Ferrari Engine Controversy: Full Timeline Explained

Much of the details around this situation have been deemed protected by the FIA, which certainly complicates things. This is at odds with their statement that they were not “fully satisfied” Ferrari’s power unit was perfectly inline with the technical regulations imposed for the 2019 season.

The decision to post an official, public response to their investigation into Ferrari’s power unit was one the FIA chose to do voluntarily. Which is why the Formula 1 community at large is confused by the language. I would summarize the events by framing is 

Despite the FIA clearly taking some issue with the power unit to some degree, they have chosen to keep the details of the investigation quiet – the ultimate terms of their agreement with it.

This prompted all teams on the grid without Ferrari power to coalesce against what appears to be the FIA covering something up. These teams include:

• McLaren Racing Limited
• Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited
• Racing Point UK Limited
• Red Bull Racing Limited
• Renault Sport Racing Limited
• Scuderia Alpha Tauri S.p.A.
• Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited

The critical thing to note here is there are numerous situations in which this could be justified. There is no available evidence to prove Ferrari had an illegal car. It’s obvious that the FIA don’t like something about their car, but ultimately, the only evidence we have is that Ferrari may have pushed the boundaries. 

My personal issue I have is not so much that Ferrari ultimately have chosen to not disclose certain information, it’s the manner in which they are doing it. 

But we must not forget, had Ferrari outright cheated, the FIA would not have minced words. Their decision would have been clear about that. And referencing their official statement, the direct implication is conspicuously absent. 

With so much happening, I think it’s important to pause and take a second to organize a clear timeline of events. This may shed more light as to why so many have an issue with this. 

Breadcrumbs form a pile, after all.

October 2018

Around the time of the Japanese Grand Prix, Arrivabene confirmed that a second sensor was added. But both he and Charlie Whiting were quick to quiet any talks this sensor had been a headwind to Ferrari’s performance.

This appeased many naysayers, but not for long. But I attribute much of today’s swirl originated as far back as this point.

I also emphasize the rhetoric Arrivabene was using about the seriousness to which Ferrari would be taking these issues going forward. This seemed like foreshadowing that the next inquiry like this, the owed favor for Ferrari going out of their way to play ball and cooperate with the FIA by allowing a second sensor on speculation would be called in. 

It’s important to remember this moment because these too were spurred on by speculation and ultimately, the FIA found no evident breach. But keep in mind teams avoid official complaints at all costs as to not create a situation in which it appears teams were being targeted and likely would create a hostile environment on the grid. This came after FIA confirmed and named publicly those who filed the complaint which is typically sealed as Lorenzo Sassi and James Allison were identified. 

Foreshadowing has never been more palpable.

Canada 2019: Newfound Suspicion

Nick Chester’s comments on Ferrari lacked any major implications, but they did say what everyone was thinking out loud: How is a team dominating straight-line speed while running wings that don’t appear to have any foul play. 

It’s not immediately evident the team employs any aero tricks like exhaust-blown rear wings, but but Chester clearly had some level of concern, or maybe more fairly stated “interest, in how Ferrari were capable of having straight line speed with wings not conducive to straight line speed. 

It was Ferrari’s lack of success on track that fueled so much of the uprising later as it created a very stark contrast that couldn’t be ignored. 

3 Peat Victories

Before the break, the Ferrari engine had produced zero wins, and 3 poles. After the break, Ferrari had back to back to back victories, two going to Leclerc and one to Vettel.  More importantly, Ferrari wouldn’t lose a pole position until the US GP where they would fail to get another pole after.

It’s not enough to measure these results alone. Comparatively, the suspicions hold up. In 2018 with Sebastian & Kimi, the Scuderia won 2 grand prix at SPA and the USGP while taking their lone post-break pole at their home race.

So it’s true Ferrari were performing at tracks that are power hungry but it’s not as if it wouldn’t be fair to be confused how they managed to double their pole count to 6 in exactly half the amount of races.

What really had people asking questions was their straight line speed. This was at the heart of newly revived speculation about Ferrari’s battery usage or how they achieved output. 

It was here that Christian Horner revealed that Red Bull had indeed issued an informal request for information from the FIA regarding Ferrari’s power after witnessing the leap they made at SPA. 

The Horses Stop Prancing

Ferrari’s dominant spell ensued after break and if they weren’t winning races, they were inevitably on pole. This came to a screeching halt at the US GP. This plays an important role in the narrative due to the fact that Ferrari’s advantage seemingly dissipated the very race a technical directive was issued surrounding flow and highlighting how FFM tricks are not to be permitted.

