More blather from Charlie Whiting, courtesy of
PitPass.com, excerpted
verbatim as suits my bent:
Q&A with Charlie Whiting
25/06/2011
Engine map change restrictions
PP-What will happen if the weather conditions change between qualifying and the race?CW- We will allow certain changes to be made for ambient conditions. Normally, we only announce a change of climatic conditions if one (session) is dry and one is wet, but we have indicated to the teams that if there is a change in ambient temperature of more than 10°C between qualifying and the race, we would allow them to compensate for that. But that's all.
[And what if the temperature should change a further 10°C during the race? Or even just 5°C?]PP-What is the goal of implementing this change?CW- A team can't have a base map in the ECU that is only good for a few laps. If you want to use it, you have to use it for the whole race.
[Please cite for me in TR where it forbids a team having an "ECU that is only good for a few laps."]PP-Why do you want to see this stopped?CW- Because it's illegal.
[So why didn't you penalise the teams in violation and leave everyone else the hell alone?]PP-Why will the off-throttle blown diffusers be banned from Silverstone onwards?CW- We know exhaust gasses have an influence on the aerodynamic performance of the car and we accept that. The point is that a design should not attempt to use the exhaust for a completely different reason (aerodynamics as a primary, rather than a secondary effect).
[Please cite for me in TR where it forbids that a team might "attempt to use the exhaust for a completely different reason."]PP-What are the new operating conditions with regard to throttle-opening and spark?CW- We're saying that if a driver comes off the throttle - zero pedal - then the throttles have got to be (maximum) 10 per cent open at 12,000rpm and (maximum) 20 per cent open at 18,000rpm.
[So that still means I can run 100% throttle, 18,000rpm and 0° spark advance at 1% pedal, yes?]PP-Why will this ban appear at Silverstone? Why not earlier?CW- Our argument is that there is a strong case to suggest they (blown diffusers) are illegal. Ultimately, the stewards will decide.
[So you admit you presently are restricting use of technology without knowing to a certainty it is illegal. Why?]CW- We have not had protests yet. I think we got close to a protest in Monaco. I gave the team in question an assurance that we were going to follow this through; we weren't going to give it up. On that basis we haven't had any protests yet, though I have always emphasised to the teams that this option is open to them.
[Mr. Whiting, did you by chance note that this team that "got close to a protest in Monaco," HRT, showed up for the very next race running the very same device on their cars? Can you state now to a certainty that their earlier protestations were solely based on the legality of the device and were not merely self-serving whinging?]PP-There is a perception that decisions like this are political rather than technical, and damage the image of F1. What is your opinion?CW- I'm aware of some stories being written, but to be frank with you, I know it's not a political decision. I know it's purely a technical intervention on our side and I feel perfectly comfortable with that.
["A purely technical intervention," enforced at mid-season, against a system already in use without consequence over seven races, a system never yet protested, which does not explicitly violate any clause of TR apart your "interpretation," an "interpretation" as yet not validated by the stewards. That about sums it up, does it? The stewards have been tied up since March, have they Charlie?]PP-In recent years both the F-Duct and the double diffuser have been banned, but not until the end of the season. Would it not be simpler to allow the current technology to stay in place until the end of this year?CW- No, because the double diffuser and the F-Duct were legal. (In those cases) during the course of the season the teams got together with us and we decided they weren't good for F1 and weren't needed, so we wrote laws to outlaw them. But they complied with the rules, which is why they were allowed to stay until the end of the season. They were completely different to the situation we have now.
[Since by your own admission, the stewards have not yet agreed with your interpretation of TR that exhaust gas overrun is illegal, would not the wiser course of action have been to wait for that pronouncement, then issue a blanket ban, rather than your current piecemeal approach, which only challenges the cleverer of the engineers to find further holes in your preposterously flawed and imprudently timed rule changes? You'll look quite the pikey if those same stewards elect to think (and perhaps actually read the TR) before they speak, won't you Charlie?]I have it on good authority CW only opens his mouth to change his stockings. Or is that Todt?
