FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[jumpingfish]

-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?

I just looked at the FIA website, there is a PDF of technical regulations for 2020 dated 04/30/2019 and a 0.25 liter restriction is already present. So FIA decided to close this "grey area" by itself or were there suspicions and requests from the teams in April?

[stevesingo]

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 think the best way to illustrate the difference is to point out the similarities.

Is one team's interference with the FFM's signal the same as another teams attempt to interfere with the calibration of the FiA load cell used to measure front wing deflection?

[Mandrake]

Just out of curiousity: if Ferrari tricked the Fuel Flow restrictions, does that mean they would have used more fuel in a race? More fuel, more explosions, moar powah? If yes, how much might that have been in liters / kg?

[timbo]

I just looked at the FIA website, there is a PDF of technical regulations for 2020 dated 04/30/2019 and a 0.25 liter restriction is already present. So FIA decided to close this "grey area" by itself or were there suspicions and requests from the teams in April?

Interesting.

So I have checked, what has changed between the sets of the Sporting and Technical Regulations between 04.30 and 12.04, which may be related to the discussion in this thread.
Here's what I have found:

Sporting regs:
In the PARC FERMÉ it is no longer allowed to do the following

h) Removal of the ERS energy storage devices which, once marked by the FIA technical delegate, may be retained overnight by the team.
i) The main electrical battery and radio batteries may be changed.

Technical regs:

6.1.2. When viewed in lateral projection, all the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the forward-most of the two vertical planes referred to in Article 5.3.7 and 50mm forward of the line a-b-c in Drawing 2.

Added text in bold.

As noted in the thread on Ferrari PU there are changes to the test procedures for the fuels.
This is new text:

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. Samples which differ from the approved fuel in a manner consistent with evaporative loss, will be considered to conform. However, the FIA retains the right to subject the fuel sample to further testing at an FIA approved laboratory.
19.8.4 GC peak areas of the sample will be compared with those obtained from the reference fuel. Increases in any given peak area (relative to its adjacent peak areas) which are greater than 12%, or an absolute amount greater than 0.10% for compounds present at concentrations below 0.8%, will be deemed not to comply.
If a peak is detected in a fuel sample that was absent in the corresponding reference fuel, and its peak area represents more than 0.10% of the summed peak areas of the fuel, the fuel will be deemed not to comply.
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.

This is previous:

19.8.2 Fuel density will also be checked and must be within 0.25% of the figure noted during pre-approval analysis.
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 approved fuel. Samples which differ from the approved fuel in a manner consistent with evaporative loss, will be considered to conform. However, the FIA retains the right to subject the fuel sample to further testing at an FIA approved laboratory.
19.8.4 GC peak areas of the sample will be compared with those obtained from the reference fuel. Increases in any given peak area (relative to its adjacent peak areas) which are greater than 12%, or an absolute amount greater than 0.10% for compounds present at concentrations below 0.8%, will be deemed not to comply.
If a peak is detected in a fuel sample that was absent in the corresponding reference fuel, and its peak area represents more than 0.10% of the summed peak areas of the fuel, the fuel will be deemed not to comply.
If the deviations observed (above) by GC indicate that they are due to mixing with another Formula One fuel, 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.

[Restomaniac]

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?

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

[bonjon1979]

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?

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

But if the given test of fuel flow, the sensor mandated by the FIA, says that they weren't over the fuel flow limit. Can they really be punished because a separate measurement suggests they were all along? To use the flexi-wing analogy again, would it not be like the FIA subjecting the wings to a different sort of test after the event rather than the one specified before the event. Is it not incumbent on all teams to look for these grey areas and cheat their way around the regs? Genuine question? I'm in two minds, on the one hand we expect a fair contest but on the other hand we celebrate clever innovations and work arounds.

[turbof1]

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?

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

But if the given test of fuel flow, the sensor mandated by the FIA, says that they weren't over the fuel flow limit. Can they really be punished because a separate measurement suggests they were all along? To use the flexi-wing analogy again, would it not be like the FIA subjecting the wings to a different sort of test after the event rather than the one specified before the event. Is it not incumbent on all teams to look for these grey areas and cheat their way around the regs? Genuine question? I'm in two minds, on the one hand we expect a fair contest but on the other hand we celebrate clever innovations and work arounds.

The flex rules left this kind of "flexibility" (no pun intended) in determining legality. The fuel flow rules have a different construction with 5.10.5. really dissallowing any circumvention. Atleast that is my interpretation.

