F1 rules, Creative or Prescriptive?

#11

Childhood is measured by sounds, smells and sights before the dark
hour of reason grows.

Someone said that, it applies here.

build

#12

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:33:30 -0700 (PDT), build <buildy (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

OK, as expected more detail required.

In FF aero downforce is not allowed, that is prescriptive.

In F1, aero downforce is allowed within certain envelopes, creative
interpretation is encouraged.

Should F1 be more prescriptive?

What F1 should have is a competent team of rule makers and keepers.

Trouble is, the FIA may have a dozen or so people on the rules(not
counting the OWG). There are probably 3-400 engineers in the F1
paddock trying to work to the absolute edge of(and past) those rules.
The odds are not in the FIA's favor at any time, but they are also
very slow to act on anything that comes up and abandon their own
ideals quite easily.
Keep in mind, this is their daily job, it's not like me sitting here
after a couple of days of absence, weeding through over 300 posts
trying to think through 20 different conversations for maybe an hour
or so while also having other and more important things on my mind.

A good set of rules do not need to have loopholes, but it does have to
encourage innovations within the rules. This can be done by shifting
directions or purposely opening up certain areas and see what teams
will do with it. Though it will cost money, which the FIA turned into
a nasty word.

The idea of dropping to a 50% downforce was great. Sadly, it was not
kept to. When the rules are announced, it must be announced in
conjunction with the desired goal behind the rules and those goals
then have to be protected as the season goes along.
Any team who knows about the goals but goes ahead regardless to
circumvent them in *any* way, should be forced to come in line. I'm
not saying going nuts on them, banning or giving huge fines, but
simply disallow that design as soon as it comes to light that it is
not meeting the desired goal. Make no mistake, the teams always know
when they over step the line and if such FIA actions were a
possibility, loophole usage would drop to close to zero..

With Brawn, whether he did warn or not, be it just paving his way to
court, staking out the scene, or indeed seriously concerned about the
loophole(his team having so much advantage with the DDD i'm sure he
was in tears), in the end it comes down to not respecting that goal.
So that's basically it, the FIA has to actively protect not only the
rules, but the direction they take. If they don't, this is what
happens.

That's assuming that a good direction was taken, but that's for us to
decide..

--

Regards, Frank

#13

On Oct 23, 2:00*am, build <bui... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

There are a number of threads going that boil down to the same simple
question.

Should the the rules allow creative interpretation?
or
Should the rules be prescriptive like Formula Ford?

I reckon they should allow creative interpretation, that is the basis
of F1.

There are two sides to this coin.

As a spectator, who loves reading about genius designers like Chapman
and Murray I agree that creative engineering is wonderful and
exciting.

BUT

It's also a sport and has to be conducted within a set of rules. There
is a long history in F1 of what some would call "creative
interpretation" and some would call "exploiting loopholes". If you
allow that then you might as well tear the rule book up. And changes
are not made just for the hell of it or to screw McLaren and/or
Ferrari, they are often motivated by concerns for safety, for cost
containmnent or for the image of the sport. Individual teams will not
consider these issues - their focus is on running their team as
competitively as possible.

Rules, by definition, have to be restrictive. They also have to be
clear and practical to enforce.

I like to see clever design, and I think there's still scope for it.
What I don't believe we will see any more of are big steps forward
like Chapman and Murray came up with. It's now about incremental gains
and refining of existing ideas.

#14

Frank Adam wrote:

Quote:

in the end it comes down to not respecting that goal.

Well, that would have put paid to the design genius of Chapman, then.

--
Paul-B

#15

On Oct 23, 5:25*am, Frank Adam <f... (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

Quote:

A good set of rules do not need to have loopholes, but it does have to
encourage innovations within the rules. This can be done by shifting
directions or purposely opening up certain areas and see what teams
will do with it.

KERS?

Quote:

The idea of dropping to a 50% downforce was great. Sadly, it was not
kept to.
It was never going to be. Time and time again FIA have introduced

regulations to reduce downforce. And time and time again engineers
find ways of clawing back the downforce that they lost. The best that
FIA can do is to slow down the rate at which downforce increases - but
in the long run it will always increase.

