Jump to content


Photo

FIA: making sure regulations work or influencing the WDC fight?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

Poll: F (186 member(s) have cast votes)

FIA

  1. is doing its job, all is fine (73 votes [39.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.25%

  2. wants to disadvantage Red Bull (113 votes [60.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.75%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 10:54

Your opinion.


To me it's painfully clear they're desperately want to save the championship fight and it's very wrong of them to do this in such a manner (i mean recent changes in the rules). RB outsmarted the rest of the pack and deserve to have that advantage. It happens.

Edited by wingwalker, 21 June 2011 - 10:56.


Advertisement

#2 DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF
  • Member

  • 3,209 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:00

Mid season changes like this, when one team is dominating, do look like the FIA are trying to influence the title fight. RBR are being nobbled imho.

#3 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:01

I'd be pissed off if I was a vettel fan.

#4 sv401

sv401
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:04

I'd be pissed off if I was a vettel fan.


Being a Webber - who is also a Red Bull driver - fan, shouldn't you be pissed anyway ? :) That is, of course, unless Webber fans have already just given up.


#5 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:06

Charlie is using the article 3.15 in his reasoning against this, this being the same regulation that they used last year as a basis to increase the load tests on the bib and front wing, and also to get rid of the f-duct, so to suggest that this ruling is a witchhunt against one team is pure speculation.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable
bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the
ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block
in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.


In this instance it seems that the exhaust gases, ECU programming, and indeed the drivers right foot, are the items that break this rule, all being moving or variable parts that influence the aerodynamic performance of the car outside acceptable perimeters (such as the throttle pedal making the car go faster, thus increasing DF through speed).

Edited by DanardiF1, 21 June 2011 - 11:07.


#6 sv401

sv401
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:15

Charlie is using the article 3.15 in his reasoning against this, this being the same regulation that they used last year as a basis to increase the load tests on the bib and front wing, and also to get rid of the f-duct, so to suggest that this ruling is a witchhunt against one team is pure speculation.


Well, to be honest, 3.15 is a very vague set of rules, which, if interpreted literally, makes every car inevitably illegal (i.e. it is impossible to make bodywork that does not flex at all, and it is impossible to prevent any driver movement - be it steering, braking, throttle, etc. - from affecting aerodynamics in some indirect way). What one can complain about is that the FIA takes this broad and vague rule, and then selectively enforces it, making arbitrary decisions on where the line between legal and illegal should be, which the letter of the rule does not by itself clearly define.


#7 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:21

Well, to be honest, 3.15 is a very vague set of rules, which, if interpreted literally, makes every car inevitably illegal (i.e. it is impossible to make bodywork that does not flex at all, and it is impossible to prevent any driver movement - be it steering, braking, throttle, etc. - from affecting aerodynamics in some indirect way). What one can complain about is that the FIA takes this broad and vague rule, and then selectively enforces it, making arbitrary decisions on where the line between legal and illegal should be, which the letter of the rule does not by itself clearly define.


This. :up:

The rule is vague - and that's just how the FIA like it...

#8 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:24

This. :up:

The rule is vague - and that's just how the FIA like it...


Indeed, as they have more room to rule how they like it. Nothing new there.



#9 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:25

This. :up:

The rule is vague - and that's just how the FIA like it...


I'm not suggesting it's justified, but there is a precedent of the FIA using this rule to cut out certain trends. Keeping it vague allows them to apply it to trends they feel are getting out of control...

#10 thuGG

thuGG
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:26

Wants to disadvantage Red Bull.

Really shameful behaviour from FIA :down:

#11 patgaw

patgaw
  • Member

  • 504 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:27

I hate polls with no proper answer. Second option is only partially an answer.
But ofc FIA is doing unfair and shitty job.

Edited by patgaw, 21 June 2011 - 11:28.


#12 CaptainJackSparrow

CaptainJackSparrow
  • Member

  • 2,368 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:29

I don't like it one bit.

#13 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 5,031 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:34

Well to me the decision regarding the rule isn't the issue here its the timing of it, keep F-duct till season end however ban certain aspects of throttle mapping mid year. Why? Well take one guess, which teams were going to be effected.

