Zoue wrote:dizlexik wrote:Zoue wrote:If a team is bending the rules or pushing the boundaries a bit far, then generally I have no problem with that. Often it's down to rule interpretation and then there's an argument for saying the rules should be better defined. Example for that might be the recent Ferrari mirror design.
However, if a team is acting with a deliberate intent to bypass the rules entirely, then as far as I'm concerned that's cheating and strong sanctions should be imposed (can't think what at the moment, I guess it depends on the severity). Example for that might be the VAG emission scandal, where software was programmed to deliberately defraud the control process. I'm not an engineer, so don't know if the OP example is a consequence of something else or straightforward cheating, but if the latter then I'm afraid they would need to be brought to task
VAG didn't bend rules, they simply cheated. In fact there is no such a thing as bending rules. Something is either legal or not. Remember double diffuses? At the beginning people though it was bending rules, then later it became norm since every car had it because it was simply legal. There were many devices like that.
I don't think you read my post properly, as you'll see that I specifically separated those who are bending the rules and those like VAG who cheated.
I think the rest of your post is getting into semantics territory. If the rules aren't written well and allow ambiguity, then taking advantage of that ambiguity isn't cheating in my book. However if someone does something with the deliberate intention of circumventing the rules - VAG again - then that's clearly cheating, not misinterpretation. I think it's quite easy to differentiate the two.
Yeah some things aren't taking advantage of grey areas but are just out and out cheating.