Not necessary - it just means they have to alter their designs. It might make the quicker for all we know!!!! Especially if they had something on the drawing board they had to bring forward ;)

Shame that the 'spirit of the rules' wasn't deemed so important about this time last year...

The FIA have sent a note to the team giving maximum dimensions for the hole. This is interesting as of course a note from the FIA is not an enforceable rule. The implicit threat must be that the scrutineers or court of appeal would make use of this "clarified interpretation" of the word "minimum" if the issue came up.

We can only assume that if the shadow diffuser issue had come up this year, a similar process would have occurred and it would have disappeared by the next race...

If that really was true they wouldn't be using their F duct though. Mind you, it could yet be "clarified".

what's even weirder is thatthe FIA can declare somethign to be oversized when there is no regulation that determines how big it can be.

Yeah its a bit silly isn't it, clearly the diffuser dimensions originally were written so you would have a single system within that defined space, likewise the provisioning of a hole is there for a starter system, I can't see how exploiting either is unique from each other under the guise "Spirit of the Rules".

Anyway no big deal will have little effect I think.

I don't think the F-Duct is making a mockery of anything, its just a clever solution IMO.

Hence the clarification. It's a bit like the issue with Michelin's front tyres back in 2003.

Plenty are saying it does contravene the spirit of the regulations, but thankfully not the FIA yet.

"AUTOSPORT understands that the FIA has duly sent a note to all teams, laying down strict dimensions for not only a maximum diameter for the holes but also for a maximum projected area."

I'm sure that if the teams affected by the clarification don't agree they can file a protest with the ICA.

Ferrari are getting worried about the pace of the Mercedes and McLaren at Austrailia.

Enter uncle Jean...

I think it could be quite significant... even then, at the end of the day you have some competitors who have to redesign an important part of their cars while some others haven't.. and all of this based strictly on this 'spirit of the rules' nonsense.

If that's not stirring sh*t I dunno what is.. if we assume it has little effect, the FIA should concentrate on issuing tight rules for NEXT year and not move the goalposts during the season.

There has to be something behind this farce, there's no reason to close any loopholes between two flyaway races unless it's a major big effing deal, or a safety issue IMHO..

Am I being too cynical in thinking the difference in the application of 'the spirit of the rules' in each case would be last year: Mosley - this year: Todt?

There is something consistent though, both have waited for the season to begin while they had the knowledge and the power to do it beforehand and avoid the teams wasting their time building something that's going to become obsolete/illegal..

Very true - at least in this regard the FIA remains a model of consistency...

When is someone going to realise that this sport is Formula 1 for goodness sake! I want to see what different ingenious methods different teams come up with and I want to see different performances from different engines and I want to see different aero effects from different chassis. This is what the sport is about - it's as much about the technology and design as it is about the drivers. If I wanted to watch A1GP then I would - but I don't because I don't think it is as good. When will the FIA realise this!!!!!

This is a very interesting aspect of the process. Was Ross Brawn a party to the TWG when they came up with the regs? If so, at what point did he recognise the 'loophole'..., I mean the teams must have added that there must be a hole for the starter motor. At what point in the discussions did Ross Brawn think 'hmmm..., so we coulod use that hole...'; because if he recognised it while he was participating in the TWG discussions - understanding what the aim of the regulations were - doesn't that make his approach simply..., dishonest?

As I've said before, having the TWG make these sort of suggestions for the regulations is ludicrous. I know they're supposed to be the ones best qualified and all but, relly, how could they not have figured that wide front wings (that once again impinge upon the width of the front wheels) with multiple planes and complex end-plates were going to make the cars ultra-sensitive to changes in airflow?

As for the 'clarification'... I don't have a problem with it, except for the timing. Having said that though, there are a number of threads on here with poster after poster screaming that the FIA need to do something. They have, something relatively minor, and now they face a barrage of complaints. A real case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.....

What change are we talking about here?

The rules for the diffusers officially remained the same. I think you guys are elaborating with a fallacy as a starting point.

The thing is that the FIA each time is clarifying what is an acceptable interpretation of the same regulations, and looks to me like they're doing it too often and always at a dubious moment..

I'm talking about when the regulation changes for 2009 were formulated - that the TWG were charged with producing, for the purpose of creating an opportunity for modern F1 cars to follow each other more closely.

Yet another example in the FIA's pattern of arbitrary enforcement of the sporting and technical regulations.

Ross Brawn has claimed that he went to the TWG and said that the rules as they stood would allow them to achieve x,y and z on their aero figures but that the response was something of a "yeah right" based on Honda's performance at the time. He has been reported as saying that he proposed tightening up the rules so that the double diffusers would have been illegal but was over-ruled.

Assuming that he gave a fair account of what happened, he was not dishonest or even lacking in good faith and was merely under-estimated by the other members.

The FIA really need to be VERY specific about their rules. And stop changing things as they go along.

Thankyou for that. My humblest apologies to Ross for suggesting dishonesty on his part..... If that is true then..., what were the other member of the TWG on?

