2018 Spanish Grand Prix - Catalunya, May 11-13

[zibby43]

What is the rumor?

Although Ferrari ran the car illegally, the FIA agreed to not come down on Ferrari so long as they caved on and agreed to the last-minute 2019 regulation changes (changes Ferrari were initially adamantly against).

It can't be over emphasised that as of yet there is no verifiable information in any of these reports as, unsurprisingly, no one is willing to put their name to any of the accusations.

It's reminiscent of the classic blind story typical of the (now defunct) PopBitch message board, where someone makes something up and reports it as being 'rumoured' (no names being mentioned of course, because not being true makes it libellous, but it's usually obvious who is being accused of what). Others repeat those rumours with them frequently ending up in print. All that's left is for your village geniuses to then conclude that there must be some truth to it because they've heard the rumours from a number of sources.

Now people appear to be accusing the FIA of being a bunch of blackmailers!?!

Though it wouldn't give any indication of motivation and has no bearing on the veracity of any allegations, is there a reliable report of Ferrari having removed their objection to the 2019 aero changes?
The last I read was that they, along with Red Bull and others, objected to the changes, but the changes were carried anyway because the Mercedes-engined teams and Sauber sided with the FIA and the other non-competitor representatives when it came to the vote.

Rumors and F1 are inextricably linked concepts.

Over the years, I've learned to develop a fairly reliable way of sorting the veracity/merit of certain rumors.

When I see a rumor from someone that I view as a reliable source, that has been proved *correct* before, I put a little more stock into what they're saying, although still taking it with a grain of salt until I read further corroboration.

If I see multiple sources that I trust or view as reliable hinting around at the same rumor, that also catches my attention.

Next is the circumstances. In this case, the 2019 aero changes and Ferrari's sudden willingness to go along. You realize that Ferrari has veto power that they could have exercised to stop the '19 regulation changes? Highly unusual that they went from opposing to agreeing without one single quit threat story or any whining.

Especially when Maurizio whined about the tires in Barcelona (which has now infuriated Pirelli, especially since Vettel and every other source have very publicly debunked the entire tire saga).

Ferrari is vocal, via the media, about things it doesn't like. But somehow, nothing over the 2019 changes? Yeah, that's strange.

So, in the case of this particular Ferrari battery deployment rumor, we have:

1) Source(s): Rumor was picked up by several major motorsport journalism outlets (AMuS included).

2) Source(s) cont'd: Rumor was picked up by Marc Priestley, an ex-F1 mechanic (worked for McLaren) that has so many connections in the paddock that he is the one that sets up all of Sky F1's on air interviews. He was willing to put his "name to it" on video with the caveat that it was still a "rumor."

3) Circumstances: Ferrari has been issuing quit threats over regulations changes against its interests. Suddenly, we have regulation changes for '19 pushed through that Ferrari is adamantly against and there is not a peep from the Ferrari camp. What's more, Ferrari has veto power it can exercise to block the changes and there is not a whisper regarding Ferrari even considering such action.

So, until I see a bit more, the whole battery trick issue is just a rumor, but rumors are an integral part of F1 with how vital secrecy is in the sport. Sometimes rumors are the only way we get our news. So when I see a rumor that actually has some detail and some "steam" behind it, I pay attention.

[AnotherAlex]

Trouble is Marc Priestly hasn't put his name to it, he's just repeating a rumour as a rumour, he isn't making any accusations. AMuS is just the same. As you point out, the teams are highly secretive and very little hard information is available, so sites like AMuS are in the business of repeating unverified whisperings and, as long as they point out that they are only rumours, they risk little in the way of legal recourse or loss of reputation - even if all parties deny the accusations there are plenty of people who would rather believe the rumours.

Ferrari's supposed change of heart regarding the 2019 changes appears to be based on the fact that they haven't used their fabled veto; I'm sure they're damned if they do and, it would seem, they're damned when they don't.

The only hope for clarity would be if the FIA were to say what they're investigating (if anything) and why, i.e. the information they're basing the investigation on and from whom it was received.

[Restomaniac]

Trouble is Marc Priestly hasn't put his name to it, he's just repeating a rumour as a rumour, he isn't making any accusations. AMuS is just the same. As you point out, the teams are highly secretive and very little hard information is available, so sites like AMuS are in the business of repeating unverified whisperings and, as long as they point out that they are only rumours, they risk little in the way of legal recourse or loss of reputation - even if all parties deny the accusations there are plenty of people who would rather believe the rumours.

Ferrari's supposed change of heart regarding the 2019 changes appears to be based on the fact that they haven't used their fabled veto; I'm sure they're damned if they do and, it would seem, they're damned when they don't.

The only hope for clarity would be if the FIA were to say what they're investigating (if anything) and why, i.e. the information they're basing the investigation on and from whom it was received.

Or if Ferrari's sudden jump to the front is put in reverse somewhat.

Ferrari have been VERY vocal about the 2021 reg changes and suddenly there is major changes for 2019 and not even a peep bearing in mind that Ferrari were kicking up a stink about 0.4mm of tyre thickness 8 days ago. That's really rather odd.

No matter how you slice it the lack of moaning and/or use of VETO IS very odd unless it suits Ferrari to keep their powder dry and their gobs shut. BTW for me it isn't blackmail it's more a case of 'don't make us have to fight over this and we won't throw you under a bus'.

[Sieper]

Last years second oil tank (removal) was also only ever a rumor I believe. We will never have hard info on teams bending the rules. Just not the way it is done in F1.

[PlatinumZealot]

Last years second oil tank (removal) was also only ever a rumor I believe. We will never have hard info on teams bending the rules. Just not the way it is done in F1.

You could actually see the second tank in some photos but I believe it was just an elevated separator just like what all the other engines have.