FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[acosmichippo]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

[stonemonkey]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

The regulations are written rules, the tests check whether or not something is within those written rules.

Say for example the FIA didn't think to measure the engine displacement but the regulations stated a max of 2.4L and some team took advantage and used a bigger engine and won a load of races because of that, then at some point the FIA decided to start checking engine displacement, would you still feel that the team should be allowed time to conform to the regulations?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The test is the child of the rule; they are not the same. In general, tests only are necessary if gentlemen can't agree what the rules mean.

Rules in sport are no different from laws of the land in that preserving their intent requires they continually be modified in response to tactics employed by those who seek to profit in thwarting them.

One of the oldest sets of rules on record is The Ten Commandments. Yet after 3500 years, we have taken "You shall not murder" and segmented that into crimes of murder, homicide, and manslaughter with aggravated, willful and justifiable cases of each.

Drink driving is another good example. In some places, guilt hinges on blood alcohol content. In others, it can be proved on basis of erratic driving after some consumption of alcohol. The tests are completely different but the basic rule is the same, do not drive after having drunk enough to endanger your fellow man.

[acosmichippo]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

The regulations are written rules, the tests check whether or not something is within those written rules.

Say for example the FIA didn't think to measure the engine displacement but the regulations stated a max of 2.4L and some team took advantage and used a bigger engine and won a load of races because of that, then at some point the FIA decided to start checking engine displacement, would you still feel that the team should be allowed time to conform to the regulations?

It depends on whether or not it can be proven that the team used a component not conforming to the rules in past races. In your particular case, since teams have to use the same engines for every race, I would call that essentially proven.

But, if I am not mistaken, teams can change parts on the chassis, like the splitter, any time. So how can the FIA prove that a splitter was breaking the rules in the past if the old tests didn't fail it?

[spankyham]

So does all that mean red bull have been cheating? And if they have will the FIA do anything? No. They might as well not bother having rules because they apply them only as and when they see fit.

The effect of the new rules are intended for 2012, but the FIA letting Redbull know they need to come into compliance with 2011 rules before next race.

Just to be clear, the rules I quoted, and that Scarbs is talking about are for this current year, not 2012.

[bigpat]

In my opinion, you can't take away a team's points after changing parameters of scrutineering tests. If it passes the tests, then it's legal. If you want to change a test, fine, but give teams an opportunity to conform to the new regulations.

Well, putting the other side of the case, I'd point out that Article 3.17.8 has been added before the start of this year. And, "every team" went into this year "with full knowledge" that passing a test didn't mean you were legal, AND that the FiA had the right to change a test to prove a component illegal. So, for this year at least, the rules have this new element.

So, it begs the question, if the car fails the more extensive test and is found to have breached the rules, are their previous points "clean". The comparison I made earlier may be relevant. Many Soviet/Chinese?East German athletes took copious amounts of performance enhancing drugs, but they also took masking agent/drugs that hid the true result from the examiners - now, the fact that they passed the test, didn't mean they weren't cheating, and, if their samples were tested again later and found to have positive, they were penalized.

Two different circumstances. Athletes know in advance, that their samples may take months to analyse, importantly by a meticulously written method, and specific machines and conditions for consistency. They know beforehand that a victory is conditional to passing the analysis. But once they are deemed legal by that test, that's it. You can't then re-analyse the blood 12 months later, if better technology comes along, and re issue results on that.

Same with motor racing. A car's legality is a product of passing the tests presented to it on that day.

You can't assume a car was previously illegal, if you implement a new test later on. If the FIA wish to do that, they would have to impound the cars from each race, and store them somewhere for future analysis. It's not logical...

The stewards have all time they want post race to check measure the cars, perform gas chromatograph tests on fuel samples etc. Once the cars are released from Parc Ferme, the result is deemed final. You can't check a car for something you have not been instructed to, or for test or a regulation that doesn't yet exist.....

