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

[koolway]

Then, the question is : can it be done?
The limits are a combination of Do’s and Don’t’s. But the don’t’s are an exhaustivity exercise, so unless someone already thought about it, you have no idea it exists…

[Stu]

Then, the question is : can it be done?
The limits are a combination of Do’s and Don’t’s. But the don’t’s are an exhaustivity exercise, so unless someone already thought about it, you have no idea it exists…

That is where the measuring and tests come in. The technical regulations govern (and tend not to change mid-season - hence double-diffusers and DAS allowed until year end); the tests/measurements define, and can be altered to suit.
Sporting regulations however can be interpreted ‘any-old-how’ as an awful lot of it is a matter of perspective (and this is why the teams extensively lobby during a race, but let’s not go there again!!).

[Big Tea]

Then, the question is : can it be done?
The limits are a combination of Do’s and Don’t’s. But the don’t’s are an exhaustivity exercise, so unless someone already thought about it, you have no idea it exists…

If the rule says you must do it then you must do it, if it says you can not do it then you can not do it, if there is not a rule, then- there is no rule. You can do it or not as you see fit as long as it does not fall foul of another rule or exclusion.

If it is decided it is found undesirable or unsafe, then steps have to be taken accordingly.
When it is ruled on, then there is a rule.

Stu, sporting regs are one of those things done to see if it is beneficial to you, and if it is you keep doing it until you are told not to. I doubt any one thinks Ah, I can get an an advantage there and there is no rule stopping my, but I wont cos its not fair. There does seem to be considerable flexibility in them though. Do not cross the white line, unless the race director says it will be ignored until it is reinstated

[koolway]

That’s my point Stu.
Sure there are some loopholes to be found in any regulations, an f1 is no exception.
But to generalize and say that : because some have been found, the regulation redaction process must be reviewed entirely… I do not share that POV.
For me this is just a side effect to allow rule interpretation and not having a race with 20 identical cars…

[Stu]

That’s my point Stu.
Sure there are some loopholes to be found in any regulations, an f1 is no exception.
But to generalize and say that : because some have been found, the regulation redaction process must be reviewed entirely… I do not share that POV.
For me this is just a side effect to allow rule interpretation and not having a race with 20 identical cars…

A technical rule change before race one would be a terrible thing (particularly with a budget cap in place), during the season it would be a very bad thing, however the FIA seem to like to do a great deal with TD’s that amount to rule changes (as opposed to clarifications) mid-season!!

[Big Tea]

That’s my point Stu.
Sure there are some loopholes to be found in any regulations, an f1 is no exception.
But to generalize and say that : because some have been found, the regulation redaction process must be reviewed entirely… I do not share that POV.
For me this is just a side effect to allow rule interpretation and not having a race with 20 identical cars…

Loopholes are there to exploit. My mistake I thought you meant this "the spirit of the rule"

[koolway]

@Big Tea
There’s a fine line between the f1 definition of : interpretation, loophole, exploit, clever solution, …. And that line is often drawn by the competitive advantage it provides.
I just stuck to legal or illegal, my reptilian brain finds it easier

@stu
From what I’ve seen TDs cannot be considered as a rule change but they’re more a gate keeper. Wether you’re concerned on the legality of some competitors solutions, legality of your own, etc…

The issue is : apart from reports stating that TDs are increasing, unless mistaken they’re not publicly released.
So no one really knows what’s in them except for the teams, and what “some” team executives share the media (ie let’s not forget, it’s part of their communication strategy). So if they’re outraged by a TD outcome maybe it’s just some political leverage about the ongoing inquiry from another team and the next TD to come.

We ll see if the new “show and tell” sessions will improve, decrease, increase,… the TD drama, but at least that drama will now be public.
And we’ll have a clue of what and why it is happening and not just cherry picked glimpses of it.

[mclaren111]

@Big Tea
There’s a fine line between the f1 definition of : interpretation, loophole, exploit, clever solution, …. And that line is often drawn by the competitive advantage it provides.
I just stuck to legal or illegal, my reptilian brain finds it easier

@stu
From what I’ve seen TDs cannot be considered as a rule change but they’re more a gate keeper. Wether you’re concerned on the legality of some competitors solutions, legality of your own, etc…

The issue is : apart from reports stating that TDs are increasing, unless mistaken they’re not publicly released.
So no one really knows what’s in them except for the teams, and what “some” team executives share the media (ie let’s not forget, it’s part of their communication strategy). So if they’re outraged by a TD outcome maybe it’s just some political leverage about the ongoing inquiry from another team and the next TD to come.

We ll see if the new “show and tell” sessions will improve, decrease, increase,… the TD drama, but at least that drama will now be public.
And we’ll have a clue of what and why it is happening and not just cherry picked glimpses of it.

I liked the fact that teams went to the trouble to hide their "genius" ideas and updates and we the fans hunted the internet for better views...

[Just_a_fan]

@Big Tea
There’s a fine line between the f1 definition of : interpretation, loophole, exploit, clever solution, …. And that line is often drawn by the competitive advantage it provides.
I just stuck to legal or illegal, my reptilian brain finds it easier

@stu
From what I’ve seen TDs cannot be considered as a rule change but they’re more a gate keeper. Wether you’re concerned on the legality of some competitors solutions, legality of your own, etc…

The issue is : apart from reports stating that TDs are increasing, unless mistaken they’re not publicly released.
So no one really knows what’s in them except for the teams, and what “some” team executives share the media (ie let’s not forget, it’s part of their communication strategy). So if they’re outraged by a TD outcome maybe it’s just some political leverage about the ongoing inquiry from another team and the next TD to come.

We ll see if the new “show and tell” sessions will improve, decrease, increase,… the TD drama, but at least that drama will now be public.
And we’ll have a clue of what and why it is happening and not just cherry picked glimpses of it.

I liked the fact that teams went to the trouble to hide their "genius" ideas and updates and we the fans hunted the internet for better views...

Agreed. Remember the days of the f-duct? IIRC, that was identified and figured out on this forum before any of the F1 news outlets. I think there was even stuff appearing elsewhere that had been written / drawn here first.

[JordanMugen]

Then, the question is : can it be done?
The limits are a combination of Do’s and Don’t’s. But the don’t’s are an exhaustivity exercise, so unless someone already thought about it, you have no idea it exists…

If the rule says you must do it then you must do it, if it says you can not do it then you can not do it, if there is not a rule, then- there is no rule. You can do it or not as you see fit as long as it does not fall foul of another rule or exclusion.

The V8 Supercar technical regulations say:

1.1.3 Any modification, component or configuration that is not in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the Rules is not permitted and where necessary shall be banned without notice by
Supercars.
1.1.4 In all circumstances the primary function of any component or configuration, even if all or
part of its Design is free, is the overriding factor in determining its compliance with the Rules.
Any secondary function/s, unless specifically permitted by the Rules, are not permitted.
1.1.5 No part of a Car may be modified and/or deleted and/or added to unless permitted by the
Rules.
1.1.6 For clarification, in these Rules, unless it says that you can, then you cannot.

https://dscxx9mer61ho.cloudfront.net/wp ... 1.2022.pdf

The F1 technical regulations specifically exclude such such a rule AFAIK (i.e., deliberately avoiding phrases like "spirit of the rules" and "unless it says you can, then you cannot"), however I suppose the FIA reserve the right to introduce such a phrase if they feel teams are being too liberal with their interpretations.

@Big Tea
There’s a fine line between the f1 definition of : interpretation, loophole, exploit, clever solution, …. And that line is often drawn by the competitive advantage it provides.

It is clearly deliberate. The likes of Tombaszis, Brawn and co have, it seems, enjoyed the challenge of finding loopholes when designing Grand Prix cars and thus deliberately wrote the new rules in the same vague way as past regulations, deliberately avoiding phrases like "unless it says you can, then you cannot" which are popular in the technical regulations of categories like Formula Ford, V8 Supercar or BTCC.

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

Hmmmmmmm...

Taking V8 Supercar for example:
- Team Penske placing ballast in mufflers, not in the spirit of the rules, banned.
- Ford Performance USA designing an aerokit that performed better in yaw than the specified values (only measured at 200km/hr straight line), not in the spirit of the rules, aerokit trimmed and reduced, not just once but twice!
- Ford Performance USA designing an aerokit significantly lighter than the other aero kits, not in the spirit of the rules, ballast added to the top of the roll hoop of those runners.

Why shouldn't the rulemakers be allowed to use the phrase?

Ford Performance USA could have argued only they were blue in the face that should have been allowed to keep the benefits of their lighter bodykit that produced more downforce for at least one whole season since it was designed to the letter of the regulations. Yet within 2 race meetings a series of new rules were invented, endplates were trimmed, front diffusers shorted, COG measured and ballast added high up in the Mustangs... Some race meetings later, the endplates and front diffuser was trimmed again, almost as if the rule makers were making it up as they go along!

[JordanMugen]

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.

There is the scope to include a spirit of the rules phrase as per the V8 Supercar rules, is there not?

The F1 regulations, to avoid X-wings, could have simply been worded as "you may have a front wing of X*Y*Zmm and a rear wing of A*B*Cmm, the fitment of other aerofoils or lift-augmenting devices to the vehicle other than the front and rear wings and floor are not permitted". That may have helped to ban flick-ups and bargeboards too.

Formula Ford bodywork rules for example:

12.1 Bodywork:
(a) Any device designed to aerodynamically augment the downforce on the vehicle is prohibited. These
devices specifically include aerofoils, venturi tunnels, skirts, nose fins and spoilers of any kind.
(b) Integration of aerofoils and spoilers by design or the mismatching of bodywork and/or chassis panels
and members is also prohibited.

https://www.motorsport.org.au/docs/defa ... a-ford.pdf

Is it not absolutely deliberate the F1 chooses to have vague rules with boxes and intersecting surfaces that can be argued? The rulemakers and engineers seem to like it that way.

I agree, but if a rule is to prevent a specific 'thing' then the rule should say that thing is not allowed

Yes, the Formula Ford rules are worded that way, "wings are banned" all too easy. For various historic reasons, the Formula One are deliberately worded in a vague legalese manner.

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

Yes, that seems to be how the V8 Supercar rules function as mentioned. New rules about bodykit COG and downforce in yaw were created very rapidly when, for example, Ford Performance USA designed an aerokit that other competitors felt was too advantageous despite being designed to the letter of the regulations (which previously only specified meeting a certain downforce and drag in a straight line at 200 km/hr and nothing else).

[Big Tea]

Then, the question is : can it be done?
The limits are a combination of Do’s and Don’t’s. But the don’t’s are an exhaustivity exercise, so unless someone already thought about it, you have no idea it exists…

If the rule says you must do it then you must do it, if it says you can not do it then you can not do it, if there is not a rule, then- there is no rule. You can do it or not as you see fit as long as it does not fall foul of another rule or exclusion.

The V8 Supercar technical regulations say:

1.1.3 Any modification, component or configuration that is not in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the Rules is not permitted and where necessary shall be banned without notice by
Supercars.
1.1.4 In all circumstances the primary function of any component or configuration, even if all or
part of its Design is free, is the overriding factor in determining its compliance with the Rules.
Any secondary function/s, unless specifically permitted by the Rules, are not permitted.
1.1.5 No part of a Car may be modified and/or deleted and/or added to unless permitted by the
Rules.
1.1.6 For clarification, in these Rules, unless it says that you can, then you cannot.

https://dscxx9mer61ho.cloudfront.net/wp ... 1.2022.pdf

The F1 technical regulations specifically exclude such such a rule AFAIK (i.e., deliberately avoiding phrases like "spirit of the rules" and "unless it says you can, then you cannot"), however I suppose the FIA reserve the right to introduce such a phrase if they feel teams are being too liberal with their interpretations.

@Big Tea
There’s a fine line between the f1 definition of : interpretation, loophole, exploit, clever solution, …. And that line is often drawn by the competitive advantage it provides.

It is clearly deliberate. The likes of Tombaszis, Brawn and co have, it seems, enjoyed the challenge of finding loopholes when designing Grand Prix cars and thus deliberately wrote the new rules in the same vague way as past regulations, deliberately avoiding phrases like "unless it says you can, then you cannot" which are popular in the technical regulations of categories like Formula Ford, V8 Supercar or BTCC.

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

Hmmmmmmm...

Taking V8 Supercar for example:
- Team Penske placing ballast in mufflers, not in the spirit of the rules, banned.
- Ford Performance USA designing an aerokit that performed better in yaw than the specified values (only measured at 200km/hr straight line), not in the spirit of the rules, aerokit trimmed and reduced, not just once but twice!
- Ford Performance USA designing an aerokit significantly lighter than the other aero kits, not in the spirit of the rules, ballast added to the top of the roll hoop of those runners.

Why shouldn't the rulemakers be allowed to use the phrase?

Ford Performance USA could have argued only they were blue in the face that should have been allowed to keep the benefits of their lighter bodykit that produced more downforce for at least one whole season since it was designed to the letter of the regulations. Yet within 2 race meetings a series of new rules were invented, endplates were trimmed, front diffusers shorted, COG measured and ballast added high up in the Mustangs... Some race meetings later, the endplates and front diffuser was trimmed again, almost as if the rule makers were making it up as they go along!

The very reason we have had the fracas over the Race Director is that the rules are open to interpretation of one person (or possibly one group) and the teams do not know before hand what is acceptable and what is not. I suspect the case of weight was hidden because it was a clear case, so if the person concerned with judging it had gone in favour, it would have created calls of bias.

I have no idea of how the rules are made or policed in that series, but as I said, it seems like the same problem we had with RD. Possibly the 'owners' are more draconian and teams are told what is happening full stop, then this is a different case, as in the judges decision is final.

[BigBeansBoy]

B Sport has made a nice summary of the different philosophies seen at testing. I'm really intrigued by McLaren's idea of pushing the air from the t-tray across the floor to push out the front wheel wake.