Technical Directive 35/19

Despite the talk on the paddock and the FIA being engaged informally, no team had yet to launch an official complaint just yet. 

It came to light that Paul Monaghan, chief engineer for Red Bull, sent an official inquiry into the FIA seeking clarification about fuel flow.

To explain this in simple terms, fuel flow meters are fitted on each of the cars and are regulated by the FIA. The fuel flow meters measure in intervals. Therefore if you were theoretically at legal limitations as measured by the FIA at those specific measurement intervals, there could still be the possibility that at non-measurement intervals your fuel flow exceeded limits.

To further make the point, Red Bull went as far as to replicate the injection process on non-measured intervals using electrical currents to show the fuel flow sensors could be beaten. 

This is what Red Bull wanted to clarify, atleast. And to do this, on October 22nd Red Bull cleverly drafted 3 scenarios that could potentially cheat the FFM and so that the FIA could speak to the theoretical scenarios. This clearly was meant to set a precedent that would be used against any team that was deploying the tactic if the FIA clarified the scenarios would in fact be illegal.

The FIA did in fact confirm the scenarios outlined by Monaghan were illegal in Technical Directive 35/19 ahead of the USGP. Here are his exact responses to the scenarios with citations to the technical regulations which they would breach:

5.10.3

All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA. Furthermore, all fuel delivered to the power unit must pass through this homologated sensor, and must all be delivered to the combustion chambers by the fuel injectors described by article 5.10.2.

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

So naturally when the US GP arrived and Ferrari’s straight line advantage disappeared, the chatter intensified. This was only confirmed in the grand prix on Sunday as Ferrari had a very poor showing. This prompted one of 2019’s memorable moments from Verstappen who was commenting on Ferrari’s drop off in performance after the FIA’s clarification:

But it wasn’t limited to just the notoriously nonfiltered dutchman, even Lewis Hamilton chimed in after the poor performance by Ferrari after the FIA’s clarification directive in Austin:

But it wasn’t limited to just the notoriously nonfiltered dutchman, even Lewis Hamilton chimed in after the poor performance by Ferrari after the FIA’s clarification directive in Austin:

“What’s come out this week has been quite interesting to see. Obviously today I think they’ve lost a bit of power. I’m interested to see how that continues and how it reflects in the race.”

But that wasn’t all for Mercedes F1. Team boss Toto Wolff added:

Technical Directive 38/19

The flames were stoked though as the FIA followed up with yet another directive, TD 38/19. 

Now that the Ferrari engine had already gotten a facelift, the Scuderia fit major upgrades on the cars which really shone bright in Singapore. This is a track Red Bull is massively favored due to circuit characteristics but in 2019, Ferrari took pole and finished a comfortable 1-2. And while the upgrades alone could have been responsible for the out of character strong showing at Marina Bay, it wasn’t enough to appease those who were weary dating back to SPA.

The leading thought on the paddock was that Ferrari were using a controlled drip of oil to seep into the SF90’s combustion process via the intercooler. If done in a targeted manner, it could deliver short power boosts and a pace advantage.

There’s nothing in the technical regulations against leveraging the intercooler.

HOWEVER…

There is a clear rule against the improper use of cooling systems weaponized in a manner to manipulate the combustion process. Here is Article 7.5 of the 2020 Technical Regulations:

• The cooling systems of the power unit, including that of the air destined for combustion, must not intentionally make use of the latent heat of vaporisation of any fluid with the exception of fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine as described in Article 5.10.3.

Up until this point, all the noise about Ferrari’s power unit could be chalked up to competitors trying to slow down their upgrades. But much to Maranello’s chagrin, the FIA issued this new  Technical Directive (TD 38/19). And this time, the TD were aimed at what many were speculating about regarding the controlled drips.

The two sides of the coin are the following:

1. Why would the FIA feel the need to clarify something in the rules clearly stated about the very thing that Ferrari is thought to have been using in their car? Considering the FIA’s TD wasn’t a response to a team inquiry, they felt they had enough of a reason.
2. On the other hand, and most important still, we DO NOT have any evidence of tangible proof. Speculation is gossip without proof. 

Worth noting this is an expansion of TD 54/18 issued in 2018 that touched on the burning of oil in improper fashion but different than the intent at hand. 

