Why is Renault not disqualified for using the mass damper?
Discussion
DOCG said:
Surely they should be disqualified from all races which were run with an illegal car, just as all of Martin Brundle and Tyrell's results were in 1984? Thus giving Michael Schumacher a record-breaking eighth world title?
I thought for a second that you were implying Tyrell’s disqualification in 1984 gave Schumacher her s 8th world title.Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
There was no rule change that made it illegal, the FIA clarified it was in breach of the rules, which meant it was illegal all along. DOCG said:
Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
There was no rule change that made it illegal, the FIA clarified it was in breach of the rules, which meant it was illegal all along. DOCG said:
Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
There was no rule change that made it illegal, the FIA clarified it was in breach of the rules, which meant it was illegal all along. Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
That is not quite true. Parts are often developed to meet testing regimes, rather than the rules. A good example is flexible wings. Rules did not change, merely the method of testing. All of a sudden teams needed to use a less flexible wing. In my view the original wings clearly broke the rules, i.e. illegal. Action should have been taken over teams that needed to change the wings to meet the new tests.MustangGT said:
Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
That is not quite true. Parts are often developed to meet testing regimes, rather than the rules. A good example is flexible wings. Rules did not change, merely the method of testing. All of a sudden teams needed to use a less flexible wing. In my view the original wings clearly broke the rules, i.e. illegal. Action should have been taken over teams that needed to change the wings to meet the new tests.Anyway, there was no appetite to punish Renault, they hadn't done anything wrong, other than to implement something that after a period of consideration the FIA decided they wanted to kill off - for sensible reasons too. Not all areas of innovation are wise to be left to be adopted and further developed by all teams.
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
GlobalRacer said:
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
True, but irrespective of that, the fact that something entirely enclosed in bodywork was deemed an "aerodynamic device" is a bit of a joke anyway!GlobalRacer said:
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
The rule states the wing cannot move, it does not define a limit. The testing method changed, not the rule. The teams had designed movement within the testing parameter. This is not in line with the rule, therefore illegal.MustangGT said:
GlobalRacer said:
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
The rule states the wing cannot move, it does not define a limit. The testing method changed, not the rule. The teams had designed movement within the testing parameter. This is not in line with the rule, therefore illegal.However, once the FIA have applied all required tests to a car/component, they would say it was legal. In the same way a CRB check on a prolific bank robber would say he had no record, right up until the day they find a new way to collect evidence and realise he's robbed 23 banks.
But this is not the same as the mass damper anyway, That was fully legal and within the rules as written - it was only because the FIA determined it was moveable aero that it then became, moving forwards, illegal. They only made that definition as a way to ban it, and it did need banning, but obviously the definition is pretty dumb.
TheDeuce said:
MustangGT said:
GlobalRacer said:
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
The rule states the wing cannot move, it does not define a limit. The testing method changed, not the rule. The teams had designed movement within the testing parameter. This is not in line with the rule, therefore illegal.However, once the FIA have applied all required tests to a car/component, they would say it was legal. In the same way a CRB check on a prolific bank robber would say he had no record, right up until the day they find a new way to collect evidence and realise he's robbed 23 banks.
But this is not the same as the mass damper anyway, That was fully legal and within the rules as written - it was only because the FIA determined it was moveable aero that it then became, moving forwards, illegal. They only made that definition as a way to ban it, and it did need banning, but obviously the definition is pretty dumb.
MustangGT said:
TheDeuce said:
MustangGT said:
GlobalRacer said:
As Adrian Newey (and others) say over and over there is no such thing as the intent of the rules just what they say. If there is a test and the part passes that test then it's legal end of. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to determine what is and isn't flexible would take years and cost millions hence why there are prescribed tests.
The rule states the wing cannot move, it does not define a limit. The testing method changed, not the rule. The teams had designed movement within the testing parameter. This is not in line with the rule, therefore illegal.However, once the FIA have applied all required tests to a car/component, they would say it was legal. In the same way a CRB check on a prolific bank robber would say he had no record, right up until the day they find a new way to collect evidence and realise he's robbed 23 banks.
But this is not the same as the mass damper anyway, That was fully legal and within the rules as written - it was only because the FIA determined it was moveable aero that it then became, moving forwards, illegal. They only made that definition as a way to ban it, and it did need banning, but obviously the definition is pretty dumb.
In a similar vein, why were Renault not disqualified for their own Spygate misdemeanour in 2007? McLaren were DSQ from the WCC and fined $100m for having Ferrari data, but Renault got away scot-free despite being found guilty at an FIA hearing of the same offences with McLaren data they had obtained.
thegreenhell said:
In a similar vein, why were Renault not disqualified for their own Spygate misdemeanour in 2007? McLaren were DSQ from the WCC and fined $100m for having Ferrari data, but Renault got away scot-free despite being found guilty at an FIA hearing of the same offences with McLaren data they had obtained.
Because Flávio didn’t piss Max Mosley off like Ron Dennis did……kambites said:
True, but irrespective of that, the fact that something entirely enclosed in bodywork was deemed an "aerodynamic device" is a bit of a joke anyway!
IIRC the FIA's suggestion was that it was a "moveable device" that influenced "aerodynamics". A bit like Eric Morecambe's piano playing, it was all the right words but not necessarily in the right order...DOCG said:
Slyjoe said:
Because it wasn't illegal in any way shape or form when they started using it. As with all F1 innovations, they are legal until deemed otherwise.
There was no rule change that made it illegal, the FIA clarified it was in breach of the rules, which meant it was illegal all along. https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the-suspension-...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff