renault say they didnt use it!
Discussion
35secToNuvolari said:
too much to quote
WRT two things, the first of which is the essence of what I have been trying to say:There is no contradiction.
Rule 3.15 says:
"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)..."
As far as I understand the English language, "any" means any - unless there is a specific exception.
There are a few specific exceptions. One of them is 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 see this as being pretty simple. This is an explicit exception, and to object that it says "at 500N", rather than "at up to 500N" is truly to grasp at straws.
In order for something to be an exception, it does not require a label of "Exception!". It is sufficient for it simply to be stated in the form of an exception, which is the case in 3.17.4.
"Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm...". Yes, there are defined conditions under which that deflection will be tested, but there are no conditions anywhere in the regulations under which the floor bodywork may deflect more than 5mm. If there are no exceptions, then the overall rule must obtain.
WRT Theissen and Rampf, it is quite true that their reputations are solid.
They are not strictly relevant here because, so far as I know, the public have never seen or heard precisely why BMW changed their floor, and also because their first language is German, so it is not clear that they understood the English-language rule well enough that they could be criticised for having willfully evaded it. I am not aware that anyone senior at BMW sent messages to the FIA in which he exposed an illegal device of his own team's, whereas we are led to believe that that did happen with someone who was at the time senior at Ferrari.
Although Ferrari are largely Italian, we know that they had in their midst at least one guy, Stepney, who did understand exactly what the rule meant and who went out of his way to inform the team that their floor was in contravention. The team disregarded his advice and carried on with a design that they then knew to be illegal, or, at the very least, questionable.
If a highly experienced, native English-speaking team member tells you that what you are doing is against the English-language rules, and you do not even bother to ask the FIA to clarify the rule to ensure that you are in compliance, what does that tell you about the intentions of the team?
Cheers.
flemke said:
"Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm...". Yes, there are defined conditions under which that deflection will be tested, but there are no conditions anywhere in the regulations under which the floor bodywork may deflect more than 5mm. If there are no exceptions, then the overall rule must obtain.
I understand perfectly your interpretation of the rule. What I apparently cannot get you to see is that 3.17.4 is not first stating an allowable movement and then the force it's tested at. It's describing the stiffness of the of the bodywork all at once. It is not unreasonable to read it as such. I don't see how a floor comprised of only carbon fiber and the skid plate, with no stay, would contravene 3.17.4. In tech, the car would be pulled in, the ram set to 500N, the floor would deflect 5mm or less, and off it would go. The floor would be stiff enough. And, if out on track the wind resistance is greater than 500N and the floor is pushed past 5mm, the part would still be operating exactly as expected and allowed. It seems like a completely straight forward, uncynical approach to what is written. So straight forward, in fact, that it can easily be understood even if English is your second language.The rule was not written in a water tight way.
Macca fans will choose their interpretation which says that Ferrari are cheats.
Fezza fans will say that Ferrari followed the rules.
Ferrari did secure the floor to the car, the floor did flex the right amount with the right pressure.
The rule was re-worded to more accurately describe what the FIA wanted.
Job's done, let it go. Live in the now.
Macca fans will choose their interpretation which says that Ferrari are cheats.
Fezza fans will say that Ferrari followed the rules.
Ferrari did secure the floor to the car, the floor did flex the right amount with the right pressure.
The rule was re-worded to more accurately describe what the FIA wanted.
Job's done, let it go. Live in the now.
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
"Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm...". Yes, there are defined conditions under which that deflection will be tested, but there are no conditions anywhere in the regulations under which the floor bodywork may deflect more than 5mm. If there are no exceptions, then the overall rule must obtain.
I understand perfectly your interpretation of the rule. What I apparently cannot get you to see is that 3.17.4 is not first stating an allowable movement and then the force it's tested at. It's describing the stiffness of the of the bodywork all at once. It is not unreasonable to read it as such. I don't see how a floor comprised of only carbon fiber and the skid plate, with no stay, would contravene 3.17.4. In tech, the car would be pulled in, the ram set to 500N, the floor would deflect 5mm or less, and off it would go. The floor would be stiff enough. And, if out on track the wind resistance is greater than 500N and the floor is pushed past 5mm, the part would still be operating exactly as expected and allowed. It seems like a completely straight forward, uncynical approach to what is written. So straight forward, in fact, that it can easily be understood even if English is your second language.For many years there has been a rule forbidding movement in parts attached to the sprung mass if they influenced the cars' aerodynamics. There were a few explicit exceptions to that.
More recently, another exception was added, to allow the front of the floor to lift so that the cars' undersides would not be destroyed by going across kerbs, and to make them a bit safer when they did so.
Everybody on every team knew that the purpose of this exception was to allow that 5mm of freedom, which they tested at 500N because the FIA thought that the force was the maximum aerodynamic force that the cars would experience. The purpose of the exception was not to allow whatever movement the teams felt like building in; it was because 5mm was thought to be sufficient to cope with the particular problem of going over the kerbs, and they did not want to allow any further unnecessary movement which would have an unwanted (by the FIA) aero benefit.
The contruction which you are attempting to apply to the two rules is possible only by straining how the English language works in practice, and only by ignoring F1's history, context, and the no doubt thousands of conversations that the FIA Tech Group have had with the teams regarding permitted aero movment. It is the sort of interpretation of which barristers and sophists such as Tozzi and Mosley would be proud*.
Cheers.
- I am NOT trying to imply that you are like them.
Conian said:
Live in the now.
Conian, my purpose in debating was not to defend any particular team, but purely for the enjoyment of debate. I have to say that this time was particularly enjoyable and, no doubt, due to flemkes', yours, and other members' patience.Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Thursday 15th November 21:48
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
Flemke, thank you for your time, I had much fun.
I don't suppose that one could take that as a concession?Cheers.
I don't think anyone needs to concede. I think we have come to an understanding. When you say...
flemke said:
The contruction which you are attempting to apply to the two rules is possible only by straining how the English language works in practice, and only by ignoring F1's history, context, and the no doubt thousands of conversations that the FIA Tech Group have had with the teams regarding permitted aero movment.
If you see that, even with your head tilted and one eye closed, that is what I was trying to accomplish: to figure out what the words said in a vacuum, devoid of the other stuff. The words are all that we have 100% certainty and access to. It was the only way to have a reasonable debate before we introduce less certain, second hand information, where the reliability is given different weights by different people. I don't have a collated history of F1, and my knowledge of previous events are second hand via journalists so, I'm sure, not very persuasive. And neither of us have access to the conversations with the FIA (at least I don't). The debate would devolve very quickly and not be particularly enjoyable as we stand on opposing sides slinging whatever we have at each other.
As far as coming to a more precise judgment as to whether Ferrari's floor is illegal? The argument doesn't interest me because highly relevant information is unknowable to me; without knowing the conversations between the teams and the FIA, I can't fully know the context of the situation. I believe I described in an earlier post what information I would need to be fully on board with your exact and complete conclusion. Because no real headway can be made, I'm not really interested in trying to close a permanent gap.
But now, I better understand your position on the issue, what information you weight highly, and better respect the certainty with which you hold it.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff