The FIA favours Ferrari?- Unthinkable!
Discussion
On the Autosport website today was a story about Ferrari's new tyre-heating boxes. These rigid metal boxes have been designed to help Ferrari address the problem that the Bridgestone tyre takes a while to come up to operating temperature, and F. qualifying times this year have been compromised as a result.
Each box has a spindle to which the wheel is fixed, so that no part of the tyre surface itself touches the heating elements that line the inside of the metal walls. The boxes were considered to be sufficiently important that they were designed by Rory Byrne himself.
Forum readers will recall that last month BAR were stripped of points, kept out of two races and put on probation because of their fuel-cell system. It seems that there was no dispute that the BAR system required the storage of "extra" fuel, without which it could not - or at least did not - function. BAR argued that, because their car demonstrably had never run under weight, it was legal. The FIA countered that, "Nooooo, the rule says that the car must weigh at least 600kg without any fuel, regardless of whether some of that fuel is [i]always[/i] on board."
In other words, what matters is a strict literal reading of the rules, regardless of their intent.
Back to Ferrari's trick tyre warmers:
It seems that Article 75F of F1's Sporting Regulations states, "The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets wihch use resistive heating elements."
The [i]Autosport[/i] report continues: "...FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting has inspected the boxes and declared them fully legal - because a box is simply a different way of housing the fully legal resistive heating elements that are found in blankets."
"One leading engineer told [i]Autosport-Atlas[/i],"If Ferrari are allowed to use this system then it seems strange, because it is clear that you can use only a blanket to heat the tyre and not a metal box."
One set of rules for nine teams and another set (or perhaps none at all) for the tenth? No, that is much too cynical.
Each box has a spindle to which the wheel is fixed, so that no part of the tyre surface itself touches the heating elements that line the inside of the metal walls. The boxes were considered to be sufficiently important that they were designed by Rory Byrne himself.
Forum readers will recall that last month BAR were stripped of points, kept out of two races and put on probation because of their fuel-cell system. It seems that there was no dispute that the BAR system required the storage of "extra" fuel, without which it could not - or at least did not - function. BAR argued that, because their car demonstrably had never run under weight, it was legal. The FIA countered that, "Nooooo, the rule says that the car must weigh at least 600kg without any fuel, regardless of whether some of that fuel is [i]always[/i] on board."
In other words, what matters is a strict literal reading of the rules, regardless of their intent.
Back to Ferrari's trick tyre warmers:
It seems that Article 75F of F1's Sporting Regulations states, "The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets wihch use resistive heating elements."
The [i]Autosport[/i] report continues: "...FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting has inspected the boxes and declared them fully legal - because a box is simply a different way of housing the fully legal resistive heating elements that are found in blankets."
"One leading engineer told [i]Autosport-Atlas[/i],"If Ferrari are allowed to use this system then it seems strange, because it is clear that you can use only a blanket to heat the tyre and not a metal box."
One set of rules for nine teams and another set (or perhaps none at all) for the tenth? No, that is much too cynical.
Ferrari adds to the spectacle of the sport certainly. And I guess I like Ferrari so to speak. The tire warmer boxes don't bother me so much but Ferrari signing on to the next Concord agreement bothers me as well as the close ties between the FIA and Ferrari. This relationship also seems to be part of the problem last weekend. Frankly, it really ruins the sport even if they have races but Ferrari gets special treatment. Madness. Goes back to the barge boards of a few years ago.
I could be wrong but I thought part of BARS problems was also having a device inside the fuel cell that held fuel . . . I thought that alone was a violation.
My Max Mosley shirt has been shipped fresh from the UK!
>> Edited by pib on Saturday 25th June 00:11
I could be wrong but I thought part of BARS problems was also having a device inside the fuel cell that held fuel . . . I thought that alone was a violation.
My Max Mosley shirt has been shipped fresh from the UK!
>> Edited by pib on Saturday 25th June 00:11
. pib said:It was reported broadly at the time that all the teams use fuel cells with internal collector systems to ensure constant pressure.
I could be wrong but I thought part of BARS problems was also having a device inside the fuel cell that held fuel . . . I thought that alone was a violation.
The collector in the BAR tank had about four times the capacity of the other teams', leading to the suspicion that the extra capacity was sometimes run when exhausted, enabling the car to run light on the final laps of early stints.
BAR then demonstrated through its telemetric data that there was never an instant during the race when the car had been below the 600 kg minimum. The FIA ruled that BAR had nonetheless broken the rules, simply because, by emptying the fuel to the last drop, it was possible to get the car's weight below minimum. The said it mattered not whether BAR had actually done so.
I'm not taking a stand in favour of or against a strict literal interpretation of the rules - I don't think many of us care one way or the other. If the Autosport article is accurate, however, this is yet another example of what seems glaringly to be a double standard.
I must confess, I'm not fully au fait with the hierarchy of such things, but could the teams protest these tyre ovens to the race stewards? Or does Whiting approval of them preclude this?
With my F1-fan hat on, I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate and cynical manipulation of the rules to achieve a desired outcome.
