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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

If 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.
Exactly :wink: If it went to court a whole lot of dirty laundry would spill out.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
5
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

If he fell he would as well have broken his leg.

dans79
dans79
299
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

GPR-A wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:22 pm
Why would anything would come 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.

A prime example that comes to mind is O.J., he won his criminal trial but lost the civil one.
168 99 97 7

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

If he fell he would as well have broken his leg.

???????????????????
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
5
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

'IF' he fell he would as well have broken his leg'. But the problem is he did not fell and the chance of him braking his leg was gone, and with it went away my wish of him braking his leg.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

It is just a local saying, they often sound weird if you are from another country.
Emphasis in IF. You can build any scenario in the universe as realistic, just with the right if...
¡Puxa Esportin!

User avatar
GPR-A
101
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

dans79 wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:33 am
GPR-A wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:22 pm
Why would anything would come 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.

A prime example that comes to mind is O.J., he won his criminal trial but lost the civil one.
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.

When FIA says they don't know how to catch Ferrari's clever trick and they are also in a fix that they cannot reveal what they have found to other teams due to confidentiality agreement, the other teams' can't force Ferrari show their hand in a court either, if the case is Ferrari's alleged rules breach!

Like any proprietary/patent/confidential/trade trick cases, even if the Ferrari are investigated, it would be in isolation and behind closed doors, just like FIA did. Teams accusing Ferrari and FIA can submit their claims to the court and court potentially can take another independent authority to validate the accusation and investigate Ferrari's engine itself, in isolation. When FIA, the folks who wrote the rules and having experts in their ranks who couldn't clearly point a finger on the rules breach, what else would an independent authority would do?

All that the the public and the other teams are going to hear, is a decision by the court based on the investigations of that independent authority. Teams will not stand in front of Ferrari's engine and say, "Oh I got what they are doing". That's not going to happen. Court's have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality of the trade secrets of Ferrari. That is non negotiable.

Once that is done, Ferrari clearly stands to win the reputation damage case, if they put one, as there was no grounds for the teams to accuse them!

User avatar
jumpingfish
40
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:19 pm
Location: Ru

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

If 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.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

jumpingfish wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:19 am
If 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.
Good post.

It's quite convoluted. I see a lot of black and white posts about this topic, but there are nuances and risks in this story. Not to mention arbitration will not stop at the FIA tribunals, should this blow open.
#AeroFrodo

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
5
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

hollus wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:05 am
It is just a local saying, they often sound weird if you are from another country.
Emphasis in IF. You can build any scenario in the universe as realistic, just with the right if...

Exactly.
‘IF’ is now the new position this discussion scenario have slid into/been pushed into.
‘IF’ is used in conditional sentences to introduce the circumstances in which an event or situation ‘might happen’ ‘might be happening’ or ‘might have happened’. But falls short of anything that have actually happened.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Explain how a team gets sanctioned if there is no foul?
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
5
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:58 pm
Explain how a team gets sanctioned if there is no foul?
Which of the two totally opposed meanings, the one meaning ‘approval’ or the one meaning ‘punishment’?.

3jawchuck
3jawchuck
45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:57 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:13 pm
strad wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:58 pm
Explain how a team gets sanctioned if there is no foul?
Which of the two totally opposed meanings, the one meaning ‘approval’ or the one meaning ‘punishment’?.
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.

User avatar
TAG
118
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:18 pm
Location: in a good place

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

jumpingfish wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:19 am
If 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.
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.
माकडाच्या हाती कोलीत

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

@TAG Absolutely right. Everyone not twisting like a trout on the line know how the FIA used the word "sanctioned". :lol:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss