The difference lay in the wording of the application, and revealed a loophole in the guidelines to the regulations.
On the first application, on Thursday, Honda said the device was an aerodynamic aid. Technical director Danny Aldridge had no option but to refuse it.
A day later, Honda asserted that the primary object was to improve swing-arm stiffness. Once again, in terms of the wording of his own guidelines. Aldridge had to accept it.
The wording of the regulations specifically bans aerodynamic devices outside the homologated and approved bodywork; the loophole comes from guidelines issued by Aldridge, who has sole authority in enforcing the rules. The guidelines are confidential, but leaks during the weekend revealed that swing-arm additions would be permitted, but only as long as their “purpose” was not to generate aerodynamic forces.
This wording means that aero forces are not specifically banned, as long as they are not the primary purpose.
In this way, Ducati showed evidence that their spoiler, while it did generate downforce, had cooling the rear tyre as its primary purpose.
Honda’s double-think was more oblique, but cleverly revealed the failings of the guidelines.
The latest revelations go some way to explaining the histrionics of Aprilia’s new ex-F1 CEO Massimo Rivola, and push the blame onto Aldridge for his choice of wording.
This will surely be revised post-haste before the next GP, but whether the swing-arm spoilers will be present or absent remains to be seen.
By Michael Scott
