78 replies to this topic

[oldracer1957]

I dont understand...

1. didn`t Lotus pass the technical inspection/scrutineering on Friday at Silverstone?
2. did no one there notice that the car had 4 instead of 3 suspension elements?

What the hayell is going on with F1 these days? (First the Mercedes test, then tyre debacle, then the Rosberg incident and now Lotus front suspensions)

[spacekid]

Am I the only person who finds it a bit sad that they don't care, because they aren't surprised anymore?

I quite enjoy teams exploiting 'grey' areas. The f-duct was good fun, for instance.

This seems pretty cut and dried with Lotus. If there is no performance advantage why did Lotus not follow the regs? Should a performance advantage rule break attract a penalty but not a safety related breach?

My main problem is that this appears to be a pretty fundamentally obvious discrepency - rather like setting a purple sector in a yellow flag zone, or a tyre test - that the FIA have failed to notice or ignored, and been forced by other teams to examine.

Are the FIA being sloppy or ignoring things on purpose?

[Szoelloe]

I dont understand...

1. didn`t Lotus pass the technical inspection/scrutineering on Friday at Silverstone?
2. did no one there notice that the car had 4 instead of 3 suspension elements?

What the hayell is going on with F1 these days? (First the Mercedes test, then tyre debacle, then the Rosberg incident and now Lotus front suspensions)

No FOTA, no RRA, no Concorde, last breath of a rule-cycle, an amateur tyre supplier, a new FIA president, FOM led by Methuselah, you will need a big ladle to stir the pot.

[Vesuvius]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

FIA actually said to Lotus, it's not completely illegal but in grey area and it would be better for them to change it.

[redreni]

That's wrong. The FIA didn't tell Lotus on Saturday. Saturday is when Auto, Motor und Sport (Michael Schmidt to be precise) gets the news. This is not the case of a failed scrutineering.

If you go to the original article, you will find that the 'story' goes down to a McLaren photograph taking a picture, somebody in the team thinking they better ask FIA, FIA (somewhen between Canada and GB) deciding Lotus better changes it and giving them till Germany to do it. Nothing else. FIA never said the car was not legal to race in GB.

So what you're saying the GP247 article is wrong and that the FIA actually made its decision on the legality of Lotus' suspension between Canada and GB? When in your opinion were Lotus told this, if not on Saturday as the GP247 article states? In any event, either the FIA decided, before Silverstone, that the Lotus suspension was legal, or they decided it was illegal. It's an interesting concept that they can decide it will be legal for Silverstone but illegal for Nurburgring. To be honest with you, I find that about as easy to understand as transubstantiation.

So let us assume that the FIA decided, before the Silverstone weekend, that Lotus' suspension was illegal (because if they didn't, there really is no story here at all), how can it not be a case of failed scrutineering? What does that say about the standard of scrutineering? This is never, ever right.

[redreni]

FIA actually said to Lotus, it's not completely illegal but in grey area and it would be better for them to change it.

By "FIA" do you mean Charlie? If Mclaren show Charlie a picture of the Lotus suspension and ask him if it's legal, then Charlie is acting in his capacity as head of the FIA technical department and he should give them his opinion as to whether the thing is legal or not. So "it's a grey area, I wouldn't go there if I were you" would be a fair response to Mclaren's query. Lotus aren't in that position. As far as we know Lotus didn't ask Charlie anything, so I dont see why Charlie should be telling them anything. If you don't ask any questions you just have to turn up at scrutineering and take your chances.

If Mclaren's query had the effect of drawing the illegality of Lotus' suspension to Whiting's attention, what he should have done is instructed Bauer and the other scrutineers to look out for it at Silverstone, and the Lotus should have failed scrutineering. I don't understand on what basis Lotus are entitled even to be tipped off in advance about the fact that the FIA had realised their suspension is illegal, still less why they should be given a period of grace in which they can continue to run an illegal car while working on a legal solution for Nurburgring?

[artista]

So what you're saying the GP247 article is wrong and that the FIA actually made its decision on the legality of Lotus' suspension between Canada and GB? When in your opinion were Lotus told this, if not on Saturday as the GP247 article states? In any event, either the FIA decided, before Silverstone, that the Lotus suspension was legal, or they decided it was illegal. It's an interesting concept that they can decide it will be legal for Silverstone but illegal for Nurburgring. To be honest with you, I find that about as easy to understand as transubstantiation.

