planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:39 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.

Stealing knowledge is using that knowledge in the car design.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Oh boy. You really aren´t doing your credibility any favours here. Seems to me when someone asks you to back up your "stories" they don´t stand up to scrutiny really that often.

Indeed paddock rumours but do you think the truth would ever fully come out in the wash if the rumours were true, interesting that the FIA still have concerns in what is supposed to be such an easy thing to police.


Why do you say this? They said they were satisfied now, so what are the concerns?

I personally think that the truth does come out in most of these things. Singapore started as a rumour, didn't it? Sooner or later someone talks, some disgruntled employee, or sometimes down to pure luck like the spygate.

They are clearly not happy with their methodology and are even saying that further refinement will be needed for next year.


I can't find this news anywhere about further refinement next year. Refinement for what?

All the FIA said is that they are happy now, so how is it "clearly not happy"?

Quote:
"I'm not sure when any more additional sensors can be fitted. Probably not until next year, if the truth be known."


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... s-1043220/

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed paddock rumours but do you think the truth would ever fully come out in the wash if the rumours were true, interesting that the FIA still have concerns in what is supposed to be such an easy thing to police.


Why do you say this? They said they were satisfied now, so what are the concerns?

I personally think that the truth does come out in most of these things. Singapore started as a rumour, didn't it? Sooner or later someone talks, some disgruntled employee, or sometimes down to pure luck like the spygate.

They are clearly not happy with their methodology and are even saying that further refinement will be needed for next year.


I can't find this news anywhere about further refinement next year. Refinement for what?

All the FIA said is that they are happy now, so how is it "clearly not happy"?

Quote:
"I'm not sure when any more additional sensors can be fitted. Probably not until next year, if the truth be known."


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... s-1043220/

all he's saying here is that the process by which they monitor is very complicated and he's hoping to come up with a simpler way of doing it. That's it. He's not saying they still have concerns, or that they are not happy. Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you come up with that conclusion from this? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 535
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.

Stealing knowledge is using that knowledge in the car design.

Using knowledge in your head after you have moved teams, regardless of using what you know about your old employers car, is not stealing. You won't have the finer details in your head.
Gardening leave is there to try to prevent the info being up to date enough to be useful to the new team, it only becomes stealing if physical or electronic copies of information is taken!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
dompclarke wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.

Stealing knowledge is using that knowledge in the car design.

Using knowledge in your head after you have moved teams, regardless of using what you know about your old employers car, is not stealing. You won't have the finer details in your head.
Gardening leave is there to try to prevent the info being up to date enough to be useful to the new team, it only becomes stealing if physical or electronic copies of information is taken!

I will rephrase it, if you are not using that Knowledge in the car then how is it stealing?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Why do you say this? They said they were satisfied now, so what are the concerns?

I personally think that the truth does come out in most of these things. Singapore started as a rumour, didn't it? Sooner or later someone talks, some disgruntled employee, or sometimes down to pure luck like the spygate.

They are clearly not happy with their methodology and are even saying that further refinement will be needed for next year.


I can't find this news anywhere about further refinement next year. Refinement for what?

All the FIA said is that they are happy now, so how is it "clearly not happy"?

Quote:
"I'm not sure when any more additional sensors can be fitted. Probably not until next year, if the truth be known."


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... s-1043220/

all he's saying here is that the process by which they monitor is very complicated and he's hoping to come up with a simpler way of doing it. That's it. He's not saying they still have concerns, or that they are not happy. Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you come up with that conclusion from this? :?

Yes that would be what they are concerned about, they are not happy with the present monitoring system.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.


The analogy is flawed. Unlike with crime, the burden of evidence to prove that a car complies with the regulation lies with the teams as part of their contract with FIA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
They are clearly not happy with their methodology and are even saying that further refinement will be needed for next year.


I can't find this news anywhere about further refinement next year. Refinement for what?

All the FIA said is that they are happy now, so how is it "clearly not happy"?

Quote:
"I'm not sure when any more additional sensors can be fitted. Probably not until next year, if the truth be known."


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... s-1043220/

all he's saying here is that the process by which they monitor is very complicated and he's hoping to come up with a simpler way of doing it. That's it. He's not saying they still have concerns, or that they are not happy. Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you come up with that conclusion from this? :?

