Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 6 votes

Rivals question Ferrari's Power Unit legality


  • Please log in to reply
2661 replies to this topic

#2501 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:12

It is entirely possible that FIA got their measurement wrong. 

 

But it is interesting why would they have gotten that one measurement so grossly wrong if the other random measurements that were also conducted at the same race (as explained by the media) most obviously were not providing any reports to the stewards.

 

Because there has been a lot of scrutiny and pressure from the other teams to convict Ferrari of whatever shenanigans they think they are up to.

 

I'm not saying that the FIA concocted a scheme to convict Ferrari of wrong doing in Abu Dhabi, but that someone doing the measurements knew it was a Ferrari being measured, and in light of the scrutiny, felt pressure to make sure they were doing everything to the letter, and that pressure led them to make a mistake instead on a task they have executed perfectly countless times up to that moment.

 

A bit like how the Haas team had one job to not screw up the pitstops in Melbourne this year, (after last year's Melbourne pitstop debacle and the Netflix), and what did they do? Screw up the pitstop again! They had never had issues after Melbourne last year with the pitstops. But with all the scrutiny, memories, etc, they managed to botch it this year. 


Edited by ARTGP, 04 December 2019 - 18:15.


Advertisement

#2502 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:38

So where did the power advantage that allegedly comes from manipulating the fuel flow meter go? Because a lot of people say Ferrari don't have the power anymore after the technical directive.

It can't be both. They can't have been manipulating the fuel flow meter to gain power advantage, and still be doing it, but no longer have power advantage.

Of course none of this even makes sense, and even more supports the aerodynamic configuration narrative as the reason for the performance drop. And that RB and Mercedes largely misunderstood where Ferrari's performance comes from.


Perhaps they cant do it anymore to the extent they did it. It’s not necessarily black or white.

And where did the HP performance go this race? Well maybe they used it at the first laps where Leclerc breezed past Verstappen like he had a GP2 engine..

#2503 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:41

Because there has been a lot of scrutiny and pressure from the other teams to convict Ferrari of whatever shenanigans they think they are up to.

 

I'm not saying that the FIA concocted a scheme to convict Ferrari of wrong doing in Abu Dhabi, but that someone doing the measurements knew it was a Ferrari being measured, and in light of the scrutiny, felt pressure to make sure they were doing everything to the letter, and that pressure led them to make a mistake instead on a task they have executed perfectly countless times up to that moment.

 

A bit like how the Haas team had one job to not screw up the pitstops in Melbourne this year, (after last year's Melbourne pitstop debacle and the Netflix), and what did they do? Screw up the pitstop again! They had never had issues after Melbourne last year with the pitstops. But with all the scrutiny, memories, etc, they managed to botch it this year. 

I think that is rather speculative.

 

Measurement errors are:
1. Gross errors e.g. recording the reading wrongly

2. Blunders e.g. forgetting to reset the meter after one measurement or setting up the measuring system wrongly.

3. Statistical errors.

If FIA screwed up, it is not #3 since other cars were also measured and Ferrari result was an outlier.

 

#1 is also unlikely since the discrepancy is not full digits been reported as a difference but 4.88 kg. Hard to see how somebody could note so many digits so wrongly. Besides, I believe, FIA scales print out the readings (like drivers been weighted after the race).

 

So if it is FIA's fault, it would be #2 a Blunder i.e.  the system has not been set up in the right way at the start of the measurement or somebody forgot to reset the scales before the measurement etc, etc.

 



#2504 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:45

I think that is rather speculative.

 

Measurement errors are:
1. Gross errors e.g. recording the reading wrongly

2. Blunders e.g. forgetting to reset the meter after one measurement or setting up the measuring system wrongly.

3. Statistical errors.

If FIA screwed up, it is not #3 since other cars were also measured and Ferrari result was an outlier.

 

#1 is also unlikely since the discrepancy is not full digits been reported as a difference but 4.88 kg. Hard to see how somebody could note so many digits so wrongly. Besides, I believe, FIA scales print out the readings (like drivers been weighted after the race).

 

So if it is FIA's fault, it would be #2 a Blunder i.e.  the system has not been set up in the right way at the start of the measurement or somebody forgot to reset the scales before the measurement etc, etc.

