Ferrari Power Unit Hardware & Software

[djones]

F1 is a business and businesses value reputation over full disclosure. Publically saying Ferrari cheated and removing points would have been bad for both Ferrari and F1 so it was never going to happen. The statement is as close as it gets though and probably enough to appease the other teams to a certain extent.

The most embarrassing thing for Ferrari is even when cheating they lost both championships and by a considerable margin

Whatever the cheating was they really should have saved it for 2021 then people would have thought it was clever aero or something.

I'm not sure about the new engine and turbo story. A lot would have probably changed anyway, just like Mercedes has a 'new engine' this year too.

As much as LM10 and I are going to hate saying this, 2020 will be 3rd in the WCC at best. Maybe even 4th as we cannot forget the W10 is on the grid too!!

[bosyber]

About the Penalty

The bit about Ferrari offering to assist the FIA in their road safety efforts and research into CO2 reduction is code for big fine (AMuS says it as "could easily fit an 8 digit sum" - not quite Spygate's 100 million, but not just a small percentage of it either).

And, again per AMuS, if they really had to revise how their complete PU is optimized (as it was for, likely, using more fuel than allowed) and that leads them to now having less power than last year (until at least 2nd PU spec), that's a big sporting penalty which might ultimately cost them a lot more, in FOM money and marketing (compare Spygate, where McLaren could effectively still use all they learned).

Why the FIA came out this way? Well, Mercedes and Red Bull/Honda were quite sure about what was going on, and the status of the inquiry, so the FIA had to say something, but minimized it, and released it at a time when questions, in person, have to wait till Melbourne in two weeks. (I think the article might well be informed by dr. Marko's (and Toto Wolff's) view as AMuS tends to have close ties there, and that might color it, but it still gives some interesting insight)

[OO7]

5.10.5 "Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited."

Despite the tech regs stating a 100kg/h limit, Ferrari perhaps thought it fair game to exploit inherent system tolerances within the fuel flow meters, considering the only measuring reference to 100kg/h is the FF meter.

I see potential ambiguity because the accelerator pedal increases the flow rate.
A more robust statement in my opinion would be: "Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point and or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited."

[Mr.G]

About the Penalty

The bit about Ferrari offering to assist the FIA in their road safety efforts and research into CO2 reduction is code for big fine (AMuS says it as "could easily fit an 8 digit sum" - not quite Spygate's 100 million, but not just a small percentage of it either).

And, again per AMuS, if they really had to revise how their complete PU is optimized (as it was for, likely, using more fuel than allowed) and that leads them to now having less power than last year (until at least 2nd PU spec), that's a big sporting penalty which might ultimately cost them a lot more, in FOM money and marketing (compare Spygate, where McLaren could effectively still use all they learned).

Why the FIA came out this way? Well, Mercedes and Red Bull/Honda were quite sure about what was going on, and the status of the inquiry, so the FIA had to say something, but minimized it, and released it at a time when questions, in person, have to wait till Melbourne in two weeks. (I think the article might well be informed by dr. Marko's (and Toto Wolff's) view as AMuS tends to have close ties there, and that might color it, but it still gives some interesting insight)

I'm not native speaker, but I understand it in this way:

The FIA and Scuderia Ferrari have agreed to a number of technical commitments that
- will improve the monitoring of all Formula 1 Power Units for forthcoming championship seasons
- will assist the FIA in other regulatory duties in Formula 1
- will assist in its research activities on carbon emissions and sustainable fuels.

For me the text say they agreed on technical commitments and those commitments will serve those three purposes... So no fee just cooperation...

It may be also be understood like:

The FIA and Scuderia Ferrari have
- agreed to a number of technical commitments that will improve the monitoring of all Formula 1 Power Units for forthcoming championship seasons
- agreed to Ferrari will assist the FIA in other regulatory duties in Formula 1
- agreed to Ferrari will assist in its research activities on carbon emissions and sustainable fuels.

Here it would be a fee... But I'm not sure if it should have this meaning...

[kimetic]

About the Penalty

The bit about Ferrari offering to assist the FIA in their road safety efforts and research into CO2 reduction is code for big fine (AMuS says it as "could easily fit an 8 digit sum" - not quite Spygate's 100 million, but not just a small percentage of it either).

