FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
izzy
70
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:32 pm
People have to keep one standard. When Mercedes and Pirelli did secret testing in 2013.... I am sure it was illegal and not one drop of information came out on what they were testing and why they were not punished. IIRC.. I trust the FIA has made the best decision.
my standard is a loophole is fair enough, that's part of the game, and in the tyre test Ross spotted that the rule said teams mustn't arrange a tyre test! So they got Pirelli to arrange it :lol:

of course it upset everybody so they had to stay out of the next one, but strictly speaking they didn't break a rule

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

The other teams (rival teams) had been pushing out all sorts of technical suspicions against FERRARI'S power unit output advantage since 2018 but never did lodge a protest because they could not produce evidence that any wrong doings have been taking place by FERRARI.
The 2013 Mercedes/Pirelli secret tyre testing involved both Mercedes and Pirelli. It takes two to tango. and so did the tango back then.

User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

but strictly speaking they didn't break a rule
Izzy you have hit the nail on the head. They have people looking thru the rules for just that kind of thing to use as a work around.. They know the rules intention.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
izzy
70
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:18 pm
but strictly speaking they didn't break a rule
Izzy you have hit the nail on the head. They have people looking thru the rules for just that kind of thing to use as a work around.. They know the rules intention.
yes exactly, and it's the same with Dual Axis Steering, where FIA carelessly wrote the rule starting " with the steering wheel fixed...", so Mercedes un-fixed it and then the whole thing didn't apply =D>

User avatar
subcritical71
97
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:49 am
dans79 wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:14 pm
saviour stivala wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:02 pm
‘We believe there is potential to exploit’
That's a somewhat ironic quote! :lol:
What is 'ironic' in one believing there is potential to exploit?.
The word exploit used in that manner is more often than not seen as a negative connotation. Similar to unfair self advantage than it’s more literal meaning, which was what was meant. However, cross reference that normally negative connotation with the topic at hand and you may see the irony.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:18 pm
but strictly speaking they didn't break a rule
Izzy you have hit the nail on the head. They have people looking thru the rules for just that kind of thing to use as a work around.. They know the rules intention.
Issue is that you are still dealing with interpretations of regulations.

Usually the FIA accepts alternative interpretations, but there's always a possibility one interpretation goes so far the FIA interprets it as a violation.

It's a whole realm of grey areas. At one point you'll get a discussion if the grey area has become is white or black. I think we can safely say whatever it is that Ferrari did, it is not in a safe zone. It has to be atleast borderline.
#AeroFrodo

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

‘Please specify…OK. Trying to make a point ‘explicitly this time’.
I fully agree and endorse what aral (moderator) wrote 17 April page 66. And what I wrote/quoted of which was not approved was all intended to show how right he was.
Since 2017 SHELL has been supplying FERRARI with a fuel brew (partially synthetic that still respects the FIA fuel rules) that had upped the combustion knock considerably. Combustion knock being the limiting factor as regards combustion power output have given FERRARI a clear power advantage. They (FERRARI) progressed gradually since 2017 because it (the fuel) being partially synthetic and not fully synthetic. The combustion chamber has to be adopted to take full benefit of the fuel. When the fuel produced will be fully synthetic as the FIA intends in the shortest possible time. It will be the fuel that can be ‘bend’ to best suit the combustion chamber.
The following quotes from around March/April 2019 if googled and referred too might not only interest some taking part in this discussion, but are also an endorsement and so relevant to this subject.
‘Could there be some secret brew from SHEEL quenching the thirst of Maranello?’.
‘The fuel from FERRARI smells like grapefruit’.
‘We actually thought the FIA had plugged all the loopholes in the engine’.
‘FERRARI engine suddenly has the same bang as last year (2018).
‘FERRARI has arguably had the best power unit since 2018’.
Of particular interest at around the same time is what a Mercedes engineer said about FERRARI MGU-K being able to still produce power when theirs have to stop because of the max permitted, which all points to FERRARI combustion being able to still push the MGU-H to produce and direct it output to the MGU-K for free additional power.

User avatar
izzy
70
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:58 am
Issue is that you are still dealing with interpretations of regulations.

