2022 Winter Testing Part 1: Barcelona 23 - 25th February

[SmallSoldier]

Well if Bahrain paid any money for the deal they had, they blew their money haha

Actually, I believe the “shakedown” has hyped up the season so much, that coverage of Bahrain will get more travelers / viewers than without it.

[Stu]

From FIA sources, #AMuS heard that they [the FIA] can already see from the CAD data for the legality check of the upgrades, that some teams are bringing upgrades [to Bahrain] that do not quite correspond to the spirit of the regulations.

via tami. on Twitter.

If FIA thinks the upgrades violate the spirt of the regulations, wouldn't they let the teams know? Are teams unaware until now about FIA's stand regarding the upgrades? Are the teams adamant that they will fight it out with FIA and hence, bringing the upgrades regardless? Interesting situation if this is really true.

The thing with ‘spirit’ is that once the cap is off the bottle it tends to evaporate….
I know that in the past, things like the ‘X-wings’ got banned because they were considered offensive, but they actually had to come up with ‘dangerous’ as the official reason. Given a set of regulatory boxes and limitations, there is not much scope for ‘spirit’ as it is. These regulations were meant to have washed that out.

[Big Tea]

From FIA sources, #AMuS heard that they [the FIA] can already see from the CAD data for the legality check of the upgrades, that some teams are bringing upgrades [to Bahrain] that do not quite correspond to the spirit of the regulations.

via tami. on Twitter.

If FIA thinks the upgrades violate the spirt of the regulations, wouldn't they let the teams know? Are teams unaware until now about FIA's stand regarding the upgrades? Are the teams adamant that they will fight it out with FIA and hence, bringing the upgrades regardless? Interesting situation if this is really true.

The thing with ‘spirit’ is that once the cap is off the bottle it tends to evaporate….
I know that in the past, things like the ‘X-wings’ got banned because they were considered offensive, but they actually had to come up with ‘dangerous’ as the official reason. Given a set of regulatory boxes and limitations, there is not much scope for ‘spirit’ as it is. These regulations were meant to have washed that out.

If it is not stated in the regulation, how does anyone know what the spirit is?
Driving in a 30 mph limit could mean anything between 5 mph and 29 mph. Both are legal and both are in the spirit, but if there are people or animals close to the road, the spirit changes from the higher end to the lower end.

[Stu]

If FIA thinks the upgrades violate the spirt of the regulations, wouldn't they let the teams know? Are teams unaware until now about FIA's stand regarding the upgrades? Are the teams adamant that they will fight it out with FIA and hence, bringing the upgrades regardless? Interesting situation if this is really true.

The thing with ‘spirit’ is that once the cap is off the bottle it tends to evaporate….
I know that in the past, things like the ‘X-wings’ got banned because they were considered offensive, but they actually had to come up with ‘dangerous’ as the official reason. Given a set of regulatory boxes and limitations, there is not much scope for ‘spirit’ as it is. These regulations were meant to have washed that out.

If it is not stated in the regulation, how does anyone know what the spirit is?
Driving in a 30 mph limit could mean anything between 5 mph and 29 mph. Both are legal and both are in the spirit, but if there are people or animals close to the road, the spirit changes from the higher end to the lower end.

My point exactly, hate the phrase and the use of it.

[DChemTech]

Fully agree there. If something is not according to the 'spirit', that means the FIA should have done a better job penning down the rules. They should not penalize teams for their own failures. Patch it for next year, not for this year where resources are already spent.

[dans79]

Fully agree there. If something is not according to the 'spirit', that means the FIA should have done a better job penning down the rules. They should not penalize teams for their own failures. Patch it for next year, not for this year where resources are already spent.

I'd generally agree with that, but with the caveat that it ultimately depends on how far teams bend the "spirit" of the rules!

The FIA cannot create rules to cover every possible design possibility, unless you want a rule set the size of an old school Encyclopedia Britannica set. Thus, they always work in regulatory loopholes that allow them to change the rules on the fly.

[Big Tea]

Fully agree there. If something is not according to the 'spirit', that means the FIA should have done a better job penning down the rules. They should not penalize teams for their own failures. Patch it for next year, not for this year where resources are already spent.

I'd generally agree with that, but with the caveat that it ultimately depends on how far teams bend the "spirit" of the rules!

The FIA cannot create rules to cover every possible design possibility, unless you want a rule set the size of an old school Encyclopedia Britannica set. Thus, they always work in regulatory loopholes that allow them to change the rules on the fly.

