http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/...10566.html
Quote:There’s literally no difference at all in terms of the downforce it produces. It was a clarification of the regulations that hasn’t affected us at all to be honest.
if it doesn't make a difference, then why did you do it in the first place?
Admission would prove intent?
does the fia have a problem with them taking advantage of opportunities? i think we all know what's going on. there's no need to hide it.
Plus saying there is no difference makes the FIA look stupid for making them change it...and they aren't going to turn round and say we've lost 1/10th a lap.
They are allowed this hole for the start motor shaft and that is all. If they were using this hole to gain extra downforce then that would be illegal.
To admit that this is why they had a bigger hole than others then they admit that their intent was to cheat.
do the rules have intent like that? i haven't looked at the relevant reg, so i don't know. is there a clause that reads something like "solely for the purpose of allowing access for the starter motor" or "without any affect on performance or aerodynamics"?
if not, then i don't think it's cheating. it's just more lazy rule writing.
i like chemics' idea of trying to embarrass the fia, though i don't think they can be any more than they are.
Cheat is relative of course, they interpreted the rules in an unintended way to gain an advantage, they didn't actually break any rules.
I notice there has been no mention of re-designing their started motor on short notice to meet the clarification of the rule.
(03-25-2010 12:08 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: [ -> ]do the rules have intent like that? i haven't looked at the relevant reg, so i don't know. is there a clause that reads something like "solely for the purpose of allowing access for the starter motor" or "without any affect on performance or aerodynamics"?
if not, then i don't think it's cheating. it's just more lazy rule writing.
i like chemics' idea of trying to embarrass the fia, though i don't think they can be any more than they are.
I think the rule says the hole is purely for the starter motor, it just doesn't say the starter motor has to have specific dimensions. So the 4 teams had strange shaped starter motors that just happened to be a shape that helped aero performance as well.
Quote: From Autosport
Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]."
There is no specific definition of what the 'minimum' size is though - so some teams have been using exotically shaped starter motors to allow themselves to feature wide-shaped holes in the diffusers. This concept was pioneered by Brawn GP in 2009.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82234
okay, solely for the minimum required access.
yaaay was right. that's cheating.
If it was cheating the FIA wouldn't need to change the rules to ban it.
they clarified - never change, just clarify. This saves face all round.
the clarification was a notice to all the teams that they have one chance to adjust before getting hauled in front of the motorsports commission.
It's also a relatively cheap fix, so it's easy to "clarify". The F duct was another interpretation that wasn't in th spirit of the rules, but they left that one alone. Presumably McLaren may have had something to say about that with the advantage it brings and the difficulty to copy it.
(03-25-2010 12:41 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]The F duct was another interpretation that wasn't in th spirit of the rules, but they left that one alone.
the oddly shaped diffuser hole is against the letter of the rule, so it's easier to clarify and enforce.
I agree it's easier to clarify and enforce, but not that it's against the letter of the rule, or they wouldn't need to clarify it in the first place. Plus the other teams would have protested if it was a complete cheat. This way is a lot tidier than a silly race to develop extreme started motors to take advantage of the loophole though.
rule interpretation is always arguable, but when they say solely for the minimum required access, and the teams make a hole that is larger than it needs to be, that violates the letter of the rule in my eyes. the very fact that they can make the whole smaller without any trouble shows that it wasn't the minimum required size before.
The biggest problem is that to make the rules water tight would require a team of lawyers 6 months and the rule book would be about 4 feet think. Plus you want to allow enough freedom for innovation, unfortunately that innovation sometimes comes where it is least expected or intended.
I can't way I'd want to be a rule maker, the pay is probably pretty poor compared to the teams, and you mostly get flack for it.
If they want a rule that dictates the size of the hole then they should provide limits on the size and have teams design their starter motor around those regulations within a certain tolerance. Or I guess they could go with a spec starter and have the engine/chasis designed around that.
(03-25-2010 01:16 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is that to make the rules water tight would require a team of lawyers 6 months and the rule book would be about 4 feet think.
i'm confused. where's the problem?
in case the fia is reading this, i'd like to formally announce my candidacy for head of regulation drafting. pay me a fair salary, and i'd take the gig in a heartbeat.
(03-25-2010 01:18 PM)Jackson Wrote: [ -> ]If they want a rule that dictates the size of the hole then they should provide limits on the size and have teams design their starter motor around those regulations within a certain tolerance.
i agree, that's a much better way, and i think that's what this clarification does.
(03-25-2010 01:21 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2010 01:16 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest problem is that to make the rules water tight would require a team of lawyers 6 months and the rule book would be about 4 feet think.
i'm confused. where's the problem?
in case the fia is reading this, i'd like to formally announce my candidacy for head of regulation drafting. pay me a fair salary, and i'd take the gig in a heartbeat.
I think there should definitely be some accountants involved as well, there always is. I'll nominate myself
sounds good. we can meet in boston this weekend and bang it out.
Wow, Chemics, you're an accountant too? That makes 3 of us now.
I know for a fact there is more than three of you but I was keeping it quiet in case you formed a union or something.
(03-25-2010 02:39 PM)Jackson Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, Chemics, you're an accountant too? That makes 3 of us now.
I thought people knew I was an accountant for some reason. I mainly do Management Accounts in a manufacturing background, I could never remember all the rules for statutory accounting. Plus there is more room for interpretation of the rules in what I do, which I like.
(03-25-2010 02:45 PM)Yaaay Wrote: [ -> ]I know for a fact there is more than three of you but I was keeping it quiet in case you formed a union or something.
If they are up for it...it might be beneficial.
(03-25-2010 02:56 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2010 02:39 PM)Jackson Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, Chemics, you're an accountant too? That makes 3 of us now.
I thought people knew I was an accountant for some reason. I mainly do Management Accounts in a manufacturing background, I could never remember all the rules for statutory accounting. Plus there is more room for interpretation of the rules in what I do, which I like.
Ah, I might have heard it along the way and it just didn't click. Koala is one too. I do mostly tax work for nontaxable entities (ironic, isn't it?).