FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

[saviour stivala]

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.

It makes no difference seeing a few or dozens of sites if one’s poplar sites are only those that mostly writes what the follower would like to read.
Both the Todt and Mario Illien interviews were not on a formula one site, they were both on auto motor and sports, often stylized as auto motor und sport and abbreviated AMuS. In German language and which is published fortnightly.

[jumpingfish]

Well I found that here:
https://www.f1supernews.com/2020/04/17/ ... ate-again/

[saviour stivala]

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?

It is estimated that a litre of formula one fuel cost around US$200.

[saviour stivala]

Well I found that here:
https://www.f1supernews.com/2020/04/17/ ... ate-again/

As stated on here in my post I found that differently. I found it on the direct source (auto motor und sport).

[izzy]

“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.........

well what anybody's going to make of that is that Jean is saying it was a substantial punishment

[izzy]

It makes no difference seeing a few or dozens of sites if one’s poplar sites are only those that mostly writes what the follower would like to read.
Both the Todt and Mario Illien interviews were not on a formula one site, they were both on auto motor and sports, often stylized as auto motor und sport and abbreviated AMuS. In German language and which is published fortnightly.

i did say i'd checked AMuS, without seeing anything like what @aral was saying explained everything being down to legal smart fuel, and che sorpresa it was AMuS but it was actually Jean saying the exact complete opposite and what a severe punishment he had cruelly yet secretly dished out

[saviour stivala]

“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.........

well what anybody's going to make of that is that Jean is saying it was a substantial punishment

Todt saying 'substantial PUNISHMENT' is only what pleases you to say. it Is not what Todt said. Todt said IT IS A SUBSTANTAIL CONTRIBUTION'.

[Tim.Wright]

The discussion on the fuel development was with regards to the punishment, not the crime...

[strad]

and here https://thejudge13.com/2020/04/03/fia-m ... facturers/
.
https://thejudge13.com/formula1/f1/the- ... facturers/
.
But I don't see the connection to flowing extra fuel.

[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.........

well what anybody's going to make of that is that Jean is saying it was a substantial punishment

please read the comment......it is a CONTRIBUTION, but if you want to interpret that as a punishment, then whom am i to argue? I read it as it is written, and a contribution does not necessarily mean it is any problem to them other than that the use of such fuels are to be considered and developed for road cars. You can be sure that petronas and the like are all developing such fuels already but just happen to be behind shell.

[saviour stivala]

The discussion on the fuel development was with regards to the punishment, not the crime...

There was in fact no punishment because no crime could be proofed to have been committed. the investigation resulted in a contribution agreed upon.

[saviour stivala]

and here https://thejudge13.com/2020/04/03/fia-m ... facturers/
.
https://thejudge13.com/formula1/f1/the- ... facturers/
.
But I don't see the connection to flowing extra fuel.

There couldn't have been because no extra fuel flowing could have been proofed to have taken place.

[izzy]

please read the comment......it is a CONTRIBUTION, but if you want to interpret that as a punishment, then whom am i to argue? I read it as it is written, and a contribution does not necessarily mean it is any problem to them other than that the use of such fuels are to be considered and developed for road cars. You can be sure that petronas and the like are all developing such fuels already but just happen to be behind shell.

it was a compulsory contribution as part of a 'sanction', and Jean was quick to deny it was peanuts was he not?? Jean is tres clever of course and he has to tread this line between what the other teams were demanding and what was realistic when it's Ferrari in F1. He can't just DQ them can he, and that means he mustn't find them guilty of something that'd normally mean a DQ.

so he calls it a contribution, instead of a fine, keeps the amount secret and lets it be spent with their sponsor. Then he adds the second hack-proof sensor and issues this not-really-necessary announcement saying FIA weren't fully satisfied but can't totally absolutely prove anything. something for Ferrari, something for the others. Then in testing with the second sensor gerdoink Ferrari are slower and Mattia even has to admit it and say it's for reliability!

so the fuel research isn't about the 2019 Ferrari performance whatsoever, it's about a fine cleverly dressed as a contribution. Contributions are normally voluntary, but they don't have to be, that is clever old Jean choosing his words

[saviour stivala]

In 2019 both of FERRARI’s two top rivals eyes swollen with tears were lamenting the fact that according to their GPS calculations the FERRARI PU was pushing out 50 hp more than its nearest rival PU. After the season ended the Italian F1 press was quoting FARRARI as saying that for 2020 season they will introduce a completely new PU with an initial advantage of 20hp over the previous season PU.

[aral]

izzy. i am very bemused by your unusual assumptions. many things can happen and making such assumptions does not make them fact. As mentioned before, there are numerous reasons for changes in performance. So how do you actually know that the reduction in performance was due to a second sensor?
If you understand the properties of synthetic fuel and also read illiens comments, you will see that engine maps have to be altered significantly to cater for these fuels. So how can you be sure that a change of fuel did not require a reduction of power in the interests of reliability
fuel is checked by stewards before and after every race, and as it was found to be in accordance with regulations, it wasnt illegal, even if it had additives. and yes, if ferrari had been found to be cheating, then the FIA would have disqualified them, as they would do with any team deliberately cheating and as they have done in the past.
and i certainly would accept FIA comments as being close to the truth. there was nothing illegal found in the ferrari PU, but clearly the FIA felt that ferrari were stretching rules to the limit and felt that the best way to bring them to order was to ensure that the lessons they were learning were made available to manufacturers for possible use in road cars, and that is exactly what F1 is supposed to be about. Ferrari wont be happy that their secret fuel is now public, but they have to accept the rulings.
try to have an open mind and enjoy the innovations, no matter who makes them