Ferrari F2012

[Postmoe]

It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.

I say that the FIA and teams looks on this with admiration. 'Completely against the spirit', spirit of wanting to win? Where can I get an explanation of the correct FIA 'spirit' philosophy? I say 'spirit' can not be administrated unless it is written done somewhere in black and white.

Brian

The Spirit of the Rule is a quite old notion and won´t change because of some F1 fan wants some "cheat towards victory" philosophy.

It is as simple as taking the law as a whole thing and searching its coherence. As many law compendiums have introductions and historical debates around them, it is written. You only have to read. If the FIA tells you that something is done to regulate some issue, and objectively it regulates that, you can pretty much disclose what the spirit of the rule is. Normally it's pretty "obvious" with public law, so imagine how easy it can become with specific technical regulations.

So yes, it's in black an white, and even in colorful capital letters if you want it like that.

[turbof1]

It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.

I say that the FIA and teams looks on this with admiration. 'Completely against the spirit', spirit of wanting to win? Where can I get an explanation of the correct FIA 'spirit' philosophy? I say 'spirit' can not be administrated unless it is written done somewhere in black and white.

Brian

Don't get me wrong; it's actually very genius of Red Bull to get that out of it, and they aren't the only ones to have done so by a long shot. Just saying that this is a hot topic for the FIA and that they certainly will not want this to linger much longer.

That aside, you know as good as me that Red Bull was perfectly informed what the "spirit of the rule" here was, they just decided (like so many in the past) not to follow that and search for an intepretation that can't be forbidden by the written text. The proof is in the pudding; no other team came up with it. If I ever got into a huge juridic problem, I'll definitely want the person who strangled Red Bull through that loophole, to defend me. I might get away with public mass homicide.

[hardingfv32]

It is as simple as taking the law as a whole thing and searching its coherence.

Nonsense... What if my search for coherence reaches a different conclusion than yours? Me bad?

Spirit can not be successfully administered by the FIA or Stewards.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

That aside, you know as good as me that Red Bull was perfectly informed what the "spirit of the rule" here was, they just decided (like so many in the past) not to follow that and search for an interpretation that can't be forbidden by the written text. The proof is in the pudding; no other team came up with it. If I ever got into a huge juridic problem, I'll definitely want the person who strangled Red Bull through that loophole, to defend me. I might get away with public mass homicide.

Of coarse there is not rule saying that you must follow the 'spirit of the rule'. 'Spirit' just adds another layer of gray.

'Spirit' can come into play when the stewards are dealing with a gray area. That is where ones personal judgment of 'spirit' comes into play. I would say that RB is right on target with their assessment of the current F1 'spirit' in this case, as they did prevail.

Brian

[Postmoe]

It is as simple as taking the law as a whole thing and searching its coherence.

Nonsense... What if my search for coherence reaches a different conclusion than yours? Me bad?

Spirit can not be successfully administered by the FIA or Stewards.

Brian

Of course it will be different if you don´t have the knowledge. Law was not set up for everyone to understand it as some simple operation. Law and regulation has its meta logics, it's not something "democratic" if you catch the meaning. You need the proper tools to understand it.

But, anyway, spirit of the rule in technical regulation and as a raw thing is no a big deal. It would take a massive amount of drugs or inbreedness to differ in some points, specially if the regulating institution has explicitly made it public. The main thing here is that the FIA has made this sort of things a public effort so you can´t simply say "where is the spirit?".

Obviously, I'm not an engineer so I know little about regulations and its mathemathics. Oh... wait...

[hardingfv32]

Now, as bhallg2k stated.....

"Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part."

This is a half baked statement.

1) The accelerator setting does not correlate directly with engine rpms. You can be at 100% accelerator at 5k rpms, launching, or 100% accelerator at 18k rpm, on the straight. Air volume through the engine is related to rpm and throttle setting.