The FIA can say that passing a test doesn't mean it's legal, but that's just to cover their arses, just like "following the spirit of rule" nonsense. In any case. if a car does pass a test or scrutineering on any given day, then it by definition, has been passed as conforming to the regulations, its irrelevant if they come up with a different test later on.

The problem is when rules are written by a person, they are locked into their way of thinking how to police them, hence why teams with an open mind find the loopholes.

I think Red Bull has proven to be best lateral thinkers on the grid, a part of the reason they are out in front. And they've done it without asking for dispensations, allowances, or by protesting others. Best example was the double diffuser. NOTABLY Ferrari, and some others were shouting from the rooftops to ban them. Red Bull, although believing they weren't legal, didn't protest. They started designing their own version, and once the rule was clarified, worked on adding to their own car..... Just the way it should be.

[spankyham]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

The regulations are written rules, the tests check whether or not something is within those written rules.

Say for example the FIA didn't think to measure the engine displacement but the regulations stated a max of 2.4L and some team took advantage and used a bigger engine and won a load of races because of that, then at some point the FIA decided to start checking engine displacement, would you still feel that the team should be allowed time to conform to the regulations?

It depends on whether or not it can be proven that the team used a component not conforming to the rules in past races. In your particular case, since teams have to use the same engines for every race, I would call that essentially proven.

But, if I am not mistaken, teams can change parts on the chassis, like the splitter, any time. So how can the FIA prove that a splitter was breaking the rules in the past if the old tests didn't fail it?

The reason I posted the rules were because they represent a significant change. Article 3.17.8 means that, even if a car passes a test, it could still be cheating its just that a different/tougher test needs to be devised to show it.The test that "counts" is what is in the regulation which is any part of the bodywork which "appears" to move or is "suspected" of moving.

The question of retrospectivity that acosmichippo raises is interesting. On the one hand he is 100% right, the car being tested probably has changed from the car tested at previous races this year. So, could the FiA demand a car of previous spec be also tested? Also, if the car did fail, AND the FiA believed the elaborate See-saw, coupled with their drivers unusual efforts to hide the bottom of the car, served no purpose other than to deceive the testers then could the team be charged under "bringing F1 into disrepute"?

[racechick]

Is this why Newey went bolistic when his car was upside down on a crane and someone put a photo on you tube?

[bud]

I don't think RedBull will, or should be docked of their wins. Doing that in itself would bring the sport into disrepute.
End of the day RedBull have designed a fast car that passes all required tests. Job well done by their tech guys!

Spanky you gotta admit Ferrari got away with so much s*** in the MSC golden era you can't be bitter about RedBull now...

[spankyham]

I think Red Bull has proven to be best lateral thinkers on the grid, a part of the reason they are out in front. And they've done it without asking for dispensations, allowances, or by protesting others. Best example was the double diffuser. NOTABLY Ferrari, and some others were shouting from the rooftops to ban them. Red Bull, although believing they weren't legal, didn't protest. They started designing their own version, and once the rule was clarified, worked on adding to their own car..... Just the way it should be.

Also good points Bigpat, I think it is not feasible to go back and test cars from previous races.

I do have a couple of questions for you (and anyone else that might care to answer) if you were a team boss:-

1) Would you deliberately go against a written rule in the design/build of your car?

2) If you did 1) would you hide it if you could?

3) Is doing 1) &/or 2) "cheating" or "lateral thinking"

[spankyham]

Is this why Newey went bolistic when his car was upside down on a crane and someone put a photo on you tube?

Yes

[racechick]

I do agree with Bud though, they can't ban Red Bull retrospectively because they themselves are inept at policing their show. There was enough debate about Red Bull being illegal at the start of the season, thats when the FIA should have acted. its too late now.

[spankyham]

I don't think RedBull will, or should be docked of their wins. Doing that in itself would bring the sport into disrepute.
End of the day RedBull have designed a fast car that passes all required tests. Job well done by their tech guys!

