Re: Patrick head on diffusers, regulations and following the letter of the law

On Oct 21, 10:51 am, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AFAIK the TWG included representation from all teams. The TWG approved
the proposed regulations. Now three of those teams who did so later
went on to significantly undermine the overtly stated aims of those
regulations. That was the time for them to speak up in that spirit of
co-operation and for the good of the sport.
You're playing the popular game of acting as if you know what the
motivation was. I've said before that I don't have as much trust in
your powers of mind reading as you do.

And you're ignoring some facts here. The ultimate aim of the OWG was
to cut downforce by 50%. Now Ross Brawn had already stood up and said
words to the effect of "we at Honda have implemented the proposed
regulations and are coming up with more downforce than the OWG
envisages. So we think that you need to restrict the diffuser as
follow...". His proposal was not accepted. So it's hard to see how he
was trying to pull a fast one or trying to undermine the OWG's
intentions.

You're also ignoring the other statement from Head, which amounts to
"most" (Head's word) cars having aero devices that comply with the
regs but not with the OWG's proposals.



Instead they chose not to
overtly indicate the error that had been made. Brawn admits being aware
of it yet he chose to keep it to himself in order to retain an
advantage. It is meaningless to say he made other proposals if he did
not directly address the problems he *now* claims they would solve.
You have to say these things as if they are irrefutable because you've
already taken a position on this that doesn't fit with the facts. So
you have to either back down from the previously stated position - and
it's not the end of the world, none of us know everything - or
increase the bluster.

And you're guessing at motives again. You have no way of knowing what
any of the team bosses or designers involved were thinking.

The FIA who bear ultimate responsibility also failed to frame the
regulations in a meaningful way or write in safeguards.
FOTA vetted the rules and insisted on rewrites until they were
satisfied. What part of that do you not understand?

Once the rules were finalised - with FOTA's approval - it is FIA's job
to pronounce on wether cars are compliant with the regulations or not.
They did that.

Ultimately the sport and the viewer are the losers due to the lack of
integrity and sportsmanship of the minority.
Bollocks! Unless you want to have us believe that "most" means
"miority".

Further we will continue to lose as the problem has not been addressed
and the spirit of trust has disintegrated.

I'd not say that. FOTA seems to have held together quite well and
continues to work. Wether any of the teams trusted all the others in
the first place is a matter of conjecture. I'd imagine that the TWG
was a pragmatic matter rather than the manifestation of a sudden
outbreak of brotherly love along the pit lane.

Interestingly FOTA have been working hard on various regulations. Have
they tried to modify this one? Remember they need a 70% vote, not
unanimity. What they have done is get rid of the wheel covers, saying
that this was one of the items causing problems for following cars.
They have now had a chance to rewrite the regs governing the diffuser,
and they can pass this with a 70% majority. Has an attempt to do this
been made?
.

Relevant Pages