 

Yes, something along those lines. A brain fart. Why it happened to Ferrari, and no one else, you kind of have to think the stewards knew it was Ferrari, and that added pressure to do the measurement accurately. Because up until the Ferrari, they hadn't made any mistakes!  Yeah it's just speculation on my part. But its awfully coincidental that they did the screw up on the one car that everyone wants to make sure is legal. Pressure or scrutiny can make something you do normally, go wrong (Ask Haas, Ask Vettel, Ask Mclaren).



#2505 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:48

Yes, something along those lines. A brain fart. Why it happened to Ferrari, and no one else, you kind of have to think the stewards knew it was Ferrari, and that added pressure to do the measurement accurately. Because up until the Ferrari, they hadn't made any mistakes! Yeah it's just speculation on my part. But its awfully coincidental that they did the screw up on the one car that everyone wants to make sure is legal. Pressure or scrutiny can make something you do normally, go wrong (Ask Haas, Ask Vettel, Ask Mclaren).


Did the FIA confirm they made a mistake, or are you basing it on the statements of the accused party only?

#2506 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:50

Perhaps they cant do it anymore to the extent they did it. It’s not necessarily black or white.

And where did the HP performance go this race? Well maybe they used it at the first laps where Leclerc breezed past Verstappen like he had a GP2 engine..

 

 

Why didn't they use it in qualy to get pole. That seems an odd decision. Especially with how valuable track position is here.

 

Teams have the GPS data from the race. If Red Bull felt what Leclerc did in the start was unusual performance, we would know by now.



#2507 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:52

Did the FIA confirm they made a mistake, or are you basing it on the statements of the accused party only?

 

I didn't say they are the ones who made the mistake. I don't know who made the mistake (or if someone cheated). But up until this point, no one here including you has considered that FIA could have made a mistake, so I simply pointed out an alternate narrative.

 

As Ferrari pointed out, it's impossible to determine once Leclerc left the pitlane, who made the mistake. And that's why the fine seems more appropriate than a DSQ.

 

If we knew certainly that Ferrari messed up or cheated, then that should be DSQ.


Edited by ARTGP, 04 December 2019 - 18:54.


#2508 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:52

Yes, something along those lines. A brain fart. Why it happened to Ferrari, and no one else, you kind of have to think the stewards knew it was Ferrari, and that added pressure to do the measurement accurately. Because up until the Ferrari, they hadn't made any mistakes!  Yeah it's just speculation on my part. But its awfully coincidental that they did the screw up on the one car that everyone wants to make sure is legal. Pressure or scrutiny can make something you do normally, go wrong (Ask Haas, Ask Vettel, Ask Mclaren).

To be honest, I believe that kind of pressure would add to a normal, competent, independent but situation aware person to make the set up, the measurements, and the recording even more carefully and possibly double checking. 


Edited by Jvr, 04 December 2019 - 18:55.


#2509 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 18:55

To be honest, I believe that kind of pressure would add to a normal, independent but situation aware person to make the set up, the measurements, and the recording even more carefully and possibly double checking. 

 

Like how Haas did the perfect pitstop in melbourne this year, after the mess at 2018 Melbourne? 

 

Some people make mistakes under pressure (see above), some people don't (see Lewis Hamilton). That's a fact. I don't know what happened at the weight bridge, just speculating. It is possible some on either side made a mistake (Ferrari or FIA). It's not cut and dry that Ferrari are the ones who did it.


Edited by ARTGP, 04 December 2019 - 18:59.


#2510 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 1,506 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:01

LOL, I think that if it takes three days for Ferrari to come up with an "FIA did it" excuse, then we can dismiss it summarily.  



#2511 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:01

Like how Haas did the perfect pitstop in melbourne this year, after the mess at 2018 Melbourne? 

 

Some people make mistakes under pressure (see above), some people don't (see Lewis Hamilton). That's a fact. I don't know what happened at the weight bridge, just speculating.

I do not agree with the analogy:

 

Sure, Haas did that mistake as you describe, but they were insiders having made a mistake earlier and scared of making it again under extreme time pressure of a pit stop.

 

I do not see similar pressure to an independent third party team measuring routinely, under not such a time pressure as pit stops, and having not reportedly made any mistakes earlier on. 

