39 replies to this topic

[FirstnameLastname]

Seen quite a bit of chatter this week about Sportsmanship and drivers being ‘sporting’ to each other. Also recently there was talk of if certain car developments were within ‘the spirit’ of the regulations.

Do you believe in and support either of these concepts? Or should they be managed via the rules and regulations? If there is something that is deemed to be undesirable in the championship, then there should be a proper rule dictating it - and suitable penalty or punishment for it. No?

‘Understandings’ between teams or between drivers are always open to being flaunted…. In such a competitive sport it seems strange to fall back on those arguments. There’s a long tradition in F1 of rule bending and loophole jumping… I love it when someone finds a loophole personally. Keep pushing the envelope!

Is there room for niceties in F1? Nice guys finish last right?

More power to the selfish bastards, it’s the way of the world!

Edited by FirstnameLastname, 16 March 2024 - 09:09.

[Stephane]

Spirit of the rules is often invoked by those who didn't read them carefully enough.

Rules are what is written, nothing else.

Edited by Stephane, 16 March 2024 - 08:50.

[PayasYouRace]

I value sportsmanship very highly. The way a driver carried himself on the track, or the way a team approach the sport matters to me. I'd rather see a driver or a team voluntarily give up an unfairly earned advantage than have it lead to a penalty.

 

Where I value the written letter of the rules above all else is in the technical regulations. If it doesn't say you can't do it, you can. If a measurement is what makes a car legal, meet that measurement.

[Sterzo]

The two concepts - legality and sportsmanship - should be kept firmly apart. Enforcement must come from clearly written rules. Sportsmanship is a vague concept and highly subjective. I might view a driver who gives extra space to a rival as more sportsmanlike than one who doesn't, but that's just my irrelevant opinion.

 

There was one instance years ago in British club racing, where the rules said competitors must comply with "the spirit of the regulations", but that was a big mistake.

[DW46]

A gold medal is a wonderful thing but if your not enough with it you’ll never be enough without it.

[ensign14]

Spirit of the rules is often invoked by those who didn't read them carefully enough.

Rules are what is written, nothing else.

It's a fundamental difference between English and European law, interestingly.  English is all about the strict letter.  European is purposive, i.e. you can read around it to get the "right" result.

 

One reason why our courts tend to be quicker than European - there is a lot more certainty as to what the result is going to be.

[FirstnameLastname]

The Ted Hastings approach:

THE LETTER OF THE LAW! THE LETTER!

[New Britain]

I value sportsmanship very highly. The way a driver carried himself on the track, or the way a team approach the sport matters to me. I'd rather see a driver or a team voluntarily give up an unfairly earned advantage than have it lead to a penalty.

 

Where I value the written letter of the rules above all else is in the technical regulations. If it doesn't say you can't do it, you can. If a measurement is what makes a car legal, meet that measurement.

I'd be curious as to how you would apply your criteria to an incident in 2007.

 

The Ferrari had a flexible floor flap controlled by a buckling stay. There was a static test for the resistance required for the floor flap, but Ferrari found a way around it so that their floor passed that particular test whilst moving at speed under a higher load.

However, apart from that specific test, there was an overarching rule (3.15 at the time) stating that no part of the sprung mass of the car and having an aerodynamic influence could be movable [beyond the inescapable deflection inherent in the material].

Ferrari argued that the floor passed the specific static test and was therefore legal.

McLaren argued that the floor needed to pass both the specific static test and the overarching 3.15 which applied to all parts of the sprung mass and was therefore illegal.

 

So, in your mind (or the mind of anyone else here), should 3.15 have made the flexible floor illegal, or was the static test all that mattered, or was the floor legal according to the technical rules but in violation of the 'rules' of sportsmanship?

[Stephane]

It's a fundamental difference between English and European law, interestingly.  English is all about the strict letter.  European is purposive, i.e. you can read around it to get the "right" result.

 

One reason why our courts tend to be quicker than European - there is a lot more certainty as to what the result is going to be.

 

Yeah, because common law vs civil law, i guess.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd be curious as to how you would apply your criteria to an incident in 2007.

