Nando wrote: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:
Cam wrote:"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.