F1technical.net

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 15:13

For the record - Mercedes were never found to be oil burning. Only Ferrari had the extra oil tank

Which is no proof for oil burning.

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 15:13

For the record - Mercedes were never found to be oil burning. Only Ferrari had the extra oil tank

For the record - Neither were found to be burning oil but both were suspected of it since the ex Mercedes combustion chief joined Ferrari for 2015.

And it's just coincidence they both go through 3x as much oil as Renault and Honda even with the new limits.

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 15:13

For the record - Mercedes were never found to be oil burning. Only Ferrari had the extra oil tank

If you believe that they didn't burn oil, you might also believe that it's the stork who brings the babies?

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

epo wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:39

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

It might not prove it, but it's a strong indicator that Ferrari was either doing something questionable or very abnormal.

dans79 wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:51

epo wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:39

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

It might not prove it, but it's a strong indicator that Ferrari was either doing something questionable or very abnormal.

What's the evidence Ferrari had an extra oil tank removed anyway?

epo wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:39

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

More so the fact Ferrari did not disclose what the auxiliary tank was for at first. That rang alarm bells for me.

GhostF1 wrote: ↑

16 May 2018, 01:04

epo wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:39

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

More so the fact Ferrari did not disclose what the auxiliary tank was for at first. That rang alarm bells for me.

For you, but your not an expert.
Anyways they prolly copied it from Mercedes, doesn't matter anyways. They all try and find loopholes and use it. Oh on a second thought Renault not, but that is costing them.

epo wrote: ↑

16 May 2018, 01:16

GhostF1 wrote: ↑

16 May 2018, 01:04

epo wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 23:39

So what dude, an extra doesn't prove --- either so what exactly is your point

More so the fact Ferrari did not disclose what the auxiliary tank was for at first. That rang alarm bells for me.

For you, but your not an expert.
Anyways they prolly copied it from Mercedes, doesn't matter anyways. They all try and find loopholes and use it. Oh on a second thought Renault not, but that is costing them.

When did I claim I was an expert lol.
It was clearly happening on the paddock, there are clear suggestions who was probably doing it, and there are fairly obvious signs as well. All that is happening here is a bunch of enthusiasts exchanging thoughts on a forum.
If you are only open to an "experts" opinion, then a public forum for fans/enthusiasts is a funny place to be.

djones wrote: ↑

15 May 2018, 21:32

Sorry, but Ferrari were the only ones with additional tanks.

This is actual evidence. Show me a single piece that shows Merc also burned oil??? oh....you can't.

As a Ferrari fan I agree it would be nice if we could also throw some --- at Merc, hoping it would stick.

Mercedes introduced and engine before normal cycle to avoid new rules in place that limited oil consumption, that IMO is as much proof as having an extra oil tank. I also think that it is common to have more than one oil tank to different components even tho I also think that it is very clear Ferrari was burning the oil of that extra tank (Alison suspicion, taking it out when asked about it)

There's also a conflation happening between something being a proof or not and the truth value of the claim as such. Very few things in any of the technical threads have proofs but there's still a consensus about what's probably going on.

And very often this consensus is proven wrong. So...

marvin78 wrote: ↑

16 May 2018, 10:41

And very often this consensus is proven wrong. So...

Which is why that sentence has a "probably" in it. Did you see it?

The alternative to this settings is fanbois bickering and bullys deleting any speculating post. Which would you rather have?

No. There is a way in the middle. It's always depending on how you write stuff. Speculation is allowed. But there are so much unknown parameters in F1 that I would never say that an opinion has any probability I can imagine.