I agree, but if a rule is to prevent a specific 'thing' then the rule should say that thing is not allowed rather than try to stop you doing it if you stay legal. An example is the tyre pressure rules. They know the pressure will change but set a solid start line that will prevent more than a calculated change being I was going to say possible, but lets make that- Likely.

[dans79]

Fully agree there. If something is not according to the 'spirit', that means the FIA should have done a better job penning down the rules. They should not penalize teams for their own failures. Patch it for next year, not for this year where resources are already spent.

I'd generally agree with that, but with the caveat that it ultimately depends on how far teams bend the "spirit" of the rules!

The FIA cannot create rules to cover every possible design possibility, unless you want a rule set the size of an old school Encyclopedia Britannica set. Thus, they always work in regulatory loopholes that allow them to change the rules on the fly.

I agree, but if a rule is to prevent a specific 'thing' then the rule should say that thing is not allowed rather than try to stop you doing it if you stay legal. An example is the tyre pressure rules. They know the pressure will change but set a solid start line that will prevent more than a calculated change being I was going to say possible, but lets make that- Likely.

They fixed this issue last year after Baku with the temperature/pressure curves!

[Big Tea]

The sky team have done a very good recap on the tests here



I could not help noticing what a good balance these 4 commentators make too, and its not often I compliment Sky.

Sorry the link is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqsDtQBtpg I should have known not to compliment Sky

[Ryar]

The thing with ‘spirit’ is that once the cap is off the bottle it tends to evaporate….
I know that in the past, things like the ‘X-wings’ got banned because they were considered offensive, but they actually had to come up with ‘dangerous’ as the official reason. Given a set of regulatory boxes and limitations, there is not much scope for ‘spirit’ as it is. These regulations were meant to have washed that out.

If it is not stated in the regulation, how does anyone know what the spirit is?
Driving in a 30 mph limit could mean anything between 5 mph and 29 mph. Both are legal and both are in the spirit, but if there are people or animals close to the road, the spirit changes from the higher end to the lower end.

My point exactly, hate the phrase and the use of it.

As FIA cannot write rules for every possible outcome of a regulatory statement written by them as a rule set, they need to leave a pair of scissors on the table to use when needed. So "spirit" is probably just that. It was the same tool that comes handy when changing pit stop rules mid-season to curb a team if it is running away. So I would fully expect something of that sort to happen again this year.

[dialtone]

It's literally impossible to write perfect rules, it's a well established field of contract theory in economic research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_contracts. Writing rules that cover all cases costs a ton, and it also costs a ton for the teams once they go down a path that will not be legal a year later (DAS?). It's is a lot more efficient for everyone if FIA says that those are the rules, but they reserve the right to adapt them if they notice people trying to go for workarounds that go against what they wanted to accomplish, that forces teams to constantly check with FIA which will make them always aware of legality. Slightly more overhead on communication but everyone will be happier at the end.

[ojir19]

[Big Tea]

If it is not stated in the regulation, how does anyone know what the spirit is?
Driving in a 30 mph limit could mean anything between 5 mph and 29 mph. Both are legal and both are in the spirit, but if there are people or animals close to the road, the spirit changes from the higher end to the lower end.

My point exactly, hate the phrase and the use of it.

As FIA cannot write rules for every possible outcome of a regulatory statement written by them as a rule set, they need to leave a pair of scissors on the table to use when needed. So "spirit" is probably just that. It was the same tool that comes handy when changing pit stop rules mid-season to curb a team if it is running away. So I would fully expect something of that sort to happen again this year.

But it is easy to rule something out by saying it is not allowed.
The spirit, or mischief of a rule is what was intended by the author of the rule and there are many people in this world making a good living out of deciding what the original intention was.

There is no grey area in saying for instance this gap can be no narrower than Dim A1 and no wider than Dim A2.
It leaves open the length of the slot and the thickness of the material, shape of edge etc, but it is a clear rule the slot can be no less than A1 and no wider than A2.

If for instance F1 wanted to be sure the car did not touch the track, a rule of fitting a flat plank and not allowing it to be scraped away leaves no doubt of the intention.
If there is a definite intention it should be in the rule in such a hard manner and be definitive, otherwise it is not the rule.

Edit, sporting rules, yes. I see it as the spirit in those cases, such as one car holding another up so the team mate can gain would be against the spirit by one side in the spirit by the other.

[koolway]

...

But it is easy to rule something out by saying it is not allowed.
The spirit, or mischief of a rule is what was intended by the author of the rule and there are many people in this world making a good living out of deciding what the original intention was.

There is no grey area in saying for instance this gap can be no narrower than Dim A1 and no wider than Dim A2.
It leaves open the length of the slot and the thickness of the material, shape of edge etc, but it is a clear rule the slot can be no less than A1 and no wider than A2.

