FORUMula1.com

[F1er]

Well where does an exhaust end? where the gas reaches the air? If the gas touches bodywork then technically it hasnt reached its end and said bodywork is apart of the exhaust system right? then blown diffusers are illegal.

The difference is, they've only got 2 exits... do you see what i mean?

What if the octopus is detached from the pipe exit by even half a mm? what then?

Maca will always get the stick from a corrupt FIA,it's nothing new.While other teams' loopholes are turned a blind eye FIA makes their special rulebook for Maca

Wanna show us some evidence?

Of what?

[vaptin]

Well where does an exhaust end? where the gas reaches the air? If the gas touches bodywork then technically it hasnt reached its end and said bodywork is apart of the exhaust system right? then blown diffusers are illegal.

The difference is, they've only got 2 exits... do you see what i mean?

What if the octopus is detached from the pipe exit by even half a mm? what then?

Maca will always get the stick from a corrupt FIA,it's nothing new.While other teams' loopholes are turned a blind eye FIA makes their special rulebook for Maca

Wanna show us some evidence?

Of what?

Of what you just said

[Robert12010]

f1 er is right, its happend even in the four years that ive been watching, they been stung by the FIA in some form, and anybody else its like o well let them carry on JOKE

[vaptin]

f1 er is right, its happend even in the four years that ive been watching, they been stung by the FIA in some form, and anybody else its like o well let them carry on JOKE

Same question to you then.

[F1er]

Well where does an exhaust end? where the gas reaches the air? If the gas touches bodywork then technically it hasnt reached its end and said bodywork is apart of the exhaust system right? then blown diffusers are illegal.

The difference is, they've only got 2 exits... do you see what i mean?

What if the octopus is detached from the pipe exit by even half a mm? what then?

Maca will always get the stick from a corrupt FIA,it's nothing new.While other teams' loopholes are turned a blind eye FIA makes their special rulebook for Maca

Wanna show us some evidence?

Of what?

Of what you just said

For corrupt FIA google "Ferrari's secret VETO''
For loopholes of other teams look how long it took FIA on DDD/Flex wing saga to say anything
For Maca getting screwed look at history,relationship between Ron/Bernie/Ferrari etc and see how many times Maca benefited or Ferrari did.

Nothing new here,lets move along

[vaptin]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

[F1er]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

Yes I'm fully aware; static/no flex,full speed/flex ,DDD a hole is not a hole until it's a hole,whatever,looks like a case of an exhaust it's an exhaust till it's not,the only Problem is that Brawn doesnt work for Maca.

I'm fully speculating since no official statements are made

[vaptin]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

Yes I'm fully aware; static/no flex,full speed/flex ,DDD a hole is not a hole until it's a hole,whatever,looks like a case of an exhaust it's an exhaust till it's not,the only Problem is that Brawn doesnt work for Maca.

I'm fully speculating since no official statements are made

Or you mean you don't have any actual evidence that a "special" rule book is applied to McLaren?

[F1er]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

Yes I'm fully aware; static/no flex,full speed/flex ,DDD a hole is not a hole until it's a hole,whatever,looks like a case of an exhaust it's an exhaust till it's not,the only Problem is that Brawn doesnt work for Maca.

I'm fully speculating since no official statements are made

Or you mean you don't have any actual evidence that a "special" rule book is applied to McLaren?

Not yet,but I reckon it will be big news very soon. Another "Gate". Bet on it

[racechick]

theres an article in autosport about innovations and how they need to be invisible to be effective. The article says Red bull have something in the carbon fibre to make it flex(ok im not technical and Im trying to remember ) But it cant be detected and it cant be copied. F-duct copied then banned . Cud be why Mclaren missed the first test...to avoide copying. As i understand it the exhaust goes under the car through varying sized pipes(because its such a long way) to an octopus box made of ceramics. The absence of an exhaust aletred people to something unusual. At the moment it isnt working, but the article thinks this is because the air coming off the front wing isnt behaving as the wind tunnel expected it to. if they can sort out the front wing the exhaust system should work (its cost lots to develop, like the red bull front wing)

[vaptin]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

Yes I'm fully aware; static/no flex,full speed/flex ,DDD a hole is not a hole until it's a hole,whatever,looks like a case of an exhaust it's an exhaust till it's not,the only Problem is that Brawn doesnt work for Maca.

I'm fully speculating since no official statements are made

Or you mean you don't have any actual evidence that a "special" rule book is applied to McLaren?

Not yet,but I reckon it will be big news very soon. Another "Gate". Bet on it

Yes, and if its said to be illegal when it isn't, McLaren can take it all the way to court.

[Jensonb]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

The flexi-wings are technically still an example as they only still exist because a loophole has been left unclosed - namely, that the regulations define the rule in terms of the test. Which is logically stupid once you know the test is flawed. However, technically, you can't be held accountable to the spirit of the rules - except when you can. Which was the case with BAR in 2005.