So let us assume that the FIA decided, before the Silverstone weekend, that Lotus' suspension was illegal (because if they didn't, there really is no story here at all), how can it not be a case of failed scrutineering? What does that say about the standard of scrutineering? This is never, ever right.

What I'm saying is that the GMM (company known for not having news from their own but doing news from things they copy from other sites, who do go to the races) article you linked, is a summary of this article , which was published on Saturday last week (what happened on Saturday is that the news was published, not that the thing was found). And that article is the one saying is the FIA, not the stewards or so, who told Lotus to change the thing before Germany, because because there is not enough time to do it for British GP.

If you think this is a case of a failed scrutineering, all you need to do is to go to FIA.com and see if there is any PDF on the issue in the British GP 'event information'. And if you do, you will actually find a document where they say Lotus did pass the scrutineering.

please, don't get me wrong, I don't intend to fight with you or sound aggressive or something like that, I'm talking from the personal experience of knowing some of the people writing F1 articles, including the guy who wrote the AMuS article (a very good journo, BTW). My advice to you, or anybody else, would be to check things twice if GMM is involved.

[Seanspeed]

Your understanding. Your opinions. The burden of proof is on you to establish they were illegal.

I don't think you quite get this.

We know its illegal already. From everything we know(where my understanding comes from), there was no 'grey area'. There was no room for interpretation. If there is, then somebody is free to point it out, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I obviously cant go and inspect the Lotus or last year's Red Bull in person to determine this for myself, and even if I could, I have a feeling you'd still find some even more desperate argument to counter, but as it stands, technical regulations were clearly breached and no punishment was given.

As far as other teams not protesting, I don't know. I really don't. I'm sure that makes you feel better inside somehow, but for me, I find it very worrying that teams could get away with things like this. Again, this is not 'grey area exploitation', this is plain rule breaking. Its just setting very bad precedents. F1 engineers could start looking at ways of running illegal parts that could get run until they were caught, and then revert back, having enjoyed an advantage all that time, all with no repercussions. Surely you see why this is a bit of a dangerous area to be lenient about, right?

[HaydenFan]

I dont understand...

1. didn`t Lotus pass the technical inspection/scrutineering on Friday at Silverstone?
2. did no one there notice that the car had 4 instead of 3 suspension elements?

What the hayell is going on with F1 these days? (First the Mercedes test, then tyre debacle, then the Rosberg incident and now Lotus front suspensions)

Like mentioned before, the care passed tech, so according to the FIA, the car was legal. It was a case in which in the inspectors interpreted the rules one way, and the FIA interpreted the rules another way. This was only found out when McLaren asked for a clarification of the rules from the FIA. Because of this confusion or misinterpretation of the rules by the inspectors and the FIA rules officials, Lotus is given a pass.

The second question is still the mystery to me. I think the inspectors and Lotus interpreted the rules they way in which led to the car having the extra suspension part, whereas the FIA and McLaren say the rule in another way. No fault, nobody to place a blame on (as there is nothing to place blame on in a "let's blame somebody" world of F1). In a motorsport series with little spec rules and parts, situations like these are bound of occur every so often.

[Wander]

I don't think you quite get this.

We know its illegal already. From everything we know(where my understanding comes from), there was no 'grey area'. There was no room for interpretation. If there is, then somebody is free to point it out, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I obviously cant go and inspect the Lotus or last year's Red Bull in person to determine this for myself, and even if I could, I have a feeling you'd still find some even more desperate argument to counter, but as it stands, technical regulations were clearly breached and no punishment was given.

As far as other teams not protesting, I don't know. I really don't. I'm sure that makes you feel better inside somehow, but for me, I find it very worrying that teams could get away with things like this. Again, this is not 'grey area exploitation', this is plain rule breaking. Its just setting very bad precedents. F1 engineers could start looking at ways of running illegal parts that could get run until they were caught, and then revert back, having enjoyed an advantage all that time, all with no repercussions. Surely you see why this is a bit of a dangerous area to be lenient about, right?

I do know. I think this is a whole bunch of noise from nothing.

[Seanspeed]

I do know. I think this is a whole bunch of noise from nothing.

Why?

