Renault accuse McLare of opening up new arms race.

[Scott]

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?  Maybe Renault should stay under the radar and let other teams complain about what is legal and illegal for a season or two.

[Ian]

Thats right Scott, the FIA have declared it legal. The FIA declared it illegal to deliberately crash, Renault should be careful, they are still on a suspended sentence.

[SennaMan]

Formula One SHOULD be an arms race.  If I want to watch drivers in identical cars, I've got NASCAR and IRL, or GP2 for that matter.

exactly Jeri!

[lkjohnson1950]

As the system relies on a button activated by the left knee perhaps Bob Bell should have called it a legs rather than an arms race. 

Renault with their record are the last you would expect to critisise others over the spirit of the rules, pull the other one Bob (leg that is ) with your outrage.

If there is a button that activates something, isn't that a movable aerodynamic device and therefore illegal?

Lonny

[FW14B]

Mike Gascoyne believes it is a movable aerodynamic part and should be banned, the driver's left knee blocks the hole in the car and apparently it works on straights to give them a bit more speed. 

[John S]

As the system relies on a button activated by the left knee perhaps Bob Bell should have called it a legs rather than an arms race. 

Renault with their record are the last you would expect to critisise others over the spirit of the rules, pull the other one Bob (leg that is ) with your outrage.

If there is a button that activates something, isn't that a movable aerodynamic device and therefore illegal?                         
Lonny

No the driver cannot be declared a device so any movement they make is allowed. I think this all hangs on whether the driver's actvate a device that moves any part of the physical areodynamics, or if they simply change the airflow with movement of their body.



 

[Alianora La Canta]

Artificially stalling the rear wing airflow implies a moving aerodynamic device of some kind, even if the movement is indirect. So I would have thought Article 3.15 was well and truly breached.

Of course, Article 3.15 also bans a lot of other things, some of which are mandated by other regulations...