I'll give you a real personal rule ambiguity issue I experienced when racing in a touring car support championship (much lower level obviously, but the principles apply):
Our championship had introduced a rule stipulating "the maximum allowable camber of the front of the car is 4 degree's" when we'd found the optimum camber was more like 4.5. Well, we decided to run with 4.2 on the outer wheel and 3.7 on the inner wheel (eg on clockwise circuit, left front had more camber).
Well, having qualified on pole at Brands Hatch our competitors were looking for an excuse to get us kicked out so watched my car Being scrutineered and those numbers being called out, and then complained. The KEY thing in the argument was that the rule did not say "on any given axle", or "as measured against a flat ground surface", so although clearly against the spirit of the rules we were within the letter of them by arguing our average camber was within 4 degrees.
Seems to me from your post above that unless the rules stipulate the gaps allowed to be only holes rather than slots, and unless it specifically defines shape/size of hole allowed, then they couldn't rule against Brawn etc could they??
What I am surprised about is that the fia didn't rule in their favour but then make up some overriding safety issue in order to outlaw them from now on, to help the overtaking etc, I'd normally expect that type of thing from the fia!!
|