[DScofield]

Can't waaaait for Canada, always love that GP. It will be the first race after my exams and the beginning of summer and around the time of Euro 2012 - I'll be in such a good mood

[F1Addict]

(Original post by DScofield)
Can't waaaait for Canada, always love that GP. It will be the first race after my exams and the beginning of summer and around the time of Euro 2012 - I'll be in such a good mood

Same here. Exams end then Canadian GP weekend. Such a good feeling! It is literally one of the few things keeping me going in this exam period atm.

[f1mad]

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...is-no-failure/

A well balanced opinion piece; worth buying.

[f1mad]

RBR floor declared illegal: http://www.matcoch.com/?p=561

[James A]

(Original post by f1mad)
RBR floor declared illegal: http://www.matcoch.com/?p=561

wheyyyy

[Marc Fiorano]

Somebody should have protested the Monaco win as this means they won with an illegal car.

Obviously it compromises the sport when wins are stripped after the race but an illegal car winning also compromises the integrity.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
Somebody should have protested the Monaco win as this means they won with an illegal car.

Obviously it compromises the sport when wins are stripped after the race but an illegal car winning also compromises the integrity.

The car itself wasn't illegal during the event. The rule has been clarified after the event with the loophole being closed.

[barnetlad]

I want to go to the Monaco Grand Prix one day. I've been around the course in a car and it is really a normal street circuit and it makes you appreciate the race like no other.

[Marc Fiorano]

(Original post by f1mad)
The car itself wasn't illegal during the event. The rule has been clarified after the event with the loophole being closed.

So any team can bend the rules, gain performance and results even though eventually it will be declared illegal?

Makes sense to me, FIA has been a joke this year anyway.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
So any team can bend the rules, gain performance and results even though eventually it will be declared illegal?

Makes sense to me, FIA has been a joke this year anyway.

If it gets past scrutineering, sure.

It was a similar situation with the f-duct. Until it gets fully clarified, it can continue to be used. Furthermore, it was first introduced in Malaysia; I didn't see anyone kick up a fuss.

[AlexInWonderland]

Hmm, I'm in two minds, I hate seeing results fiddled with for whatever reason (Hamilton's penalty for example). But on the other hand, to me it seems logical to have understood this as a breach of the rules.

[Marc Fiorano]

(Original post by f1mad)
If it gets past scrutineering, sure.

Yeah but there are instances where cars pass scrutineering, get to race and are then disqualified, so that's a moot point.

Also the pre/post race scrutineering doesn't check every point of the technical regulations, so even a car that breaches an existing set in stone rule can possibly pass scrutineering.

[James A]

Does this small hole give them a substantial advantage per lap? If anyone can shed light on the advantage Red Bull actually gained using the hole.....

[f1mad]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
Yeah but there are instances where cars pass scrutineering, get to race and are then disqualified, so that's a moot point.

Also the pre/post race scrutineering doesn't check every point of the technical regulations, so even a car that breaches an existing set in stone rule can possibly pass scrutineering.

It's dependant on which regulation was broke. This one required further clarification and it had been used in several races with no complaints. They wouldn't get disqualified over this.

Of course. It would be impractical to check every single piece of kit on the car. Not to mention, the scrutineers probably don't even know the entire rulebook.

[f1mad]

(Original post by James A)
Does this small hole give them a substantial advantage per lap? If anyone can shed light on the advantage Red Bull actually gained using the hole.....

A couple hundredths.

[Marc Fiorano]

(Original post by f1mad)
It's dependant on which regulation was broke. This one required further clarification and it had been used in several races with no complaints. They wouldn't get disqualified over this.

Of course. It would be impractical to check every single piece of kit on the car. Not to mention, the scrutineers probably don't even know the entire rulebook.

I don't understand why you insist on putting forward the fact that nobody complained in the previous races. Breach of rules shouldn't be addressed on the basis of other teams complaining. There can be breach of rules that can't even be seen, they could be internal, hidden from the world, doesn't mean the FIA shouldn't address it just because other teams haven't complained.

