FIA close Engine Mapping loophole

The FIA has issued a clarification of Article 5.5.3 within F1's technical regulations to the teams ahead of this weekend's race.

And although no official statement has been made public, AUTOSPORT understands the new version of the regulation insists teams will be limited in the amount of adjustments it can make to the engine torque map race- by-race.

According to the clarification, teams will be required to nominate one engine map - as a reference - that they used during the first four events of this season, which must then be approved by the governing body.

Once passed by the FIA, the engine torque curves above 6,000rpm must not vary by more than plus or minus two per cent from that reference map.

Teams will be allowed to make specific requests for changes when races take place in 'exceptional atmospheric conditions' however.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101496

That what annoys me immensely in this sport, these loopholes. There are some of the most intelligent individuals working within this sport and if you give them the opportunity to exploit a loophole then they will. Any documentation which is submitted by the FIA is closely examined by the teams and then wherever they find a 'grey area' of a technical directive they exploit it. It's happened twice now in Monaco & Hockenheim and I expect it won't be the last. The thing which annoys me is that Red Bull have clearly gained advantage in these two races by winning a race, however due to the complications of TD's, it takes way too long for the FIA to make a decision and then they refuse to alter the results of the races afterwards.

Why would the FIA even consider changing the result? Red Bull are just taking advantage of gaps in the regulations (not breaking them) that every other team on the grid would do (and probably have done in the past). It's simply a matter of ethics and there is not one team on the F1 grid that could claim any sort of moral high ground.

From what ive read, gaining an advantage by breaking the rules. As i understand the "bi product" of the torque control is indeed Traction control as it does limit wheel slip. So in my view it has broken the rule of no traction control.

Feel free to discuss futher

Critical_mass wrote:From what ive read, gaining an advantage by breaking the rules. As i understand the "bi product" of the torque control is indeed Traction control as it does limit wheel slip. So in my view it has broken the rule of no traction control.

Feel free to discuss futher

Yes, but as it was only a "by product" or side-effect and not the primary function, Red Bull can claim with some justification that they were not in breach of any rules. Thats why these sort of issues are called "grey areas", because there are no clear definitions or boundaries.

From what I've read, the primary purpose of the engine mapping setup was to allow the driver to keep the throttle on more in slow corners, thus keeping more exhaust gas flowing over the rear of the car. The fact that the reduced torque also reduced wheel slip, was just a happy coincidence.

Under the pre-amendment regulations, Red Bull weren't doing anything that was technically illegal, hence they were not penalised.

John wrote:That what annoys me immensely in this sport, these loopholes. There are some of the most intelligent individuals working within this sport and if you give them the opportunity to exploit a loophole then they will. Any documentation which is submitted by the FIA is closely examined by the teams and then wherever they find a 'grey area' of a technical directive they exploit it. It's happened twice now in Monaco & Hockenheim and I expect it won't be the last. The thing which annoys me is that Red Bull have clearly gained advantage in these two races by winning a race, however due to the complications of TD's, it takes way too long for the FIA to make a decision and then they refuse to alter the results of the races afterwards.

I think the problem here is that all the cleverest people are actually working for the teams...hence all the exploitation. It would be interesting to know what kind of people make up the FIA's rule making body and just how much engineering know-how they can boast.

Its really not worth getting annoyed over. Team have exploited loopholes in the rules for as long as I've been watching F1. They are now having to be increasingly clever about how they do it and I think the advantages they get are steadily decreasing.

It'll be interesting to see if Red Bull are as quick in Hungary.

Okay.

BUT, How many more occasions are the clever people at Red Bull going to find a loophole, exploit it, get caught prior to a race, win or gain an advantage in a race because the FIA have not had enough time to react or understand the loophole, following the weekend result have the loophole closed for the next race but the damage has already been done through a haul of further points for Red Bull and it's a continuous pattern.

