FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[Polite]

"In reality, what Merc was doing by introducing oil into the ICE through the crank vent system could be seen as bypassing
the fuel flow meter."

Is there any evidence of this at all? I have never seen any that Mercedes burned oil and indeed the only team that I can find evidence of oil-related shenanigans is Ferrari with their extra oil tanks which they were asked to remove by the FIA.

I know LM10 will have his email alert for any post I make and be replying. But the truth is unless you can find me evidence or an FIA clarification (like there was for Ferraris oil tank) then it's all just make-believe that Mercedes (or Renault/Honda) ever burned oil.

Every engine clarification or controversy of note in the hybrid era that I can think of has been directed at Ferrari.

I'm a big Ferrari fan and have been since the MS days, but I have no time for cheating so feel myself defending the other teams more and more these days.

From 2014 till 2017: in 2017 they won the WDC introducing a new PU in SPA only to avoid the new oil consumption limit in the race that was from Monza onwards..
that was a request from RBR. But Ferrari followed a gentleman agreements about not punch new engines before the new directive becomes mandatory in Monza. They won the WDC, Ferrari lost it for reliability issues after the new Monza spec PU.
links for references:
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/en/ ... 19787.html

https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repo ... agreement/

You are a strange Ferrari's Tifoso: which recalls every rumor against Ferrari but not against Mercedes.

Ferrari followed the AMG on the oil.. lost a WDC for the gentleman's agreements.. then every foreign journalist has been pressured (by AMG which has always said publicly that although punched before Monza, the engine was already compliant with the new oil consumption standards.) to drop the suspicions of oil consumption only on Ferrari. Oil was not illegal.. but if you do a survey on this site, you will see that most users believe that Ferrari had also cheated on oil

[Gibbs]

Well using that logic in regards to Ferrari's extra oil tank it's also possible to affiliate many other additions to the cars wrongly, such as Ferrari's double battery with abusing the ERS energy transfer regulations, when maybe this split battery design was intended solely for packaging. We will never have concrete evidence a team is loopholing the regulations unless the FIA says so or the design reaches public eyes, but when the FIA are constantly and drastically reducing the oil limit from 2017 onward and the disparity in power between each engine manufacturer has been closing the fastest in this period, it's not unreasonable to presume that oil burning may have influenced the strongest PU from 2017 and before.

[Sieper]

oil was also illegal. But they made it legal and after that reduced the limit every year (1,2, 09 and then 0,6) and AMG won every year (with Ferrari in the follow up spot) whilst Renault and Honda were either unable to burn oil or unwilling (likely the prior) and simply never had the horses (or stamina to fight a long enough high race pace).

Make no mistake about how F1 works. Every time a high roller does something that is not allowed they are treated with diligence. Yes also redbull, but AMG has been the BIG high spender/roller for a decade.

Maybe something will change with the budget cap (I do expect so). And that will ensure Lewis' upcoming WDC record will be very hard to ever break.

I do hope the teams don't let Ferrari get away with the fuel flow issue as easily as it now seems to be going (I don't think much will come out of it anymore). In fact, I still fear Ferrari will be able to continue, especially as the verdict could also be read in such a way that Ferrari will now be the technical police over others' engine. For me Jean Todt at the FIA is totally unwanted with his son Nicholas managing Charles Leclerc. It is not right. And that is what we have seen last season and will stand likely.

[RZS10]

It's always astonishing to see how people twist reality to fit their view point depending on who they support.
Ignoring that "oil burning" and the 2017 season are a little off topic - Ferrari did not lose the 2017 WDC/WCC because of reliability issues and definitely not because of some broken gentleman's agreement that most certainly never existed ... lol

[djones]

The gentleman's agreement is nonsense. It proves nothing because Mercedes was fast before and after any changes in oil limits.

Did the extra oil tank in the Ferrari proves oil burning? No of course not.

But the extra oil tank was the only factual bit of evidence from ANY of the teams that suggested such a thing.

There is no physical evidence that I have seen in FIA documents or reputable news sources suggesting Mercedes, Renault or Honda burned oil as a means of performance gains. But Ferrari had an extra oil tank and was asked to remove it and this is a fact.

In light of the new 'cheating' it also gives credibility into the lengths Ferrari are willing to go - in my opinion at least.

[Xwang]

The gentleman's agreement is nonsense. It proves nothing because Mercedes was fast before and after any changes in oil limits.

Did the extra oil tank in the Ferrari proves oil burning? No of course not.

But the extra oil tank was the only factual bit of evidence from ANY of the teams that suggested such a thing.

There is no physical evidence that I have seen in FIA documents or reputable news sources suggesting Mercedes, Renault or Honda burned oil as a means of performance gains. But Ferrari had an extra oil tank and was asked to remove it and this is a fact.

In light of the new 'cheating' it also gives credibility into the lengths Ferrari are willing to go - in my opinion at least.

For sure none Mercedes engine has been taken away by the FIA in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 to investigate it in detail.
Maybe when someone at FIA says:
"We have to control the engine of the Mercedes cars"
the others go downstairs, open the safety cars and medical cars bonnets and start looking at it saying:
"It seems that everything is fine!!!".
So just a misunderstanding inside FIA.

