FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[saviour stivala]

I know of the risk of being accused of repeating, but for the sake of the following argument/personal opinion formed as a result of the latest interview on the subject (FERRARI PU fuel flow investigations and outcomes/results) Todt gave to Micheal Schmidt (auto motor und sport). I cannot but repeat that: some FERRARI lovers wrongly interpreted the ‘we could not prove that they were illegal. So they were ‘Sanctioned’. Into some sort of punishment/‘sanctions’ having been imposed on FERRARI but said punishment/sanction being kept secret.
Schmidt asked Todt a very specific question; ‘part of the FERRARI sanction’ spoke of contributing to research into alternative fuels, was it a symbolic ‘sanction, just a tiny ‘peanut’, a drop in the ocean for the likes of FERRARI?’.
Todt strongly rejected. ‘No. it’s a ‘substantial contribution’. Schmidt; ‘but is that a punishment or a gift?’.
My question; ‘much like Mercedes started their hybrid engine development ahead of everybody else in 2009, could this be a similar period the like of which have been started by Mosely back than?. This could well be the icing on the cake’.
F1 have been set onto a development change that would focus on engine and specifically fuels in an attempt to bring ‘green credentials’ by switching to alternative fuels in an attempt to completely CO2-nuttral.
Currently, the only company researching fully synthetic fuels is SHELL, a long-time partner of FERRARI, this research involves FERRARI with significant monetary contribution which are set to increase due to 2019 PU sanction. If synthetic fuel would be adopted, the combustion part of the current or feature PU’S would be the main area of performance gains.

[Just_a_fan]

This explains the confidentiality requirement which was designed to protect a patent.

That makes sense and is in line with what some of us were suggesting way back when.

[3jawchuck]

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.

Why didn't they just say that from the beginning? It would have saved a lot of hassle. Also, as this is within the rules will they be allowed to use this fuel and take advantage of it in future events?

I am glad it is settled. I'm also pretty pleased that Shell are developing fancy fuels that seem to stretch the limits of what the other teams thought possible.

edit: Seems I was too eager to believe it was settled fully. Which is a pity.

[subcritical71]

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.

Why didn't they just say that from the beginning? It would have saved a lot of hassle. Also, as this is within the rules will they be allowed to use this fuel and take advantage of it in future events?

I am glad it is settled. I'm also pretty pleased that Shell are developing fancy fuels that seem to stretch the limits of what the other teams thought possible.

Wasn’t it 2018 that Ferrari were accused of bringing a special fuel that shell could only supply in small batches? Could this be the further development of that fuel?

[aral]

Yes, there were certain comments about the smell ! But casting my mind back to the previous turbo era, there were certain fuel mixes that were in use, that were so toxic, they had to be banned. After that, it had to be "pump" fuel, but that appears to have gone by the board in recent years.

[saviour stivala]

Mario Illien about a month ago;- ‘If synthetic fuel would be fully adopted, the combustion part of the current or future PU’s would be the main area of performance gains’.
‘Synthetic gasoline would require an adaptation of the combustion process. The good thing about this is that in the lab you can bend the fuel to the way you need for optimal combustion’.
These fuels can be made more anti-knock, which would allow more efficient combustion. We could even eliminate some components that are in conventional gasoline that do more harm than good, specifically sulphur’.

[izzy]

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.

Got a link please? On AMuS he doesn't say anything new or specific, as far as I can see. And a legal smart fuel doesn't explain the extra fuel flow sensor or the 'substantial' sanction.

[subcritical71]

Got a link please? On AMuS he doesn't say anything new or specific, as far as I can see. And a legal smart fuel doesn't explain the extra fuel flow sensor or the 'substantial' sanction.

This is the part I do not yet understand either. If everything was above board, then why the need for the settlement? Declare it legal and move on.

[aral]

Reported on a number of other sites.
but, have you considered that the extra fuel sensor was fitted as nobody at that time was aware of what was being used, and it was fitted as a secondary check? remember ALL cars had the second flow sensor fitted, and that other teams had had problems with fuel flow sensors being inaccurate

A sanction does not automatically mean that there was a penalty, but having to share patented info would be considered a slight penalty

[TAG]

have you considered that the extra fuel sensor was fitted as nobody at that time was aware of what was being used, and it was fitted as a secondary check? remember ALL cars had the second flow sensor fitted, and that other teams had had problems with fuel flow sensors being inaccurate

...and OJ is still out there tryin' to find the real killers.

