Interestingly the section about regulating ERS includes the following. Which whilst not exactly explicit is a lot les grey than the fuel section which does not contain an equivalent rule. 5.2.5 Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the FIA data logger in order to verify the requirements above are being respected.
Nope, but the FIA might complain if a team used their own homemade ruler and refused to accept the readings of the FIA one
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank. If it's RB's own sensor - it wouldn't be FIA homologated and hence doesn't count against this rule.
They might, and have in this instance! However if that team can prove their own is accurate and the FIA's is not, then they should be reinstated. This would be easy with a ruler, but this case is going to boil down to whose fluid dynamics can be proved to be right wrong and where does the burden of proof lie once the sensor is wrong. It raises another interesting question for me. If the sensor fails or becomes disconnected in the race - are you allowed to do whatever you like, or can the FIA force you to prove you complied throughout. The rules don't mention that either.
Aaaah. So just poor wording on that particular regulation. They might have an argument if they can prove they were within the limits.
Its a interesting problem thats for sure. How do you prove something like this. Both sensors will have the right 'sums' but one or the other was simply calibrated wrong. The cars been disassembled and reassembled once already, and given the recent claims that the sensor was only fractionally out why would you take the risk? Thats the part I don't understand.
If we're talking such small numbers and other teams were outside the limits during the first half of the race, would a penalty have been more fitting than disqualification? Regardless of who's right, RBR must have known that potentially losing position to Magnussen would be better than the inevitable fall-out from ignoring the instruction.
For each contrivance, it seems you need another whole sub-section in the rule book to deal with ambiguities and alternative interpretations. Too many contrivances, too many f@(£ing rules. Should be a simple -have car, have driver, will race.
It is very difficult to make any statement which completely side-steps the semantics of 'interpretation'. For anyone who has set exam papers or instruction manuals, or definitions for working practices, or health and safety, or set codes of practice such as laws – as well as the consequences of transgressing them, or pretty much anything, they will know there is a danger that some part of it may contain a literary weakness. Therefore it is in the interests of rule makers and definition writers to examine their own constructs in very fine detail before setting them in stone; they must expect them to be hacked at by those intent on exploiting the slightest crack. This is why it is so important to encourage a general respect for the idea behind the rule; what its philosophy is; and that all parties adhere to 'the spirit' of any particular rule, such that it is equal (or at least, as equal as possible!) for all. Never is this more the case than when it concerns an ongoing and dynamic situation. And I can think of nothing more dynamic, constantly evolving than F1, the concept of which deliberately pushes the boundaries of what is known… It's an ongoing thing. Red Bull, like any other competitor, have a right to pick at the definitions and the rules, but I do not believe they have the right to expect to be able to behave differently, or be judged differently to others (just as Ferrari have done for so much of their history). I could add that the fact that Ferrari were treated as 'a special case' so often is the underlying reason that Red Bull have adopted similar strategic thinking; and that they were allowed to 'misbehave' and become the spoilt child, was and is the fundamental problem. After all, Red Bull have never made a secret of their intent to out-Ferrari Ferrari. The FIA have an opportunity. They have an opportunity to firm up the barriers against an incoming tidal wave, to sit out and weather the storm. Or they have an opportunity to open the flood-gates and allow foundations to be attacked or washed away. Again. THEY MUST GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME.
RBR lost the 2009 WDC & WCC because of Brawns double diffuser, which was quite blatantly against 'the spirit of the rules', all of RBR's pointing to the sporting regulations has come since then, because they see exactly what the score is, f**k the the spirit, it's really all about what is down in black and white, how many examples would you like? So far the way I see the black and white is, if the fuel flow exceeds 100kg/h it is illegal, if it doesn't, it isn't. That a sensor must be fitted, where it is to be fitted and that there must be only one, is in the rule.,That the reading on the sensor is what the teams MUST measure their fuel flow by, isn't a rule. If they can prove they haven't broken the rule then I can't see the FIA having any other option but to reinstate, they knew on Friday the sensors were faulty and giving 'inconsistent' results, they knew on Saturday that the repacements were also faulty the same way, so they made them change back to the first faulty one on Sunday. Then they've just guessed an offset, because if they knew what they were doing, they would've got it right the first time and not be forced to make a rush job of it, which it is as, by all accounts, they've been wildly inaccurate from the off.