Usually the FIA accepts alternative interpretations, but there's always a possibility one interpretation goes so far the FIA interprets it as a violation.

It's a whole realm of grey areas. At one point you'll get a discussion if the grey area has become is white or black. I think we can safely say whatever it is that Ferrari did, it is not in a safe zone. It has to be atleast borderline.
yes it's like the F-Duct that motorsport.com have just written about again, that was all about a knee or elbow not being 'a device', that was fairly grey

for me if the Ferrari wizardry had been like that Jean would've explained it. But anyway, he's stopped it and that's not bad compared with previous eras

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

'FERRARI wizardry. Jean has stopped it' Jean Todt have stopped nothing that FERRARI were doing. if anything. he is perceived by some in the know as having handed FERRARI an engine development advantage.

User avatar
izzy
70
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:54 pm
'FERRARI wizardry. Jean has stopped it' Jean Todt have stopped nothing that FERRARI were doing. if anything. he is perceived by some in the know as having handed FERRARI an engine development advantage.
Jean issued a technical directive that said they mustn't use oil in the intercooler as fuel, and since oil has about half the specific heat of water and much worse viscosity why else would anybody use oil as the coolant, and he added a second fuel sensor that can't be synced and Mattia said in testing that the power unit is less strong

Shell can be doing great fuels for them that's cool, i bet they're all working away on it, Exxon and Petronas and the others. The compression ratio is limited to 18:1 isn't it tho, so it's about combustion chamber temperature and very small differences in energy density, it's probably not huge

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

When one starts suspecting wrong doings by others and is stuck with just suspicions because of the inability to come up with proof of said suspected wrong doings one will in 99.99% of such cases trip in his own feet.
Suspicion (1). They are accumulating fuel past the flow meter so as to use in greater quantity than is permitted for a short time.
Suspicion (2). They are using two battery system so they can use their MGU-K more than is permitted.
Suspicion (3). They are burning oil as a fuel, they have two oil tanks, no they have three, no the use it in their intercooler and let it leak into the intake.
Suspicion (4). They are tricking the flow meter to show less fuel flow than they actually flow.
There might be more that I don’t remember.
Directives has been issued not because any of the said suspicions were found to have been taking place, they have been issued to confirm that what was being suspected is not legal to use.
Yes. Oil can be used as a cooling medium.
Yes. Compression is capped at a maximum of 18:1. But turbo boost is not limited.
The arrangements for development and introduction of C02 neutral synthetic fuel will not only give FERRARI a head advantage, but most importantly it will eliminate the sports dependence on big engine manufacturers.

dans79
dans79
345
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:42 pm
saviour stivala wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:49 am
dans79 wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:14 pm


That's a somewhat ironic quote! :lol:
What is 'ironic' in one believing there is potential to exploit?.
The word exploit used in that manner is more often than not seen as a negative connotation. Similar to unfair self advantage than it’s more literal meaning, which was what was meant. However, cross reference that normally negative connotation with the topic at hand and you may see the irony.
Glad to know someone got it!
169 100 98 7

User avatar
Stu
21
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

What if...
The FIA have proof that Ferrari have been using a fully synthetic fuel developed by Shell that gives them a boost and is not illegal (but outside of the intended spirit of the rules (as written); BUT have introduced the second fuel flow sensor as the other engine builders were “convinced but could provide no proof” that Ferrari were “somehow bypassing the primary fuel flow meter” by operating the fuel pump out of phase.
IF the other engine builders/teams think that this is possible, then it makes absolute sense to add the second fuel flow meter (as if they think that they can bypass the rules, but get away with it, they will).
What if....?
Common sense is not as common as stupidity, but it is better to be uninformed than to be mis-informed...

User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Issue is that you are still dealing with interpretations of regulations.
Yes Turbo, sometimes there can be a different interpretation but other times it's not a mistaken interpretation but rather a purposeful interpretation.
It's like a kid trying to tell you they misunderstood when you said not to leave the house. :lol:
Ahh jeez I didn't realize that was what you meant when you know they did know what you meant.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

FERRARI haven't been using 'fully' synthetic fuel. in fact fully synthetic C02 neutral fuel is still being developed by SHELL.