F1 racing has always been about loopholes. I hate to pull the age card, but back in 1970, the FIA banned all movable aerodynamic devices. Jim Hall built the Chaparral 2J in 1970 that used active ground effects. The car, using JLO fans, was said to theoretically be able to drive upside down as it had so much downforce. Because McLaren, who had ruled the Can Am, did not like the system, they appealed very surreptitiously and dirtily to FIA to get the car banned. McLaren knew fully well that the ban was meant for the flimsy wings that F1 cars had been using, which had caused numerous crashes and wing pylon collapses.

Chaparral 2J:



Fast forward to 1978 when Gordon Murray of Brabham came out with the BT46B fan car. Murray exploited a loophole in the regulations, a loophole so big that you could have driven a semi truck through it. Brabham contended that the fan was for "cooling purposes", but the FIA had to close the loophole, so the car only got one victory with Niki Lauda driving.



Truth be told, F1 has always been about finding loopholes and exploiting them. My hat is off to Adrian Newey and Red Bull. Newey's furtive mind always is finding ways to gain an advantage. Ferrari and McLaren have done this in the past and we see Lotus this year feverishly working to find a better mousetrap. Thus, I totally disagree with the comments made that Red Bull is F1's version of the antichrist. I applaud them for what they are doing and their innovation is what makes me continue to support the team.

 

^ Finding a "better mouse trap" differs from circumventing a FIA directive: no more blown diffusers...RB just took advantage of poor wording and did it anyway...they were creating nothing new or innovative...just employing something everyone of the teams had already done but agreed to discontinue in 2012. IMHO opinion, this is cheating,

Later, Ken

 

First off, there is no such thing as the "spirit of a regulation". I think Brawn, Toyota, et al. proved that when they ran the double diffuser. Secondly, I don't see how what Lotus (and others) tried unsuccessfully to do (brake system) and RB tried to unsuccessfully do (engine map) is any different from what Mercedes GP successfully pulled off (double DRS). They are all trying to push the envelope of what the technical regulations allow. Or in other words, if they can creatively misinterpret a rule, they do, and then the FIA either agrees or issues a clarification. That's simply the way F1, or any heavily regulated sport works. These types of activities are really some of the only avenues left for engineers to improve the car.

Personally I don't see what all of the moaning about engine mapping is about. They're already all using the homologated McLaren ECU, let them map it any way they want. I can't wait to see the furor that the introduction of turbo engines is going to cause, as engine mapping will have an even bigger impact on performance.

l8r)

 

^ Well said. Thank goodness for F1 enthusiasts with some common sense!

 

When Brawn came out with the DD and Button ended up winning Champ., he told all the team at one of the technical meetings in the begining of that year about the opening in the reg's concerning same...and yet all the teams except Brawn went ahead and developed it and U NO the outcome. This is completely different from a ban on DD/blown diffusers which the FIA clearly stated but did not close the door in the wording of the regulations. I think it is clear, at least to me, that RB heard the FIA, as did the other teams, that there was to B no more DD...all the rest have complied except RB...they went ahead and did it anyway because they found a loophole in the reg's.
Now Merc,as U noted, by contrast developed their "automatic DRS " by innovation and in compliance with the rules...i.e., FIA did not say that this approach was banned or not to B implimented...and so it complied with the regs.
To summarize there is a difference between developing a new approach and deliberately circumventing another that has been banned and which all agreed to do so.

Later, Ken

 

"By having a greater variation in its engine mapping, Red Bull Racing was able to both minimise wheelspin and also pump more gases through its engines, therefore helping the aerodynamic benefits that the outfit still gets through the use of exhaust flow at the rear of the car."

Later, Ken

 

^ I understand the effect the RB mapping has. My point was, why is the FIA trying to regulate engine maps at all? Let the teams map them any way they want. If one team is able to extract more performance (aero or engine-wise), then so be it.

l8r)

 

It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a "ban" on blown/double diffusers. The technical regulations were re-written to try to eliminate both concepts by:

a. Calling for further restrictions in the size/volume/shape of the diffuser - this effectively eliminated the double diffuser, although blowing the starter hole is still legal.

b. Specifying where the exhaust pipes could be mounted and in which direction they can point - this effectively eliminates (or at least severely hampers) the concept of a blown diffuser.

Nowhere in the regulations does it state that either a double diffuser or blown diffuser is illegal. If a team can get additional air into the diffuser by some other means, it'd be perfectly legal.

l8r)

 

Well, I think it was ex pres. Harry Truman who said "I don't know anymore than what I read in the newspapers" and I guess I am in the same boat...This from Pitpass: "Given the sport deliberately wrote regulations banning exhaust-blowing as a means of developing downforse, it seems likely that the system [of RB's] will be outlawed" and it now appears that stewards concerns that RB did , in fact, violate same, the FIA has just rewritten the rules to eliminate RB's current MAP configurations: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101496

Later, Ken

 

Ken, sometimes I think that you post comments here just so that you can read what you wrote. You are the only person is this thread who actually quotes and has discussions with himself. If you look through this thread, you will sometimes see 3 or 4 of your comments in a row, each one responding to the previous post. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the sport as there are only a few of us on this forum who even give a rip about Formula 1. However, reading your posts can be very tedious at times and if I want to read F1 blogs, I have plenty of them bookmarked. Are you on any F1 sites where you can post your views alongside all the other comments? I post on Speed, Sky Sports and BBC just to name a few. You get a more balanced viewpoint than just here on this thread.

Great article on the Red Bull engine map controversy by Mark Hughes of Sky Sports. Puts things into perspective: http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/...ap-controversy

 

There are times when one should be silent...for you,this is one of those times.
I am having a conversation with Lud, not U...conversations are between people who recognize one another...at this point you are not one of them.

Later, Ken

 

The article says to me that Red Bull did nothing wrong. It was deemed legal at the time and now they fixed the loophole. They did what a good team should do, they found a legal way to gain an advantage and now that advantage is illegal and they will remove it. If I do something today that is legal and tomorrow they make a law against it, did I commit a crime?

 

I kinda agree with Ken on this ... but you know what the say about opinions. Hats off to RB for bringing about a clarification to the rules.

It depends on whom you ask.

 

The justice system says you can't be held liable for a crime if it wasn't a crime at the time. LOL

And I disagree with Ken. What Red Bull did with mapping was genius. And it was within the written rules.

 

Agreed, I'm annoyed with the FIA for destroying all this innovation, its getting frustrating now. I still would love to see Lotus' movable braking system in action...