First thing that pops into mind is that Ferrari found so stupidly clever loophole that FIA doesn't want it to get out, and instead made agreement that Ferrari will stop using it in (this season? next?)
If there's a loophole that the FIA don't want, they either issue a technical directive, or change the rules.
If Ferrari weren't breaking the rules, why the need for a settlement? Loopholes are either allowed (although perhaps banned the next season with a rule change because the FIA don't like the direction it's going, like Mercedes toe system), or they're closed with a technical directive. Anything else is just breaking the rules.
I doubt there would have been settlement without further details if they had outright broken the rules, so it whatever they settled on should be something more on they grey zone.
The 2nd sensor was just a guess for my part on what could cover it this season if it blocks whatever they possibly did. One possible scenario would be 2021 rules covering it already and FIA & Ferrari making some sort of settlement of not using the assumed loophole this season even if the loophole could still be technically abused, because FIA not wanting it to get out to public for whatever reason they might have.
They're cars, I'm not sure why the FIA would care about any of the tech being made public. What's the scenario where the FIA would want to ban the tech, but not have it banned in the rules? What sort of loophole do you have in mind? The choice of the word "settlement" is interesting, because in the context of a dispute it usually seems to involve some sort of payment from one party to the other.
Because it's already being banned shortly (either this season or the next) and there's something specific about what/how they did something that FIA doesn't want to get public for whatever reason?
I mean, what are the other chances? They broke the rules outright? Surely there would have been penalties. Ferrari of course is still in some ways above "normal teams", but not enough to get out of breaking rules.
You haven't made a suggestion about what the FIA could possibly not want to be public about the way Ferrari did things. That's the part that makes your theory hard to believe, because I can't think of anything.
A more likely scenario is that Ferrari broke the rules but the FIA screwed up with advice that they gave them or their understanding. So they didn't have a legal car, but aren't entirely to blame. The FIA don't think it's fair to punish them with completely stripping them of points / prize money, which is likely what the other teams would push for, but also don't want Ferrari to have all of their benefits of illegal running. That theory could also explain why both parties are also committing to work together to help with monitoring etc.
I just found this possible explanation of what Ferrari was doing via r/formula1: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21958&p=878972#p878972
Fascinating. I'd heard that Ferrari were using favorable (i.e., underreporting) fuel flow sensors, but I somehow forgot that the FIA knows how much fuel is in the car, so you can't get away with just a sensor on the edge of tolerance to buy you a little extra fuel burn. The idea of a "valve or orifice" returning some fuel that had passed through the sensor back to the tank while off full throttle is devilishly clever (though still illegal). So you'd get greater than 100kg/h fuel flow at full throttle, and return the overconsumption at partial throttle, for a net legal fuel usage. No idea how they'd match full and partial throttle usage for varying race tracks under various caution conditions to arrive at the correct net amount of fuel.
There's still the other theory ("why not both?") that they were getting some (engine or intercooler) oil into the mix post-sensor ("Get in there, oil mix!"). Surely they were doing something if they're actually down on power this year (per Binotto).
DAS is weird in that you'd think someone would have thought of it before. I wonder how much aero benefit there is to narrowing the tire profile. Maybe the wheels don't count as moveable aero devices because that's not their only/primary purpose? It's easier for me to buy DAS as more for qually tire prep than top speed, though I thought tire temp problems were typically overheating rears.
I can't wait to see if Red Bull can challenge Merc, how Albon and Ocon compare to their teammates, and how Sainz and Norris stack up in equally reliable cars. I can't wait to stop rooting for Ferrari as an underdog to challenge another team's dominance, but can I root for Verstappen if he keeps getting away with dodgy moves? Eh.
Fascinating. I'd heard that Ferrari were using favorable (i.e., underreporting) fuel flow sensors, but I somehow forgot that the FIA knows how much fuel is in the car, so you can't get away with just a sensor on the edge of tolerance to buy you a little extra fuel burn. The idea of a "valve or orifice" returning some fuel that had passed through the sensor back to the tank while off full throttle is devilishly clever (though still illegal). So you'd get greater than 100kg/h fuel flow at full throttle, and return the overconsumption at partial throttle, for a net legal fuel usage. No idea how they'd match full and partial throttle usage for varying race tracks under various caution conditions to arrive at the correct net amount of fuel.
There's still the other theory ("why not both?") that they were getting some (engine or intercooler) oil into the mix post-sensor ("Get in there, oil mix!"). Surely they were doing something if they're actually down on power this year (per Binotto).
DAS is weird in that you'd think someone would have thought of it before. I wonder how much aero benefit there is to narrowing the tire profile. Maybe the wheels don't count as moveable aero devices because that's not their only/primary purpose? It's easier for me to buy DAS as more for qually tire prep than top speed, though I thought tire temp problems were typically overheating rears.
