Ferrari: Enginegate

Ferrari: Enginegate

Author
Discussion

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
C2Red said:
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
Well that's pretty much the point. Ferrari are excellent and we'll rehearsed cheaters. They are not about to cheat on such a fundamental level and risk looking like massive and obvious cheats if found out. Ferrari are good cheats, that's proven. What is being speculated here really is not a good cheat though.

37chevy

3,280 posts

104 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Well that's pretty much the point. Ferrari are excellent and we'll rehearsed cheaters. They are not about to cheat on such a fundamental level and risk looking like massive and obvious cheats if found out. Ferrari are good cheats, that's proven. What is being speculated here really is not a good cheat though.
Good but not so good that they’ve gotten away with it all the time...otherwise we wouldn’t know they were cheats ;-)

shirt

19,191 posts

149 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
jsf 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.
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.
The FIA bring their own equipment for all formulae. For the lower formulae they also have an entire stock of control parts for scrutineering purposes. Each part has accompanying manufacturing tolerance data for weight and dimensions.

For F1 it’s much more difficult for the circuit scrutineers to determine legalities outside of platform related measurements and simple rules such as parc ferme conditions. Hence why it takes several races for the FIA to understand what’s going on, often informed by other teams.


Edited by shirt on Monday 25th November 06:06

Megaflow

6,841 posts

173 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
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.
One of the best examples I have saw of that was the 750 Motor Club stock or hot hatch regulations. It said the standard factory suspension mounting points had to be unaltered. Nowhere did it say you had to use the standard factory mounting points however...

The guy that worked that out decided that would be taking the piss just a little too far!

hehe

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
37chevy said:
TheDeuce said:
Well that's pretty much the point. Ferrari are excellent and we'll rehearsed cheaters. They are not about to cheat on such a fundamental level and risk looking like massive and obvious cheats if found out. Ferrari are good cheats, that's proven. What is being speculated here really is not a good cheat though.
Good but not so good that they’ve gotten away with it all the time...otherwise we wouldn’t know they were cheats ;-)
Fair point smile

Seriously though, when they cheat it's not so much actual 'cheating', more like unfair advantages or leaning on their lofty position in F1 circles to make the sport suit their approach. Winning by being crafty and taking advantage is definitely a Ferrari thing, and that's fine because it's on brand - most drivers of Ferrari road cars have probably employed similar tactics to become successful at some point in their career...

But that's a world apart from winning by simply cheating their way around one of the sports fundamental rules. I think they're happy to be known as wily and caddish, but they don't want a reputation for only being faster than Mercedes by stealing extra fuel. That's not clever, it would just make them look sad/desperate.

In the end the red car has to appear fastest because it's a Ferrari. Not because it's effectively running a different race to everyone else.

SturdyHSV

6,724 posts

115 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Surely the most likely explanation is that they simply had time to learn before the break and time during it to implement several minor improvements that collectively showed a satisfying result.
One would hope during the 2 week FOM enforced factory shutdown they didn't find too much time to implement changes, as that would be cheating hehe

thegreenhell

6,300 posts

167 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
SturdyHSV said:
TheDeuce said:
Surely the most likely explanation is that they simply had time to learn before the break and time during it to implement several minor improvements that collectively showed a satisfying result.
One would hope during the 2 week FOM enforced factory shutdown they didn't find too much time to implement changes, as that would be cheating hehe
Engine development is exempt from that shutdown.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
SturdyHSV said:
TheDeuce said:
Surely the most likely explanation is that they simply had time to learn before the break and time during it to implement several minor improvements that collectively showed a satisfying result.
One would hope during the 2 week FOM enforced factory shutdown they didn't find too much time to implement changes, as that would be cheating hehe
Engine development is exempt from that shutdown.
As is taking time to reflect on car setup and where/how it could have performed better. People's jobs never really shut down, even if they aren't 'at work'.

Last season was much the same when it comes to Ferrari performance. They started ok.. then went down a road of failed development which seemed only to make the car worse, then returned the car to effectively it's initial specification but better setup and it was pretty competitive in the end. Ferrari can understand and add performance, almost no matter what their initial philosophy of car design, they can make it work - it's just their habit of only getting to grips with their creation once half of the season is already gone which holds them back!! And leads to erratic swings in performance and in this case, subsequent theories of cheating.

Ferrari are erratic. Cheating isn't required to ensure their cars will massively fluctuate in performance through a season.

