renault say they didnt use it!

[andyps]

35secToNuvolari said:

andyps said:

Therefore by mounting the floor, which affects the aerodynamics, on a spring the rule was being broken.

Agreed. But only if the spring is necessary to mount the floor to the car. Is the spring necessary to rigidly mount the floor to the car? One could argue that it is not. Remove the spring and the floor is still rigidly attached to the tub by way of the fasteners underneath.

Surely the point with the example in question is that without the spring the floor would have moved freely, and in excess of the allowable movement. The spring was a way to pass the test of 3,17 whilst contravening 3.15.

[Conian]

Phil Mackereth said:

Hey guys do you want a large file of data from McLaren?

Renault said:

We've 'av already got one!
(whisper) I told 'im zat we 'av already got one

[flemke]

FIA Tech Regs said:

"3.15: Aerodynamic influence:...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
...
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)...


"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

If there were no rule 3.17, how much could the underside bodywork deflect?

Let's revisit this one. With no 3.17, then any aerodynamic part must remain immobile with relation to the sprung part of the car. But 3.17 is there, and it is there to either define 3.15 or to be an exception, and therefore, exempt from 3.15. 3.15 and 3.17 cannot apply simultaneously, otherwise the rules would be in contradiction and any car following 3.17 would be illegal. Your interpretation of the rule makes Ferrari's and BMW's floor illegal only if 3.17 expires, and there is no word in 3.17 that states or implies its expiration. As long as the car behaves as 3.17 is written, it is protected by the exemption. How can the part comply with 3.17 AND be in violation of 3.15, simultaneously? It is also not unreasonable to expect a car to comply with the conditions written in 3.17 and operate outside both the written force and deflection values based on well established material principles; thus making it unreasonable to expect 3.17 to expire if the floor is found to operate outside of the force/deflection values listed, and therefore, to be in violation of 3.15.

Rules 3.15 and 3.17 (including, but not limited to, 3.17.4) can co-exist quite easily.

The point of an "exception" is not that it entirely negates a principle or rule. To the contrary, the whole concept of an exception recognises the overall validity of a general principle or rule.
Subsumed within that general principle or rule, the exception will allow freedom to breach the limits of the rule - to the extent of the terms of the exception.

If the terms of the exception in this case were, "3.15 does not apply", then you would be right.
If the terms of the exception in this case were, "1.0mm of movement is permitted for every 100N of force", then you would be right.

The fact, however, is that the exception says neither thing. Rather, the exception says that, "The bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when...". It says nothing whatsoever about an additional exception to 3.15 that would allow any further deflection.

Therefore the langauage is clear: the bodywork may move 5mm under certain specific conditions. There are no exceptions to allow it to move more than 5mm.

[10 Pence Short]

So now we have information coming from Kroll's investigation at Renault that 15 engineers, incuding the most senior, have taken a look at the information supplied by the ex-McLaren engineer. From what I've read, it appears those 15 have confirmed it.

In the McLaren case, the information was passed to them by a disgruntled Ferrari employee trying to stop his team from cheating. In this Renault case, the information was taken to Renault with what must be the specific aim of improving the performance of the Renault car.

I sincerely hope that the WMSC are given a clear opportunity to punish Renault to at the very least the same extent as McLaren have been.

[nioks]

10 Pence Short said:

I sincerely hope that the WMSC are given a clear opportunity to punish Renault to at the very least the same extent as McLaren have been.

Not a chance. The FIA know perfectly well that Renault has the capacity to tell them in no uncertain terms where to shove their F1. They did with the WRC.
To this extent, and also the fact that they were not a driving force with the GPMA thing, the FIA will no doubt find a very good reason to differenciate between this case and the former McLaren case, and therefore treat it the same as the former, former, Toyota case

Bit like Soap isn't it....

[10 Pence Short]

The FIA would struggle to compare it to the Toyota case, as their argument was that on that occasion no comlaint was made, therefore no action was taken. McLaren were 'investigated' because a complaint was made, and in this new issue McLaren have complained, so the FIA have become formally involved.

As for Renault having any power by telling the FIA they're off, not going to happen, as the FIA really wouldn't give a toss. The WRC is nothing in terms of a business comparison to F1.

The whole situation truly is intriguing, as the evidence against Renault appears to be no less 'compelling' than that used against McLaren, yet you can feel that the FIA are squirming in the uncomfortable and public position they're now in. Whatever they do they are going to upset a large number of people.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Tuesday 13th November 16:57

[nioks]

Q. When is a contract not a contract?
A. When Renault are involved.

Renault will cut off their nose to spite their face. They will do what they want, when they want - because they can.

