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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Stu wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:12 pm
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.
The fuel rules have several generalized catch alls that would allow the fIA to say no you can't use that fuel.
19.1.2 The detailed requirements of this Article are intended to ensure the use of fuels that are composed of compounds normally found in commercial fuels and to prohibit the use of specific power-boosting chemical compounds. Acceptable compounds and compound classes are defined in 19.2 and 19.4.3. In addition, to cover the presence of low level impurities, the sum of components lying outside the 19.2 and 19.4.3 definitions are limited to 1% max m/m of the total fuel.

19.1.3 Any petrol, which appears to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of this regulation, will be deemed to be outside it.

19.4.4 A minimum of 5.75% (m/m) of the fuel must comprise bio-components.

19.4.5 Hydrocarbons (as defined in 19.2, but not including di-olefins) and oxygenates (lying outside the 19.4.3 definition) or mixtures thereof, which have been produced from biomass, may be included in Formula One fuel as part of the 5.75% bio-components quota, provided that a suitable analytical procedure is available for their quantification and to verify their biological origin. Their use in F1 fuel will be dependent on evidence indicating that the supplier is genuinely developing these compounds for use in commercial fuels.
169 100 98 7

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

stivala: I am not sure where you are going with the CO2 neutral fuel. Shall I open a thread to discuss that specifically? It sounds interesting, but I am not sure how it fits in the current controversy.

And to everybody: This is NOT the Ferrari cheats thread. Please don't treat it as such. "Might be cheating" is a catch all sentence that in principle could apply to all 10 teams.
¡Puxa Esportin!

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

"Might be cheating" is a catch all sentence that in principle could apply to all 10 teams.
Hollus, that is what some of us have been trying to get across. They all PAY somebody to look for loop holes and poorly written rules that they can twist or purposely misinterpret. :wink:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
727
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

The key thing is that Ferrari were sanctioned. That takes it from "might be cheating" to "were cheating". If you're sanctioned, and don't protest/prove innocence, then presumably there has been some nefarious activity.

It will be interesting to see if others use this precedent in order to advance other "naughty things" with a view to "helping the FIA develop technology X" if they're "caught".
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

hollus wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:09 pm
stivala: I am not sure where you are going with the CO2 neutral fuel. Shall I open a thread to discuss that specifically? It sounds interesting, but I am not sure how it fits in the current controversy.

And to everybody: This is NOT the Ferrari cheats thread. Please don't treat it as such. "Might be cheating" is a catch all sentence that in principle could apply to all 10 teams.
'I am not sure how it (development of synthetic fuel by SHELL for use by FERRARI) fits in the current controversy' but you sounds and looks like you haven't been following carefully. asking aral (moderator) to explain things would help a lot because he was the originator of the subject on here. .
You can go ahead and open a thread to discuss that specifically if you so wish, as this (fuel development frantic push by both regulator and commercial rights holders) is not only of great interest technically but most probably a formula one LIFE SAVER.

User avatar
Capharol
60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Stu wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:12 pm
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....?
what if... i play lottery, what if i have the right numbers, what if.....

1. i dont play lottery
2. i wont win the price money
3. what ifs are things that could be or could have been, so they are either in the past or future and therefor highly irrelevant
Strive for continuous improvement, instead of perfection.
"Most people seem to turn off their brain when they turn on the computer and log in to social media."

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

‘What-IF’ is used to ask about something that could happen, but cannot proof it is happening. Asking that question to the FIA will result in a rule clarification/technical directive. To exclude all possible theories it can also lead the FIA imposing extra means of policing.
If a team is ‘suspicious’ of another team, they can either protest the car during a race weekend - or they can ask the FIA for permission to use whatever interpretation it believes its rival is using. The governing body can either inform them that it is valid interpretation or disagree, in which case a technical directive/clarification will follow.
In response to a query by red bull made regarding whether it would be legal to use electrical signals to interfere with the FIA/TEAM fuel flow device. The FIA ruled it out. Citing 5.10.3 and 5.105.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Thanks, that is what I was attempting to say!!
Common sense is not as common as stupidity, but it is better to be uninformed than to be mis-informed...

