Ferrari: Enginegate
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
My reading of that is that Hughes is not saying that Ferrari did not try to circumvent the fuel flow regulations, ie cheat, but that any changes to make the engine legal were not the cause of the rather dramatic loss of performance.
Was there really a dramatic loss of performance though? As others pointed out way before this article one Ferrari was out from the start and the other had an old engine. Before that, given the nature of the track, they were doing fine.Why people have to jump to conclusions so soon is beyond me. Brazil will make things far clearer.
Kraken said:
Was there really a dramatic loss of performance though? As others pointed out way before this article one Ferrari was out from the start and the other had an old engine. Before that, given the nature of the track, they were doing fine.
Why people have to jump to conclusions so soon is beyond me. Brazil will make things far clearer.
People love a conspiracy theory! And to be fair.. FOM are pretty happy to let the theories run wild, creates plenty of chatter around the sport Why people have to jump to conclusions so soon is beyond me. Brazil will make things far clearer.
Even if it's all complete nonsense.
Kraken said:
Was there really a dramatic loss of performance though? As others pointed out way before this article one Ferrari was out from the start and the other had an old engine. Before that, given the nature of the track, they were doing fine.
Why people have to jump to conclusions so soon is beyond me. Brazil will make things far clearer.
Two things:Why people have to jump to conclusions so soon is beyond me. Brazil will make things far clearer.
1/ The performance of the red cars was sub par, right from the start of the race. Compare Mexico to Austin at the start. The one minute difference between the top cars needs to take into consideration the late pit stop, but from being the car to beat in the previous races, to being the best of the rest and having to try for the one point of fastest lap, is a significant drop in performance.
2/ Brazil might not clear up anything as Ferrari will have had time to make changes, something which was denied them in Austin. However, if their performance is still a pale imitation of where they were just a few weeks back, then there must be a reason.
That all teams push the envelope is a given; it's more of a requirement. That some go beyond the acceptable is also hardly unknown. However, the coincidence between the 'clarification' and the drop of performance is too much to put down to an old engine. Ferrari are the masters of the excuse.
If you look at the way the two cars powered away from the line at Mexico, you've got to accept that it was an impressive display of power. Yet a Red Bull was second into the first corner at Austin. Something changed.
Derek Smith said:
Two things:
1/ The performance of the red cars was sub par, right from the start of the race. Compare Mexico to Austin at the start. The one minute difference between the top cars needs to take into consideration the late pit stop, but from being the car to beat in the previous races, to being the best of the rest and having to try for the one point of fastest lap, is a significant drop in performance.
2/ Brazil might not clear up anything as Ferrari will have had time to make changes, something which was denied them in Austin. However, if their performance is still a pale imitation of where they were just a few weeks back, then there must be a reason.
That all teams push the envelope is a given; it's more of a requirement. That some go beyond the acceptable is also hardly unknown. However, the coincidence between the 'clarification' and the drop of performance is too much to put down to an old engine. Ferrari are the masters of the excuse.
If you look at the way the two cars powered away from the line at Mexico, you've got to accept that it was an impressive display of power. Yet a Red Bull was second into the first corner at Austin. Something changed.
Are you suggesting that they only had this bent engine for Mexico, because they were beaten off the line by both Mercedes and a Redbull in Suzuka?1/ The performance of the red cars was sub par, right from the start of the race. Compare Mexico to Austin at the start. The one minute difference between the top cars needs to take into consideration the late pit stop, but from being the car to beat in the previous races, to being the best of the rest and having to try for the one point of fastest lap, is a significant drop in performance.
2/ Brazil might not clear up anything as Ferrari will have had time to make changes, something which was denied them in Austin. However, if their performance is still a pale imitation of where they were just a few weeks back, then there must be a reason.
That all teams push the envelope is a given; it's more of a requirement. That some go beyond the acceptable is also hardly unknown. However, the coincidence between the 'clarification' and the drop of performance is too much to put down to an old engine. Ferrari are the masters of the excuse.
If you look at the way the two cars powered away from the line at Mexico, you've got to accept that it was an impressive display of power. Yet a Red Bull was second into the first corner at Austin. Something changed.
Conspiracy theories indeed.
Derek Smith said:
Two things:
1/ The performance of the red cars was sub par, right from the start of the race. Compare Mexico to Austin at the start. The one minute difference between the top cars needs to take into consideration the late pit stop, but from being the car to beat in the previous races, to being the best of the rest and having to try for the one point of fastest lap, is a significant drop in performance.