[Seanspeed]

Like mentioned before, the care passed tech, so according to the FIA, the car was legal. It was a case in which in the inspectors interpreted the rules one way, and the FIA interpreted the rules another way. This was only found out when McLaren asked for a clarification of the rules from the FIA. Because of this confusion or misinterpretation of the rules by the inspectors and the FIA rules officials, Lotus is given a pass.

The second question is still the mystery to me. I think the inspectors and Lotus interpreted the rules they way in which led to the car having the extra suspension part, whereas the FIA and McLaren say the rule in another way. No fault, nobody to place a blame on (as there is nothing to place blame on in a "let's blame somebody" world of F1). In a motorsport series with little spec rules and parts, situations like these are bound of occur every so often.

I don't think scrutineers go over each car with a fine tooth comb to ensure that every single technical regulation in the book was followed properly. Its just not feasible. I get the notion that they simply missed this bit on the Lotus, rather than 'interpreting' any rule differently, because the rule doesn't seem to have much of a grey area about it.

[redreni]

What I'm saying is that the GMM (company known for not having news from their own but doing news from things they copy from other sites, who do go to the races) article you linked, is a summary of this article , which was published on Saturday last week (what happened on Saturday is that the news was published, not that the thing was found). And that article is the one saying is the FIA, not the stewards or so, who told Lotus to change the thing before Germany, because because there is not enough time to do it for British GP.

If you think this is a case of a failed scrutineering, all you need to do is to go to FIA.com and see if there is any PDF on the issue in the British GP 'event information'. And if you do, you will actually find a document where they say Lotus did pass the scrutineering.

please, don't get me wrong, I don't intend to fight with you or sound aggressive or something like that, I'm talking from the personal experience of knowing some of the people writing F1 articles, including the guy who wrote the AMuS article (a very good journo, BTW). My advice to you, or anybody else, would be to check things twice if GMM is involved.

Right, it's not a case of failed scrutineering, but my response to that is: how can that be? I'm well aware the Lotus did in fact pass scrutineering. I don't need to download any pdfs from fia.com, I can tell that from the classified results of the race, which show Lotus among the points scorers.

What I'm struggling with is how Charlie, with his FIA technical chief hat on, can inform Lotus that it's car is illegal one day, and then immediately put his scrutineers' hat on and wave the car through pre-event scrutineering the next. Where in the rules does it say the FIA can give Lotus a period of grace to make its car legal, during which time it can still enter non-compliant cars into events and score points?

[Cool Beans]

I dont understand...

1. didn`t Lotus pass the technical inspection/scrutineering on Friday at Silverstone?
2. did no one there notice that the car had 4 instead of 3 suspension elements?

What the hayell is going on with F1 these days? (First the Mercedes test, then tyre debacle, then the Rosberg incident and now Lotus front suspensions)

They don't check every single part of the cars for clever interpretations during the weekend, the cars have hundreds of thousands of tiny parts and it would be a nightmare trying to check everything for bending the rules when each car is unique. The rules don't say 'this part has to look like this' but instead they say 'the part has to fit within this criteria, and this, except for amendment 17 and that only applies on rainy tuesdays'. The scrutineerers probably wouldn't even realise some of the more sophisticated trickery even if they saw it with their own eyes.

[jrg19]

How come this isn't being reported anywhere else?

[redreni]

It's an interesting and difficult situation, but not at all uncommon.
I understand, while people feel "disappointed" and questioning the whole scrutineering system/idea, but some things should be seen in context and some limitations considered.
Yes, in the ideal world, they should throw the book at them, but just as with kerb hooping, causing an avoidable incident and some other things, it's all relative and at times lacking consistency in application, that's bad, but unfortunately such is life.

Pre-race scrutineering in most race series is mainly about safety and some "big ticket" items like weight & overall dimensions, or predefined and easy to police/test/check items - front wing deflection test for example, but even this is not the norm. The biggest issue with pre-race scrutineering is safety first and foremost. To understand this, you have to consider the time frame and number of competitors vs. number of scrutineers and scrutineering equipment. You have 22 cars and if they spend just 30 minutes with each car, that's already 11 hr, or about all the time they have on Thursday.
There is no time, to take half the car apart, and to check if every single item conforms with the rule book. In any race series around the world. So a lot of things, get unnoticed in pre-race scrutineering, if you pass, it mainly says, the car is safe to participate during the weekend.

