@freelittlebirds – If it’s one thing that Formula One teams prize, it’s confidentiality. I’m sure Red Bull, or any other frontrunning team, would refuse to divulge their “trade secrets” so openly, much less have these loopholes arbitrated by the other teams, their rivals, who could very well either veto it, or legalize it, only to quickly copy it themselves.
F1 is as much an engineering duel between constructors as it is a battle between drivers. I remember watching a documentary interview of former Williams designer Patrick Head. He mentioned that all teams strive to find loopholes in the regulations that they can exploit to gain an advantage.
Consider why the sport is called Formula One. Teams must build the best car they possibly can within the limits of the regulations. If that means inventing “creative” techniques or exploiting loopholes like what RBR and Newey have done, so be it, as long as it doesn’t breach the sporting regulations.
Only when such an invention clearly violates the regulations should there be grounds for a penalty.
If you remember, Sauber were disqualified from the 2011 Australian GP for an infringement with their rear wings. They broke the rules, and so a penalty was applied. Conversely, the Red Bull car, for all the controversy, has always passed FIA pre-race scrutineering. For example, the “holes in the floor” were, at time of FIA inspection, deemed legal to race, so Red Bull did not receive a penalty, even after the subsequent ban on said “holes”.
As such, Red Bull can “get away with it” because, technically, there were never any “transgressions” in the first place. The car and all its technology was legal in the eyes of the FIA, judged to have complied with all F1 rules and regulations, and so RBR were allowed to race it without penalty.