2/ Brazil might not clear up anything as Ferrari will have had time to make changes, something which was denied them in Austin. However, if their performance is still a pale imitation of where they were just a few weeks back, then there must be a reason.
That all teams push the envelope is a given; it's more of a requirement. That some go beyond the acceptable is also hardly unknown. However, the coincidence between the 'clarification' and the drop of performance is too much to put down to an old engine. Ferrari are the masters of the excuse.
If you look at the way the two cars powered away from the line at Mexico, you've got to accept that it was an impressive display of power. Yet a Red Bull was second into the first corner at Austin. Something changed.
They've spent a significant part of this season being best of the rest, it's nothing new. It was a striking contrast to the previous couple of races but only because they'd come from circuits that suit their car to a circuit their car was hopeless at.1/ The performance of the red cars was sub par, right from the start of the race. Compare Mexico to Austin at the start. The one minute difference between the top cars needs to take into consideration the late pit stop, but from being the car to beat in the previous races, to being the best of the rest and having to try for the one point of fastest lap, is a significant drop in performance.
2/ Brazil might not clear up anything as Ferrari will have had time to make changes, something which was denied them in Austin. However, if their performance is still a pale imitation of where they were just a few weeks back, then there must be a reason.
That all teams push the envelope is a given; it's more of a requirement. That some go beyond the acceptable is also hardly unknown. However, the coincidence between the 'clarification' and the drop of performance is too much to put down to an old engine. Ferrari are the masters of the excuse.
If you look at the way the two cars powered away from the line at Mexico, you've got to accept that it was an impressive display of power. Yet a Red Bull was second into the first corner at Austin. Something changed.
The Ferrari is an erratic performer because it's a one function tool - it's stupidly fast down the straights. The Mercedes and red bull are more consummate all rounders and thus throw up less 'shock' results.
Austin was never a good track for this season's Ferrari. Add in the fact they had to alter their ideal setup to cope with the bumps... Their race was over before it began.
REALIST123 said:
Are you suggesting that they only had this bent engine for Mexico, because they were beaten off the line by both Mercedes and a Redbull in Suzuka?
Conspiracy theories indeed.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I suggested any conspiracies. Conspiracy theories indeed.
If you think Ferrari (or any other team come to that) don't cheat by ignoring the regulations, then fair enough. I think you are wrong, and I think there's enough evidence around to back me up.
I know coincidences happen. However, mostly things happen for a reason.
We have Ferrari being, as I said, the team to beat for a number of races. They improved no end in a short time. Such things happen, but infrequently nowadays with the regs being so restrictive. There was a reason for the request for the 'clarification'. Such ploys have been used in the past to remove what other teams might believe is an unfair advantage. There are sufficient examples of this. If RB thought it advantageous to ask for this clarification, and I doubt they did it mischievously as this would upset the FIA, then I'm willing to accept their, and that of the FIA, knowledge of the inside of the sport, something denied me.
Immediately after the clarification, and an impressively unambiguous one at that, the Ferrari performance advantage appears to disappear. That much is evident.
To think these two might be connected doesn't require any conspiracy theories. Obviously not. I didn't suggest there was one. Obviously not.
My point is clear I think.
To counter such a conclusion, one must suggest a reason for the Ferrari sudden unexplained surge in power for the post-break part of the season, the RB challenge and the rather lacklustre performance at a circuit that many suggested was going to be a gift for Ferrari. Saying it was an old engine, or that there someone suggested a conspiracy (when they didn't) is not going to cut it.
It’s all b
ks, the Ferrari is a low downforce minimum drag, straight line machine, & we’ve known this since Melbourne, the vision has not changed.
They were running Monaco/Mexico downforce, just to be somewhat competitive in sector 3 in COTA.
Spec 2 power units were run in USA, as they had no chance at all (on race pace), in fact it’s probably the worst all round track for them this season, however..
Seb, somehow did a wonder lap (and he’s pretty useful round there if you look at the stats), and got within 11/1000th’s of pole...
Merc has the PU turned right down, Red bull cant cope with ‘bumps’..now Ferrari are competitive (almost by accident).
Anyway...Max and Red Bull have burnt through 6/7 power units while Ferrari 3.
Poles..
Wins..