Spanky you gotta admit Ferrari got away with so much s*** in the MSC golden era you can't be bitter about RedBull now...

There were things I didn't like and I said so at the time, but I'm sure all teams have similar. But, that wouldn't make it right now for Red Bull, or any other team to benefit from what might be cheating. And, I'd also point out that Ferrari wouldn't benefit this year, McLaren would win the WCC and probably JB or LH would win the WDC as we just don't have the car to compete this year (but watch our for us next year

[bud]

I wouldn't want either McLaren nor their drivers to win the title that way though.

[bigpat]

but aren't the tests and regulations one and the same? I don't see how you can separate them.

The regulations are written rules, the tests check whether or not something is within those written rules.

Say for example the FIA didn't think to measure the engine displacement but the regulations stated a max of 2.4L and some team took advantage and used a bigger engine and won a load of races because of that, then at some point the FIA decided to start checking engine displacement, would you still feel that the team should be allowed time to conform to the regulations?

It depends on whether or not it can be proven that the team used a component not conforming to the rules in past races. In your particular case, since teams have to use the same engines for every race, I would call that essentially proven.

But, if I am not mistaken, teams can change parts on the chassis, like the splitter, any time. So how can the FIA prove that a splitter was breaking the rules in the past if the old tests didn't fail it?

The reason I posted the rules were because they represent a significant change. Article 3.17.8 means that, even if a car passes a test, it could still be cheating its just that a different/tougher test needs to be devised to show it.The test that "counts" is what is in the regulation which is any part of the bodywork which "appears" to move or is "suspected" of moving.

The question of retrospectivity that acosmichippo raises is interesting. On the one hand he is 100% right, the car being tested probably has changed from the car tested at previous races this year. So, could the FiA demand a car of previous spec be also tested? Also, if the car did fail, AND the FiA believed the elaborate See-saw, coupled with their drivers unusual efforts to hide the bottom of the car, served no purpose other than to deceive the testers then could the team be charged under "bringing F1 into disrepute"?

That is pointless, because the FIA don't know what spec was on the car at a previous race. The team would simply provide a conforming part, and say" here is the part ( or the same specification) from such and such race, test it".... The FIA wouldn't know if it was only used in practise, during the race prior etc. It's impossible to police....


Where the FIA is in a jam in my opinion, is that they use physical tests, that require careful set up procedures, and the tests evolve. It it were a case for a simple measurement, its simple, pass or fail...

ALL the teams push the boundaries of the rules. That's what it takes to win, simple. Every year, a number of teams take 2-3 attempts to pass crash testing, as they want to minimise any extra material needed to pass, as its extra weight. Once a car passes the set minimum standard, is it deemed safe to race. The regulations are DEFINED by the passing of tests. You do that, you ARE legal....

As for your 3 questions spankyham: (in my opinion only)
1. No. Consciously designing something that is blatantly outside the rule is cheating. Cheating is actually quite easy. Being fast and staying legal is the challenge racers live for.In my experience real racers don't want to win by knowingly cheating. There is a personal satisfaction that comes from it.

You always read the rules, and tests, in order to try to exploit them to gain maximum advantage, that is perfectly normal. Note, that I said exploit, not exceed.
If a cars legality is governed by passing a minimum standard of a test, that is what to design for, no more, no less......

2. I think that if you answer yes to No. 1, you are automatically obliged to try and hide it, aren't you. The idea of cheating is to HIDE an unfair advantage. Red Bull's alleged see-saw splitter is available for all to test... using the FIA procedure. They haven't "deliberately attempted to deceive regulators, or deliberately circumvent regulations, by avoiding detection of a non-conforming component".....

3. Answering yes to 1 & 2 means that you fundamentally attempted to avoid detection of an KNOWINGLY illegal component, so you are cheating...

