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.
djones
djones
23
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:01 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

I'd love to see a modified point and qualifying result table for 2019 if Ferrari were not in it.

Hamilton was probably robbed of about 5 pole positions for a start.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

djones wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:50 pm
I'd love to see a modified point and qualifying result table for 2019 if Ferrari were not in it.

Hamilton was probably robbed of about 5 pole positions for a start.
I do want to warn against these kind of assumptions. Yes, I fully understand it feels and looks like full on cover up at this point. I am neither preaching naïvity. But, as it is now we don't fully grasp what the situation really is (due to the absolute lack of information).
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Mr.G
44
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:49 pm
Mr.G wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:45 pm
What if it is a loophole but is really simple/easy to implement? So they agreed to close it for new rules but not reveal it sooner than the end of the season.
In the past they would have allowed the loophole and just state it was legal, after which they introduced new regulations at the earlies possible moment to close off the loophole. Just like they did with the double diffuser for instance. Revealing something is legal is not the same as revealing what the loophole is, for the record. They could have said "Nothing has found illegally regarding the Ferrari PU" or something similar.
I understand, and I have issues with the bold part - if they say Ferrari's engine is legal but for next season you can not do this and that - in that instance, Mercedes is doing it for this season, and if it is easy to add to the engine they will introduce it within next two GPs...
Art without engineering is dreaming. Engineering without art is calculating. Steven K. Roberts

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Mr.G wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:55 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:49 pm
Mr.G wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:45 pm
What if it is a loophole but is really simple/easy to implement? So they agreed to close it for new rules but not reveal it sooner than the end of the season.
In the past they would have allowed the loophole and just state it was legal, after which they introduced new regulations at the earlies possible moment to close off the loophole. Just like they did with the double diffuser for instance. Revealing something is legal is not the same as revealing what the loophole is, for the record. They could have said "Nothing has found illegally regarding the Ferrari PU" or something similar.
I understand, and I have issues with the bold part - if they say Ferrari's engine is legal but for next season you can not do this and that - in that instance, Mercedes is doing it for this season, and if it is easy to add to the engine they will introduce it within next two GPs...
Not necessarily so. The FIA also has closed off what Mercedes is doing for next season, without leaking the necessary details to implement it. Yes, we can create assumptions on it, but nobody know the fine intricate details to make the system really work.

So should Ferrari be doing something that can be considered a -legal- loophole, the FIA could have worded new regulations in such a way they effectively closed off the loophole without revealing necessary details.
#AeroFrodo

KeiKo403
KeiKo403
14
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:16 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

djones wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:50 pm
I'd love to see a modified point and qualifying result table for 2019 if Ferrari were not in it.

Hamilton was probably robbed of about 5 pole positions for a start.
Well - I have done some analysis on this but don't know how to upload the tables I've created.
Overall though:
Team - Points Updated
Mercedes (1) - 802
Red Bull (3) - 520
McLaren (4) - 224
Toro Rosso (6) - 151
Renault (5) - 149
Racing Point (7) - 136
Alfa Romeo (8) - 95
Haas (9) - 55
Williams (10) - 3
Ferrari (2) - 0

The numbers in brackets next the team name is where they placed at the end of '19. The order above shows how points would look if Ferrari scored 0 and all other points (except 5 fastest lap points for Ferrari) we're to be re-distributed.

Everyone moves up (more revenue) except for Renault and of course Mercedes.

Some other insight to take away would be:
1. Russell scores 1 point and Kubica 2 points in Germany
2. Lance Stroll gets his and Racing Points first F1 podium with a 3rd Place
3. Daniel Ricciardo and Renault get a podium in Italy with a 3rd Place
4. Alex Albon gets his first podium and second podium with 3rd places at Japan (would've been good for Honda) and Mexico

I know this doesn't exactly help to this topic but for anyone questioning why the teams are so bothered....that is why.

edit - sorry turbo, just read your reply to djones

Correction, Lance already has a podium from earlier in his career.
Last edited by KeiKo403 on Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chene_Mostert
23
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Unc1eM0nty wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:56 pm
Red Rock Mutley wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:22 pm
I would be pointing at the Mercedes and saying, isn't DAS the same situation, and if they're not having a gentleman's agreement not to use it, why are we?
Please don't confuse this with DAS, legal or illegal this is a stystem that Mercedes have been completely open with, they explained what it does and they've even nameed it.

Ferrari on the other hand have never acknowlaged anything, all they said last year was there's nothign to see move on

And then this !
the only reason they are open with "DAS" is because it is visible.
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake

DChemTech
DChemTech
71
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

KeiKo403 wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:08 pm
djones wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:50 pm
I'd love to see a modified point and qualifying result table for 2019 if Ferrari were not in it.

Hamilton was probably robbed of about 5 pole positions for a start.
Well - I have done some analysis on this but don't know how to upload the tables I've created.
Overall though:
Team - Points Updated
Mercedes (1) - 802
Red Bull (3) - 520
McLaren (4) - 224
Toro Rosso (6) - 151
Renault (5) - 149
Racing Point (7) - 136
Alfa Romeo (8) - 95
Haas (9) - 55
Williams (10) - 3
Ferrari (2) - 0

The numbers in brackets next the team name is where they placed at the end of '19. The order above shows how points would look if Ferrari scored 0 and all other points (except 5 fastest lap points for Ferrari) we're to be re-distributed.

