Seven Formula One teams have demanded clarity and more information about the private agreement that was announced by the FIA and Scuderia Ferrari over their power unit investigation.
ExactlyIf Ferrari did something like cheat the fuel flow and won with that car, Ferrari should be banned for a year, or at least there will be a big controversie. Not good for the platform.
If it went to court a whole lot of dirty laundry would spill out.
Because in a real civil case, Ferrari isn't going to get any kind of preferential treatment like they due with the FIA. Not to mention in a civil case the burden of proof isn't nearly as high.
If he fell he would as well have broken his leg.
You first need to get out this mindset that FIA continues to have a soft spot for Ferrari as it used to be 20 years back in Max Mosley/Bernie period. You first need to differentiate baseless allegations that the other teams are making which is a case of reputation damage Vs Ferrari's alleged rules breach situation.dans79 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2020, 02:33Because in a real civil case, Ferrari isn't going to get any kind of preferential treatment like they due with the FIA. Not to mention in a civil case the burden of proof isn't nearly as high.
A prime example that comes to mind is O.J., he won his criminal trial but lost the civil one.
Good post.jumpingfish wrote: ↑30 Apr 2020, 10:19If we assume that Ferrari fearlessly and impudently cracked the sensor (either burned oil from an intercooler, or burned fuel from an additional tank bypassing the sensor), neither the court nor the FIA can prove that Ferrari did this if Ferrari removed their tricks before the FIA started checking.
Further, Todt said twice in an interview that he said: give a protest against Ferrari, but neither Mercedes nor Red Bull did so. If Mercedes had 100% reliable information about what Ferrari did, but no protest was filed, this can only mean: or they don't know what exatly was in that engine-2019, or this information was obtained from someone who worked in Ferrari. Having filed a protest, they will immediately receive a retaliatory lawsuit about industrial espionage or something like this with huge losses of both money and reputation. What could Elkann tell the head of the concern Daimler that Toto Wolff was forced to abandon claims to the Ferrari engine and Mercedes as a result stepped aside?
If it was not hacking, but a clever or cunning reading of the rules, a gray zone, a loophole in the rules like DAS, then Ferrari still would not say: we did this and that, because others will use it (as DAS - a loophole in the rules, everyone knows it and wants the same system).
If someone believes that if the FIA continued to suspect an unclean game and this means that it is a hack, not a gray zone, then I will recall the situation with holey disks in 2018, when the FIA allowed them, but Mercedes was still scared protests and decided to ride without them. If the FIA allowed them, why were they afraid of a protest from Ferrari? Another situation was with Mercedes and their brake ducts, when a response was received to Ferrari’s request: everything is legal, but after the RB’s request the same air ducts were declared illegal. This means that the FIA is not always right and its suspicions of illegality cannot mean 100% blame.
The use of the word relating to Ferrari was not in the sense of approval. You can tell that from the context and sentence structure. A distinction that wouldn't even need discussion if the FIA had just done their job and been straight regardless of the actual situation.saviour stivala wrote: ↑30 Apr 2020, 21:13Which of the two totally opposed meanings, the one meaning ‘approval’ or the one meaning ‘punishment’?.
Mercedes gets nothing for protesting. They won the championship despite the Ferrari (whatever they did) so why protest especially if the feel that a solution to whatever Ferrari was doing is addressed by the new (additional) encrypted sensor. For them to protest would cost them money and gain them nothing since in all likelihood they already feel order has been restored.jumpingfish wrote: ↑30 Apr 2020, 10:19If we assume that Ferrari fearlessly and impudently cracked the sensor (either burned oil from an intercooler, or burned fuel from an additional tank bypassing the sensor), neither the court nor the FIA can prove that Ferrari did this if Ferrari removed their tricks before the FIA started checking.
Further, Todt said twice in an interview that he said: give a protest against Ferrari, but neither Mercedes nor Red Bull did so. If Mercedes had 100% reliable information about what Ferrari did, but no protest was filed, this can only mean: or they don't know what exatly was in that engine-2019, or this information was obtained from someone who worked in Ferrari. Having filed a protest, they will immediately receive a retaliatory lawsuit about industrial espionage or something like this with huge losses of both money and reputation. What could Elkann tell the head of the concern Daimler that Toto Wolff was forced to abandon claims to the Ferrari engine and Mercedes as a result stepped aside?
If it was not hacking, but a clever or cunning reading of the rules, a gray zone, a loophole in the rules like DAS, then Ferrari still would not say: we did this and that, because others will use it (as DAS - a loophole in the rules, everyone knows it and wants the same system).
If someone believes that if the FIA continued to suspect an unclean game and this means that it is a hack, not a gray zone, then I will recall the situation with holey disks in 2018, when the FIA allowed them, but Mercedes was still scared protests and decided to ride without them. If the FIA allowed them, why were they afraid of a protest from Ferrari? Another situation was with Mercedes and their brake ducts, when a response was received to Ferrari’s request: everything is legal, but after the RB’s request the same air ducts were declared illegal. This means that the FIA is not always right and its suspicions of illegality cannot mean 100% blame.