For me its irrelevant. They refused a directive from race control which others obeyed. They wouldnt refuse a instruction to do a stop and go, to do a specific delta time under a saftey car or to give a place back if instructed (even if they didnt agree with the penalty or the recordings) so why should they refuse this directive? It doesnt matter if it is right or wrong, you obey race control and then take it up with them later. For me it would be no different if they ignored any of these instructions on the basis that they would contest it after the race - in which case you may aswell not have rules.
It's way past my bed-time but I've enjoyed the quality of this debate. What a good forum this is! Goodnight.
Really must stop looking in on here: it's not helping insomnia. I think the points Miggins and Smithers are making serve to demonstrate the philosophical nature of defining something. Anything – including rules. No matter how one tries, there can be no ultimate truth, only one's interpretation of it. We are left no alternative but to apply common sense to find agreement, which itself requires agreement upon the term 'common'. Our understanding of what is RED is only arrived at through finding a consensus of opinion using the same (or similar) description, thus reaffirming and reinforcing both our opinion of what the colour is, and the understanding (our interpretation of reality) that there is common agreement about it! Rules, no matter how rigid they may at first appear, are no different. There will always be a requirement upon anyone and everyone subjected to them, to agree upon what they and the words with which they are described actually mean. This can only come about through consensus, which also relies upon language (and let us remember that F1 is very much an international phenomenon). And however we may wish otherwise, consensus is only arrived at through some understanding of the idea behind what is being defined; the 'spirit' by which and through which such an idea or purpose (including that of a rule) came about! Therefore the thinking behind a rule cannot be ignored. Ever. It is what defines it. Laws are no different. No matter how they are written, they will always be subject to the whim and whimsy of lawyers, who will argue a point according to which side of some 'fence' they stand. And the law is either redefined or reaffirmed according to the outcome! In the current debate, it seems to me that Red Bull do not agree with, or are at least out of step with the consensus. Then again, my version of 'dark grey' may fit someone else's description of black…
Interesting, for me the magic of F1 has always partly been about the cleverness of finding the most advantageous interpretation of the rule. An example - 1996 Williams with the head protection that was only of the requisite height where it was measured for best aero effect, as opposed to the bulbous Ferrari of that year (actually as that was a safety rule, I'd be prepared to concede that some kind of "its for safety and your solution can't be demonstrably less safe" concept should be enforced , but the idea was genius - in my opinion - all the same). The problem with working to the spirit/idea is that there's no logic to follow, so you are open to accusations of bias. I think the FIA accepts this which is why they follow the legal route of following the letter of the law and then have a rule 2.5, which means at least they only have to put up with anything they didn't intend for 1 season (unless it's overly effective diffusers and the teams repeatedly find ways to circumvent each technology getting banned!). 2.5 New systems or technologies : Any new system, procedure or technology not specifically covered by these regulations, but which is deemed permissible by the FIA Formula One Technical Department, will only be admitted until the end of the Championship during which it is introduced. Following this the Formula One Commission will be asked to review the technology concerned and, if they feel it adds no value to Formula One in general, it will be specifically prohibited. Any team whose technology is prohibited in this way will then be required to publish full technical details of the relevant system or procedure.
sorry for your insomnia cosi As Spotita says, the ingenuity and the sheer deviousness of the designers and their use of language and it's engineering implementation is to be admired. in the modern era we've had F-ducts, Double diffusers, EBD, DDRS, coanda exhausts and, for me the best of all, the flexi-wings they tried so hard to ban but couldn't quite do it, now RBR are trying to exploit another bit of print, everyone does it
They really should have tried to settle this before this race. We could wind up with two contested results depending on what RBR choose to do this weekend.
If red bull run their own meter then surely for consistency the FIA should disqualify them after qualifying and after the race?
Ideally Red Bull will have a FIA sensor that they accept as working, otherwise it's going to get messy pretty soon as precedent after precedent is set
