It seems to me that the purpose of the "clarification" is not to prevent teams getting an "unfair advantage" - if they all do it, it's not unfair; if it works and they don't all do it, those who don't are crazy - but to prevent any innovation at all. The rule makers want to prescribe everything to the last millimetre, and that is flat impossible. One solution is to prohibit any bodywork of any kind behind the cockpit - exposed engine gearbox etc, no wings - and in no time at all, engine ancillaries would reshaped to give aero effects. And front wings would all but vanish, because a ton of front downforce and no rear downforce would force that to happen.

If this level of nitpicking restriction had applied since WW2 we'd still have crossply tyres, wire wheels, and front engines in F1. "Sorry Mr Cooper, you have the engine in the wrong place, you're not allowed to race. Sorry Mr Chapman, you're chassis isn't made of the prescribed 2 inch mild steel tube, you can't race." The only way to keep development moving is to have a minimum of prescriptive rules, and let the designers excerise their ingenuity to the full in pursuit of wins.

I just don't understand the rulemakers' total obsession with making all F1 cars identical, by controlling every detail of design. It's counter-productive.

As I said, I'm surprised none of the teams protested this under the grounds that 'minimum access required' defines a whole just big enough to put the starter in and out.

This loophole has probably been closed because of the potential knock-on effect that this could have on other accepted methods of calculating whether something is legal or not on other parts of tghe car. We know that the DDD issues became an issue because some measurements are exact whereas others are relative to another point. When the regulations were drafted, it must have been assumed that the relative points would be fixed within certain acceptable parameters. Splitting the diffuser is equivalent to having a variable reference point.

This hole in the diffuser is just an extension of that line of thinking with the gap being relative to the diameter of the starter. If the FIA had turned a blind eye to the hole in the diffuser who knows where designers would turn their attention to next.

The way that this has been handled is ok by me. It is a relatively trivial part of the car. It gave teams using it a tiny advantage. It is also not a fundamental part of the car's design, it is a minor cosmetic that is required to comply with the FIA's instructions.

With apologies for the post weekend thread bumpage:

I'm not sure this is the nub of our disagreement. If the clarification does lead to "the rules not being interpreted in a natural way" (as you contend - see below) then I completely agree with you that this clarification is a de facto rule change (and as such is contrary to the process through which the FIA should deal with these matters). Because I disagree on that point, and I think this clarification is simply the FIA interpreting the rules (as they stand) as they should always have been interpreted, I don't consider it a de facto rule change.


I am genuinely surprised that someone could read the rule in that way and think that is the natural meaning, as opposed to my preferred meaning that "minimum access required" means the minimum space you objectively need to be able to use a starter motor.

Let's make the wild and crazy assumption, however, that we are both reasonable people in looking at this (possibly less safe in my case ). So there are two interpretations of those words that are reasonable. One that takes a subjective view - whatever a team deems is the minimum access is requires, is the minimum access required. And the other -
the objective view of what the minimum access a team requires is.

The former makes a nonsense of the words "minimum access required" - there is no point in them being in the text of the rules. The rule would mean exactly the same thing without those words as it would with those words (the suggestion that it is limited by the equipment you are using, but that you are not limited in what that equipment is, effectively means it is unlimited). The latter provides a useful meaning to those words. Which is why I maintain that the latter is the correct interpretation.

My contention is that this is a relative term, and that it is relative to the size of the starter motor. There is nothing in the rules which state the starter motor must be of a particular design so the natural meaning as far as I am concerned is that 'if you have a starter motor and it has a shaft of one square meter then the hole must be the smallest it can be to fit that'. By specifying a maximum hole size the FIA has moved the goalposts.

I have no idea whether the teams have been using novel starters or not, and of course if they have not been this 'clarification' makes even less sense because the easy route would have been to just say no to the teams on that basis. The FIA should certainly have been saying no to BrawnGP on this basis.

I agree that it is relative to the size of the starter motor. I just believe that (in order to give the term "minimum" any practical meaning/point in being in the regs) it is relative to the size of the smallest starter motor a team can reasonably use, rather than relative to whatever size starter motor a team fancies going with. Neither concept is defined in the rules, so I guess there is no definitive answer on which is right and which is wrong.

Except for the 'clarification' we now have, I suppose.

I still say that they should have dealt with this last year and that it's a straight-forward scrutineer issue. 'Lets see the starter motor...now fit it...hole is way too big-rejected car'

Agree it should have been sorted last year. And if the Brawn really did rely on a larger than necessary engine starter hole, that's a pretty big oversight (both FIA and protesting teams).

As for straightforward scrutineering issue, I agree. Except the scrutineers should use a standard (small) engine starter to check it out - with teams having to demonstrate a genuine engine starting performance advantage from their version, if they want to use their version for the check.

If McLaren could justify the extra diameter of their starter I am quite sure that they would have been allowed to use it. It is quite clear that McLaren & co have done a little bit of lateral thinking on this one and the FIA has quite rightly seen through it. I am with Bottoneer here.

As it stands now, everyone will have the same diameter starter and corresponding hole in their diffuser within a few races.