And, again per AMuS, if they really had to revise how their complete PU is optimized (as it was for, likely, using more fuel than allowed) and that leads them to now having less power than last year (until at least 2nd PU spec), that's a big sporting penalty which might ultimately cost them a lot more, in FOM money and marketing (compare Spygate, where McLaren could effectively still use all they learned).

Why the FIA came out this way? Well, Mercedes and Red Bull/Honda were quite sure about what was going on, and the status of the inquiry, so the FIA had to say something, but minimized it, and released it at a time when questions, in person, have to wait till Melbourne in two weeks. (I think the article might well be informed by dr. Marko's (and Toto Wolff's) view as AMuS tends to have close ties there, and that might color it, but it still gives some interesting insight)

You can't compare it with Spygate, that was one guy trying to get three trivial leaked items into development and not succeeding. This Ferrari thing was an institutional policy.

And indeed FIA have tried to minimise it and bury it, as opposed to staging a media circus complete with court case drama.

Ferrari's engine department got completely carried away, clearly. And to Jean Todt's credit, they underestimated his integrity it seems, even if it's a bit fudged.

[Zynerji]

I would fire any engineer that wasn't trying to break the rules and get away with it.

That concept, above all others, is a foundational block of F1's DNA.

[bosyber]

I only mentioned Spygate because I saw some comments about how Ferrari got away with cheating here, without a penalty.

I think the settlement likely means the FIA didn't have a solid enough case to risk Ferrari taking them to court over a public fine/big post-2019-season sporting penalty, and/or was wary of having their processes and the sport itself under a lengthy legal, thus public and negative light, while Ferrari are aware they were being shifty and do not want to have the embarrassment of such a court case dragging along either nor do they want details of their PU on display.

Anyway, I do think it settles some questions about last year's performance, and also holds some answers for Ferrari being unhappy about their PU for the early stages of this season.

Edited to add:
Mr. G while not a native speaker either, I am certain your second interpretation is the correct one, both linguistically, and logically. That bit of the statement is typical of a settlement where one party is compensated without the other admitting guilt.

Wherever you put the agree part, how do you think Ferrari would do this bit:

- will assist in its research activities on carbon emissions and sustainable fuels

In any way but by spending money on it so the FIA gets its wish that more is done in that respect? Ferrari F1 have no sporting use for it, after all.

[kimetic]

I only mentioned Spygate because I saw some comments about how Ferrari got away with cheating here, without a penalty.

I think the settlement likely means the FIA didn't have a solid enough case to risk Ferrari taking them to court over a public fine/big post-2019-season sporting penalty, and/or was wary of having their processes and the sport itself under a lengthy legal, thus public and negative light, while Ferrari are aware they were being shifty and do not want to have the embarrassment of such a court case dragging along either nor do they want details of their PU on display.

Anyway, I do think it settles some questions about last year's performance, and also holds some answers for Ferrari being unhappy about their PU for the early stages of this season.

Fair enough, and yes it does answer some questions.

I really doubt the sport would absolutely nail Ferrari whatever they did. The worse their crime, the bigger would be the incentive to cover it up. Presumably this was Ferrari's calculation. So I don't think this watery penalty tells us anything about what was or wasn't on the car, and how bang to rights they were caught, it's kind of the most and least FIA could do, whatever it was for. But now they are clean, I think we can believe.

[Oehrly]

I would fire any engineer that wasn't trying to break the rules and get away with it.

That concept, above all others, is a foundational block of F1's DNA.

? So you want to know who is best cheater? Great..

No, I think he means it more like in pushing the boundaries of the grey area.
F1 has always been about that. The "Fan Car", blown diffusers/wings, flexing rear wing mounts, Ferrari's engine and Mercedes' DAS now. Just to name a few.

[Giblet]

I would fire any engineer that wasn't trying to break the rules and get away with it.

That concept, above all others, is a foundational block of F1's DNA.

There is a big difference between interpreting a rule book, and cheating.

So if an engineer figured out a way to beat an FIA security seal on an engine, and break in at night to replace parts on it, that would be OK with you? Or say, steal the design off the network of a competitor?

Obviously there has to be a line, and there IS a rule they can pull out when need be for almost any occasion, called "bringing the sport into disrepute".

This is still a sport, not a free for all.

[RZS10]

Is anyone actually surprised?

This is the closest we could possibly ever get to an actual confirmation that Ferrari's engine wasn't quite legal.

