lipstick79

Embarrassing

48 posts in this topic

57 minutes ago, Ruslan said:

A "routine check" that includes three new technical directives and the seizure of Ferrari's fuel system.

 

Ruslan, there is nothing here to see here IMHO. Not yet, if ever.

Seizure of Ferrari's fuel system was prompted by noises of suspicion in the paddock community, and driven by hysterical RBR and Mercedes. There is no way to run inspection in mechanical laboratory, unless FiA takes relevant parts with them. I would not call it seizure, as that carries connotation of suspected wrongdoing, rather than routine check (as FiA assured us that's what it is).  If I am not mistaken, there were other two teams having being tested for the same. Are we also talking about them? Didn't hear much about those, but that would not make good headlines; I do understand it.

Three new technical directives is not Ferrari's problem, but FiA's. They just like to regulate, unfortunately, and to please rivals, three TD are just plugging regulatory holes in normative references, proven, or potential. Sloppy work last time around..?

Again, we do not know as yet whether Ferrari was just innovative, delinquent, or FiA didn't find anything, but to be sure, more papers are rolling of FiA's typewriters.   

One could ask whether issuing standard parts to everyone could accomplish the same then (however that would carry stigma of IRL in F1, and we cannot have that, do we). 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2019 at 11:06 PM, Ruslan said:

This is embarrassing; more for FiA than Ferrari. They make rules so complicated that you need forensic scientist to determine legality

Everybody ELSE but Ferrari seem 2 B able understand the rules.
It is JUST Ferrari who R tryin 2, push the envelope - as they say.
Renault, Mercedes and Honda .teams .. HAVE proven that there is NOTHING wrong with the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrari has not requested change of rule in this case. It was crying by Ferrari's rivals, which prompted FiA to augment rules. Reasons for issuing changes could be as simple as closing a loophole which was already explored, or could be explored in the future, or it could be merely preventative case.

As of today, FiA has not accused Ferrari from wrongdoing, nor we know what the problem is, if there is one in the first place. 

Exploring loopholes, is actually sign of intellect, IF that's what happened in this case, and is not the same thing as breaking existing rules. FiA of course sometimes speaks about breaking spirit of rules, which is I think utter nonsense in this cut-throat sport.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 3:29 PM, Sakae said:

Ruslan, there is nothing here to see here IMHO. Not yet, if ever.

Well, usually where there is smoke there is fire. We shall see. There will be more to come.

Liberty, FIA and F1 in general probably don't have a strong reason to make that much of a stink about this. After all, it did not hurt F1 that Ferrari suddenly became competitive for six races. It livened up the show without changing the standings. That is why I keep asking about possible penalties. Would FIA delete their results in the six races where they clearly were using their "innovation" (and/or cheat) to their advantage? I kind of doubt it. It appears they are going to correct the problem going forward and then sweep it under the rug.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruslan said:

Well, usually where there is smoke there is fire. We shall see. There will be more to come.

Liberty, FIA and F1 in general probably don't have a strong reason to make that much of a stink about this. After all, it did not hurt F1 that Ferrari suddenly became competitive for six races. It livened up the show without changing the standings. That is why I keep asking about possible penalties. Would FIA delete their results in the six races where they clearly were using their "innovation" (and/or cheat) to their advantage? I kind of doubt it. It appears they are going to correct the problem going forward and then sweep it under the rug.

 

I feel somewhat deflated and defeated, as it is obvious my former arguments were weak to convince you not to prejudge regular technical scrutiny of fuel subsystems of three teams, until report is out. That should not imply, that I have absolved Ferrari from wrongdoing. Not at all, however I am reluctant to hold against a racing entity for being racy (denotes "fast"). In F1 there is not such thing as too fast. If it makes rivals nervous, that's fine with me, but after letting Mercedes having their way with rules while performing River Dance on rival's nerves for 5 years, FiA should perhaps relax, and let F1 be F1. 

It is clear that Honda and Mercedes do not want to have (predicted) another moratorium on Power Plant, whilst Ferrari is ahead. It was fine when Mercedes had significant jump, but not Italians... Take a note, they aren't worrying hurting Renault's feelings because Honda and Mercedes are both ahead, but Ferrari being ahead of them is another story.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sakae said:

I feel somewhat deflated and defeated, as it is obvious my former arguments were weak to convince you not to prejudge regular technical scrutiny of fuel subsystems of three teams, until report is out.

