Technology or Cheating? A modern view.

[sportsman]

I agree that a reduction in engine size and rewriting the technical regs will ultimately prove beneficial to the sport.Fuel restrictions are also another good thing.
The powers that be at the FIA have woken up and smelled the coffee and realised that unless F1 takes real action in terms of green credentials (thats todays realities) like it or not the sport will come under ever increasing scrutiny.

Restricting the engine power however was for different reasons.Even todays cars have way more than enough power to cause driver blackout in corners.
The fact that they don't is that the cars today cannot generate the aerodynamic grip of previous years cars due to wing restrictions introduced in the last couple of years and this has reduced corner speeds.That is the reason why most lap records even today were set in 2004 and also in 2004 traction control was allowed.
The ground effect cars were banned for much the same reason.Very high cornering speeds was causing drivers to suffer blurred vision, let alone the very spectacular results when the car came "unstuck" for any reason.

I am looking forward to 2013 and the new regs.I know ground effects are due to be allowed then but this will not mean a return to the "sliding skirt" systems used previously.
The 2013 cars will generate the ground effect by clever monocoque floor designs which will reproduce a somewhat similair diffuser effect without all of the turbulence of todays aero systems.
This will result in much better closer racing.The cars will be able to follow each other closely and also overtake.

Tim Routsis of Cosworth has some interesting comments on the 2013 engine.
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft22602.html

 

[DOF_power]

Those were already discussed in this thread: Cheats, scandals and dodgy dealings

So what's the point of this new thread ?!

Bending and breaking the rules, and team orders as well, have been going on since forever, or rather 1906 when the first official Grand Prix took place.

The first aero scandal in Grand Prix racing was actually the aero tail scandal and it took place before World War I, (yes before World War I).

 

[Grizzly]

So what's the point of this new thread ?!

x2

 

[Brogan]

So what's the point of this new thread ?!

Cutting across the circuit or breaking a timing beam prematurely is cheating.

Designing a car to take advantage of poorly written rules and test procedures isn't (according to the FIA).

 

[cider_and_toast]

DOF_Power, You keep missing the point of this thread. It's not about who is cheating and who isn't but about are we more ready to dismiss technical inovation that currently appears in F1 as cheating when we should in fact be applauding the skill of the designers to bring things like mass dampers, F-ducts, flexible front wings and double diffusers in to the sport.

As Bro said, this isn't about running illegal parts, cutting parts of the track or any of the other great cheats and scandels that have hit the headlines.

 

[Speshal]

DOF_Power, You keep missing the point

It's not 1906, 1960, 1970 or even 1980 get used to it.

 

[Grizzly]

Apologies for my sarcastic contribution CAT, I sensibly kept out of here until the DP blurted, but I have to say I think he does have a point, of sorts.

I don't really think there has been much change in attitude or approach at all, and that goes for all involved parties; fans, media, teams etc. The difference is, we (as the average spectator in this instance) are exposed to more information in recent years, have more interaction and have more platforms to discuss this, which is fantastic for us, but really nothing much else has changed IMO.

Im going to justify this in my own Grizzly, long winded, difficult to read blurb in a minute...

 

[Grizzly]

(deep breath..... ready.....)

F1 is a technical exercise, yes we have world driver champions and such, but this is a team sport that is entirely based on technical R&D - read: pushing boundaries. (Yes even the driver, a vital part of a team, is actually just another technical element of the team that also has rules and criteria to meet – not a bash on drivers, just relevant).

Now way back when; F1 or GP racing was an all out slog on developing THE fastest road going machines possible. Pretty quickly we reached beyond the limits of the squishy bit in the middle and we had to in some way put limits in place. I don't know the intricacies, time scale or order that these changes began taking place, but I should think one of the first rules in F1 was to do with engine capacity - the potential for power.

The ethos of the sport did not change at that point, nor has it ever since. The only difference is that as we have developed around the boundaries set in place, further rules/boundaries/limits need to be set. That is how the rule book is evolved.

For a technical exercise to develop in any way, you must push beyond what you know and understand, you must experiment and test, review and renew… Some of the most talented and forward thinking individuals work for F1 teams, to achieve the development necessary to win. Consider just how close these teams are over a lap, we’ll separate out the new operations we have in F1 this year just for a minute and consider the 3000 individual parts and 500+ individual people making it happen in the remaining 9, for the most part in secrecy, we then put them on a track and they all cross the line within one second of each other.

So how is one technical outfit to beat the other then when to all intents and purposes, they all manage to extract 99.9% of the potential from the boundaries set?
They MUST go over and beyond the boundaries. They must do something new. They must innovate. Once we see that development and observe its results on track, we make judgement. Has that ever changed? No it hasn’t.

How we interpret the combination of rules and innovation is (all be it influenced by many things) an individual process. This is why we have law courts to quantify subjectivity.

We (the spectators again) see a lot more of this than we used to, we used to hear maybe just the results of, but now we can discuss and speculate all the way. Brilliant. But I don’t see any reason to suggest criticism or cynicism towards the people or the discussions that take place over the technical innovations within the sport. It is actually a vital and healthy part of R&D.

We have two great working examples this year to look into.

So: Working around the rules..

