Jump to content


Photo

FIA 'cosmetic' ruling


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 WGD706

WGD706
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 30 September 2012 - 17:43

The FIA have published the 2013 technical regulations which authorise the use of special fairings - or 'modesty panels' - to cover up the ugly noses of this season.

The new Article 3.7.9 of the Technical Regulations states: "With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate (whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above the reference plane. The fairings will not affect the car's aerodynamics or impact-protection properties." Teams will not be allowed to modify them gain any aerodynamic advantage.

Has the FIA ever made any other ruling that appears to deal with cosmetics only? I remember there were some teams unhappy with McLaren's silver paint job when it first appeared but obviously no rulings were ever made against its reflective properties.





Advertisement

#2 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,184 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 30 September 2012 - 18:35

I assume the FIA have a "catch all" regulation that the MSA General Regulations for the UK also reflect: something along the lines that cars must be "of a standard and appearance compatible with the status of the event".
I think this was invoked on the 1977 RAC Rally (an FIA, not MSA, UK event) when Videan appeared at scrutineering with what was effectively still a police car.

Slightly OT but there is also provision to have removed "any message of a political nature". This seemed to have been invoked on the 1969 RAC Rally, when the works Triumph 2.5PI of Andrew Cowan, running number one, had a sticker for what appeared to be somewhat rightish sentiments removed at scrutineering....from Brian Coyle's side of the car.

#3 Gabrci

Gabrci
  • Member

  • 441 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 30 September 2012 - 19:11

Banning the ugly X-wings in 1998 with some safety excuse springs to mind.

#4 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,512 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 30 September 2012 - 20:27

They are offering the teams a choice? Well, as most teams chose to have steps one assumes that they did it for a good reason, just as McLaren chose not to - Bonkers!

#5 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:20

Wasn't BAR's longitudinally-split livery effectively outlawed because it was thought to look odd? Or did the re-interpretation of an old rule do that?
(Although it was far more well-thought-out and carefully implemented than many liveries of recent times - eg Renault/Lotus/Whatever last year...)

The new ruling, then, comes about because everyone recognizes that the stepped nose looks ugly? Haven't they noticed the rest of the car? :-)

<< "The fairings will not affect the car's aerodynamics... ">>
Can that possibly be true?

Edited by 2F-001, 01 October 2012 - 05:24.


#6 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:05

Wasn't BAR's longitudinally-split livery effectively outlawed because it was thought to look odd? Or did the re-interpretation of an old rule do that?


The BAR livery came about because they wanted to run one car in '555' colours and the other with 'Lucky Strike' branding. The FIA and/or Bernie took a dim view, and the 'zipper' was the compromise.

#7 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:23

Ah yes... I was thinking it was the split one that was unwelcome; I'd forgotten the two cars, two liveries issue.

Edited by 2F-001, 01 October 2012 - 07:23.


#8 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:24

"The fairings will not affect the car's aerodynamics" does this mean all the cars will have to race in reverse next year ?

#9 TimRTC

TimRTC
  • Member

  • 878 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:20

The BAR livery came about because they wanted to run one car in '555' colours and the other with 'Lucky Strike' branding. The FIA and/or Bernie took a dim view, and the 'zipper' was the compromise.


I got the feeling at the time that BAR wanted to call Bernie's bluff by planning to use the spit colours and he decided to call theirs and let them embarrass themselves (remember even the crew uniforms had the split livery).

#10 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,844 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:50

Although not to do with cosmetics isn't there a ban on cigarette advertising unless it is on a car that in period carried such advertising?

:well:

#11 TimRTC

TimRTC
  • Member

  • 878 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:09

Although not to do with cosmetics isn't there a ban on cigarette advertising unless it is on a car that in period carried such advertising?


The Europe-wide ban is on paid advertising. I believe that the ruling is such that since the logos on historic cars are not actually funded by the cig. companies, they are not really advertising.

