FIA Engine Mapping clarification a-comin'

Make the exhausts flush with the rear diffuser vertical plane (although that would probably contravene the safety regs on crumple zones).

Oh and while they're at it, get rid of rear wings.

toro-rosso-no-rear-wing.webp
 
Apart from Hockenheim 2010 ;)

Formula One was engulfed in a fresh 'team orders’ row after Ferrari were found guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute by ordering Felipe Massa to stand aside and let Fernando Alonso win Sunday’s German Grand Prix at Hockenheim.
The Italian team were fined $100,000 on the spot, with the matter also referred to the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council “for further consideration” under Article 151c of its Sporting Code, which basically gives the governing body carte blanche to sanction Ferrari as it sees fit.
Click to expand
 
MCLS said:
Without wanting to throw this thread off course (feel free to move the posts about Ferrari's record with the FIA to another thread), it was Ferrari who were also part of the flexi wing debate back in 2010 so since Alonso arrived in 2010 it's not been a clean record at Ferrari! http://cliptheapex.com/threads/red-bull-and-ferrari-front-wings.1634/
Click to expand
Yes, Ferrari were part of the debate but debate was all it was. Both Red Bull and Ferrari past scrutineering as the FIA test stood at the time. Whether we agreed with it or nor is irrelevant, it was an example of clever engineering that was within the tolerances written at that time, which is why the FIA tightened the regulation and their measurement tolerances.
 
Just so people know were I'm coming from regarding this debate, I have no problem with a team pushing technical innovations to the limit and sometimes inadvertently crossing those boundaries, that's the nature of technology driven sport. Were I take issue is a team re-writing the English language to suit their needs, in Red Bulls case, distorting the meaning and intent of a rule. This has nothing to do with technical innovation. Nowhere in the technical regulation 5.5.3 is the word "programmed" or the phrase "programmed to deliver on that day" used. Red Bull, by adding the word "programmed" and the phrase "programmed to deliver on that day", completely changes the intended meaning of the rule. This was not a badly written rule and the FIA shouldn't need to protect themselves and others in the sport, from a team restructuring a sentence and adding or changing a word to alter the meaning of a regulation. As I said, this has nothing to do with technical innovation and verges on being dishonest.
 
Whilst I know it's only FP1, and we can't read anything into FP1, it is interesting that after this "clarification", Red Bull are suddenly 1.7 seconds off the pace of McLaren.....
 

Similar threads

Galahad
Top 15: Best new car debuts in F1
    • Like
2
Replies
26
Views
11K
rufus_mcdufus
rufus_mcdufus
Back
Top Bottom