F1 2013 Testing: Week 3 Barcelona

[Skeeter]

I don,t like any of the teams cheating and you don't care.

I do care.

If a team breaks the rules, they should be disqualified, nobody is questioning that.

If a new rule is created, it is applied from that point onwards, and should not be retrospectively applied to previous results. Thats my point.

So for the specific example that sparked this, if RBR run an engine map, and after the race the stewards check it and find that it breaks the rules then they will be disqualified. However, if after the race the stewards look at the maps and find that actually they want to stop them, and so write a new technical directive/rule/clarification that bans them, they are illegal from that point onwards, and the result stands.

Clear?

 

[FrankJH]

I do care.

If a team breaks the rules, they should be disqualified, nobody is questioning that.

If a new rule is created, it is applied from that point onwards, and should not be retrospectively applied to previous results. Thats my point.

So for the specific example that sparked this, if RBR run an engine map, and after the race the stewards check it and find that it breaks the rules then they will be disqualified. However, if after the race the stewards look at the maps and find that actually they want to stop them, and so write a new technical directive/rule/clarification that bans them, they are illegal from that point onwards, and the result stands.

Clear?

This is where its dodgy from my mind

If its a totally new rule, then fair enough - the race result should stand.

If its a CLARIFICATION however, those breaking what is in essence an existing rule should still be thrown out , even though the race has been completed.

IMO this latter part is what doesnt always happen.

 

[Skeeter]

A clarification is still something new that didn't exist before, no matter how small.

And clarifications and technical directives are basically the FIA admitting the rules alone weren't enough to deem something illegal, and they need amending.

Contrary to popular belief, the FIA are not out to just 'let people cheat'. And anyway, the teams themselves are the best police. If any team is confident that their competitors are cheating they won't hesitate to lodge a protest. The fact they don't, and instead just ask the FIA for clarification shows that they actually don't think its breaking the rules at all. The FIA doesn't let people cheat, and the other teams most certainly don't.

 

[Demon]

I do care.

If a team breaks the rules, they should be disqualified, nobody is questioning that.

If a new rule is created, it is applied from that point onwards, and should not be retrospectively applied to previous results. Thats my point.

So for the specific example that sparked this, if RBR run an engine map, and after the race the stewards check it and find that it breaks the rules then they will be disqualified. However, if after the race the stewards look at the maps and find that actually they want to stop them, and so write a new technical directive/rule/clarification that bans them, they are illegal from that point onwards, and the result stands.


Clear?

The only time these things seem unfair is as an example the hole in the floor RB had in Monaco last year,
IIRC, no one protested formally, and when the FIA later found the hole to be illegal to the current rules, no sanctions where given to RB, their points stood..

To me the whole subject is about sportsmanship..
- Creating new ideas that require rule changes but are currently legal are good
- Deliberately breaking rules and relying on passing tests is bad
- Breaking rules and being found out after the fact and getting away with it is bad..

 

[Skeeter]

Did RBR actually race with the hole? Can't remember if they changed it or not. Either way, it was legal as the rule stated that viewed from below the floor had to provide an unbroken silohette, which it did. The FIA had to issue a clarification to amend the rule.

On your second point, the rules and the tests are the same thing. Assuming your referring to the wings, there isn't a rule that says "wings cannot flex" and then a test to check, the rule states "wings should only deflect a maximum of X under Y load at Z point", and the RBR passes. The test and the rules are the same thing, you cannot break the rule and pass the test.

 

[sunama]

I know, getting real excited ... Hmmm need to plan what to have for breakfast that day

Making plans on what to eat on the day of the race is pretty extreme

 

[FrankJH]

A clarification is still something new that didn't exist before, no matter how small.

And clarifications and technical directives are basically the FIA admitting the rules alone weren't enough to deem something illegal, and they need amending.
.

Im happy to agree to disagree - but I dont agree with this viewpoint in the slightest.

A Clarification is re-writing an existing rule to make it clearer. Which imo implies x team is breaking the rules

(there was no rule at all about double diffusers or that area of the car pre-brawn, so a totally new rule had to be created. Front wing deflection tests have been changed over and over again because the FIA cant get the test right to measure the rule they want to enforce)

 

[Demon]

Did RBR actually race with the hole?

Yes they did..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18310767

On your second point, the rules and the tests are the same thing. Assuming your referring to the wings, there isn't a rule that says "wings cannot flex" and then a test to check, the rule states "wings should only deflect a maximum of X under Y load at Z point", and the RBR passes. The test and the rules are the same thing, you cannot break the rule and pass the test.

you are correct that 3.17 rules are defining the tests.. I take that as a given, I'm talking about the conflict with 3.15 which states that

any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not
having any degree of freedom).

Just because something passes the tests defined in 3.17 does not mean it isn't technically breaching rule 3.15.

BTW, I'm not saying anything is legal or illegal, I am assuming that anything the FIA passes and is happy with is legal, I am merely saying that I find deliberate bending of the rules which rely on the FIA's massive inconsistencies (Take flexy rear wings as an example) not a good thing, and much prefer the genuine outside of the rules creative designs..

 

[Skeeter]

"Rigidly secured" is not the same as just being "rigid". The wings must be attached with rigid mountings, so solid front wing supports, or bolted solidly to the rear wing end plates. This is the part of the regulations that teams were seen to be breaching when the wings were caught on nose cameras detaching from their mounts (Ferrari and McLaren, if I remember correct).

If a wing flexes on its mount then it breaches 3.15. However just a degree of flex within the single wing element itself does not, and is instead governed by the test in 3.17.

The tests were very basic though, and used to only test flex in one direction. This years rules are a lot stricter.

 

[Danthus]

As much as I like Chilton, he isn't a top driver. Bianchi on the other hand may be being lined up to replace Massa at Ferrari, so Bianchi beating Chilton this season is pretty much expected.

I have just had a quick look at his record, he obviously has some good financial backing.

 

[Skeeter]

Who, Bianchi or Chilton?

 

[Danthus]

Chilton.