The in-cockpit footage of Fernando Alonso apparently using the back of the glove on one hand to operate the so-called F-duct to “stall” the rear wing of his Ferrari on the long Barcelona straight while at the same time using the other hand to adjust the brake bias while not holding the wheel at all illustrates the absurdity of Formula One’s rule interpretations.
To recap, McLaren introduced the controversial device, which results in higher straight-line speed, at the beginning of the season. In Lewis Hamilton’s and Jenson Button’s cars, the drivers are required to use a knee to close a slot, inhibiting the flow of air to the rear wing. The other teams protested, notably Renault, which had its clever “mass damper”, a device that automatically adjusted the car’s angle of attack to the air when negotiating the kerbs, banned a few years back on the grounds that it was “a movable aerodynamic device”. What was the F-duct other than a movable aerodynamic device?, they asked. Yes, but, said the FIA’s rule interpreters, the movable device was a part of the driver’s body and not part of the car, so the F-duct was legal.
The ruling has given other teams no option but to design their own interpretations of the F-duct and, in Ferrari’s case, presumably the architecture of the car gave the design team no option other than the back of the driver’s glove. It was very effective in Barcelona, giving Alonso’s Ferrari by far the highest top speed. What the dangers of having no hands on on the wheel are, I wouldn’t know – and perhaps he was steering with his knees – but the whole drama simply illustrates the absurdity of F1 rules. Especially since the teams have now all agreed to drop the device… but only from next year.
Why on earth not immediately?
The same ridiculous situation applies to the double diffusers, the devices many believe are responsible for much of the overtaking problem in F1. That is also to be banned from next year. But, if it is the culprit, why could it not have been dropped for 2010.
The answer: self-interest. In a sport where the smallest design detail can be the difference between winning and losing, no one wants to lose out. In a situation where concensus is required, it’s easy for a single party to hold out against the rest.