Then you have the first, more in deep scrutineering after qualifying, and it's then, that people will look closer at the performance aspect of the cars, with the first 3 and some random samples taking the brunt of the attention. If you qualify P16, their is a fair chance, that you go do your weight inn, give a fuel sample and be done with it. Nobody will make a big song and dance about your car.
Pretty much the same happens after the race. And even then not every single aspect of the car gets checked, as long as their is no suspicion or a protest.
You pass your standard test, whatever they may be in any given championship, definitely weight and fuel sample, then some dimension test via templates or other equipment, and then in the discretion of the chief steward or technical delegate, he may decides on concentrate on some specific areas. After the race, you are maybe forced to take your engine or gearbox apart, so that certain dimensions and weights can be checked. That will very rarely happen ever before a race, unless there was a "tip off" or some suspicion.

For a load of the performance relevant scrutineering the governing body (any) will quite frankly rely on the teams, which watch each other and if they feel something is amiss, they will draw attention to this.
You can call it short sighted, or simply being pragmatic. If it is not big enough a deal for a team to protest against another, then is it that much of an problem overall? If no one feels hard done by, why not just continue with the show? Yes in the perfect world, the FIA or whoever would control every single detail, but rest assured that never happens.

Now, if during a routine inspection, a car is found outside of the regulations, then there is little scope, as to exclude it. That what happened to Sauber, in post race scrutineering they decided to test the wing profil for minimum curvature or something like this, using a prescribed method (rolling a ball/sphere over the profile) and they failed this test - bad luck.
I'm pretty sure, it was the same wing which was mounted at the beginning of the weekend, but this test was never performed in pre-event scrutineering. If they would have finished outside the points, there is a fair chance, that they could have raced this wing for a couple of races without someone bating a eyelid over it.

As often in life, if their is no prosecution then their is no judgment, life just goes on. If this is right or wrong, everyone will have to decide this for themselves, but that's pretty much what happens at a race track near you most of the time.
As the saying does, he who is without sin should throw the first stone, so quite often teams decide to "not waking up the dog", because they know, that sooner or later they will be/can be in a similar position.
Maybe the team principal or technical director of one team once in a while walks over to his counterpart and says something along the line: "Hey, we know what you guys are up to, let's stop the BS". And often they do. On the same token the scrutineer may tells you: " I don't like this, take it off" or "That is not what we had in mind, make sure you fix it". In one form or the other, that happens nearly every weekend. Only in the most serve cases, there will be a big deal made out of this, most of this just flies under the radar.
People take stuff off their cars, and fix something else instead, and the whole game continues.
The FIA or any other governing body cab surely start a prosecution on their own, if they feel that people take it too far, but most of the time, they will wait for a team to make the move.
And then if someone makes a protest and really presses the issue, things can develop a dynamic of their own. If the s.... really hits the fan, then a barrister at the IT or court of appeal will make the final call, and may overrule anyone in the "chain of command" in the process, like double diffuser, TMD or barge board affair.
Most of the time, people will try to find a workable solution - live and let live, in this light I would see the current Renault issue, or RBR's ride height adjuster, or hole in the floor etc. etc.

Like the head of the FIA's technical department knowing full well before the weekend that there are two identical items on two particular cars which don't conform to the technical regulations, for example?

Nobody is expecting every single thing to be checked every time. Some people, myself included, are expecting the scrutineers to refrain from waving cars through when they know damn well they don't conform to the regulations, that's the issue.

[AlexS]

Once more the deluge of rules by FIA shows what's up with bureaucracy.

[Man of the race]

If all gray area solutions were to be judged and decided to be either legal/illegal in a hard way, it would result with an endless debate of semantics. It would just make lawyers even richer and the world poorer. The proposition is more elegant way.

Edited by Man of the race, 03 July 2013 - 22:59.

[growers]

Just to point out that references in this thread to an extra suspension element are incorrect. The issue is (of course) far more subtle and revolves around how many elements can attach at a given point. There are undoubtedly vagaries surrounding the precise size and nature of this 'point', hence the issue not being noticed for several months and hence why the other teams are seeking clarification rather than calling for a DQ. A absolute judgement on the issue would probably require courts and lawyers which is why Lotus have said Ok we'll change it for the next race rather than protest the request from the FIA.

Remember that nothing in F1 is ever simple or clear cut (a blatant extra suspension element for example ). There are way too many extremely clever people involved!

