FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[turbof1]

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 ?

No. There are wild rumors, but any official on the matter has remained tight lipped on it.

[CRazyLemon]

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?

Someone mentioned a timing issue. These things need to be brought to attention a dealt with within a certain time frame, I'm not certain on the timing for spygate?

As for circumstantial evidence, I think the point try to be made was that there was both a corpse and circumstantial evidence for the Belgium example but only circumstantial evidence and a suspicion that there is a corpse out there for the Ferrari situation.

[stevesingo]

One of the key differences between this alleged infringement and "Spygate" is that with McLaren in 2007 there was not a management led conspiracy to break the rules.

With Spygate, an employee from Ferrari (who wanted a job elsewhere) stole some data and gave it to a McLaren employee who then attempted to use it, sharing it with race engineers and some drivers. When McLaren management became aware of this (due to Alonso's attempt at blackmail for No 1 status), Ron Dennis went to the FiA with it. It only as a result of the acrimony between Dennis and Mosley did McLaren end up disqualified and being fined $100m ($10m for the crime, $90m because Ron was a C**t according to Mosley).

If Ferrari have conspired to circumvent the device (Fuel Flow Meter (FFM)) which acts as a key control measure in limiting (equaising) performance of the PU, this could only have been as a result of a conscious decision by senior engineering and management staff. Engineers would have needed to convince management of the benefits, the likelihood of the means to be discovered and the likelihood of Ferrari of being able to create enough doubt about it's use to prevent the FiA proving the FFM was being circumvented.

IMO a different ball game - A conspiracy between employees vs a management conspiracy - a whole lot more serious.

[Deadpool]

To me all this story sounds like this:

"We know you did it but we don't know how and we have no evidence. If you did it soon the others will do it too and we won't be able to prevent it. To prevent that from happening be nice and explain to us how did you do it and promise not to do it again and we will leave you alone. Errr...we will also need a little help because it goes beyond our knowledge ... "

[Wil992]

One of the key differences between this alleged infringement and "Spygate" is that with McLaren in 2007 there was not a management led conspiracy to break the rules.

With Spygate, an employee from Ferrari (who wanted a job elsewhere) stole some data and gave it to a McLaren employee who then attempted to use it, sharing it with race engineers and some drivers. When McLaren management became aware of this (due to Alonso's attempt at blackmail for No 1 status), Ron Dennis went to the FiA with it. It only as a result of the acrimony between Dennis and Mosley did McLaren end up disqualified and being fined $100m ($10m for the crime, $90m because Ron was a C**t according to Mosley).

If Ferrari have conspired to circumvent the device (Fuel Flow Meter (FFM)) which acts as a key control measure in limiting (equaising) performance of the PU, this could only have been as a result of a conscious decision by senior engineering and management staff. Engineers would have needed to convince management of the benefits, the likelihood of the means to be discovered and the likelihood of Ferrari of being able to create enough doubt about it's use to prevent the FiA proving the FFM was being circumvented.

IMO a different ball game - A conspiracy between employees vs a management conspiracy - a whole lot more serious.

I think there’s a few assumptions in that.
You’re starting from the point that someone at Ferrari said, “I’ve found a way to get more power by cheating, in a way which would be impossible to detect”, and everyone got on board with that.
Surely it’s entirely possible that it started with someone saying “I think we can get more power by doing this, and if you read the rules in a certain way I don’t think it breaks them”.
As we’ve no real clue what has happened, I think both are equally possible?

[RZS10]

"Der Spiegel" managed to get a comment from Toto Wolff: "Die ganze Sache ist eine Riesensauerei. Es ist nicht in Ordnung, was Ferrari gemacht hat, aber noch weniger, wie die Fia das behandelt. Alle anderen Teams sind aufgebracht."

"This whole thing is a royal mess. What Ferrari did is not okay, how the FIA handled it is even worse. All the teams are furious"

Nothing new tho, really ...

[kimetic]

One of the key differences between this alleged infringement and "Spygate" is that with McLaren in 2007 there was not a management led conspiracy to break the rules.

With Spygate, an employee from Ferrari (who wanted a job elsewhere) stole some data and gave it to a McLaren employee who then attempted to use it, sharing it with race engineers and some drivers. When McLaren management became aware of this (due to Alonso's attempt at blackmail for No 1 status), Ron Dennis went to the FiA with it. It only as a result of the acrimony between Dennis and Mosley did McLaren end up disqualified and being fined $100m ($10m for the crime, $90m because Ron was a C**t according to Mosley).

If Ferrari have conspired to circumvent the device (Fuel Flow Meter (FFM)) which acts as a key control measure in limiting (equaising) performance of the PU, this could only have been as a result of a conscious decision by senior engineering and management staff. Engineers would have needed to convince management of the benefits, the likelihood of the means to be discovered and the likelihood of Ferrari of being able to create enough doubt about it's use to prevent the FiA proving the FFM was being circumvented.

