Spirit of the rules

[machin]

F1 is no longer about cars competing on track, it's now almost exclusively competing in a stewards room against the FIA.

F1 has always been that way.. from its inception right through to today....

Lotus twin chassis car
Brabham fan car
McLaren 2nd brake pedal
Mass dampers
F-duct
Diffuser blowing maps

to name but a few.. the teams come up with a scheme within the letter of the rules, fully knowing that the rules will probably be re-written to exclude that technology. Its part of the game.

[raymondu999]

True, but spirit of the rules is above any regulations from what i understand.
Meaning even if something is perfectly legal it can still be deemed illegal because it breaches the spirit of the rules.

Not quite, because it cannot be proven that the team fully understood the spirit of the rules, and it cannot be proven that they knowingly breached the spirit.

Let´s say Renault, Mercedes and Williams decide to protest. What is the most likely outcome of this do you think?

The same as happened in Hockenheim. The FIA would be frustrated that the team did not comply with the spirit of the regulations, but they have to cede that it falls within the wording.

What Cam said:

"Spirit of the rules" doesn't play a part in sport (well, maybe when you're 3). You either abide by the rules or you don't. You ether comply or you don't.

I know we want to see everybody having a laugh together, being best friends off track and leaving their competition to on-track, and everybody behaving sportingly, and everybody knowingly abiding to the spirit of the regs, but it doesn't work that way.

So to me it would look like Newey has to explain where the exhaust gases are designed to go.
I think he would have a hard time making a u-turn with his finger has he shows the FIA where the gases go.

He wouldn't even make the U-turn. He'd just point straight up, because obviously, in court he would lose all knowledge of the Coanda effect.

There is no arguing for/against the spirit, because it can lead to basically a blown-up version of "yes it does" "no it doesn't." Imagine if the regs just said, "cars must not use ground effect." How the hell do you define ground effect then? To ensure a level, fair playing field, rules and regulations have to be doled out in black and white, clear, measurable statements. You cannot leave any ambiguity in terms of interpretation. For example there was a TD a while back saying that cars were not allowed to "re-ingest" exhaust gases. All the teams just said, "Nope. Don't see our car re-ingesting exhaust gases." Try bringing that to any court - and telling the judge or jury that these teams were falling foul of the directive to not "re-ingest exhaust gases." The judge will just throw the case out on the issue of being too vague.

Let's be clear here - I'm not saying Red Bull is in the right, nor am I saying in the wrong. But what I'm saying is what they're doing - though not morally correct as such - is in no way illegal. Contracts, rules and regulations all work by the letter of the law, not the spirit in which it was intended.

[Richard]

F1 is no longer about cars competing on track, it's now almost exclusively competing in a stewards room against the FIA.

May the best team win. What a joke it's become.

Really? I think it has always been that way. Some would say it used to be a lot worse. Here are some examples of blatent rule fixing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA%E2%80 ... led_Brakes

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.cobb ... sident.doc

Personally, I think the rules are applied nowadays in a more pedantic way and that allows more ingenuity by the teams in exploiting the letter of the rules.

[Cam]

Yeah, maybe my words of were a bit quick of the mark. There does seem to be more 'clarifications' than usual. I think this is where I was trying to go.

Edit: atrocious typos

[Nando]

Ok got it Raymond, thanks.

I thought F1 was run a bit more like a dictator-ship so you could essentially go above the regulations to fix something that was against the goal of the rules.

Like they do with aesthetics.

[Richard]

Yeah, maybe my words of were a bit quick of the mark. There does seem to be more 'clarifications' than usual.

I think that is an improvement otherwise things would be more opaque. Now teams thinking "how can that be allowed" get an breakdown of how the rule is applied.

As far as I can tell it has always been the case that the teams ask Whiting about clarifications, its just that we know more about it with the ever increasing visibility of every nook and cranny in F1. Also things seem more open with the departure of certain Machiavellian administrators and principals who operated in a shadowy world of smoke and mirrors. The current breed seem to have more of an engineering or technocrat attitude.

[Dragonfly]

Maybe with the exception of Whiting (and Bauer also) who are product of Bernie and Max.

