Cheaters all?

[komninosm]

Is basically everyone this year cheating? I mean Red Bull have that ride-height thing, McLaren have that driver initiated stall, Ferrari have shields on wheels, etc.
Am I over-analysing it or oversimplifying it?

[manchild]

You're totally wrong about first two, and completely right about third.

RB has no ride-height thing, Mclaren's f*** duct is legal, while Ferrari has indeed aero device on their front rims.

[Carbon]

It's a question of rules interpretation, figuring out loop holes and specific development paths. Either everybody is cheating or nobody is cheating.

[Jersey Tom]

IMO, if you're not stretching the rules as much as you possibly can.. you're nuts.

[theblackangus]

IMO, if you're not stretching the rules as much as you possibly can.. you're nuts.

So true. F1 is not like most sports, or for that matter like most other autoracing. With F1 part of the competition is a competition of invention,so being clever to the absolute limit (as an athlete is with their body)is essential. But the line between performance enhancement vs cheating to a body vs a machine (F1 Car) is huge. With the body its - all natural, but with F1 its everything goes but xyz. And knowing xyz are sometime large performance benefits, its easy to look there to say "How can I do this but so it abides by whats written here?", again you would be silly not to. So more or less everyone is trying to cheat in their own "by the letter of the law" way all the time.

As a side note, it would be great to see if someone came out with a car that is equal to the best F1 car, but a completely different design. By that I mean like 70's vs today different. How many team would adopt the new different but not better design? (Dont over analysis this, equal means equal down to total surface area, downforce, tire cost etc)

[BreezyRacer]

Yes, I buy into the "poke along the edges of the rules" philosophy BUT someone, anyone, please explain to me how the F-duct is not a flat out cheat? It's moveable aero if there ever was and secondly it's driver controlled aero.

Yes, it's soon to be the standard but really .. this whole effort was some awfully optimistic interpretation of the rules. I was/am shocked that it was approved.

What is to stop anyone from, after this ruling, building a series of ducts that open and close with driver body loads. In a right hand corner for instance airflow could be diverted above that side of the floor to further isolate underbody flows and make more DF. Tune the ducting so that under braking the rear wing blow off would close, under acceleration over 2 g's the f duct would close, when acceleration flattens out the F duct opens and the brake ducts close up .. anyways you get the idea. We suddenly have a stupid form of moveable and driver controlled aero.

[xpensive]

I don't think anyone is deliberately cheating, since the McLaren-Ferrari thing they are way to aware of the potential cost for that, but when you look at the FIA technical regulations, you realize that every possibility must be xplored.

If it was just a "fit in the box" rule, life would be simple as the old CanAm days, but that is not the case.
A good xample is those ridicilous "rearview mirror posts", it's stretching things to the bizarre, but it's not cheating, is it?

In the 80s, the "water cooled brakes", not cheating, but Tyrrell topping up the tank with lead pellets, yes mama.

In any case, it's for Charlie Whiting and the FIA to decide what is and what isn't, personally I can't understand how McLaren got away with the F-duct, but that's me.

[Pandamasque]

You're totally wrong about first two, and completely right about third.

RB has no ride-height thing, Mclaren's f*** duct is legal, while Ferrari has indeed aero device on their front rims.

Ferrari's rims are no more illegal than the blown wings or everyone's 'brake cooling' devices (flip-ups, diveplanes, vanes etc). All those things are against the spirit of the rules, if there was such a thing, but are completely legal.

[wesley123]

cant see why the f-duct is illegal, there isnt any movable aero in it and the only movable part of the whole system is the driver, guess what, the driver has to move. so i do not see any reason why it is illegal

[Richard]

F1 is an engineering challenge to create a car based on the most effective use of the rules. Some may see rules as restrictions, engineers see them as opportunities.

There's a similar thread about "cheating" over here ... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7180

Here some quotes from that thread:

Until it's proscribed, it's legal, and the 'spirit' of the rules is just a defense of the teams that never found the answer.

I know the sonofab*tch is cheating! How do I know? 'Cause I'm cheating and he won!

[lebesset]

how many of us would be interested in F1 if the teams were not constantly seeking loopholes in the regulations to gain advantage ..in fact I sometimes wonder if the FIA don't deliberately leave a little vagueness !

I , for one , would probably have lost interest years ago ...as somebody said recently , F1 isn't just about overtaking

[pgj]

F1 is a prototype series. As already stated, if designers are not testing where the boundaries are they are not thinking about their developments properly.

[xpensive]

Very often the FIA mess up themselves by not enforcing their own rules efficiently enough, the DDD is one xample but the sliding skirts of the late 70s was perhaps the worst. Sliding skirts with ceramic contact rails were essential to the venturi-cars efficiency in creating mind-boggling ground-effects, still it took the FIA 3 years to ralize this was a "movable aerodynamic device".

I'm afraid that something similar is brewing with McLaren's "dead zone".

[pgj]

Very often the FIA mess up themselves by not enforcing their own rules efficiently enough, the DDD is one xample but the sliding skirts of the late 70s was perhaps the worst. Sliding skirts with ceramic contact rails were essential to the venturi-cars efficiency in creating mind-boggling ground-effects, still it took the FIA 3 years to ralize this was a "movable aerodynamic device".

I'm afraid that something similar is brewing with McLaren's "dead zone".

Interesting. What do you think will happen with it?

[xpensive]

Very often the FIA mess up themselves by not enforcing their own rules efficiently enough, the DDD is one xample but the sliding skirts of the late 70s was perhaps the worst. Sliding skirts with ceramic contact rails were essential to the venturi-cars efficiency in creating mind-boggling ground-effects, still it took the FIA 3 years to ralize this was a "movable aerodynamic device".

I'm afraid that something similar is brewing with McLaren's "dead zone".

Interesting. What do you think will happen with it?

Typically, it will take the beuracracy of the FIA six month to catch up, then they will appoint a comission to evaluate the benefits afterwhich they will decide that it is indeed a "movable aerodynamic device" and ban it. But all results will stand, sounds familiar?