[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Mike Harte]

It was a long time ago, but I seem to recall that there was quite a bit of head scratching going on after the race finished because he was placed at the chequered flag, whilst other drivers were not so fortunate when they ended up in the gravel.

I can't now remember what place he ended up in. And thanks, crm, for the answer.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It was a long time ago, but I seem to recall that there was quite a bit of head scratching going on after the race finished because he was placed at the chequered flag, whilst other drivers were not so fortunate when they ended up in the gravel.

I can't now remember what place he ended up in. And thanks, crm, for the answer.

IIRC, he finished outside of the points - so not really a factor in anything championship related. It would only have been critical if he had tied with another driver in the final standings.

Other drivers got out of their cars when they came to a standstill - whereas Hamilton stayed in his seat. I think it was a bit of a grey area that has now been tightened up a bit.

i.e you can't break a rule if the rule isn't written yet.

[Mike Harte]

It's funny how one can imagine that a rule exists and how that thought can exist until something happens that prove that it wasn't true at all. I always believed that the only time that a driver could receive outside assistance, i.e from marshals or track officials, whilst on the circuit, including gravel traps, etc., was when taking part in endurance races. So not a Grand Prix.

How wrong can one be!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yeah I think you've read that a little wrong mate (must have been that 23rd glass of red ) - from the article you linked:

I do think I am not reading it correctly or not fully understanding the intent. You quoted bits from the article that called out various pit lane changes. Which I also called out. There ARE a number of pit lane and related changes, but the changes to 26.4 don't seem to be related to pit lane

The bold section below has been removed from 26.4 (part of the "General Safety section)

If a car stops on the track, it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other Competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during a sprint session or the race results in the car rejoining the stewards may disqualify him from that sprint session or the race (other than under Article 26.7d) and 57.3).

Another possibility is that the ability for the stewards to disqualify now exist elsewhere. I am also not sure exactly what "mechanical assistance" means. Is that "part replacement" while in pit or "physical assistance" (course worker or machine) to become unstuck from something like a gravel trap?

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Another possibility is that the ability for the stewards to disqualify now exist elsewhere.

I may have answered my own question. I think they moved it to a different location (Article 39.6) and changed the wording. Given the forum software doesn't support the use of "strikethrough" font it's hard to show the exact edit as show in the regulations (as they show what is new and what has been removed all at the same time. So I will show a before and after...

Before

Any driver whose car stops on the track during the qualifying session or the sprint qualifying session will not be permitted to take any further part in that session.

After

Any driver whose car stops in any area other than the Pit Lane during the qualifying session or the sprint qualifying session and receives physical assistance will not be permitted to take any further part in that session.

So in the end, it is related to pit lane clarifications. Also note that the rule edits that were removed used the phrase "mechanical assistance" which as I call out seems ambiguous, while the new rules use the phrase "physical assistance" which I think might be less ambiguous. It also does not put it to the stewards to decide. Previously it was "may disqualify" now it seems a firm exclusion from the session.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

That refers to qualifying, Richard, which begs the question about the races themselves?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That refers to qualifying, Richard, which begs the question about the races themselves?

Good question! So I did more looking in the new Sporting Regulations and there is a new Article (53.2) in the "Sprint Session and The Race" section...

Except for the circumstances described in Article 26.7d) or Article 57.3, any driver whose car stops in any area other than the Pit Lane during a sprint session or race and receives physical assistance resulting in the car re-joining may be disqualified from that sprint session or race.

Note the wording "may be disqualified". So in qualifying or sprint qualifying you will NOT be allowed to resume in that session, but in a sprint or race you MIGHT be disqualified.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Good question! So I did more looking in the new Sporting Regulations and there is a new Article (53.2) in the "Sprint Session and The Race" section...



Note the wording "may be disqualified". So in qualifying or sprint qualifying you will NOT be allowed to resume in that session, but in a sprint or race you MIGHT be disqualified.

Richard

And that then begs the question about who the arbiter is of that possibility, but, far more importantly, what would be the criteria for a possible disqualification or not as the case may be?

Why do they continue to write rules/regulations that are loose and open to abuse and/or appeals?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And that then begs the question about who the arbiter is of that possibility, but, far more importantly, what would be the criteria for a possible disqualification or not as the case may be?

Right, it's implied the Stewards, but not spelled out as it is elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Why do they continue to write rules/regulations that are loose and open to abuse and/or appeals?

It's like one person wrote the race section and another wrote the qualifying section and both sets of text are trying to roughly do the same thing but the two people didn't talk to each other. I can't exactly point out an example, but I always feel that when they do things like this, they lack a certain level of consistency or commonality in how they word things.

No doubt much of this is edited "by committee" and that might create issues like this. But it amazes me that such a large series seems to struggle at time with creating clear and consistent language.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I've seen similar speculation about this rule clarification, although I suspect that the speculation is wide of the mark - as the clarification / change came out after Belgium, it would only apply from then on - so IF a team was using such a system, we wouldn't yet see any performance impact - that'll come after the Summer break.

There is speculation that the existing rules would ban such a device or the rules are vague enough that it is a grey area. And that RB was using this, but was told to remove it around the Miami race. That the timing of this rule change might (which might be for clarification purposes to remove any grey area issues) just sync with WMSC approval. But who knows. That is a lot of speculation and it all might be very incorrect. I am just reporting what I am seeing elsewhere. I don't know what to believe.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

But who knows. That is a lot of speculation and it all might be very incorrect. I am just reporting what I am seeing elsewhere. I don't know what to believe.

that is the curse of the interwebz - a whole lot of random stuff, some quite plausible, much of it not, some of it deliberately fake, some of it at least believed to be real - just no way for those of us watching to know what to believe as fact.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It's like one person wrote the race section and another wrote the qualifying section and both sets of text are trying to roughly do the same thing but the two people didn't talk to each other. I can't exactly point out an example, but I always feel that when they do things like this, they lack a certain level of consistency or commonality in how they word things.

No doubt much of this is edited "by committee" and that might create issues like this. But it amazes me that such a large series seems to struggle at time with creating clear and consistent language.

Richard

after all these years watching F1 and shaking my head at these rule sets which seem be drafted by, as you say, committee, or having a certain level of vagueness baked into them, to always leading to some unintended consequence which results in controversy followed by further re writes...

one has to wonder if its not intentional and that after 1000+ races there are still situations for which no one has the ability to predict or regulate for.

idk but maybe this is something to be celebrated rather than lamented?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

after all these years watching F1 and shaking my head at these rule sets which seem be drafted by, as you say, committee, or having a certain level of vagueness baked into them, to always leading to some unintended consequence which results in controversy followed by further re writes...

one has to wonder if its not intentional and that after 1000+ races there are still situations for which no one has the ability to predict or regulate for.

idk but maybe this is something to be celebrated rather than lamented?

It IS part of the sport and has been for many years - it is of course also THE World Championship and has the highest number of very skilled people trying to rip apart the meaning of each sentence & word in every rule, looking for an edge - WEC would be up there too in this regard but not to the same extent as F1.

It should also be remembered that all FIA codes and rules are based out of the ISC - the International Sporting Code, which is written in French and has an English translation. Many of the codes and rules within the FIA are written that way, need to be agreed by a committee and then are written in French to start with.

From memory, the F1 tech regs are written from the outset in English but need to navigate a sign off process, essentially by committee, so sometimes rule wording can become a bit vague (often with the intent of covering a range of possibilities) but then (as in this case) need to call out a specific to ensure that it is closed down.

[Tourer]

FIA says no team was using asymmetric braking - the addition to the rule was to strengthen it for the future. I guess the conspiracy theorists may still struggle to believe this but seems plausible to me.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

FIA says no team was using asymmetric braking - the addition to the rule was to strengthen it for the future. I guess the conspiracy theorists may still struggle to believe this but seems plausible to me.

I guess I am a "conspiracy theorists" if I wonder about the timing of the mid-year rule change. Especially given what they say in the article...

However, according to FIA sources, the wording that was originally in place was already enough to make any asymmetric braking system illegal anyway.

The real motivation in changing the rules instead came from efforts to tidy up the regulations for 2026, and make it clearer in the next rules era what was and was not allowed.

1. According to them it was already illegal.
2. Focus is on 2026

Why make a mid-year change for 2024 rules vs. incorporating it into 2026+ rules? Why even make a change if they felt it was already illegal? Oh wait, they did make the change for 2026+ rules earlier in the year! Maybe it really is that it was already illegal for 2026+ but not for current cars? Maybe teams felt a gap opened up?!

My tin foil hat is telling me (I can hear it speaking to me right now) that it might be one of these...
(A) Someone was using it this year and FIA told them to stop and issued this clarification.
(B) Someone was looking to use it and had asked FIA for a ruling and they clarified it.
(C) FIA got wind that someone was looking into this, or realized they opened a gap in current rules by outlawing it in 2026, but not in current cars, so they clarified it.

Lastly... Does the FIA call out teams when they clarify things like this? In general, if the team (or teams) have not been exposed just yet, no they don't publicly call out the teams. And you can't just say "someone was/or was thinking about doing this" as it just creates drama they don't want to deal with. Especially if a team came to FIA in good faith to get a ruling. So we get statements like this. Which may or may not be true. Or at least that is what my tin hat is telling me.

Richard

[Richard C]

I re-read the article and it is option (C) in which when they tightend up the 2026 regulations, they opened up a hole for 2024 and 2025.

As part of the ongoing discussions to frame the 2026 regulations, a specific clause has been added to the rules to outlaw asymmetric brake systems completely.