Now, I'm not saying they 'will' ride off into the sunset, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility for them to do so. Whereas McLaren really had no other option than to take the medicine.

I agree totally that the FIA are between a rock and a hard place with this one, and no matter what, they will upset people.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

FIA Tech Regs said:

"3.15: Aerodynamic influence:...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
...
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)...


"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."

Rules 3.15 and 3.17 (including, but not limited to, 3.17.4) can co-exist quite easily.

The point of an "exception" is not that it entirely negates a principle or rule. To the contrary, the whole concept of an exception recognises the overall validity of a general principle or rule.
Subsumed within that general principle or rule, the exception will allow freedom to breach the limits of the rule - to the extent of the terms of the exception.

If the terms of the exception in this case were, "3.15 does not apply", then you would be right.

It does not need to be stated explicitly if it is necessary for it to be true logically.

flemke said:

If the terms of the exception in this case were, "1.0mm of movement is permitted for every 100N of force", then you would be right.

That, most likely, is closer to the rule's intention, and it would've outlawed anything BMW or the Scuderia did.

flemke said:

The fact, however, is that the exception says neither thing. Rather, the exception says that, "The bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when...". It says nothing whatsoever about an additional exception to 3.15 that would allow any further deflection.


Therefore the langauage is clear: the bodywork may move 5mm under certain specific conditions. There are no exceptions to allow it to move more than 5mm.

Your reading of the rule would also allow deflection only when a 500N force is present: an absurdity in the realm of practical experience and common understanding.

Cheers

[zac510]

flemke, is there a definition of 'aerodynamic part' that is perhaps overriding the influence may otherwise have 3.15 upon 3.17?

Certainly a floor is a thing that stops the drivers arse rubbing on the ground, not an aerodynamic device?

[Riverside]

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

The fact, however, is that the exception says neither thing. Rather, the exception says that, "The bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when...". It says nothing whatsoever about an additional exception to 3.15 that would allow any further deflection.


Therefore the langauage is clear: the bodywork may move 5mm under certain specific conditions. There are no exceptions to allow it to move more than 5mm.

Your reading of the rule would also allow deflection only when a 500N force is present: an absurdity in the realm of practical experience and common understanding.

Cheers

It's interesting to read your two's interpretations of this but I can't help but feel that it's the 'cynical' part of the rule that's relevant to whether or not previous results should be affected or not rather than the details you are focussing on.

Clearly the more force you apply the more a component will move until it reaches a bump stop or breaks and you both broadly agree on this. The FIA do too because they changed the test & the same design would now fail.

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

[andyps]

Riverside said:

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

And guess which sort Ferrari were using

[Riverside]

andyps said:

Riverside said:

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

And guess which sort Ferrari were using

I don't think their lawyer would have been so enquiring about buckling stays vs pre-buckled stays on the McLaren if Ferrari had been using a similar system (a buckling stay) themselves.

Edited by Riverside on Tuesday 13th November 19:42

[flemke]

zac510 said:

flemke, is there a definition of 'aerodynamic part' that is perhaps overriding the influence may otherwise have 3.15 upon 3.17?

Certainly a floor is a thing that stops the drivers arse rubbing on the ground, not an aerodynamic device?

No.
I was using shorthand as I assumed the 35sec was familiar with the precise wording, which is:

"3.15...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance...
- Must remain immobile with relation to the sprung part of the car."

I'd say that that is about as comprehensive as one can get.

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

Your reading of the rule would also allow deflection only when a 500N force is present: an absurdity in the realm of practical experience and common understanding.

This is the only part of your reply that I understood.
Yes, that interpretation would be an absurdity, which is why everyone knows that that interpretation cannot apply.
Therefore, instead of trying to apply an absurdity that even Ferrari's barrister is not shameless enough to attempt, we must go to the interpretation that anyone familiar with the English language would make:
"...may deflect no more than 5mm when (anything up to) a 500N load is applied..."

[flemke]

Riverside said:

andyps said:

Riverside said:

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

And guess which sort Ferrari were using

I don't think their lawyer would have been so enquiring about buckling stays vs pre-buckled stays on the McLaren if Ferrari had been using a similar system (a buckling stay) themselves.

McLaren used a pre-buckled stay.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

35secToNuvolari said:

Your reading of the rule would also allow deflection only when a 500N force is present: an absurdity in the realm of practical experience and common understanding.

This is the only part of your reply that I understood.
Yes, that interpretation would be an absurdity, which is why everyone knows that that interpretation cannot apply.
Therefore, instead of trying to apply an absurdity that even Ferrari's barrister is not shameless enough to attempt, we must go to the interpretation that anyone familiar with the English language would make:
"...may deflect no more than 5mm when (anything up to) a 500N load is applied..."