2) The fuel delivery setting does not correlate directly with the accelerator setting. The engine map controls the fuel delivery using throttle setting, rpm, temp, etc. You are not going to get 'engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%'.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Of course it will be different if you don´t have the knowledge. Law was not set up for everyone to understand it as some simple operation. Law and regulation has its meta logics, it's not something "democratic" if you catch the meaning. You need the proper tools to understand it.

But, anyway, spirit of the rule in technical regulation and as a raw thing is no a big deal. It would take a massive amount of drugs or inbreedness to differ in some points, specially if the regulating institution has explicitly made it public. The main thing here is that the FIA has made this sort of things a public effort so you can´t simply say "where is the spirit?".

Where in the rules does it specify what level of knowledge is required to use then. This is non-sense. An valid interpretation made without 'knowledge' is still valid.

Is it illegal to differ form the 'spirit' of the majority? More non-sense. How am I to know when I have overstepped?
how can this be administered?

Brian

[bhall]

Whatever the case may be regarding Red Bull's engine mapping, we're way off topic here in the F2012 thread, especially considering there's a thread devoted to just this topic. (It's my fault, too.)

[Postmoe]

Of course it will be different if you don´t have the knowledge. Law was not set up for everyone to understand it as some simple operation. Law and regulation has its meta logics, it's not something "democratic" if you catch the meaning. You need the proper tools to understand it.

But, anyway, spirit of the rule in technical regulation and as a raw thing is no a big deal. It would take a massive amount of drugs or inbreedness to differ in some points, specially if the regulating institution has explicitly made it public. The main thing here is that the FIA has made this sort of things a public effort so you can´t simply say "where is the spirit?".

Where in the rules does it specify what level of knowledge is required to use then. This is non-sense. An valid interpretation made without 'knowledge' is still valid.

Is it illegal to differ form the 'spirit' of the majority? More non-sense. How am I to know when I have overstepped?
how can this be administered?

Brian

Change rule/s by "japanese" and we'll laugh about some non-sense. Not mine.


Where in the japanese languaje does it specify what level of knowledge is required to use it. This is non-sense. A valid interpretation made without 'knowledge' is still valid.

Yes, very valid.

Man, a valid interpretetion of law without at least one bit of knowledge can´t be valid. The next ting you'll say is that a "valid" interpretation of fluids is valid without knowledge or without a wind tunnel, or without anything.

People must know when to stop. As for me, I stop right here.

[joeyg02]

I have to say out of 366 pages the last 2 or so have been the only ones to give me a headache.

[Pierce89]

I'm probably one of the worst off-topic offenders here, sometimes, but, shiiiiit , you guys are off the dam map.

Edit: To get back things back on track, how many FWEP slits do you guys think the F2012 will be sporting by year's end? In the last couple races, we've seen 3,4, and then even 5.

[mx_tifoso]

F1T Development Blog: Ferrari's new front wing: 3 Fridays, no racing

And yes, please take the engine mapping discussion to the appropriate thread

[Scalex]

Of course it will be different if you don´t have the knowledge. Law was not set up for everyone to understand it as some simple operation. Law and regulation has its meta logics, it's not something "democratic" if you catch the meaning. You need the proper tools to understand it.


Where in the rules does it specify what level of knowledge is required to use then. This is non-sense. An valid interpretation made without 'knowledge' is still valid.

Brian

So then how wold you define what a "valid interpretation" is?

Sometimes it's obvious that, whilst one ore more interpretations could exist according to the literality of the wording, they don't go along well with the stated goal of the rule, as it is the case.

Obviously, if your interpretation is such that allows you to do something that the regulator has explicitly say he doesn't want to be allowed, it is against the spirit of the rules. Not that difficult to see in my opinion...

BTW, I guess now all we need to do is wait for a moderator to gladly putt all this in a new/different thread, reminding us once again (and rightfully so!!) of the forum rules... EDIT -Sorry, I just saw this has already -almost- done -

[alogoc]

quote:
Alex @ AMorteF
Ferrari could test on Friday with a slight forward tilt of the engine as they did during the 2010 season

[Nando]

What would be the main thing why you would tilt an engine?