EDIT: I think it is possible FIA made a measurement blunder but I do not buy your theory why they would have made it.


Edited by Jvr, 04 December 2019 - 19:10.


#2512 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:08

Why didn't they use it in qualy to get pole. That seems an odd decision. Especially with how valuable track position is here.

Teams have the GPS data from the race. If Red Bull felt what Leclerc did in the start was unusual performance, we would know by now.


Who knows they have that data but they might use it when it suits them.

And who’s saying that Ferrari didnt use it in Q? Perhaps they still use the trick - but to a much lesser extent due to the various extra checks imposed by the FIA.

#2513 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:09

I didn't say they are the ones who made the mistake. I don't know who made the mistake (or if someone cheated). But up until this point, no one here including you has considered that FIA could have made a mistake, so I simply pointed out an alternate narrative.

As Ferrari pointed out, it's impossible to determine once Leclerc left the pitlane, who made the mistake. And that's why the fine seems more appropriate than a DSQ.

If we knew certainly that Ferrari messed up or cheated, then that should be DSQ.


Ah, in your previous post you seemed to state as a fact that a measurement mistake was made by the FIA.

I would say the same if I was Ferrari. Cant be checked anymore now though.

#2514 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:13

Would have been hilarious if instead the fine, Ferrari would have been given a penalty:

 

12.3.1.c  obligation to accomplish some work of public interest;

 

:p 

 

It's too late now, but if I had known at the time I would have liked:

12.3.1.g  time penalty or penalty lap;



#2515 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:19

It's too late now, but if I had known at the time I would have liked:

12.3.1.g  time penalty or penalty lap;

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

But being a bit serious, I believe that relates to those extended track portions outside of the corners e.g. the MotoGP drivers are sometimes ordered to take as a penalty.


Edited by Jvr, 04 December 2019 - 19:21.


#2516 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:26

LOL, I think that if it takes three days for Ferrari to come up with an "FIA did it" excuse, then we can dismiss it summarily.


All we know is that the autosport article was published 3 days later. That doesn’t speak to when Ferrari made this suggestion.

We would need more info to know how soon Ferrari brought this up. But I would imagine they didn’t go to Leclerc’s summoning on Sunday Empty handed, and that’s what the autosport article is referring to. Because something like this would explain why Ferrari didn’t get DSQ’d.

#2517 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 19:35

All we know is that the autosport article was published 3 days later. That doesn’t speak to when Ferrari made this suggestion.

We would need more info to know how soon Ferrari brought this up. But I would imagine they didn’t go to Leclerc’s summoning on Sunday Empty handed, and that’s what the autosport article is referring to. Because something like this would explain why Ferrari didn’t get DSQ’d.

The Stewards' report does not indicate anything that Ferrari objected it to them or suggested FIA had made an error. Instead it states that Technical Delecate was able to confirm the case.

 

2xmk4cz.png


Edited by Jvr, 04 December 2019 - 19:37.


#2518 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 7,458 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 December 2019 - 20:59

Did the FIA confirm they made a mistake, or are you basing it on the statements of the accused party only?

Did Ferrari protest? If not, it is grasping at straws even considering FIA made a mistake. FIA are never going to make a mistake such as this. I bet they must have double checked and queried Ferrari about it. No man, Ferrari didn't make a mistake either. 5kg says it's no mistake. If it isn't a mistake, it is deliberate and if so, it is cheating.



#2519 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 22:40

Did Ferrari protest? If not, it is grasping at straws even considering FIA made a mistake. FIA are never going to make a mistake such as this. I bet they must have double checked and queried Ferrari about it. No man, Ferrari didn't make a mistake either. 5kg says it's no mistake. If it isn't a mistake, it is deliberate and if so, it is cheating.

 

 https://www.autospor...5488.1575498211



Advertisement

#2520 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 23:40

Curious...is the way the FIA makes their calculations a bit too complex of flawed? Surely Ferrari and FIA can put their numbers side to side?



#2521 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 1,506 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 05 December 2019 - 01:51

https://www.autospor...5488.1575498211

Gotta love that last paragraph. The third, unmentioned, alternative is that Ferrari are lying. No idea why they’d do that, lol.