I can see RBR's point of view, they were told by that dwarf Whiting that it's okay. But if they've done a u-turn, not for the first time, then that means the car has achieved a result with a car that is now illegal.

But anyway if this is how it goes then the teams should lawyer up and find each and every loophole in the regulations, gain the advantage in the races, let the FIA 'clarify' them but keep the results.

[Marc Fiorano]

(Original post by f1mad)
A couple hundredths.

Source?
I don't think the design has been quantified in terms of performance so far by a credible source.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
I don't understand why you insist on putting forward the fact that nobody complained in the previous races. Breach of rules shouldn't be addressed on the basis of other teams complaining. There can be breach of rules that can't even be seen, they could be internal, hidden from the world, doesn't mean the FIA shouldn't address it just because other teams haven't complained.

I can see RBR's point of view, they were told by that dwarf Whiting that it's okay. But if they've done a u-turn, not for the first time, then that means the car has achieved a result with a car that is now illegal.

But anyway if this is how it goes then the teams should lawyer up and find each and every loophole in the regulations, gain the advantage in the races, let the FIA 'clarify' them but keep the results.

Yes they should. You seem to be forgetting who the TWG are- the FIA just rubber stamps what they submit. The reason the other teams didn't complain is because, they know the hole gained little to nothing of performance. It is not as if, that single hole gave them tenths of advantage, it was miniscule.

Do you seriously think that, the hole wouldn't have been addressed without the teams finding out about it? A protest or clarification is initiated by the teams, that is when the FIA and the stewards conform to checking the legality and the teams interpretation. Furthermore, it was the FIA who gave them the greenlight in implementing the hole on their floor.

But if they've done a u-turn, not for the first time, then that means the car has achieved a result with a car that is now illegal.

Not really. Their interpretation was deemed legal by the FIA and none of the teams had reacted in a negative manner (up until race day at Monaco). It only breaches the regulations now, until today it was still up for clarification.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
Source?
I don't think the design has been quantified in terms of performance so far by a credible source.

Gary Anderson claimed it was up to a tenth. Which is doubtful since, the teams at Monaco mulled over an actual protest and decided otherwise, going for this clarification instead.

If it had a big performance gain, they would've gone ahead with the protest. But they didn't.

[Marc Fiorano]

(Original post by f1mad)
Yes they should. You seem to be forgetting who the TWG are- the FIA just rubber stamps what they submit.

I know who the TWG are, I don't know how and why you came to that assumption.

The reason the other teams didn't complain is because, they know the hole gained little to nothing of performance. It is not as if, that single hole gave them tenths of advantage, it was miniscule.

Then why did they complain at Monaco?

Do you seriously think that, the hole wouldn't have been addressed without the teams finding out about it? A protest is initiated by the teams, that is when the FIA and the stewards conform to checking the legality and the teams interpretation. Furthermore, it was the FIA who gave them the greenlight in implementing the hole on their floor.

You seem to be forgetting the difference between rule clarification and protests. A rule doesn't necessarily need clarifying with another team protesting. Also you're wrong, the FIA don't just check the legality when a protest is initiated by the teams, it is also prompted when the team with said design goes to the FIA themselves with the idea before the implement it.

Again, you insist on thinking that a rule has to be addressed only and only if the teams prompt it, which is ludicrous because in case you didn't know, not all technicalities are visual/external. You're just dodging the real point here, how do you propose other teams would protest something that they have no idea of?

Not really. Their interpretation was deemed legal by the FIA and none of the teams had reacted in a negative manner (up until race day at Monaco). It only breaches the regulations now, until today it was still up for clarification.

Not really. None of the teams had reacted in a negative manner publicly. There's a difference. Stop talking as if you know the ins and outs of what goes on between the teams, as if you were there at the internal meetings that take place during weekends discussing these issues.

As I said, if that is how it's going to work then the teams should focus on pushing the interpretations to the extreme, gain the results, let the FIA deem it illegal after clarification but the results remain. Obviously that's going to maintain the integrity of the championship.