I did notice that during the FIA Historic F1 warm-up session at Silverstone during the F1 weekend, the big screens were turned off. Not sure if this was due to advertising regs or just so the cameramen could have lunch.


#12 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,139 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 01 October 2012 - 14:43

~
I did notice that during the FIA Historic F1 warm-up session at Silverstone during the F1 weekend, the big screens were turned off. Not sure if this was due to advertising regs or just so the cameramen could have lunch.

Or could it be that the owner of the TV rights to modern F1 felt that showing the historics would devalue the product he is selling?  ;)

Edited by D-Type, 01 October 2012 - 15:14.


#13 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,139 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 01 October 2012 - 14:48

On a different note, could the 1961 regulation banning enclosed bodies be considered a 'cosmetic' regulation to prevent the field being filled out with sports cars? After all, at the time the regulations were published, late 1958, sports cars from Porsche, Lotus, Cooper and OSCA regularly featured in Formula 2 races.

#14 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 10,932 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 October 2012 - 23:12

How about the banning of the ridiculously huge airboxes in 1976?

#15 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 00:13

How about the banning of the ridiculously huge airboxes in 1976?


Not to mention the looney fins running from the back of the airbox to the rear wing a couple of years ago as still seen in the Le Mans Series cars.

#16 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,844 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:38

The Europe-wide ban is on paid advertising. I believe that the ruling is such that since the logos on historic cars are not actually funded by the cig. companies, they are not really advertising.


Not all organsers see it that way. Several cars in Gold Leaf Team Lotus livery and JPS Livery have had to blank out the lettering and images associated with cigarettes if those makes/models didn't carry cigarette advertising in period.

According to the MSA an Advertisement is "Any Lettering, additional trademark or symbol appearing on a vehicle, including any border or background that is distinguishable from the underlying surface on which it appears." I can't locate the specific MSA regulation covering the ban.

I'll consult someone who should be able to provide a definitive view or point me to the correct regulation.



#17 FredF1

FredF1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:13

How about the banning of the ridiculously huge airboxes in 1976?


I thought that was done under safety concerns should the car get inverted and the airbox injure or otherwise impede the driver escaping?


#18 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:06

The other way round, when they wanted to slow down the cars in the mid-nineties instead of banning the airboxes again they required hole in the back of the airbox. The intention was to make the airbox "technically" useless but to keep the space for sponsorship.

#19 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,885 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 October 2012 - 13:41

They did a somewhat similar thing in 2004(or thereabouts) where they made the minimum dimensions on the airbo longer. They were becoming very slender and really only hugging the air intake tunnel. By mandating more bodywork the amount of side-on decal space increased. I think around that time they also banned the forward rear wing element, as it was blocking the ability to read the rear wing.

Airbox example pre change
Posted Image

Rear wing double-logo
Posted Image

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 02 October 2012 - 13:42.


Advertisement

#20 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,844 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 14:25

Not all organsers see it that way. Several cars in Gold Leaf Team Lotus livery and JPS Livery have had to blank out the lettering and images associated with cigarettes if those makes/models didn't carry cigarette advertising in period.

According to the MSA an Advertisement is "Any Lettering, additional trademark or symbol appearing on a vehicle, including any border or background that is distinguishable from the underlying surface on which it appears." I can't locate the specific MSA regulation covering the ban.


In the MSA's 'Blue Book' in Section H 28.1.6 it states:

"Tobacco related advertising is prohibited on all competing vehicles, their support vehicles and any other form of equipment directly connected with an entrant or competitor. As an exception to this any car which can be proved by way of its history, through its chassis number via the FIA or MSA Historic Vehicle Identitu Form (HVIF), to have run in a particular livery will be allowed to continue to display that livery in the same colours and original size of logos."

So that means that not any old Lotus 72 can carry Lucky Strike Racing colours but only the actual car (or cars) that Dave Charlton used is allowed to do so.

:wave: