FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Mandrake
Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

jumpingfish wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 17:31
Q/A with Turrini
@bosone. Hey, who passed certain tips to the Fia, imagine through whom!, I don't know and if I knew, I couldn't write it, not having the proof. In Ferrari they were amazed at the accuracy of the data suddenly came into the possession of those who were investigating and this paradoxically helped the Red, because it was so obvious the violation of the industrial secret ... I add that I am who I am (Goldonian quote, the Marquis of Forlimpopoli) and it seems to you that I write certain things if I do not have reliable sources?
It's interesting what John Elkann could say to Ola Källenius that Mercedes immediately abandoned all claims to the 2019 Ferrari engine? (except the version about damage to reputations)

https://www.quotidiano.net/blog/turrini ... een-5.6225
What he could say? - Dear Ola, are u really considering pointing your finger at us claiming we are cheating tests with our engine, when your house is burning with Dieselgate? Well, go ahead then :twisted:

izzy
izzy
41
Joined: 26 May 2019, 22:28

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

dans79 wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 22:07
izzy wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 21:36
Jean Todt has his solicitors threatening to sue grandprix247 for defamation over it:
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/03/18 ... -our-site/
Hmmm, his personal legal staff is based in South Africa, that seems fairly odd consideirng he lives in Geneva..............
i was thinking this. Tho they do have literally hundreds of lawyers. And so far at least they've only asked the site to take the three articles down, and they don't seem to do no-win-no-fee. Perhaps they're just good? still, i'm waiting to see what was in the articles, if they put them back up

User avatar
subcritical71
90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018, 20:04
Location: USA-Florida

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

3jawchuck wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 22:48
Streisand effect in 3 ... 2....
I was thinking the same thing!

Also, I'm still seeing the first article on GP247;
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/03/06 ... -the-room/

and the Internet Archive also has it available;
https://web.archive.org/web/20200314061 ... -the-room/

The other two are MIA both on GP247 and Internet Archive, but still available on google cache;
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent=safari

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent=safari

User avatar
RZS10
359
Joined: 07 Dec 2013, 01:23

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

There's various possibilities why Merc left "the seven" ...
one hinted at by our italian friends: Merc were the ones who had access to information they shouldn't have had
another one could be that they did not have anything to win by further going after the FIA and Ferrari since they once again won both championships and Elkann was able to assure that they cannot do what they were doing previously, thus giving Mercedes the coinfidence that the unfair advantage was gone - all possible political/power struggle reasons aside, that's probably what they really wanted...

izzy
izzy
41
Joined: 26 May 2019, 22:28

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 01:55
3jawchuck wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 22:48
Streisand effect in 3 ... 2....
I was thinking the same thing!

Also, I'm still seeing the first article on GP247;
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/03/06 ... -the-room/

and the Internet Archive also has it available;
https://web.archive.org/web/20200314061 ... -the-room/

The other two are MIA both on GP247 and Internet Archive, but still available on google cache;
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent=safari

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent=safari
Thanks, lol I'm not surprised that lot got him a solicitors' letter!

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

RZS10 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 02:30
There's various possibilities why Merc left "the seven" ...
one hinted at by our italian friends: Merc were the ones who had access to information they shouldn't have had
another one could be that they did not have anything to win by further going after the FIA and Ferrari since they once again won both championships and Elkann was able to assure that they cannot do what they were doing previously, thus giving Mercedes the coinfidence that the unfair advantage was gone - all possible political/power struggle reasons aside, that's probably what they really wanted...
There is also 'Ok, but remember you owe us'. Nice to have an ace up your sleeve if it is needed in future.
Nothing for Merc to gain, so just as well go for favours.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

gshevlin
gshevlin
5
Joined: 23 Jun 2017, 19:33

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Jean Todt's threat to sue GrandPrix24x7 is a classic SLAPP attempt. If he does go ahead, I will donate to their defense fund. This is institutional bullying.

User avatar
Chene_Mostert
-2
Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 16:50

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 11:37
Chene_Mostert wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 11:28
strad wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 02:40

Never understood that reasoning. Shouldn't have to prove the system was used. Just by virtue (odd word to use in talking F1) of it being available should be considered a breach of the rules. It has no business being on the car at all.
Just by virtue of you owning a butchers knife, you should be considered psychopathic serial killer?
A butcher's knife is used to cut up meat. He's allowed to cut up meat. Ergo, having the knife is legitimate.

Traction control software controls traction. Traction control was not allowed. The traction control software was illegal.

Simple difference. #-o
having code = not illegal
using code = illegal
as simple as that.
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

