Ferrari has been required by the FIA to run extra hardware on its power units at the Monaco Grand Prix, RaceFans understands, following speculation its design could contravene the rules.
Intrigue has surrounded the second battery in Ferrari’s power unit. Rivals have raised concerns Ferrari’s design could circumvent restrictions on how much electrical energy can be stored and used, giving it a performance advantage.
FIA race director Charlie Whiting has examined the Ferrari design and found no evidence it is has been used this way. However the extra hardware being run on the SF71Hs this weekend is intended to ensure they cannot do so.Rival team principals expressed confidence in the ability of the FIA to ensure that cars comply with the rules.
“We have legality topics come up regularly,” said Mercedes’ executive director Toto Wolff. “Some are more controversial but it’s the daily business of the FIA to check what the teams do, it is the obligations of the teams to comply with the regulation and this is an ongoing process.
“I have great confidence with whatever issues are coming up, the engine or the chassis, the FIA has been on top of it. This is, as far as I understand, the process that is taking place as we speak and we’ll see what the outcome is.”
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said: “I’m sure the FIA have all the competence to be able to measure, administer and look at the car that is presented for scrutineering and during a grand prix weekend that it complies with the regulations. Of course it’s the team’s obligation to ensure that that happens.”
Ferrari customer team Sauber has not been required to use the same hardware on its engines, team principal Frederic Vasseur confirmed.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2018 F1 season
- McLaren staff told us we were “totally crazy” to take Honda engines in 2018 – Tost
- ‘It doesn’t matter if we start last’: How Red Bull’s junior team aided Honda’s leap forward
- Honda’s jet division helped F1 engineers solve power unit problem
- McLaren Racing losses rise after Honda split
- Ricciardo: Baku “s***show” was Red Bull’s fault
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 12:41
Has this second battery been covered in an earlier article? My me jury fails me.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 12:42
*memory, not ‘me jury’
GeeMac (@geemac)
24th May 2018, 17:00
According to Mark Hughes’ piece in Motorsport, they have run 2 batteries since 2014. You can find it linked in his tweets on the subject.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 20:10
Cheers, @geemac
Shimks (@shimks)
24th May 2018, 13:01
It just hit me that we have lost one of the exciting ingredients of F1: rival F1 team managers hating on each other. They used to be so much conflict in the old days! Nowadays, almost everyone seems to be pals. Of course, I could be completely wrong. Am I? The thought just occurred to me moments ago and I haven’t had the time to put in the deep analysis necessary to back up my statement!
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 13:16
The thing is, team managers are allies and foes at different times.
Regulations to cut back on engines and increase aero-dependence? Wolff and Arrivabene become best buddies.
Regulations to cut back on Mercedes dominance? Arrivabene and Horner are new BFFs.
Suspicion that Ferrari are up to shenanigans with their ES? “My mate Wolff”, says Christian.
It was probably a simpler time when team principals could directly hate one another. Today, is more of strategic alliances of convenience.
I think the last gentlemanly action by a team principal (at a team level) was when Whitmarsh allowed a supply of Mercedes engines to Brawn – an action made in the interest of sportsmanship, despite the possibility of a concern that the team might pose a threat. And as Whitmarsh’s future showed, there’s no place for gentlemen in F1.
L (@lebz)
24th May 2018, 18:05
This comment is actually quite funny… And you’re right… :D :D :D
Shimks (@shimks)
25th May 2018, 11:02
So true, @phylyp!
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 13:18
Missed the @shimks
Chikano
25th May 2018, 6:15
As my father thought me in this very room, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer”
– Don Corleone
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
24th May 2018, 13:15
The FIA seems to be very reactive and dynamic when there is anything suspicious about Ferrari. However, I didn’t see this same reactivity with other teams especially RBR & Mercedes.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 13:18
@tifoso1989 – when you say “reactive/reactivity” are you saying they are quick to react and investigate, or that they’re reactive and not proactive?
Maybe all the jokes about Ferrari International Assistance have finally got to Todt, and he’s decided to get rid of that moniker.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
24th May 2018, 14:52
@phylyp
I mean quickly to react and investigate and ban if applicable anything related to Ferrari while it was lenient with that regard with Ferrari’s rivals.
Ferrari are the only obstacle in front of Jean Todt’s way for a complete reign on F1. Since Marchionne became president. Ferrari were constantly preventing Todt from carrying on with his own agenda and showed absolutely no fear in front of the FIA. They challenged the FIA last in 2015 and vetoed the engine price cut rule and made it clear that they will veto any rule that is against their interest. That’s why he is desperately pushing for revoking Ferrari’s veto. The signing of Laurent Mekies lately was also a big blow. So all this masquerade, is just Ferrari getting a proper punishment according to Napoleon.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
24th May 2018, 14:59
@tifoso1989 – thanks for clarifying.
