FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[dans79]

While the FIA was at it but before they decided to settle for lack of solid evidence of any wrong doing they (the FIA) specifically and personally its president (Jean Todt) begged the accuser teams to go the final step and lodge an official protest. But to no avail simply because the accusers had no solid evidence of any wrong doing in hand themselves, all they had was suspicions that resulted in speculative accusations.

what the other teams did was let Ferrari try and save face! Teams have been asking the FIA "concept" questions for a while now to try and avoid official protests. Official protests have a tendency to cause tit for tat protests, and we end up with a slapping match with the FIA in the middle.

I'm old school, and believe if someone is breaking the rules, you come down on them like a sledge hammer. Unfortunately F1 doesn't work that way anymore, as everyone is trying to save face including the FIA. They are all far to concerned about having a good looking corporate image!

[saviour stivala]

Official protests and lack of them:- No team has officially accused FERRARI of cheating because if they had, then it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove cheating has occurred.so they made queries which can only lead to technical directives and a ton and a half of speculations by their lovers and the media’s speculations fomenting F1 press.
‘Making a protest’ by Jonathan Noble 9 April 3:12 pm:- ‘One aspect of the rival teams complaints that annoyed Todt is the suggestion that he tried to persuade them (the teams) not to lodge an official protest. He (Todt) is clear that his preferred option was always for a team to bring matters to a head by making an official complaint on a Grand Prix weekend’. Todt:-‘This is one of the most frustrating things for me, in the (teams) letter, that I said I tried to dissuade them (the teams) to protest’. He (Todt) said. ‘We tried the opposite’ ‘And individually, when I spoke with them, (they admitted) that it is true. I said ‘Why did you say this is true, why did you write that?’. ‘So I think it is clear that I encouraged them, if they were not happy, to make a protest. So we could have been relaxed. But nobody did protest’.

[izzy]

izzy....still clutching at straws? you have absolutely no proof that the sensor was the reason for any loss in speed. only supposition ! neither you, or i or anyone else can make an assertive statement like that. cars and pus are being developed continually during the season....somethings work, others dont....it is part of race development and has been going on for yonks. anyway, if that is what you want to believe, then that is grand by me....
have you even considered that merc may have boosted their power by running their PUs in their quali mode? Merc began having mechanical problems at the end of the season too !

it's inference not supposition, and either we believe the great engine masters at Ferrari really did what Mattia said and made an engine with less power in a quest for reliability they had already, or we believe the obvious and in the process join the other obvious dots that explain what we saw

anyway they'll be on it big time, let's hope we get to see it race soon

[strad]

Simply put....if any team has information that any other team is cheating, they have a responsibility to protest and put their money where their mouth is

Ya know this brings up something I have thought about.
In many series if you make a claim that a team is cheating you must post a bond, which varies with the series, that you lose if your claims are not substantiated. Since F1 is such a high dollar sport I would expect at least a $10,000 bond posting which the complaining team would lose if their complaints were not shown to be true.

[turbof1]

While the FIA was at it but before they decided to settle for lack of solid evidence of any wrong doing they (the FIA) specifically and personally its president (Jean Todt) begged the accuser teams to go the final step and lodge an official protest. But to no avail simply because the accusers had no solid evidence of any wrong doing in hand themselves, all they had was suspicions that resulted in speculative accusations.

what the other teams did was let Ferrari try and save face! Teams have been asking the FIA "concept" questions for a while now to try and avoid official protests. Official protests have a tendency to cause tit for tat protests, and we end up with a slapping match with the FIA in the middle.

I'm old school, and believe if someone is breaking the rules, you come down on them like a sledge hammer. Unfortunately F1 doesn't work that way anymore, as everyone is trying to save face including the FIA. They are all far to concerned about having a good looking corporate image!

To be honest I don't believe any other team will try to save the face of a competitor. If the other teams had something solid, they would have protested. But teams will not lodge protests based on (strong) suspicions; I don't think that is winnable.

I can somewhat relate to what Stivala is saying. You do need solid evidence. You mentioned yourself how obscure code can be, to the point it is too complicated for the ruling body. The ruling body then should have said "well we are unable to determine wrongdoing. There might be something in there, but we are unable to pinpoint anything, so we will declare it legal. Honestly this is a situation born out of the current regulations. Let us standardize some more electronics and software and be done with it."

And everybody would have walked home peacefully.

[TAG]

...or add an additional encrypted sensor. We'll eventually see the results of that.

[izzy]

...or add an additional encrypted sensor. We'll eventually see the results of that.

yes this was the perfect solution. then the icing on the cake was the Secret Settlement that was... Announced!

it meant FIA could claim they couldn't quite find the offence exactly, malheureusement , even while fixing it AND dishing out a punishment that didn't have to be on any scale of past punishments but was pretty hurtful, a deterrent, and mostly humiliation. Freestyle governance baby, clever old Jean, he is quite subtle

[RZS10]

I love that the word "sanction" is being misinterpreted in this thread ... it can mean "punishment" or "approval" ...

