He's back, he's back, George is back!
2
Rbr's Car Floor Declared Illegal By Fia
Started by
Quiet One
, Jun 02 2012 12:13 PM
32 replies to this topic
#31
Massa
-
- Pit Crew
-
- 3,074 posts
When you Pic, you win.
- Gender:Male
- Location:250 miles from a Cyndi Lauper music video
Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:22 PM
Eric
#32
Rainmaster
-
- Senior Members
-
- 7,461 posts
F1 Ace
- Gender:Male
- Location:The Ning Nang Nong
Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:03 PM
Aw shucks, you noticed! 
Never stay up on the barren heights of cleverness, but come down into the green valleys of silliness ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
#33
dribbler
-
- Senior Members
-
- 7,803 posts
Prostate Senna's fumes
- Gender:Male
- Location:Behind you, waaaaah!
- Interests:Boobs, beer and bikes.
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:48 AM
Rainmaster, on 05 June 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:
I think the lack of protest here is a signal of at least two things, firstly that the development in question was not a particularly blatant or beneficial breach of the regulations (hardly "cheating" in the usual sense of the word), and secondly, indicates the "spirit of cooperation" the teams have reached in recent years.
As pointed out, the main issue here is the system whereby which innovations are approved by Whiting, but are then later banned when other teams decide to kick up a fuss. The process in deciding whether a development is legal is currently: informal (Whiting's direction to a team)>formal (teams dispute it, a clear decision is made). I don't understand why this process should need any informal element at all. If a team wants to pursue an area of development it should be ruled upon as soon as they approach the FIA with it; that makes sense on a cost basis as no money will be wasted developing in an uncertain area, and on a sporting basis so that no "illegal" points creep into the championship*.
*Illegal is in inverted commas. The developments as a result of such a system could not be considered "illegal" as they were previously approved by the authority. Ergo, Red Bull did not cheat here because the design only just became illegal.
As pointed out, the main issue here is the system whereby which innovations are approved by Whiting, but are then later banned when other teams decide to kick up a fuss. The process in deciding whether a development is legal is currently: informal (Whiting's direction to a team)>formal (teams dispute it, a clear decision is made). I don't understand why this process should need any informal element at all. If a team wants to pursue an area of development it should be ruled upon as soon as they approach the FIA with it; that makes sense on a cost basis as no money will be wasted developing in an uncertain area, and on a sporting basis so that no "illegal" points creep into the championship*.
*Illegal is in inverted commas. The developments as a result of such a system could not be considered "illegal" as they were previously approved by the authority. Ergo, Red Bull did not cheat here because the design only just became illegal.
We are not alone...
Listening to MSTRKRFT - Fist of God
Music connects people through the unspoken appreciation of something that sounds right. Something that taps into the deepest corners of your soul, making you feel alive. When someone else gets it too and you know they do, it feels beautiful.
"To be brutal and honest I don't have a thin skin and others who whine over every little thing will not curry favour. I'm just going to try to keep this place fun, as it has been for all of these years." Pumpdoc, 8th Decemeber 2010.
Music connects people through the unspoken appreciation of something that sounds right. Something that taps into the deepest corners of your soul, making you feel alive. When someone else gets it too and you know they do, it feels beautiful.
"To be brutal and honest I don't have a thin skin and others who whine over every little thing will not curry favour. I'm just going to try to keep this place fun, as it has been for all of these years." Pumpdoc, 8th Decemeber 2010.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
