Official 2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

Official 2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

Author
Discussion

LaurasOtherHalf

15,921 posts

144 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Interesting listening to the Autosport podcast on the morning dog walk today-they reckon there's more to come out of the story and made noises that it seemed very coincidental that it was after Ferrari's recent issues.

It sounds like there's a great deal of "chinney reckon" in the paddock about what they've been up to.

janesmith1950

4,284 posts

43 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
I haven't seen any suggestion that Ferrari had more than the maximum permitted weight of fuel in the car at any time. What has been reported is a discrepancy between what Ferrari declared was in the car and what was found when checked.

Will/have the FIA release(d) the stewards' reasoning?

Exige77

4,044 posts

139 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Adrian W said:
If Ferrari do it, its an error, if any other team does it, its cheating. in 2005 BAR got a two race ban for using fuel as ballast.
That’s not the case.

No problem using fuel as ballast as long as it’s not over the “total fuel allowed”.

BAR tried to say part of the fuel was not usable but total fuel is total fuel.

shirt

19,191 posts

149 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
CardShark said:
My point, not that I stated it directly, is that everyone is going off on a tangent with the mindset that Ferrari tried to pull a fast one when there's nothing to suggest that at all, not as per the official statement anyway. It's as if we're intent on nailing something negative on the team, particularly after the fuel flow chatter - people are trying to make the evidence fit a crime that simply may not exist, that's not particularly fair.

Yes, they may look a bit daft if it was a clerical error however that's a long, long way from being a cheat.
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero.

jsf

14,639 posts

184 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
shirt said:
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero.
With the rigs they use, you simply cant screw this up, it's all accurately metered.

The only way you could get the fuel level wrong is if they didn't follow procedure and didn't pump out the tank prior to starting the fill process.
If thats what happened then that team really is screwed up and sloppy.

jsf

14,639 posts

184 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
Does anyone believe a top running F1 team would just derp a gallon more fuel into the car than intended?
5Kg of fuel is 7.1 litres, 1.56 gal. That's a lot.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
shirt said:
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero.
100% this..

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Looking back at the press release, fuel was expected to be at 100kg used to 105kg used, so room for an additional 5/10kg to be added (up to the 110kg limit).

So this increase is close to 5% extra weight (total fuel).

Car 16 had a fuel and oil check in Parc Ferme after qualifying. Fine no problems.

Car 16 was checked additionally in the pit box by the FIA on race day (Binotto was quoted this is the 10th time this year) where a difference was found from what was declared.

Fancy checking twice eh!

(Interestingly car 16 did not go on the weighbridge during P3 Quali).

Underweight, with no time to add/move ballast, just add 4.88kg to get to the expected minimum weight?

kambites

57,592 posts

169 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Underweight, with no time to add/move ballast, just add 4.88kg to get to the expected minimum weight?
Would that be legal? I don't see why not as long as it wasn't underweight for qualifying (which presumably it wasn't if, as you say, the car was checked then and given the all-clear) or at the end of the race.

Deesee

3,254 posts

31 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
kambites said:
Deesee said:
Underweight, with no time to add/move ballast, just add 4.88kg to get to the expected minimum weight?
Would that be legal? I don't see why not as long as it wasn't underweight for qualifying (which presumably it wasn't if, as you say, the car was checked then and given the all-clear) or at the end of the race.
Well legal?!?

Well the car was not called to the weighbridge on Saturday (could have been underweight).

The fuel & oils were checked on Saturday, there’s never a ‘all clear’ as such, the teams are pretty much self policing with a few random spot checks, there’s never an all clear, just comments on what’s been inspected.

Yes you can use fuel as ballast, but ballast is a little more useful in other places tbh.

They will check the weight on race finish, so that’s why I think they put the extra in to make the minimum weight.



shirt

19,191 posts

149 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
jsf said:
shirt said:
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero.
With the rigs they use, you simply cant screw this up, it's all accurately metered.

