F1 set for rule change to shut down 2021 loopholes

[nevill3]

“If you exploit a loophole in the future, you can be shut down at the next race, which you could never do now. So the Brawn diffuser – as it happens, there were three teams that had it, so it would have carried on – but if one team stands out there with a solution that has never been conceived, and has never been imagined, and destroys the whole principle of what is trying to be done, the governance would allow, with sufficient support from the other teams, to stop it. This is a whole different philosophy.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 9VE2i.html

These new proposals for the 2021 season will cause a lot of heated debate I am sure......

Reading the whole article I can understand the reasoning behind the proposal, no longer will it be possible to argue that because a comma was inserted in the wrong place changing the interpretation of a particular new regulation or rule and giving a team the opportunity to veto any new in season rule change due to the "all teams must agree" agreement they have at the moment.

Any loophole that deliberately exploits an error or grey area could be banned more quickly.
Innovations and brilliance would still allow for new ideas, as long as they are within the sporting intent of the new regulation.

[Big Tea]

So, If Ferrari and Alfa, or Merc and Racing point, or Red bull and Toro alfa both have it, it will still be allowed? I do not see how the teams most likely to have the advantage would not make sure (their) 2 teams had it so would not be stomped?

[jjn9128]

Because teams are supposed to design everything outside the listed parts themselves, if Ferrari/Alfa or Red Bull/Alpha were the only teams with the same "illegal" solution there would immediately be concerns about resource sharing between teams.

[izzy]

Charlie just used to make it up as he went along anyway, that's how McLaren's perfectly legal floor got banned in 2012, or pretty much anything could get defined as moving aero, or not

Meanwhile Ross' own innovation was totally a semantic thing, about making a hole not a hole by having a slit to it

so plus ca change really, but it's a bit more open perhaps

[Big Tea]

Because teams are supposed to design everything outside the listed parts themselves, if Ferrari/Alfa or Red Bull/Alpha were the only teams with the same "illegal" solution there would immediately be concerns about resource sharing between teams.

Of course, but would they use different ways to achieve the same end?

[adrianjordan]

Haven't read the rules, but I assume that it simply requires the majority of the teams to agree in which case even if 2 teams had it then it wouldn't matter.

[Zynerji]

This is why F1 should be more of a co-op.

We have 10 teams all spending dumb amounts of money to each learn in isolation, and if one magically finds something amazing, the other 9 can completely nullify the expenditure. This is why F1 is so outrageous, expensive and not to mention, controversial.

If the rules stated: All parts are legal if the tech is transparent, IE: models/data published to the FIA. That way each team shares the cost of the intersectional aero/mechanical understanding, but have divervences of philosophy.

Saves tons of R&D money, not to mention the reverse engineering departments that all teams pay. As a matter of fact, the self-balance play would to have a Minimum cap, not a Maximum one. If each team had a minimum R&D spend of $50M, that would be $500M worth of data that each team would have access to. This would also dis incentivize sniping team members for millions. It's truly a win^3.

Engines stay 100% secret? Sure (if it must. It would increase "to market" time for the manufacturers to financially benefit from if they shared as well). Cars? Share the tech, see who can build then set up/operate/call weather/call strategies better/manage drivers better, and give them the Constructor trophy.