They should have just bloody banned the double diffusers from the beginning. Screw the "well it's technically legal" nonsense, they wanted single diffusers so cars could follow each other abit closer. If the FIA were serious about that then they would have banned them in 2009...

Now they decide to do a "well it's technically legal but against the spirit" move, but wasn't that also the case with the god damn double diffusers in their entirety (and still is), so where's the consistency or the common sense.

Frckin... annoying.

Banning it last year when it was a fault of the wording of their own rules wouldn't be acceptable IMO. But they could change the rules for 2010 and close the loophole.

But that's what I'm saying... officially there were no change on the regulations for the diffusers. We're at least on the third season with the same ones, and twice now there was a dividing interpretation issue on the same set of regulations.

If we want this joke to end, we need new regulations.. no more clarifications based on the 'spirit' of the regs.. it's just fundamentally screwed to let the teams creatively interpret them only to continually f*ck them on some abstract concept.

Well that's a bit half arsed. 14 months after the FIA see this loophole being exploited the restrict it. They had the opportunity to bad the DDD at Australia 2009, which I'm glad they didn't and then again when drawing up the 2010 regulations. Yet they decide to wait for the second race of 2010 to ban a small part of the DDD concept, it's completely pointless, it's baffling. Using that old cherry of "the spirit of the rules" isn't exactly laying down the law is it, I mean, the ferrari wheels are clearly against the spirit of the regulations and as is the alledged RBR ride height adjustment, but I don't see them doing anything about them.

Cost savings my donkey.

They knew before start of champioship how diffusers were made and now force teams to redesign.

Todt is proving no better than Mosley.

I don't see what's changed. I also don't see why people seem to think this is a "spirit of the regs" issue. The wording for the starter motor hole is very clear. It's sole purpose is to allow the teams to start the engine. It must be as small as is necessary to acheive that purpose.

In enlarging that hole in order that it provide more air to the diffuser, teams are clearly breaking two parts of the rule on the hole. That's two breaches, on the existing wording (so nothing has changed) as literally interpreted (so this is not a "spirit of the regs" issue).

Mac (and other affected team) fans should be grateful to the FIA that they were allowed to race in that configuration in Bahrain, rather than annoyed they've now been told to cut it out ...

It's just so embarrasing. OK, this is a highly technical game and all, but if the FIA can't even get the rules right in their own bloody clarification:

Agreed. The FIA have been fairly lenient about this, after all, it's not a HUGE change to the diffuser. I'm actually surprised at how sensible the whole business has been handled by the teams and the FIA itself, and really, it's a non-issue. I don't any tea, is going to start suffering because of this, unlike the situation with Renault's TMD.

I think it's just another example of incompetence that this wasn't blocked before 2010. Instead of doing that, they wait until after the winter break, after testing, even after the first Grand Prix, before 'clarifying' the rules. And what the hell is up with the DDD still being allowed? Why wasn't it banned for 2010? The regulations are an absolute mess, nobody knows what's legal, or where the line between 'loophole' and 'illegal' actually is, there's no overtaking and it takes someone crashing to make things vaguely interesting. What a sad situation this sport is in.

And I'm perfectly aware that this is a minor issue, but it's just another issue that should have been sorted before, or left alone.

What was Whiting doing during the consultation process? What about Ferrari's wheels are they in the spirit? No consistency.

Well apparently its no bigger than what Brawn were allowed to run last year, go figure?

But if you have a (deliberately) enlarged starter then you need a big hole to put it into otherwise it doesn't work. If the size of the hole is such a big deal, why wasn't it specified at a fixed diameter in the first place??

Well, if a team finds it easier to start the car with a bigger hole it's their choice.

'as small as necessary' is a subjective thing.. so it's still a matter of interpretation, and IMO, in the current circumstances it should either be prevented in the future (next season) by issuing regs that would make cars with a huge hole fail scrutineering.

A FIA memo won't make cars fail scrutineering, so I guess the thing goes straight to the ICA...

I don't like those methods, this is Mosley-ish at best.

The story suggests this 'clarification' now specifies a maximum size of the hole so if a team has built a super-large starting motor to fit within the regs they will have to change this.

IMO this is simply clever interpretation by some teams and no different in spirit to the DDD or McLaren snorkel, except that the FIA has chosen to alter the tech regs this time.

I'm not sure I fully understand why they have done it in this case but not in the case of the DDD and snorkel or TMD etc which they could so easily do.

Not done before the GP as the FIA did not know what cars the teams would turn up to the race with. Perhaps it would be sensible for some form of voluntary pre season scrutineering could be applied and, if you don't submit your car (or a part) to it and turn up with something the stewards think is illegal for race 1 then they come down hard on you. But this is the system we've got.

Given that system, the FIA's options were to prevent the illegal teams from racing at Bahrain (probably fairest to the other teams, but rubbish for the fans) or let them get on with it for one race and clarify after. I'm glad the route chosen is the one taken. I suspect the lack of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the teams affected suggests they knew they were playing fast and lose and they're ok with the line the FIA has taken.


