Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer
Read my post above with respect to clause 2.7. The rules are written in clear language and the test are used to CHECK compliance. The simple fact of a part passing a compliance test doesn't mean the car complies with the rules.
Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One.
If any of the above exist in bodywork on a car presented for the championship, then said car is highly likely, illegal or at least minimally non-compliant.
|
I'm not familiar with the FIA rule book can you cite where they explicitly state "Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One."
Both of those statements are fundamentally not enforceable without definitions or contingencies.
DRS is a movable aerodynamic surface.
"Flexible"
must be defined because EVERY material is flexible including brittle materials like concrete. You can't regulate theoretical boundary conditions.
All components are part of an aerodynamic system. Why does a tire expanding from heat or normal acceleration or even sidewall deflection not a violation?
P.S. I've worked on the legal side of structural codes and regulations. So whatever I'm saying, is from the perspective that if this was in a court room and I was defending Redbull, I would destroy this case in a heartbeat.