I'm all for innovation btw, and perhaps circumventing a fuel flow sensor (should that be the case; it's by no means an assumption) with such tiny intervals, and all the knowledge and data that comes with it, actually has real life benefits (like maybe heart diseases?). Frankly, I really do hope whatever it is and whether it is legal or not, actual tangible and useful stuff flows out of it. But, in determining legality or illegality, that is not and really should not be a concern.

[Wil992]

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

No, we have no idea what they were doing, unless there is some new information I have missed?

I've read they may have been somehow bypassing this limit, I've also read that that they were doing something with additives, or that it is somehow related to the cooling system.

So, my simple point is, we don't yet know that they decided as a team to cheat and we can't know that without more information.

[Restomaniac]

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?

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

But if the given test of fuel flow, the sensor mandated by the FIA, says that they weren't over the fuel flow limit. Can they really be punished because a separate measurement suggests they were all along? To use the flexi-wing analogy again, would it not be like the FIA subjecting the wings to a different sort of test after the event rather than the one specified before the event. Is it not incumbent on all teams to look for these grey areas and cheat their way around the regs? Genuine question? I'm in two minds, on the one hand we expect a fair contest but on the other hand we celebrate clever innovations and work arounds.

If they are managing to give their ICE over the fuel amount limit no matter how they are pulling it off then they are outside the rules.

[bonjon1979]

On the edge? They were over the fuel flow limit or they weren’t it’s really that simple.

You seem to be making this far more complicated than it is.

But if the given test of fuel flow, the sensor mandated by the FIA, says that they weren't over the fuel flow limit. Can they really be punished because a separate measurement suggests they were all along? To use the flexi-wing analogy again, would it not be like the FIA subjecting the wings to a different sort of test after the event rather than the one specified before the event. Is it not incumbent on all teams to look for these grey areas and cheat their way around the regs? Genuine question? I'm in two minds, on the one hand we expect a fair contest but on the other hand we celebrate clever innovations and work arounds.

If they are managing to give their ICE over the fuel amount limit no matter how they are pulling it off then they are outside the rules.

Sure. I agree completely. But hasn't it been shown over the years that being outside the rules or not is determined by the tests the FIA employ to ensure teams are within the rules? If that makes sense! Maybe people can't see what I'm getting at - it's something of a philosophical question. Do F1 rules exist beyond the tests introduced to police them? 'We passed all the FIA tests' has oft been used reasoning in passing things through that appear to be in contrevention of the regulations.

[Wil992]

Sure. I agree completely. But hasn't it been shown over the years that being outside the rules or not is determined by the tests the FIA employ to ensure teams are within the rules? If that makes sense! Maybe people can't see what I'm getting at - it's something of a philosophical question. Do F1 rules exist beyond the tests introduced to police them? 'We passed all the FIA tests' has oft been used reasoning in passing things through that appear to be in contrevention of the regulations.

Yes, I think in F1 there's a general acceptance that if you have complied with the letter of the law, then you are legal, even when it's clear that you are doing something the law was meant to prohibit, as long as you have met the criteria laid down you're being "innovative" etc.

However, in this case, if they are somehow bypassing the fuel flow rate, it's hard to imagine how this rule would not make that illegal:

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.

[bonjon1979]

Sure. I agree completely. But hasn't it been shown over the years that being outside the rules or not is determined by the tests the FIA employ to ensure teams are within the rules? If that makes sense! Maybe people can't see what I'm getting at - it's something of a philosophical question. Do F1 rules exist beyond the tests introduced to police them? 'We passed all the FIA tests' has oft been used reasoning in passing things through that appear to be in contrevention of the regulations.

Yes, I think in F1 there's a general acceptance that if you have complied with the letter of the law, then you are legal, even when it's clear that you are doing something the law was meant to prohibit, as long as you have met the criteria laid down you're being "innovative" etc.

However, in this case, if they are somehow bypassing the fuel flow rate, it's hard to imagine how this rule would not make that illegal:

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.

I see that yes. I just wonder if it can be applied retrospectively in any legal sense.

[timbo]

I see that yes. I just wonder if it can be applied retrospectively in any legal sense.

As of now, there is a settlement in place. So the team is off the hook. There must be something of enormous proportions to override this.

[dans79]

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?

The term that always comes up in cases like this, is plausible deniability. As long as something can plausibly be seen as a side effect, then teams can get away with it usually. When something looks like it was the primary design goal, that's when they get hammered.

[dans79]

I see that yes. I just wonder if it can be applied retrospectively in any legal sense.

As of now, there is a settlement in place. So the team is off the hook. There must be something of enormous proportions to override this.

At this point it would pretty much require the other teams to sue, or for Ferrari/FIA to believe a lawsuit is imminent.