That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Printable View
That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
It could very well be that he has only realised that it's illegal subsequently. We may not think this is good enough, but this isn't something that's ever come up before (in recent times, at least) and he is only human.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
It's sometimes worth remembering the latter point in relation to F1. These are people doing jobs and nothing more. No matter how much any of them earn, and how well-known they are, they have to deal with the same sort of things at work as any of us do.
Well the conspiracy theorist's guess (that's me :D ) would be that McLaren could have modified their pre-buckled stay in time (it just needed beefing up), but Ferrari couldn't have got their more complex spring system compliant in time for the race. So rather than have a ruckus at the first race of the season, and set Ferrari back, he fudged it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Sound familiar at all?
Wish I knew what McLaren actually ran in the race. Anyone know? If they did modify it, that would explain why they brought the issue up in the WMSC hearing. Otherwise, that decision looks a bit silly, which is how Nigel Tozzi made them look.
Anyway, back on topic, Damon was quite right, Ferrari did run an illegal floor in Australia, and kept the points.
Yeah, it looks like so many other stupid "FIA favors Ferrari" theories! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
And all those other 'FIA favours XXXX' theories...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
All of this discussion just illustrates why the greatest and most valuable engineer talent that should be most in demand is "cheating without getting caught"
ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Wilderness
sorry it took so long, I forgot all about this thread. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
If the video is accurate, then IMO the spring system was against the aero rules.
The spring system can rotate around the upper and lower pivot points which means it is not fixed on the chassis. And as such is against the 3.15(?) aero rule that prohibits any use of moveable mechanisms.
But the spring system isn't an aero device. Or should I point it out that all the aero parts on the car that are fixed with bolts, that can rotate around their own axis, are illegal than?Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Also the floor can't rotate nor translate, just flex.
In itself maybe not, but isn't at least one of its purposes to improve the aero under the car?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It situates in the airflow, isn't part of the suspension or is governed by any other regulation, Then what is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
A mass damper? :p :