[bill shoe]

Can't wait for next year's Drive to Survive series on Neflix. The Ferrari Power Unit episode will feature a 3 minute introduction followed by a 27 minutes of snow & static due to the private agreement.

[Edax]

Ok,

It would be wrong of me not to say anything after all the preaching last year regarding keeping away from accusations.

I personally have difficulties coming to terms with this. I don't even know why the FIA brought it out like that; they should have known that that message could only lead to massive speculation, reputation damage to them and ferrari (justified or not) and even damage to the sport's integrity (again justified or not).

So I'm not going to bother with all the implications. I'm also going to ask in a very understanding way, again, to you guys to not hurl accusations of cheating, just like that. I know there's now a reasonable argument to do that. However, it will still not contribute to this thread. So please, discuss the hardware and where you might think Ferrari went illegal or in a grey area of the rules. I think that is much more intrigueing disccussions altogether.

Just a thought. Again, I myself am baffled by this. And I honestly hope, call it naivity if you want, that this is nothing more than a clumsy press release from the FIA. Because frankly speaking, the implications otherwise would be a reason to consider not viewing the sport anymore for me personally.

But consider the alternative? Now you have some muttering about FIA being “clumsy”. Say they would have taken a hard line and taken Ferrari’s points. That would mean they had to take away their podia and award them to the other teams. Which then had to renegotiate the bonusses of their drivers as well as their receipts from the F1 income. The thing would have dragged on till halfway this season. Better to take part of the hit, and finish this quick, the FIA would much rather be called “clumsy” than “clowns”.

The timing and the talk about a complete engine overhaul makes me suspicious, though. I can’t imagine that an engine architecture is so affected by a bit of additional fuel flow. Could it be that the FIA due to Fuelgate took a deeper look at the engine and came across some items it didn’t like?

[zokipirlo]

Ok,

It would be wrong of me not to say anything after all the preaching last year regarding keeping away from accusations.

I personally have difficulties coming to terms with this. I don't even know why the FIA brought it out like that; they should have known that that message could only lead to massive speculation, reputation damage to them and ferrari (justified or not) and even damage to the sport's integrity (again justified or not).

So I'm not going to bother with all the implications. I'm also going to ask in a very understanding way, again, to you guys to not hurl accusations of cheating, just like that. I know there's now a reasonable argument to do that. However, it will still not contribute to this thread. So please, discuss the hardware and where you might think Ferrari went illegal or in a grey area of the rules. I think that is much more intrigueing disccussions altogether.

Just a thought. Again, I myself am baffled by this. And I honestly hope, call it naivity if you want, that this is nothing more than a clumsy press release from the FIA. Because frankly speaking, the implications otherwise would be a reason to consider not viewing the sport anymore for me personally.

But consider the alternative? Now you have some muttering about FIA being “clumsy”. Say they would have taken a hard line and taken Ferrari’s points. That would mean they had to take away their podia and award them to the other teams. Which then had to renegotiate the bonusses of their drivers as well as their receipts from the F1 income. The thing would have dragged on till halfway this season. Better to take part of the hit, and finish this quick, the FIA would much rather be called “clumsy” than “clowns”.

The timing and the talk about a complete engine overhaul makes me suspicious, though. I can’t imagine that an engine architecture is so affected by a bit of additional fuel flow. Could it be that the FIA due to Fuelgate took a deeper look at the engine and came across some items it didn’t like?

Don't forget that Mercedes rebuilt their engine too this year, why? I think it's preparing for engine freeze, and they are building now the best possible engine they can even on expense of some problems at start.
FIA can't penalise Ferrari because there was no official complaint about that, they were just questions for directives from other teams. Remember rim holes in Mercedes when FIA said it looks ok to them, but someone had to complain about that to inspect it and potentially penalise. And Mercedes rather not run them anymore.
It's hard to tell now if Ferrari was running in illegal configuration in races which passed. So they made some strange announcement which is a reminder for other manufacturers also that they will monitor more strictly now with better equipment, with help from Ferrari.

[saviour stivala]

“It is hard to tell now if FERRARI was running in illegal configuration in races which past”. That’s not correct, It is not possible because since the introduction of the fuel flow restriction rule in 2014 to this day, the FERRARI engine used by the FERRARI team and as supplied to customer teams is the only one out of the four makes on the grid that haven’t had track time and or finishing positions disqualified for breaching the fuel flow rules.