The Ferrari had a flexible floor flap controlled by a buckling stay. There was a static test for the resistance required for the floor flap, but Ferrari found a way around it so that their floor passed that particular test whilst moving at speed under a higher load.
However, apart from that specific test, there was an overarching rule (3.15 at the time) stating that no part of the sprung mass of the car and having an aerodynamic influence could be movable [beyond the inescapable deflection inherent in the material].
Ferrari argued that the floor passed the specific static test and was therefore legal.
McLaren argued that the floor needed to pass both the specific static test and the overarching 3.15 which applied to all parts of the sprung mass and was therefore illegal.

So, in your mind (or the mind of anyone else here), should 3.15 have made the flexible floor illegal, or was the static test all that mattered, or was the floor legal according to the technical rules but in violation of the 'rules' of sportsmanship?

I don’t know why this specific example needs to be pointed out. It’s the same with every movable bodywork argument we’ve had for the past two decades.

Perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible by the laws for physics. So we can only use specific tests to determine legality. If it passes the test, it’s legal. If the test appears inadequate, then change it and make it stricter for future tests.

[New Britain]

I don’t know why this specific example needs to be pointed out. It’s the same with every movable bodywork argument we’ve had for the past two decades.

Perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible by the laws for physics. So we can only use specific tests to determine legality. If it passes the test, it’s legal. If the test appears inadequate, then change it and make it stricter for future tests.

I guess you are implying that sportsmanship does not apply to this kind of thing.

Re another part of the question, everybody knows that nothing is infinitely rigid; that point is an irrelevant red herring when the movement is not unavoidable but is, to the contrary, purposefully designed into the device.

Are you also saying that any form of moving bodywork is legal unless it fails one of the specific tests in the technical regs?

[PayasYouRace]

I guess you are implying that sportsmanship does not apply to this kind of thing.

Re another part of the question, everybody knows that nothing is infinitely rigid; that point is an irrelevant red herring when the movement is not unavoidable but is, to the contrary, purposefully designed into the device.

Are you also saying that any form of moving bodywork is legal unless it fails one of the specific tests in the technical regs?

I mean I was quite clear in my initial reply. When it comes to technical regulations I’d rather a measurement he used to take away any subjective opinion. If you can get pass the tests, it’s a   from me. But one can’t complain if the tests are made more stringent and you have to redesign your parts.

[New Britain]

I mean I was quite clear in my initial reply. When it comes to technical regulations I’d rather a measurement he used to take away any subjective opinion. If you can get pass the tests, it’s a   from me. But one can’t complain if the tests are made more stringent and you have to redesign your parts.

Yes, a technical specification is always best. The question may be why the FIA continue to include 3.15 (now 3.2.2) in the technical regs (and bother to make subtle changes in its wording) if all they are going to enforce are the specific tests.

[PayasYouRace]

Yes, a technical specification is always best. The question may be why the FIA continue to include 3.15 (now 3.2.2) in the technical regs (and bother to make subtle changes in its wording) if all they are going to enforce are the specific tests.

3.15 or 3.2.2 is meaningless without tests to enforce it. Just like anything technical regulation.

[New Britain]

3.15 or 3.2.2 is meaningless without tests to enforce it. Just like anything technical regulation.

Agree to disagree, but let's not sidetrack the thread.

[Nathan]

When I raced the phrase 'spirit' was used to make last minute rule changes to favour one over the other.

 

Spirit and sportsmanship are quite subjective.

[Gravelngrass]

The spirit of the rules is nothing more than the vision for the sport. In other words, it’s the general guidelines of how you want the sport to be. The rules are just the concrete application of the vision. Since usually there’s no way to cover all that the vision entails with rules (i.e. there are always going to be loopholes), the vision should always prevail.
Unfortunately that’s not how F1 has worked and IMO that has only resulted in a loss for fans. Some examples that come to mind are the diffuser of 2009 and the porpoising and other permissive changes after 2022.

[New Britain]

The spirit of the rules is nothing more than the vision for the sport. In other words, it’s the general guidelines of how you want the sport to be. The rules are just the concrete application of the vision. Since usually there’s no way to cover all that the vision entails with rules (i.e. there are always going to be loopholes), the vision should always prevail.
Unfortunately that’s not how F1 has worked and IMO that has only resulted in a loss for fans. Some examples that come to mind are the diffuser of 2009 and the porpoising and other permissive changes after 2022.

I agree with the gist of your post, but, in fairness, prior to the 2009 season when the new rules were being discussed amongst the team technical directors, Ross Brawn supposedly asked the group, 'Are you sure that you want the language to be written this way...?'