From a Joe Saward piece I read today: FIA wanted to, FOTA didn't.

I don't see how there's any inconsistency really. The "spirit" of the wheel cover rule, was to reduce the risk of a serious incident because of the detachable carbon fiber wheel covers getting in the way of seeing if the wheel not was attached or not. The intention was not to get rid of any device that reduces turbulence/lift generated by the spinning wheel rim.


Ferrari's device is made from the same material as the rim, and as far as I know, is also firmly attached to rim. So as far as the rules go, it's not illegal and it certainly doesn't violate the intention of the rule change. It's so straight forward that even I as a McLaren fan can see it!

The starter motor hole is different though. The intention is that the hole exists only to give access to the starter for the engine, no other reason. But because there were never any strict rules on size, enclosing geometry etc. several teams have decided that they can also be very creative and use it as an additional part of the diffuser. Much like Ferrari's flexible floor in 2007, this is entirely against the intention of the rule and so, it's now being clarified.

I'm not really seeing why it's such a big issue.

Dont you think that Brawn were basically gifted the WDC and WCC titles last year, it made a good David and Goliath story

My feeling is that it's a demonstration of power...

"We suddenly feel like clarifying our rules and/or make new rules. You don't like them? Come and argue it on our turf at the ICA! "

Instead of coming from a protest by some team(s), this sh*t stirring comes straight from the FIA in the form of a memo with new rules on it.

Todt is more subtle than Mosley, but that move is textbook FIA as we know it.. very odd... why do this now at this point?

It's not their choice, nor is it subjective. There are starter motors on the market, succesfully used by other teams (and by the affected teams), that are much smaller. We therefore objectively know that the bigger opennings used by some teams are not "the minimum required access".


This isn't a clever interpretation, this is a completely incorrect interpretation. You can't justify the interpretation based on the wording of the rules. If the words "the minimum required access" weren't there, they would maybe have a chance.

The FIA haven't altered the technical regs. The rules are as always. They have just told the teams "we know you can start your motor without problem with a hole that is X big, therefore any hole greater than X big is greater than the minimum required access and controvenes the rules".

If the affected teams could show that the enlargement of their start motors had some useful purpose (eg they could start the motor much quicker with the larger device, and the increase in size was essential to that) then I think they would have a strong argument that the minimum required access should be bigger than X. I doubt any team will be able to demonstrate that, though.

IMO the FIA Should ban it now - mid season - and see how they cope

Exactly and the silence of the affected teams really says it all.

Really can't see what all the fuss is about, the rules say one can make 1 gap solely to accommodate the minimum required space of the starter motor, teams suddenly develop big ass starter motors to have a big hole which, apart from accommodating the starter motor, now also produces downforce, FIA clarify what is "minimum" and close loophole.

Nothing special, rule clarifications to close loopholes happen all the time in many sports.

The teams can get smaller starters. They had them last season.

If I book a seat on an airline that guarantees me the minimum required leg room and I turn up wearing 8ft stilts, I don't get to have an additional 8ft of leg room.

Bad example - If the Airline assumes you are 6ft (because you were last time) but you have grown an additional 2 ft and it's carved in stone "guaranteed" then you should get it ....

I think your counter example demonstrates the key issue. Have the starter motors "grown" or just "strapped on stilts"?

To me, an increase in size for a genuine purpose (ie some demonstrable benefit to the teams other than just "it means our hole has to be bigger") then I think there's a good argument this clarification is incorrect. An increase in size just as an excuse to increase the hole means the clarification is correct.

If a team can demonstrate the former (ie a genuine reason), I am sure they will challenge this rule. As we all know the increase in size of starter motor is only an excuse to increase the size of the hole, I think we know that a challenge is not going to happen and that the larger hole is not the "minimum access required".

If it's such an important performance issue, why isn't the FIA letting a competitor protest the holes? or the gigantic starter thing?

I'm telling you, this is a change in policy and making several teams dish out a new/compromised diffuser at this stage of the season is absolutely retarded.

There is an ulterior political motive there, otherwise the disadvantaged competitors would be the ones freaking out.

Oh I agree - I personally thing the rule should say that the starter hole is a specific size - and also can be open to the difuser - ie there should be a tube runing to the gear box crank...

My point is that the rule is probably not quite explicit enough in it's present guise - and when changing the rules and banning the stupid DDD they should get rid of it then...

But this wasn't specified in the rules. The regs have no maximum size or mandated design for the starter motor but this has now been specified in the 'clarification'. My point is not that this is 'unfair' or in any way spiteful but that it is an effective change to the rules in order to preserve the 'spirit' of them. Why do it in this case, and not for the DDD which also rode roughshod over the spirit despite being within the regs? Why change the rules for the flexi floor but go to WMC for the TMD if it is possible to outlaw by simply changing the rules?