Can some one fill in the gaps?
ks, the Ferrari is a low downforce minimum drag, straight line machine, & we’ve known this since Melbourne, the vision has not changed.They were running Monaco/Mexico downforce, just to be somewhat competitive in sector 3 in COTA.
Spec 2 power units were run in USA, as they had no chance at all (on race pace), in fact it’s probably the worst all round track for them this season, however..
Seb, somehow did a wonder lap (and he’s pretty useful round there if you look at the stats), and got within 11/1000th’s of pole...
Merc has the PU turned right down, Red bull cant cope with ‘bumps’..now Ferrari are competitive (almost by accident).
Anyway...Max and Red Bull have burnt through 6/7 power units while Ferrari 3.
Poles..
Wins..
Can some one fill in the gaps?
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I suggested any conspiracies.
If you think Ferrari (or any other team come to that) don't cheat by ignoring the regulations, then fair enough. I think you are wrong, and I think there's enough evidence around to back me up.
I know coincidences happen. However, mostly things happen for a reason.
We have Ferrari being, as I said, the team to beat for a number of races. They improved no end in a short time. Such things happen, but infrequently nowadays with the regs being so restrictive. There was a reason for the request for the 'clarification'. Such ploys have been used in the past to remove what other teams might believe is an unfair advantage. There are sufficient examples of this. If RB thought it advantageous to ask for this clarification, and I doubt they did it mischievously as this would upset the FIA, then I'm willing to accept their, and that of the FIA, knowledge of the inside of the sport, something denied me.
Immediately after the clarification, and an impressively unambiguous one at that, the Ferrari performance advantage appears to disappear. That much is evident.
To think these two might be connected doesn't require any conspiracy theories. Obviously not. I didn't suggest there was one. Obviously not.
My point is clear I think.
To counter such a conclusion, one must suggest a reason for the Ferrari sudden unexplained surge in power for the post-break part of the season, the RB challenge and the rather lacklustre performance at a circuit that many suggested was going to be a gift for Ferrari. Saying it was an old engine, or that there someone suggested a conspiracy (when they didn't) is not going to cut it.
Cheating does happen. But that doesn't mean it's happening in this instance.If you think Ferrari (or any other team come to that) don't cheat by ignoring the regulations, then fair enough. I think you are wrong, and I think there's enough evidence around to back me up.
I know coincidences happen. However, mostly things happen for a reason.
We have Ferrari being, as I said, the team to beat for a number of races. They improved no end in a short time. Such things happen, but infrequently nowadays with the regs being so restrictive. There was a reason for the request for the 'clarification'. Such ploys have been used in the past to remove what other teams might believe is an unfair advantage. There are sufficient examples of this. If RB thought it advantageous to ask for this clarification, and I doubt they did it mischievously as this would upset the FIA, then I'm willing to accept their, and that of the FIA, knowledge of the inside of the sport, something denied me.
Immediately after the clarification, and an impressively unambiguous one at that, the Ferrari performance advantage appears to disappear. That much is evident.
To think these two might be connected doesn't require any conspiracy theories. Obviously not. I didn't suggest there was one. Obviously not.
My point is clear I think.
To counter such a conclusion, one must suggest a reason for the Ferrari sudden unexplained surge in power for the post-break part of the season, the RB challenge and the rather lacklustre performance at a circuit that many suggested was going to be a gift for Ferrari. Saying it was an old engine, or that there someone suggested a conspiracy (when they didn't) is not going to cut it.
The bit you're getting lost on is the 'sudden surge of power'. But you can't see power, all you can see is speed. And power is just part of the speed equation.
The power to weight ratio of an F1 car is such that they could approach 300mph if that was the only goal. Of course, it is not the goal though, overall lap pace is the goal. Ferrari have not judged that balance quite as well as Mercedes, so their car fluctuates between being the car to beat on tracks which suit it, and a no hoper on those that do not.
Everything that is required to explain their varying performance is already fully out in the open. There doesn't need to be anything else to uncover, it's all already making complete sense. Next season they will likely move closer to Mercedes car philosophy and we can hopefully enjoy a more sustained and consistent battle from them.
Edited by TheDeuce on Monday 11th November 20:28
It seems to me the answer is more likely to be a combination of factors, rather than trying to say it's all one thing or another.
It seems accepted up and down the grid that Ferrari have the most powerful power unit, especially in qualifying mode and in short bursts during the race. It also appears accepted that Ferrari have a more efficient aero package.
