Past Mid Season Rule Changes
- This topic has 17 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
The new engine mapping rules that will come into effect soon is not be the first time teams have been forced to change things mid season.
The biggest mid Season changes to my knowledge was in 1976. They banned tall over head air intakes a few races into the season. Good thing to come out of that was that they got rid of monstrosities like this one. http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/internet/124/1036901.jpg
I’m sure the 76 rule changes were planned before the season started, (but I may be wrong)
Any sudden rule changes are usually small, like the mirror thing last year.
What are everyone’s opinions on mid season rule changes? Should they happen or should the FIA Always wait to the end of a season for change?
I strongly disagree with the (effective) mid-season man on off-throttle EBD. To be honest, I can’t really remember the reasons the FIA are giving, but I don’t really care either. I am of the firm belief that mid-season rule changes should only take place on safety grounds, and this is clearly not the case for EBDs.
Rules and regulations should be agreed on PRIOR to the season beginning and then maintained for the entire season, even if this leads to “undesired effects”, of which the FIA obviously sees EBDs as an example of.
My views are not born out of bias to Red Bull, or even the belief that innovation is an integral part of Formula 1 (although it is); my belief is that anything that complies fully to the letter of the rules is legal. I don’t buy into the argument that EBDs do not follow the “spirit of the regulations”, because that’s just clap-trap.
Take the example of last season’s ‘f-ducts’. The regulations said that “movable aerodynamic devices” were banned. As we know, f-ducts were deemed legal because they did not involve movable components- merely the movement of the drivers’ elbow (or knee). The rule did not state, “no movable or adjustable devices are allowed”. If we’re honest, this is probably what the rule was meant to say all along- the FIA never intended for devices like the f-ducts to exist. But the fact is, f-ducts WERE legal, if only because of an accidental oversight on the FIA’s part.
It’s exactly the same situation for EBDs. EBDs have only been allowed thus far because of what is probably an oversight when writing the rules. But that’s not the teams’ fault- they can not be responsible for the FIA’s mistakes. I have no problem with the mistake being corrected AT THE END OF THE SEASON, but to change the rules mid-season is fundamentally wrong.
zadak, come on, I knew the flying teapot was going to on that link before I opened it, I always thought that car was absolute beezer and once the airbox was removed the car didnt look half as good
I suggest that those cars in 1976 looked alot better than the corporate clones we have today
Mid season rule changes have been part of Formula 1 for quite some time. I think the reason this happens is because the designers think of things that the FIA don’t initially think of.
It’s all well and good saying the rules should be more rigid before the season starts so the FIA don’t need to make any changes, but that doesn’t seem to be possible as the boffin designers just find a way around it.
I think a large reason for banning the Hot EBD’s is because it is a waste of fuel, well according to Jean Todt anyway. So I think it is more of an environmental issue.
I’m not sure where I stand on whether they should keep on changing the rules, because on the one hand it could level out the field, but then on the other hand it’s just a pain in the backside.
To be honest, I can’t really remember the reasons the FIA are giving
Because it uses the moving parts of the engine to directly manipulate the relative levels of downforce, the FIA has ruled it a moveable aerodynamic device.
It depends how you interpret the rules.
If you interpret them literally – then there should be no midseason changes. Engineers and designers can find loopholes in the wording and roll with that.
If you interpret them purposively – then midseason changes are allowed. This is because the purpose of the rules is to prevent a certain thing happening, even if the wording is not entirely correct or can be exploited.
The French legal system works purposively as far as I’m aware, so it doesn’t surprise me that the rules are interpreted in this way either given that the FiA is French.
On that argument, the rule changes are entirely fair because exploitation of the rules is unfair. Equally, the other argument is that rules are rules and should have been properly drafted to consider all circumstances. Ultimately the FiA is a political animal in itself which frequently breaks its own traditions with the intention of creating better (sometimes) racing and to keep competition close to ensure that the revenues of the sport remain high. Midseason rule changes will always remain therefore.
