Cheaters all?

[Tim.Wright]

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

From the Autosport website;

** Article 3.15 states: Aerodynamic influence :

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;

- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Maybe you could argue that its (the driver) not part of the car, but f*** me its a moveable thing changing the aero performance of the vehicle. I dont see why the FIA couldnt ban them with a clarification on the rule like they did with the starter motor holes in the diffuser.

I dont have such a problem with ferrari's wheels since they are fixed (not moveable)and of the same material as the wheel. I think this is a clever interpretation.

Just my €0.02

Tim

[mx_tifoso]

Maybe you could argue that its (the driver) not part of the car, but f*** me its a moveable thing changing the aero performance of the vehicle. I dont see why the FIA couldnt ban them with a clarification on the rule like they did with the starter motor holes in the diffuser.

Perhaps the FIA is waiting for more teams to join the party and then hit them upside the head with an 'F-duct ban' as a group?

I would love to hear the reasoning behind this continued allowance of the duct. Is the FIA too lax and lenient? Probably yes. But then on the flip side they don't want to discourage progressive/new ideas. So in a way whatever they do can have multiple effects.

And imo the diffuser hole and f-duct don't can't be compared in terms of performance increasers in the grand scale of things. So each one has a different weight and sensitivity to it.

[xpensive]

Maybe you could argue that its (the driver) not part of the car, but f*** me its a moveable thing changing the aero performance of the vehicle. I dont see why the FIA couldnt ban them with a clarification on the rule like they did with the starter motor holes in the diffuser.

Perhaps the FIA is waiting for more teams to join the party and then hit them upside the head with an 'F-duct ban' as a group?

I would love to hear the reasoning behind this continued allowance of the duct. Is the FIA too lax and lenient? Probably yes. But then on the flip side they don't want to discourage progressive/new ideas. So in a way whatever they do can have multiple effects.

And imo the diffuser hole and f-duct don't can't be compared in terms of performance increasers in the grand scale of things. So each one has a different weight and sensitivity to it.

How I love to repeat myself, beloved moderator;

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?

[Just_a_fan]

I dont have such a problem with ferrari's wheels since they are fixed (not moveable)and of the same material as the wheel. I think this is a clever interpretation.

Tim

F** me but the wheel is a moveable thing that affects the aero performance of the car.

The driver is specifically excluded by the regs so it's a clever interpretation.

See how easy it is to easy both sides of these arguements...

The FIA has deemed both legal. Live with it.

[TheMinister]

I don't understand how people seem to think the device should be illegal within the rules. The rules simply state the car cannot have any moveable aerodynamic parts. The driver is not part of the car. No part of the car moves.

With regards to the whole 'cheating' debate; in terms of technical development, the rules should always be black and white as to whether something is allowed. The problem is that the rules have tended toward being over-specific; ie saying front wings must be x and y dimensions, rather than a smaller number of generalised simple rules. These complex rules have accumulated over time and are often poorly written, with ambiguous words in them. To make matters worse, FIA has failed to consistently apply them.

Personally I'd prefer it were we to have a 'box' rule; FIA gives teams the maximum dimensions of the car, and lets them get on with it. If this would make cars too fast for human drivers, then perhaps impose a few more limitations; maximum downforce at given speeds, maximum fuel consumption, minimum mass etc. Throw in a few simple safety rules (crash test dummy must be able to survive a number of specified impacts) and it'd make for much more innovative and varied car designs than we currently get.

[multisync]

They may be viewing it as an overtaking aid which might help the race be more 'interesting' so will keep stum till everyone's got one and hence the effect is lost?

[BreezyRacer]

They may be viewing it as an overtaking aid which might help the race be more 'interesting' so will keep stum till everyone's got one and hence the effect is lost?

I think that's a good point Multisync.

