F1 Fanatic

@Asanator Completely agree. Monisha Kaltenborn, who is a professional lawyer herself, recently said this:

Where do we go hunting spirits? That’s a hunt which will not get you far. In continental law, you would say that the spirit is always one of the weakest forms of interpretation. Hunting spirits is too vague a thing to do.

@freelittlebirds Go to any court, and demand a hearing – and say that “Mr. X” (whoever you choose) stole your dog. You can’t prove it, but say you just KNOW he did it. I dare you.

Yes, we KNOW they put stuff on their car on purpose – but we cannot PROVE that they’re doing it to break the rules. They obviously will claim that it’s just a normal aero update.

You cannot punish someone on “I KNOW he did it!” You have to prove it.

Thank you @Asanator & @Girts – exactly my point.

I’m done with this thread. I’ve said what I had to say – and if people still don’t get that the spirit of the rules is unenforceable… then in the words of Alonso…

I give up. I give up.

@freelittlebirds the quote @Girts put in was from a paid-for article on Autosport, IIRC.

Here’s the relevant extract, and the paragraph before:

Protests based upon the ‘spirit’ rarely succeed since it is the wording of the regulations that is decisive. Sauber CEO Monisha Kaltenborn, who comes from a legal background, believes that such a concept has no place in the rules.

“Where do we go hunting spirits?” she said. “That’s a hunt which will not get you far. In continental law, you would say that the spirit is always one of the weakest forms of interpretation. Hunting spirits is too vague a thing to do.”

Here’s a further extract, from the same article:

“We work to the letter of the regulation,” said Gillan. “The name of the game is to keep pushing and to try and find performance. The FIA will react accordingly.

“If you have to rely on the spirit, then the regulation needs a bit of tightening. All of the teams collectively have a responsibility as well to ensure that the regulations are clear. We discuss them every couple of months and with the FIA as well. If there are clear areas where teams are exploiting then they will be discussed. That process happens all of the time and works pretty well.”

@freelittlebirds In August, there was a lot of discussion about RBR’s interpretations of the rules and AUTOSPORT published an analytical article in their features section (subscription unfortunately required) and quoted Mrs Kaltenborn there:

Does the spirit of the regulations actually exist?

@freelittlebirds Yes, no one is doubting they are.

But how would you get the teams to do it? “Hey… we want to do something that’s going to break the spirit of the rules. Could you take a look at it?” If otherwise you have them bringing all their upgrades out – then that would defeat the purpose of the creativity within engineering required to push car development.

Also, how do you differentiate between a “loophole” and something that is “legal?” There is, legally speaking, no difference. Which is why it’s difficult to police

@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.

@freelittlebirds Quite honestly we don’t. What we see in the media, etc is not everything – and not even the media knows everything. Most clarifications only get circulated within the teams, and some never see the light of audiences.

For example there was a clarification after China about the McLaren floor, among others.

@Asanator I think you tagged the wrong Michael there :P

Judging by the number of exclamation points, folks can get pretty sensitive about this topic:-)

Of course, the frontrunner will be scrutinized the most especially when the car is dominant just as Brawn was scrutinized in 2009. And obviously to achieve such performance, the designers must have been more creative in their interpretation of the rules.

I for one personally don’t like this type of racing where the designers can dictate the outcome of the championship more than the driver or the engine manufacturers. I believe there needs to be a balance between those 3 areas.

Red Bull may claim that they have not violated any particular rule but collectively they have otherwise their dominance would not exist. The FIA may feel helpless or powerless to penalize Red Bull but they have the opportunity to impose penalties against the drivers during the race.

Would it be incorrect to say that Red Bull and its drivers have been penalized the least given the number of incidents and loopholes they have exploited over the past 2 years? Is that Red Bull’s real advantage – getting away with stuff that other constructors/drivers can’t?