FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Restomaniac]

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.

Which is why it’s not illegal. In your other example you’re talking about something being outlawed after the event as well.

That isn’t what’s happened in this case. If Ferrari have got around the limit of fuel use then that’s a clear rule break and it was before they did it. It’s a key but fundamental difference.

[Jolle]

In my opinion there is a big difference between DAS, F-duct, double diffuser and stuff like bending wings, etc.

There are loopholes in the rules where designers find gains: DAS, F-duct and double diffuser
- FIA allowed these things, because they are within the rules but write them out the following season

There are strict rules and teams design their cars to comply with the tests: like wings that flex after the load it's been tested with, ride hight in the eighties, water cooling of the brakes.
- somehow teams get away with cars that are illegal on track, but pass the tests.

Then there is straight out cheating: Benneton traction control, BAR extra fuel tank, Tyrrell leadshot.

Last one is cheating for non technical things like crash gate, and spy gate.

This one looks like it's the second one, they seem to cheat the test (being the fuelflow meter).

my suspicion is that Ferrari found a way to somehow interfere with the meter itself so it would still register less then 100l/h while there is a few percent more flowing trough it. The statement that Ferrari will assist the FIA in policing this, could mean they gave a full disclosure how they have done it, so they can spot it at other teams.

[timbo]

That isn’t what’s happened in this case. If Ferrari have got around the limit of fuel use then that’s a clear rule break and it was before they did it. It’s a key but fundamental difference.

If the fuel flow limit is taken 100% to the letter, then no engine is legal. The momentary fuel flow through the injector clearly has to exceed the max flow limit, if the average consumption approaches the limit.

The thing FIA demands and should police is

5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

Which they apparently were unable to find.

[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.

Which is why it’s not illegal. In your other example you’re talking about something being outlawed after the event as well.

That isn’t what’s happened in this case. If Ferrari have got around the limit of fuel use then that’s a clear rule break and it was before they did it. It’s a key but fundamental difference.

I think you need to go back and re-read what I originally said.
My only point was that it's not certain they set out to cheat. They may have set out believing that what they were doing was within/between/at the edge of the rules, but in this case (unlike f duct das etc) the FiA disagree with them.
Like Renault did with their brake bias system. They were adamant it was legal, the FiA still banned it and punished them. But in that case, what Renault believed was that they had found a loophole, they didn't set out with "mens rea". This is a possibility in this case too. It's equally possible that they did, we don't know.
That's all i'm saying.

[turbof1]

In my opinion there is a big difference between DAS, F-duct, double diffuser and stuff like bending wings, etc.

There are loopholes in the rules where designers find gains: DAS, F-duct and double diffuser
- FIA allowed these things, because they are within the rules but write them out the following season

There are strict rules and teams design their cars to comply with the tests: like wings that flex after the load it's been tested with, ride hight in the eighties, water cooling of the brakes.
- somehow teams get away with cars that are illegal on track, but pass the tests.

Then there is straight out cheating: Benneton traction control, BAR extra fuel tank, Tyrrell leadshot.

Last one is cheating for non technical things like crash gate, and spy gate.

This one looks like it's the second one, they seem to cheat the test (being the fuelflow meter).

my suspicion is that Ferrari found a way to somehow interfere with the meter itself so it would still register less then 100l/h while there is a few percent more flowing trough it. The statement that Ferrari will assist the FIA in policing this, could mean they gave a full disclosure how they have done it, so they can spot it at other teams.

Technically the double diffuser was illegal. It involved a piece of flexible bodywork at the diffuser troat that would close up a hole when driving, which broke a rule involving shadowing similar to the current bargeboard rules, but left a small gap when standing still. The FIA knew this was happening, but could not prove during driving, for obvious reasons, it was closing up the hole. So it allowed the practice and stated legality.

The FIA did handle this very delicate situation way better in 2009. If the FIA was not sure about what Ferrari did was legal, it should have one of two things:
-Either dig deeper to be sure
-Or declare legality and write regulation to prevent it 1-2 years into the future.

Instead now we have half-arsed measures.

[Just_a_fan]

Technically the double diffuser was illegal. It involved a piece of flexible bodywork at the diffuser troat that would close up a hole when driving, which broke a rule involving shadowing similar to the current bargeboard rules, but left a small gap when standing still.

No flexible bodywork required. The rules allowed a hole to be placed there so long as it couldn't be seen from below. The hole was allowed because the rule was written in such a way that a surface was only needed if it could be seen from directly below. Place your surfaces correctly and you were allowed to leave the vertical bit out, in effect. Bingo - a hole through the floor.

[Restomaniac]

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.

Which is why it’s not illegal. In your other example you’re talking about something being outlawed after the event as well.

That isn’t what’s happened in this case. If Ferrari have got around the limit of fuel use then that’s a clear rule break and it was before they did it. It’s a key but fundamental difference.

I think you need to go back and re-read what I originally said.
My only point was that it's not certain they set out to cheat. They may have set out believing that what they were doing was within/between/at the edge of the rules, but in this case (unlike f duct das etc) the FiA disagree with them.
Like Renault did with their brake bias system. They were adamant it was legal, the FiA still banned it and punished them. But in that case, what Renault believed was that they had found a loophole, they didn't set out with "mens rea". This is a possibility in this case too. It's equally possible that they did, we don't know.
That's all i'm saying.

I read it.
Your basic argument is that Ferrari didn’t know they were cheating. The requires a belief that they’re really rather thick. I don’t believe they are.

In exactly the same way that I don’t believe Toyota were thick back in 1995 and unsurprisingly neither didn't the FIA back then either.

