The stewards and technical delegates seem
to recognise that the rules about fuel temperatures, as they stand, are unenforceable in any meaningful scale. Yet they deemed it necessary to go about administering tests according to those rules rather than change them first and even ventured to make statements about temperature fluctuations that were well within the margin of error that the wording of the rules allows? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", eh?
The championship could come down to people contesting each other with issues that are wholly immaterial with regard to any causes and effects as far as existing rules or physical realities are concerned. Perhaps the future of F1 will consist of 12 teams of philosophers (Vodafone Existentialists, ING Humanists, Marlboro Idealists, Panasonic Logical Positivists, Red Bull Materialists, AT&T Nihilists, Etihad Aldar Pragmatists etc.?) convening to debate the results, dispensing with such minor details as actually driving racecars around circuits. Meanwhile sponsors would be required to burn an amount of fuel equal to the CO2 load a physical race would inflict on the atmosphere, all direct and indirect energy usage included - perhaps minus the hot air generated by the heated discussions. The philosophers would've demanded that, agreeing that the universal essence of the sport is its continued contribution to the greenhouse effect as a reflection of the human condition.
I suggest that part of McLaren's "spygate" fine is used by the FIA to hire an external team that will review and simplify the rules, enforcement and processes to such a degree that these thoroughly unnecessary episodes can better be avoided. They've got 140 days or so to achieve this.
Stewards: temperature issues too unclear - link, Autosport
)