Call it speculation however its not hard to see why, and really is pretty ****ing lame.

Then you get Mass Damper which is closest to the Mapping example, so it is not a precedent. Hopefully like Renault, Redbull dont lose the WCC over this bullshit the engineers must think why bother sometimes. Penalised for being smart who woulda thunk it.

Edited by PassWind, 21 June 2011 - 11:37.


#14 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:36

I hate polls with no proper answer. Second option is only partially an answer.
But ofc FIA is doing unfair and shitty job.



So what's the proper answer? I will add it if it makes sense to me.

#15 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:36

I hate polls with no proper answer. Second option is only partially an answer.
But ofc FIA is doing unfair and shitty job.



So what's the proper answer? I will add it if it makes sense to me.

#16 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:37

A small correction:
It if FIA on the visible side, but it's Bernie at the backstage. And Charlie is an old buddy of his.

#17 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:42

This regulation is purely made to hinder Red Bull and try to drag Ferrari back in contention.

#18 Raziel

Raziel
  • Member

  • 2,132 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:43

Your opinion.


To me it's painfully clear they're desperately want to save the championship fight and it's very wrong of them to do this in such a manner (i mean recent changes in the rules). RB outsmarted the rest of the pack and deserve to have that advantage. It happens.


x :up: I hate to say this but F1 sport is so cruel sometimes :well:


#19 Ashitank

Ashitank
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:44

But the question is , is Red bull really disadvantaged by this rule or is every other team equally disadvantaged , only after race at Silverstone will we know "for sure" , till then peace.



Advertisement

#20 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:46

I was fine with the off-throttle EBD ban as it was a waste of fuel...but this new one? That's just hatin' on RBR.

#21 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,855 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:46

This regulation is purely made to hinder Red Bull and try to drag Ferrari back in contention.

Why just Ferrari?

#22 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,769 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:47

Need an option for 'both'. It's always been this way. There are examples of McLaren getting 'restricted' by the regulations too.

#23 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:47

Well to me the decision regarding the rule isn't the issue here its the timing of it, keep F-duct till season end however ban certain aspects of throttle mapping mid year. Why? Well take one guess, which teams were going to be effected.

Call it speculation however its not hard to see why, and really is pretty ****ing lame.

Then you get Mass Damper which is closest to the Mapping example, so it is not a precedent. Hopefully like Renault, Redbull dont lose the WCC over this bullshit the engineers must think why bother sometimes. Penalised for being smart who woulda thunk it.


:up:

#24 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:50

Why just Ferrari?


Yeah, why not the Cosworth teams, whose engine suppliers have attempted no method of this trend... surely they stand the most to gain as their cars are designed without these systems?

#25 GreyArrow

GreyArrow
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:01

This regulation is purely made to hinder Red Bull and try to drag Ferrari back in contention.

And not McLaren?

They look to be in a better position to capitalise on any fall in Red Bull's results than any other team, Ferrari included.

#26 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:01

What other sports change the rules/laws halfway through a season? It shouldn’t be allowed. Remember the mass damper? Unless there is a safety aspect, then what you start the season with, you end with.
It does appear to be WWE-ing the sport – add in artificial spicing up with DRS, etc
If somebody is too good – tough, stop trying to make it a close fight.


#27 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:03

Why just Ferrari?


Well there's Todt's insistence on bringing back in-season testing, that makes no sense and only Ferrari wants.

And aren't Ferrari going to be the biggest winners from the overrun ban?

#28 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:03

Although it could be argued that it's not affecting the aerodynamic performance of the car. It's merely increasing the mass of air flowing over the surfaces.

#29 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:09

What other sports change the rules/laws halfway through a season? It shouldn’t be allowed. Remember the mass damper? Unless there is a safety aspect, then what you start the season with, you end with.
It does appear to be WWE-ing the sport – add in artificial spicing up with DRS, etc
If somebody is too good – tough, stop trying to make it a close fight.


What other sports have such detailed and technical regulations as F1?