Edited by growers, 04 July 2013 - 00:09.

[Lee Nicolle]

While not a very good pic I cannot see the offending part. A arms up and down, pull rod to springs and a steering arm.
Is the lower rear arm multi jointed? If so I guess it is illegal, though in plain view of the scrutineers.
Though how do they adjust camber and caster I cannot see.

[bonjon1979a]

It's an interesting and difficult situation, but not at all uncommon.
I understand, while people feel "disappointed" and questioning the whole scrutineering system/idea, but some things should be seen in context and some limitations considered.
Yes, in the ideal world, they should throw the book at them, but just as with kerb hooping, causing an avoidable incident and some other things, it's all relative and at times lacking consistency in application, that's bad, but unfortunately such is life.

Pre-race scrutineering in most race series is mainly about safety and some "big ticket" items like weight & overall dimensions, or predefined and easy to police/test/check items - front wing deflection test for example, but even this is not the norm. The biggest issue with pre-race scrutineering is safety first and foremost. To understand this, you have to consider the time frame and number of competitors vs. number of scrutineers and scrutineering equipment. You have 22 cars and if they spend just 30 minutes with each car, that's already 11 hr, or about all the time they have on Thursday.
There is no time, to take half the car apart, and to check if every single item conforms with the rule book. In any race series around the world. So a lot of things, get unnoticed in pre-race scrutineering, if you pass, it mainly says, the car is safe to participate during the weekend.

Then you have the first, more in deep scrutineering after qualifying, and it's then, that people will look closer at the performance aspect of the cars, with the first 3 and some random samples taking the brunt of the attention. If you qualify P16, their is a fair chance, that you go do your weight inn, give a fuel sample and be done with it. Nobody will make a big song and dance about your car.
Pretty much the same happens after the race. And even then not every single aspect of the car gets checked, as long as their is no suspicion or a protest.
You pass your standard test, whatever they may be in any given championship, definitely weight and fuel sample, then some dimension test via templates or other equipment, and then in the discretion of the chief steward or technical delegate, he may decides on concentrate on some specific areas. After the race, you are maybe forced to take your engine or gearbox apart, so that certain dimensions and weights can be checked. That will very rarely happen ever before a race, unless there was a "tip off" or some suspicion.

For a load of the performance relevant scrutineering the governing body (any) will quite frankly rely on the teams, which watch each other and if they feel something is amiss, they will draw attention to this.
You can call it short sighted, or simply being pragmatic. If it is not big enough a deal for a team to protest against another, then is it that much of an problem overall? If no one feels hard done by, why not just continue with the show? Yes in the perfect world, the FIA or whoever would control every single detail, but rest assured that never happens.

Now, if during a routine inspection, a car is found outside of the regulations, then there is little scope, as to exclude it. That what happened to Sauber, in post race scrutineering they decided to test the wing profil for minimum curvature or something like this, using a prescribed method (rolling a ball/sphere over the profile) and they failed this test - bad luck.
I'm pretty sure, it was the same wing which was mounted at the beginning of the weekend, but this test was never performed in pre-event scrutineering. If they would have finished outside the points, there is a fair chance, that they could have raced this wing for a couple of races without someone bating a eyelid over it.

As often in life, if their is no prosecution then their is no judgment, life just goes on. If this is right or wrong, everyone will have to decide this for themselves, but that's pretty much what happens at a race track near you most of the time.
As the saying does, he who is without sin should throw the first stone, so quite often teams decide to "not waking up the dog", because they know, that sooner or later they will be/can be in a similar position.
Maybe the team principal or technical director of one team once in a while walks over to his counterpart and says something along the line: "Hey, we know what you guys are up to, let's stop the BS". And often they do. On the same token the scrutineer may tells you: " I don't like this, take it off" or "That is not what we had in mind, make sure you fix it". In one form or the other, that happens nearly every weekend. Only in the most serve cases, there will be a big deal made out of this, most of this just flies under the radar.
People take stuff off their cars, and fix something else instead, and the whole game continues.
The FIA or any other governing body cab surely start a prosecution on their own, if they feel that people take it too far, but most of the time, they will wait for a team to make the move.
And then if someone makes a protest and really presses the issue, things can develop a dynamic of their own. If the s.... really hits the fan, then a barrister at the IT or court of appeal will make the final call, and may overrule anyone in the "chain of command" in the process, like double diffuser, TMD or barge board affair.
Most of the time, people will try to find a workable solution - live and let live, in this light I would see the current Renault issue, or RBR's ride height adjuster, or hole in the floor etc. etc.

