Ferrari: Enginegate

Ferrari: Enginegate

Author
Discussion

TheDeuce

7,810 posts

26 months

Friday 22nd November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
The history of Motorsport suggests not. Teams don't suddenly find half a second or more on the straights mid-season through regular means.

Also, Red Bull and others don't bang on about cheating unless they're pretty sure something untoward is going on.

But no, it's entirely because Ferrari had a crap aero first half and decided the solution was to push further in the same direction. Obviously...
half a second on some tracks, per lap. Not that much really as it's only based on their performance earlier on when they did have known problems.

I'm not suggesting they can find half a second easily. But they can stop throwing away half a second by fixing previous problems.

Suppose it is proven one way or another that they had not cheated - I'm sure with that knowledge you would look afresh at the performance gains and find another way of explaining them?

Graveworm

5,625 posts

31 months

Friday 22nd November 2019
quotequote all
FIA have sent another technical directive saying that teams need to add a second flow sensor.

C2Red

3,293 posts

213 months

Saturday 23rd November 2019
quotequote all
Let’s say, for arguments sake; that the engine package proves to be legal, that does not mean that any sensor has not been meddled with; for example, if it were I, I would run an interference cable in the removable bodywork, that you plugged in when required, but didn’t for part of the overall engine package.
Thus when you send the FIA your engine and cabling, ecu etc, nothing is found.
These are innovative, clever people, they obviously have ways and means of using the rules to their own best interest; besides there’s no Ferrari without fire/smoke.....

TheDeuce

7,810 posts

26 months

Saturday 23rd November 2019
quotequote all
C2Red said:
Let’s say, for arguments sake; that the engine package proves to be legal, that does not mean that any sensor has not been meddled with; for example, if it were I, I would run an interference cable in the removable bodywork, that you plugged in when required, but didn’t for part of the overall engine package.
Thus when you send the FIA your engine and cabling, ecu etc, nothing is found.
These are innovative, clever people, they obviously have ways and means of using the rules to their own best interest; besides there’s no Ferrari without fire/smoke.....
Using the rules? Breaking the rules surely!?

The sensor wasn't being interfered with in red bulls speculated scenario. The extra fuel, according to them, could be extracted in between the measurement cycles of the sensor. A trick that would require more than an 'interference cable'.

C2Red

3,293 posts

213 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
Duns said:
Apparently, there was fuel line confications. Any news from that?
Nothing new from me;


But aligning against my previous comments of static or dynamic, I remember issues on previous cars I owned for hoses internally collapsing and causing flow issues: perhaps a tech genius could engineer that to perform as a dynamic fuel store.
Wouldn’t that be trick.... we’ll it is in my mind

ghost83

4,094 posts

150 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
So what was ppl thinking that the sensor was behind a swirl pot of some description that then had a raised fuel supply limit but the fuel flow the the swirl pot was the correct amount?

I still don’t know what they’ve allegedly done

Krikkit

19,907 posts

141 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
ghost83 said:
So what was ppl thinking that the sensor was behind a swirl pot of some description that then had a raised fuel supply limit but the fuel flow the the swirl pot was the correct amount?

I still don’t know what they’ve allegedly done
No swirl pot, the thinking seems to be that you could either interfere with the sensor electrically, or pulse the actual fuel flow fractionally above that limit in-between measurement cycles, which run at 2kHz.

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me, but it's so far away from most people's engineering experience that I bet few people really would know without trying it.

C2Red

3,293 posts

213 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
ghost83 said:
So what was ppl thinking that the sensor was behind a swirl pot of some description that then had a raised fuel supply limit but the fuel flow the the swirl pot was the correct amount?

I still don’t know what they’ve allegedly done
No swirl pot, the thinking seems to be that you could either interfere with the sensor electrically, or pulse the actual fuel flow fractionally above that limit in-between measurement cycles, which run at 2kHz.

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me, but it's so far away from most people's engineering experience that I bet few people really would know without trying it.
For me, this is the interesting aspect; 2khz, plenty of opportunities; if PWM, the transition between values, on time values of the PWM, so many opportunities to fiddle. As someone who has been playing with electronics for a few years, it’s quite easy to manipulate a fairly low frequency signal in between the actual data...