First off, I want to thank you for your patience up to this point. I have thoroughly enjoyed debating the specifics of this rule, and am glad that someone has hung in there to continue the debate. The source of my own patience comes from the fact that I am approaching this as an opportunity to practice logic and reasoning, and not to defend my pride. I mean that sincerely, and I thank you. I also do not want to offend and only intended to use 'absurd' in the sense of 'reductio ad absurdum.'


My point was that if 5mm is to be an absolute limit (and not conditional upon the forces applied), then 500N must be the only condition it is allowed. You cannot read the rule so strictly for the deflection and then relax your interpretation for the force. I think you see the absurdity that the strict interpretation of the deflection caused, because now you are relaxing the specificity for the force by introducing a 'common sense' use of the English language. If you are using a 'common sense' understanding of the English language to allow a force of anything but 500N, then what qualms would you have with allowing the common knowledge of how materials perform under stress; it is at that point that the 5mm 'limit' disappears because it is well understood that a material that deflects 5mm at 500N will deflect more at higher forces.

Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Wednesday 14th November 01:00

[Riverside]

flemke said:

Riverside said:

andyps said:

Riverside said:

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

And guess which sort Ferrari were using

I don't think their lawyer would have been so enquiring about buckling stays vs pre-buckled stays on the McLaren if Ferrari had been using a similar system (a buckling stay) themselves.

McLaren used a pre-buckled stay.

Yes, and had Ferrari been using a buckling stay or other similar device which gives way beyond a certain load (cynically exploiting a loophole) I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have made such a big deal about it when they thought McLaren were using one on their floor.

[flemke]

Riverside said:

flemke said:

Riverside said:

andyps said:

Riverside said:

A design that has different characteristics by design beyond the tested force would be deliberate cheating (ie a cynical exploitation of the letter of the rules), one that behaved 'normally' regardless of the force applied would not.

And guess which sort Ferrari were using

I don't think their lawyer would have been so enquiring about buckling stays vs pre-buckled stays on the McLaren if Ferrari had been using a similar system (a buckling stay) themselves.

McLaren used a pre-buckled stay.

Yes, and had Ferrari been using a buckling stay or other similar device which gives way beyond a certain load (cynically exploiting a loophole) I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have made such a big deal about it when they thought McLaren were using one on their floor.

Sorry, I had misconstrued your use of "similar".
I thought that you meant that it was similar in that it was Ferrari's version of McLaren's buckling stay, not that it was similar except that, unlike McLaren's, it was not pre-buckled.

Cheers.

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

35secToNuvolari said:

Your reading of the rule would also allow deflection only when a 500N force is present: an absurdity in the realm of practical experience and common understanding.

This is the only part of your reply that I understood.
Yes, that interpretation would be an absurdity, which is why everyone knows that that interpretation cannot apply.
Therefore, instead of trying to apply an absurdity that even Ferrari's barrister is not shameless enough to attempt, we must go to the interpretation that anyone familiar with the English language would make:
"...may deflect no more than 5mm when (anything up to) a 500N load is applied..."

First off, I want to thank you for your patience up to this point. I have thoroughly enjoyed debating the specifics of this rule, and am glad that someone has hung in there to continue the debate. The source of my own patience comes from the fact that I am approaching this as an opportunity to practice logic and reasoning, and not to defend my pride. I mean that sincerely, and I thank you. I also do not want to offend and only intended to use 'absurd' in the sense of 'reductio ad absurdum.'


My point was that if 5mm is to be an absolute limit (and not conditional upon the forces applied), then 500N must be the only condition it is allowed. You cannot read the rule so strictly for the deflection and then relax your interpretation for the force. I think you see the absurdity that the strict interpretation of the deflection caused, because now you are relaxing the specificity for the force by introducing a 'common sense' use of the English language. If you are using a 'common sense' understanding of the English language to allow a force of anything but 500N, then what qualms would you have with allowing the common knowledge of how materials perform under stress; it is at that point that the 5mm 'limit' disappears because it is well understood that a material that deflects 5mm at 500N will deflect more at higher forces.

No probs with the word "absurdity", at least as far as I'm concerned. I agree that it would be possible to read that clause as saying that the only condition under which it was allowed was 500N, no more and no less. Although possible under the accepted rules of the English language, that interpretation would indeed be absurd.

That example, of how a particular verbal construction is possible, although so tenuous as to be absurd, does not bring me to your conclusion. AIui,, your conclusion is that, because an interpretation to some greater extent than none is possible (indeed, necessary) for one to apply that clause, then an interpretation of another clause should also be allowed - if such interpretation is possible for the clause at all. Have I got that right?