It was obvious something was odd long before the first technical directive was issued. Many people had already noted and discussed the surprising extra power boost that Ferrari had coming out of the corners. This has been in discussion for a while. It was discussed on the other forum. In the end, such an advantage by one team over the rest can only come about through 1) a clever technical innovation, 2) a clever interpretation of the gray areas of the rules (i.e. Brawn's double diffuser) or, 3) a cheat. Now, clever technical innovations are pretty rare. They traditionally (historically) been outnumbered by "clever interpretations" and "cheats" probably by several orders of magnitude. So, from the beginning the most likely interpretation was that they were doing a "clever interpretation" or a "cheat." When the technical directives started coming out and they were seizing equipment from Ferrari, it was clearly more than just a "clever interpretation."

Now, I don't know for certain that Ferrari cheated, but if you gave me even money on a bet on that, I would certainly lay down a sizable sum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruslan said:

It was obvious something was odd long before the first technical directive was issued. Many people had already noted and discussed the surprising extra power boost that Ferrari had coming out of the corners. This has been in discussion for a while. It was discussed on the other forum. In the end, such an advantage by one team over the rest can only come about through 1) a clever technical innovation, 2) a clever interpretation of the gray areas of the rules (i.e. Brawn's double diffuser) or, 3) a cheat. Now, clever technical innovations are pretty rare. They traditionally (historically) been outnumbered by "clever interpretations" and "cheats" probably by several orders of magnitude. So, from the beginning the most likely interpretation was that they were doing a "clever interpretation" or a "cheat." 

That's better and one way how to interpret rumors. I find rather strange, that FiA needs to issue 3 directives for augmenting their specs. (Can't recall if and when that happened before.) But then, no one said flow systems are simple, and well defined. I am also wondering if fuel additives were of concerns. 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sakae said:

 I am also wondering if fuel additives were of concerns. 

Were meaning past tense, so NOT concerned anymore ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How embarrassing 4 Williams. 
To B powered by the current best PU (Mercedes) and 2 ONLY have 1 point, languishing at this time at the back of the grid in P10
What does this suggest?
With Mclaren also set 2 become a Mercedes customer
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lipstick79 said:

Were meaning past tense, so NOT concerned anymore ?

Planned audit of fuel delivery system, when announced, specifically has not stated whether fuel chemistry would be included. To put it differently, I have no idea about scope of that audit, and I don't want to speculate. I assume there are several levels of investigation, each with expanding breath, depth, and at some level fuel chemistry would be added. 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sakae said:

I am also wondering if fuel additives were of concerns. 

This was alluded to in the second directive (depending on what you mean by fuel additives). So yes.

One summary: The FIA then published a second TD ahead of the Brazilian Grand Prix, addressing the potential illicit use of flammable liquid in an engine's cooling system and reminding teams about the illegal practice of using oil for fuel in a unit's combustion chambers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if Shell contributed to improved car performance. Last year they definitely were promising fuel research with new performance levels. I would guess 15 - 25% (engine performance up with right juice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sakae said:

I would not be surprised if Shell contributed to improved car performance. Last year they definitely were promising fuel research with new performance levels. I would guess 15 - 25% (engine performance up with right juice).

Yea, I don't think this is what all the controversy is about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Yea, I don't think this is what all the controversy is about.

 

Yes, it seems -- guessing here -- that Ferrari managed in uniquely innovative way to benefit from expanding burning cycle and recycling its energy before tossing it into exhaust pipe. Compliant flow, the same amount of fuel, just more advanced and efficient processing method.

If so, I applaud to Maranello for carrying spirit of F1 in best of traditions.

Again, we need however a word from FiA and close the audit with the statement on their findings, as there are some other potential solutions, which are perhaps less acceptable for interference with spirit of rules, rather than directly violating them. I think it is difficult for us on the outside to be certain what exactly happened. 

As much as I disagree with him on many issues, Ecclestone is correct here:

Quote

He said some teams have always managed to find an advantage by interpreting the regulations more intelligently than their rivals.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sakae said:

Yes, it seems -- guessing here -- that Ferrari managed in uniquely innovative way to benefit from expanding burning cycle and recycling its energy before tossing it into exhaust pipe. Compliant flow, the same amount of fuel, just more advanced and efficient processing method.

Well, there may have been multiple efforts going on. It does appear from the first Red Bull question and the first technical direction that they were simply inferring with the ability of the fuel flow meter to monitor the rate of fuel flow. That the third technical directive now insists upon a second meter sort of reinforces that. Again.....the argument that this was just a "clever interpretation" of the rules does not seem to fully explain the events we have seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complains from rival camps are based on opposition to having a strong competitor on the grid, which is funny stuff coming after 5 years from Hamilton's camp possessing a rocket of a car, but I am actually more interested what is FiA's problem, in terms of objective evidence. Verstappen is complaining, well, because he is Verstappen, it's however FiA's turn to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 8:59 AM, Sakae said:

Complains from rival camps are based on opposition to having a strong competitor on the grid, which is funny stuff coming after 5 years from Hamilton's camp possessing a rocket of a car, but I am actually more interested what is FiA's problem, in terms of objective evidence. Verstappen is complaining, well, because he is Verstappen, it's however FiA's turn to speak.