[izzy]

Reported on a number of other sites.
but, have you considered that the extra fuel sensor was fitted as nobody at that time was aware of what was being used, and it was fitted as a secondary check? remember ALL cars had the second flow sensor fitted, and that other teams had had problems with fuel flow sensors being inaccurate

A sanction does not automatically mean that there was a penalty, but having to share patented info would be considered a slight penalty

you mean you don't want me to go and look and shred it?

i keep an eye on the main f1 sites and i'm not seeing anything, so a link would be cool or even just the name. The second sensor weighs 1kg and is a cost so if they could take it off they would i think. and it was rather carefully specified wasn't it, with its random timing that can't be synced

so Jean's exact words might be rather carefully chosen i'm thinking, he is pretty clever after all

[dans79]

I keep an eye on the main f1 sites and i'm not seeing anything, so a link would be cool or even just the name.

Same here, I use Feedly, so one click gives me the latest updates from dozens of sites. I usually see 60~100 new articles a day related to F1, and I've seen nothing about this.

[aral]

“Part of the sanction spoke of a contribution to research into alternative fuels. Many consider it a symbolic sanction, just a tiny ‘peanut’ or a drop in the ocean for a giant like Ferrari. Is it really peanuts?”. Todt strongly rejected the suggestion: “No, it’s a substantial contribution”.

Taken from an interview with schmidt of amus and then goes on to discuss how shell is providing ferrari with fuel and is leading the field in synthetic fuels as it boosts power as also confirmed by mario illien (who was also advising ferrari.)

Make what you want from that.........

[RZS10]

There's no racing so smaller sites leech off content of the bigger ones, pick out seperate out of context quotes and write articles about it ... here's the article from monday ( four days old), it does not contain anything about whether the fuel was "in accordance with the fuel requirements" etc ... it's mostly about the current crisis being a chance to change things in the sport.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ri-streit/

It contains the following question and answer:

Lassen Sie uns über die Ferrari-Affäre sprechen. Die FIA gibt zu, dass sie immer noch Zweifel daran hat, dass Ferrari seine Motoren im letzten Jahr legal betrieben hat. Andererseits fehlt ihnen der letzte Beweis. Ist das nicht unbefriedigend?

Let's talk about the Ferrari controversy. The FIA admits that it still has doubts that Ferrari operated it's engine legally last year, you could not prove it however. Isn't this unsatisfactory?

Todt: Das passiert jeden Tag im normalen Leben. Wir nennen das im Zweifel für den Angeklagten. Als uns klar wurde, dass die Motoren möglicherweise nicht legal betrieben wurden und uns andere Teams von ihren Zweifeln unterrichtet haben, haben wir in einem ersten Schritt beschlossen, diese Zweifel für die Zukunft auszuschließen. Es wird diese Zweifel in Zukunft nicht mehr geben. Zur Zufriedenheit aller Teams, mit Ausnahme von Ferrari.

That happens every day in normal life, we call it "when in doubt, for the accused". When we realized that they possibly weren't running their engines legally and some other teams told us about their doubts we decided on first steps to eliminate those doubts, so those will be a thing of the past to the satisfaction of all teams, apart from Ferrari.

This heavily implies that the TDs or rule changes did in fact affect Ferrari, so it's not just the fuel.

The bit about the synthetic fuel contribution is at the end and you really have to want to read anything into it (in order to write an article, for example) instead of taking it literally.

[jumpingfish]

“Part of the sanction spoke of a contribution to research into alternative fuels. Many consider it a symbolic sanction, just a tiny ‘peanut’ or a drop in the ocean for a giant like Ferrari. Is it really peanuts?”. Todt strongly rejected the suggestion: “No, it’s a substantial contribution”.

Taken from an interview with schmidt of amus and then goes on to discuss how shell is providing ferrari with fuel and is leading the field in synthetic fuels as it boosts power as also confirmed by mario illien (who was also advising ferrari.)

Make what you want from that.........

Weird but on AMus I can't find that last part about Shell.. Article ends with peanuts