We (everyone connected to F1 – except obviously RBR/RBR fans) should and must get angry and maybe even a little jealous when we see flexi wings, it’s perfectly healthy, because of a number of things. Including the - Why didn’t we think of that first? We know our interpretation of the rules does not allow what we see to happen, but it does happen and does (did..?) meet testing criteria. As a team we want that edge. We want that speed. How do we neutralise the advantage? We do a number of things, we need to get the rules clarified, we need to decide if we can put the resources into developing the same/better kit, we need to do everything we can to neutralise and overhaul them, which will be by any means necessary and available. By calling it cheating, illegal, by arguing our point and then at the very same time by researching and developing. We must, we absolutely must to move forward together. This is a fight to be the best.

Slightly different: Interpretation of the rules…

Similar to above, the F-duct quickly caused controversy, but the controversy disappeared slightly quicker, it is legal and within the rules, once you interpret them in the same manor. It did and should have caused all the same emotions and physical reactions as the front wings, the difference being it was justified quickly, meaning there was one clear route, get one yourself.

Where oh’ where do my ramblings lead? They lead to my own opinion that: The criticism your original post suggests is actually one of the most important, essential, and beautiful parts of the sport. So, there is no point to this thread, there is no point to my ramblings, there is no discussion to have, except that we (everyone again) should be discussing, arguing, accusing, back stabbing and fighting, just as the teams, governors, fans, drivers and suppliers do.

It is the very essence of the sport, the very essence of life, and it is how we move forward.

Now all of ^THAT^ is why i tried to keep my mouth shut in the first place.

 

[fat jez]

Bloody good post, Grizzly

 

[Brogan]

Indeed!
You should open your mouth more often Grizzly

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

F1 has a long history of teams bending the rules and looking to find holes in the lettering of regulations.

In the old days most of these would be considered Great technical innovations (like the brabham mentioned earlier), but today there is a new buzz phrase drummed up by the teams 'sprit of the regulations'

on the face of it it means: something that doesn't break the rules but takes advantage of ambiguity in the rules, but what it actually means: something that should be banned because there getting an advantage of something we did not/cannot/did not have the brain power to think of.

On the whole i think teams just moan more when somebody or some team comes up with an idea another that they not think of, and some of us have just jumped on the band-wagon complaining about it.

 

[cider_and_toast]

Where oh’ where do my ramblings lead? They lead to my own opinion that: The criticism your original post suggests is actually one of the most important, essential, and beautiful parts of the sport. So, there is no point to this thread, there is no point to my ramblings, there is no discussion to have, except that we (everyone again) should be discussing, arguing, accusing, back stabbing and fighting, just as the teams, governors, fans, drivers and suppliers do.

I totally disagree with you that there is no point to this thread as I consider it part of the point of this board for all of us to raise questions and to have them answered and I wasn't making a criticism but more of an observation that I feel there is more of a cynical attitude to technical development these days than there was perhaps in the past.

The fact is that you have stated your response quite brilliantly, there is a point to your ramblings but I did and still do believe there is a discussion to have. You are absolutely correct, we should be discussing, arguing and accusing which I believe was the very point of my post.

Great post.

 

[Grizzly]

I totally disagree with you that there is no point to this thread as I consider it part of the point of this board for all of us to raise questions and to have them answered...

I realised the one paragraph i didn't proof read could strike a chord with its wording... it should have been better worded.

Its not trying to nullify the thread, but perhaps put across why there should not have been a point in the first instance. Guess in a round about way i was trying to come back to the fact that i suggested Mr Power had a point of sorts.. i don't know how to write down what I'm trying to say...

...and I wasn't making a criticism but more of an observation that I feel there is more of a cynical attitude to technical development these days than....

Exactly, not your criticism, the criticism, or cynicism, your OP suggests we posses "is one of the most important aspects blah blah blah..."

Thanks for the positive comments everyone, most unexpected.

 

[DOF_power]

DOF_Power, You keep missing the point

It's not 1906, 1960, 1970 or even 1980 get used to it.

That was my point, partially, some of the innovation moved into cheating territory in time as the rules tightened since the late 60s.

And I repeat "since the late 60s" part.

Sir,

I sometimes wonder if the worlds top class of motor racing is really worthy to carry the world championship. Not long ago, I managed to lay my hands on a copy of the FIA yearbook. To say I was shocked would be putting it mildly: the endless pages of rules design and construction of both cars and circuits, especially in Formula One, are mostly needless and academic, and, for the most part, utterly beyond comprehension. How anyone can put up with such an excuse of a "rule book", or even read it without suffering a mental breakdown, is beyond me. Really the current rules should be much, much simpler and wider, perhaps even allowing cars such as Group 6 sportscars to compete in World Championship Events, after the sad demise of their own formula.

The regulations concerning circuits are even more pathetic. While I can quite see why safety standards must be imposed, there really is no need for such extreme measures as those stated in the FIA yearbook. While run off areas and barriers should be provided, there is no need for reams of debris nets, catch fencing and pathetic, near flush curbs. The CSI seem to think that by making a slow, dull, undemanding circuit, they make for a safe circuit, but this is not so. The stupidest thing of all is "chicane fever". Monza has been ruined that way. Anyone wanting to design a good circuit should go to Donington Park. It is excellent - although spectators should really be allowed inside the circuit. I can't wait for the British Grand Prix to be held there, but when will that be?

Sincerely,


September 1977 issue of Motor Sport Magazine

 

[teabagyokel]

Cheating is not usually a black and white thing. It is all shades of grey.

If you design within the Rules (or the tests made to ensure conformity with said rules) then good luck.
If that does not meet the FIA's aim with the Rules, then the Rule should be changed.

What's subversive about this?