With my lawyer hat on, I simply don't see how one can, taking the usual everyday meaning of the words, equate "blanket" with "metal oven" and keep a straight face. IMHO, the "mischief" the rule is designed to prevent is clear - ban everything except tyre warming blankets. To hold otherwise is IMHO outside the letter and spirit of the rule, and against the FIA's original intention
When one considers...
*Indy fiasco resolves in favour of Ferrari
*Bridgestone tyres have heat-related performance issues
*Max's letter to Michelin concerning use of 'edgy' performance tyres vs Bridgestone conservatism
...it seems the focus has been to get the red cars back into the title chase and nullify the Michelin team's performance advantage wherever possible. Perhaps advertising revenue is down as Ferrari are not winning?
[k]
With my F1-fan hat on, I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate and cynical manipulation of the rules to achieve a desired outcome.
With my lawyer hat on, I simply don't see how one can, taking the usual everyday meaning of the words, equate "blanket" with "metal oven" and keep a straight face. IMHO, the "mischief" the rule is designed to prevent is clear - ban everything except tyre warming blankets. To hold otherwise is IMHO outside the letter and spirit of the rule, and against the FIA's original intention
When one considers...
*Indy fiasco resolves in favour of Ferrari
*Bridgestone tyres have heat-related performance issues
*Max's letter to Michelin concerning use of 'edgy' performance tyres vs Bridgestone conservatism
...it seems the focus has been to get the red cars back into the title chase and nullify the Michelin team's performance advantage wherever possible. Perhaps advertising revenue is down as Ferrari are not winning?
[k]
Irrespective of whether the FIA has in seasons past favoured Ferrari, Benetton or any other team, the new, pre-emptive Concorde Agreement quite clearly creates a conflict of interest. It would take very principled men indeed at both the FIA and Ferrari for them not to be helping each other out now.
If the GPWC were to succeed, Bernie's operation might or might not become toast, depending on whether he managed to get a piece of that new bit of action.
What by definition would be toast would be the FIA's control over the world's premier racing series. It is well known that many of the team principals detest Oswald Junior. Even if he personally were out of the picture, there is no way that the teams would go to the massive trouble and expense of creating their own series simply to allow it to be controlled by a handful of petty bureaucratic dictators in Paris. GPWC would only exist outside the FIA.
The FIA owes Ferrari big - as in LARGE - because the latter signed up with Bernie and it to the new CA. Max and Bernie obviously concluded that their best shot to maintain control would be to get Ferrari to commit to them, and that that should force the hands of the other nine teams. For the FIA to continue to reign, Ferrari must be tied into Bernie and itself. To make that commitment, Ferrari required compensation, and it would be extraordinary if that compensation were limited to a monetary payment.
If the GPWC were to succeed, Bernie's operation might or might not become toast, depending on whether he managed to get a piece of that new bit of action.
What by definition would be toast would be the FIA's control over the world's premier racing series. It is well known that many of the team principals detest Oswald Junior. Even if he personally were out of the picture, there is no way that the teams would go to the massive trouble and expense of creating their own series simply to allow it to be controlled by a handful of petty bureaucratic dictators in Paris. GPWC would only exist outside the FIA.
The FIA owes Ferrari big - as in LARGE - because the latter signed up with Bernie and it to the new CA. Max and Bernie obviously concluded that their best shot to maintain control would be to get Ferrari to commit to them, and that that should force the hands of the other nine teams. For the FIA to continue to reign, Ferrari must be tied into Bernie and itself. To make that commitment, Ferrari required compensation, and it would be extraordinary if that compensation were limited to a monetary payment.
^^what he said^^ 
I completely forgot about the Concorde Agreement situation, flemke, but you are indeed right. This adds weight to the claims of Ferrari being favoured generally, and the Indy situation being resolved in their favour as opposed to the public's.
I seem to remember Bernie claiming a long while ago that the majority of F1 followers were Ferrari supporters, so it was important for them to do well (I think it was during their mid-90's resurgence). Tie that in with everything else and it's not hard to see what's going on, regardless of whether or not he was correct in that view.
Perhaps Indy was a dry run for races run after the commencement of the new Concorde Agreement!
[k]
>> Edited by [k]ar| on Saturday 25th June 13:48
I completely forgot about the Concorde Agreement situation, flemke, but you are indeed right. This adds weight to the claims of Ferrari being favoured generally, and the Indy situation being resolved in their favour as opposed to the public's.
I seem to remember Bernie claiming a long while ago that the majority of F1 followers were Ferrari supporters, so it was important for them to do well (I think it was during their mid-90's resurgence). Tie that in with everything else and it's not hard to see what's going on, regardless of whether or not he was correct in that view.
Perhaps Indy was a dry run for races run after the commencement of the new Concorde Agreement!
[k]
>> Edited by [k]ar| on Saturday 25th June 13:48
Hmm.
An oven would mean heating the wheels and therefore the gas for pressure as well as, indeed more than, the tyres. And if the method of heating is circulating hot air rather than touching heating elements the heating effect is likely to be more constant and consistent across the rubber as well.