Somewhere between the Brazilian Grand Prix and the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix there are reports that the FIA seized some parts of a Ferrari car, a Ferrari customer car, and a non customer. I want to point out though, I could only ever find one source for this. What we know for sure though is Ferrari opened an official investigation into this matter ahead of the season finale.

Now might be a good time to take a look at the timeline and where we are.

Ferrari Engine Timeline Check In

• September
  • Ferrari return from break with no wins and 3 poles to their name
  • After SPA, Horner makes first remarks and reaches out informally to the FIA
  • Ferrari take 3 wins in a single month and bring an upgrade to Singapore
• October
  • Ferrari continue pole dominance and straight line speed advantage
  • Red Bull official complain goes out on October 22 seeking clarification on fuel flow meter and their electrical testing results
  • TD 35/19 issued confirming the 3 scenarios Red Bull laid out were illegal
• November
  • TD 38/19  is issued by the FIA clearing up that the combustion process should be free of cooling system liquids in every way. tates that any flammable liquid from the cooling systems can not be used for co
  • The FIA ultimately decided to seize parts of the Ferrari PU as well as a customer team and a non-customer team after the Brazilian Grand Prix before Abu Dhabi.

Season Finale, Controversy Beginning

As if the story couldn’t get any more murky for Ferrari, they ran into even more negative headlines. Prior to the start of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, Leclerc’s car was chosen to be checked as a part of the random selection process. It was found that his car’s weight had a discrepancy of 4.88kgs than the declared amount.

Because this was a violation of a technical directive and not a technical regulation, were fined €50,000 for its inaccurate declaration. The issue for many was the stewards made the decision to wait until after the Grand Prix to investigate which allowed Leclerc to race.

Below is the language used in the official decision documents from the FIA:

[Technical directive]/014-19 required teams to declare the amount of fuel that they intended to put in the car for the laps to the grid, the formation lap, the race, the in-lap and any fire-ups that would be needed. The Technical Delegate was able to confirm the fuel mass put in the tank by checking in accordance with the procedure specified in TD/014-19. There was a difference of 4.88kgs between the team’s declaration for car 16 and the technical delegate’s measured fuel mass. The team’s declaration was therefore inaccurate and constituted a breach of the technical directive. This in turn constitutes an infringement of Article 12.1.1.i of the International Sporting Code. Accordingly, the stewards determined that the team should be fined €50,000 for its inaccurate declaration.

Leclerc ends the race P3 and the season closes. But that’s not the last of the story. 

Ferrari-Gate Begins

It’s now February and it’s been a couple months since we’ve even thought about the Ferrari power unit. But the FIA have been busy concluding an investigation stemming from all the intrigue and inquiry from last season.

We’re in the last day of winter testing for the 2020 season. As the time ticks down into the final hour as teams are wrapping and staff are headed out, the FIA unleash mayhem. 

FIA STATEMENT #1 – Feb 28th

They announced their investigations into the power unit from Ferrari was done and over with. But they decided to not make the findings public and will keep their “settlement” private. Here is the exact wording of the initial report that was published in the waning minutes of testing:

There’s a couple of very important things said, and not said here:

1. Choosing to release this at all says a lot. This of course is going to elicit a strong reaction from the team but in no way does the FIA include any sort of consolation whatsoever to the other constructors. So what was the purpose? This may have been the FIA recognizing they had no choice but to issue this thinking it might make look Ferrari bad acting as some form of restitution. 
2. Settlement implies disagreement. In the least, Ferrari objected to what the FIA was proposing. If they had enough grounds to object in complete confidence with the investigative team but reach “settlement”, it’s very likely the FIA could prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt despite having full access to the car.
3. The “commitments” language alludes to benefiting all of Formula 1. Goes on to position Ferrari as the one teaching the FIA “assisting” with regulatory duties. This insinuates something Ferrari were doing caught the FIA by surprise and in order to improve their own systems, Ferrari would be a technical partner. I find this analogous to white hat hacking – the concept where talented systems hackers are hired to to knowingly & systematically attack a system to find exploits without actually executing anything compromising.
4. There were no overt guilt references. At best, it reads as if Ferrari outsmarted The FIA. 

TEAM RESPONSE #1- March 4th

Naturally, this didn’t go over well with all the teams on the grid. The 7 teams without Ferrari power were “surprised and shocked” as they relayed their objections through a public dissent in early March read as such:

About as clear a threat as you can issue. But this was to be expected after all. They offered no way of knowing will this continue. In a sport with tens of millions of dollars on the line, these decisions are critical.

