xpensive wrote:Question remains, would those unobtanium engines and mass-dampers been outlawed if invented by Ferrari?
Moving floor was banned after Australian GP last year...
This is quite different because the FIA could not justify in any way, shape or form not immediately banning them without it causing a massive uproar - since the rules were pretty clear-cut. The discovery of the floor, through McLaren's possession of Ferrari documents (correct? or have I got it wrong) led to this. The Renault mass-damper and McLaren use of Beryllium were different scenarios. In McLaren's case the use of berylliun wasn't at all against the rules until the rule-makers stepped in and ruined their party. It put McLaren at a huge disadvantage as they'd developed their engine within the rules and woke up one day to discover they'd had the carpet ripped out from under them.
In Renault's mass-damper case the scenario was even more ludicrous - to have the rules studied over for weeks, if not months, (without doubt with the help of Ferrari) to find any way at all to justify arguing they were outside of 'allowed' devices. Naturally, outside of this small circle, hardly anyone on earth would come to the conclusion that it was an 'aerodynamic device' any more than a steering wheel was (as someone here put it). It was a blatant attempt to help Ferrari - nothing else.
The whole point being - on average Ferrari do very well out of ambiguous rule interpretations, marshal rulings/leniency and technical rule changes over time. Not every case works in their favour, but few don't.