Basically, the FIA has proved very inconsistent with regards to what constitutes a loophole and what doesn't, as well as with how they respond to a loophole's discovery. Double Decker Diffusers? They consciously allowed them (TWICE) - before they didn't. Enhanced-Capacity Fuel Cell? Immediately thrown out on discovery (note the system was not unique to BAR). RW80? Allowed to stay whilst regulations were the same...Then outlawed by altering the rules to eliminate the loophole. Flexible front wings? They changed the test in response to the loophole. Except they didn't change the test in the right way. And then proceeded to not close the loophole.

These are all very similar exploitations of the letter of the rules (As many of you know, in my personal opinion, I find the flexible front wing case to be particularly egregious mainly because the writing of the rule is so stupid as to make it incredibly frustrating. Especially in light of the Enhanced-Capacity Fuel Cell debacle. However, that's just me, and I fully understand others amongst you might find other examples, such as the DDD to be the more egregious ones) which the FIA has handled in radically different ways.


*Note for the record I do not subscribe to claims of anti-McLaren bias in the FIA and instead prefer to tar them with the, in my opinion, far more damning charge of incompetence-related inconsistency.

[vaptin]

I dunno about the BAR situation, it was back before I watched f1 in detail.

Opposing teams took the DDD case to court, it was found to be legal. Yes, the problem clearly is the FIA no anticipating and tightening up the rules. It was the rules that were the problem, the device didn't go against the rules, but it should've as in this case the rules should've been different (or they went against the spirit of the rules, not the wording).

The flex wing though, it more or less will always be judged according to the tests. From my understanding, it isn't banning flexing, just that the flexing has to be linear.

[F1er]

The flex wings passed all the damn tests, the DDD was a very clever "loophole" it didn't break the rules technically, more went around them.

The flexi-wings are technically still an example as they only still exist because a loophole has been left unclosed - namely, that the regulations define the rule in terms of the test. Which is logically stupid once you know the test is flawed. However, technically, you can't be held accountable to the spirit of the rules - except when you can. Which was the case with BAR in 2005.

Basically, the FIA has proved very inconsistent with regards to what constitutes a loophole and what doesn't, as well as with how they respond to a loophole's discovery. Double Decker Diffusers? They consciously allowed them (TWICE) - before they didn't. Enhanced-Capacity Fuel Cell? Immediately thrown out on discovery (note the system was not unique to BAR). RW80? Allowed to stay whilst regulations were the same...Then outlawed by altering the rules to eliminate the loophole. Flexible front wings? They changed the test in response to the loophole. Except they didn't change the test in the right way. And then proceeded to not close the loophole.

These are all very similar exploitations of the letter of the rules (As many of you know, in my personal opinion, I find the flexible front wing case to be particularly egregious mainly because the writing of the rule is so stupid as to make it incredibly frustrating. Especially in light of the Enhanced-Capacity Fuel Cell debacle. However, that's just me, and I fully understand others amongst you might find other examples, such as the DDD to be the more egregious ones) which the FIA has handled in radically different ways.


*Note for the record I do not subscribe to claims of anti-McLaren bias in the FIA and instead prefer to tar them with the, in my opinion, far more damning charge of incompetence-related inconsistency.

Top post.
Lets not forget when Charlie told Renault that DDD was illegal,while he told Brawn it was fine.Than came back with;well the version that Renault was presenting.....was
Like I mentioned earlier, even if what Maca might have found to be a loophole just like DDD,it will be shot down due to reg changes asap,an exhaust it's an exhaust when the gasses blow here,there blah blah blah.
They wont let it slide like they've often done with other teams

[scotty]

Well where does an exhaust end? where the gas reaches the air? If the gas touches bodywork then technically it hasnt reached its end and said bodywork is apart of the exhaust system right? then blown diffusers are illegal.

The difference is, they've only got 2 exits... do you see what i mean?

What if the octopus is detached from the pipe exit by even half a mm? what then?

Maca will always get the stick from a corrupt FIA,it's nothing new.While other teams' loopholes are turned a blind eye FIA makes their special rulebook for Maca

It's still directing exhaust gases though. And there are STILL more than two clear exits. I guess exhaust 'exit' is defined as the point where the gases leave an enclosed space, ie one that has material fully surrounding it. That's what i'd class it as but it's more important what the stewards might class it as i guess. I'm just trying to explain why such a system might be outlawed...

Your sob story regarding McLaren's FIA treatment is somewhat unfounded because if it really were true, then they would have simply banned the f-duct last season and forced McLaren to completely rethink a large part of their aero package, rather than letting them have a nice straight line speed advantage for a decent portion of the season!

All this debate, i dunno why we're all getting so worked up over what is still merely internet forum speculation really