SturdyHSV

6,724 posts

115 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
SturdyHSV said:
TheDeuce said:
Surely the most likely explanation is that they simply had time to learn before the break and time during it to implement several minor improvements that collectively showed a satisfying result.
One would hope during the 2 week FOM enforced factory shutdown they didn't find too much time to implement changes, as that would be cheating hehe
Engine development is exempt from that shutdown.
Sorry yes but TheDeuce's general PoV is that it's not an engine related advantage. It was just a bit of fun really as I previously was on the side of the big engine cheating but then at this point do see his point and am largely as undecided as most as to whether they are up to something or it's just simply a trait of their car.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
SturdyHSV said:
thegreenhell said:
SturdyHSV said:
TheDeuce said:
Surely the most likely explanation is that they simply had time to learn before the break and time during it to implement several minor improvements that collectively showed a satisfying result.
One would hope during the 2 week FOM enforced factory shutdown they didn't find too much time to implement changes, as that would be cheating hehe
Engine development is exempt from that shutdown.
Sorry yes but TheDeuce's general PoV is that it's not an engine related advantage. It was just a bit of fun really as I previously was on the side of the big engine cheating but then at this point do see his point and am largely as undecided as most as to whether they are up to something or it's just simply a trait of their car.
That's correct - they may have worked on the engine, it may be part of it. For all I know cheating 'may' be a part of it. But the balance of probability is that the biggest influence on their performance is down to setup and aero. Those two things alone could reasonably explain the performance differences we have seen. Doesn't mean that I'm shut-off to the possibility of foul play... but I think some people have got a bit over-excited about that ever-present, but really rather slim possibility.

janesmith1950

4,284 posts

43 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
That's correct - they may have worked on the engine, it may be part of it. For all I know cheating 'may' be a part of it. But the balance of probability is that the biggest influence on their performance is down to setup and aero. Those two things alone could reasonably explain the performance differences we have seen. Doesn't mean that I'm shut-off to the possibility of foul play... but I think some people have got a bit over-excited about that ever-present, but really rather slim possibility.
Amusing, as the 'balance of probability' as you put it isn't what Mercedes and Red Bull believe. What do they know, not as much as you, obviously. They only have 'data' and 'experience' and 'skills'. You have 'gut feeling'.

For some reason you have chosen to believe only the rhetoric of the team suspected of bending the rules.

Ferrari may very well *just* have a low drag car and their amazing straight line in Belgium and Monza etc may *just* have been them attempting to cure their well known corner deficit by trimming even more wing off ( whilst seemingly simultaneously reducing their cornering deficit, go figure), or it may be they gained a large increase in power without trimming wing, which got the attention of Red Bull and Mercedes.

No, I totally and utterly trust the Italians.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
TheDeuce said:
That's correct - they may have worked on the engine, it may be part of it. For all I know cheating 'may' be a part of it. But the balance of probability is that the biggest influence on their performance is down to setup and aero. Those two things alone could reasonably explain the performance differences we have seen. Doesn't mean that I'm shut-off to the possibility of foul play... but I think some people have got a bit over-excited about that ever-present, but really rather slim possibility.
Amusing, as the 'balance of probability' as you put it isn't what Mercedes and Red Bull believe. What do they know, not as much as you, obviously. They only have 'data' and 'experience' and 'skills'. You have 'gut feeling'.

For some reason you have chosen to believe only the rhetoric of the team suspected of bending the rules.

Ferrari may very well *just* have a low drag car and their amazing straight line in Belgium and Monza etc may *just* have been them attempting to cure their well known corner deficit by trimming even more wing off ( whilst seemingly simultaneously reducing their cornering deficit, go figure), or it may be they gained a large increase in power without trimming wing, which got the attention of Red Bull and Mercedes.

No, I totally and utterly trust the Italians.
Don't be silly - my views are absolutely my own and in no way influenced by anything Ferrari have said. I don't trust anything they say, whether they're potentially hiding a massive scandal or just being shifty out of sheer habit. Are you suggesting that the only thoughts shared on these forums should come from senior members of the teams themselves? Should the rest of us bugger off?

Do I know more than the other teams? Of course not. But I do know that once something is considered even as a remote possibility, that the suspicious team(s) will seek clarification. It doesn't matter if they're 10% certain that Ferrari are up to something or 90% certain, either way, it's the same course of action. So their actions in seeking clarification might make good headlines, but aren't actually a real indication of how likely such cheating may actually be.

If you read back, properly, you will also see that what I have said I 'believe' is that there is nothing we have seen that cannot be explained by aero and car design alone. At no time have I said I believe or that there is evidence that cheating definitely isn't also a factor. I haven't committed to any particular assumption, anymore than you have. I have only summed up the facts and presented my thought process as part of this discussion.

Could I be wrong in my assumptions? Sure.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
One things for sure the GPS data has one team (red bull) grasping at straws.

Ferrari have an incredibly effective aero (low downforce minimal drag) package.

Merc are happy there’s no engine ‘magic’, why cant Red Bull.

SturdyHSV

6,724 posts

115 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
As someone who initially was of the mind there was some engine power related foul play afoot, it was the consideration of how large the power advantage would need to be that made me doubt its likeliness, which was largely pointed out by TheDeuce earlier in this thread.

Now admittedly they seem to have the most benefit (from what I have read) on the initial corner exit where aero would be less of a factor, but when you're up at the sorts of power levels and drag levels these cars are at, for a significant straightline advantage I am leaning towards thinking it's more likely an aero advantage than a huge power advantage, but who knows.

It would be nice if we do find out definitively one way or another at some point what the advantage stems from, be it just a more slippery car or some other means.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
One things for sure the GPS data has one team (red bull) grasping at straws.