Example of illegal, but not cheating:
Montreal 2005... Williams fitted new brake ducts to help with the the huge braking loads and temperatures of that circuit. Post race scrutineering showed the ducts extended in board of the front wheels 10mm further than allowed. The cars were disqualified from the Grand Prix. Williams were not charged with cheating, as the team did not try to hide or conceal them, to avoid detection, but admitted to making an error in reading the regs....

Examples of lateral thinking:
As we know, NASCAR races are sometimes decided on fuel economy. NASCAR specify the maximum fuel tank capacity allowed, including the filler neck & hose. One smart cookie realised, probably by accident when building the fuel system with a spool of fuel line, that there was no rule on fuel line length. So the team simply ran hose back and forth under the car, between the tank & carby. When scrutinised, the tank conformed, but the car had an extra 2-3 litres of fuel in the fuel lines under the car, squeezing an extra out 2-3 laps out of a fill..... Needless to say, NASCAR, and numerous classes, now mandate fixed lengths, and maximum hose diameters......


Back in the day, one of the race cars I worked on, used production based engines, and specified parts, including a 90 degree intake elbow to the inlet manifiold. The rules allow porting (removal of material), but not adding, such as welding, or putty etc. This rule is very common in racing worldwide.....

The 90deg elbow, had a depression cast into it, from factory, which inhibits flow, so each grind out as much as we can get away with, before we brake through the wall. If you weld extra material to the outside, it allows removal of more material for better flow. Problem is if you see to outside "not as cast", it's illegal.
So we smoothed out the exterior weld, and had that shape cast by a foundry, machined it all up, with the optimised internal shape. When scrutineered, it could be seen the outside was in an "as cast " condition. We never tried to conceal anything. We REALLY carefully read the wording, not 'the spirit of the rules" of the rules, and gained 5 BHP. I believe we were lateral thinkers....

Examples of cheating:
Rally Australia 1995. Toyota TTE Celicas, are visually faster on stages than other makes of cars. With the cars having to breathe through, from memory, 34mm air restrictors, limiting power to about 300 BHP, so the extra speed of the Celica's on straights was highly unusual. Scrutineers impounded their turbos after the rally for a routine inspection. They found a bulky, complex machined collar, that held the restricter to the front of the turbo....

When cut open, they found an elaborate spring loaded system that allowed air to bypass the restrictor, for an estimated 50 hp boost. And it was designed to be installed that when removed by rally scrutineers for air restricter checks, that the unit would snap shut, DELIBERATELY hiding the bypass. Toyota TTE were rightfully banned for 12 months thereafter...

V8 Supercars, Bathurst 2003/2004 (from memory).
With cars limited to 120 litres of fuel, the cars typically get 33-35 laps from a tank. for the 2 years before, the cars were achieving up to 38 laps a tank. With the engines making more a more power, fuel consumption also rises, so the fuel economy seemed strange. Prior to Bathurst that year, the stewards stated that they may instruct teams to dismantle their fuel systems in scrutineering, or parc ferme after the race. Come race day, that cars were back to 33 laps a tank....

Some teams had fitted oversize bladder in the fuel cells, holding up to 130 litres in fuel. Beneath the bladder to place a dense foam. You would fill the tank with 120 litres, and it would pass scrutineering. But, let the car sit, with the fuel load, and after a while, the fuel load would crush down the foam, and allow an extra 10 or so litres in. After the race, all cars are sat in parc ferme for over an hour before release. By the time the winning cars are scrutineered, hours have past. If the the tank capacity was checked, the foam had enough time to re-expand.....

Both these examples were deliberately undertaken, with the intent to hide, and deceive....

Spygate in 2007, showed how severe the financial, and bad PR consequences of being caught cheating in F1 are. I believe only Ferrari, & McLaren could survive a $100 million fine. I believe Red Bull would simply walk away in the same case. Look at Renault wiping their hands of team ownership after Singapore 2008.....