It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the sudden change in form could be from both chassis setup and the engine.
Ferrari, like any team accused of unfair advantage, will seek to distance itself from the accusation. The others, excasberated at their slow speed on the straights, will point the finger.
We'll soon see in S3 Brazil whether Ferrari blitz the opposition.
It seems accepted up and down the grid that Ferrari have the most powerful power unit, especially in qualifying mode and in short bursts during the race. It also appears accepted that Ferrari have a more efficient aero package.
It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the sudden change in form could be from both chassis setup and the engine.
Ferrari, like any team accused of unfair advantage, will seek to distance itself from the accusation. The others, excasberated at their slow speed on the straights, will point the finger.
We'll soon see in S3 Brazil whether Ferrari blitz the opposition.
jsf said:
janesmith1950 said:
It also appears accepted that Ferrari have a more efficient aero package.
It most certainly is not.Dont mix up drag with drag:lift ratio.
Ferrari run lower drag, but their efficiency is behind red bull and Mercedes.
Not more efficient, just more singular in purpose than the approach of Mercedes and Red Bull.
TheDeuce said:
Cheating does happen. But that doesn't mean it's happening in this instance.
The bit you're getting lost on is the 'sudden surge of power'. But you can't see power, all you can see is speed. And power is just part of the speed equation.
The power to weight ratio of an F1 car is such that they could approach 300mph if that was the only goal. Of course, it is not the goal though, overall lap pace is the goal. Ferrari have not judged that balance quite as well as Mercedes, so their car fluctuates between being the car to beat on tracks which suit it, and a no hoper on those that do not.
Everything that is required to explain their varying performance is already fully out in the open. There doesn't need to be anything else to uncover, it's all already making complete sense. Next season they will likely move closer to Mercedes car philosophy and we can hopefully enjoy a more sustained and consistent battle from them.
The increase in performance over a series of differing circuits; the request for clarification of the regs; Ferrari nowhere. If their performance had been varying then OK, but there were none. Ferrari shot to the front. Then went backwards. The likely explanation is not that Austin, which was suggested to be a Ferrari favourite, suddenly became different. The RB overtook a couple of Ferraris on the first lap, if memory serves. Went around the outside of a corner as if it was a Williams (no offence Frank). The bit you're getting lost on is the 'sudden surge of power'. But you can't see power, all you can see is speed. And power is just part of the speed equation.
The power to weight ratio of an F1 car is such that they could approach 300mph if that was the only goal. Of course, it is not the goal though, overall lap pace is the goal. Ferrari have not judged that balance quite as well as Mercedes, so their car fluctuates between being the car to beat on tracks which suit it, and a no hoper on those that do not.
Everything that is required to explain their varying performance is already fully out in the open. There doesn't need to be anything else to uncover, it's all already making complete sense. Next season they will likely move closer to Mercedes car philosophy and we can hopefully enjoy a more sustained and consistent battle from them.
Edited by TheDeuce on Monday 11th November 20:28
Latest technical directive
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/11947087257659...
Honda and Merc pulling at straws..
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/11947087257659...
Honda and Merc pulling at straws..
Deesee said:
Latest technical directive
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/11947087257659...
Honda and Merc pulling at straws..
That's a fairly broad and effective directive! Make you wonder why the regs were left somewhat open to interpretation before hand.https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/11947087257659...
Honda and Merc pulling at straws..
I doubt Honda & Merc think there is really anything quite like that going on, nor Red Bull with their sensor trickery theory - but alas, there is always an extreme outside possibility I suppose, and they could all look pretty silly if they didn't arrange for such doors to be shut just in case.
I'm very much hoping in Brazil to see the Ferrari's (or at least Vettel's, I think Leclerc will be in a firm support role, offering a couple of tow's!) do well, and perhaps convince a few more people that their up-down speed at different circuits is likely down to factors other than theories of cheating, or stopping cheating. In this instance at least.
I'm thinking As Leclerc's qualifying effort is somewhat pointless this week, he'll be taking one for the team and helping Vettel, who should be able to take pole here without any help, and I can't see how he can fail if he is gifted a tow.
Speaking of Brazil, still no thread for it??
Exige77 said:
Still some covering of arses. It's a can of worms though... I doubt that Ferrari are more likely than any other team to have dabbled with a few 'additives'. 
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff