proven for.

Full exclusion of the full championship is still possibility as additional penalty.

I do want to note the McLaren in 2007 was stripped of its WDC points and therefore also any price money associated for it while their car was technically legal. Teams like BMW, Toyota, Honda,... all got the price money that normally would have belonged to McLaren. Safe to say none of those teams would have beaten McLaren if spygate did not happen. Yet that is what happened, so no: anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is NOT making a joke of themselves. There is precedence, and when sentencing a penalty hypothetical performance without the violation is not a factor.

The difference between your example and the Ferarri case is: The FIA does not know if there has been a murder for which there might have been cut cords. There are suspicions there has been a "murder", but they are unable to prove it and how it would have been done.

Where do you draw the line between suspicion and "circumstantial proof"? I agree that for now there is no proof, but also there is an admission the FIA could not check for it properly. Aside the question if you can legally still demand it, who or what can actually check for it properly?

[Restomaniac]

On the other hand all these teams (excluding Mercedes) are just plain suckers for money. I know that a possible penalty for Ferrari would be a complete disqualification. But just looking at the car's performance I doubt that even RedBull would have beat Ferrari over the whole season if the engine ran as it did from Austin onwards - at least not with these 1.5 drivers they have. All other teams are way off in terms of performance.

So anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is making a complete joke of themselves!

An infringement to the technical regulations, which it will be if there is been tampered with the fuel flow, would only result in a DSQ. But only for the races it is proven for.

Full exclusion of the full championship is still possibility as additional penalty.

I do want to note the McLaren in 2007 was stripped of its WDC points and therefore also any price money associated for it while their car was technically legal. Teams like BMW, Toyota, Honda,... all got the price money that normally would have belonged to McLaren. Safe to say none of those teams would have beaten McLaren if spygate did not happen. Yet that is what happened, so no: anyone claiming they lost money due to Ferrari supposedly cheating is NOT making a joke of themselves. There is precedence, and when sentencing a penalty hypothetical performance without the violation is not a factor.

The difference between your example and the Ferarri case is: The FIA does not know if there has been a murder for which there might have been cut cords. There are suspicions there has been a "murder", but they are unable to prove it and how it would have been done.

Where do you draw the line between suspicion and "circumstantial proof"? I agree that for now there is no proof, but also there is an admission the FIA could not check for it properly. Aside the question if you can legally still demand it, who or what can actually check for it properly?

Also 1995 WRC. Toyota caught cheating and kicked out.

[strad]

...throwing them all in a large dumpster and bringing back 3 liter NA engines with none of the electric motor garbage? Choice of cylinders up to the manufacturers. No rev limit. No limit on engines built/used in a season.

Such engine would be massively more simple, easier to police, the fans would be happy, everyone wins.

And massively cheaper too.

[gshevlin]

The problem with going back to basic NA engines is that no major auto manufacturer would be interested in providing any significant financial support for that kind of engine formula. Major auto manufacturers are all rapidly moving to electric vehicles, some are not even investing in hybrid technologies. So third parties would have to supply those kinds of powerplants. They can do so, if Formula 1 wants to morph into a museum-piece formula.

[etusch]

...throwing them all in a large dumpster and bringing back 3 liter NA engines with none of the electric motor garbage? Choice of cylinders up to the manufacturers. No rev limit. No limit on engines built/used in a season.

Such engine would be massively more simple, easier to police, the fans would be happy, everyone wins.

And massively cheaper too.

I think you also don't want those things come back. It's just a feeling that when you go into it you will realise that it is just beautiful when it stays in past.
I prefer these hybrid hi tech pu's from every aspect. But I am interested technical side of sport. So these engines are important for me.
But if someone does not interested in tech side he may prefer voice of ex one. From point of sport it is not which Engine used but how much competition in races. So if you interested with the sport let alone pu's and seek more competition.

[aral]

Back to topic please ! This is a thread set up for debate about the Ferrari controversy. Going back to arguments about the difference etc of NA v Turbo engines, is re hashing old arguments.

[maxxer]

So if this is the sensor:

https://www.gillsc.com/products/flow-se ... w-meter-2/

There are still places upstream to store fuel i guess

[turbof1]

So if this is the sensor:

https://www.gillsc.com/products/flow-se ... w-meter-2/

There are still places upstream to store fuel i guess

Gills got replaced from 2015 on I believe.

[maxxer]

ah seems sentronics was providing them for 2018 and 19 dont know if they got the contract again but it is still not sure it had something to do with the fuel flow right ?

So reading about the flow meters in race car engineering , before they had the low pressure fuel meter only , but now they all have to have the high pressure flow meter also ?