The FIA did not take kindly to the not-so-veiled threat from the remaining 7 teams. It took them just a day to issue their own response. But this opened up even more questions rather r esolve things.

FIA STATEMENT #2- March 5th

The FIA invoke Article 4 – essentially a catch-all for pulling rank.

A couple notes about what’s said here as I interpret them:

1. The first bit about “suspicions” seems to be the summary of the situation and why they investigated. It sounds like Ferrari defended their case and the FIA failed to prove them wrong. Also interesting they chose to leave in “firmly”. Seems hardly necessary unless it’s to display Ferrari as never bending their were by the books. 
2. Most  important of all – the letter says “material impossibility”. At first this struck me as odd:
   1. They have the car.
   2. They have the system likely protected under a strict privacy clause.
   3. They have the rules.

Why would they say that?

Then it dawned on me – They are invoking specific legal language to make it clear, IMO, this has to do with a protection of Ferrari’s development.

What I gather they are saying there is something is stopping them from exposing it even if they could. Furthermore, note the use of the word “impossibility to provide evidence of breach” for more clues. This only verifies for me they aren’t necessarily saying they can’t prove it – they are saying they couldn’t bring evidence to light that would unequivocally prove it. Combine this with them never openly saying Ferrari violating the regulation, it stands to reason at worst, they push the boundaries. But exposing it would be a major ethical breach to the core engineering secrets of Ferrari. Additionally this says to me the FIA are trying to tell other teams look if you pursue legal matters, it’s going to be protected under the same rights. 

FIA STATEMENT #3- March 6th

The World Motorsport Council convened in Geneva today where this naturally was a topic on the agenda. The released a summary statement doubling down on their strong position to not only uphold their initial decision, but to further take issue with the portrayal the 7 teams chose to paint the FIA in their handling of the case. Here is that summary statement:

Ferrari Engine Conclusion

To me, there is only one reason, and one reason alone that the following things played and resulted in a private settlement:

• Ferrari were able to successfully oppose the FIA who have been under the hood for months.
• The FIA admitted point blank they can’t prove anything without question and even doubt a legal battle would yield results. 
• Have so firmly handled the objection of the other teams despite knowingly failing to throw them a bone of any kind. 
• Chose to include a very specific legal construct “impossibility”. 

The technical issues at hand must be mission critical to the core of Ferrari’s IP. If that’s the case, and each team boss had a way of fully trusting that was the scenario, none of them would have an issue with this. But this requires the team to take the FIA at their word they are handling this without actually being able to see the potential objections. 

Even that alone sounds like it’s oversimplifying because one could just saying “well why can’t the FIA atleast confirm that?”. If this is Ferrari IP related, then confirming Ferrari’s power unit is so close to the edge that details can’t even be revealed because it constitutes their whole system will further exacerbate the situation.

In this situation, all available options are poor. This was the “least worst” option as I see it. It likely will cause a fuss. But we’ll get on it. After yet another statement coming out of Geneva from the FIA today, I feel as if the 7 teams are meant to understand the gravity to which the FIA is going to protect this. And it doesn’t appear they are bluffing.

The alternative would be a scandal to the likes we’ve never seen. If you could definitely prove that the FIA is covering up either a mistake they made in failing to catch this or are outright favoring Ferrari, how is there a path forward for another constructor to EVER respect the institution of the FIA in a real way? I don’t feel I’m overstating the implications of what this would do the sport. Saying “Ferrari International Assistance” tongue in cheek is one thing. But this 

would be a new level of collusion in broad daylight.

Going forward, the options are simple, really. The teams can either:

• A): Let it go and take the FIA at their word that more legal battles wouldn’t yield a favorable result. 
• B): Pursue lengthy, legal battles. The FIA has made it clear they have no intention backing down. And I don’t see this as a bluff. With the season right around the corner, I don’t see the grid wanting to get wrapped up in some mega battle just ahead of a stressful overhaul of the sport’s regulations in 2021.
• C): The Wildcard – It’s possible, HIGHLY unlikely. But the teams could make a stand. Melbourne will be here in less than a week. If the 7 teams refuse to race next to a team that they don’t feel is being governed to the same extent, they could make this case it’s about their competitive and fiduciary obligations to their teams, fans, and shareholders to put a car next to Ferrari if it’s not a fair playing field. Again, this is a stretch of course. But looking at Ferrari’s language from their initial response, it would be consistent. 

One thing is for sure…

2020 has already delivered on intrigue and we’re not even a grand prix into the season.