Great post.

[Oho]

I suppose this is a part of their fancy ride height adjustment system.

No

[ZooL]

Has anyone else noticed lately how sparking the Lotus has been recently...I wonder if there's some sort of link.

[artista]

In today's digital edition of Autosport, page 27, there is a tiny insert mentioning this story. Basically, the question was if the two legs of the wishbone are two separate components (and therefore Lotus have 4 pick-up points onto the wheel hub) or just one (and they only had 3)

[Oho]

...

So as suggested by Lee Nicolle it kind of sort of seems the lower wishbone is split at the upright end and thus has two joints with the upright, with upper wishbone and suspension push rod that makes total of four.

[oetzi]

If that's what it is you've got to side with Lotus, otherwise anything with more than one attachment point suddenly starts becoming multiple components.

Although I've not read the applicable rule, so maybe I should shut up

[PretentiousBread]

Surely we realise by now that F1 decisions are based on the show not the sport?

[redreni]

Just to point out that references in this thread to an extra suspension element are incorrect. The issue is (of course) far more subtle and revolves around how many elements can attach at a given point. There are undoubtedly vagaries surrounding the precise size and nature of this 'point', hence the issue not being noticed for several months and hence why the other teams are seeking clarification rather than calling for a DQ. A absolute judgement on the issue would probably require courts and lawyers which is why Lotus have said Ok we'll change it for the next race rather than protest the request from the FIA.

Remember that nothing in F1 is ever simple or clear cut (a blatant extra suspension element for example ). There are way too many extremely clever people involved!

I don't think people would mind that so much if the FIA would issue a proper clarification saying "this is the grey area; the FIA's interpretation is as follows, it has been brought to our attention that some teams may have taken a different interpretation. From the X Grand Prix onwards this item will be checked at scrutineering and any car not complying to this regulation as clarified in this document will be excluded", and do it up front so everyone can see what they've done. That would be a reasonable practical solution, particularly if strict immediate enforcement would lead to a lengthy and costly appeal and/or the exclusion of a significant number of cars.

In a way, to the extent that there is a performance advantage to what Lotus has done, any team which hasn't done it will inevitably lose out to them in the short term, because if they ask for clarification and it turns out the thing is legal they will have to copy it, and the new bits will have a certain lead time. And if they ask for clarification and the thing is illegal, it saves the other teams from having to copy it but Lotus still keep their advantage during the grace period the FIA gives them to sort their car out.

But I do think such a practical solution needs agreement from all teams. Because if the clarification says something is illegal but the scrutineers elect to turn a blind eye during the period of grace, it means illegal cars are competing in races. That's not something that should happen without everyone being satisfied that all competitors know about this situation and have, for practical reasons, agreed to it. But what actually happens is just far too pally between Charlie and the teams, and it doesn't inspire any confidence. There is a lack of trust here because we know the "change it for the next race" approach was badly misused last year when Red Bull were caught red-handed with a plainly illegal mechanism for ride-height adjustment. That wasn't a case of clarification of a grey area, was it?

[redreni]

And who says, that this is not what has happened?
FIA doesn't really need to call a press conference, or hand out a press release about any of this.
There are clarifications or memorandums (or whatever you would like to call it) on the technical and sporting regulations all the time, but most of it doesn't find it's way into the public domain.
They probably send a clarification to the teams, and saying that this interpretation is not tolerated and that the new clarification / interpretation will be applied from race xy onwards.
Just because it was not reported in the press, doesn't necessarily mean, it was not handled this way.

I understand your sentiments, and I agree in principle, but this is the difference between the ideal and the real world.
If this disturbs you a lot, then racing is maybe not the ideal sport to follow.

It disturbs me to a certain extent, but not enough to stop watching.

But I do think the FIA risks the perception as F1 as a straight-up competition by sweeping this kind of stuff under the rug. Read this thread - there are people who are jaded because they stopped believing it was a fair competition a long time ago. That's not good for F1. Maybe a bit of transparency wouldn't go amiss? People don't trust secret instructions to "fix it for the next race".