The only way you could get the fuel level wrong is if they didn't follow procedure and didn't pump out the tank prior to starting the fill process.
If thats what happened then that team really is screwed up and sloppy.
The filling rig has fill/drain modes, records flow rate in kg/s (0.6 kg/s is max allowed by FIA but they can go above this) and the fuel itself is kept on the other side of the garage wall on, I assume, a set of scales. Cars usually drained post quali once engine checks are complete.

Fuel temp and fill rate is checked by the garage scrutineer. If you can get close enough to view the fuel guy’s laptop you can see he’s been given weights to fill each stage of the fuel system.

The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
shirt said:
The filling rig has fill/drain modes, records flow rate in kg/s (0.6 kg/s is max allowed by FIA but they can go above this) and the fuel itself is kept on the other side of the garage wall on, I assume, a set of scales. Cars usually drained post quali once engine checks are complete.

Fuel temp and fill rate is checked by the garage scrutineer. If you can get close enough to view the fuel guy’s laptop you can see he’s been given weights to fill each stage of the fuel system.

The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence
I had assumed it would be quite a technical and deliberate process, useful to know how they actually do it, makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is the super lightweight fine. Surely lying to the FIA (for whatever reason they chose to), should be about serious as actually getting caught outright cheating. Either way, it's deception...

And as you say, believing it was an administrative cock-up is a bit of a stretch! On the other had, as I said a few posts ago, Ferrari have publicly managed to make other bewildering cock-ups this year. Remember Monaco quali when they kept CLC from improving his time in Q1 and he was
subsequently eliminated? The world and it dog, and in fact, CLC himself could see that his time wasn't good enough - it was totally illogical to keep him from setting another lap, yet that's what they did. In terms of similar ineptitude I can just about see how the fuel discrepancy could be the result of one person filling the car to what they had agreed, and someone else then reporting a different figure that they thought had been agreed to the officials. Obviously a normal team would double/triple check everything they declare officially, but this is Ferrari we're talking about.



ukaskew

5,356 posts

169 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
shirt said:
The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence
Ferrari have history of the former and have been pretty impressive at the latter this season.

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
ukaskew said:
shirt said:
The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence
Ferrari have history of the former and have been pretty impressive at the latter this season.
You put that so much more concisely than I managed biggrin

Flooble

1,950 posts

48 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Just thinking, the fuel quantity is given in kg. That makes it somewhat density dependent. If Ferrari had been using that "special fuel" they talked about, which had a different density to "regular fuel" then it could throw their figures off. Maybe for the last race of the season they didn't bother with the super expensive and rare fuel additive so just messed up their calculations.

Doink

1,387 posts

95 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
You've probably read it already on Autosport but here it is anyway.....

FIA found a "significant difference" between the fuel amount Ferrari had declared before the race and the amount found in the car.

The incident prompted more conspiracies and questions as to whether Ferrari had made a simple administrative error or not.

Ferrari was then fined €50,000 for the 4.88kg difference between its declaration and what the FIA found in the car.

F1's fuel limit rules mean teams have to declare how much fuel they plan to put in the car for the race.

Furthermore, FIA technical boss Jo Bauer and his team have the right to weigh the cars before and after the race to determine exactly how much fuel has been used - and how that matches up with the fuel-flow meter's reading.

Ahead of the start of this season, TD12-19 was issued to all teams by F1's head of single-seater matters Nikolas Tombazis outlining how fuel measurements would be taken.

Teams have to declare the amount of fuel they intend to put in the car - an allowance which covers the laps to the grid, the formation lap, the race and the in-lap - before the pitlane opens.

This amount of fuel has to be in the car's tank 40 minutes before the race, after which time no fuel chilling will be allowed.

The FIA then reserves the right to randomly check cars before the race, and the car is weighed with a set of "travel wheels" marked by the FIA and with a known weight.

The team will then be asked to drain the fuel tank and the fuel pump is then run to ensure that all remaining fuel goes into the collector.

The FIA then makes sure that there is nothing left in the car.

The car will then be weighed again, and a fuel mass calculated from the difference with the earlier weight.

The fuel will then be pumped back into the car, which will then be weighed for a third time.