[PlatenGlass]

I mean I was quite clear in my initial reply. When it comes to technical regulations I’d rather a measurement he used to take away any subjective opinion. If you can get pass the tests, it’s a   from me. But one can’t complain if the tests are made more stringent and you have to redesign your parts.

 

What if the tests are changed overnight with no time to make the changes? The FIA can say it's tough because cars should be adhering to the rules anyway.

 

Surely it's better to word the regulations as e.g. something can't move more than a certain amount when a specific load is applied. As opposed to it must be rigid, and then separately to that have some arbitrary load test. That way the FIA can't just change the rules overnight while on the pretext that they're just changing the test.

[noikeee]

F1 has normalised totally ignoring the spirit of the rules and cynically looking for the rules loophole, decades ago.

[1player]

It's a fundamental difference between English and European law, interestingly. English is all about the strict letter. European is purposive, i.e. you can read around it to get the "right" result.

One reason why our courts tend to be quicker than European - there is a lot more certainty as to what the result is going to be.

What you're talking about is common vs civil law. Common law (what you call English) takes more time because it's all about finding a precedent. Civil law (what you call European) doesn't care about precedent, the only thing that matters is what's in the book.

It's not about "reading around it," nor about common law being strict. It is the total opposite in fact, hence why companies much prefer common law for litigation.

Edited by 1player, 16 March 2024 - 23:10.

[ATM]

I, for one, am a little split on the topic. I'm all for pushing thr envelope when it comes to technical issues, exploiting grey areas, no problem. But on the other hand I do have a (very) weak spot for drivers who show sportsmanship and behave like gentlemen on and off track. Conversely, I cannot stand track bullies, no matter how good they are.

[Gambelli]

I value sportsmanship very highly. The way a driver carried himself on the track, or the way a team approach the sport matters to me. I'd rather see a driver or a team voluntarily give up an unfairly earned advantage than have it lead to a penalty.

 

Where I value the written letter of the rules above all else is in the technical regulations. If it doesn't say you can't do it, you can. If a measurement is what makes a car legal, meet that measurement.

 

I agree entirely with your assessment here, hate it when a team I don't like gets an advantage through being clever around the rules, but love it when a team I like does it, so it makes me a hyprocrite in that sense but fundamentally support teams pushing the boundaries of written rules.

 

Whereas I love it when the people invlolved in sports I love are sporting, whether it's a Tennis player clapping an opponent's winner, or a driver pulling over to help another driver in a crash....

 

...or willingly handing back a position knowing they did the wrong thing to gain it in the first place...

[Oulton]

 

 

...or willingly handing back a position knowing they did the wrong thing to gain it in the first place...

 

This is good to see. "Willingly" is the key. Rare though.

[Sterzo]

F1 has normalised totally ignoring the spirit of the rules and cynically looking for the rules loophole, decades ago.

1896.

[AncientLurker]

Rules need to very clear, concise and strictly adhered to. There is no spirit of the rules.

Sportsmanship to me is the on track stuff. It used to exist when drivers understood that there was very real risk of serious injury and death. That all went away throughout the mid 90s except in rare circumstances now and with it went any semblance of sportsmanship from most drivers. The rules need to be rewritten to catch up to this regarding blocking and passing off track, etc.

[brucewayne]

It‘s so weird that FIA banned the best way to reduce porpoising by preventing flex floors. They should have encouraged everyone to use it. As a result, we have the most boring racing at the top. Everything what they tried to achieve with the new regulations, they failed.

[Brian60]

In my bike sprinting days (1 mile) there were several classes, the first class being a 'stock' motorcycle except for the change of exhaust pipes (most riders its the first thing they change or has changed when buying a bike) 'The spirit of the class is sportsmanship' No other performance adders to be allowed. Of course this is where the word add comes into play! People removed wing mirrors and number plates, first one rider than others realised they could 'remove' not add performance enhancers. Of course it got sily when people began beating in the top of the petrol tanks so they could lay even flatter behind the fairing/windshield. Class one really got out of hand and took more scrutineering than the other 5 classes altogether!

[pdac]

I don’t know why this specific example needs to be pointed out. It’s the same with every movable bodywork argument we’ve had for the past two decades.

Perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible by the laws for physics. So we can only use specific tests to determine legality. If it passes the test, it’s legal. If the test appears inadequate, then change it and make it stricter for future tests.