Ferrari have an incredibly effective aero (low downforce minimal drag) package.

Merc are happy there’s no engine ‘magic’, why cant Red Bull.
Indeed, the GPS data revealed nothing unusual at all.

It's almost as if Red Bull just like headlines...They're also going to be battling Ferrari for second place next season, so are plenty motivated to both cover off even a tiny possibility of Ferrari foul play, and also to take an opportunity to put a little pressure on them - in addition to the headlines, of course.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
SturdyHSV said:
As someone who initially was of the mind there was some engine power related foul play afoot, it was the consideration of how large the power advantage would need to be that made me doubt its likeliness, which was largely pointed out by TheDeuce earlier in this thread.

Now admittedly they seem to have the most benefit (from what I have read) on the initial corner exit where aero would be less of a factor, but when you're up at the sorts of power levels and drag levels these cars are at, for a significant straightline advantage I am leaning towards thinking it's more likely an aero advantage than a huge power advantage, but who knows.

It would be nice if we do find out definitively one way or another at some point what the advantage stems from, be it just a more slippery car or some other means.
The FIA can bench test PU, they can add control parts and sensors for energy/fuel use, but reveal the aero secrets of a car, no chance... I personally think they have had an aero secret for a season and a bit.

Merc might well be on to it.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
One things for sure the GPS data has one team (red bull) grasping at straws.

Ferrari have an incredibly effective aero (low downforce minimal drag) package.

Merc are happy there’s no engine ‘magic’, why cant Red Bull.
Indeed, the GPS data revealed nothing unusual at all.

It's almost as if Red Bull just like headlines...They're also going to be battling Ferrari for second place next season, so are plenty motivated to both cover off even a tiny possibility of Ferrari foul play, and also to take an opportunity to put a little pressure on them - in addition to the headlines, of course.
Newey and Horner have been outfoxed, they have demanded more power from Honda (at a cost of using more than double the components), rather than seeing its an aero advantage.

I do wonder if they have 2021 a little too much in their sights.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Newey and Horner have been outfoxed, they have demanded more power from Honda (at a cost of using more than double the components), rather than seeing its an aero advantage.

I do wonder if they have 2021 a little too much in their sights.
That's an interesting way of looking at it - and possibly correct. I had assumed that their rapid development of the Honda PU this season was simply due to the fact it was very obvious they were going to end up 3rd this year quite early on, no real threat of placing lower than 3rd either, so they could afford to use the rest of the season as a PU development season. Essentially just keep pushing it to find the limits - they can afford the ensuing parts penalties so why not?

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
That's an interesting way of looking at it - and possibly correct. I had assumed that their rapid development of the Honda PU this season was simply due to the fact it was very obvious they were going to end up 3rd this year quite early on, no real threat of placing lower than 3rd either, so they could afford to use the rest of the season as a PU development season. Essentially just keep pushing it to find the limits - they can afford the ensuing parts penalties so why not?
Yes 3rd is where they should have possibly ended up at the beginning of the season.. Now.. I’d say they should have been better..

I’d say Red Bull have massively underdelivered in the championship when you look at the package they have now.

They are putting huge demands on Honda to get more performance (which Honda have delivered), while Red Bull are playing about staging zero gravity pit stops (although impressive, look it up).

Max and his entourage/camp have their demands, and seemingly they can be placated by the odd win and a rare pole, they should have found a driver who can at least replicate Max’s style (Hulk is the closest according to Dani Ric).

Honda are pretty sure there PU is the 2nd strongest in terms of power on the grid now.

End of season reviews may be kind on Red Bull, Honda will have questions they want answering.. after all they’ve had two podiums with the sister team.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 25th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Yes 3rd is where they should have possibly ended up at the beginning of the season.. Now.. I’d say they should have been better..

I’d say Red Bull have massively underdelivered in the championship when you look at the package they have now.

They are putting huge demands on Honda to get more performance (which Honda have delivered), while Red Bull are playing about staging zero gravity pit stops (although impressive, look it up).

Max and his entourage/camp have their demands, and seemingly they can be placated by the odd win and a rare pole, they should have found a driver who can at least replicate Max’s style (Hulk is the closest according to Dani Ric).

Honda are pretty sure there PU is the 2nd strongest in terms of power on the grid now.

End of season reviews may be kind on Red Bull, Honda will have questions they want answering.. after all they’ve had two podiums with the sister team.
I think their season could/should have been stronger too - but Gasly really didn't do well in the car and pretty much cemented their 3rd place fate. Even with two Max's, or as close as you can get, the damage was done sadly. I think from that point on, it became a development year, which in another way of thinking, Honda might be very grateful for too.

As for the resultant PU they now have, it's a beast. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it actually is the second most powerful, their high rake, high down-force car is certainly no slouch anymore.. Wouldn't it be amazing to see the power curves for all the PU's? smile

It's also proved, when they haven't been experimenting with it, to be perfectly reliable too. Impressive stuff from Honda.