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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

EN. I wasn’t expecting that. I was expecting you coming back with sustained proof of your claim of ‘CHEATING’. But then, you haven’t been helped any by moderating.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

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.
Which is what they have been claiming the fuel is. I have had disputes with online people.. some right here.. that have said it's the same as from the pump... and they got that I assume from TV where I have heard the talking heads push that lie.
Heck I'd be happy if I could just get Super Shell or white pump Chevron from 60 years ago. Let alone what F1 runs. :lol:
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

‘Synthetic fuel is a liquid fuel, or sometimes gaseous fuel, obtained from syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, in which the syngas was derived from gasification of solid feed stock such as coal or biomass’.
According to SHELL. Their formula one fuel as supplied to the FERRARI F1 team contains 99% of what their roadside pump fuel contains.
According to FERRARI. The SHELL fuel and oil used in their formula one engine contribution to its efficiency and performance is 21%.
F1 super news 17 April 2020:- ‘Aside from the current Covid-19 pandemic crisis, formula 1 was to be set on a trajectory of dramatic development and change that would see a focus on engine and specifically fuels in an attempt to bring ‘green credentials’. Currently, the fuel used by formula 1 is ‘conventional’ as in its mostly made from the tradition sources, namely oil’.
‘The FIA is significantly invested in switching to alternative fuels, whether they are produced entirely in the laboratory or from biomass’.
‘Currently, the only fuel company researching this fully ‘synthetic’ fuel is SHELL’.
Mario Illien to Michiel Schimdt (AMuS).:- ‘Synthetic fuel from biomass have a great potential’. ‘Synthetic fuel only makes sense if the energy used to produce it comes entirely from renewable source.as otherwise, it would be as much a sham as the supposed environmental benefits of electric cars’. ‘Synthetic gasoline would require an adaption of the combustion process. The good thing about this is that in the lab you can bend the fuel to the way you need for optimal combustion’.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:16 pm
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.
Which is what they have been claiming the fuel is. I have had disputes with online people.. some right here.. that have said it's the same as from the pump... and they got that I assume from TV where I have heard the talking heads push that lie.
Heck I'd be happy if I could just get Super Shell or white pump Chevron from 60 years ago. Let alone what F1 runs. :lol:
The fuel that the teams burn is very close to pump fuel in chemical make up, but has much less chemical variation because it is formulated and created in a very advanced laboratory rather than just distilled at a refinery. Possibly they take pump gas as the starting point for what they create in the lab, further refining and adapting it for their use. The amount of additives is strictly regulated but is much higher than pump gas as well. There is a reason they ship their barrels of race fuel worldwide rather than just run down to the corner fill up station. Also, after the race the excess fuel is closely guarded and disposed of in order to keep proprietary secrets safe, why would that be necessary if it was mainly just pump gas. The regs demand that it is mostly similar to pump gas, not that it is exactly pump gas.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:42 pm
"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:
Loopholes and cheating are two different things, what it seems Ferrari has been doing is akin to them stepping on the FIA weigh scales(manipulating them)in order to cheat the minimum mass rule, except they are manipulating the fuel flow sensor and also possibly storing more fuel than allowed after the sensor probably with an expanding chamber that can only be visually noticed while running. Clever, but still illegal.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:21 am
strad wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:42 pm
"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:
Loopholes and cheating are two different things, what it seems Ferrari has been doing is akin to them stepping on the FIA weigh scales(manipulating them)in order to cheat the minimum mass rule, except they are manipulating the fuel flow sensor and also possibly storing more fuel than allowed after the sensor probably with an expanding chamber that can only be visually noticed while running. Clever, but still illegal.
'Loopholes and cheating are two different things'. Of course they are. when there is a loophole the regulator plugs-it. when cheating is proved to have taken place the regulator administers a penalty.
It is about time that you will show some decency and produce facts to sustain what you say.

User avatar
F1NAC
176
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: CRO

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:21 am
strad wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:42 pm
"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:
Loopholes and cheating are two different things, what it seems Ferrari has been doing is akin to them stepping on the FIA weigh scales(manipulating them)in order to cheat the minimum mass rule, except they are manipulating the fuel flow sensor and also possibly storing more fuel than allowed after the sensor probably with an expanding chamber that can only be visually noticed while running. Clever, but still illegal.
Maybe FIA should let you inspect their PU. Maybe you have magical eyes, and you could prove that they did something illegal since they couldn't.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

F1NAC wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:37 am
ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:21 am
strad wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:42 pm

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:
Loopholes and cheating are two different things, what it seems Ferrari has been doing is akin to them stepping on the FIA weigh scales(manipulating them)in order to cheat the minimum mass rule, except they are manipulating the fuel flow sensor and also possibly storing more fuel than allowed after the sensor probably with an expanding chamber that can only be visually noticed while running. Clever, but still illegal.
Maybe FIA should let you inspect their PU. Maybe you have magical eyes, and you could prove that they did something illegal since they couldn't.
Keeps at it and in overdrive like a boat with wind blowing in its sails and without bothering all along to either remember or notice that he doesn’t offer one single proof to sustain his perceived wrong doings.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

F1NAC wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:37 am

Maybe FIA should let you inspect their PU. Maybe you have magical eyes, and you could prove that they did something illegal since they couldn't.
Who says they couldn't? They just weren't allowed to reveal it publicly for political and financial reasons.

