It's the interpretation of the rules isn't it? I'm not sure of the details, but I was under the impression that the regulations specified no minimum slot width, so Red Bull had gotten around it by connecting the hole to the edge of the floor with a microscopic slot. I'm just guessing here so I could be wrong, but if that's the case, and the FIA have accepted that interpretation, they can't really go back and correct results now they've rejected it. This is the thing where the main plane separated from the supports right? There must have been a hinge of some sort to allow that kind of movement.
Point two in this post is very interesting: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=348226&sid=5308a8f7de85fe57e6b8e57600ebc5b7#p348226 There's a video of Gary Anderson explaining why he thinks it's illegal, he says they were running it as far back as Malaysia and EJ says Newey claims to have a document from the FIA saying it's legal.
I am not 100% on the details either but this is what the FIA has said: This seems to be pretty clear cut and not and a matter of interpretation. There was not a hinge, just a sort of thin wedge cut out of the support beam which caused the wing to flex at high speed, which is not really different from the end plates of the Red Bull and Ferrari wings flexing.
Hmm so the slot would be not on the floor but on the fin? That would be quite tenuous but I suppose this is F1. I can't see why the FIA just can't be more consistent and decisive.
What i don't get is if the FIA knew about it, why only deem it illegal now? They've used it since bahrain, they've had plety of time to ban it, yet haven't.
It sounds to me like they've banned this because Red Bull's slot would've completely undermined the rule book. They could've completely opened up the diffuser using microscopic slots. It reminds me of the Ferrari rear wing that was banned last year, where they claimed an additional rear wing flap was part of the DRS actuator, technically the wing didn't break the rules, but would've rendered all rear wing regulations superfluous. There was a suggestion in that F1 Technical thread that Red Bull have done this to prevent the rules being exploited further, and that Ferrari were doing the same thing last year with the fluttering front wing.
We've seen since from teh FIA before, supposedly telling a team what they are doing is fine, only for later in the the year to declare it illegal. Renault/mass dampers? Either a car/device is declared legal and stays that way for the season, or if its decalred illegal then the team must surely be disqualified? It seems nuts that you can be illegal for one race after scruiteneering and DSQ'd, but you can run a car with 'illegal' parts and get to keep the results up to the point it is finally delcared illegal. Either you're legal or you aren't! If a team tells the FIA exactly what they have done, and the FIA confirm it is okay without protest from other teams who also are aware of what is going on, it stays legal for the rest of the season.
Cheers. Doesn't explain how Red Bull were getting around it though. Apparently Ferrari's legality slot is too thin for a piece of paper to pass through, so Red Bull mast have been doing something different if Ferrari protested it. I assume it was the thing proposed by the guy on F1 technical, where they claim the part of the floor raised by over 3mm is part of the fin not the floor. If that's the case Red Bull can just manufacture a tiny slot and the car is effectively the same as before. I suppose the fear was that they could've scuplted a double diffuser onto the fins and then removed the existing diffuser completely, or made huge holes in it and connected them to the edge of the floor using small slits and effectively brought back the double diffuser. The FIA statement says the articles in the regulations it undermined were introduced for 2011, presumably they relate to the ban on double diffusers.
Yes that is the only thing I can think of as well, unless it is something to do with how close to the rear wheels the hole is. I do not know if the Ferrari's is as near to the rear wheels as the Red Bull's is or not? I also like how the FIA just use the teams to prove that stuff is illegal and not do it themselves.
The front wing of the mclaren was never a solid structure, it was just made to look like it was solid when the FIA looked closer. You can't just stick a pylon inbetween and claim it's 1 whole structure when it isn't as a gap was appearing. The flexi wing was different since it passed all tests given to them, it didn't flex over the limit and it was a solid structure, it was thus legal until the rules became stricter to control its effect.
Not sure if anyones seen this, but I think Ted here sums up this whole debate nicely, its to do with a gentlemans agreement between teams by asking for clarification rather than protesting.
The Mclaren front wing passed all the tests and scrutineering as well. And the Red Bull wing did flex over the limit because it was scraping on the ground.
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/7793386/Red-Bull-Play-Down-FIA-s-Floor-Ruling Red Bull play down floor ruling Red Bull Racing have downplayed the impact the FIA's ruling on their 'hole' will have, saying they weren't going to use it at every race. On Saturday, the FIA ruled that the holes in the floor of Red Bull's RB8 were illegal. Motorsport's governing body stated that they "consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located" on the step plane of a car's floor. As such, Red Bull have to remove the hole ahead of next weekend's Canadian Grand Prix. However, according to advisor Helmet Marko the team had no intension of using that specific floor in Montreal. "We had not planned to use this floor in Montreal anyway," Marko told Autosport. "We had prepared a different configuration using a flat version of the floor. Therefore we do not need to modify the cars in Canada." Marko also revealed that Red Bull are not the only team impacted by Saturday's ruling. "This concerned other teams too, not only RBR," he said. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100093 Red Bull motorsport chief Helmut Marko does not think the FIA's ruling over Formula 1 floor regulations will handicap Red Bull Racing at all in the Canadian Grand Prix. The reigning champion team will have to modify holes in its RB8's floor following a clarification issued by the FIA this week. Several of Red Bull's rivals had considered protesting its design during the Monaco GP weekend, which saw RBR's Mark Webber take the team's second victory of 2012. Marko played down the significance of the FIA directive and said it would have no impact on Montreal form. "We had not planned to use this floor in Montreal anyway," Marko said. "We had prepared a different configuration using a flat version of the floor. Therefore we do not need to modify the cars in Canada." He insisted the FIA decision was not just a ruling against Red Bull, saying: "This concerned other teams too, not only RBR." Red Bull had used the floor in question in the Bahrain, Spanish and Monaco GPs. The team is the only one to have taken more than one victory so far this year and currently holds a 38-point constructors' championship lead. Drivers Sebastian Vettel and Webber are equal second in the standings, three points behind leader Fernando Alonso. Marko added: "We are not disturbed in our race preparation by this decision."
The redbull only flexed past the allowed limit after more pressure was exerted on it than was outlined in the rules, when the pressure added to the front wing was within those parameters the front wing did not flex past the limit, therefore it was legal, flexi wings weren't banned and still aren't, but the pressure parameters have been increased, if someone ((Newey) can figure out how to increase the pressure to the outside of the front wing past that point without breaking their front wing then we will see flexi-wings again, and they will be legal again. Every rule in F1 is open to some sort of interpretation, and it's in those interpretations that championships are won.
The thing is it's open to interpretation, not only to the teams but also the ruling body AND the scrutineers who may all (and obviously have) have different interpretations to what is and isn't allowed. Would it have been fair if the scrutineers, after having it pointed out and said it was legal, then made an about face after the result? "yeah we said it was legal, but now you've won we've changed our minds", if it had been declared illegal before the race then, yes, strip the points, but this was not the case.
Sorry for the long reply, this ****ing jubilee is pissing over the internet around here and I'm getting like 0.1mb an hour. I suppose it depends again how you interpretate the rules. The difference between the flexi wing and McLarens gap was that the flexi wing was strong enough to past the test, but the gap in the McLaren was already there, they tried to do the same "rule bend" as the RBR team in a different way. The Mclaren gap was never a solid structure so it was always illegal, but the flexi wing was stiff enough to pass the test so legal "under tests" but "illegal" under race conditions though it past all tests. That's the difference in my opinion with regard to both situations. It also depends what they always look for when these things are being tested because they missed that gap entirely before it was run. Shouldn't they have some sort of sonar to pick these things out or something rather then looking with camera's and eyes?
I was under the impression though that the Mclaren also past the tests so therefore was also legal "under tests", it was just that is got pointed out from television footage and banned because of that? And if you are going to ban things from television footage then the Red Bull flexi wing should of been banned as well. I do agree though that the testing and scrutineering is insufficient because they failed to pick up on the Mclaren wing and failed to test the Red Bull wing (and all wings) under race comparable conditions.
All of those wings were technically illegal, the tests were insufficient. Of them all, the Ferrari solution looked the most crude and the most risky yet it was allowed to continue. The RBR wing was genius though, and despite thinking that it should have been addressed sooner, you've gotta hand it to them... Nobody else really figured it.
