Red Bull RB10 Renault

[beelsebob]

Looks like Red Bull met the letter of the law.

20.3.1 All cars must be equipped with five positions in which cameras or camera housings can be fitted. Referring to Drawing 6, all cars must carry (i) a camera in position 4 and (ii) a camera or camera housing in positions 2 (both sides), 3 and either 1 or 5.

Any decision as to whether a camera or camera housing is fitted in those positions will be by agreement between the relevant Competitor and the Commercial Rights Holder.

Done.

No, not done - the commercial rights holder didn't agree, so there was no agreement.

[wesley123]

Although they have ran it before, so you could say there indeed was an agreement.

[bhall]

As a simple man of simple means, maybe my version of English isn't necessarily the correct one. Within my understanding of the language, however, and, consequently, the regulations as written, the commercial rights holder doesn't appear to have any choice in the matter aside from whether or not an actual camera should be placed within any of the FIA-designated areas for camera placement. That the FIA agreed with Red Bull's interpretation of those areas when it allowed the car to race with an otherwise hidden nose camera means something outside the regulations is going on here.

[johnsonwax]

As a simple man of simple means, maybe my version of English isn't necessarily the correct one. Within my understanding of the language, however, and, consequently, the regulations as written, the commercial rights holder doesn't appear to have any choice in the matter aside from whether or not an actual camera should be placed within any of the FIA-designated areas for camera placement. That the FIA agreed with Red Bull's interpretation of those areas when it allowed the car to race with an otherwise hidden nose camera means something outside the regulations is going on here.

The rules are very simple: The broadcasters and Bernie are the ones that hand out the money. They set the rules.

[bhall]

Indeed. Kinda makes you wonder what else has been decided by commercial fiat.

[johnsonwax]

Indeed. Kinda makes you wonder what else has been decided by commercial fiat.

Double points in Yas Marina. I somehow suspect that Brazil wouldn't have garnered double points if it was ending the season.

[Pierce89]

I'll believe that when a 2nd reliable English source confirms it, until then IMO it's just partisan German media making stuff up.

AMUS??

It's a single source, no other F1 news org has corroborated it so until then I take it with a salt shaker!

I have to agree. AMuS is just as capable of nationalism as the British press who think Hami is super human. In fact, I can't think of any f1 press that doesn't occasionally lapse into "ours is better than your s".

[djos]

I have to agree. AMuS is just as capable of nationalism as the British press who think Hami is super human. In fact, I can't think of any f1 press that doesn't occasionally lapse into "ours is better than your s".

Aussie motorsport press is just as partisan so it's nothing unique.

[myurr]

Any camera or camera housing fitted in the left hand position 2 shown in Drawing 6 must be mounted in order that its major axis where passing through the centre of the camera lens (or corresponding position for a camera housing) does not intersect any part of the car lying forward of the camera or camera housing.[/i]

Also done.

This is the part where FOM have argued they didn't meet the requirements. Lying forward of the camera doesn't specify that this is towards the front of the car. If the camera is mounted in a rear facing position then one interpretation of the rules is that forward of the camera is backwards on the car. In which case Red Bull's solution is not compliant as there's a bulkhead in the way. Of course all the other cars fail to be compliant with this rule as there will be some bodywork in the way, but as with the flexible aero rules the FIA can choose to govern this with taking those practicalities into consideration.

This "innovation" of Red Bull's is just a clever interpretation of the rules, after all, so I don't see how anyone can grumble at FIA / FOM then using a clever interpretation of the rules to disallow this particular solution.

[XRayF1]

This is the part where FOM have argued they didn't meet the requirements. Lying forward of the camera doesn't specify that this is towards the front of the car. If the camera is mounted in a rear facing position then one interpretation of the rules is that forward of the camera is backwards on the car. In which case Red Bull's solution is not compliant as there's a bulkhead in the way. Of course all the other cars fail to be compliant with this rule as there will be some bodywork in the way, but as with the flexible aero rules the FIA can choose to govern this with taking those practicalities into consideration.

This "innovation" of Red Bull's is just a clever interpretation of the rules, after all, so I don't see how anyone can grumble at FIA / FOM then using a clever interpretation of the rules to disallow this particular solution

Hmm, after looking at the technical drawings section of the F1 2014 Technical Regulations and especially Drawing 6, I have to disagree.
RB's interpretation of the rules is at least not what the FIA (and in this case directly FOM) had in mind.
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 1-23_0.pdf
Drawing 6 being on page 81.

As one may clearly see, the intention is to have multiple camera points outside of the chassis as such. (presumably to have tiltable cameras to allow capturing of driving action like in NASCAR and INDYCAR)

Looking at article 20.3.1 and in reference to the current discussion, it actually says that a camera/camera housing must be put in position 2 - however, position 2 is clearly marked (in Drawing 6) as being outside the nose cone, e.g. the car.

To my mind, RB's solution is outside the current 2014 technical regulations - but I wonder what their reasoning for their interpretation is.

[jz11]

If they wanted camera #2 outside the safety cell, they should have pointed that out in the actual rule, the drawing is just a reference, the actual rule is 20.3.4., instead they specified one box (not 2 separate boxes as in the drawing) where the competitor must place the camera, and then, as to 20.3.1., competitor and FOM must come to an agreement that the position is acceptable to both parties.

Now, we can assume that they did come to agreement, because if they didn't, the car wouldn't have been homologated, and shouldn't have been able to start any of the 2014. races, right?

It looks like FOM is just swinging its d$*# around and changing their mind like socks, and decided that they are not happy with the placement of the camera, mid season, when the work to design and make the body of the car is already done.

[Mandrake]

As a simple man of simple means, maybe my version of English isn't necessarily the correct one. Within my understanding of the language, however, and, consequently, the regulations as written, the commercial rights holder doesn't appear to have any choice in the matter aside from whether or not an actual camera should be placed within any of the FIA-designated areas for camera placement. That the FIA agreed with Red Bull's interpretation of those areas when it allowed the car to race with an otherwise hidden nose camera means something outside the regulations is going on here.

Absolutely this. I understand the regulation the same way as you do. RedBull met the requirements and whether it's a camera dummy or actual camera has to be decided between the FOM and RedBull.

I can only think of the FOM wanting to prevent a precendence in which other teams follow this practice either this season or next season and we might not get any good shots from a front camera anymore.

[hollus]

I wonder if that appendix in the regulations specifies where, within the camera housing, the camera lens is and where it points to. Because if one moves the lens, then the hole would (had) have to move too.

[AlexJ]

Absolutely this. I understand the regulation the same way as you do. RedBull met the requirements and whether it's a camera dummy or actual camera has to be decided between the FOM and RedBull.

I can only think of the FOM wanting to prevent a precendence in which other teams follow this practice either this season or next season and we might not get any good shots from a front camera anymore.

Simple way to fix for this next season, regulation change to specify the camera lens must be with a certain distance from the centerline.

I'd imagine the "clever" nose solutions will be fixed in a similar style too, increased minimum area for the tip combined with adding 3 or 4 more minimum area cross-sections between the tip and the bulkhead.

[Spacepace]

How about next year they specify every square inch of the camera housing must be seen in plain site