Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[myurr]

"I'm not asking for more FIA regs, I just want the existing rules to be applied consistently and fairly."

The application of the rules must be consistent enough for a team to use the design that we are discussing. Why proceed with such a design if you are not confident in the testing methods? Fair! This is F1.

"If there is a flaw in the testing procedures that one team is exploiting then the FIA should adjust the tests to make sure that the rules are being applied. There is specific provision within the rules to allow for this."

Could one assume that there is no flaw in the rules, and this is the reason they are not changed?

Brian

The rules are designed to stop teams from being able to use flexing or active aero parts - this is explicit in the rules as they say that no part may move at all full stop before defining the tests that will be used to police this and the tolerances for movement. There is also specific provision for adjusting those tests without notice should the FIA feel that teams are exploiting flaws in those tests.

Let's say that the police start using a new type of speed camera that uses a normal video feed to work out how fast a car is going; but it has a flaw that means it gets confused when the car has its headlights on. The flaw in the system does not make it legal to speed if you have your headlights on, and if that were the only method the police were using to catch people speeding then there would rightly be an outcry.

The same applies here. The FIA are using a single specific test that is potentially inadequate and it is absolutely fair to ask the FIA to police their own rules appropriately, rather than ask the other teams to try and guess at who is doing what and potentially have more people breaking the rules where originally the RB car wasn't doing this and was perfectly fine.

My number one gripe with the FIA is their seeming utter inability to fairly, impartially, consistently and thoroughly apply and police their own rules. There have been countless examples of inconsistency in the way the rules are applied, from policing the cars to on and off track penalties, with some real innovations being banned on a whim (or a whine) whilst other blatant infractions are either allowed or quietly dealt with over an extended period of time. This is just another example.

[xpensive]

...
My number one gripe with the FIA is their seeming utter inability to fairly, impartially, consistently and thoroughly apply and police their own rules. There have been countless examples of inconsistency in the way the rules are applied, from policing the cars to on and off track penalties, with some real innovations being banned on a whim (or a whine) whilst other blatant infractions are either allowed or quietly dealt with over an extended period of time.

Truer words never spoken.

[hardingfv32]

"The rules are designed to stop teams from being able to use flexing or active aero parts "

This has been argued many times in many ways. The fact is the rules are designed to provide a desired outcome. What you desire from the rules is a minority opinion, otherwise the participants would have made changes long ago.

Regardless of how you read the rules, there has been no effort made to eliminate all flexing. There is plenty of options available for that purpose, yet they have not been used. The teams build to the rule as they understand them AND to how the rules are enforced. If the rules are enforced inconsistently, then that is something the team management process has to deal with. How the teams manage the politics of the rules is all part of the sport of F1. This is a team sport.

Brian

[Shrieker]

...
My number one gripe with the FIA is their seeming utter inability to fairly, impartially, consistently and thoroughly apply and police their own rules. There have been countless examples of inconsistency in the way the rules are applied, from policing the cars to on and off track penalties, with some real innovations being banned on a whim (or a whine) whilst other blatant infractions are either allowed or quietly dealt with over an extended period of time.

Truer words never spoken.

+1 agreed.

-------

How can FIA not see this flaw in their test...

[myurr]

"The rules are designed to stop teams from being able to use flexing or active aero parts "

This has been argued many times in many ways. The fact is the rules are designed to provide a desired outcome. What you desire from the rules is a minority opinion, otherwise the participants would have made changes long ago.

Regardless of how you read the rules, there has been no effort made to eliminate all flexing. There is plenty of options available for that purpose, yet they have not been used. The teams build to the rule as they understand them AND to how the rules are enforced. If the rules are enforced inconsistently, then that is something the team management process has to deal with. How the teams manage the politics of the rules is all part of the sport of F1. This is a team sport.

Brian

So in summary I'm asking for the existing rules to be applied and you believe they shouldn't be because the teams have made their own arbitrary decisions over which rules apply to them and what they mean - and yet you call F1 a 'sport'! That the FIA are too incompetent to police their rules doesn't mean we as fans should learn to live with it. I, rightly in my mind, expect better from an international sporting body!

