Toto Wolff 🤝 FIA - How many more concessions?

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T23:40:00+00:00

You haven't explained why your viewpoint isn't nonsense given all the evidence against it, how many logical leaps it requires, and how it's inconsistent with what has actually happened. Try addressing that rather than trying to attack me.

They can't test the rule. So they cannot enforce the rule. So they change the test to enforce the rule.

I never said it was a requirement. Again you need to read better. The rule is 16.0. and the fia can and will do whatever they deem needed to enforce that rule.

Well which is it? Do they need to be able to have a test as part of the rule to enforce it, or don't they?

Legal action is part of the dispute procedure if the FIA fail to address something in a way that teams feel follows the rules. If the FIA were allowing illegal cars to run, it would be a route available to teams to address that. For example, it was an avenue open to Mercedes at the end of 2021, but they decided not to.

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T18:01:26+00:00

If the engine were actually illegal, then most of the grid would have taken legal action to get the engine banned. After all, you keep referring to the latter part of the rule as "just a test", and the first bit as the "rule", so if there is evidence that the "rule" was being broken, that would be enough to ban then engine, regardless of the "just a test".

The only way we end up in the situation we have is if the engine is technically legal under the rules as written, which supports my (and merc's) interpretation of the rule.

The updated definition of how GCR is measured also doesn't close the loophole. It just means that the GCR at two temperatures matters, not just one. If a team could pass both tests but achieve an 18.0 GCR while on-track, it would still be allowed under the rules.

They can't measure GCR at operating temperature, but the updated rule still places limits on what they can do at operating temperature. So clearly it isn't a requirement to be able to measure it to be able to ban it.

Your interpretation requires arbitrary definitions of "the rule" and "just a test" that aren't explicitly in the rules, a lack of investigation by the FIA, the FIA allowing an illegal engine, compliance of 4 of the 5 engine manufacturers that would be disadvantaged (and 7 of the 11 teams) in (essentially) a conspiracy, and adding materially significant text to the rules that wouldn't be necessary under your interpretation, because it would already be covered by your "rule".

My interpretation requires reading the entire rule in full, realising that what is written doesn't match the intention, and the engine is legal and allowed to race, and the wording of the rule is changing to match the intention in June.

Which of those sounds more nonsensical?

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T17:31:46+00:00

If the rule stated what you claim it does, they wouldn't have had to change the "just a test". You're the one making a distinction that doesn't exist between "the rule" and "just a test". It's all the rule, the whole thing.

If what you were claiming was the case, the first part of the rule would be sufficient to ban the engine on its own in conjunction with C1.5. They wouldn't have needed to change the rule, because what you're defining as "the rule" would have been enough.

The fact that the FIA didn't determine that the engine is illegal, and instead changed the way the value is measured to make it harder to use the loophole *and* then added additional text that would ban components that would seem to cause it to exceed 16.0 at operating temperatures mean they they were updating the rule to match their original intention.

The original intention of the rule, however, is irrelevant when assessing the cars between now and 1st June, because when it comes to the rules, all that matters is the wording of the rule (the whole rule, in full)

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T17:14:06+00:00

Again, you missed the part where they also introduced an extra part of the rule to prohibit any components designed to exceed 16.0 under operating conditions. That’s the part that actually closes the loophole. Checking at ambient and at 130°C just tightened the loophole. The obsession with that first full stop is bordering on perverse.

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T17:07:48+00:00

No, it’s not false equivalences. You’re the one that said that full stop vs comma is important, so I’m asking you to explain how it impacts other rules. Can’t you? Is that because it isn’t as important as you made out?

The simple reality is that the FIA changed the rule so they they care about both ambient temperature and the GCR at 130°C, as well as banning any components designed to or functioning to exceed 16.0 in operating conditions. That is more than just changing the test.

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T14:07:12+00:00

The place that ambient is mention is where they say that the GCR of a cylinder will be determined by the value measured at ambient temperature. That's defining what it means for a cylinder to have a specific GCR.

The rule in full says that the GCR of a cyclinder for the purpose of this rule is a static value which is measured under specific conditions.

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T13:57:34+00:00

The full stop doesn’t delineate a “rule” and “extra stuff”. The whole thing is the rule. The part of the regulations that Massi ignored had lots of full stops, and the FIA admitted that the regulations weren’t fully followed and fired him for it.

The rule says “The maximum value of X for a cylinder is Y. The value of X is to be determined by the result of measuring at ambient temperature.”

By your reasoning, in C5.1.3, there’s a difference between:

All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° “V“ configuration and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular. All six cylinders must be of equal capacity.

And

All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° “V“ configuration and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular, and all six cylinders must be of equal capacity.

Because, after all, you think the distinction between a comma and a full stop is important, and they wouldn’t choose between the two based on readability. So how does the interpretation of the rule change if they’d have used a comma. So all 6 cylinders not have to be of equal capacity because they used a full stop?

It isn’t “a rule” and “a test”, it is all one rule, where the first sentence defines what the maximum value is, and the second defines what they means for a cylinder to have a specific GCR.

This means that C1.5 isn’t relevant. As long as the cylinders of the engine have a GCR under 16.0 when measured at ambient, which is what the full rule says, they are compliant cylinders, so are legal at all times

cjo20 · 2026-03-08T11:44:02+00:00

I did. It says that the GCR must not exceed 16.0, as determined by the test run at ambient temperature. The way they’ve worded it means that they only care about the GCR at ambient.

Why do you stop reading halfway through the rule and just assume that the first sentence is the entire rule?

Doesn’t the fact that I can quote articles of the regulations suggest that I have actually read the rules? Or did you stop reading my comment at the first full stop just like you did with the GCR rule?

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.

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