Ferrari say that they’ve been checked multiple times before, but I wonder if the difference this time was the timing. Does the FIA always do their fuel checks right at the last minute?

#2522 FullOppositeLock

FullOppositeLock
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 05 December 2019 - 06:48

Yes, something along those lines. A brain fart. Why it happened to Ferrari, and no one else, you kind of have to think the stewards knew it was Ferrari, and that added pressure to do the measurement accurately. Because up until the Ferrari, they hadn't made any mistakes! Yeah it's just speculation on my part. But its awfully coincidental that they did the screw up on the one car that everyone wants to make sure is legal. Pressure or scrutiny can make something you do normally, go wrong (Ask Haas, Ask Vettel, Ask Mclaren).


I’m sorry ART, that is not merely speculating, but outright stating that FIA screwed up. You could have phrased that better if you were still in speculation mode, although I find it very ironic for you to claim “awfully coincidental” while speculating whilst dismissing the awfully coincidental nature of events pertaining to Ferrari’s power unit‘ performance in recent weeks and months. I guess both sides of the argument are guilty of bias to some extent, but to dismiss a body of evidence (performance analysis, technical directive, announcement of second fuel flow sensor for 2020, fined under or overfueling) to instead embrace a flimsy theory based on the accused putting out an unverifiable claim is going quite far in Ferrari’s defence. Surely you can’t be so certain that they’ve not been fooling around with fuel flow?

#2523 Reddington

Reddington
  • Member

  • 644 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 05 December 2019 - 11:01

I don’t buy the FIA mistake narrative. If you’d find a 4.88kg discrepancy, that might have been because you made a mistake. But finding a 4.88kg difference is big and would be double and triple checked without doubt before even moving ahead any further. I am pretty sure the FIA doesn’t go: “Well, we just checked it once, there was a big discrepancy, but we didn’t bother to reconfirm that...”

Edited by Reddington, 05 December 2019 - 11:02.


#2524 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,669 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 05 December 2019 - 12:39

I don’t buy the FIA mistake narrative. 

Same. It's a clever and manipulative response by Ferrari as it obviously can't be revisited now. 



#2525 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 05 December 2019 - 13:08

Our car is legal it’s your measurements that are wrong

What do they say about history going in cycles? 1999 all over again...

#2526 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 December 2019 - 13:18

‘If you cant convince them, confuse them’

#2527 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 05 December 2019 - 18:18

The wheels on the bus go round and round  :stoned:

 

https://www.planetf1...asnt-a-mistake/



#2528 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 7,458 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 December 2019 - 22:12

That doesn't read like a protest to me. Sounds like somebody sounded disgruntled for being caught.



#2529 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 1,846 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 06 December 2019 - 03:03

A few interesting changes to the regs surrounding fuel in latest autosport web.

 

1) More rigorous testing regarding fuel declarations for 2020.

2) Magneti Marelli standard fuel pump primer for all teams 2021.

3) Bosch high pressure fuel pump standard for all teams 2021.

 

 

I'm sure the latter two decisions were in the pipeline long before anyone cried foul over Ferarri, but interesting to see they seems to be ironing out gray areas. So far so good.


Edited by ARTGP, 06 December 2019 - 03:04.


#2530 Heyli

Heyli
  • Member

  • 3,204 posts
  • Joined: May 17

Posted 06 December 2019 - 06:06

The wheels on the bus go round and round  :stoned:

 

https://www.planetf1...asnt-a-mistake/

So now Max shut up about it and then Jos comes in...



#2531 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,945 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 December 2019 - 09:08

4.88 with fuel at about 0,7kg/liter is a 7 liter 'mistake'. 



#2532 Brackets

Brackets
  • Member

  • 4,265 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 06 December 2019 - 10:29

A race: "Oooohhh look how slow they are now. That's what you get when you stop cheating"

Same race: "Oooohhh they over-fueled to feed their trickery!!1!"



#2533 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 December 2019 - 11:09

A race: "Oooohhh look how slow they are now. That's what you get when you stop cheating"

Same race: "Oooohhh they over-fueled to feed their trickery!!1!"

 

Or same race: 'they are still trying!' 

 

Like I said before, it definitely is not black and white. 