Everyone moves up (more revenue) except for Renault and of course Mercedes.

Some other insight to take away would be:
1. Russell scores 1 point and Kubica 2 points in Germany
2. Lance Stroll gets his and Racing Points first F1 podium with a 3rd Place
3. Daniel Ricciardo and Renault get a podium in Italy with a 3rd Place
4. Alex Albon gets his first podium and second podium with 3rd places at Japan (would've been good for Honda) and Mexico

I know this doesn't exactly help to this topic but for anyone questioning why the teams are so bothered....that is why.

edit - sorry turbo, just read your reply to djones
Don't forget that, unlikely as it seems, Lance has been on the podium before for Williams in Baku. (and still no podium for Hulk :( ) Sorry for the topical digression ;).

KeiKo403
KeiKo403
14
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:16 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Indeed he has, well remembered.

DChemTech
DChemTech
71
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Chene_Mostert wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:14 pm
Unc1eM0nty wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:56 pm
Red Rock Mutley wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:22 pm
I would be pointing at the Mercedes and saying, isn't DAS the same situation, and if they're not having a gentleman's agreement not to use it, why are we?
Please don't confuse this with DAS, legal or illegal this is a stystem that Mercedes have been completely open with, they explained what it does and they've even nameed it.

Ferrari on the other hand have never acknowlaged anything, all they said last year was there's nothign to see move on

And then this !
the only reason they are open with "DAS" is because it is visible.
Still Mercedes did address the legality of DAS with FIA themselves, which already is a completely different mindset than that of Ferrari.

User avatar
Chene_Mostert
23
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

I see very few on this forum can handle opposing views.
Here are some off the “down vote” comments:

Delusional denial of facts - ( The fact is I don’t see “any” facts on here just some fans not happy that a press release did not say what they hoped it would say.

regulations clearly state any circumvention of fuel flow limit is forbidden - There has been no protest lodged for any FF irregularities. Infact the only team ever to have fallen foul of this is Red Bull Racing.

zero substance, ignoring facts, fanyboyism – really and blind hatred and foaming at the mouth because a press statement did not say what you would have liked? Talk about projection!

Oversimplying – No idea on this one!

Pathetic really that we have become so weak.
Even Moderators hide behind trolling if you don’t support their view.

So as from now I will support the popular view.
Ferrari needs to be stripped off all points since the start of the hybrid era.
There is no place for the FIA. Motorsport direction and governing should lie exclusively with Mercedes Benz....
Last edited by Chene_Mostert on Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake

Mandrake
Mandrake
19
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 12:31 am

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:19 pm
Chene_Mostert wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:14 pm
Unc1eM0nty wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:56 pm


Please don't confuse this with DAS, legal or illegal this is a stystem that Mercedes have been completely open with, they explained what it does and they've even nameed it.

Ferrari on the other hand have never acknowlaged anything, all they said last year was there's nothign to see move on

And then this !
the only reason they are open with "DAS" is because it is visible.
Still Mercedes did address the legality of DAS with FIA themselves, which already is a completely different mindset than that of Ferrari.
Up to now we still do not know what DAS actually does for a benefit. Merc probably told the FIA it is completely not aero. Once a clever mind comes up it has a considerable aero benefit you can expect all hell breaking loose on Mercs DAS as well. If Ferrari were able to outsmart the fuel flow in a way other competitors were not, they wozuld surely not ask the FIA if that was possible as the FIA would close that loophole immediately (which they did later with the introduction of the 2nd sensor)

mvfad
mvfad
2
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:22 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Now the FIA will want to make a secret settlement with all non-Ferrari teams about the Ferrari PU issue. lol

snowy
snowy
13
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Charlie Whiting and I didn't see eye to eye on anything but Formula One really needs a Charlie Whiting right now ...and I mean, like last year!

gshevlin
gshevlin
25
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

We do not know if Ferrari ever contacted the FIA to ask about the legality of any procedure or device that they intended to use on their fuel system or in their powerplant. Such discussions between teams and the FIA are supposed to be confidential. Until the FIA or Ferrari reveals more information, we can only speculate.

snowy
snowy
13
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Mandrake wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:24 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:19 pm
Chene_Mostert wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:14 pm


the only reason they are open with "DAS" is because it is visible.
Still Mercedes did address the legality of DAS with FIA themselves, which already is a completely different mindset than that of Ferrari.
Up to now we still do not know what DAS actually does for a benefit. Merc probably told the FIA it is completely not aero. Once a clever mind comes up it has a considerable aero benefit you can expect all hell breaking loose on Mercs DAS as well. If Ferrari were able to outsmart the fuel flow in a way other competitors were not, they wozuld surely not ask the FIA if that was possible as the FIA would close that loophole immediately (which they did later with the introduction of the 2nd sensor)
It is pretty clear that the DAS system benefits are felt on the suspension, the tyres, the aero, the cooling, in the turns, on the straights and anywhere you can think of apart from the drinks bottle!