[MIKEY_!]

Remember the trouble that was caused the last time they tried to change rules mid-season . I suspect they will fix it for next year anyway.

[myurr]

Remember the trouble that was caused the last time they tried to change rules mid-season . I suspect they will fix it for next year anyway.

There's no need to change the rules at all - it's all covered by the existing rules and provisions within those rules.

[hardingfv32]

There are politics in all major league sports. This is the way the majority of the F1 participants want the show run at this time.

"you believe they shouldn't be because the teams have made their own arbitrary decisions over which rules apply to them and what they mean"

There is nothing arbitrary about how the rules are being used or applied by those in F1. The very calculated actions by the participants in regards to the rules is based on their past experience with how the rules have been applied and how they think they might be applied in the future. It is the job of the teams to push the boundaries of these conventions that have been formed over F1's history. If the majority of the participants feel you have overstepped the boundaries, you get your hand slapped and you take a step back.

Could it be that we lack the inside experience of F1 at the operational level?

There is no right or wrong about your opinion, but the actions of the majority of participants in F1 would indicate it is a minority position. There is also no evidence that the rule controversies have any effect on the majority of the fan base (bottom line $).

Brian

[MIKEY_!]

Remember the trouble that was caused the last time they tried to change rules mid-season . I suspect they will fix it for next year anyway.

There's no need to change the rules at all - it's all covered by the existing rules and provisions within those rules.

Sorry poorly worded by me. Remember the hot blowing thing at silverstone, that was inside the rules as well but it caused too much trouble. If FIA want to avoid this kind of thing then just write rules clearly rather the often vague stuff they use now. But remember if it passes the test then it is legal.

[Shrieker]

Some members have suggested raising the car on it's tyres, but of course the suspension gets in the way of the test. I'm surprised though that no one has mentioned simply raising the car on the jacks and applying force to the front edge of the bib. You can also fix the car from it's wheel hubs (like they do in the wind tunnel) for stability(especially for roll) during the test.

That should solve the problem (if that's the problem) ?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Some members have suggested raising the car on it's tyres, but of course the suspension gets in the way of the test. I'm surprised though that no one has mentioned simply raising the car on the jacks and applying force to the front edge of the bib. You can also fix the car from it's wheel hubs (like they do in the wind tunnel) for stability(especially for roll) during the test.
?

What needs to happen for there to be a change in the test?

The law is implemented by the test. If it passes the test therefore it should be legal. However beating the test to contravene the law should necessitate a change in the test surely?

I dont see why the FIA are dragging their feet over this other than more teams have this solution in place for 2012?

[marcush.]

fact is the regs stipulate NO degree of freedom in terms of bending to avoid engineered bending behahaviour to get positive effects on downforce generation.At least the wordings come across to me in that way.
Simply put the FIA guys are out of their depth to specify the correct means of enforcing legality.
I would not even bother specifying tests but allow only for bending behaviour corrsponding to hooks law till breaking the component.
That ways the teams cannot design any special fancy things and cannot design to the test .
Then if Charly thinks there is some other test to perform ,he can do it without even telling anyone before.
As things are now the whole bendy aero theme is a farce and I´m pretty sure the same is valid for the electronics side.
Lots of regs very specific but unsuitable to enforce the spiriot of the regs .Bad job.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Its quite incredible we are having this debate and the FIA still sit on their hands.

Could it be they will not act until a team complains?

[Richard]

Any car complying with the tests is legal. A team is not "beating a test", it is simply complying with a relatively arbitrary formula defined by the FIA.

The whole formula is arbitrary, from the size of the wheels, the open cockpits, the 2 inch plank bolted to the underside, and the measurement of deflection.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ richard

Why have a clause in the rules basically saying this:

"Any car suspected or otherwise of not complying to the rules will be subject to further tests ensuring legality".


It is true that if the car passes a test it is legal according to the specified test.
But it is also true that it is illegal if it breaks the law which the test is intended to protect.
Obviously on the surface it seems the FIA are happy thus far and so it seems are the competition as nothing has been said.

Just a bit perplexing to me...