F1technical.net

[quote="JohnsonsEvilTwin"]Its quite incredible we are having this debate and the FIA still sit on their hands.

quote]

May be they haven't......

Watch this space

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:@ richard

Why have a clause in the rules basically saying this:

"Any car suspected or otherwise of not complying to the rules will be subject to further tests ensuring legality".


It is true that if the car passes a test it is legal according to the specified test.
But it is also true that it is illegal if it breaks the law which the test is intended to protect.
Obviously on the surface it seems the FIA are happy thus far and so it seems are the competition as nothing has been said.

Just a bit perplexing to me...

Laws and rules are generally interpreted by precedent. The precedent the FIA set was that if it passes the test it's legal. Precedent is generally as important as the actual wording of a law or rule.

scarbs wrote: May be they haven't......

Watch this space

Holding my breath here scarbs!

*sigh* Its like the flexible wing thread all over again.

There is an arbitrary test of acceptable deflection. The teams pass that test. That really should be the end of the matter.

Pierce89 wrote: Laws and rules are generally interpreted by precedent. The precedent the FIA set was that if it passes the test it's legal. Precedent is generally as important as the actual wording of a law or rule.

Sure, I appreciate that.

But precedent is not the law. And FIA have scope to test things further if they want to.

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to
introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of),
moving whilst the car is in motion.

Richard how does what you say fit in with the above? Just an honest question here mate, because in my mind that rule says, if we think its bending we can change the test to see see if that is the case.

JET - Everything in life bends, so the FIA have to choose some arbitrary boundary of acceptable deflection.

The real issue is that the rules are not written to define perfection, they merely define a common formula for compliance so competitors can safely compete on an equal basis.

Anyway, this is a technical thread about mechanical engineering. Conversations about legality should go to the "all cars are illegal" thread. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9795

Back to topic...

Scarbs mention of "pivot" has probably confused things. Obviously to be legal it would have to be a less stiff bit of structure.

Also I agree that the stay at the font of the bib appears to be tensile, presumably to stop the bib dropping down too far under aero loading. After all they need some sort of gap there to let the air flow under the floor.

Breaking News – ScarbsF1 on Twitter:

I hear a TD (Technical Directive) went out from Charlie Whiting to the teams over the Korean GP, about T-Tray Splitter construction.

Specifically a team requesting clarification if a see-saw set up would be legal, its was clarified it would be in contravention of the

A team have asked the FIA for clarification on the use of this splitter construction with a view to using it themselves. Charlie Whiting has made it clear it would not be and added that the deflection may be altered to ensure the rules and test are not being exploited.

Intego wrote:Breaking News – ScarbsF1 on Twitter:

I hear a TD (Technical Directive) went out from Charlie Whiting to the teams over the Korean GP, about T-Tray Splitter construction.

Specifically a team requesting clarification if a see-saw set up would be legal, its was clarified it would be in contravention of the

Its all kicking off! Most interesting, and I wonder if said tech director caste an eye over what scarbs posted last week?

I can tell you at least two teams Tech Directors have looked at the see-saw blog post, and one redrew it and proposed it to Charlie..! Hence the clarification.

But on balance I dont know if this set up is being used by any team at the moment.

Scarbs

Maybe we will see a sudden drop off the pace and a less extreme rake by one team next race. They can say that they test 2012 specs.
Bravo scarbs, Charlie Whiting wants YOU! =D>

Fair play scarbs.

Are you sure they redrew it? Could be a nice little copyright earner if they didnt!

The day scarbs posted that idea, i tweeted that page to MercGP, Mclaren and Ferrari's official twitter and asked them to copy it...maybe ..just maybe thats how they saw scrabs site?

Well any team can ask for clarification of prospective loopholes.
Doesn't mean they exist or will work, but its best to get the clarification regardless.
The same thing with the octopus exhaust which not even a picture or comment has been made about.
It very well may stem from the reading blogs. A lot of F1 rumours do.

One thing with the pivot idea though, is that the plank itself has to have extreme elasticity to accommodate such movement.
If we bring up back the drawing again.

Can we post undersides of other cars to compare.