I wasn’t aware of that much of a power struggle between Ferrari and Todt!
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
24th May 2018, 15:40
@phylyp
Just for info, Todt was sacked from his role as a CEO of Ferrari (and not only the F1 team principle) by the then CEO of Fiat Sergio Marchionne.
Martin
24th May 2018, 13:18
Confirmation Bias :)
Mark (@blueruck)
24th May 2018, 16:06
I would love to see your data on when the FIA becomes aware of potential issues and how fast they are reacting.
Frankly, I think you are making some big assumptions and coming up with Poor Ferrari
Blazzz
24th May 2018, 16:39
I think his profile pic tells you all you need to know.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
24th May 2018, 21:20
@blueruck
Mercedes has been burning oil since 2014 and the issue was only addressed last year.
Ed Marques (@edmarques)
24th May 2018, 21:25
And the team most affected by it wasn’t Mercedes…
anon
24th May 2018, 18:22
@tifoso1989, you claim that “I didn’t see this same reactivity with other teams especially RBR & Mercedes” – I presume that you are ignoring the fact that, at the start of the 2017 season, the FIA suddenly introduced further restrictions on the suspension systems on the Mercedes and Red Bull cars after Ferrari decided to ask for a “clarification” just before the start of the season?
Other teams have been on the receiving end of similar treatment in recent years so, as other posters here have noted, your post gives the impression of confirmation bias.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
24th May 2018, 21:15
@anon
The request formulated by Simone Resta at the time demonstrated in every way that the trick suspension system used by RBR and Mercedes was illegal. The two teams were running the system for the whole 2016 season and the FIA was sleeping as usual.
Ferrari asked for clarification before the start of the season just to force the FIA to do their homework and ban the system in order to scrap the development plans of both RBR/Mercedes or just let them introduce such illegal system on their car, as simple as that.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/has-ferrari-just-handed-mercedes-2017-f1-title
Will Jones
25th May 2018, 8:15
You do know that linking to an opinion piece doesn’t actually reinforce your point, if anything it detracts from it since you clearly looked for evidence and this was all you could find
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
25th May 2018, 11:23
Wooden language at best. I wasn’t looking for Mark Hughes opinion , even though it’s a very respectable on the F1 paddock, when I’ve linked the article in question, nor looking for an evidence. That was just a reminder on how the trick suspension system worked.
grat
25th May 2018, 15:49
FIA bans FRIC
FIA clamps down on oil burning
FIA clamps down on fancy hydraulic suspensions (FRIC part 2)
… all of these were aimed at Mercedes.
Velocityboy (@velocityboy)
24th May 2018, 13:45
Given that the extra piece of hardware is going to increase the weight of the car (remember a few years ago they changed paint because they found a lighter one), I’m surprised that Ferrari didn’t demand it be run on all cars.
Warheart (@warheart)
24th May 2018, 13:57
@velocityboy I was thinking the same. Back in the day, with flexible wings, they changed the weights for the flexibility test and ran it on all wings. I’m surprised not all cars have to use the new hardware, if the FIA thinks that Ferrari might be circunventing the limits without the current hardware detecting it, that means that any other team could be doing the same thing.
Gabriel (@rethla)
24th May 2018, 17:54
Im sure FIA would compensate if the weight difference aint neglectable.
George May
24th May 2018, 20:48
Isn’t there a minimum running weight for the car+driver at the moment? I.e all cars are probably running a small amount of ballast to meet the minimum weight anyway so I doubt the added hardware will make the car heavier.
Warheart (@warheart)
25th May 2018, 6:51
@rethla I actually wasn’t thinking about the weight itself (although F1 measures everything down to the very last gram), but the different consideration. If the FIA thinks that a team can circunvent the energy deployment limit without their current measuring system detecting it, then any team can do it, even if only Ferrari is a suspect.
Gabriel (@rethla)
25th May 2018, 15:29
@warheart True but also this sounds like its something specificly done with two batteries and the others just run one so who knows.
ADUB SMALLBLOCK
24th May 2018, 16:05
Just curious if the power store, and this extra battery, fall into the pile of equipment that the manufacturer (Ferrari) must supply THE SAME to customer teams, and are the customer teams running this extra battery?
StephenH
24th May 2018, 17:16
Tut, tut, tut …
Naughty, naughty Scuderia at it again ….
Clive
1st July 2018, 22:51
It’s on the car from 2014
Steven Robertson (@emu55)
24th May 2018, 17:21
The current engine regulations are such a complicated beast, I don’t know why Ferrari would have two batteries, what benefit that would give them and what is the actual size of the batteries involved, are they like car batteries on my family car or the size of a mobile phone?
Gabriel (@rethla)
24th May 2018, 17:52
Weight and heat distribution comes to mind with two batteries. Maybe the ability to run two different voltages for unknown reason.
John H (@john-h)
24th May 2018, 19:18
What happened with regards Ferrari potentially burning oil to assist the turbo? I seem to remember that being a possible cause for the smoke upon fire up, and of course also against the rules.
Todfod (@todfod)
24th May 2018, 19:41
I’m curious to know about that one as well. There could be a very logical explanation for that puff of smoke on start up that was such a mystery during pre season testing… a question that Ferrari was constantly dodging when asked.
Hansb
24th May 2018, 20:30
FIA confirmed yesterday nothing is against the rules with the oil system in the Ferrari.
anon
24th May 2018, 21:19
@john-h, I believe that, in the past, Ferrari claimed that it was just a consequence of a leakage of oil through the seals when the turbocharger unit was cold – the allegation, though, was that the leakage was not accidental, but rather that Ferrari were controlling the leakage rate to enable them to burn additional oil to boost power.
That is where the recent request from Mercedes for clarification from the FIA comes in – there was the suggestion that Ferrari were relying on the oil reservoir for the turbocharger not counting towards the maximum oil consumption limit (which relied on the , which is a rule that has now been closed, as well as clamping down on the number of different types of oil that can be used.
Sundar Srinivas Harish (@sundark)
25th May 2018, 4:22
Autosport did a piece on this, pretty much summed up by anon.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
24th May 2018, 19:24
I can see the logic in this, in that you have one battery being used for the hybrid system and one for running the electronics, ignition system, comms, etc. So while the battery being used for the power unit has the wildly fluctuating voltages the other keeps a steady voltage. We haven’t been told the ratings of this second battery, and without knowing those we don’t know what sort of power advantage Ferrari might get from it. Say, for example, the second battery is a 12 volt battery and has a maximum safe discharge rate of 5 amps, that’s a maximum power output of 60 watts. A cake mixer has more power than that.
I don’t see why this is unique, it would be something that all teams have thought about, in fact I thought it was normal in F1 to do this. I’m sure I’ve heard drivers over the RT saying things like “My battery is dead! My battery is dead!”, yet there’s enough power around to supply the RT and the on board cameras, so it’s obvious that car has two batteries. It should be mandatory for a team to use two batteries when one is used for the hybrid system. How can you justify a car with just one actual battery to supply everything? If that battery did fail then the car is dependent upon the engine’s alternator to supply all the electronics, and you just need a momentary spike on the power supply to the alternator (an alternator needs power to make power), the alternator fails, and then the driver won’t have any comms, no ignition system, no gears, no brakes, no accelerator, no instruments on the dashboard, etc, just a 360 km/h trolley.
Gabriel (@rethla)
24th May 2018, 20:19
@drycrust Im pretty sure Ferraris two batteries are in addition to whatever battery the electronics use. In other words two ERS batteries.
Ferrari may in fact be using a myriad of small batteries for different subsystems.
Dale
26th May 2018, 15:55
And where do you suck that speculation from?
NewVerstappenFan (@jureo)
25th May 2018, 5:42
How cool is this, Ferrari finally being creative, to the point of being investigated, on the cutting edge of regulation limits. Much bettet than previous years.
Now we have batteries, winglets, oil burning in the turbo, all kinds of wizardry they are accused of. Good job.
Chikano
25th May 2018, 7:54
Did not think of it like this you are actually right LOL
it is about time ( I am a Merc Fan)
Andy Bunting (@wildbiker)
25th May 2018, 6:59
Here’s an interesting article about modern engine management systems that may possibly be something to do with Ferrari’s oil caper?
https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/24sight-this-engine-can-switch-between-2-stroke-and-4-stroke-fuel-savings-of-up-to-27.html
Makes one wonder?
Andy Bunting (@wildbiker)
25th May 2018, 7:03
The battery monitoring could be the smoke screen??!!
kpcart
25th May 2018, 7:37
I think they should do special monitoring on Mercedes engines too. Why single out one based on suspicions