If for instance F1 wanted to be sure the car did not touch the track, a rule of fitting a flat plank and not allowing it to be scraped away leaves no doubt of the intention.
If there is a definite intention it should be in the rule in such a hard manner and be definitive, otherwise it is not the rule.

Edit, sporting rules, yes. I see it as the spirit in those cases, such as one car holding another up so the team mate can gain would be against the spirit by one side in the spirit by the other.

Theorically,
If you approach a regulation through excluding principles, you have to be exhaustive, which is a goal that can never be reached.
If you go through the allowance principles to define a regulation, it leaves out some leeway to your implementation, and some grey areas.

Practically,
That's why the current regulations are a mix of both. You're allowed to do some things but you cannot do some other.
Allowed articles are typically defined from a technical POV. Exclusions are often redacted as overall principles.
That would stay this way if the thing you're regulating is not moving and not submitted to any other events that might alter it. (forces, track curbs designs, ...)

That's why you have technical exclusions as well, but they are not exhaustives by nature...

examples from recent history :
Wings...
- Allowed : Wings cannot exceed theses dimensions (relative to the reference plane, centerline, etc...)
- Excluded (overall): Wings cannot flex
- Excluded (technical) : Wings can deflect with a maximum of X mm when a force of Y N is applied blabla...

X-Wings
- Allowed : bodywork can only be in the box delimited by ....
- Excluded (overall) : Bodywork elements must be fitted to ensure the safety of the drivers
--> Both combined, that's the spirit of the regulation : Are we sure we want to go through this loophole now we all got it?

Going back to your idea of the flat plank, it happened in the past (ferrari @ Spa).
By stating "not touching", what if you have to go on a sausage curb for safety? you'd be disqualified?

It's not an easy exercice, especially when you have teams of people trying to find any advantage in everything. It's a loosing battle they try to face every time and the regulators only have past experiences to back them up.

[Big Tea]

...

But it is easy to rule something out by saying it is not allowed.
The spirit, or mischief of a rule is what was intended by the author of the rule and there are many people in this world making a good living out of deciding what the original intention was.

There is no grey area in saying for instance this gap can be no narrower than Dim A1 and no wider than Dim A2.
It leaves open the length of the slot and the thickness of the material, shape of edge etc, but it is a clear rule the slot can be no less than A1 and no wider than A2.

If for instance F1 wanted to be sure the car did not touch the track, a rule of fitting a flat plank and not allowing it to be scraped away leaves no doubt of the intention.
If there is a definite intention it should be in the rule in such a hard manner and be definitive, otherwise it is not the rule.

Edit, sporting rules, yes. I see it as the spirit in those cases, such as one car holding another up so the team mate can gain would be against the spirit by one side in the spirit by the other.

Theorically,
If you approach a regulation through excluding principles, you have to be exhaustive, which is a goal that can never be reached.
If you go through the allowance principles to define a regulation, it leaves out some leeway to your implementation, and some grey areas.

Practically,
That's why the current regulations are a mix of both. You're allowed to do some things but you cannot do some other.
Allowed articles are typically defined from a technical POV. Exclusions are often redacted as overall principles.
That would stay this way if the thing you're regulating is not moving and not submitted to any other events that might alter it. (forces, track curbs designs, ...)

That's why you have technical exclusions as well, but they are not exhaustives by nature...

examples from recent history :
Wings...
- Allowed : Wings cannot exceed theses dimensions (relative to the reference plane, centerline, etc...)
- Excluded (overall): Wings cannot flex
- Excluded (technical) : Wings can deflect with a maximum of X mm when a force of Y N is applied blabla...

X-Wings
- Allowed : bodywork can only be in the box delimited by ....
- Excluded (overall) : Bodywork elements must be fitted to ensure the safety of the drivers
--> Both combined, that's the spirit of the regulation : Are we sure we want to go through this loophole now we all got it?

Going back to your idea of the flat plank, it happened in the past (ferrari @ Spa).
By stating "not touching", what if you have to go on a sausage curb for safety? you'd be disqualified?

It's not an easy exercice, especially when you have teams of people trying to find any advantage in everything. It's a loosing battle they try to face every time and the regulators only have past experiences to back them up.

They got around the plank part by measuring at several points after the race and making some allowance at some points. This is adding flexibility to the rule but keeping it within the intended purpose. This corner is worn off, OK it has not really affected the function of the plank v it is worn enough to effect its intended function = fail.

It is a minefield unless a limit is set, and you have the problem of establishing the limits. If F1 can not do it, who can?