Skippon
Skippon
15
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: England

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

Maybe you can't see the fuel flow cheat!
Perhaps its all in the software calibration. Even if/when the FIA find it in the code you can't prove Ferrari actually used it..

Just like Schui at Benetton in 1995!

:-)

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:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:53 pm
EN. I wasn’t expecting that. I was expecting you coming back with sustained proof of your claim of ‘CHEATING’. But then, you haven’t been helped any by moderating.
Whether you want to call it cheating or exploiting, in the end it’s the same thing. Ferrari needing to enter into a settlement with the governing body is the only proof necessary to all but those with other agendas, or red as a favorite color. You don’t have a reason to partake in a settlement when you are doing everything above board and not exploiting/cheating a rule. If you are in the the right tell the FIA to keep looking or bugger off with full exhoneration.

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 7:53 pm
EN. I wasn’t expecting that. I was expecting you coming back with sustained proof of your claim of ‘CHEATING’. But then, you haven’t been helped any by moderating.
Something is weird about your posts, they seem to be showing up long after they are posted.

I respect your contribution to this forum, but you've gone a bit overboard in your defense of Ferrari by calling for "sustained proof" in a discussion about which none of us is privy to inside information. None of us have "sustained proof" because the FIA were barred from revealing what they uncovered, that does not mean we are not allowed to discuss it. The evidence for strange goings on with the Ferrari PU have been apparent for years, and in several different ways. Massive advantage in straight line speeds combined with far higher fuel usage in a fuel limited formula is a good indicator that some irregularities are occurring. Fuel limited formula tells us that fuel usage is directly linked to time on throttle, Ferrari time on throttle is lower, yet they use much more fuel, IT DOES NOT COMPUTE. At first I chalked it up to much lower drag on the red cars, but that does not account for the 10% and more higher fuel usage per race. After the FIA released those technical directives aimed at Ferrari late 2019 Ferrari were clearly significantly slower, that is not clear evidence, but it remains interesting.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

saviour stivala wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:34 am
Synthetic fuel is a liquid fuel, or sometimes gaseous fuel, obtained from syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, in which the syngas was derived from gasification of solid feed stock such as coal or biomass’.
According to SHELL. Their formula one fuel as supplied to the FERRARI F1 team contains 99% of what their roadside pump fuel contains.
From where did you source the section in bold? I am not claiming that F1 fuel is derived from syngas, but that pump gas is further manipulated after it is refined and not just regular "pump gas".

Reading the italicized part carefully you can see that it leaves open the possibility that the pump fuel is further refined, removing more impurities and longer chain hydrocarbons or too short hydrocarbons to give a fuel that has 99% of what their roadside gas has, but is still not the same.

Furthermore, how is the 99% true with the current requirement for 5% or so requirement of biomass derived fuel? Idk

What I do know is that they don't just go down to the refinery, get a couple barrels, add a couple additives and then put it in the car, it is much more complicated than that.

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

99% of the truth is still a lie. :wink:
I feel that manipulating or using a loop hole with the purpose of circumventing or getting around the intent of a rule is cheating.
Years and years ago when I first started drag racing it that class the rule said that if you ran an electric fuel pump the fuel still had to pass thru the stock mechanical pump.
I took and gutted my mechanical fuel pump... drilled a hole straight thru the now gutted body of the pump and routed the fuel line from the electric pump thru the hole and on to the carb. Now I knew the intent of the rule but I technically complied. I have always felt I was being sneaky and was cheating. Was I cheating? You tell me.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

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

Re: FIA-Ferrari PU Statement Controversy

Post

strad wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:23 pm
99% of the truth is still a lie. :wink:
I feel that manipulating or using a loop hole with the purpose of circumventing or getting around the intent of a rule is cheating.
Years and years ago when I first started drag racing it that class the rule said that if you ran an electric fuel pump the fuel still had to pass thru the stock mechanical pump.
I took and gutted my mechanical fuel pump... drilled a hole straight thru the now gutted body of the pump and routed the fuel line from the electric pump thru the hole and on to the carb. Now I knew the intent of the rule but I technically complied. I have always felt I was being sneaky and was cheating. Was I cheating? You tell me.
LOL exploiting AND cheating, if you ask me. =D> But I also see nothing wrong with it, you complied with the written rule. I’m sure when the rule was made somebody said, should we mention the fuel pump must work, and was shot down by someone replying, we don’t need to spell everything out do we!