dans79 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2021, 01:43
I think you are missing the scope/context of article 3.8 and what the FIA considers Aerodynamic Influence. It isn't just about flexing wings, floors, and body work. It shouldn't need to be said, but the FIA only cares about Positive aerodynamic influence. The teams also refer to article 3.8 when they protest another team.
The mass damper was banned because it was considered to have a positive aerodynamic influence. Article 3.8 now prevents mass dampers from being used.
f-duct like devise's are banned under article 3.8.
FRIC was banned, because it was considered to have reached a point where it was violating article 3.8!
Lotus pointed to article 3.8 when it protested DDRS, even though it had no moving parts. (Lotus lost)
Last year Redbull themselves pointed to 3.8 when they protested DAS.
and of course 3.8 is designed to prevent flexing wings and floors, and skirt like devices.
I'm sure other users can point to even more things banned or exclude under article 3.8 that i can't think of off the top of my head. For example, I think the trick lotus front brakes setup that lowered the front ride height was deamed illegal under 3.8
Imo (and a lot of others, including the teams) Article 3.8 is the catch all "spirit or the rules" rule that the FIA and the teams themselves use to keep everyone inline when it come to aerodynamic developments.
article 3.9 is just a set of rules thats are used to monitor compliance with article 3.8. As 3.9.9 and history has shown the FIA can invalidate just about anything even remotely aerodynamic using article 3.8. they don't even need to refer to tests. A FIA representative can make a judgment call and hose 1 or more teams with little or no warning.
You clearly still don't understand me. I mean...english is not my first language and that might be part of it, but let me try again...
I'm fully aware of the scope of article 3.8 but our interpretation of the rules is different though...
If you think about it, all the cases you have cited fall under any of those scenarios I mentioned before (only one of the two actually).
-mass damper= no part influencing the cars aerodynamic performance may be mobile -> active (movable if you prefrere that word) aerodynamics.
-f-duct= "With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited." -> moveable aerodynamics
-FRIC= similar to mass damper -> moveable aerodynamic
-DDRS= Lotus based their protest on "With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited." In reality it wass a consequence of a change of position of the driver adjustable bodywork (which was allow on the rules) and that's why they lost. DDRS did not breach any rule at all. I wouldn't include this one here.
-DAS= movable aerodynamics ->The argument was that from toe out to toe 0 (or whatever it was) there was a change on the car' aerodynamics. We all know that it was declared legal. I wouldn't include this one here either. In any case, the argument is similar to DDRS (a consequences of something allow in the rules).
If the FIA don't refer to the test when using article 3.8 in the cases you cited above it's because all those cases (mass damper, f-duct, fric, etc) are considered movable aerodynamics. They don't need a flexibility test to prove those (mass damper: the mass reducing vibration of the aerodynamic elements, etc. f-duct: a driver movement to cover a hole, etc). So, it's not invalidating just about anything even remotely aerodynamic using article 3.8 as you said. There's a reason to use that article, even if it's not very clear at first glance.
I'll try again going to the very basics...
3.8 and 3.9 are two things completely different.
Article 3.8 basically prevent F1 teams from movable aerodynamics and ground effect
Article 3.9 regulate bodywork flexibility.
Bodywork flexibility can lead to breaching the rules regarding ground effect in article 3.8 (as we have discuss before i.e front wing flexing, floor flexing, etc). That's why the tests on article 3.9 are required to enforce the bit about ground effect in 3.8.
Also, you can pass the tests on article 3.9 but still violate article 3.8. That's one of the reasons for having the article 3.9.9.
The only thing we can argue about is when flexing turns into moving.
On the other hand, I have to agree with you. At any point, the technical delegate can make the call and refer the matter to the stewards. This time around though...they'll need more than they currently have to make such a call.
I can understand that there are teams and fans that think in a different way. That doesn't mean that they are right though. Mercedes was the only team that thought about DAS (at least to that extent). Pretty much every other team thought it was illegal and they were wrong.
It's not a suprised that all Mercedes powered cars (mainly Mercedes and McLaren but I would include Aston Martin and Williams) think the same way (the same with regards to th other teams). I've said many times that this has a lot more to with politics than with the technical rules themselfs.