No....the complaint from rival camps was based upon an unusually good acceleration out of corners that Ferrari had. It was so good, they could not figure out how it was done legally. Therefore they started looking at where Ferrari was bending or breaking the rules. They appear to have found it.

Edited by Ruslan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if you have seen this:

FiA Post Brazilian Race Tech scrutiny, Document 43 dated 17 Nov

Quote

Fuel flow meter calibration checksums were checked on all cars.

The instantaneous fuel mass flow of all cars was checked.

The fuel temperature of car numbers all cars checked.

The total fuel mass consumed by all cars during the race was checked.

A fuel sample was taken from car number 33.

The fuel samples have been checked for density and analysed by gas chromatography.

The results of all the fuel analyses show that the fuels were the same as ones, which had been approved for use by the relevant competitors prior to the Event.

Further the density change of the fuel samples taken today was within the permitted limits.

The engine oil samples have been analysed by FTIR spectroscopy and viscometry.

The results of the FTIR analyses show that the sampled oils were consistent with reference engine oil samples which had been approved for use by the relevant competitors prior to the Event.

All car weights and the items checked were found to be in conformity with the 2019 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations.

Ruslan, I am not sure what the specific complain against Ferrari is, and what exactly you are objecting to. (Forget about tabloid nature of some forums.) Being fast in F1 is normal and not a crime. Exploring loopholes is not a crime in this sport, if that what happened, and we maybe inferring far too much from rule changes. 

In accredited media I could not find any announcement about (fuel related processing) wrongdoing by any car, which includes Ferrari. Not as of this writing. ( D/T 2019.11.27  07:46 (CET) )

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they were not competitive at Brazil. You are just reinforcing my argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Yes, they were not competitive at Brazil. You are just reinforcing my argument.

 

That was not my intention, Ruslan. I think you are under too much influence of some people on CTA.

BTW, who said Ferrari wasn't competitive in Brazil due to pulling back fuel "cheating", which is I think you are implying. Car setup, race strategy, tires, chassis etc. than had nothing to do with Ferrari performance in that race? Mercedes is presumedly ahead of RBR with their racing gear, yet they were back from a leader even further in that race. Did they also changed their fuel delivery lines?

Do you see where this (basically nonsensical) argument is heading?

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 10:49 AM, Sakae said:

That was not my intention, Ruslan. I think you are under too much influence of some people on CTA.

BTW, who said Ferrari wasn't competitive in Brazil due to pulling back fuel "cheating", which is I think you are implying. Car setup, race strategy, tires, chassis etc. than had nothing to do with Ferrari performance in that race? Mercedes is presumedly ahead of RBR with their racing gear, yet they were back from a leader even further in that race. Did they also changed their fuel delivery lines?

Do you see where this (basically nonsensical) argument is heading?

They were not competitive at Bahrain either.

It is clear that Ferrari suddenly had a magic six-race window when they were the car to beat....and then suddenly ceased being the car to beat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ruslan said:

They were not competitive at Bahrain either.

It is clear that Ferrari suddenly had a magic six-race window when they were the car to beat....and then suddenly ceased being the car to beat.

 

I am not going to argue your point Ruslan, welcome back BTW, since I have some doubts about veracity of your premise that Ferrari was the best car to beat on the track even for a one race, for there are numerous factors in the play, which could be deceiving and hiding naked truth about Mercedes's PR strategy. Who knows what was going on in that camp, but surely that's not your point. Yours, I gather, is focus on degradation of Ferrari performance which is (mostly in UK's supermarket tabloids) attributed to fuel pull-back. Interesting, but not worth time to lose sleep over that. FiA investigated, no one was charged, thus there is nothing much to know as factual, but leave us to speculate.

Mattia Binotto said just a few days ago, ours wasn't best car, and we do plan to do better next year. The man has a point.

BTW I've read Publius; fantastically perceptive fellow (IMHO), and I am really sorry I was forced out from there, and consequently left out from the discourse. Good man he is to educate rest of us.  

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrari...

Situation with Sebastian is unconfirmed in terms of his seat in 2021, however it might have been decided at the top already; I am of course speculating, seeing how they dealt with him through the year, and how thick air is around him today.

Quote

The Ferrari Team Principal explained that in his mind the 2019 championship was lost “last year”, with problems with the car's handling becoming evident in the first race of the year in Australia, despite the team appearing to have aced pre-season testing.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now