How can Ian say, on the one hand, that the Mercedes system is "iffy" or a "cheat", yet on the other hand say that it complies with the letter of the rules?
Further, it is clear that rules are interpreted and always will be. If this were not the case, nobody would have protested the Merc DRS system. It is clear that some interpreted the rules in one way, others interpreted them differently, a clarifaction was sought and the Merc DRS deemed legal, another team disagreed with this interpretation and protested and finally the Merc system was again deemed legal.
To use this as an example of rules not being open to interpretation is quite incredible. To even consider using F1 as an example for rules not being open to interpretation is even more incredible. F1 has any number of such disagreements over the interpretation of rules every year.
The only reasonable position to take is to seek clarification - from the officials at your events - where there is ambiguity in the rules, and follow what they say until such time as the rules are amended to give the desired result.
In the case of cleaning cadet tyres with a heat gun, since not everybody can agree on the interpretation of the rules, including the officials in charge of enforcing them, the above is even more true.
|
|