All 2011 cars are illegal

[N12ck]

however EBD is for aerodynamic purposes only,

exhausts are for exit of gases from the engine,

Exhaust blown diffuser which has a driver control (throttle) changing the flow of gases and the blown diffuser being for aerodynamic purposes only, it means the EBD is an aerodynamic device which can be controlled by the driver within the cockpit,,,, therefore technically illegal.

However you could go to the point where you say when a driver moves his head its affecting the aerodynamics of the car and is driver movement which makes the movement of the head like an f duct in the eyes of the rules, making a driver moving their head illegal

However hopefully the f1 teams wont go this far as we will just have little pedal gokarts driving round

[Richard]

The suspension is set up in a way that allows the car to bottom out, that deliberately bridges the gap to the ground.

[Formula None]

Pedantgate, then?

How do they keep the floor mats from bunching up in those high g braking zones? Toyota not a supplier?

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, it also says "driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics".

So, the rear wing has to be adjusted telepathically.

If you move your hand to adjust the wing, then, illegality!

I wonder if the problem is in the rules...

As Rousseau said once (I'm paraphrasing here): "as we cannot change people, we don't cease to change the rules".

I also want to share this other genial quote by Darrell Waltrip:

“If you don’t cheat, you look like an idiot.

If you cheat and don’t get caught, you look like a hero.

If you cheat and get caught, you look like a dope.

Put me where I belong.”

Pedantgate, then?

You wouldn't believe what mods have to put up with.

[Tamburello]

Yep, I think you're pushing things a little bit too far mate. Looks a bit like you're trying to find an excuse for the teams using the bendy wings (especially that one with the colorful bovine male as a symbol). Considering how active the FIA are on the matter, I think they'll be fine without the extra help.

What exactly do you expect the FIA to do differently with regards to the Red Bull wings just because bot6 has seen a few picture?

If the Red Bull wing flexes more than other team's cars and the FIA has cleared the former of any wrong doing, it is now up to the other teams to copy their idea. Just because they no one else has been able to do it so far is not reason enough to keep harking on about it at every given opportunity or demanding that the FIA some outlandish measure the likes of which it has never done in the past.

Now enough about the friggin wings already! (Geez, Whitmarsh really knows how to get the natives wound up in frenzy with a drop of a word, doesn't he?!)

[Formula None]

You wouldn't believe what mods have to put up with.

A recent thread by manchild comes to mind, lol.

[bot6]

However hopefully the f1 teams wont go this far as we will just have little pedal gokarts driving round

Pedals are moving with driver imput, making them illegal!!! How dare you suggest such a thing!

What exactly do you expect the FIA to do differently with regards to the Red Bull wings just because bot6 has seen a few picture?

If the Red Bull wing flexes more than other team's cars and the FIA has cleared the former of any wrong doing, it is now up to the other teams to copy their idea. Just because they no one else has been able to do it so far is not reason enough to keep harking on about it at every given opportunity or demanding that the FIA some outlandish measure the likes of which it has never done in the past.

Well, how were the other teams supposed to know braking the rules was allowed? Might seem like a stupid question, but it's kind of at the heart of the matter here...

Outlandish measure it has never done in the past? Like change the test? Right, never happened...

[Tamburello]

Well, how were the other teams supposed to know braking the rules was allowed? Might seem like a stupid question, but it's kind of at the heart of the matter here...

Outlandish measure it has never done in the past? Like change the test? Right, never happened...

Teams didn't know about the double diffuser or f-duct either but they got on with it and developed their own versions once they were cleared by the FIA.

As to tests, the FIA has pandered to the Whitmarsh brigade's demands and whining and beefed up the tests and the wing still passes. In short, it is perfectly legal. Now the other teams should just suck it up and get on with it.

[bot6]

Yes, but none of these devices were against the rules. The DDD was borderline (what is a slot, what is a hole?) but the F-duct at least did not break any regulation.

again, passing the test for one rule does not mean you're not breaking another rule. Otherwise, that means if you pass the rule for curvature of the rear wing flap, the rest of the car can be illegal?