IMO a different ball game - A conspiracy between employees vs a management conspiracy - a whole lot more serious.

Yes well said, there's no comparison at all between now and so-called Spygate, which didn't involve spying at all but a personal vendetta.

The reason we can probably never fully know about Sensorgate is that if it were proven then the penalty could only be exclusion, like Toyota, and that is unthinkable. So it will never be proven, irrespective of reality.

[stevesingo]

One of the key differences between this alleged infringement and "Spygate" is that with McLaren in 2007 there was not a management led conspiracy to break the rules.

With Spygate, an employee from Ferrari (who wanted a job elsewhere) stole some data and gave it to a McLaren employee who then attempted to use it, sharing it with race engineers and some drivers. When McLaren management became aware of this (due to Alonso's attempt at blackmail for No 1 status), Ron Dennis went to the FiA with it. It only as a result of the acrimony between Dennis and Mosley did McLaren end up disqualified and being fined $100m ($10m for the crime, $90m because Ron was a C**t according to Mosley).

If Ferrari have conspired to circumvent the device (Fuel Flow Meter (FFM)) which acts as a key control measure in limiting (equaising) performance of the PU, this could only have been as a result of a conscious decision by senior engineering and management staff. Engineers would have needed to convince management of the benefits, the likelihood of the means to be discovered and the likelihood of Ferrari of being able to create enough doubt about it's use to prevent the FiA proving the FFM was being circumvented.

IMO a different ball game - A conspiracy between employees vs a management conspiracy - a whole lot more serious.

I think there’s a few assumptions in that.
You’re starting from the point that someone at Ferrari said, “I’ve found a way to get more power by cheating, in a way which would be impossible to detect”, and everyone got on board with that.
Surely it’s entirely possible that it started with someone saying “I think we can get more power by doing this, and if you read the rules in a certain way I don’t think it breaks them”.
As we’ve no real clue what has happened, I think both are equally possible?

Do you really believe the management of an F1 team could be so naive?

Would it not be unreasonable for the management to ask, "In what way are you reading the rules and in what way could we expect the FiA and other teams to interpret the rules?" Then "what are the risks?" I don't think any F1 team management would be foolish enough to think it would end well if what is being alleged were to be discovered by other teams or the FiA.

[Red Rock Mutley]

To me all this story sounds like this:

"We know you did it but we don't know how and we have no evidence. If you did it soon the others will do it too and we won't be able to prevent it. To prevent that from happening be nice and explain to us how did you do it and promise not to do it again and we will leave you alone. Errr...we will also need a little help because it goes beyond our knowledge ... "

That's pretty much it. Only I'd say the second FIA statement is much more damning of Ferrari. It's quite remarkable in a highly litigious environment to come a fig leaf away from accusing a team of cheating

[63l8qrrfy6]

It's quite remarkable in a highly litigious environment to come a fig leaf away from accusing a team of cheating.

It had to be done I think. After all the backlash from the magnificent seven it would have been madness for the FIA to continue maintaining the same "move on, nothing happened here" position.

It would seem that their second statement raises even more questions but it does seem to be a step in the right direction, transparency wise.

What baffles me is that this is the second time the FIA has failed to draw a conclusion on the legality of the Ferrari PU citing complexity. Remember how the twin battery incident left them puzzled? Interestingly both incidents led to the installation of additional sensors (an IVT current sensor in the case of the battery incident and now a FFM).

[Wil992]

One of the key differences between this alleged infringement and "Spygate" is that with McLaren in 2007 there was not a management led conspiracy to break the rules.

With Spygate, an employee from Ferrari (who wanted a job elsewhere) stole some data and gave it to a McLaren employee who then attempted to use it, sharing it with race engineers and some drivers. When McLaren management became aware of this (due to Alonso's attempt at blackmail for No 1 status), Ron Dennis went to the FiA with it. It only as a result of the acrimony between Dennis and Mosley did McLaren end up disqualified and being fined $100m ($10m for the crime, $90m because Ron was a C**t according to Mosley).

If Ferrari have conspired to circumvent the device (Fuel Flow Meter (FFM)) which acts as a key control measure in limiting (equaising) performance of the PU, this could only have been as a result of a conscious decision by senior engineering and management staff. Engineers would have needed to convince management of the benefits, the likelihood of the means to be discovered and the likelihood of Ferrari of being able to create enough doubt about it's use to prevent the FiA proving the FFM was being circumvented.

IMO a different ball game - A conspiracy between employees vs a management conspiracy - a whole lot more serious.