TheDeuce

7,810 posts

26 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
C2Red said:
Krikkit said:
ghost83 said:
So what was ppl thinking that the sensor was behind a swirl pot of some description that then had a raised fuel supply limit but the fuel flow the the swirl pot was the correct amount?

I still don’t know what they’ve allegedly done
No swirl pot, the thinking seems to be that you could either interfere with the sensor electrically, or pulse the actual fuel flow fractionally above that limit in-between measurement cycles, which run at 2kHz.

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me, but it's so far away from most people's engineering experience that I bet few people really would know without trying it.
For me, this is the interesting aspect; 2khz, plenty of opportunities; if PWM, the transition between values, on time values of the PWM, so many opportunities to fiddle. As someone who has been playing with electronics for a few years, it’s quite easy to manipulate a fairly low frequency signal in between the actual data...
This is true. The sensor itself gives a pulse on the signal line each cycle, if that were monitored it could be used to time a fractional level of higher flow in-between. It's possible, no doubt.

Is it likely? No. For a variety of reasons. Most of all, it would be real cheating - not a slightly cheeky interpretation of the regs... It would be balls out cheating. The kind of cheating that would make the team look like bellends because they would effectively be admitting they don't know how to make a competitive car without cheating - a point amplified if they were to be found cheating and STILL got owned by Mercedes. Ferrari have certainly pulled a few not entirely sporting tricks over the decades in the name of their passion for racing and winning - but the key thing is they are passionate and I doubt very much they want to win races simply by finding an illegal way to use more fuel than anyone else. Not really 'winning', so not the path I would expect such passionate people to go down.

Their car is fast/slow/fast/slow because all season they have been battling against their own decision to build a car with lower down-force than was ideal for this season of F1.

janesmith1950

9,172 posts

55 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
They ran with visible barge boards bigger than the rules allow. The FIA let them off in an attempt to help them beat McLaren.

Do not underestimate the brass neck of teams or the ability of the regulator to choose when it enforces its own rules.

anonymous-user

14 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
Nowt like a conspiracy theory on a slow weekend, eh?

Flooble

2,411 posts

60 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
Just imagine what it's going to be like until March!

janesmith1950

9,172 posts

55 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
Nowt like a conspiracy theory on a slow weekend, eh?
Anyone who's followed Motorsport, right up to the top levels, knows cheating and attempting to cheat is endemic.

Option 13, Singapore crashes, Honda fuel tank, McLaren extra pedals, mass dampers, barge boards, the list goes on and on.

And the regulator. Well, McLaren were fined $100m for holding Ferrari's IP. Toyota employees, if I remember correctly, were jailed for the same thing. What did the FIA do to Toyota?

Bending the rules is part and parcel of the rules.

Denigrating the concept, that Ferrari might be bending the rules or that the regulator/promotor might enforce the rules as they see fit as 'conspiracy theory', is ignoring history as we know it.

Equally, Ferrari may have been ingenious and discovered performance from the power train that others simply haven't. If that's the case, fair play and well done to Honda for catching Ferrari so quickly.

jsf

19,758 posts

196 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
Honda fuel tank, McLaren extra pedals, mass dampers, barge boards, the list goes on and on.
Honda fuel tank was arguable, but deemed illegal.
McLaren extra pedals was legal at the time, just a smart system to use the brakes to turn the car, just like a trials car.
Mass dampers were legal at the time, they were banned under rather dubious reasons (moving aero)
Barge boards were legal and found legal upon protest.

jsf

19,758 posts

196 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
They ran with visible barge boards bigger than the rules allow. The FIA let them off in an attempt to help them beat McLaren.

Do not underestimate the brass neck of teams or the ability of the regulator to choose when it enforces its own rules.
Nope, they measured within spec using the tolerance the FIA allowed. That case led to the introduction of the granite scrutineering bay test platform.

Anyone serious about what they are doing uses the organisers test bay to check their car prior to the event, but if you get pulled up for something, it's within your rights to challenge the method of measuring, for example you can ask for the latest calibration certificate for the circuit weighing platform, if its out of date you can get their measurements thrown out.

janesmith1950

9,172 posts

55 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
jsf said:
Honda fuel tank was arguable, but deemed illegal.
McLaren extra pedals was legal at the time, just a smart system to use the brakes to turn the car, just like a trials car.
Mass dampers were legal at the time, they were banned under rather dubious reasons (moving aero)
Barge boards were legal and found legal upon protest.
Hence the point that teams push the envelope, sometimes breaking the rules purposely or inadvertantly and that the regulator has a fluid attitude towards the application of the rules.