One might disagree with that on the basis of the difference between sense and nonsense, which is still subjective in the literal sense, although not subjective within the boundaries of human sanity.

Rather than getting into that, however, I would disagree that it is possible to make your alternative construction of the clause:

"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."


I say this because of:
a), the context of an "exception", as I wrote above. That is to say, a rule applies always and unless there has been specified an exception to it, and,
b), the first phrase of the clause states specifically that "the bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm..."
The fact that it may deflect no more than that amount when a certain load is applied is, to my mind, secondary.

I would say that the combination of 3.15 and 3.17.4 means that the bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm under any of the conditions in which it will be operated, and those condition will include but not be limited to an FIA test at 500N.

I accept that the rule could have been drafted more emphatically than it was. Nonetheless, I do not see how an honest professional could have interpreted it as anything other than a 5mm absolute limit.
In the second hearing, Lowe made reference to the ongoing dialogues which all the teams have with Charlie Whiting. Although this point was not developed (because Lowe was not allowed to set the agenda, the prosecution was), the meaning was clear: all the teams knew, and had known for years, what the FIA would and would not allow, and it was only because this particular device was hidden from view that Ferrari tried it on.

Cheers.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

That example, of how a particular verbal construction is possible, although so tenuous as to be absurd, does not bring me to your conclusion. AIui,, your conclusion is that, because an interpretation to some greater extent than none is possible (indeed, necessary) for one to apply that clause, then an interpretation of another clause should also be allowed - if such interpretation is possible for the clause at all. Have I got that right?

One might disagree with that on the basis of the difference between sense and nonsense, which is still subjective in the literal sense, although not subjective within the boundaries of human sanity.

When it comes to rules and the law, what is written is what counts. There is no grammatical reason to interpret 5mm as an absolute limit, and the only semantic way to make it so is to read the statement with such specificity as to make the rule completely absurd. To actually apply the rule that way, one need not be insane, but only unreasonable. I know you aren't reading the rule that way, but you are reading the rule with outside considerations in mind.

flemke said:

Rather than getting into that, however, I would disagree that it is possible to make your alternative construction of the clause:

"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."


I say this because of:
a), the context of an "exception", as I wrote above. That is to say, a rule applies always and unless there has been specified an exception to it, and,

flemke said:

b), the first phrase of the clause states specifically that "the bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm..."
The fact that it may deflect no more than that amount when a certain load is applied is, to my mind, secondary.

The full first sentence states specifically:

"Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line."

What part of the sentence makes the 500N secondary? There are no words between "vertically" and "when." There's not even any punctuation; the deflection is immdediately made conditional. I might even defer if there was more than one space between the words, but there's not even that. Is there any external reason you can point me to?

flemke said:

I would say that the combination of 3.15 and 3.17.4 means that the bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm under any of the conditions in which it will be operated, and those condition will include but not be limited to an FIA test at 500N.

The only place in the rules that could stipulate the conditions with which the floor can move is in 3.17. The word 'any' is not used nor implied. You can't combine 3.15 and 3.17 because there would be a contradiction as soon as the floor moved.

flemke said:

I accept that the rule could have been drafted more emphatically than it was. Nonetheless, I do not see how an honest professional could have interpreted it as anything other than a 5mm absolute limit.
In the second hearing, Lowe made reference to the ongoing dialogues which all the teams have with Charlie Whiting. Although this point was not developed (because Lowe was not allowed to set the agenda, the prosecution was), the meaning was clear: all the teams knew, and had known for years, what the FIA would and would not allow, and it was only because this particular device was hidden from view that Ferrari tried it on.

Now we are straying from what is written in the regulations. Again, I am only trying to interpret what we have access to and can discuss directly.

As far as what is clear about what Mr. Lowe said: we found out that 3.15 and 3.17 has been extensively discussed, that it is a quite complicated and heated subject to discuss, and where Mr. Lowe's opinion lies on the matter. I understand that you take Mr. Lowes' words as law, because you trust his pedigree (and distrust Ferrari's employees), but Willi Rampf and Mario Theissen disagreed with Lowe's position, and I'm not sure of any evidence against them being dishonest professionals. If so, then we cannot solely depend on someone's conclusion.

And since we are off the beaten path I will add: IF the clarifications given by the FIA over time stated that 3.17 was not exclusive of 3.15, that it was only a 'practical guidance' and not an exemption, and it was explicit in the communication that deflection must not breach 5mm: AND the clarifications were binding with-in F1's sporting code, THEN I can see that Ferrari's floor was meant to deceive and was illegal according to the clarifications. Outside of that, based on what we have access to and how it is written, the deflection is conditional.