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.
Ok, there has been quite some discussion about wings in the Aero section, I would like to open a discussion about where the line should b drawn between "Interpretation" of the rules and down right cheating. Let's try to keep the discussion to conceptual issues rather than team specific statements (I would rather not see comments about 'Ferrari are a bunch of cheats' and 'the FIA is their puppy').
Some weeks ago I started a thread about rules and how they reduced the capacity for innovation in the sport. I think most of the disagreement we see on how different teams are interpreting the rules is a consequence of the overly tight rules which mean that teams are forced to sek advantages by stretching the design to the limit of compliance - perhaps sometimes this causes them to go beyond the spirit of the law... but let's not forget, this is a high stakes sport with millions of dollars riding on the outcome of the season.
So the thread topic is given as a poll.
hmmm. can't seem to do the poll lthing, so the question was
Mikey_s wrote:...If the car passes scrutineering is it legal?
Car can become officaly legal after scrutineering but only in case if there are no official protest which demand additional checks of suspicios parts of the car. There is a deadline for submittion of protests and only after that period results of the race become official but if there is a protest than initial results of the race can be modified several days or weeks later depending on result of additional checkups.
but is it cheating, or is it a question of who interprets the rules in the most advantageous fashion. take a parallel example;
Aerodynamically it is best to place the front wing close to the ground to utilise ground effect. however, some years ago the FIA specified that the front wing should be raised and the measurement would be taken at the extremity of the wing. The teams responded by compying with that regulation, but putting a lowered section across the middle of the wing. Is that cheating, or is it good interpretation of the rules?
Ditto tyres; a maximum width was specified by the FIA, measured on a new tyre. Michelin exploited this to their advantage, and it worked very effectively - to the extent that the FIA had to change the rules. Again, cheating, or good interpretation...?
I think it's more "bad form" than cheating....it's like you know they meant it to be read this way and you've read it another...you're right that x isn't in the rules but you know it's naughty
For me cheating = deliberate breaking of rules (premeditated) hoping that no one will find out while free interpretation and finding loopholes = using things that are not banned or not banned specifically.
If it's not specific in the rulebook, go for it. I have no problem with that. If the car can pass tech inspection, then it's OK. It's up to the rulemakers and tech inspectors to enforce the rulebook.
But there's aslo a definition that we have been hearing, about being within the "spirit" of the rules. And that is a grey area, but it really gets under my skin. When the Ferrari rear wing story first got attention at Malaysia, Ross Braun said... "It's within the spirit of the regulations and it's up to the teams to use them to their maximum advantage," he added. "It has been that way ever since I've been involved in F1."
I take great exception to this statement, and this is a great example of why I have a great distaste for how Ferrari conducts themselves. I admire their hard work and accomplishments, but I find that this kind of crap definitely steps over the line of moral behavior.
I'm relatively old, and I've seen a lot of politics and history unfold in front of me. The history of wing safety is relatively simple. They were first tried and adopted in the late 60's, circa 1968. Many novel and wild wing designs were tried, and sadly, some drivers died or were seriously injured because of things gone wrong. So if wings were to be accepted by F1, the had to be rigidly mounted to the chassis. Rigid, unmoving, and stout as possible because driver's lives was at risk. Wings confer great performance benefits, but they cannot be allowed to add risk to the drivers, it's all about driver safety.
Now we spring forward to the present, where teams are trying everything to gain any small advantage. The age of innovation is stifled, this is the age of refinement. And of course, now we see wings on many different teams flexing and changing shape.
If you start down that dark road again, where aero devices and wngs are allowed to start moving, then you definitely start adding the risk of failure, you start to add risk to the drivers. And that is where I really get annoyed, because the rules are being pushed in a regime that has an impact on driver safety, and Braun tries to advance the concept to the public that Ferrari are just a bunch of very nice guys, while in reality they are ruthless sharks, willing to go to any lengths to get a win under any circumstance. This topic deals with cheating, and it has to ask the question about moral conduct and acccountability to the sponsors. For Ferrari's position, I give them an F- It's a shame, because I give them an A+ on hard work, technical acccomplishments, and overall performance. But an F- in the moral accountability.
Really hard one, Manchild summarises it pretty well. Cheating is an attempt to disguise a transgression of the rules. Once you have a set of the rules, the job of every engineer must be to find out everything you are allowed to do within the rules to make the car faster.
Then you get to the grey area stuff..........the spirit of the rules. Although I actually felt Michelin were pulled up for as much political reasons, their use of tyre tread is an exmple of something that COULD be said to be bedning the spirit of the rules. It's pretty obvious that when the tyre width rules were laid down, the idea was to limit to amount of rubber on the road........therefore...........