Quote:

Any team who knows about the goals but goes ahead regardless to
circumvent them in *any* way, should be forced to come in line. I'm
not saying going nuts on them, banning or giving huge fines, but
simply disallow that design as soon as it comes to light that it is
not meeting the desired goal. Make no mistake, the teams always know
when they over step the line and if such FIA actions were a
possibility, loophole usage would drop to close to zero..
I'm not convinced by the last part of that argument. A team may KNOW

that they've infringed the spirit of the letter of the law, or they
may WONDER if they have, or they may genuinely believe that they're
within the rules only for the stewards to differ. You should allow for
more possibilities than either absolute adherence to the rules or
dishonesty.

#16

On 23 Oct 2009 07:12:37 GMT, "Paul-B" <paul (AT) rasf1 (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Frank Adam wrote:

in the end it comes down to not respecting that goal.

Well, that would have put paid to the design genius of Chapman, then.

How so ?

As i know it, most of Chapman's inventions were straight up, nothing
against rules or goals. The strut, the monocoque, even the wings. I
think only the skirts were a troubled item from all his inventions.

--

Regards, Frank

#17

"build" <buildy (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

There are a number of threads going that boil down to the same simple
question.

Should the the rules allow creative interpretation?

or
Should the rules be prescriptive like Formula Ford?

I reckon they should allow creative interpretation, that is the basis
of F1.

What do you think?

Why not set a controlled budget and have no tech regs? Perhaps add a
standard set of hidden components: gearbox, tub, wings, electronics and
brakes could easily be standard. Or define areas of the car that are reg
free.

What I would like to see is cars that are different. The rules are so tight,
they might as well have a standard car.

AC

#18

On Oct 23, 9:34*am, Frank Adam <f... (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

Quote:

How so ?
As i know it, most of Chapman's inventions were straight up, nothing
against rules or goals. The strut, the monocoque, even the wings. I
think only the skirts were a troubled item from all his inventions.
Not even. Chose between "perfectly legal" and "not forbidden".

Where he did run into the rule makers was with the twin chassis cars -
arguably they were legal, and certainly they were bloody clever.

There were a lot less restrictions in the rules then. Rules evolve in
response to what people do. Nobody was going to ban skirts or ground
effects tunnels in the side pods because nobody had tried them.

#19

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:27:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 23, 9:34*am, Frank Adam <f... (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

How so ?
As i know it, most of Chapman's inventions were straight up, nothing
against rules or goals. The strut, the monocoque, even the wings. I
think only the skirts were a troubled item from all his inventions.
Not even. Chose between "perfectly legal" and "not forbidden".

Ah, i remembered that the skirts were a problem. Bit of digging shows

it was banned the following year because of safety concerns, so yeah,
different issue. It was well before my time of F1 watching.

--

Regards, Frank

#20

Bob Dubery wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 23, 9:34 am, Frank Adam <f... (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

How so ?
As i know it, most of Chapman's inventions were straight up, nothing
against rules or goals. The strut, the monocoque, even the wings. I
think only the skirts were a troubled item from all his inventions.
Not even. Chose between "perfectly legal" and "not forbidden".

Where he did run into the rule makers was with the twin chassis cars -
arguably they were legal, and certainly they were bloody clever.

There were a lot less restrictions in the rules then. Rules evolve in
response to what people do. Nobody was going to ban skirts or ground
effects tunnels in the side pods because nobody had tried them.

In fact that's incorrect - Jim Hall had used skirts in 1970 on the
Chapparal 2J. The car also used ground effect powered by a snowmobile
motor, pre-dating the Brabham fan car by 8 years and a semi automatic
gear box. This last feature didn't appear in F1 until 19 years later!

Who first stuck a wing on a racing car? Jim Hall, in 1966 on the
Chapparal 2E. Huge, moveable, effective.

--

Chris

I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)