You have the FIA president saying "we arrived to the conclusion that we think that what Ferrari did was not legal [...] they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction."

You have to be delusional to believe that in this context it's supposed to be the latter definition of the word, imho.

[saviour stivala]

I love that the word "sanction" is being misinterpreted in this thread ... it can mean "punishment" or "approval" ...

You have the FIA president saying "we arrived to the conclusion that we think that what Ferrari did was not legal [...] they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction."

You have to be delusional to believe that in this context it's supposed to be the latter definition of the word, imho.

'Furthermore, the governing body had no evidence to prove that the rules had been broken'. Yes. people who have it/suffer from it (delusion) can't tell what's real from what is imagined. What compounds such people’s problem is the person who invented the word (SANCTION), maybe he should himself be publicly ‘sanctioned’ but that in itself, depending on the level of delusional infection. Will not solve the problem for some Because it can still mean two totally opposed things.

[henry]

I love that the word "sanction" is being misinterpreted in this thread ... it can mean "punishment" or "approval" ...

You have the FIA president saying "we arrived to the conclusion that we think that what Ferrari did was not legal [...] they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction."

You have to be delusional to believe that in this context it's supposed to be the latter definition of the word, imho.

Excellent point. To be pedantic reading of “approval” is typically used in the sense of “authorise an action” rather than like or admire. In the Ferrari/FIA case this would mean that the FIA authorised Ferrari to continue to do what they were doing. The sanction obviously did not mean that.

It’s a strange word with two almost diametrically opposed meanings.

[kimetic]

I love that the word "sanction" is being misinterpreted in this thread ... it can mean "punishment" or "approval" ...

You have the FIA president saying "we arrived to the conclusion that we think that what Ferrari did was not legal [...] they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction."

You have to be delusional to believe that in this context it's supposed to be the latter definition of the word, imho.

'Furthermore, the governing body had no evidence to prove that the rules had been broken'. Yes. people who have it/suffer from it (delusion) can't tell what's real from what is imagined. What compounds such people’s problem is the person who invented the word (SANCTION), maybe he should himself be publicly ‘sanctioned’ but that in itself, depending on the level of delusional infection. Will not solve the problem for some Because it can still mean two totally opposed things.

FIA did not say they had no evidence. That is your imagining. They said:"

“The extensive and thorough investigations undertaken during the 2019 season raised suspicions that the Scuderia Ferrari PU could be considered as not operating within the limits of the FIA regulations at all times.

“The Scuderia Ferrari firmly opposed the suspicions and reiterated that its PU always operated in compliance with the regulations. The FIA was not fully satisfied but decided that further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... rc1oy.html

I can't see a reference to "sanctions" either, only "settlement" and "agreement". It's the woolliest statement you can imagine, conjuring an imaginary potential court case out of nowhere, when the regs specifically make FIA the sole arbiter.

Seems pretty clear to me FIA knew what they were going to find and that it was of a severity that would box them in, so they decided not to find it.

[saviour stivala]

yes. The governing body had no evidence to proof that the rules had been broken. same goes to the accusing teams. they had no evidence of any wrong doing in hand, all they had were suspicions. but still the reasoning by some is that FERRARI was guilty of breaching the fuel flow rules because there was some suspicion. it certainly cannot be pushed any more into a more narrow boring subject.

[dans79]

but still the reasoning by some is that FERRARI was guilty of breaching the fuel flow rules because there was some suspicion. it certainly cannot be pushed any more into a more narrow boring subject.

Any logical and non biased human being can figure out something Ferrari was doing wasn't Kosher!

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... rc1oy.html

“To avoid the negative consequences that a long litigation would entail especially in light of the uncertainty of the outcome of such litigations and in the best interest of the Championship and of its stakeholders, the FIA, in compliance with Article 4 (ii) of its Judicial and Disciplinary Rules (JDR), decided to enter into an effective and dissuasive settlement agreement with Ferrari to terminate the proceedings.”

You don't come to a settlement agreement if you are 100% in the right.

If the FIA came knocking at my door accusing me of doing something I didn't do, my response would most likely start with go fu.. ........, and end with I'll see you in court. I would not come to a dissuasive settlement or any settlement for that matter.

[Capharol]

and tbh, i gave up on this ever getting an outcome that satisfies all (not speaking about the fans, because they can't be satisfied at all).
i guess we all should just let it be as it is and we might hear the story in 25 years what was really going on..

Please do not post attacks on others with different views to you. It is an open forum and there are many differing viewpoints

[aral]

In the light of the latest statement from Todt, it appears that it was not fuel flow that was providing the extra power, but it was in fact a fully synthetic fuel provided by shell. The fuel was in accordance with the fuel requirements as laid down in the regs. This explains the confidentiality requirement which was designed to protect a patent.
Ferrari have agreed to promote the research into such alternative fuels.
I have not seen the full statement as yet but i have seen a summarisation of the contents.