My opinion is that where someone is doing something outside the ‘spirit’ of the rules, then this should be changed. However, they should be given an adequate time (4 races for arguments sake) to exploit this. I think the stance this year has been quite fair in this regard. RedBull have done something particularly clever and have exploited it to the point where they have effectively won the F1 drivers championship already. However, its a rule that really needs to be changed as it does not help any ‘green’ image (however unlikely this is) that F1 wishes to have. Its also wasting resources of all the other teams trying to develop their own systems and increasing costs.
When you say mid season rule changes I think of mass dampers and McLaren’s second brake pedal. Not necessarily rule changes, but technologies which were banned part of the way through the season which could have had a massive impact on the destination of the WDC and WCC.
Yeah as GeeMac says, rule changes a more to me, things like changing things like mandatory tyre stops. I guess its just the wording.
Things that get banned are more technical things, so maybe technical regulation changes is more accurate.
The timing is bad, but none of us were really aware of the power and the amount of money being thrown at this thing until into the season. The FIA have a purpose to reduce cornering speeds and basic costs, both of which will be satisfied with this rule change.
Personally I would be disappointed if they hadn’t banned it mid-season, knowing about it. Especially since the whole thing’s going to be banned for next year. It would have been like if the double diffusers had been found illegal in 2009, but everyone was allowed to keep it for the rest of the year because the season had already started. Their illegality might seem dubious to many, but that’s what’s been ruled. To not act would be the worst thing they could do. The double diffuser was also unintended, but it could’nt be proved illegal, which is why they took the course they did and kept it for another year.
And frankly, computers controlling what the engine does is just something I don’t want in F1 anyway. In the case of at least Mark Webber, we have seen that it takes away driver skill. That’s definitely not a trend I want to see continue in F1.
I remember something to do with the Michelin tyres in 2003 that helped Bridgestone catch up. Can’t fully remember the details though.
yeah, I vaguely remember that, was it something to do with the shoulders of the tyre being more/less rounded or something like that? hmmm, I’ll have to ponder on that.
I completely agree with VettelS too.
my belief is that anything that complies fully to the letter of the rules is legal.
But it doesn’t. Like it or not, the rules have been interpreted to show that the OTBDs are illegal. There’s no rule change. They haven’t added anything or taken anything away.
When you move an F1 car, it will create downforce because of the wings, the shape of the car, etc. The OTBD is the engine directly producing downforce that wasn’t there before. That’s why it’s against the rules. There may have been a purposeful effort to declare it so, but the fact remains.
You can claim conspiracy and convenience, but not legality.
Anyway, the mass damper farce was worse than this. There’s also the Lotus 88 twin chassis, which technically complied with the ban on ground effects skirts except for the fact that the car was one giant skirt in itself. It was never allowed to race after mass protest, Keith did an article about it once: https://www.racefans.net/2007/02/01/banned-lotus-cosworth-88-88b/
I would like to refer you to 3.15 of the Technical Regulations, which governs the use of BODYWORK (note: not simply “devices”) as aerodynamic aids. According to this paragraph, such bodywork must “be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)” and must “remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car”.
EBDs constitute bodywork, but they DO NOT MOVE. The fact that hot exhaust gases pass through the diffuser is irrelevant because neither the gases themselves, nor the engine that produces them, is bodywork.
And even if the regulations included engines in such a rule, the fact remains that the engine does not directly influence aerodynamics. The “downforce that wasn’t there before” is a product of the process of exhaust gases flowing through the diffuser. In this sense, exhaust gases are indistinguishable from the air.
To claim that EBDs produce downforce from engine exhaust gases, ergo they are illegal, is like saying that because the engine propels the car forward and allows the front wing to produce downforce, front wings are also illegal.
Interpret the rules and regulations how you will, but so long as a car complies TO THE LETTER of them, they should be legal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.