Red bull bending the rules
Discussion
jimPH said:
I've read the first page and the current page. I can only imagine the 31 pages in-between were pretty much the same.
Good effort guys!
Exactly.Good effort guys!
It’s illegal
It passed the test
It’s against the rules
It’s legal
Spirit of the rules
Rules have no spirit
It’s illegal
Etc
Also, much multiquoting going on for good measure
rscott said:
TheDeuce said:
Evercross said:
carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.
Why do these people think there is a test in the first place!? It's because the FIA themselves have figured out that it's basically impossible to define a broad limit on movement in the regs, the designs of wing vary too much, the other forces at play upon the cars range too much.
We're not talking about criminal law here, we're talking about F1. The FIA make and enforce the rules, and if they design a test and then declare cars that pass it as legal then how can any of us declare the cars involved are not legal!? They've been examined and assessed by the body that defines what legal is in F1 terms.. It's as literal as it gets!! We can't decide what is or should be legal, the guys that write and enforce the laws have done that and decided the RB is legal.
TheDeuce said:
rscott said:
TheDeuce said:
Evercross said:
carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.Why do these people think there is a test in the first place!? It's because the FIA themselves have figured out that it's basically impossible to define a broad limit on movement in the regs, the designs of wing vary too much, the other forces at play upon the cars range too much.
We're not talking about criminal law here, we're talking about F1. The FIA make and enforce the rules, and if they design a test and then declare cars that pass it as legal then how can any of us declare the cars involved are not legal!? They've been examined and assessed by the body that defines what legal is in F1 terms.. It's as literal as it gets!! We can't decide what is or should be legal, the guys that write and enforce the laws have done that and decided the RB is legal.
However if FIA decide to test in a different way, as they've said they will, then the RB as currently raced would fail.
FIA won't have changed the rules either, just how they measure compliance with them.
The speed camera analogy mentioned earlier is a perfect description of it - think of the current FIA test as a static GATSO. It doesn't catch many people because they see it and slow down, so the police instead use a handheld camera 100 yards before it. That catches a lot of unsuspecting drivers who normally just brake for the GATSO. All those drivers were speeding but got away with it previously by being compliant at the known measuring point.
Munter said:
TheDeuce said:
To all practical purposes, including this very debate, the test defines legality.
Nope. The rules/law define legality. The test proves illegality, or a lack of illegality.aston80 said:
Munter said:
TheDeuce said:
To all practical purposes, including this very debate, the test defines legality.
Nope. The rules/law define legality. The test proves illegality, or a lack of illegality.
Similar to the MoT test for road cars. A car is by definition not road worthy if it fails an MoT; but passing an MoT is absolutely not proof of road worthiness. Evolved said:
this thread is still going strong! Seems the same points are still being argued in the same way.Edited by angrymoby on Sunday 30th May 08:31
jimPH said:
rscott said:
Failing the test means a wing is definitely illegal, passing it doesn't mean it's legal...
Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion. They deliberately engineered the cars to pass the test but behave differently on the road. That is exactly what Red Bull today, Ferrari in 2019 (and many, many others before them) have done.
TheDeuce said:
Yes but... The rules define things as legal or not in an absolute manner - and technically all cars fail the regs if they were applied strictly as written. That is why the test exists, to set a limit of how far it is acceptable to go. Therfore passing the test is equivalent of legality. It really doesn't matter how much one team takes the piss compared to all the others under the current system, either the test that defines legality is passed or failed. RB passed just as much as the others passed.
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
Graveworm said:
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"
So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
^^^^^^^What he said So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
CoolHands said:
jimPH said:
I've read the first page and the current page. I can only imagine the 31 pages in-between were pretty much the same.
Good effort guys!
Exactly.Good effort guys!
It’s illegal
It passed the test
It’s against the rules
It’s legal
Spirit of the rules
Rules have no spirit
It’s illegal
Etc
Also, much multiquoting going on for good measure
Graveworm said:
TheDeuce said:
Yes but... The rules define things as legal or not in an absolute manner - and technically all cars fail the regs if they were applied strictly as written. That is why the test exists, to set a limit of how far it is acceptable to go. Therfore passing the test is equivalent of legality. It really doesn't matter how much one team takes the piss compared to all the others under the current system, either the test that defines legality is passed or failed. RB passed just as much as the others passed.
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
But the problem, the problem I keep going on about... Is that the regs as written fail to define in absolute terms what level of design inherent bendiness is actually acceptable. If we read 3.8 as 'zero' then all cars fail. The only way to define conformity with 3.8 is the test. Hence, whatever test is current at the time is what defines legality.
The same principle is also the reason the gatso speed camera vs mobile camera analogy entirely misses the point. The speed limit is an absolute defined value. If it's provable you're doing 31 in a 30 zone, by whatever method can convince a court, then you can get done for it. The ways a wing might move under dynamically changing conditions and the degree of that movement aren't able to be defined as neatly as a speed limit can be defined. Again.. this is why a practical test exists to be itself the definition of legality. And that test will now be updated.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 1st June 08:36
TheDeuce said:
Graveworm said:
TheDeuce said:
Yes but... The rules define things as legal or not in an absolute manner - and technically all cars fail the regs if they were applied strictly as written. That is why the test exists, to set a limit of how far it is acceptable to go. Therfore passing the test is equivalent of legality. It really doesn't matter how much one team takes the piss compared to all the others under the current system, either the test that defines legality is passed or failed. RB passed just as much as the others passed.
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
But the problem, the problem I keep going on about... Is that the regs as written fail to define in absolute terms what level of design inherent bendiness is actually acceptable. If we read 3.8 as 'zero' then all cars fail. The only way to define conformity with 3.8 is the test. Hence, whatever test is current at the time is what defines legality.
The same principle is also the reason the gatso speed camera vs mobile camera analogy entirely misses the point. The speed limit is an absolute defined value. If it's provable you're doing 31 in a 30 zone, by whatever method can convince a court, then you can get done for it. The ways a wing might move under dynamically changing conditions and the degree of that movement aren't able to be defined as neatly as a speed limit can be defined. Again.. this is why a practical test exists to be itself the definition of legality. And that test will now be updated.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 1st June 08:36
rscott said:
TheDeuce said:
Graveworm said:
TheDeuce said:
Yes but... The rules define things as legal or not in an absolute manner - and technically all cars fail the regs if they were applied strictly as written. That is why the test exists, to set a limit of how far it is acceptable to go. Therfore passing the test is equivalent of legality. It really doesn't matter how much one team takes the piss compared to all the others under the current system, either the test that defines legality is passed or failed. RB passed just as much as the others passed.
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
But the problem, the problem I keep going on about... Is that the regs as written fail to define in absolute terms what level of design inherent bendiness is actually acceptable. If we read 3.8 as 'zero' then all cars fail. The only way to define conformity with 3.8 is the test. Hence, whatever test is current at the time is what defines legality.
The same principle is also the reason the gatso speed camera vs mobile camera analogy entirely misses the point. The speed limit is an absolute defined value. If it's provable you're doing 31 in a 30 zone, by whatever method can convince a court, then you can get done for it. The ways a wing might move under dynamically changing conditions and the degree of that movement aren't able to be defined as neatly as a speed limit can be defined. Again.. this is why a practical test exists to be itself the definition of legality. And that test will now be updated.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 1st June 08:36
In the case of the bendy wings.. if the test doesn't prove a design is legal, what does? If nothing else does, and it's only the test, then I'm correct to say it is the test that provides the ultimate definition.
TheDeuce said:
In the case of the bendy wings.. if the test doesn't prove a design is legal, what does? If nothing else does, and it's only the test, then I'm correct to say it is the test that provides the ultimate definition.
No you're not correct. The test simply decides if the car is going to be allowed to race. The regulations define if it's legal. There is no test to define if the car is legal in this case. It's assumed to be legal until it's found not to be. If it's not found to be illegal, the assumption stands, but isn't proven.This is really really simple stuff. You can continue to stomp your feet and pout all you like. But that's the way it is. As evidenced by the FIA quite simply changing the test, without affecting the regulations.
(I hear foot stomping coming)
TheDeuce said:
rscott said:
TheDeuce said:
Graveworm said:
TheDeuce said:
Yes but... The rules define things as legal or not in an absolute manner - and technically all cars fail the regs if they were applied strictly as written. That is why the test exists, to set a limit of how far it is acceptable to go. Therfore passing the test is equivalent of legality. It really doesn't matter how much one team takes the piss compared to all the others under the current system, either the test that defines legality is passed or failed. RB passed just as much as the others passed.
Except we have the FIA saying "We have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections while cars are in motion... the deformations can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8"So how does that sit with if they pass the tests they are legal and why will they be
"Looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing ... In particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Andreas Seidl explained it pretty well.
The tests mentioned in the regulations at the moment are in place to let's say additionally support FIA to check in a straightforward way if the cars are complying with the regulations. But it doesn't mean that only these tests are the criteria as to whether the car is legal or not.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 30th May 11:12
But the problem, the problem I keep going on about... Is that the regs as written fail to define in absolute terms what level of design inherent bendiness is actually acceptable. If we read 3.8 as 'zero' then all cars fail. The only way to define conformity with 3.8 is the test. Hence, whatever test is current at the time is what defines legality.
The same principle is also the reason the gatso speed camera vs mobile camera analogy entirely misses the point. The speed limit is an absolute defined value. If it's provable you're doing 31 in a 30 zone, by whatever method can convince a court, then you can get done for it. The ways a wing might move under dynamically changing conditions and the degree of that movement aren't able to be defined as neatly as a speed limit can be defined. Again.. this is why a practical test exists to be itself the definition of legality. And that test will now be updated.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 1st June 08:36
In the case of the bendy wings.. if the test doesn't prove a design is legal, what does? If nothing else does, and it's only the test, then I'm correct to say it is the test that provides the ultimate definition.
Munter said:
No you're not correct. The test simply decides if the car is going to be allowed to race. The regulations define if it's legal. There is no test to define if the car is legal in this case. It's assumed to be legal until it's found not to be. If it's not found to be illegal, the assumption stands, but isn't proven.
This is really really simple stuff. You can continue to stomp your feet and pout all you like. But that's the way it is. As evidenced by the FIA quite simply changing the test, without affecting the regulations.
(I hear foot stomping coming)
It's the stewards who decide if a car's allowed to race, non?This is really really simple stuff. You can continue to stomp your feet and pout all you like. But that's the way it is. As evidenced by the FIA quite simply changing the test, without affecting the regulations.
(I hear foot stomping coming)
Speed cameras were mentioned. They don't prove legality, the prove illegality. Hence you can put a laser jammer on the front of your car and go past a mobile camera at 130mph. Are you driving legally because you passed the camera test?
Also, the regulation says no movement, but there are allowable levels of deflection written into them.
Much mental gymnastics going on. The rules are being broken, the tests were unable to detect it. The tests are being updated to allow detection. The game moves on.
Here's a question; Mercedes object to the Baku Stewards over the bendy rear wings. In response RB object to everybody's bendy front wings. It becomes clear no cars on the grid are legal. What do the stewards do?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff