The Thin Red Line (of legality): Ferrari and its suspected advantages
Even if not a single formal protest has reached FIA, many teams have raised doubts and claims to the Federation for the not clear engine layout of the Cavallino cars
As the famous movie set in a Pacific Ocean island during WW2 American invasion of the Japanese conquered lands, the line between life and death was very thin: every inch of terrain was covered with mines and traps waiting to be activated by an unaware man.
As it stands, the Ferrari technical situation resembles that ambience: a clear upgrade has been achieved through the summer break, but so great gap built in so little time has destabilized the competitors.
And being the ‘dominance’ begun in Spa and Monza speed tracks, some have hypothesized that the key factor for pushing Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc to the front positions again was some PU trick rather than the aero package: moreover, the Renault disqualification in Singapore qualifying and the official protest received at Suzuka, pointed out that the engine way for gaining advantage is already haunted by the manufacturers of powertrains.
The fuel sponsor of McLaren is going to break £163 million contract in coming days.
But, if for the French team the software of the ERS and the brake pre-set bias is said to be their focus, at Maranello Autosport claim that the oil exhaust is named as the secret of such performances.
This side of the engine properties arose since the introduction of the turbocharged era of F1: if with the V8 aspirated cars chemicals were crucial in providing ‘vitamins’ to the 2.8 litres, with the V6 1.600 cm3 the exhaust oil is pumped inside the combustion chamber for gaining extra detonation.
The way Ferrari has sorted out is allowing oil entrance through the intercooler to the engine: the rules say that any fluid in the turbo cooling system “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”.
Anyway, what is tricky about the whole situation is the behaviour of the other teams in front of the suspect of regulations infringement from the Italians: Autosport tells that the political role of the passed Charlie Whiting was to deal with all the informal questions and doubts between teams, avoiding the use of the official protest; such this kind of actions are certainly the most indicated for leaving no room for suspicions after the verdict of FIA, but can be a double-sword for the public image of the issuer.