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

There is nothing wrong with suspicions that some wrong doing is going on. In fact the regulations have established procedures how such suspicions can be handled and processed. But it is inappropriate that after the regulator declares that it cannot find prove that any wrong doing was taking place and that in an effort to eliminate theories of wrong doings it introduce a 2nd (FIA fuel flow meter which will be supplied to teams before each event). And Its encrypted data (Aided in no small way by some of the media) is interpreted as proof that wrong doings were taking place.
Encrypted data technology have been with us for donkey years before the introduction of the fuel flow meter. When in 2014 the FIA introduced the fuel load and fuel flow limits and decided the best policing be made by the introduction of the (FIA/TEAM) ultrasonic fuel flow meter that can read fuel flow 4000 times a second, it could not specify an encrypted meter for the following reasons:-.
The fuel mass flow injected into the engine is calibrated and managed by the standard ECU and homologated software. The standard ECU and homologated software have a much easier job managing the 750 injections per second (assuming one injection per combustion) (a number which is actually never reached). Of the present PU. Than the 1300 injections per second of the previous 20k RPM NA V8 that it used to calibrate and manage. But still in 2014 the FIA wanted to police the mandated fuel flow with much finer/smaller tolerances than that possible by ECU/SOFTWARE control to minimize possible interpretations. Because of the FIA having opted for the ultrasonic fuel flow meter it could not specify an encrypted meter reading (hiding the reading from the teams) because it automatically rendered the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injection calibration precession (tolerances) dependant on the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. That is why the first meter is called (FIA/TEAM FUEL FLOW METER). As to why the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injected has bigger tolerances than that of the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. The technicalities are simple and easy to explain if need be.

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:41 am
There is nothing wrong with suspicions that some wrong doing is going on. In fact the regulations have established procedures how such suspicions can be handled and processed. But it is inappropriate that after the regulator declares that it cannot find prove that any wrong doing was taking place and that in an effort to eliminate theories of wrong doings it introduce a 2nd (FIA fuel flow meter which will be supplied to teams before each event). And Its encrypted data (Aided in no small way by some of the media) is interpreted as proof that wrong doings were taking place.
Encrypted data technology have been with us for donkey years before the introduction of the fuel flow meter. When in 2014 the FIA introduced the fuel load and fuel flow limits and decided the best policing be made by the introduction of the (FIA/TEAM) ultrasonic fuel flow meter that can read fuel flow 4000 times a second, it could not specify an encrypted meter for the following reasons:-.
The fuel mass flow injected into the engine is calibrated and managed by the standard ECU and homologated software. The standard ECU and homologated software have a much easier job managing the 750 injections per second (assuming one injection per combustion) (a number which is actually never reached). Of the present PU. Than the 1300 injections per second of the previous 20k RPM NA V8 that it used to calibrate and manage. But still in 2014 the FIA wanted to police the mandated fuel flow with much finer/smaller tolerances than that possible by ECU/SOFTWARE control to minimize possible interpretations. Because of the FIA having opted for the ultrasonic fuel flow meter it could not specify an encrypted meter reading (hiding the reading from the teams) because it automatically rendered the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injection calibration precession (tolerances) dependant on the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. That is why the first meter is called (FIA/TEAM FUEL FLOW METER). As to why the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injected has bigger tolerances than that of the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. The technicalities are simple and easy to explain if need be.
Ferrari cheated, plain and simple, stop deflecting

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Stu wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:12 pm
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....?
Fully synthetic fuel is not banned currently in F1, all the teams run fully synthetic(as in made in a lab rather than pulled out of the ground).

