F1 Testing 2012 - Week 3, Barcelona
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
some rules are clearly ignored by the fia though until another team kick up a fuss
Again, some example please?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,140
- Location
- Europe
I can't deal with it. Arrggghhhh
I did see that Luca has started speaking publically about Ferrari's performance in testing, and talking about how many "seconds" it will take to put right.
Ferrari now remind me of Chelsea.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,140
- Location
- Europe
The JA translation is different to that:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,140
- Location
- Europe
Or did he actually mean "seconds" as in he wants an immediate solution? If could have been a severe hurry up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 10,234
- Location
- Slough
i dont know if it was charlie whitings fault, but all through last year lotus/renault were developing their front ride height adjusting mechanism. they were continually asking if their system was legal to use, and each time the FIA said it was. when it was shown what was being done to the suspension many of the teams kicked up a fuss, and it was found to break several rules very clearly... such as the "no adjustable suspension parts" rule
I don't know if your trolling or just being silly?
but off the top of my head explain the Senna & Prost collision at chicane on lap 46 Suzuka 1989 and what happend after.
Or the other time when senna hit prost, senna got pole prost got second but the fia decided
to move the pole position from the clean side of the track to the dirty side AFTER senna got pole.
People here could fill this forum with fia mistakes and the fia backing a team or driver over everyone else.
Wrong.
They asked if using it to maintain stability under braking was legal. The FIA said yes, as it broke no rules.
Then when the full details were revealed it actually transpired that they were using a mechanical moving device to maintain an aero benefit primarily, which was then deemed illegal under the rules banning movable aero parts.
The FIA didn't ignore some rules and then decide to impose them, the actual purpose of the device changed as it was developed and details revealed.
Its all to do with what something's 'primary' purpose is. For example, the suspension struts all move, and they are all aerodynamically shaped to offer the least drag and also in the case of some of the rear parts, channel air to improve aerodynamics. The FIA haven't banned anything but round suspension parts because at the end of the day a suspensions primary purpose is to hold the wheels on and the car up.
When Lotus were initially developing the device they convinced the FIA its primary purpose was to stabalise the car under braking by altering the weight transfer. As the device developed however the FIA came to the conclusion that its primary purpose was instead to maintain ride height for an aero advantage, and therefore rightly banned it. Rather similar to the iconic 'fan car' where they managed to convince the FIA its primary purpose was cooling, before the FIA took a closer look and called shenanigans.
So no, the FIA didn't blindly ignore a bunch of rules. And seen as the device never made it onto a track for a competitive weekend anyway, its irrelevant. It was never used in a situation where it would have been subject to the rules.
Last edited:
mclarens third pedal orginally classed as legal by charlie whiting...
mass dampener originally legal acording to charlie whiting.
lotus active suspension originally legel acording to charlie whiting.
i cant be bothered to go around digging them all up but there are loads of times when charlie told a team one thing and the FIA decided the exact oposite
for some reason skeeter likes to play the ignorant person and i suspect he just posts here to troll
Thats sporting regs, not technical regs. I'm not for a minute going to try to suggest that the FIA's handling of the sporting regulations is anything but a complete farce
.Lol, trolling, coming from you.
I'm trying to have a discussion where people actually support their wild claims with evidence rather than post stuff and deem it fact because they say so.
I've already explained the Lotus ride height thing. The Renault mass damprer was a bit lol suggesting it was to do with aero, but the FIA didn't knowingly ignore a rule, they just decided that it did X and banned it under rule Y. And wasn't the McLaren 3rd pedal banned by the FIA bringing in a new rule, rather than just ignoring one that was already there?
What your suggesting is that the FIA know, and can prove that something is breaking a rule, and then just let it race anyway. This hasn't happened.
How about the FIA after a season and a half saying EBD's were in fact illegal, say they are banned as they break the rules, then change their mind and let the teams decide?
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/05/24/banned-mclarens-rear-brake-pedal/
I think there is plenty of occasions of rules not being enforced until teams complain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,140
- Location
- Europe
The EBD's are an odd one. They tried to regulate it under the existing rules, couldn't, so enforced new rules for the following season.
From that quote the brake pedal looks to have been the same as the Lotus ride height device. When the FIA thought it was for doing one thing, they deemed it legal. When it turned out it was for doing something else, it was deemed illegal.
This is very different to the FIA knowing something is braking the rules, yet allowing it to happen anyway. There are cases where they have been misslead or missunderstood something, deemed it legal and then change their mind when presented with new evidence. But that's not the same thing, is it?
This all goes back to the accusation that the FIA know the Red Bull is braking the rules, but are letting it happen. They simply aren't.
From that quote the brake pedal looks to have been the same as the Lotus ride height device. When the FIA thought it was for doing one thing, they deemed it legal. When it turned out it was for doing something else, it was deemed illegal.
This is very different to the FIA knowing something is braking the rules, yet allowing it to happen anyway. There are cases where they have been misslead or missunderstood something, deemed it legal and then change their mind when presented with new evidence. But that's not the same thing, is it?
This all goes back to the accusation that the FIA know the Red Bull is braking the rules, but are letting it happen. They simply aren't.
I doubt we will ever get Skeeter to admit the FIA don't apply the rules very well no matter how many examples he is given. So on that we have to admit the FIA are brilliant and keeping F1 on the straight and narrow right 
FIA did enforce a EBD ban at Silverstone, then flopped over RBR pressure. FIA stated EDB were illegal under the current rules, they did not enforce the rules.
FIA did enforce a EBD ban at Silverstone, then flopped over RBR pressure. FIA stated EDB were illegal under the current rules, they did not enforce the rules.