I can't wait to see if Red Bull can challenge Merc, how Albon and Ocon compare to their teammates, and how Sainz and Norris stack up in equally reliable cars. I can't wait to stop rooting for Ferrari as an underdog to challenge another team's dominance, but can I root for Verstappen if he keeps getting away with dodgy moves? Eh.
Last edited:
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-statem...0tybV3d37oXm9hCQnbTnyJLuqC77sw9ZEX12IfviLkumQ
tl;dr: FIA investigated, wasn't fully satisfied with Ferrari's answers, but at the same time believes it would be impossible to prove they broke the rules (also no-one likes long court cases when you think you won't end up winning it)
tl;dr: FIA investigated, wasn't fully satisfied with Ferrari's answers, but at the same time believes it would be impossible to prove they broke the rules (also no-one likes long court cases when you think you won't end up winning it)
Not sure this is going to be the end of it. I don't think the teams will be happy with a situation where you can have something on the car that allows you to break the rules as long as no-one can prove it is being used.
Eh, Red Bull got away with admittedly breaking the rules with their flexible front wings not too long ago (okay, it feels like ages). Another team boss said that in the team principles meeting Horner basically gloated about getting away with it for five races.
I find myself pretty sanguine about this if I think that every team is pushing the rules until they break. It’s just more unseemly that a team that’s already got a $70M annual head start on everyone else is doing it.
Something like the Astros cheating in baseball, a sport that emphasizes skill (to say nothing of the steroid era, in which people like ARod got $250M contracts that couldn’t be voided), is much worse, IMO.
Heck, even my hope that intra-team fights are fair was dispelled once I found out that Red Bull would give the guy who qualified better the higher spec engine (everything has tolerances). Ricciardo probably left mostly because he thought Verstappen was getting away with murder but maybe partly because he thought he would always be at a slight qualifying disadvantage.
I find myself pretty sanguine about this if I think that every team is pushing the rules until they break. It’s just more unseemly that a team that’s already got a $70M annual head start on everyone else is doing it.
Something like the Astros cheating in baseball, a sport that emphasizes skill (to say nothing of the steroid era, in which people like ARod got $250M contracts that couldn’t be voided), is much worse, IMO.
Heck, even my hope that intra-team fights are fair was dispelled once I found out that Red Bull would give the guy who qualified better the higher spec engine (everything has tolerances). Ricciardo probably left mostly because he thought Verstappen was getting away with murder but maybe partly because he thought he would always be at a slight qualifying disadvantage.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Seven teams write to FIA over Ferrari engine controversy
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51762454
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51777658
Just a heads up that F1 2018 is in Xbox Game Pass (console and PC, each of which have regular ~$1 a month offers, at least in the USA), and F1 2019 is in the March Humble Choice (currently $15 for 3 or $20 for 9 Steam games from a list of 10+—ask someone you know for a referral code if it’s your first subscription). I’ve been watching F1 since 2012 and only really learned Australia by driving it in F1 2016 or 2017, in case anyone else here prefers learning by doing.
Alternatively, Gran Turismo Sport has Barcelona, Interlagos, Monza, Red Bull Ring, Spa and Suzuka and the ~2017 Mercedes (which you’ll have to buy or win in-game).
Just a heads up that F1 2018 is in Xbox Game Pass (console and PC, each of which have regular ~$1 a month offers, at least in the USA), and F1 2019 is in the March Humble Choice (currently $15 for 3 or $20 for 9 Steam games from a list of 10+—ask someone you know for a referral code if it’s your first subscription). I’ve been watching F1 since 2012 and only really learned Australia by driving it in F1 2016 or 2017, in case anyone else here prefers learning by doing.
Alternatively, Gran Turismo Sport has Barcelona, Interlagos, Monza, Red Bull Ring, Spa and Suzuka and the ~2017 Mercedes (which you’ll have to buy or win in-game).
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de...-australien-2020-das-system-red-bull-protest/
Mercedes has to change their rear brake ducts, as FIA issued new guidance after challenge from Red Bull. Also at least Red Bull is ready to question DAS's legality in Melbourne.
Mercedes has to change their rear brake ducts, as FIA issued new guidance after challenge from Red Bull. Also at least Red Bull is ready to question DAS's legality in Melbourne.
McLaren has announced they won't take part in Australian GP due confirmed Corona case within the team.
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/team/mclaren-racing-withdraws-2020-formula-1-australian-grand-prix/
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/team/mclaren-racing-withdraws-2020-formula-1-australian-grand-prix/
yeah i think the f1 group has to take responsibility now that we have a pandemic (as stated by the who (wont get fooled again!))
postpone/cancel events or run them without spectators - only media
but still a risk
luxury has to give in times like these
postpone/cancel events or run them without spectators - only media
but still a risk
luxury has to give in times like these