The fuel hatch and QD (quick disconnect) will then be sealed so no fuel can be added or removed.

Following the race, the FIA can again choose cars for random fuel checks after the usual parc ferme procedures have been carried out.

The car will be weighed with the same marked travel wheels used in previous checks.

As before, the team will be asked to pump out any remaining fuel, and the FIA will make sure that none remains in the car.

A further weight check will be used to determine that the mass of fuel has been used from the laps to the grid to the in-lap.

The car will then be weighed again.

In the aforementioned technical directive, Tombazis notes that "the difference between the pre- and post-race fuel masses will be assumed to be the measured fuel mass used (which clearly includes laps to the grid, formation laps, fire-ups etc).

"It can be compared to the integrated FFM [fuel flow meter] figures and to the fuel injectors model figures in order to provide confirmation of the validity of these readings.

"Please note that the pre-race fuel mass that gets used for this calculation is either the declared mass or the measured mass if this has been randomly checked."

Tombazis gave a very specific list of situations which may trigger further investigations and/or the team concerned being reported to the stewards.

It reads as follows:

1/ If the fuel pump-out procedure differs from the declared and documented process, then the team is required to communicate to the FIA in advance.

2/ If a significant volume of fuel is found in the car after the fuel has been pumped out using the above procedure.

3/ If the team fails to make a fuel mass declaration more than two hours before the pitlane opens, or if the declared amount of fuel is significantly different to what gets drained in the event of a random check.

4/ If the comparison between the integrated fuel flow meter signal and the measured fuel mass consumption shows the former to be lower than the latter.

5/ If the fuel mass used for the race, assessed with the car weight comparison, exceeds 110kg, as required by Article 30.5 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.

6/ If software inspections and/or data analysis show significant operational differences between qualifying and the race.

Ferrari fell foul of the first point in Abu Dhabi but there has yet to be an official explanation as to where the difference originated from


CardShark

3,644 posts

127 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
shirt said:
CardShark said:
My point, not that I stated it directly, is that everyone is going off on a tangent with the mindset that Ferrari tried to pull a fast one when there's nothing to suggest that at all, not as per the official statement anyway. It's as if we're intent on nailing something negative on the team, particularly after the fuel flow chatter - people are trying to make the evidence fit a crime that simply may not exist, that's not particularly fair.

Yes, they may look a bit daft if it was a clerical error however that's a long, long way from being a cheat.
There is zero chance of it being a clerical error. Zero.
shirt said:
The only way to incorrectly fill an f1 car is either by deception or gross incompetence
So there's a zero chance of someone filling a form in incorrectly however it is possible to incorrectly fill a tank due to gross incompetence?



TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Flooble said:
Just thinking, the fuel quantity is given in kg. That makes it somewhat density dependent. If Ferrari had been using that "special fuel" they talked about, which had a different density to "regular fuel" then it could throw their figures off. Maybe for the last race of the season they didn't bother with the super expensive and rare fuel additive so just messed up their calculations.
Not to the tune of the discrepancy found. You've made me wonder though, if they have to declare just weight of fuel or also volume... Anyone know?

TheDeuce

3,753 posts

14 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
CardShark said:
So there's a zero chance of someone filling a form in incorrectly however it is possible to incorrectly fill a tank due to gross incompetence?
That was my point a few posts ago. Filling out a form incorrectly would be pretty shameful, but then we are talking about 2019 Ferrari here! Their list of school boy errors this season is pretty long.

Doink

1,387 posts

95 months

Monday 2nd December
quotequote all
Flooble said:
Just thinking, the fuel quantity is given in kg. That makes it somewhat density dependent. If Ferrari had been using that "special fuel" they talked about, which had a different density to "regular fuel" then it could throw their figures off. Maybe for the last race of the season they didn't bother with the super expensive and rare fuel additive so just messed up their calculations.
Not beyond the realms of possibility but theres too many clever people working there for that to happen, its akin to suddenly working out your team budget in Yen when for ever since I can remember everything in F1 is calculated in Dollars