So, a couple of races and everyone will have them. That will be another support truck each then? Another Jumbo for the away flights? A few more people on the grid to help get the ovens out of the way?
Or are they just for qualifying?
What was all that stuff about reducing costs?
An oven would mean heating the wheels and therefore the gas for pressure as well as, indeed more than, the tyres. And if the method of heating is circulating hot air rather than touching heating elements the heating effect is likely to be more constant and consistent across the rubber as well.
So, a couple of races and everyone will have them. That will be another support truck each then? Another Jumbo for the away flights? A few more people on the grid to help get the ovens out of the way?
Or are they just for qualifying?
What was all that stuff about reducing costs?
LongQ said:I used to think that Formula One teams and the related fellow-travellers were the most self-indulgent, smallest bang-for-the-buck people around.
That will be another support truck each then?
Then on the radio the other day I heard that the road show paraphernalia for U-2 requires 69 lorries. FFS!
I am sure that those ovens have already been protested by McLaren and Williams (jointly). Someone raised an interesting point - tyres are filled with nitrogen aren't they - less water content than air. Presumably the oven also heats this up far more efficiently and the tyre pressures are thus up to optimum temperature more quickly....a benefit to the Bridgestones...
Ferrari are great at thinking out of the box and once again have done so here. But I haven't seen these ovens on teh grid,only in the pit garage. Has anyone else seen them used on the grid?
The FIA's suggestions for 2008 ban tyre warmers. I don't think that the teams will object to this, but the investment in ovens is still tiny in the scale of things.
So expect any Michelin runner on pole to complete the installation lap in the slowest ever time!
Finally, BAR's problem was that the parc ferme rules require the weighing of a car DRY - i.e. empty of ALL fluids. They submitted the car with the collector full of 6 kgs of fuel....I can't see any problem in the ruling on their car, only that the stewards failed to act according to the letter of the law.
Ferrari are great at thinking out of the box and once again have done so here. But I haven't seen these ovens on teh grid,only in the pit garage. Has anyone else seen them used on the grid?
The FIA's suggestions for 2008 ban tyre warmers. I don't think that the teams will object to this, but the investment in ovens is still tiny in the scale of things.
So expect any Michelin runner on pole to complete the installation lap in the slowest ever time!
Finally, BAR's problem was that the parc ferme rules require the weighing of a car DRY - i.e. empty of ALL fluids. They submitted the car with the collector full of 6 kgs of fuel....I can't see any problem in the ruling on their car, only that the stewards failed to act according to the letter of the law.
rubystone said:It can't be denied that Ferrari have done a fantastic job in the last several years. They've made the best cars, been the best prepared and have often devised the best race strategies.
Ferrari are great at thinking out of the box and once again have done so here.
It has to be said, however, that a lot of other teams have thought out of the box and been creative, only for their creations to be banned after they had been given preliminary approval by the FIA. This would include Williams with the CVT, McLaren with the torque-bias diff and fiddle-brake, and BAR with the mechanical brake-steer device.
rubystone said:Fine, but assuming that the Autosport account is accurate, how can one reconcile insisting on the letter of the law regarding dry weight but letting it slide regarding tyre blankets?
Finally, BAR's problem was that the parc ferme rules require the weighing of a car DRY - i.e. empty of ALL fluids. They submitted the car with the collector full of 6 kgs of fuel....I can't see any problem in the ruling on their car, only that the stewards failed to act according to the letter of the law.
I agree with you Flemke - the BAR FTT system took several iterations befire it was declared legal, for example.
The tyre blankets issue will have been debated to death, but clearly if it were a major issue for other teams, we'd have seen more about it in the press.
Finally, BAR broke a rule that was totally black and white - there's no way that it could be interpreted any differently.
The tyre blankets issue will have been debated to death, but clearly if it were a major issue for other teams, we'd have seen more about it in the press.
Finally, BAR broke a rule that was totally black and white - there's no way that it could be interpreted any differently.
rubystone said:
Finally, BAR broke a rule that was totally black and white - there's no way that it could be interpreted any differently.
Funny you should say that. I did take the time to read the specific regulations, and it was absolutely clear that BAR did not break the rules (FYI, the rules do not actually refer to weighing the cars without fuel). There was just one assertion in BAR's defence that could have been queried, and it wa never challenged.
Looking at this new issue, a brave man would go down the bookies Monday morning and put some money on Karthikeyan for victory in France. Wednesday's kangaroo court could turn up any result. And this Ferrari device appears absolutely illegal. If they are used in France, would not Midland-Jordan or Minardi protest the result for a 'free' victory and prize money?
rubystone said:
The FIA's suggestions for 2008 ban tyre warmers. I don't think that the teams will object to this, but the investment in ovens is still tiny in the scale of things.
From what I understand ot the current tyre technology I would guess that would make for a very dangerous first lap or two - possibly even 3.
If a few laps behind the safety car can cause enough of a temperature drop to create a significant pressure drop I cannlot see how they can justify this idea without intending to substantially alter the concepts of wheel and tyre technology.
Maybe BMW have worked out that they will be competitive in 2008 using their run flat experience?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff