FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

[antoniob]

well Horner once again denies it and is happy with the FIA's clarification of the rules. http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/14083.html

[stonemonkey]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

[stonemonkey]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

[antoniob]

i hope nobody from the fia is reading this

[stonemonkey]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

To some parts of the car, not the suspension. Nowhere does it say that compressed gasses can be added to or removed from the suspension system but it does say that any changes made to the suspension will result in the car sterting the race from the pitlane. There is no conflict in the rules.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

To some parts of the car, not the suspension. Nowhere does it say that compressed gasses can be added to or removed from the suspension system but it does say that any changes made to the suspension will result in the car sterting the race from the pitlane. There is no conflict in the rules.

The SR donot limit to/from what device/part of the car these compressed gasses may be added/removed.

[stonemonkey]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

To some parts of the car, not the suspension. Nowhere does it say that compressed gasses can be added to or removed from the suspension system but it does say that any changes made to the suspension will result in the car sterting the race from the pitlane. There is no conflict in the rules.

The SR donot limit to/from what device/part of the car these compressed gasses may be added/removed.

Is 34.5 not part of the SR?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

To some parts of the car, not the suspension. Nowhere does it say that compressed gasses can be added to or removed from the suspension system but it does say that any changes made to the suspension will result in the car sterting the race from the pitlane. There is no conflict in the rules.

The SR donot limit to/from what device/part of the car these compressed gasses may be added/removed.

Is 34.5 not part of the SR?

Does 34.5 supersede 34.1?

[stonemonkey]

...Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.

"Tool" is not defined in either the sporting nor technical regulations. Perhaps RBR regards an air chuck as a "tool".

And there's 34.5
'If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc ferme conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2'

So if one rule prohibits what another permits, which is controlling? I would hazard to guess that, if this is what they're up to, RBR already have put this to the FIA and found their "loophole" was legal.

What's permitted?

Compressed gases may be drained or added while in parc ferme.

To some parts of the car, not the suspension. Nowhere does it say that compressed gasses can be added to or removed from the suspension system but it does say that any changes made to the suspension will result in the car sterting the race from the pitlane. There is no conflict in the rules.

The SR donot limit to/from what device/part of the car these compressed gasses may be added/removed.

Is 34.5 not part of the SR?

Does 34.5 supersede 34.1?

No, it appends it.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Is 34.5 not part of the SR?

Does 34.5 supersede 34.1?

No, it appends it.

Where is it written that 34.5 appends 34.1 but 34.1 doesn't doesn't append 34.5?

34.1 also provides for refueling in parc ferme. Since adding fuel materially changes ride height, by that interpretation, 34.5 also should prohibit refueling in parc ferme.

[stonemonkey]

Where is it written that 34.5 appends 34.1 but 34.1 doesn't doesn't append 34.5?

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read considering what append means.

34.1 also provides for refueling in parc ferme. Since adding fuel materially changes ride height, by that interpretation, 34.5 also should prohibit refueling in parc ferme.

34.5 does not refer to ride height, adding sprung mass does not change the suspension configuration or setup.

You have not found some loop hole to be exploited.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Where is it written that 34.5 appends 34.1 but 34.1 doesn't doesn't append 34.5?

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read considering what append means.

34.1 also provides for refueling in parc ferme. Since adding fuel materially changes ride height, by that interpretation, 34.5 also should prohibit refueling in parc ferme.

34.5 does not refer to ride height, adding sprung mass does not change the suspension configuration or setup.

You have not found some loop hole to be exploited.

You're right. RBR found it.