NASCAR regularly make restrictor plate size changes, changed from wings to spoilers recently (2009?).

ACO changed the restrictor sizes on diesel cars after the test day before the 24 hours recently.

If it was one team exploiting this rule you'd be right in saying it's unfair, but there's plenty teams up and down the grid who stand to lose out from this technology being banned. It's not the mass damper where only one team had it, or McLaren's fiddle brake back in 98, there's arguably a team (Renault) lower down the grid who stand to lose out a lot more than Red Bull from this, so what is it then? A vendetta against Renault-powered cars?


#30 Desdirodeabike

Desdirodeabike
  • Member

  • 1,898 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:14

I'm disgusted by this decision. The off-throttle ban mid-season was curious enough. This is just too obvious. I dont have words..
The governing body hampering the front runners so the competition can catch up? What a joke. :down: :down:

#31 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:31

What other sports have such detailed and technical regulations as F1?...


You mean apart from 3.15?

#32 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,423 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:40

Makes you wonder why they didn't do it back in 2002 or 2004. :drunk: :lol:

It's obvious they're trying to affect the championship. It's appalling and artificial, but all of us will celebrate if this title goes to the last race anyway.

The fans are but the pawns in this chess game.

#33 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:43

It is in my opinion clearly done to allow Ferrari and Mclaren to mount a strong WDC challenge and keep the spectator interest

There is plenty of precedence - Renault mass damper to name an obvious example

If I were a RB fan I would be really annoyed, but as a Mclaren fan I must admit to being somewhat biased

However all Vettel needs to do is circle round and round and finish on the podium and the WDC is still his no matter what

#34 sv401

sv401
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:45

It's not the mass damper where only one team had it,


This is not true, as far as I know. Ferrari had it too, theirs just was not as advanced.


#35 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:54

I agree 100% with Disgrace. Not a Vettel fan at all but the last thing I want to see is the championship being artificially manipulated. At least its nothing new, remember the banning of mass dampers and the 'impeding of Massa' at Monza?

#36 rdebourbon

rdebourbon
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:54

Geeeeez - I can't believe all the posts where people seem to honestly believe this is being done to claw Ferrari specifically back into the title battle..

*IF* you read around, you will find out that Ferrari will be knobbled by these changes too.. Everyone is going to be affected in a negative way.. EVERYONE.. to say its being done to benefit one team is to forget about all the other teams that have not even dug deep into developing solutions that take advantage of these systems...

Can't believe the amount of Ferrari hate on these forums sometimes...


#37 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:57

FIA is simply incompetent.

#38 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:57

This is not true, as far as I know. Ferrari had it too, theirs just was not as advanced.


Thanks for that, wasn't too sure myself whether it was McLaren or Ferrari that couldn't work it out and then went to FIA to complain...

#39 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:57

I don't know what was worse, mass dampers being banned or Michelin suddenly told their tyres were illegal.

Why could DDD not be eliminated through the season but these clever engine mappings can?

Advertisement

#40 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,769 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:58

Geeeeez - I can't believe all the posts where people seem to honestly believe this is being done to claw Ferrari specifically back into the title battle..

*IF* you read around, you will find out that Ferrari will be knobbled by these changes too.. Everyone is going to be affected in a negative way.. EVERYONE.. to say its being done to benefit one team is to forget about all the other teams that have not even dug deep into developing solutions that take advantage of these systems...

Can't believe the amount of Ferrari hate on these forums sometimes...

No one can conclude anything for certain at this point though as we haven't seen the effect. It certainly won't negatively affect the Cosworth teams who do not use the technology. In my opinion I would have thought it may affect different teams to different degrees as some teams may be more reliant or advanced with it than others. We will have to wait and see surely.

Edited by Owen, 21 June 2011 - 12:58.


#41 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 12:59

I agree 100% with Disgrace. Not a Vettel fan at all but the last thing I want to see is the championship being artificially manipulated. At least its nothing new, remember the banning of mass dampers and the 'impeding of Massa' at Monza?


that was ridiculous, but at least the tech involved this time DOES have an aerodynamic effect.... I still haven't fathomed how the mass damper worked nevermind how it could be construed as an aero device!!!!