[DaveKillens]

This term "cheating" is very harsh. You have to consider the climate within Formula One, and the immense pressure to perform well. Sponsors pour millions into the sport as sponsors, and naturally, they expect results. They expect their logo to get attention, they expect their team to perform well, and they expect nothing negative in return, namely a cheating scandal. So teams are pushed not only to do well, but to stay out of trouble with the FIA and media.

So every year, engineers and lawyers go over the regulations with a fine toothed comb, and dissect every word, all in an attempt to find any loopholes or methods of gaining an advantage. Back in the 60's someone tried a wing on a race car. The regulations did not ban such a device, yet by some people's standards displayed in this post, they would label this as "cheating". And I really wish they would choose their words more carefully.

Naturally, a great portion of the blame goes to the FIA and their poorly-worded regulations. This allows teams to apply liberal interpretations to the regulations, in a hope of leapfrogging the competition.

All this talk about the F-duct is becoming boring. The bottom line is that after close inspection by Charlie himself, it was deemed legal. End of story, move on. Of course, at the end of the year when everyone will have one, all teams will come to the realization that everyone just spent a nice pile of money, and everyone gained the same level of performance. And just like KERS, all the teams will come to an agreement to drop this technology.

[andartop]

It seems that for some people defining "cheating" is very straightforward: anything Ferrari does differently is cheating, anything any other team does differently is smart engineering.

To me, cheating in F1 can only be seen in the context of its consequences: it's ok as long as you don't get caught!

Funny someone drew a comparison to classic sports. Unfortunately, it seems the number of top ranked "athletes" getting doped seems to be increasing to the degree that Ciro's "I know the sonofab*tch is cheating! How do I know? 'Cause I'm cheating and he won!" probably applies to most other sports nowadays anyway!

Of course any team would cheat given half a chance. And of course the FIA will rule based on the consequences of its rulings: the show must go on, and if it means some cheating will spice things up of course it's going to be deemed legal.

Based on all these, I really don't mind cheating that much in F1. What really bugs me though is the hypocrisy of people acting like they are genuinely shocked every time cheating shows its ugly head. It's high time everyone realised that, yes dear, cheating IS part of F1. Always has been, always will be.

[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?

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?

Yes. I am getting down my unread book-pile and I have just finished reading Maurice Hamilton's book on Williams. There was one sentence in it that surprised me. In an interview with Adrian Newey he talked about a problem they were having with the car and the solution was to stall the underside of the car. By this, stalling is not a new concept and harks back to Bob Bell's comment that the F1 technical group had agreed not to stall rear-wings.

I do not like devices being banned mid-season unless they do not fit with the interpretation of existing regulations. DDD's should have been banned for 2010, F-Ducts should be banned foe 2011, with the regulations being amended to exclude these devices.

[pgj]

F1 is a prototype series. By its nature if it is going to develop it has to test the boundaries of its regulations otherwise it will stagnate. Cheating is a word that is too often used by people who do not appreciate this.

[xpensive]

Interestingly enough, during MrM's reign the concept of "movable aerodynamic device" became almost as useful as "bringing the sport into disrepute", when even Renault's mass-damper system was considered being one.

Williams built their 90's success largely on gizmos like active suspension rather than xpensive drivers, but I seem to remember that also the actiive suspension was deemed a movable aerodynamic device. After several years of course.

[komninosm]

Interestingly enough, during MrM's reign the concept of "movable aerodynamic device" became almost as useful as "bringing the sport into disrepute", when even Renault's mass-damper system was considered being one.

Williams built their 90's success largely on gizmos like active suspension rather than xpensive drivers, but I seem to remember that also the actiive suspension was deemed a movable aerodynamic device. After several years of course.

As a mechanical engineer I really like active suspension and all sorts of other gizmos (traction control, steering aids, KERS etc) that have applications on normal cars and was sad to see them removed from F1

[andrew]

Bit of a non-thread this. The FIA has declared all cars legal.

Some of the drivers actions are a bit dubious all down the field but the cars seem to be legal.

Nuff said.

[gcdugas]

“Rules are for the interpretation of wise men and the obedience of fools.” ~ Colin Chapman