Thank you.

Mercedes and Red Bull think Ferrari are at best pushing the envelope in a similar way to above. Are they suffering from conspiracy theories, are do they have a point?

jsf

19,758 posts

196 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
ence the point that teams push the envelope, sometimes breaking the rules purposely or inadvertantly and that the regulator has a fluid attitude towards the application of the rules.

Thank you.

Mercedes and Red Bull think Ferrari are at best pushing the envelope in a similar way to above. Are they suffering from conspiracy theories, are do they have a point?
That's not what i said. The organisers are not fluid with the rules, quite the opposite.

All the teams push the rules to the absolute limit, that is their job.If they breach them, they are found to be illegal.

You find more now than ever that any grey areas are closed using technical directives that are issued outside the main rule book, because the sport and the rules have become so complex.

It is much better now than it was under Balestre and Mosley. The FIA have been pretty consistent since Mosley left.

TheDeuce

7,810 posts

26 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
They ran with visible barge boards bigger than the rules allow. The FIA let them off in an attempt to help them beat McLaren.

Do not underestimate the brass neck of teams or the ability of the regulator to choose when it enforces its own rules.
That is different though, because its a cheat within the outer boundaries of the rules. It's cheeky, unfair, whatever. In my view, not acceptable but I can understand that from the general casual viewers point of view... They probably don't even know what the bargeboard is.

But fuel usage in modern F1 is a fixed thing. There is no difference between taking a short cut to make a lap quicker or using extra fuel to make a lap quicker. The fuel limit defines the field of battle just as much as as the track limits do. It's a very black and white area of the rules and it's absolutely not for breaking.

It's never a good idea to break the outline rules of a competition because, honestly, what are you competing for at that point? You won't have beaten anyone, not really.

And if they have been cheating... Why are they still losing!? At this stage in the evolution of this era the difference between top teams should be so tight as to easily be swung by a good old fashioned cheat! Have they taken an illegal advantage to cheat themselves to second place? A position they've held in any case all season before such rumours even began?


StevieBee

9,192 posts

215 months

Sunday 24th November 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
REALIST123 said:
Nowt like a conspiracy theory on a slow weekend, eh?
Anyone who's followed Motorsport, right up to the top levels, knows cheating and attempting to cheat is endemic.

Option 13, Singapore crashes, Honda fuel tank, McLaren extra pedals, mass dampers, barge boards, the list goes on and on.
"Cheating" is not always and rarely the correct term. Adrian Newey, in his book, talks of the design team pouring over the regulations each year to see what interpretations can be made of the rules to deliver competitive gain. This can lead to approaches that in Newey's words, ignore the sprit of the rules but there is not such thing as sprit of the rules; it is either allowed or it is not.

janesmith1950 said:
And the regulator. Well, McLaren were fined $100m for holding Ferrari's IP. Toyota employees, if I remember correctly, were jailed for the same thing. What did the FIA do to Toyota?
IIRC, the Toyota thing involved a criminal court as a charge of theft was brought so obviously the legal remedy extended to beyond the FIA. With McLaren, no criminal charges or prosecution took place and the FIA don't have the power to jail anyone (yet!).

Worth also noting that the FIA kicked Toyota out of WRC for fiddling with the turbo on the Rally Cars.


C2Red

3,293 posts

213 months

Monday 25th November 2019
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
janesmith1950 said:
They ran with visible barge boards bigger than the rules allow. The FIA let them off in an attempt to help them beat McLaren.

Do not underestimate the brass neck of teams or the ability of the regulator to choose when it enforces its own rules.
And if they have been cheating... Why are they still losing!? At this stage in the evolution of this era the difference between top teams should be so tight as to easily be swung by a good old fashioned cheat! Have they taken an illegal advantage to cheat themselves to second place? A position they've held in any case all season before such rumours even began?
Because perhaps if they are cheating they just aren’t that good with it.. you can still cheat and lose, don’t conflate cheating with winning; it’s not a given