[KeiKo403]

I do wonder how much assistance did Ferrari actually give the FIA with their investigations. The regulation I’ve seen doing the rounds is for “during an event” as there was no event post season and the classifications being finalised, could Ferrari say “nope, not gonna explain anything”?

Or if the FIA “were unable to prove” could it be Shell fuel or Lubricants at play here? Do the FIA take and keep sample of both fuel (likely) and oil (unlikely) and run them through a gas chromatograph and see what would happen if the 2 were to mix during a combustion cycle?

Or at lights out, could Ferrari be dumping 1l of oil into the fuel tank and changing the properties of the fuel?

[Mattchu]

I do wonder how much assistance did Ferrari actually give the FIA with their investigations. The regulation I’ve seen doing the rounds is for “during an event” as there was no event post season and the classifications being finalised, could Ferrari say “nope, not gonna explain anything”?

Or if the FIA “were unable to prove” could it be Shell fuel or Lubricants at play here? Do the FIA take and keep sample of both fuel (likely) and oil (unlikely) and run them through a gas chromatograph and see what would happen if the 2 were to mix during a combustion cycle?

Or at lights out, could Ferrari be dumping 1l of oil into the fuel tank and changing the properties of the fuel?

They weren`t but are now...posted by catv so props 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.

I wish we could draw a line under this "episode". We`ll never know what Ferrari did [if they did anything], I`m sure the FIA have had closed door meetings with the other team principles to "put this to bed", I`d imagine they`re now satisfied [hopefully] that counter measures have been put in place to stop any potential shenanigans going on.
The longer the bickering continues the worst it is for F1, surely all parties know this!

[stevesingo]

You can be sure that, if they can, the other teams will use this in negotiations for renewal of commercial rights payments Ts&Cs.

Make it equal or we will make a big deal out of it in public.

[dans79]

especially as the verdict could also be read in such a way that Ferrari will now be the technical police over others' engine.

I know I personally would not allow this to be just swept under the rug. I would want to know exactly when Ferrari has access to, and if they where not forthcoming with that information, i would bury them in a lawsuit.

[Xwang]

It seems that FIA has answered the 30 or more secret questions of the so called magnificent seven of the transparency.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/la-fi ... i/4738637/

They asks for transparency, but then their letter is secret and so is the FIA answer.
Why? What are they trying to hide?

[bosyber]

The questions are likely secret bc. they would embarrass the FIA

So, according to the Daily Mail (yeah, but article does seem rather solid) - Todt indeed decided on the settlement himself, and 'answered' questions, though those answers don't really seem to add any clarity, just confirmation of what those 7 teams deem fishy and problematic.

Anyway, as others have said, doubt this will just go away quietly and easily just yet; as the last paragraph of this article concludes: lots of stuff to make negotiations for 2021 and beyond more difficult for FOM and FIA, as teams will argue, with this in hand, that it is not clear they would be subscribing to a fair and transparent, well regulated sport; for listed companies, that's a solid argument not to sign.

[Schumix]

The questions are likely secret bc. they would embarrass the FIA

So, according to the Daily Mail (yeah, but article does seem rather solid) - Todt indeed decided on the settlement himself, and 'answered' questions, though those answers don't really seem to add any clarity, just confirmation of what those 7 teams deem fishy and problematic.

Anyway, as others have said, doubt this will just go away quietly and easily just yet; as the last paragraph of this article concludes: lots of stuff to make negotiations for 2021 and beyond more difficult for FOM and FIA, as teams will argue, with this in hand, that it is not clear they would be subscribing to a fair and transparent, well regulated sport; for listed companies, that's a solid argument not to sign.

Unbelievable!
Now personal attacks have started and Jean TODT is in the target because, apparently, he has been Ferrari Boss in the past.

I am not a tifosi but I would really love to see Ferrari this year with a clear advantage regarding PU performance so that many people will recall that Ferrari knows how to built a F1 PU.

[bosyber]

Eh, personal attacks? No, it's more an attack on the FIA management position. Though his position as former Ferrari team lead, and son who is manager of one of Ferrari driver with new 5 year deal do not help the image he created of keeping things in the family, the issue is that the secret settlement lends itself to such arguments, which the FIA should have seen coming, and avoided. Now it is being used by the other competitors to get a stronger position in their 2021 deals.

But, you are of course free to take it personal; and hoping for Ferrari to win, while I cannot see how that would be an exciting season after the novelty of it wears off, is your right, though also off topic here.

[Just_a_fan]

Unbelievable!
Now personal attacks have started and Jean TODT is in the target because, apparently, he has been Ferrari Boss in the past.

I am not a tifosi but I would really love to see Ferrari this year with a clear advantage regarding PU performance so that many people will recall that Ferrari knows how to built a F1 PU.

It's not a "personal attack" if he did do as they suggest. If they have seen the letter as they state then they are in a better position to claim that Todt said/did things than we are.

I think that if Ferrari have a big PU advantage this year, the teams will be protesting every race. That will put the FIA in a tricky spot, in terms of bad PR at least.