I think there’s a few assumptions in that.
You’re starting from the point that someone at Ferrari said, “I’ve found a way to get more power by cheating, in a way which would be impossible to detect”, and everyone got on board with that.
Surely it’s entirely possible that it started with someone saying “I think we can get more power by doing this, and if you read the rules in a certain way I don’t think it breaks them”.
As we’ve no real clue what has happened, I think both are equally possible?

Do you really believe the management of an F1 team could be so naive?

Would it not be unreasonable for the management to ask, "In what way are you reading the rules and in what way could we expect the FiA and other teams to interpret the rules?" Then "what are the risks?" I don't think any F1 team management would be foolish enough to think it would end well if what is being alleged were to be discovered by other teams or the FiA.

It’s not naive. It’s how all F1 teams always work. They read the rules in a way that wasn’t foreseen by the people that wrote them, eg merc’s DAS. No one expected the steering wheel not to rotate and no one expected the toe of the wheels to change in opposite directions, hence an innovation that merc think is legal.

It’s entirely possible that Ferrari set off with what they consider to be an innovation, loophole, call it what you will, but the fia disagree with that interpretation. We don’t know what they’ve done yet, so we can’t say they did it knowingly, with intent of cheating.

[Restomaniac]

I think there’s a few assumptions in that.
You’re starting from the point that someone at Ferrari said, “I’ve found a way to get more power by cheating, in a way which would be impossible to detect”, and everyone got on board with that.
Surely it’s entirely possible that it started with someone saying “I think we can get more power by doing this, and if you read the rules in a certain way I don’t think it breaks them”.
As we’ve no real clue what has happened, I think both are equally possible?

Do you really believe the management of an F1 team could be so naive?

Would it not be unreasonable for the management to ask, "In what way are you reading the rules and in what way could we expect the FiA and other teams to interpret the rules?" Then "what are the risks?" I don't think any F1 team management would be foolish enough to think it would end well if what is being alleged were to be discovered by other teams or the FiA.

It’s not naive. It’s how all F1 teams always work. They read the rules in a way that wasn’t foreseen by the people that wrote them, eg merc’s DAS. No one expected the steering wheel not to rotate and no one expected the toe of the wheels to change in opposite directions, hence an innovation that merc think is legal.

It’s entirely possible that Ferrari set off with what they consider to be an innovation, loophole, call it what you will, but the fia disagree with that interpretation. We don’t know what they’ve done yet, so we can’t say they did it knowingly, with intent of cheating.

Actually that’s not totally true. The 2021 regs are worded in such a way so as to make a DAS illegal. Those regs were there before it was seen by the world during pre-season testing.

[stevesingo]

I think there’s a few assumptions in that.
You’re starting from the point that someone at Ferrari said, “I’ve found a way to get more power by cheating, in a way which would be impossible to detect”, and everyone got on board with that.
Surely it’s entirely possible that it started with someone saying “I think we can get more power by doing this, and if you read the rules in a certain way I don’t think it breaks them”.
As we’ve no real clue what has happened, I think both are equally possible?

Do you really believe the management of an F1 team could be so naive?

Would it not be unreasonable for the management to ask, "In what way are you reading the rules and in what way could we expect the FiA and other teams to interpret the rules?" Then "what are the risks?" I don't think any F1 team management would be foolish enough to think it would end well if what is being alleged were to be discovered by other teams or the FiA.

It’s not naive. It’s how all F1 teams always work. They read the rules in a way that wasn’t foreseen by the people that wrote them, eg merc’s DAS. No one expected the steering wheel not to rotate and no one expected the toe of the wheels to change in opposite directions, hence an innovation that merc think is legal.

It’s entirely possible that Ferrari set off with what they consider to be an innovation, loophole, call it what you will, but the fia disagree with that interpretation. We don’t know what they’ve done yet, so we can’t say they did it knowingly, with intent of cheating.

Ref the bolded, that is why I used the term alleged.

The key difference between DAS and the way Ferrari operated their PU is that Mercedes put the concept to the FiA before implementing it. I'm not aware of any reports that Ferrari did likewise.

[Wil992]

Actually that’s not totally true. The 2021 regs are worded in such a way so as to make a DAS illegal. Those regs were there before it was seen by the world during pre-season testing.

yes, but they aren't in the 2020 regs, and anyway DAS was just an example. There are myriad other examples, some of which were later outlawed (F duct etc), some weren't.

[Wil992]

Ref the bolded, that is why I used the term alleged.

The key difference between DAS and the way Ferrari operated their PU is that Mercedes put the concept to the FiA before implementing it. I'm not aware of any reports that Ferrari did likewise.

But again, the fact they didn't approach the FiA doesn't mean they set out to cheat. Did McLaren approach the FiA with F duct? Not as far as I know.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying they didn't set out to cheat, I'm simply saying it's wrong to assume they did, that's all.