#2534 FullOppositeLock

FullOppositeLock
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 06 December 2019 - 11:17

A race: "Oooohhh look how slow they are now. That's what you get when you stop cheating"
Same race: "Oooohhh they over-fueled to feed their trickery!!1!"


Very funny. Let’s stick to facts then...

Did FIA issue a technical directive about methods related getting around fuel flow meter readings? Yes, they did.

Did Ferrari gain performance after the summer break (compared to before) and did they lose some performance after said technical directive came out? Yes, they did.

Dis Ferrari get penalised for providing a false declaration about the amount of fuel in their car in Abu Dhabi? Yes, they did.

So let me ask you, what do you make of those facts?

#2535 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 15,183 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 December 2019 - 16:30

As Jordan Peele once said; CONSEQUENCES.



#2536 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 3,594 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 06 December 2019 - 20:42

So now Max shut up about it and then Jos comes in...

 

I don't get why the Verstappens are so vocal about this. They are burning bridges for no benefit whatsoever.



#2537 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,634 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 December 2019 - 21:00

I don't get why the Verstappens are so vocal about this. They are burning bridges for no benefit whatsoever.

Ferraris form after the summer break likely cost Max 2nd position in the championship and some podium positions.

#2538 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 December 2019 - 23:54

Ferraris form after the summer break likely cost Max 2nd position in the championship and some podium positions.


Max’s form is possibly costing him a chance of ever racing for Ferrari.

We have seen from Alonso (and Marquez in MotoGP) that no amount of talent guarantees the mending of burnt bridges (irrespective of whether you had justification for your comments or actions). When you piss off manufactures they can have a habit of holding a grudge, and they hold a lot of power in the racing world.

Nothing Max or his dad do or say is going to change a thing. It’s much more important to lay low than have a rant about a possible 2nd place. It changes nothing in the past but potentially causes all kinds of issues in the future.

#2539 derstatic

derstatic
  • Member

  • 532 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 07 December 2019 - 11:37

It's all very strage this whole fuel saga. If it's true as Binotto says, and I don't know why and how he should lie about it, and I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with the statement, that Ferrari have been checked about 10 times in 2019. That's about a 50% chance of being checked at every grand prix. It would be extremely stupid to deliberately break a rule when you have a 50% chance of being caught. No grey zones in amout of fuel either. Someone made a mistake, Ferrari or FIA. We'll probably never know what really happened, but it can't be as simple as Jos claims that Ferrari doesn't make fueling mistakes so that means they cheated on purpose. 



Advertisement

#2540 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 December 2019 - 11:43

It's all very strage this whole fuel saga. If it's true as Binotto says, and I don't know why and how he should lie about it, and I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with the statement, that Ferrari have been checked about 10 times in 2019. That's about a 50% chance of being checked at every grand prix. It would be extremely stupid to deliberately break a rule when you have a 50% chance of being caught. No grey zones in amout of fuel either. Someone made a mistake, Ferrari or FIA. We'll probably never know what really happened, but it can't be as simple as Jos claims that Ferrari doesn't make fueling mistakes so that means they cheated on purpose.


Problaby all teams have been checked at least 10 times - without irregularities.

#2541 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 7,458 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 December 2019 - 12:30

Ferrari most probably wanted to get the 

 

It's all very strage this whole fuel saga. If it's true as Binotto says, and I don't know why and how he should lie about it, and I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with the statement, that Ferrari have been checked about 10 times in 2019. That's about a 50% chance of being checked at every grand prix. It would be extremely stupid to deliberately break a rule when you have a 50% chance of being caught. No grey zones in amout of fuel either. Someone made a mistake, Ferrari or FIA. We'll probably never know what really happened, but it can't be as simple as Jos claims that Ferrari doesn't make fueling mistakes so that means they cheated on purpose. 

Ferrari could have been banking on making such "defense" if caught. They felt the need to show that the recent TDs hadn't affected them and the way to do that is still more cheating! Reeks of desperation. Next season will be very revealing...I expect the question to be asked "Where has Ferrari straight line speed gone? Look they still struggle in the twisty bits!"


Edited by femi, 07 December 2019 - 12:33.


