nzjrs wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 16:10
Csmith1980 wrote: ↑12 Feb 2022, 16:23
This is getting boring now.
I think DC has been massively consistent on this point and the majority of technical and us engineering folks here that build things according to specifications (contractual re signof and practically too) in our 9-5s agree with him. You would have a better argument of you took a more Dans79 approach and argued around intent and linearity curves.
Thanks, and I agree, there are lines of argumentation that make more sense. Although in the dedicated topic to this issue those have been discussed as well, and my stance on this two points would be;
1) Intent is very hard to objectively prove. One party can always claim the other intentionally did something, and the others can refute they did so. In that case, you'd need to scrutinize company documents and so to prove intent. In which case, RB should have been called out and penalized (as I argued), the issue should not have been covered with a TD.
2) A wing that would show a strong, sudden ('non-linear') flex beyond the test point would indeed be fully against the spirit of the rule. I don't like spirit arguments as they are subjective by default, and I think the FIA could and should have done a better job objectively writing that down (e.g. a maximum deflection of X under test condition Y, and no superlinear deflection behavior under loads exceeding those conditions, or something of that nature). But also here, if such behavior was clearly displayed, it's illegal, penalize them. If it was not shown and the wing showed such behavior and passed the test as provided, it's legal, no changes.
The irony is that, while it was hypothesized that RB 'broke' the rules with superlinear behavior, the issued TD does
not correct this issue. It just shifts the limit of the test, and someone could still design a new non-linear deflection design that would meet the new test. And, equally, teams that did not design superlinear behavior could still be affected by the new test limitation, even if they didn't do anything wrong in terms of the spirit of the rules. And then we get back to the point I was making; how can engineers know what to design for if the design criteria they are provided can arbitrarily be shifted, or if they seemingly have to be aware of design criteria that were never put to paper but that they just have to 'know' through their omniscience.
TDs that do not clarify the rules but actually change them throughout the season are competition falsification. Plain and simple. It's competition falsification if RB did break the rules because in that case they did not get their deserved punishment, and it is competition falsification if RB did not break the rules because in that case they were forced to make changes, with all due resource expenses (in a year with budget cap limitations) while they did nothing wrong. Sure, one can argue that TDs equally
apply to all teams, but they do not equally
affect all teams.
The fact that FIA allegedly was aware of issues with the wing before the season started makes it worse, because that means it could have been dealt with
before the competition started rather than throughout. And what makes it even worse is that action was taken
after lobbying by the direct competitor - which is just as what is being alleged for Abu Dhabi here, and which is what actually got this whole conversation started.
