2014 – Spirit of the rules
This topic contains 16 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 1 year ago.
3rd February 2014, 0:56 at 12:56 am #134156
Is anyone keeping track of the list of items breaking the spirit of the rules this year? so far I have heard Lotus nose, and McLaren rear suspension (both of which I would love to understand better).3rd February 2014, 1:41 at 1:41 am #248409
Possibly Merc cameras3rd February 2014, 4:51 at 4:51 am #248410
Ah the “spirit of the rules”. Every time I hear an F1 engineer utter that phrase all I hear is “they thought of something we didn’t, it is brilliant and now we are going to try have it banned because we can’t retrofit it to our car”.3rd February 2014, 11:11 at 11:11 am #248411
One could argue that all “finger” (or insert name of choice here) noses are not conforming to the spirit of the rules, which I think were supposed to achieve something like the nose on the Mercedes.
No doubt Red Bull have done something that isn’t within the “spirit of the rules” too, but we haven’t found it yet :P3rd February 2014, 11:36 at 11:36 am #248412
I love it! No matter how tight they get with the rules, there is always a way around!3rd February 2014, 12:10 at 12:10 pm #248413
There is no such thing as a ‘spirit’ of rules. There are the words of the rules, and nothing else. If something complies with the wording of the rules, then well done to them. That’s what F1 is all about.
The only thing I think may be slightly dubious is that the intention for the rules with regard to the nose, was to create a structural component low down to prevent the danger of a car launching or causing a nasty t-bone. It seems that while the noses may pass crash tests, on some the forward protrusion isn’t actually a strong structural component and so may not necessarily be safe. In which case the FIA may want to issue a clarification. But as it stands, it’s all legal. And, in the case of the noses, was obvious and predicted as soon as the rules were published.3rd February 2014, 12:19 at 12:19 pm #248414
I agree with what you say, except that there is a “spirit of the rules”, which I define as “the intended meaning or outcome of the rules, assuming no loopholes are exploited.” I don’t think that the teams have to follow the “spirit of the rules”, because it’s essentially the job of the designers to find loopholes, but doesn’t mean that the “spirit of the rules” doesn’t exist. Replace “spirit” with “intention” and you get the same thing – the “intention of the rules”.
Sorry if this makes no sense, but it’s nearly 11pm here and I’m tired :P3rd February 2014, 14:14 at 2:14 pm #248415
In F1 (and I guess in Law too) there isn’t the “spirit” of the rules. Lawyers work hard to interprete laws according to what is convenient for their clients. F1 engineers work hard to say “hey, there’s not small-letters in this rulebook, let’s do this”.4th February 2014, 0:19 at 12:19 am #248416
Is anyone keeping track of the list of items breaking the spirit of the rules this year? so far I have heard Lotus nose, and McLaren rear suspension (both of which I would love to understand better).
How does either of those go against the “spirit of the rules”?4th February 2014, 7:17 at 7:17 am #248417
Did the spirit if the rules come before or after the ghost of the future?4th February 2014, 11:08 at 11:08 am #248418
If the Lotus is against the spirit of the rules then so is the Caterham. They both have two prominent bits on their nose, which seems to be the only issue people have. But neither of them actually are.6th February 2014, 23:10 at 11:10 pm #248419
There is no such thing as a ‘spirit’ of rules. There are the words of the rules, and nothing else. If something complies with the wording of the rules, then well done to them.
I disagree with that. The wording of the rules is used to express the intent of the rules. When a team finds a way design something that follows the letter of the rules, but ignores the intent, then that is against the spirit of the rules.
For example, the FIA wanted to outlaw the practice of off-throttle blown diffusers in 2012. They had made it known for the better part of a year that OTBDs were going to be banned, and they wrote the 2012 regulations with that in mind. However, Red Bull found a loophole that allowed them to use the OTBD concept, but applied it differently to what they had previously used. That, to me, was against the spirit of the rules: the FIA made it clear the concept was banned, Red Bull did it anyway, and they got away with it because of the wording of the regulations.7th February 2014, 12:27 at 12:27 pm #248420
“Spirit of the Rules”…LOL That old chestnut.7th February 2014, 13:09 at 1:09 pm #248421
“When a team finds a way design something that follows the letter of the rules, but ignores the intent, then that is against the spirit of the rules.”
PM- I always enjoy your posts no matter if I agree or disagree with them as you put your point across then validate them with a strong opinion. But I disagree with your “but ignores the intent” comment.
I remember commenting on the Merc test with something like “Newey is a gun of F1 but Brawn is the other barrel” and “it may have been against the spirit of F1 but that hasn’t existed in some time”
The same exists here.
The letter of the law is easy- your front wing is xxxx in width. “Intent of the law ” is so subjective and up for interpretation and thats what makes guys like Newey and Ross Brawn rise to the top! One may intepret design to one extent, the other a master of the ‘rules’.
The FIA cant put specific rules in place then argue “thats not what we meant” as the guys get smarter, they just change the rule next year to make F1 slower again!
The intention (or really interpretation) of the rules is oppurtunity for the designers and enginereers to show ‘their thing’ IMO and that is where they shine.
All RBR done in the past few years was to interpuret rules better than the others, they didnt cheat, they were just smarter. Old school like Ferrari dont like that.
I look forward to your response PM as I know you always make a good one mate :)7th February 2014, 13:12 at 1:12 pm #248422
A 51-point lead at the WDC and an 86-point lead at the WCC after Interlagos and before Abu Dhabi would easily be against the spirit of the rules.
Not that anybody’s going to try to ban it – apart from Bernie, perhaps.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.