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:21 pm
FERRARI haven't been using 'fully' synthetic fuel. in fact fully synthetic C02 neutral fuel is still being developed by SHELL.
Synthetic fuel and biofuel are considered 2 different things. All F1 fuel is currently fully synthetic.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:28 am
saviour stivala wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:41 am
There is nothing wrong with suspicions that some wrong doing is going on. In fact the regulations have established procedures how such suspicions can be handled and processed. But it is inappropriate that after the regulator declares that it cannot find prove that any wrong doing was taking place and that in an effort to eliminate theories of wrong doings it introduce a 2nd (FIA fuel flow meter which will be supplied to teams before each event). And Its encrypted data (Aided in no small way by some of the media) is interpreted as proof that wrong doings were taking place.
Encrypted data technology have been with us for donkey years before the introduction of the fuel flow meter. When in 2014 the FIA introduced the fuel load and fuel flow limits and decided the best policing be made by the introduction of the (FIA/TEAM) ultrasonic fuel flow meter that can read fuel flow 4000 times a second, it could not specify an encrypted meter for the following reasons:-.
The fuel mass flow injected into the engine is calibrated and managed by the standard ECU and homologated software. The standard ECU and homologated software have a much easier job managing the 750 injections per second (assuming one injection per combustion) (a number which is actually never reached). Of the present PU. Than the 1300 injections per second of the previous 20k RPM NA V8 that it used to calibrate and manage. But still in 2014 the FIA wanted to police the mandated fuel flow with much finer/smaller tolerances than that possible by ECU/SOFTWARE control to minimize possible interpretations. Because of the FIA having opted for the ultrasonic fuel flow meter it could not specify an encrypted meter reading (hiding the reading from the teams) because it automatically rendered the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injection calibration precession (tolerances) dependant on the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. That is why the first meter is called (FIA/TEAM FUEL FLOW METER). As to why the ECU/SOFTWARE fuel mass flow injected has bigger tolerances than that of the ultrasonic fuel flow meter. The technicalities are simple and easy to explain if need be.
Ferrari cheated, plain and simple, stop deflecting
Although ‘in spite of the fact that a moderator declared that ‘And to everybody: This is NOT a FERRARI cheats thread. Please don’t treat it as such’. As long as your claim is let to stand. I am asking you to be man enough to tell/prove your claim of FERRARI cheating.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:42 am
saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:21 pm
FERRARI haven't been using 'fully' synthetic fuel. in fact fully synthetic C02 neutral fuel is still being developed by SHELL.
Synthetic fuel and biofuel are considered 2 different things. All F1 fuel is currently fully synthetic.
Refer to: motorsport.co Adam Cooper Aug 10 2019 1:00pm ‘formula I is to take steps to promote its green credentials in the coming months – and push towards synthetic fuels will follow as the sport aims at future sustainability targets’ (read full article). The above means (in the future) so it (the fuel used) is not yet fully synthetic.
Mario Illien to Micheal Schimdt: ‘from 2021, the share of fuel from renewable source should be 20%’.
Synthetic fuels from biomass have a great potential.

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:56 am
ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:42 am
saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:21 pm
FERRARI haven't been using 'fully' synthetic fuel. in fact fully synthetic C02 neutral fuel is still being developed by SHELL.
Synthetic fuel and biofuel are considered 2 different things. All F1 fuel is currently fully synthetic.
Refer to: motorsport.co Adam Cooper Aug 10 2019 1:00pm ‘formula I is to take steps to promote its green credentials in the coming months – and push towards synthetic fuels will follow as the sport aims at future sustainability targets’ (read full article). The above means (in the future) so it (the fuel used) is not yet fully synthetic.
Mario Illien to Micheal Schimdt: ‘from 2021, the share of fuel from renewable source should be 20%’.
Synthetic fuels from biomass have a great potential.
F1 fuels are 100% fully synthetic right now, made in a lab but not from a biological process. The fuel used now is not your regular pump gas from a refinery.