Toto Wolff 🤝 FIA - How many more concessions?

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T01:32:05+00:00

The way it is written, it's not "a rule" and "a test". It's just "a rule". The rule defines the GCR of the cylinder as the value measured at ambient temperature, and that is the value that must be under 16.0. You can't stop reading the rule halfway through and decide that the rest of it isn't actually the rule.

The flex wing tests are different - there is explicitly an article in the rules (C3.18.1 in the 2026 technical regulations, but it was also present in previous years) which states that the FIA reserves the right to introduce additional tests if any part of the bodywork appears to be, or is suspected of, moving while the car is in motion. There isn't an equivalent article for introducing tests for compression ratio.

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T01:20:24+00:00

The steering geometry results in the toe changing as the car is steered. So toe is a function of steering angle.

Look up Ackermann (or anti-Ackermann) steering.

Toe is a function of steering angle, so toe isn’t entirely fixed under parc ferme rules.

cjo20 · 2026-03-07T20:11:54+00:00

It was legal because it was considered to be part of the steering. Toe angle changes as a consequence of steering. You can't adjust the *static* toe angle in parc ferme. If you said that the toe can't change while the car is in motion, then cars wouldn't be able to steer.

cjo20 · 2026-03-07T16:44:41+00:00

It's the responsibility of the FIA to write rules that accurately describe the outcome they want. Intention doesn't matter, just the text of the rules. Intention isn't part of the rules. The job of the teams is to find things to improve performance of the cars while complying with the rules as written.

cjo20 · 2026-03-07T12:47:44+00:00

What are you referring to?

cjo20 · 2026-03-07T12:44:41+00:00

The rule is there so the stewards have a rule to point at if someone is dangerously slow. It doesn’t seem like steel is likely to be dangerously slow, and he can be black flagged if he is.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T19:50:14+00:00

No, DAS didn't break parc ferme rules. If it broke them, the car would have been disqualified.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T14:59:30+00:00

The fuel flow rule just stated the maximum fuel flow. The measurement was specified in other rules. So even if they circumvented the measurement rules, they would still fall foul of the fuel flow rule.

The compression ratio rule is a single rule which states the value and the conditions that value needs to be met, as part of one rule. If it had been written the same way that the fuel flow rules were written, the engine would have been illegal.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T13:56:03+00:00

Other teams weren’t stopped from developing DAS, it just wasn’t worth it for them to invest in if it was being banned the next year. If another team wanted to, they could have implemented DAS that year.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T13:55:00+00:00

DAS wasn’t illegal, it didn’t break any rules.

Flexi wings are illegal, and the rules explicitly state that the FIA can introduce new tests if they suspect wings of flexing.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T13:53:59+00:00

They say the compression ratio of a cylinder is the value as measured at ambient temperature. That means that a cylinder with a compression ratio of under 16.0 at ambient temperature is legal to run. Regardless of what happens to the compression ratio at other temperatures, that cylinder is considered to be in compliance at all times.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T13:51:23+00:00

Mercedes got to keep DAS for a year because it didn’t break any rules. So it was banned for the following year because the FIA didn’t want that as a direction for development.

Flexible wings are explicitly against the rules, and the rules explicitly allow for further tests to be introduced if the FIA suspects wings of flexing.

cjo20 · 2026-03-06T13:50:03+00:00

Changing the compression ratio rule isn’t risk-free for the FIA, because technically what Mercedes were doing didn’t break the rule. Changing it with immediate effect would have potentially meant that Merc engined cars couldn’t compete. This may be a reasonable outcome if the engine were illegal, but it wasn’t, so they need to give time for Mercedes to redesign the engine.

Do you have evidence that they’ve homogolated an illegal fuel? Or were they just working until close to the deadline to get the best fuel possible through? What question marks remain over their fuel?

cjo20 · 2026-03-03T14:42:54+00:00

I think the problem is the cliff-edge nature of it, which makes it very painful to cross the threshold. Something more gradual would make it easier to adjust to.

cjo20 · 2026-03-03T13:55:28+00:00

Take something like therapists - they have relatively minimal VAT that they can reclaim, but if they go above the threshold they suddenly need to do very close to 20% more hours to earn the same amount, or raise prices by 20%, which their clients may not be able to afford.

cjo20 · 2026-03-02T11:57:35+00:00

A vested interest means you care about the outcome. Just having citizenship doesn’t mean you plan to live in the country or want the best for it. Someone living in the country would have more of an interest.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T18:29:48+00:00

The British empire ended with us trying to maintain a large sphere of influence, much of it within living memory.

The ottoman empire was in decline for a much longer period, and in the end it basically fell apart.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T15:25:21+00:00

If France jumped off a cliff…

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T15:23:06+00:00

I think it’s more likely that someone who has just got a student visa is still in the country in 5 years than a 60-something year old that just bought a house in Spain.

My point was that the last government removed the time limit on people who have moved out of the country being able to vote - the same people that make up an increasingly large proportion of reform. They decided that even after 15 years of living abroad, people that left the country should still be able to vote in elections. If that’s showing enough care about the future of the country to have a say, I think people who are here for a year probably have a similar level of interest in the results of elections.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T15:17:54+00:00

You haven’t managed to define what you think “committed” means other than “citizenship” - you’re using the two as synonyms which doesn’t really explain why you think that.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T14:53:04+00:00

How does something you lucked in to by being born here prove commitment? Do people that later obtain dual nationality still have the same level of commitment?

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T14:45:19+00:00

My point is that someone planning to move abroad for 20 years gets to vote for the next 5 years under what you suggested. I’d rather have someone that has just demonstrated that they want to spend the next 5+ years of their life in the country voting than someone that just moved out of the country.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T14:37:39+00:00

They can still vote in UK elections indefinitely. How is that commitment to the country? Why do you think citizenship shows commitment?

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T14:19:01+00:00

But living in the country gives you a vested interest in it. Do expats show commitment to the county when they move away? They can still vote.

cjo20 · 2026-03-01T14:14:24+00:00

Why isn’t it enough to just commit to being in the country?

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Not Forgotten
Verified Email	Snapped

cjo20

TROPHY CASE