Yes that would be what they are concerned about, they are not happy with the present monitoring system.

so it's the way they monitor that is the issue (for the FIA), not the thing they are monitoring. And even then, their issue with the monitoring process is its complexity, not in the results it comes up with. In other words, when they said that they were happy that Ferrari were not doing anything illegal that should draw a line under the matter?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I can't find this news anywhere about further refinement next year. Refinement for what?

All the FIA said is that they are happy now, so how is it "clearly not happy"?

Quote:
"I'm not sure when any more additional sensors can be fitted. Probably not until next year, if the truth be known."


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... s-1043220/

all he's saying here is that the process by which they monitor is very complicated and he's hoping to come up with a simpler way of doing it. That's it. He's not saying they still have concerns, or that they are not happy. Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you come up with that conclusion from this? :?

Yes that would be what they are concerned about, they are not happy with the present monitoring system.

so it's the way they monitor that is the issue (for the FIA), not the thing they are monitoring. And even then, their issue with the monitoring process is its complexity, not in the results it comes up with. In other words, when they said that they were happy that Ferrari were not doing anything illegal that should draw a line under the matter?

I'm happy that the stewards are on the case and the system can't be abused.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.

How did they steal it, knowledge in a new employees head is not theft. For it to be theft there must be physical information taken, what evidence do you have of this?


It's stealing because the part of the PU they are talking about they don't understand, hence why they sent the FIA down a rabbit hole and tried to use the pres to manipulate public opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
we don't know, so why is the default position they must be cheating?

The FIA don't have concerns, they are just monitoring it now because they are only aware of it now

We don't be there were concerns because of insider information and how the car performed on the track.


I particularly liked the way Charlie outed the snakes, it's one thing to steal knowledge from your former employer but to now use the knowledge in this way damn it was very low of James Allison and Lorenzo Sassi.

If you fail at your job and get fired, it's quite a reach to now cry to the authorities and say oh my am not sure but my former employer might be doing so and so.

I'm not sure that James Allison failed at his job as such, he had family issues like his wife died.



His wife died March '16, that was after he had designed a poor car compared to the one refined in '15 by Simone Resta.

For '17 Ferrari with Simone Resta delivered a better car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 535
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.

How did they steal it, knowledge in a new employees head is not theft. For it to be theft there must be physical information taken, what evidence do you have of this?


It's stealing because the part of the PU they are talking about they don't understand, hence why they sent the FIA down a rabbit hole and tried to use the pres to manipulate public opinion.

That's not stealing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.


The analogy is flawed. Unlike with crime, the burden of evidence to prove that a car complies with the regulation lies with the teams as part of their contract with FIA.


It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 535
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.


The analogy is flawed. Unlike with crime, the burden of evidence to prove that a car complies with the regulation lies with the teams as part of their contract with FIA.


It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.

But it isn't comparable as they don't have any dossier so have not stolen anything. Did the guy who went to Ferrari from Mercedes who's supposed to have started them oil burning steal the info too? The answer is no as no documentation was taken along so all is good.
The employees now working for Mercedes have a duty to their new employer to firstly do the best they can to develop the Mercedes, but also to present any info that Ferrari may be operating in a grey area of the rules (or illegally); the same as the ex Merc guys who went to Ferrari had this duty to them.
This has happened throughout F1 for a long time, with employees swapping teams andd taking knowledge (in their heads) entirely legally to the new team and using it for their benefit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3517
I'm just going to put this out there, guys: Knowing something isn't theft. I learned in school that 3x3 was 9, but I didn't steal that knowledge from my teacher. It could well be that one or both of these mechanics actually worked on that area of the Ferrari, although the inability to find anything thus far suggests otherwise. Even so, telling neither Mercedes nor the FIA is theft or in any way breaking the rules.

Also, it is worth reiterating that Ferrari have been found in breach of no rules, whether that be with the ICE, turbo or wing mirrors (the latter being a flagrant abuse of a loophole, granted, but NOT illegal).

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Rockie wrote:

But to have a knowledge of something and to understand how it works are two different things, it's obvious Sassi does not understand how it works or the general concept and has left Mercedes with egg on their face right now as it shows they raised a false flag.

All I see now is FIA looking for a logic to a conclusion put forward by Allison, Sassi and Mercedes.

Because in all of this the Ferrari has not failed any of the tests so far though the FIA keep moving the goalpost for the tests.

So they didn't steal knowledge from Ferrari as you stated!


They stole, they just don't know how to use the knowledge they stole as they don't understand how the batteries work.

As an engine man he did the combustion side of the PU, but knowing the Ferrari splits the battery pack he felt they may abuse it and was reported to the FIA that way by Mercedes.