[Richard]

I think Whiting has played with a relatively straight bat since the meddlesome protagonists left.

[thearmofbarlow]

Personally, I think the rules are applied nowadays in a more pedantic way and that allows more ingenuity by the teams in exploiting the letter of the rules.

And the real problem is that instead of their cleverness being rewarded... it's banned.

Was there a good reason to ban the double diffuser? No, not really.
Was there a good reason to ban mass dampers? No, not really.
Was there a good reason to ban off-throttle blowing? No, not really.

The list continues. Every year new technology is introduced into what is laughingly referred to as the pinnacle of motorsport and then banned immediately. I'm just waiting for the Heimholtz exhaust to be considered a movable aerodynamic device, along with the suspension components and driver's right foot.

[Nando]

I think Whiting has played with a relatively straight bat since the meddlesome protagonists left.

Anti dive system was fine according to him but not with FIA a few months later.
Seems he´s nothing more then a puppet that really doesn´t know anything.

[Richard]

Only the TMD was banned mid season. Cleverness was rewarded for the DDD and exhaust blowing because they were only were removed at the end of the season. You can add the F-duct to that list too.

Those end of season rule updates then stimulate more ingenuity as teams look for the next trick. That’s a major part of why I find F1 so interesting. Teams are challenged to see how fast they can go within the regs. Tweaking the regs every year refreshes the challenge and keeps them on their toes.

[N12ck]

Only the TMD was banned mid season. Cleverness was rewarded for the DDD and exhaust blowing because they were only were removed at the end of the season. You can add the F-duct to that list too.

Those end of season rule updates then stimulate more ingenuity as teams look for the next trick. That’s a major part of why I find F1 so interesting. Teams are challenged to see how fast they can go within the regs. Tweaking the regs every year refreshes the challenge and keeps them on their toes.

although I do believe the 2014 rules go way way too far, removal of beam wing, narrower front wings, low nose, I think we will struggle with crazy innovations in 2014,

[raymondu999]

I think Whiting has played with a relatively straight bat since the meddlesome protagonists left.

Anti dive system was fine according to him but not with FIA a few months later.
Seems he´s nothing more then a puppet that really doesn´t know anything.

Whiting is the race director. He starts the red lights, issues green/yellow/red flags, and safety cars - he doesn't write regulations - nor is he in charge of scrutineering. He's not even in charge of penalties. All he can do, is recommend the stewards to look at an incident, then the stewards would handle it.

[Nando]

I think Whiting has played with a relatively straight bat since the meddlesome protagonists left.

Anti dive system was fine according to him but not with FIA a few months later.
Seems he´s nothing more then a puppet that really doesn´t know anything.

Whiting is the race director. He starts the red lights, issues green/yellow/red flags, and safety cars - he doesn't write regulations - nor is he in charge of scrutineering. He's not even in charge of penalties. All he can do, is recommend the stewards to look at an incident, then the stewards would handle it.

He´s also head of the F1 technical department.

"An FIA spokesman told Reuters that Charlie Whiting sent the directive on Friday following "a number of technical inquiries from teams" about the legality of the Lotus-type concept."

Seems like he´s handling this sort of thing even though FIA decides it.
The point was he said it was legal, then months later FIA decided it wasn´t anymore.

[Richard]

Rulings are only formalised by the FIA's World Motorsport Council. Until then Whiting's comments can only be advisory. Generally Whiting's comments seems to be upheld, but occasionally teams will appeal to the top to get them overturned.

The fact that appeals are sometimes succeed is sign of a healthy administration. I’d be concerned if no appeals or most appeals succeeded.

The other aspect are pre-emptive rulings, a warning shot across the bows. If a team is concerned about a potential loophole then they’ll ask for a ruling. That gets copied to all teams so they are on a level playing field, no team can gain an advantage. The overall result is that teams can save abortive development costs and avoid arms races. It’s like chess players agreeing to draw when only part way through a game, they can see it’s a waste of effort to finish the game.

Problems arise when a team has already developed something that they believe gives advantage on track and is hard for others to replicate, then they fight tooth and nail to retain that advantage.