Seven Formula One teams have demanded clarity and more information about the private agreement that was announced by the FIA and Scuderia Ferrari over their power unit investigation.
that would mean you have to cool and then warm it again. but, if you boil a bit, you'll get gas pockets and then you can vairy the amount of fuel in the 2000 cc overflow. So the only thing you would need is somewhere a bit of piping that gets hot... small heating element or a "faulty" sensor....Big Tea wrote: ↑01 Apr 2020, 21:35Guys, beyond my knowledge but this is a paragraph from a non F1 related site :- When gasoline rises from 60 to 75 degrees F, for instance, it increases in volume by 1 percent while the energy content remains the same-: I assume the reverse is true, so you see where I am going lol
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14895 ... se-details"If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they [Ferrari] opposed," explained Todt.
Ferrari are also blocking the details of the sanctions, not just the technical details as you say. Again, who is governing the sport? Its obvious from Jean Todts own words that he feels the sanction details should have came out. That is being the head of the so called governing body and ex-Ferrari Team Principle. I doubt he would allow the technical details to be freely given to all teams.saviour stivala wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 19:41Of course FERRARI blocked the release of any details. who/which engine manufacturer wouldn't? it was legal that FERRARI had no interest in disclosing technical details about its engine which could prove beneficial to tipping off rival teams about its design secrets. The thing that matters is that the governing body had no evidence to prove that the rules had been broken.
"If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they [Ferrari] opposed," explained Todt.
"So, I mean, they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction.
"And clearly we could have said nothing.
This is why there's very healthy skepticism about Formula 1's ability to police and enforce a cost cap. The FIA agreed to fuel-flow rules that were some combination of too technically complex and too politically awkward to enforce. Now the FIA is introducing thick new books of accounting rules...subcritical71 wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 17:42According to Autosport it was Ferrari who blocked the release of any details. Who is it that is governing this championship!?
"If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they [Ferrari] opposed," explained Todt.
'If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they (FERRARI) opposed'. They FERRARI did so as was their right. if it wasn't they wouldn't have been allowed to oppose or their opposition wouldn't have been acceded too.subcritical71 wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 21:07Ferrari are also blocking the details of the sanctions, not just the technical details as you say. Again, who is governing the sport? Its obvious from Jean Todts own words that he feels the sanction details should have came out. That is being the head of the so called governing body and ex-Ferrari Team Principle. I doubt he would allow the technical details to be freely given to all teams.saviour stivala wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 19:41Of course FERRARI blocked the release of any details. who/which engine manufacturer wouldn't? it was legal that FERRARI had no interest in disclosing technical details about its engine which could prove beneficial to tipping off rival teams about its design secrets. The thing that matters is that the governing body had no evidence to prove that the rules had been broken.
"If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they [Ferrari] opposed," explained Todt.
"So, I mean, they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction.
"And clearly we could have said nothing.
Nobody is questioning Ferrari's ability to excercise a right that has been made in a settlement between FIA and Ferrari. Frankly, every company in Ferrari's shoes would excercise that right.saviour stivala wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020, 08:37'If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they (FERRARI) opposed'. They FERRARI did so as was their right. if it wasn't they wouldn't have been allowed to oppose or their opposition wouldn't have been acceded too.subcritical71 wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 21:07Ferrari are also blocking the details of the sanctions, not just the technical details as you say. Again, who is governing the sport? Its obvious from Jean Todts own words that he feels the sanction details should have came out. That is being the head of the so called governing body and ex-Ferrari Team Principle. I doubt he would allow the technical details to be freely given to all teams.saviour stivala wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 19:41Of course FERRARI blocked the release of any details. who/which engine manufacturer wouldn't? it was legal that FERRARI had no interest in disclosing technical details about its engine which could prove beneficial to tipping off rival teams about its design secrets. The thing that matters is that the governing body had no evidence to prove that the rules had been broken.
"If you ask me, I would love to be able to give all the details of the situation, but they [Ferrari] opposed," explained Todt.
"So, I mean, they have been sanctioned but we cannot give the detail of the sanction.
"And clearly we could have said nothing.
'So I mean, they have been 'sanctioned' but we cannot give detail of sanction'. Ferrari having been 'sanctioned' means they have been 'approved' and the FIA having 'approved' means FERRARI were within their legal rights.
Whats the next sentence in that partially quoted article say...saviour stivala wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020, 12:32The FIA did not ‘settled’ and ‘forced’ itself into a situation where it needs FERRARI to agree to release information of said settlement. Article 4.6 of the FIA judicial and disciplinary rules states ‘the prosecuting body and all persons taking part in the inquiry are bound by obligation of confidentiality vis-à-vis persons or organisations not concerned with the inquiry’. For persons and/or organisations to be qualified as being ‘concerned with the inquiry’ said persons and/or organisations needed to be part of an official protest, something that was never presented.
FERRARI exercised their right as per article 4.6 and not because of any settlement entered into between themselves and the FIA.
So the podcast where Jean Todt himself was speaking in English isn't faithful report??? You really need to take off those Ferrari glasses. They are not letting you see clearly.saviour stivala wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020, 21:25Motorsports.com. Jonathan noble April 9 3:12 pm full and actually faithful report of what Jean Todt said should be read .
The next sentence 'Nevertheless, the prosecuting body may at any time make public its decision to conduct a disciplinary inquiry and the outcome thereof'. I left this last part (sentence) out in my post because there couldn't have been a decision to conduct a disciplinary inquiry without evidence of the rules having been broken.subcritical71 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020, 15:41Whats the next sentence in that partially quoted article say...saviour stivala wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020, 12:32The FIA did not ‘settled’ and ‘forced’ itself into a situation where it needs FERRARI to agree to release information of said settlement. Article 4.6 of the FIA judicial and disciplinary rules states ‘the prosecuting body and all persons taking part in the inquiry are bound by obligation of confidentiality vis-à-vis persons or organisations not concerned with the inquiry’. For persons and/or organisations to be qualified as being ‘concerned with the inquiry’ said persons and/or organisations needed to be part of an official protest, something that was never presented.
FERRARI exercised their right as per article 4.6 and not because of any settlement entered into between themselves and the FIA.
