[standaman]

i struggle to see hwy these things should be able to get to the first race, and needing the introduction of rule clarifications ....

Because:

1. There is no scrutinizing before the first race week end starts.
2. The teams know that in the worst case they will have to change a part for the next race
3. They might fool Charlie and his minions and get away with it.

First move by the FIA should be to give the boot to Charlie, the guy is a goof, and hire someone who knows how the teams usually try to bend the rules, any ex F1 engineer would be great.

Then they should make it clear that no one is allowed to race with a non compliant part, even if that means that they can't race.

[xanonlinexan]

i agree totally - now they have limited official testing then the cars should be scrutineered properly there and all parts approved or not. if you miss the testing and turn up with parts that don't meet the rules you don't race.

having your car checked and approved repeatedly throughout the close season, passing scrutineering and then having to change it is ridiculous

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

i'm kind of sick of this "spirit of the rules" rhetoric, write the rules clearly enough that the spirit of them is impossible to drive a cart and horses through!

Great idea. Impossible though. No matter how you write the rules the teams will find some way to interpret them to their advantage.

[DoctorTDent]

Great idea. Impossible though. No matter how you write the rules the teams will find some way to interpret them to their advantage.

Exactly. For the rules to explicitly state everything that you can't do, the rulebook would have to be massively huge.

[RuttyUttepe]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!

[DoctorTDent]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!

True

[replicamuse]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!

Which is ok when you're starting with a base of a road car and are allowed to modify certain details. When you're building a car from scratch that doesn't quite work.

[movlabz]

The FIA is set to issue a clarification about double diffuser designs prior to the Australian Grand Prix, following concerns about a number of teams exploiting the area for added performance. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82159

[LomodiorCon]

Sounds to me like very little going on here...there's a hole this year, there was a hole last year.

[TobaccoNUE]

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/0...clarification/

[movlabz]

McLaren, Mercedes GP and at least two other teams will have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in time for the Australian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT has learned, after the FIA told them that it is clamping down on a loophole being used by the outfits. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82234

[VIAGRA-]

This entire process is crazy. In the first year I can understand that they might not be aware of loopholes, but being this was an issue last year they could have easily modified the text of the rule for clarification.

Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]."

That could very easily be modified to suit the conditions at hand and make the rule easy to understand and enforce.


I personally don't think any such pushing of the grey area should be considered "cheating" regardless of which teams do it. It's in the nature of racing to push the envelope. The problem I see is rules being so vague that the arguments is that it is skirting the "spirit" of the rules.

[DoctorTDent]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

[Unamannuato]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

Exactly, it's what engineers and designers are paid to do. Yet another example of the FIA not having black and white rules. All it requires is to add "upto a maximum diameter of x mm" and disaster averted...

[LomodiorCon]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

Well they have - four people in fact all thought of the same thing! Wouldn't have been that hard to enforce a standard width and length for a start motor.

[DoctorTDent]

Well they have - four people in fact all thought of the same thing! Wouldn't have been that hard to enforce a standard width and length for a start motor.

Personally I think there should be standard FIA designed components

IMHO the FIA should have said here's your starter motor access hole, integrate it to your diffuser but your diffuser can't extend more than x outside of it etc etc.

[resegooredo]

Tell that to Honda. Scrutineers okayed their fuel tanks when the FIA overuled them because Honda cheated by using them as ballast.

Yeah but they only used them as "ballast" when weighin in.....during the race and qualifying they could "adjust" their weight, right up until the last pit stop, where they could tank up and be within limits........good idea if you ask me...sort of like those 100 lb lead helmets that some drivers always took off and left in their car or carried with them to weigh in..

As to Tam and ioan, making you other guys squeak and squawk is like MS beating his old team mates at ferrari....easy work

[TobaccoNUE]

Personally I think there should be standard FIA designed components

IMHO the FIA should have said here's your starter motor access hole, integrate it to your diffuser but your diffuser can't extend more than x outside of it etc etc.

If McLaren insist their diffuser/slot was the same as last year then I can only assume McLaren et al took the p*ss by redesigning the starter motor.

I hate the idea of standardised components and it doesn't belong in F1, IMO. There should be a specified tolerance which should give designers a box/ leeway to work with, as with the front wings and mandated central main plain for example.

[DoctorTDent]

Why doesn't it belong in F1? A standardised hole for the starter motor hardly makes them spec cars. Give designers a box and they'll tell you it's something else.......

[VIAGRA-]

Why doesn't it belong in F1? A standardised hole for the starter motor hardly makes them spec cars. Give designers a box and they'll tell you it's something else.......

It's a hole. Given a maximum surface area they could at least try to use it for downforce as well. Give them a "spec" part and someone will cry that "Team X has the FIA under their thumb".