#2542 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 07 December 2019 - 12:47

Ferraris form after the summer break likely cost Max 2nd position in the championship and some podium positions.

But he's stated before that he doesn't care about any position other than first, so why should that bug him?

 

I get he might feel peeved, but it doesn't seem very sensible to insult Ferrari like this (without proof, I might add!), even less so for Jos.  Shutting the door on a potential future at one of the only front teams on the grid - and let's face it if Max wants a front team he doesn't have that many options - is not politically astute I'd say



#2543 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 6,594 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 07 December 2019 - 13:09

"Would I Lie to You?"

 

Come on, Ferrari are not Eurythmics.

 

And if they've been measured ten times earlier does not make any difference to the case what happened. That's tantamount to been stopped by police by running red lights and arguing back I've been at traffic lights many, many times earlier and I've not been found to run against the reds earlier.

In fact, that Ferrari even mentions this as their defence is a bit odd since they clearly understand the meaning if this had been going on systematically.


Edited by Jvr, 07 December 2019 - 13:18.


#2544 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 08 December 2019 - 14:22

So enlighten me great master. What am I missing? I mean I understand the “evidence” is circumstantial at best, but to my mind the odds of Ferrari as they were before the break coming back to score six pole positions in a row would have been very, very slim. There was a chance of course, and coincidence exists, but to dismiss any questioning of it as tea leaf reading whilst not presenting any analysis or alternative explanation is a bit easy if you ask me.

 

 

You havent answered why Ferrari understood the hardest compounds (Spa) and the softest (Singapore) and then forgot ‘all their understanding’ for the last 4 races in a row.

Or is it because you have zero answers and you are just clutching at straws?

 

We've already seen many times over a number of seasons that the Pirelli tyres are anything but predictable. Different tracks, surfaces, temps. The sample size is too small. As they say, the so-called evidence is not statistically significant. No further explanation is required.



#2545 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 December 2019 - 14:24

We've already seen many times over a number of seasons that the Pirelli tyres are anything but predictable. Different tracks, surfaces, temps. The sample size is too small. As they say, the so-called evidence is not statistically significant. No further explanation is required.


Statistically 21 races will always be insignificant.

If you put forward that argument, you basically are saying you can draw ZERO conclusions in 1 season.

We all know that it definitely is possible to see changes happen within a season. So apparently we are not doing statistics.

Back to you again ^^.

#2546 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 08 December 2019 - 14:43

Statistically 21 races will always be insignificant.

If you put forward that argument, you basically are saying you can draw ZERO conclusions in 1 season.

We all know that it definitely is possible to see changes happen within a season. So apparently we are not doing statistics.

Back to you again ^^.

 

Yet some are quite confident in seeing trends from just a small fraction (5 races?) of that already small sample size of 21?



#2547 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 December 2019 - 14:53

Yet some are quite confident in seeing trends from just a small fraction (5 races?) of that already small sample size of 21?


It’s either that, or it was sheer luck 6-7 times in a row, and bad luck 5 times in a row subsequently?

#2548 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 7,458 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 08 December 2019 - 16:38

I don't get why the Verstappens are so vocal about this. They are burning bridges for no benefit whatsoever.

Because they are convinced of the truth in what they are saying. Frankly, I consider it cowardly to close one's eyes to wrongs especially when something can be done about it just because some crook might not be happy with being exposed for who he is; a crooked fella. What a way to live or worse still - exist!



#2549 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,929 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 08 December 2019 - 16:51

Eh, it's simpler than this. Max and Marko just have no filter :p

PS: I doubt that Max burned the bridges with that. If he turns out to be *the* star of the future Ferrari will forget this quickly.

#2550 Unicast

Unicast
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 08 December 2019 - 23:09

Because they are convinced of the truth in what they are saying. Frankly, I consider it cowardly to close one's eyes to wrongs especially when something can be done about it just because some crook might not be happy with being exposed for who he is; a crooked fella. What a way to live or worse still - exist!

 

Dude... are u serious? What are we talking about? Honorable? Cowardly? 

Do you remember that we are talking about F1 here? Any team would bend and stretch the rules to their own advantage or implement shady technical solutions as long as they would get away with it...

They all did it, Mercedes and RedBull and now they are standing there crying wolf... give me a break!