F1 Fanatic

@raymondu999 They interviewed the steward about Vettel putting all 4 wheels off track – he didn’t deny it. He just felt that Vettel gained no advantage from the maneuver and therefore did not warrant a penalty.

Now the FIA of course have a clause that allows them to deal punishment only when they see fit.

It’s very hard to argue that Vettel didn’t benefit when he got pole – in that case, the lap time should have been automatically excluded from consideration. This is the 2nd time that Vettel puts 4 wheels out and gets away with it. By the same token all other drivers can put the wheels out now for the next 10 seasons and veto the steward’s decision and just start from whatever position they qualified in. It would simply be fair.

Ah. I didn’t see that (the interview with the steward).

But like I said, when the stewards see everyone doing it then they turn a blind eye. If they had penalised those off-track in quali, then we’d have 24 cars starting from the pits… Two samples from Q3:

About the skid blocks, there was no infringement, because if the block has wear due to damage (thanks to a kerb hit dislodging a nut or some such scenario) then that is deemed legal. For example Lewis’ t-tray failed in Melbourne 2011, and the stewards also let that go because the plank wear was clearly due to the damaged stay, not due to the car being set at excessively low ride heights.

They can however use their discretion on this. For example, in Spa (I think it was Spa) several years back Schumi V1 had a plank with circular patterns of wear, and was deemed that it was too suspicious to be accident damage.

Red Bull have been involved in some fairly questionable episodes this year. Not just on track, but in terms of their car development as well. They get away with it because they don’t actually break the letter of the rules – only the spirit. If the FIA catch them out, the worst they can do is force the team to remove the parts, and the results will be kept intact.

With such blatant disregard for the spirit of competition, I think the FIA should introduce a rule that states a team is automatically disqualified on their third appearance before the stewards, and instantly disqualiied on any and every subsequent appearance.

@prisoner-monkeys
So they make everything legal to the letter of the rules, and do that 3 times and they get disqualified? Get real PM.

How exactly do you communicate this spirit so that everyone gets an equal understanding? How, if not by words and letters, to which case you are, again – abiding by the letter and wording of the law.

There is no way any court in the world will go by a case on the spirit of the law. Numbers and letters on paper, with a properly defined definitions glossary, are clear-cut and unarguable.

@Kingshark
You have to be careful though – Red Bull are not breaking the letter of the regulations. Installing things such as Traction Control, ABS, adjustable ride height – would.

I’m not condoning what Red Bull does, nor am I condemning it. But the “spirit of the rules” is not an enforceable concept, and never has been.

@crr917 you could potentially write the spirit of the rules – but what happens when someone complies to the wording of this spirit of the rules, but does not comply to the intended spirit?

Or are you going to have to set all the teams asking the FIA if each of their upgrade packages is legal? Because I can tell you now, in the fast-paced world of F1,

You have to be careful though – Red Bull are not breaking the letter of the regulations. Installing things such as Traction Control, ABS, adjustable ride height – would.

Well. Let’s just say Ferrari installed devices in their car that had exactly the same effect as TC, ABS & ARH – but they weren’t quite the same, or perhaps Ferrari “read” the rules differently; so FIA allowed them to continue and keep a perhaps 1.5 second advantage. How would you feel?

Trust me, if I wrote what I really thought about Red Bull; it wouldn’t pass the moderator filter. In fact, Keith would read it, then send it down to hell, then back up, and straight down to hell again.

@prisoner-monkeys

But it’s technically not legal at all

Prove it. Prove that your understanding of the intended spirit is the correct interpretation.

if a team uses parts that force the FIA to make too many changes to the rule book mid-season, then they can be punished for it.

Please define these parts, so everyone has the same understanding.

It’s obvious that they’re abusing the rules

From a personal standpoint, I personally agree. They are. Yes, in ‘spirit’ they’re cheating – but prove that they intended to cheat. Prove that it’s not something they genuinely thought was legal.

@Kingshark

How would you feel?

I would feel that they’ve done a better job of interpreting the regulations, and that the other teams need to catch up. As I said to PM above, “but prove that they intended to cheat. Prove that it’s not something they genuinely thought was legal.”

Trust me, if I wrote what I really thought about Red Bull; it wouldn’t pass the moderator filter.

I’m sorry for saying this. I really am, but reality check – your opinion, mine, Keith’s or any of the users on this site – honestly does not matter in the context of this discussion. You can view them as saints, you can view them as demons – but that honestly doesn’t matter in this discussion.

@Kingshark @prisoner-monkeys
My point – to both of you – is how do you communicate the spirit of the rules, without using words? Because you and I both know that people will end up conforming to the wording of the spirit, not the spirit – because otherwise, then the teams will all claim that the spirit of their design complies with the spirit of the regulations. What then?

I would like to say that there was no disrespect intended in any of this. The spirit of my comment was intended to debate, not to disrespect – if you feel aggrieved, no apologies, because it was never in the spirit of the comment.

@crr917 I do feel there IS a spirit of the rules – but it’s not communicable effectively in a fashion that everyone is guaranteed the same understanding – and given that rocky and uneven standing then no one should be held on it.