As Dave points out moveable aero devices were restricted mainly for safety reasons. So, you have two sides to a coin with flexible wings.......the flexing might suggest that some teams could make constructions that are more likely to fail, also that they gain some performance advantage. In this case, the "spirit" of the rules exists to ensure safe constructions are used. Even if the perfomance advantage is not against the spirit, starting a trend where every team exploits the maximum flexibility allowed would be against the spirit of the rules IMHO. But this isn't "CHEATING", I would argue that it is looking into an area where the intent of the rules suggests you shouldn't be.
BTW - was it not the case that the flexibility tests were introduced after some wing failures - notably McLaren at Hockenheim I.e. they weren't seeking to close a performance loophole, but a safety one.
I also like Manchilds definition, it definitely does appear that where a rule is laid down and there is a clear attempt to disguise the end result it can be considered to be cheating.
A bit of thread creep here,but there is another grey area, but in respect of wings the regs state "moveable" and not "rigid". I guess there is some scope for a semantic argument here, but all parts of the car will flex (even the chassis and engine) if the stress applied is significant in relation to their stiffness. Now, bear with me, the wings cannot be moved by the driver, or the team, so one could argue that they are not moveABLE devices, but they do move under air pressure. Furthermore, I don't doubt that all of us here have seen the trailing edge of the front wing deforming at high speeds from on-board shots, so the grey area becomes even greyer.
If it passes tech, its legal. Simple as that. It is up to the rule maker to make effective testing measure and procedure/standard to eliminate the unwanted doing of various teams. If you can't catch it or effectively tests for what you wanted to do when you setout to write the rule, you should either change the testing method, or re-write the rule. A rule(be it as lettering or "spirit" as it were) thats not enforcable is as good as nothing.
Tp wrote:...Well you don't get this much controversy in any other sports, I guess this is what makes F1 the way it is!
Oh yea, we all have our opinions, and F1 sure has it's controversies. Always had, always will. Gotta love it.
This topic covers a lot of the grey area. And we all have our viewpoints on what is acceptable, and what crosses the line. If my rant offended anyone, I do apologize. Just my opinion. As serious fans, we observe and discuss a lot of topics the general population does not. Personally, I try to keep a long range focus on what's going on. Sadly, for the casual fan, it doesn't happen that way. All they see are wins, and that creates the greatest impression. It's short term, and myopic. It may sell more Marlboros, but F1 will still be around long after that advertiser ceases to display their logo on any car.
Now to the subject. If any team meets the regulations as defined, then the are legal. Period end of statement. Ferrari was not cheating, just utilizing there huge buget to design parts (wings) that met the rules as defined but worked to there advantage otherwise. If they were blatently cheating does anyone really think the would hide it better.
As far as being movable devices, those would be items that are adjusted by the driver or team, be it manually or by computerized control. This would for example, mean that the driver adjusted the angle of the front wing form its base setting, not the natural deformation of a part under load.
Every team tries to best engineer their car to meat the regs and design around them. As far as the "grey area", if it is not a set design parameter defined by the regs then it does not exist. How can this be grey. If a design meets the regs as written then it meets the regs, thats it. It is legal.
The "spirit of the reg/law" is a term used by people who get out engineered or maneuvered by those who actually know those rules/laws. If you want a law or rule to cover the "spirit" then it should be written that way.
Aerodynamically it is best to place the front wing close to the ground to utilise ground effect. however, some years ago the FIA specified that the front wing should be raised and the measurement would be taken at the extremity of the wing. The teams responded by compying with that regulation, but putting a lowered section across the middle of the wing. Is that cheating, or is it good interpretation of the rules?
Ditto tyres; a maximum width was specified by the FIA, measured on a new tyre. Michelin exploited this to their advantage, and it worked very effectively - to the extent that the FIA had to change the rules. Again, cheating, or good interpretation...?
I think in both the above cases it was good interpretation as to my mind that was the intent. If that were not the case, the FIA will not have specified where the measurement applied in the first instance or "when new" in the second. And I can only think of 2 reasons why its worded the way it is.
1) To give the teams some leeway/flexibility in their design approach.
2) To give the FIA some flexibility in how they enforce the regs
With the 2nd reason, if a team (say Ferrari) had followed a different approach which they later found to be not the way to go and subsequently protested, then the FIA has the flexible to choose which way to rule. This, I think, is what happened with the michelin tyre issue.
With regard to the Ferrari front wing thing, I come down on the cheating side. Mainly because it looked more like a moveable device rather that just a flex.
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..
The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
I.e. they weren't seeking to close a performance loophole, but a safety one.