Cool, thanks.

 

exerpt Formula1.com.....
http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicali...nfo/11/467.html

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lanbrown
[B]

In the past, the teams were required to allow FIA officials access to the computer code.

 

If the rules are properly setup with no grey areas, then it can be enforceable, not cheap but enforceable. "Upon investigation, the program was found to be well hidden by requiring a particular set of conditions to become activated, and the team strenuously denied that it had been used in any situation other than during testing (which was never disproven)." Obviously there was a loophole there. They allowed them to use it with the offending code. Make them come up with two versions one with and one without. Let them waste their time and money on supporting two. The FIA erred in allowing it, as no matter what the circumstances are, it breaks the rules.

No matter what the rules say, teams will always try to push it or get creative.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lanbrown
[B]Obviously there was a loophole there.

 

Some clarification is needed.

The teams agreed to ban "driver aids" at the start of 2004........

It's true, they agreed. But, this was only after Max Mosley/FIA were set to ban driver aids by Silverstone of this year.
So they "agreed" to unanimously ban driver aids, and, in turn got to keep their cars as they were for a half season more.

As far as shifting, they are fully automatic up/down with driver controlled override.

The clutch -- most times is another paddle behind the steering wheel. It sits a little higher than the shift paddles.

The cheapest way to experience something similar to this is to rent a shifter kart -- sequential shifting. Clutch only used to take off from a standstill.

 

Gran1,

If they were strictly forbidden, then Benetton would not have been able to use the code that had it in there. Strictly forbidding it would mean that they would not be allowed to race until that code was removed in its entirely and the FIA was happy. Here are your exact words:
"Upon investigation, the program was found to be well hidden by requiring a particular set of conditions to become activated, and the team strenuously denied that it had been used in any situation other than during testing (which was never disproven)."

Strictly forbidding it would mean that nothing would have to be proven, but that they were guilty of cheating as the code did not follow the rulebook and thus, did not meet the criteria and could not be used in a race environment. That was the grey area.

That's fine that they can only ban the technology that they know of, this is why technology moves forward. If you limited what they could do, then no innovation takes place.

 

Do you remember a picture of Mika Hakkinen's McLaren accelerating out of a corner and one of the rear disks glowing?


The Ferrari situation was a little different. They had software that interperated throttle input as a request for additional torque, not simply more rpm's. According to speed, it basically adjusted the sensitivity of the throttle pedal. It was never a fuel/spark cutoff or anything like that.

 

There was also that famous (or infamous) photograph taken by a freelance photographer showing the footwell of that McLaren (from 97) with a "third pedal", which enhances traction out of corners by selectively braking one of the rear wheels. It was legal because it was mechanically operated by the driver; very clever, but kind of pointless in the context of road car applicable technology.

lanbrown,

These driver's aids are "strictly forbidden" from the FIA's perspective, but it does not absolutely preclude some clever teams from bending or transgressing the rules, which is the point I am making about the FIA's new found sense of omnipotence in enforcing the ban being somewhat naive and premature. You assert that if the rules are "properly set up with no grey areas" they must be enforceable, which clearly flies in the face of the sport's history - new rules come about almost always in response to the latest technology such as traction control, and not in anticipation of it. It is the nature of the F1 that technological progress will outpace the rulemakers; if you think that is a "loophole", perhaps only fundamental changes in the sport will suffice (such as by changing F1 into a one-make series, in which case you could have almost absolute control over the mechanical side of things).

The thing with F1 technological innovations is that they are tightly restricted by a set of highly arbitrary regulations, and it is arguable how much of those is true innovation and how much is ingenious rule-bending. The rules are there to make F1 a better show, and anything remotely worthwhile (including electronic aids which have enormous implications for road cars) would be banned if it detracts from the show; they have little to do with pushing technological frontiers for its own sake.

 

But by allowing the software would be there would be no different then putting nitrous or a turbocharger on a car and them stating, it won't be used in competition, only in testing.