4 replies to this topic

[djned]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114048

 

i thought this was a pretty clever bit of loophole exploiting by red bull - now the fia has made them change it. does anyone know why it "annoyed" broadcasters? was it hard to work with? surely the design would have had to have made it easy to install the camera.

 

as far as i know we never saw a view from this camera but i was actually looking forward to it as having the camera more centred would have been great - it's strange that the rollhoop camera is not centred after all these years. 

 

speaking of which, they put a thermal camera on the right hand side of the rollhoop mounting in spain, i think it was?  the aspect, after years of vision from cameras mounted on the left hand side, looked really weird!

[MortenF1]

It annoyed broadcasters because the pic they provided were worthless. 

[rooksby]

view from the camera: http://i.imgur.com/31SvQEH.jpg

 

Normally I find Red Bull's attitude to finessing of the very edge of the rulebook to be a little fatiguing after a while.

 

But in this case they did absolutely nothing wrong. The new camera rules were particularly lazy and sloppily constructed, even by usual FIA standards.

 

The regulations as written do not come close to disallowing Red Bull's (clever) solution. For changes to a reasonably critical area of car development to be forced through mid-season in such and arbitrary and summary manner does not seem correct.

[Zava]

view from the camera: http://i.imgur.com/31SvQEH.jpg

 

Normally I find Red Bull's attitude to finessing of the very edge of the rulebook to be a little fatiguing after a while.

 

But in this case they did absolutely nothing wrong. The new camera rules were particularly lazy and sloppily constructed, even by usual FIA standards.

 

The regulations as written do not come close to disallowing Red Bull's (clever) solution. For changes to a reasonably critical area of car development to be forced through mid-season in such and arbitrary and summary manner does not seem correct.

yup, the "in agreement with the broadcaster" part of the rule is only relevant in deciding which designated places will get cameras, and which will get camera housings, and not the particular placement of the camera housing inside the given box, and even if it is a silly argument, the rulebook doesn't say that it has to give a perfect view...

 

however, even though it is a really clever solution, I'm happy to see it go - the stupid bump ruined that beautiful slope of the nose.

[djned]

oh ok - hadn't seen that image before, thanks for sharing.  wow - i thought they'd at least have to make sure the image was useable.  but as you say, sloppy rules...