What the FIA is doing now in my opinion is trying to get Ferrari to prove they are not abusing the system, akin to a neighbour accusing you of a crime and the police telling you to prove yourself innocent after their investigation has found nothing.


The analogy is flawed. Unlike with crime, the burden of evidence to prove that a car complies with the regulation lies with the teams as part of their contract with FIA.


It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Who had a Ferrari dossier in the 2018 case? Source? Evidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:

It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Who had a Ferrari dossier in the 2018 case? Source? Evidence?


Well if you just paused for a minute and understand the sentence, you won't have to ask this question.

"They" being Mclaren.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:

It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Who had a Ferrari dossier in the 2018 case? Source? Evidence?


Well if you just paused for a minute and understand the sentence, you won't have to ask this question.

"They" being Mclaren.


What has that to do with 2018 and the Ferrrari battery systems "affair"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:

It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Who had a Ferrari dossier in the 2018 case? Source? Evidence?


Well if you just paused for a minute and understand the sentence, you won't have to ask this question.

"They" being Mclaren.


What has that to do with 2018 and the Ferrrari battery systems "affair"?


Never mind, not going to go on explaining simple logic to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8064
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm just going to put this out there, guys: Knowing something isn't theft. I learned in school that 3x3 was 9, but I didn't steal that knowledge from my teacher. It could well be that one or both of these mechanics actually worked on that area of the Ferrari, although the inability to find anything thus far suggests otherwise. Even so, telling neither Mercedes nor the FIA is theft or in any way breaking the rules.

Also, it is worth reiterating that Ferrari have been found in breach of no rules, whether that be with the ICE, turbo or wing mirrors (the latter being a flagrant abuse of a loophole, granted, but NOT illegal).


Well I learned that if you copy someones work, its plagiarism.


If you copy everyones work its research. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Rockie wrote:

It is not the Ferrari tech spec is with the FIA, so it's not like they just found out about the split batteries.

Also the car has gone through FIA scrutineers multiple seasons without any problems, until this two disgruntled employees decided to go to the FIA and say check the batteries.

Compare it to spy=gate because they had the Ferrari dossier and understood how it worked they were able to tell the FIA exactly how it worked.


Who had a Ferrari dossier in the 2018 case? Source? Evidence?


Well if you just paused for a minute and understand the sentence, you won't have to ask this question.

"They" being Mclaren.


What has that to do with 2018 and the Ferrrari battery systems "affair"?


Never mind, not going to go on explaining simple logic to you.


Because there is no logic ....
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4912
So apparently the battery or ES isn't twin or tandem but it's just one like everyone else's but it's the software that treats the battery as being 2 separate ones.

Anyone with any guesses, educated or otherwise, as to what the benefits could be for this? (Outside of what the accusations were obviously)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2633
Location: England
Lotus49 wrote:
So apparently the battery or ES isn't twin or tandem but it's just one like everyone else's but it's the software that treats the battery as being 2 separate ones.

Anyone with any guesses, educated or otherwise, as to what the benefits could be for this? (Outside of what the accusations were obviously)


Perhaps, with the battery charging via different sources, it's easier/more efficient on a software level to treat the incoming charge from different places as charging 2 seperate batteries despite it physically being one block? Totally making that up as I go along mind....

I don't know, or can even offer as theory as to why that might be the case, but the idea that the software is 'seeing' 2 batteries and only reporting on 1 of them to the FIA sensor (if that is indeed the case, again, totally hypothesising here) does lend itself wide open to accusations of potential abuse, and given that the claims appear to have originated from ex Ferrari men, I don't think its wholly beyond reason that perhaps Ferrari are pushing the envelope in this area a bit further than the other teams.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3517
I reiterate my above post. I came in here to lock the thread but a couple of you just saved it.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3517
Flash2k11 wrote:
Perhaps, with the battery charging via different sources, it's easier/more efficient on a software level to treat the incoming charge from different places as charging 2 seperate batteries despite it physically being one block? Totally making that up as I go along mind....

Just a theory upon your theory, minimal expertise behind this, but is it possible that the different inputs are being treated differently, leading to the excess from one source being deployed differently from the regulated generation? I don't know if this is possible or makes sense though.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4912
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
So apparently the battery or ES isn't twin or tandem but it's just one like everyone else's but it's the software that treats the battery as being 2 separate ones.