Understand my point? These continual advantages without breaking the rules over their rivals stack up, so surely something more official at the beginning of the season should be drawn up or is it a fact that the FIA arent clever enough and dont understand the unlimited boundaries of F1 technology etc

dyrewolfe wrote:

Critical_mass wrote:From what ive read, gaining an advantage by breaking the rules. As i understand the "bi product" of the torque control is indeed Traction control as it does limit wheel slip. So in my view it has broken the rule of no traction control.

Feel free to discuss futher

Yes, but as it was only a "by product" or side-effect and not the primary function, Red Bull can claim with some justification that they were not in breach of any rules. Thats why these sort of issues are called "grey areas", because there are no clear definitions or boundaries.

From what I've read, the primary purpose of the engine mapping setup was to allow the driver to keep the throttle on more in slow corners, thus keeping more exhaust gas flowing over the rear of the car. The fact that the reduced torque also reduced wheel slip, was just a happy coincidence.

Under the pre-amendment regulations, Red Bull weren't doing anything that was technically illegal, hence they were not penalised.

But traction control is traction control. Whether thats intentional or not. Obviously we can partly blame the rule for being a little ambiguous. But RB should and probably did know this would be raised when they developed the map.

I see what JOhn is saying, the team in question only needs one race where they are able to use the piece of technology to their advantage. The FIA ban whatever it is. But then said team then find another piece of technology and they do the same.

But the results arent corrected, how could they be really...

John wrote:
Understand my point? These continual advantages without breaking the rules over their rivals stack up, so surely something more official at the beginning of the season should be drawn up or is it a fact that the FIA arent clever enough and dont understand the unlimited boundaries of F1 technology etc

Isn't it the fact that F1 technology has unlimited boundries that there will always be loopholes to be exploited. I don't think that FIA aren't clever enough it's just there will always be people out there who can circumvent the rules. It's the same in many walks of life, tax, planning, law, etc. There's nothing the FIA can really do other than make the regulations as tight as possible, but they can only minimise loopholes, not prevent them.

John wrote:Okay.

BUT, How many more occasions are the clever people at Red Bull going to find a loophole, exploit it, get caught prior to a race, win or gain an advantage in a race because the FIA have not had enough time to react or understand the loophole, following the weekend result have the loophole closed for the next race but the damage has already been done through a haul of further points for Red Bull and it's a continuous pattern.

Understand my point? These continual advantages without breaking the rules over their rivals stack up, so surely something more official at the beginning of the season should be drawn up or is it a fact that the FIA arent clever enough and dont understand the unlimited boundaries of F1 technology etc

I think we can take it as given that the FIA's rulemakers aren't on a par technically with the likes of Adrian Newey and the other chief designers.

The thing with engineering is that, given enough time, money and expertise, you can get around most problems...that is in fact the essence of engineering in a nutshell. Someone puts a problem or obstacle in your way and if you are smart enough and have the manufacturing capabilities, you can find a solution or workaround.

Look at how the FIA has continually re-written the rules, year after year and brought in things like grooved tyres in an effort to slow the cars down...yet year after year the teams' designers have produced cars which are just as quick, if not faster.

To be honest, I think the FIA would be fighting a losing battle if they attempted to close every single potential loophole and forestall every possible avenue of development. It just so happens that Red Bull are the ones ahead of the curve at the moment. I'm not especially happy about it either, but if they're clever enough to make sure their set-ups / developments are in the legal "grey area" then I don't see how the FIA can do anything other than react (as opposed to proactively changing the rules to prevent something none of the teams might be attempting).

For me there's always been an ongoing battle between teams and the FIA in much the same way as tax inspectors versus accountants. Ignoring any moral issues what Red Bull did wasnt illegal last weekend. I was hoping that it would be but it wasn't and now it is so we move on. Yes Hungary will be interesting but I remember there being a similar kerb on RB's engine mappings last year and it didn't make much difference so not building my hopes up. But then again that was in the days of the blown diffuser.

Looks like Red Bull are now being questioned over their ride height in Canada. Seems odd considering it was quite a while ago now.