[turbof1]

Technically the double diffuser was illegal. It involved a piece of flexible bodywork at the diffuser troat that would close up a hole when driving, which broke a rule involving shadowing similar to the current bargeboard rules, but left a small gap when standing still.

No flexible bodywork required. The rules allowed a hole to be placed there so long as it couldn't be seen from below. The hole was allowed because the rule was written in such a way that a surface was only needed if it could be seen from directly below. Place your surfaces correctly and you were allowed to leave the vertical bit out, in effect. Bingo - a hole through the floor.

I do remember William Toet mentioned the flexible part did close something up that otherwise would ruin the airflow underneath the diffuser/floor, but was illegal to close up. Anyway, maybe not relevant here.

[Wil992]

I read it.
Your basic argument is that Ferrari didn’t know they were cheating. The requires a belief that they’re really rather thick. I don’t believe they are.

No, that's not my argument.

My one and only point, is that we don't know yet, so it's wrong to assume either way.

They could have set out to cheat, or they could have set out thinking they were on the edge of the rules.

As we don't know what they did, how can we know what they were thinking when they did it?

[timbo]

-Or declare legality and write regulation to prevent it 1-2 years into the future.

There are changes to the regulations though.
Interestingly, with regards to the fuel system, the changes deal with where the fuel is stored, and there is a dramatic reduction (from 2L to 0.25L) to the permitted volume of the fuel stored outside of the survival cell (I guess, outside of the fuel tank?). No changes to the FFM in the official regs yet, I have heard the second sensor was mandated?
For the oil system, the auxiliary fuel tank is described.
Also, the procedures for the analysis of the fuel are altered and the fuel must be declared before the race.

This got me thinking, that maybe they suspect that some additives could have been added to the 2L volume before Q3 and the start of the race?

[bonjon1979]

I'm firmly in the belief that Ferrari cheated in this case. But playing Devil's advocate against myself, how is this that different from the flexi-wing cheat Red Bull and myriad others were pulling? The rules clearly state that moveable aerodynamic surfaces are not allowed. To ensure compliance, teams had to pass static load tests. Clearly, teams found ways of passing the test with wings etc that then flexed in race conditions. They were clearly breaking the rule on moveable aerodynamic bodywork but because they passed the test they couldn't be called up on it. How is this that different? Ferrari passed the test with regard to fuel ie the sensor didn't pick up increased flow, so why should they be held to a different standard? This assumes that it was the fuel flow cheat that MErc highlighted at the US gp last year. Interested to know any thoughts as to why it's materially different?

[turbof1]

we don't know what they did, how can we know what they were thinking when they did it?

We don't and you make a reasonable argument. I think at this point we can just speculate, but more information will come.The 7 teams don't look immediately willing to drop the matter.

[CRazyLemon]

I'm firmly in the belief that Ferrari cheated in this case. But playing Devil's advocate against myself, how is this that different from the flexi-wing cheat Red Bull and myriad others were pulling? The rules clearly state that moveable aerodynamic surfaces are not allowed. To ensure compliance, teams had to pass static load tests. Clearly, teams found ways of passing the test with wings etc that then flexed in race conditions. They were clearly breaking the rule on moveable aerodynamic bodywork but because they passed the test they couldn't be called up on it. How is this that different? Ferrari passed the test with regard to fuel ie the sensor didn't pick up increased flow, so why should they be held to a different standard? This assumes that it was the fuel flow cheat that MErc highlighted at the US gp last year. Interested to know any thoughts as to why it's materially different?

I'm not exactly answering your question but more asking more questions. So the flexi wing saga was clear for everyone to see, yet the FIA never asked/forced RBR to come clean and help police. So I wonder why they never did something against something that was in plain site, ie there wasn't suspicion but full video proof seeing as they seem to have power to do so? It just says to me there's more going on with the Ferrari situation and not one around did they break the rules or not.

Another hypothetical is that with all the different clarifications the other teams where asking has inadvertently exposed plenty more loopholes m interpretations that now need to be tested for and closed.

This then makes me theorise again maybe Ferrari had multiple tricks, and the settlement was they could keep some and cannot use others, or maybe they could keep more than some but have to earn it through the "community service" portion of the announcement.

[KeiKo403]

So what happens if Merc, Renault or Honda knew what Ferrari was doing and have implemented it themselves for 2020...by the FIA finding out from Ferrari how to detect it the other team so might be doing the same be end up being DSQd is Oz. For bizarre reasons like this I think the FIA needs to specify what Ferrari did which was against the rules (if anything) so other teams aren’t caught out by it. IF Ferrari used it last year without punishment other teams should be told if they are running x, y, z then that isn’t deemed to allowed by the rules.

I haven’t put that the most eloquent way but does the underlying situation make sense?

[timbo]

I'm firmly in the belief that Ferrari cheated in this case. But playing Devil's advocate against myself, how is this that different from the flexi-wing cheat Red Bull and myriad others were pulling? The rules clearly state that moveable aerodynamic surfaces are not allowed. To ensure compliance, teams had to pass static load tests. Clearly, teams found ways of passing the test with wings etc that then flexed in race conditions. They were clearly breaking the rule on moveable aerodynamic bodywork but because they passed the test they couldn't be called up on it. How is this that different? Ferrari passed the test with regard to fuel ie the sensor didn't pick up increased flow, so why should they be held to a different standard? This assumes that it was the fuel flow cheat that MErc highlighted at the US gp last year. Interested to know any thoughts as to why it's materially different?

IMO the difference is the rule 5.10.5.
In the bodywork rules, there are demands for the bodywork to be rigidly attached. The test procedure is used to verify that this demand is fulfilled and that's it.