#42 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,423 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:02

Fairly sure the Monza qualifying penalty was substantially more ridiculous than the mass damper ban.

#43 Pudu

Pudu
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:03

Geeeeez - I can't believe all the posts where people seem to honestly believe this is being done to claw Ferrari specifically back into the title battle..

*IF* you read around, you will find out that Ferrari will be knobbled by these changes too.. Everyone is going to be affected in a negative way.. EVERYONE.. to say its being done to benefit one team is to forget about all the other teams that have not even dug deep into developing solutions that take advantage of these systems...

Can't believe the amount of Ferrari hate on these forums sometimes...



There is a lot of Ferrari hate.....and Hami hate.....and Schumi hate.... but mostly FIA hate. I think people who don't like something are more likely to post about it than people who are fine with what's going on.






#44 rdebourbon

rdebourbon
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:03

No one can conclude anything for certain at this point though as we haven't seen the effect. It certainly won't negatively affect the Cosworth teams who do not use the technology. In my opinion I would have thought it may affect different teams to different degrees as some teams may be more reliant or advanced with it than others. We will have to wait and see surely.

Exactly!

No-one really knows how much benefit each team is getting from the systems other than the individual teams.. they can speculate how it may affect their rivals, but until they all line up for quali and the race, no-one really knows.. The next few races will be interesting at the least..

But in the meantime all the half baked comments (not necessarily from Owen) that this is being done solely to benefit Ferrari are without any credible foundation and thus pure speculatory BS.. (waits for all the historical "proof" re the FIA "helping" Ferrari..) *sighs*

#45 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,769 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:04

Exactly!

No-one really knows how much benefit each team is getting from the systems other than the individual teams.. they can speculate how it may affect their rivals, but until they all line up for quali and the race, no-one really knows.. The next few races will be interesting at the least..

But in the meantime all the half baked comments (not necessarily from Owen) that this is being done solely to benefit Ferrari are without any credible foundation and thus pure speculatory BS.. (waits for all the historical "proof" re the FIA "helping" Ferrari..) *sighs*

I agree with you. :up:

#46 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:08

My old fashioned, and probably wrong through ignorance, view was always that things were banned because

1. They were judged dangerous
2. They breached the rules so were illegal.

Now in this case it's obviously not 1 so it must be 2. However I am not sure what rule in the FIA says you have to start the race with the same map as you qualified with. I don't think there is one. As long as your engine is within spec and you use the same one in the race you qualified with, then you should be able to select any map you want as there is no rule saying otherwise.

All this talk from the FIA of "going too far" that has been put about over the last month or two simply seems to show the FIA did not realise what the teams would be doing. The rules obviously let them go too far, isn't that part of the game? Both blown diffusers and maps therefore should be banned from next year and not half way through this. Otherwise what's the point of being a brain box and getting paid your due?

Andy

Edited by AndyW35, 21 June 2011 - 13:19.


#47 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:16

I could vote in a poll with the options

- I think FiA is doing it's best to be fair to everyone
- I think FiA is trying to influence the balance between the teams

But as it stands, I can not vote

#48 Gfhuus

Gfhuus
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:16

It is in my opinion clearly done to allow Ferrari and Mclaren to mount a strong WDC challenge and keep the spectator interest


This is the first thing that springs to mind. Not specifically aiding a certain team, but trying to keep the WDC challenge interesting. What makes this esp. annoying is the fact that in race trim RB hasn't even been the fastest car in the past few races.

On the other hand, it could be that at some point during this really hazy process of reviewing the rules Whiting accidentally crossed the line of being able to back off without getting his ego bruised.

#49 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:19

On the other hand, it could be that at some point during this really hazy process of reviewing the rules Whiting accidentally crossed the line of being able to back off without getting his ego bruised.

If Charlie is putting his own ego ahead of the sport, and if Todt allows that, then things are bad.


#50 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2011 - 13:19

Fairly sure the Monza qualifying penalty was substantially more ridiculous than the mass damper ban.


True dat...