FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[bhall II]

Not a cause. Just an opinion. I have mine. You have yours.

Eh, it's not really my opinion; just me taking the piss.

I tend to look at it this way: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," otherwise known as Hanlon's razor, and the FIA has given us no shortage of reasons to question its competence.

[timbo]

So the pace is pretty much where expected, pecking order is pretty much same too.
I'm fine with FRIC ban.

[Moxie]

I tend to look at it this way: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"

Nice line...I love it. Now I need to look up Hanlon's Razor =D>

[basti313]

So the pace is pretty much where expected, pecking order is pretty much same too.
I'm fine with FRIC ban.

Me too. I love it how the Bulls miss the apexes and the Mercs fighting under breaking like the rest of the field.
Spectacular driving without standing starts. =D>

[flyboy2160]

I tend to look at it this way: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," otherwise known as Hanlon's razor...

..., as applied in F1 via "Whiting's Corollary."

[FoxHound]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"

I'm pretty cool with that. But do we know if it was a team that went to the FIA, or the FIA taking this on themselves to be the purveyors of racing Valhalla we know them to be?

[Cam]

You could answer that by answering, when has the FiA ever done anything off its own back for reasons that were not attributable to their own or another parties interest?

It would seem unfair to call the FiA a political group that acts solely on money and position. But if it walks like a duck....

[FoxHound]

Specifics here Cam.

I don't want to broaden this into lambasting the FIA, as we do, only to escape the details of this affair.

There must be some smoke somewhere....

[Ultra]

You could answer that by answering, when has the FiA ever done anything off its own back for reasons that were not attributable to their own or another parties interest?

It would seem unfair to call the FiA a political group that acts solely on money and position. But if it walks like a duck....

^ This.

[FoxHound]

Nice contribution there Ultra.

We can accept and move on, sure. But my need to know is a right pain in the ass...

[Ultra]

Nice contribution there Ultra.

We can accept and move on, sure. But my need to know is a right pain in the ass...

I can't like the post as I don't have enough posts for the system to let me, so I did what I could to express my agreement and support.

As to your need to know, contact the ever transparent FIA via Jean Todt and Charlie Whiting. Let us know how that works out for you.

[Cam]

Specifics here Cam.

I don't want to broaden this into lambasting the FIA, as we do, only to escape the details of this affair.

There must be some smoke somewhere....

You won't get details, just more questions. That's the point. Otherwise the FiA would have published a clear and concise statement outlining the specific reasons, giving detailed actual real life examples. We didn't get that. We never get that. That is your smoking gun.

Whether it was a team, two teams, MrE or a Whiting brain fart, it doesn't matter. You don't need to know the make of the gun to diagnose a gun shot wound.

[FoxHound]

You won't get details, just more questions. That's the point. Otherwise the FiA would have published a clear and concise statement outlining the specific reasons, giving detailed actual real life examples. We didn't get that. We never get that. That is your smoking gun.

Whether it was a team, two teams, MrE or a Whiting brain fart, it doesn't matter. You don't need to know the make of the gun to diagnose a gun shot wound.

Ahhhh dear Cam, don't you see?

The very machinations of this ruling can be used again. Think of it as an unwritten rule whereby any advances not within the strict confines of the FIA rulebook are open to protest.
It happened before yes, but I bet my house there are a couple of teams fuming at the loss of FRICS and a couple of teams over the moon.
And the frequency of protests will only increase in this day and age of homologation.

[Cam]

You're asking if I don't see? I just explained that same thing in the above post. The rules mean nothing. Never have. Never will. That I have seen clearly for years. Winning was never about having the best car or driver.

You're trying to find the exact reason for this. There isn't one. The reason is as complex as one of MrE's shell companies. That's why we never get given a reason.

[bhall II]

I'm pretty cool with that. But do we know if it was a team that went to the FIA, or the FIA taking this on themselves to be the purveyors of racing Valhalla we know them to be?

Having now seen and studied nearly every current design of front to rear linked suspension system we, the FIA, are formally of the view that the legality of all such systems could be called into question, particularly with respect to compliance with Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

Fair enough, Chuck. But, what exactly does that mean?

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 [DRS] (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4 ["brake ducts," wink wink], any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.

b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

c) Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18 [DRS], any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

If taken with resolute severity, which the FIA appears to have done with its recent clarification, it means 3.15 bans suspensions period. A stiff suspension has an aerodynamic purpose; anti-dive geometry has an aerodynamic purpose; anti-squat geometry has an aerodynamic purpose, and they all involve all sorts of movement. That the noble federation has even attempted to distinguish and question the legality of one suspension dynamic from amongst others with the exact same function is, to me, a sign of cognitive dissonance. (From what I saw, the active/passive debate missed the point in that regard.)

In a peripheral way, I understand the need to point a finger toward an ambitious team or two as progenitor(s) for the clarification. But, one has to understand that a rational body would scoff at any suggestion of FRIC's impropriety as currently defined within the rules, because it's very much like trying to claim that the gyroscopic effect of a turbine constitutes illegal stability control. It's patently absurd.