 

Would it not just be simpler all round if the technical regulations contained just one rule ... all cars must pass all of the current technical tests. Then just publish the test details separately and allow for them to be changed, cancelled or for new ones to be added, as the FIA see fit to do so.

[PayasYouRace]

Would it not just be simpler all round if the technical regulations contained just one rule ... all cars must pass all of the current technical tests. Then just publish the test details separately and allow for them to be changed, cancelled or for new ones to be added, as the FIA see fit to do so.

 

If I was going to write a set of technical regulations from scratch, it would probably look more like that.

 

"x.1 The car must adhere to all measurements as laid down in Appendix A

 

...

 

Appendix A

 

..."

 

There you could list all the legality boxes, allowed bodywork radii, deflection amounts, etc.

 

Then you could have other appendices for, say, materials that are either mandated or banned. etc.

 

Really, the current rules aren't that different to this idea, but they do have certain woolly overarching rules that just don't add anything.

[Sash1]

When it is said to behave within the spirit of regulations I personally see that as an invation to act outside of the regulations as long as a I meet the spirit of what is intended. Regulations are regulations, never use 'the spirit of the regulations' . Sportsmanship is a different thing. 

 

[Brian60]

When it is said to behave within the spirit of regulations I personally see that as an invation to act outside of the regulations as long as a I meet the spirit of what is intended. Regulations are regulations, never use 'the spirit of the regulations' . Sportsmanship is a different thing. 

read my post at #28

[pdac]

If I was going to write a set of technical regulations from scratch, it would probably look more like that.

 

"x.1 The car must adhere to all measurements as laid down in Appendix A

 

...

 

Appendix A

 

..."

 

There you could list all the legality boxes, allowed bodywork radii, deflection amounts, etc.

 

Then you could have other appendices for, say, materials that are either mandated or banned. etc.

 

Really, the current rules aren't that different to this idea, but they do have certain woolly overarching rules that just don't add anything.

 

But why do they need so much detail on boxes, radii, etc. Why not just have restrictions that are clearly based on safety and let the teams turn up with whatever their designers and engineers can think of.

[PayasYouRace]

But why do they need so much detail on boxes, radii, etc. Why not just have restrictions that are clearly based on safety and let the teams turn up with whatever their designers and engineers can think of.

They don’t necessarily, but I was just using them as an example.

As long as the criteria are well defined, in terms of dimensions, forces, times or anything else measurable, that’s how they should be enforced.

[Deeq]

But why do they need so much detail on boxes, radii, etc. Why not just have restrictions that are clearly based on safety and let the teams turn up with whatever their designers and engineers can think of.

Because it is a "formula". Its not an oppen category..
Hence need a definition on who meets it, F2 car or indycar..or MotoGP!

[pdac]

They don’t necessarily, but I was just using them as an example.

As long as the criteria are well defined, in terms of dimensions, forces, times or anything else measurable, that’s how they should be enforced.

 

My thought, though was this would all be guidance and the rule would simply be to pass the tests. Of course, some tests might be measurement of those boxes but, personally, I think these sort of tight restrictions are what makes F1 less interesting - but, I guess, I know very little about the design of racing cars.

[pdac]

Because it is a "formula". Its not an oppen category..
Hence need a definition on who meets it, F2 car or indycar..or MotoGP!

 

Yeah, I don't really understand that part (or, rather, I don't understand how that has changed and evolved over time - I get the impression it was not as restrictive in, say, the '70s)

Edited by pdac, 20 March 2024 - 09:46.

[PayasYouRace]

My thought, though was this would all be guidance and the rule would simply be to pass the tests. Of course, some tests might be measurement of those boxes but, personally, I think these sort of tight restrictions are what makes F1 less interesting - but, I guess, I know very little about the design of racing cars.

 

You're taking about the amount of restrictions. I'm talking about the ways of writing the rules.

[pdac]

You're taking about the amount of restrictions. I'm talking about the ways of writing the rules.

 

So am I. The rule should be "All cars must pass all tests associated with conformity". You do not say things like ".. no flexing wings ..", you simply say ".. must pass the tests associated with aero movement conformity ..". So the rule is "pass the test" and the test is the restriction.

[PayasYouRace]

So am I. The rule should be "All cars must pass all tests associated with conformity". You do not say things like ".. no flexing wings ..", you simply say ".. must pass the tests associated with aero movement conformity ..". So the rule is "pass the test" and the test is the restriction.

OK, and then you’d need to write down what the tests are.