Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Sawtooth-spike wrote:Surely the Fan Car wins this hands down.
51% of the purpose of the Fan was cooling. It just so happened the 49% of it function was to glue the car to the ground.
Or the 6 wheeler.
It's a shame we won't ever see things like this, the way the rules are written nowadays.
A more modern bending of the rules was the Ferrari fuel accumulator in 2015. Mercedes somehow knew what was going on and triggered an investigation, cheeky bastards
This one is a bit iffy with no real evidence that Ferrari was doing it, plus their power didn't really drop off in any way after the Technical Directive.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
1999 Malaysia, Ferrari finished first, but barge boards not legal by normal inspection procedure on FIA test rig (barge boards didn't have necessary shadow plates to comply with flat-bottom rules). At time of post-race inspection, Ferrari admitted the screw up and conceded defeat. They were excluded from the results in a momentous but technically uncontroversial decision.
But... a day or two later Ferrari appealed and claimed the FIA could not check barge board dimensions when the car was on track with steering turned and leaned over in a turn, etc. The FIA bought this line of reasoning against FIA inspection procedures, and the Ferrari cars were unexcluded.
This was actually a simple Mosley vs Dennis saga that had nothing to do with technical regs. Mosley orchestrated the FIA inquiry that overturned the stewards original decision. Sometimes rules controversies are not about the rules.
It was fairly contentious considering the FIA banned it mid-season during the Summer break, and under appeal after the Stewards had considered it legal, potentially altering the course of the 2006 championship in favour of Ferrari.
It was also banned citing contravention of article 3.15 - movable aerodynamic devices - a bending of the interpretation of the rules on the part of the FIA considering it had no external extrusions.
The independent rear brake (3rd pedal) operated by McLaren (1997/8)? I'm not sure what rule this broke.
McLaren-Mercedes and the ban on Beryllium pistons? I kind of agree with this one, in the sense that the process drove up costs, but otherwise it was very ingenious.
The Michelin tyre width issue in 2003? I get the impression Michelin were simply exploiting a loophole that hadn't been thought of. Not so much a bending of a rule as an absence of rules.
One of the best ones: Brawn's double deck diffuser.
Here is an amazing piece from William Toet that explains in detail all that was made to "bend" the rules. Very interesting stuff if you haven't read it already.
There we're teams running tyres left to right and vice versa.
Also there was (or should that be, was there....?) the McLaren octopus exhaust in the days of the blown diffusers IIRC. Didn't get banned and wasn't confirmed to ever exist I think but there was speculation at the time that it just kept cracking/breaking.
EDIT - Can I just say, reading through the things in this topic actually shows just how good innovation and 'outside the box' thinking in F1 is! I guess "technology" doesn't just exist on PCB's. This is as a fan of F1 the things I enjoy!
At the time, the Formula One regulations specified a minimum weight which was more than achievable with non-turbocharged cars – though not with a turbocharged car due to greater complexity – leading to some cars being built light and ballasted up to the minimum weight to optimise weight distribution. However, rules then also specified that the cars were to be weighed filled with their usual fluids. In 1982, other teams (chiefly Brabham[3] and Williams[4]) had used this provision to develop cars with features such as 'water-cooled brakes' – the car officially started the race with a large, full water tank, the water was released in the general direction of the brakes and the car ran underweight when on track and unable to be weighed, only to be later topped up sufficient water to ensure the weight limit was not breached.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
roon wrote:My favorite was when Red Bull stuffed the cameras inside the bodywork, and made a little porthole for them to look out of. Ha ha.
To this day I can't understand why this solution was banned. It was much more aesthetically pleasing than those horns.
Really? It was banned because of the poor view from the camera, which are the whole point of having cameras. So it makes perfect sense.
They also used to tuck them really low behind the front wing, creating similarly limited views.
The camera stuff is funny to me because the FIA tells teams "here, put these cameras on your cars, we need footage to make the broadcast interesting" and the teams are like "okay" but then proceed to put them in places which render them useless as cameras. Like herding cats, this F1 regulating thing.
It's funny indeed, that i honestly no kidding at the time was wondering why no F1 team ever 'flushed' the cameras inside the nosecone, with indeed the lens just sticking out. perhaps even having half a mm wide gap around the camera pods and the pods mounted much more inside the cone. I assumed there was a rule for it, untill RB did actually come up with just that.
offcourse the fia was going to act on it. RB surely knew that too. it was always going to end. can't f**k with the FIA.
but i must say, why are those hideous ancient camera pods still mounted like this? just take a look at your general gopro device, it brings much better quality and is much smaller.
why not flushmount a gopro licensed camera in the A-pillar, the front suspension / nosecone and rear suspension? perhaps even on the 'fins' on the outer edges of the sidepods?
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