Anyone with any guesses, educated or otherwise, as to what the benefits could be for this? (Outside of what the accusations were obviously)


Perhaps, with the battery charging via different sources, it's easier/more efficient on a software level to treat the incoming charge from different places as charging 2 seperate batteries despite it physically being one block? Totally making that up as I go along mind....

I don't know, or can even offer as theory as to why that might be the case, but the idea that the software is 'seeing' 2 batteries and only reporting on 1 of them to the FIA sensor (if that is indeed the case, again, totally hypothesising here) does lend itself wide open to accusations of potential abuse, and given that the claims appear to have originated from ex Ferrari men, I don't think its wholly beyond reason that perhaps Ferrari are pushing the envelope in this area a bit further than the other teams.


That sounds interesting, I wish I had a better grasp on things like this but I've got go with Gene Haas on this and call it too complex.

I have to say it does sound like something open to abuse to me but as above it's all a bit beyond by level of knowledge. When the thinking was it was tandem then I can see some cooling benefits and maybe reliability benefits but I'm struggling to think of any plausible reasons why you'd want the software to do this but yours sounds interesting as does PF1 Mod's add on.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:06 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6562
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I reiterate my above post. I came in here to lock the thread but a couple of you just saved it.

Thank you P-F1 Mod, could you please leave this thread open as it is an on-going issue? It seems we haven't seen the end of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:23 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6562
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
So apparently the battery or ES isn't twin or tandem but it's just one like everyone else's but it's the software that treats the battery as being 2 separate ones.

Anyone with any guesses, educated or otherwise, as to what the benefits could be for this? (Outside of what the accusations were obviously)


Perhaps, with the battery charging via different sources, it's easier/more efficient on a software level to treat the incoming charge from different places as charging 2 seperate batteries despite it physically being one block? Totally making that up as I go along mind....

I don't know, or can even offer as theory as to why that might be the case, but the idea that the software is 'seeing' 2 batteries and only reporting on 1 of them to the FIA sensor (if that is indeed the case, again, totally hypothesising here) does lend itself wide open to accusations of potential abuse, and given that the claims appear to have originated from ex Ferrari men, I don't think its wholly beyond reason that perhaps Ferrari are pushing the envelope in this area a bit further than the other teams.


This is actually something I often wondered. The FIA is checking the cars, etc. Do they also check the software? And to what extent do they go? It must be difficult to check the software and coding for 10 different cars...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3517
Siao7 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I reiterate my above post. I came in here to lock the thread but a couple of you just saved it.

Thank you P-F1 Mod, could you please leave this thread open as it is an on-going issue? It seems we haven't seen the end of it

We want to, but if wild accusations keep getting posted as facts and defended as such we have to protect ourselves from a libel standpoint.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:30 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6562
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I reiterate my above post. I came in here to lock the thread but a couple of you just saved it.

Thank you P-F1 Mod, could you please leave this thread open as it is an on-going issue? It seems we haven't seen the end of it

We want to, but if wild accusations keep getting posted as facts and defended as such we have to protect ourselves from a libel standpoint.


Ok, I never considered that.

Don't worry though, we are here to prove the false accusations wrong!!! You couldn't have a better team!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1358
Location: London
Siao7 wrote:

Don't worry though, we are here to prove the false accusations wrong!!! You couldn't have a better team!!


Yeah, nothing beats an army of ill informed internet "experts" at really getting to the truth of a matter! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:47 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6562
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

Don't worry though, we are here to prove the false accusations wrong!!! You couldn't have a better team!!


Yeah, nothing beats an army of ill informed internet "experts" at really getting to the truth of a matter! :lol:


Hahaha, well said Lojik!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
we don't know, so why is the default position they must be cheating?

The FIA don't have concerns, they are just monitoring it now because they are only aware of it now

We don't be there were concerns because of insider information and how the car performed on the track.


I particularly liked the way Charlie outed the snakes, it's one thing to steal knowledge from your former employer but to now use the knowledge in this way damn it was very low of James Allison and Lorenzo Sassi.

If you fail at your job and get fired, it's quite a reach to now cry to the authorities and say oh my am not sure but my former employer might be doing so and so.

I'm not sure that James Allison failed at his job as such, he had family issues like his wife died.



His wife died March '16, that was after he had designed a poor car compared to the one refined in '15 by Simone Resta.

For '17 Ferrari with Simone Resta delivered a better car.

My understanding was that he was not spending enough time in Italy because he was needed that much back in England?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jezza13, Teddy007 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group