And, following a request from teams to ensure that nobody tried to exploit the tiniest of grey areas before then, it was requested that the new clause be added to both the 2024 and 2025 regulations.

The history is that FIA published a large number of updates to the 2026 regulations in June. That included additional language around outlawing asymmetric braking forces. Teams noticed this language didn't exist in 2024 rules so it it looks like a grey area or hole was introduced. It sounds like one or more of the teams asked FIA to close the hole which happened in July.

So my take away... Probably nobody doing it now. FIA opened a hole that they then closed before someone used it.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

I would imagine that (B) would be a likely explanation, with (C) as an outsider. And I do believe that in the past the FIA has made similar "clarifications" when approached by a team who have been requesting to legitimise their ideas and the FIA have declined to so do.

When they do agree that an idea does fall within the rules as currently written, the FIA allows the team to use their idea and does not issue any statement about it. Unless, of course, another team or teams ask the FIA about the legality of the idea, at which time they will issue a notification that the idea had been approved by their officials.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

FIA says no team was using asymmetric braking - the addition to the rule was to strengthen it for the future. I guess the conspiracy theorists may still struggle to believe this but seems plausible to me.

im inclined to agree...this could stem from my incomplete understanding of how the summer break works but if someone had been running such a system why would the rule change come during the break where the offending team is precluded to work on making the necessary and now required changes?

perhaps that is an incorrect leap in logic tho?

as Richard says, seems more like am identified hole in the rules was just closed with no one running afoul of the loophole.

which i guess means the only conspiracy here is that the FIA actually did it right!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im inclined to agree...this could stem from my incomplete understanding of how the summer break works but if someone had been running such a system why would the rule change come during the break where the offending team is precluded to work on making the necessary and now required changes?

As to timing. I would expect it is just the timing of WMSC meetings (where I believe these rules are voted upon). And the WMSC is more than just F1 as they cover other FIA series as well. So while F1 might be on summer break, FIA WMSC has their own schedule. I did try to see if there is a published schedule for WMSC and was unable to find one. I think they meet at least three times a year? But it is interesting that F1 rule changes occurred in June and then roughly 30 days later another set in July. So if WMSC is meeting around three times a year, they seem to be busy in the summer. Or... More likely, they meet much more frequently and this pace may not be unusual.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Richard, they also "meet" remotely. In the past, they used to have "meeting" by fax; I would guess that that's now evolved into video conferencing.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I guess I am a "conspiracy theorists" if I wonder about the timing of the mid-year rule change. Especially given what they say in the article...

Actually, I didn't consider you to be a conspiracy theorist - you simply quoted what people were saying in an article you linked.

Originally Posted by Richard C

So my take away... Probably nobody doing it now. FIA opened a hole that they then closed before someone used it.

Yep, that's how I see it too.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I do believe that in the past the FIA has made similar "clarifications" when approached by a team who have been requesting to legitimise their ideas and the FIA have declined to so do.

When they do agree that an idea does fall within the rules as currently written, the FIA allows the team to use their idea and does not issue any statement about it. Unless, of course, another team or teams ask the FIA about the legality of the idea, at which time they will issue a notification that the idea had been approved by their officials.

Agree Mike, it's happened many times (although I'm struggling to recall one now). A good example of your 2nd para was the suspension design Mercedes had on its cars 6 or 7 years ago. They were allowed to keep using it but the system was outlawed for the following year.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Actually, I didn't consider you to be a conspiracy theorist - you simply quoted what people were saying in an article you linked.

I am probably being overly sensitive. If you knew me personally you would know I am pretty far from a conspiracy theorist. I have an unnatural curiosity around people who are flat earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. In that I want to talk to them like they are aliens. "So tell me, why do you believe the things you do!"

I had someone who reported to me that I suspected was a flat earther. He would showing me things such as videos of "free energy devices" or RF energy from cell phones supposedly popping a nearby popcorn on a table! The trick is a microwave magnetron hidden under the table which heats the popcorn until it pops.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im inclined to agree...this could stem from my incomplete understanding of how the summer break works but if someone had been running such a system why would the rule change come during the break where the offending team is precluded to work on making the necessary and now required changes?

It's not a rule change, it's a clarification.

Originally Posted by Richard C

(B) Someone was looking to use it and had asked FIA for a ruling and they clarified it.

Richard

This is certainly a traditional way to get things banned in F1, that you suspect others are already using.

[Sodemo]

BMW ran a sort of similar technology decades ago in their Super Touring wagon. It was a pendulum that was near the brake pedal and it swung when cornering and adjusted the brake pressure left and right so that it wouldn't lock the inside front wheel.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

BMW ran a sort of similar technology decades ago in their Super Touring wagon. It was a pendulum that was near the brake pedal and it swung when cornering and adjusted the brake pressure left and right so that it wouldn't lock the inside front wheel.

So simple. So clever.