[Tamburello]

The f-duct was against the spirit of rule banning movable aero devices as was the DDD against the spirit of rules trying to cut down on downforce, as would be flexing wings which can pass the FIA tests.

End of story. The whining from certain teams on this is not because rules have been broken but because they can't copy it! Of that you can be 100% certain!

[bot6]

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant, just like the spirit of the law is irrelevant in a court of law (hmmm sounds familiar).

The rule is broken or not broken. If it is not broken then just go on with it. (as is the case with the F duct - is a driver not supposed to move his hands? or the DDD - it's a slot not a hole).
If the rule is broken (degree of freedom relative to sprung part, mobility relative to sprung part, position under the reference plane, bridge to the ground - all under 3.15, all breached) then penalties must be assigned.

Again, how are you supposed to know which rules you are allowed to break and which rules you are not allowed to break?

And is giving an advantage to the one who "guessed right" fair? Because the others didn't "guess right"? Even when the rules clearly prohibit such a device?

Well that's the whole debate. It all depends if you want RBR to get away with it because you want them to win, or if you want everybody to design the car, and therefore race, under the same rules from the first race of the season onwards and not halfway through the season when the other teams know which rules they are allowed to break and redesign their car accordingly.

[Tamburello]

Well now they know that flexing front wing is fair game and have known it for the past year. So stop the whining and start the copying!

It's got nothing to do with wanting them to "get away" with something. There's a regulatory framework, which is a body of rules AND methods of measuring and policing of it, which Red Bull are adhering to. And the governing body has been saying as much all along. And all kudos to them for doing so.

Now please, enough about the wings already.

[bot6]

Well, again, it all depends which team you're rooting for (if you're rooting for one at all).

The regulatory framework says the RBR wing is illegal. But the person in charge of applying the regulatory framework says it is legal.

Honestly, for me the whole thing isn't about RBR being dishonest. I think they saw this coming last year and are exploiting it as much as possible, and if the FIA doesn't react then that's good points in for RBR and good for them.

But I do think this contradiction between the rule and the application hurts the credibility of the FIA and hurts the credibility of Formula 1 racing as a result. Either the governing body needs to be changed, or the governing body needs to rewrite the rule book in a way that is clear and even for everybody.

And not just that FW rule. The whole bloody rulebook.

1-1.5 seconds per lap advantage over a device which is illegal but allowed is a bit of a mockery of racing in my opinion...

[Robbobnob]

if every time somebody has a spark of genius and implements a innovation on the car, we all come and shoot it down and look for holes and illegality in the solution. then may i ask why the hell do you watch Formula 1?

It had always been about innovation and creation and excellence in engineering and the day that teams stop pushing the limits of what is legal and what is not in search for performance then they shouldnt be in formula 1.

[Tamburello]

The regulatory framework consists of the rules AND the measures in place to enforce them, not solely one or the other. In that sense Red Bull are adhering to it.

Why is the f-duct okay and not the Red Bull wing? The rules stipulated no movable aero devices. You argue that a driver should not be restricted in moving his hand. Sure. But to move his hand in order to trigger a device which alters the aerodynamics of a wing? Surely this was against the intent of the rules in place.

Now from an engineering point of view, it has been said that the f-duct is a clever device precisely because it found a loophole in the regulatory framework and exploited in order to circumvent the intent of a rule, i.e. no movable aero device, in order to gain an advantage.

The same is true with flexing wings. The teams know the rules and how they are enforced and apparently (it hasn't been conclusively proven, mind you, for the FIA with all their tests have not found anything but a few pics are enough for some people to not only accept that it is happening beyond any doubt but even go so far as measuring precisely what the advantage gained is, e.g. 1-1.5 seconds per lap!) one team has found a workaround to gain an advantage from it.