The traction control saga shows quite a few similarities with what is happening. Here are some excerpt from the FIA statement 29th juli 1994:
On race day (1st May 1994), each of the teams [Mclaren, Ferrari and Benetton] was requested to supply the source code for the software on board the car and schematic circuit diagrams of the electrical system. One team [Ferrari] complied in full with this request and a demonstration of the complete electrical system was set up with entirely satisfactory results. Having received nothing from the other two teams [McLaren and Benetton], a fax was sent on 9th May asking for urgent action.
An alternative suggestion was received from Benetton Formula Ltd. In this letter dated 10th May, they stated the source codes could not be made available for commercial reasons. In a fax to Benetton Formula dated 15th May, we accepted this proposal, on the condition that Article 2.6 of the Technical Regulations was satisfied. On 27th May we received a detailed program for the demonstration at Cosworth Engineering.
The tests which were scheduled to take place on 28th June were canceled, by Benetton, after some discussion between Ford and themselves concerning non-disclosure agreements. By a fax dated 28th June, we again requested the tests take place as a matter of urgency. The demonstration and tests took place on 6th July. We received a report from LDRA on 11th July which left a number of unanswered questions which we were advised could only be addressed by close examination of the source code.
In a letter to Benetton dated 13th July we made it clear the demonstration had been unsatisfactory and we required the source code for the software. Following another exchange of letters on the 13th and 14th July a meeting was set up at the Benetton factory on 19th July, an agenda for which was received on 18th July which gave our advisors full access to all the source code, but only on Benetton’s premises and subject to the instructions [from Benetton].”
“Analysis of this software, which had been used at the San Marino Grand Prix, revealed that it included a facility called ‘launch control’. This is a system which, when armed, allows the driver to initiate a start with a single action. The system will control the clutch, gear shift and engine speed fully automatically to a predetermined pattern.
Benetton stated that this system is used only during testing. Benetton further stated that “it (the system) can only be switched on by recompilation of the code”. This means recompilation of the source code. Detailed analysis by the LDRA experts of this complex code revealed that this statement was untrue. “Launch control” could in fact be switched on using a lap-top personal computer (PC) connected to the gearbox control unit (GCU).
When confronted with this information, the Benetton representatives conceded that it was possible to switch on the ‘launch control’ using a lap-top PC but indicated that the availability of this feature of the software came as a surprise to them.”
“In order to enable ‘launch control’, a particular menu with ten options has to be selected on the PC screen. ‘Launch control’ is not visibly listed as an option. The menu was so arranged that, after ten items, nothing further appeared. If however, the operator scrolled down the menu beyond the tenth listed option, to option 13, launch control can be enabled, even though this is not visible on the screen. No satisfactory explanation was offered for this apparent attempt to conceal the feature.”
“Two conditions had to be satisfied before the computer would apply ‘launch control’: First, the software had to be enabled either by recompiling the code, which would take some minutes, or by connecting the lap-top PC as outlined above, which could be done in a matter of seconds.
Secondly, the driver had to work through a particular sequence of up-down gear shift paddle positions, a specific gear position had to be selected and the clutch and throttle pedals had also to be in certain positions. Only if all these actions were carried out would the ‘launch control’ become available.

Having thus initiated ‘launch control’, the driver would be able to make a fully automatic start. Such a start is clearly a driver aid as it operates the clutch, changes gear and uses traction control by modulating engine power (by changing ignition or fuel settings), in response to wheel speed.

When asked why, if this system was only used in testing, such an elaborate procedure was necessary in order to switch it on, we were told it was to prevent it being switched on accidentally.”
Take out of it what you will.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
subcritical71
90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018, 20:04
Location: USA-Florida

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Chene_Mostert wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 17:26
Just_a_fan wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 11:37
Chene_Mostert wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 11:28

Just by virtue of you owning a butchers knife, you should be considered psychopathic serial killer?
A butcher's knife is used to cut up meat. He's allowed to cut up meat. Ergo, having the knife is legitimate.

Traction control software controls traction. Traction control was not allowed. The traction control software was illegal.

Simple difference. #-o
having code = not illegal
using code = illegal
as simple as that.
I would agree that having the code in and of itself is legal. However, if that code can be accessed during a race weekend I would be of the opinion that the code is then therefore illegal. If that code is 'disconnected' and cannot be enabled by some sequence or action then it is legal.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

turbof1 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 17:58
The traction control saga shows quite a few similarities with what is happening. Here are some excerpt from the FIA statement 29th juli 1994:
Were did you find this?

When I originally referenced the incident, I searched for like an hour but couldn't find the actual FIA document, so I had to work from memory.
201 105 104 9 9 7

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
52
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 12:54

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

The traction control saga cannot be compared with what is happing here. At that time ECU and Software were a free for all. At the present time ECU and SOFTWARE used must be approved by the FIA before use.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 20:39
The traction control saga cannot be compared with what is happing here. At that time ECU and Software were a free for all. At the present time ECU and SOFTWARE used must be approved by the FIA before use.
Please indicate the sporting or technical regulation, that says anything even close to this, I know of none!

The ECU is nothing more than a standardized ASIC, The fact that the FIA mandates and supplies a specifc one in itself means nothing, other than the teams are bound by what the hardware is capable of. In other words as long as the teams aren't doing something so computationally expensive that it maxes out the ECU's processing power, almost anything is possible.

Not to mention the FIA is not going through every line of code for every manufacture. They neither have the time nor the manpower for that. All they are doing is high level spot checks of maps and some sub systems, not detailed code reviews.
201 105 104 9 9 7

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
52
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 12:54

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

2020 FIA F1 technical regulations. Article 8: electrical systems.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

dans79 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 18:26
turbof1 wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 17:58
The traction control saga shows quite a few similarities with what is happening. Here are some excerpt from the FIA statement 29th juli 1994:
Were did you find this?

When I originally referenced the incident, I searched for like an hour but couldn't find the actual FIA document, so I had to work from memory.
https://www.autoblog.nl/nieuws/hoe-zeke ... 1994-95253

(it is dutch however)
#AeroFrodo