Thread: Red Bull forced to change floor design...

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness. We've been here before, with Ferrari, so at least the FIA's stupidity is consistent.

An exerpt from a letter to the teams :
"Following on from a number of discussionsin Monaco , during which it became clear that certain misunderstandings existed , we feel it would be helpful to make our position clear with respect to the presence of a fully enclosed hole in any surface lying on the step plane .
It has been argued that , as it is not explicitly stated that fully enclosed holes cannot be located in a surface lying on the step plane rearward of a line 450mm forward from the rear face of the cockpit template , then they may be located in such areas .
We disagree with this view and consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located there ."


It's now clear that it's not legal , Dave .
So , perhaps it's more of a clever Newey than a stupid FIA this time .

Originally Posted by Dave B

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness. We've been here before, with Ferrari, so at least the FIA's stupidity is consistent.

It was deemed legal at the time, and there weren't protests. This has happened throughout F1 history, so it isn't much of a surprise.

how can you have a hole that is fully enclosed ?

fully enclosed holes may not be located in the bodywork just ahead of the rear
wheels.

My feeling is that since RB got the green light from C. Whiting - that's why their "victory" still stands - Charlie should be removed from taking such decisions anymore.

My suggestion is that from now on these kind of decisions would be made directly by the FIA. I don't beleive in case of an appeal the FIA would be contradicting the................FIA. Although I could be wrong.

In response to Dave, I find it interesting that when it's not Ferrari caught in some wrong doing people seem to be more accepting of the same done by some different team.

Originally Posted by James Allen

...Because the FIA likes teams to run ideas past them first before implementation and then is open to reviewing their decision if other teams have an argument which proves illegality, the team is allowed to keep its results during the period the idea is on the car.

Has pretty much happened to all teams...

Originally Posted by CNR

how can you have a hole that is fully enclosed ?

What they are saying is a bit of a double positive. A hole by definition is fully enclosed as opposed to a slot, and allows air to be directed very precisely. A slot or a hole that is open-ended is the distinction that they are making, as nebulous a definition as it is.

Good decision. Stops the teams from spending an absurd amount of money to copy the design. Also, now the teams cannot protest since the FIA made a firm stance. Kudos! Let's go racing.

Originally Posted by Dave B

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness.

If they were disqualified in retrospect, that would be even a bigger madness as the car was deemed legal at the race weekend. Had FIA reacted quickly and banned it on Thu/Fri, RBR would have had time to modify the car for the race.

In any case, reminds a bit of Brabham's fan-car sole race win in 1978. One race for the car, subsequently banned. Although I'm sure the effect or benefit of current innovation isn't nearly as significant as it was the case back then.

Originally Posted by Dave B

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness.

The car was declared legal at the time, and you would prefer them to be retroactively disqualified.

Madness.

Originally Posted by Dave B

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness. We've been here before, with Ferrari, so at least the FIA's stupidity is consistent.

Do you believe the six-wheeled Tyrrell's sole win should subsequently be excised from the record books, then?

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

What they are saying is a bit of a double positive. A hole by definition is fully enclosed as opposed to a slot, and allows air to be directed very precisely. A slot or a hole that is open-ended is the distinction that they are making, as nebulous a definition as it is.

It seems to me that what they are saying is that it can look like a "C" , but not like an "O" , thus making the directing of the air movement through the step plane impossible .

This is a fine illustration of the issue at hand here , as it can be desperately hard to explain even the most basic of principles without the use of a visual cue like a "C" or an "O" ( and that's all assuming the reader understood the cue in the first place) .

This is the plight of any race governing body .
They must not only deal with the infringements on specific measurements , but also with teams saying "You didn't tell us we couldn't , so we did ." .

^^^^ That is a good way to describe it. I did do a little more research and found that my explanation is a little misleading, because the opening RB used actually was elongated not circular but still not open ended. I'm trying to find an image of it

"we were only interpreting orders"

And , thus , the holey decree came down to the masses , ensuring none were fully enclosed in thier holeyness , and ,
it was good .

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

I'm trying to find an image of it

When in doubt it is always a good idea to check Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1
Here is his diagram of what Red Bull was doing with their floor.




He has a very detailed explanation of how these holes offset "tire squirt" and illustrates how this woudn't work if the holes were open ended:

Having introduced a “tyre squirt” slot into the floor ahead of the rear tyres at the Bahrain GP, Red Bull had completed two complete GPs before rival teams raised questions about its legality. On the morning of the Monaco GP, several teams started a discussion regarding the slots legality, as it did not follow the practice of Sauber or Ferrari in linking the hole to the edge of the floor. No formal protest was made, but the Technical Working Group (TWG) wanted the rules around holes in the floor clarified.

To read the entire article go to the link I provided at the top of this post.

Having a bad tyre squirt effect will rob the diffuser by as much as 50% of its flow, getting it right merely maximises the potential of the diffuser. Having a slot to negate tyre squirt will gain some downforce and hence lap time.

Cheaters

Originally Posted by mstillhere

My feeling is that since RB got the green light from C. Whiting - that's why their "victory" still stands - Charlie should be removed from taking such decisions anymore.

My suggestion is that from now on these kind of decisions would be made directly by the FIA. I don't beleive in case of an appeal the FIA would be contradicting the................FIA. Although I could be wrong.

In response to Dave, I find it interesting that when it's not Ferrari caught in some wrong doing people seem to be more accepting of the same done by some different team.

I'm not
they should be stripped of the monaco win and 4th place by Vettel
If you can send a car to the back of the grid for low fuel in qualy, then why can't you strip the results of an illegal car

the teams blew it, and C.Whiting blew it (as usual, proving that CW's blessing means nothing) especailly the teams for not protesting the result. It would have taught RBR a well earned lesson

Originally Posted by truefan72

I'm not
they should be stripped of the monaco win and 4th place by Vettel
If you can send a car to the back of the grid for low fuel in qualy, then why can't you strip the results of an illegal car

the teams blew it, and C.Whiting blew it (as usual, proving that CW's blessing means nothing) especailly the teams for not protesting the result. It would have taught RBR a well earned lesson

Do you have any evidence that the RB had anything deemed illegal by the FIA? I don't, merely clarification of a very gray at best wording to a rule that was asked to be clarified by the FIA. You can't change or clarify a rule and then state that teams are retroactively guilty of violating that rule.

Originally Posted by airshifter

Do you have any evidence that the RB had anything deemed illegal by the FIA? I don't, merely clarification of a very gray at best wording to a rule that was asked to be clarified by the FIA. You can't change or clarify a rule and then state that teams are retroactively guilty of violating that rule.

You are spot on in saying it is in a gray area. It does sort of contravenes two or three rules, but I do like the way that Craig Scarborough explaines, and then sums up the whole shooting match:

Three rules are obstacles to these slots, covering: openings, enclosed holes and continuous surfaces.
3.12.5 The main floor rule sets out that the floor must be rigid and impervious
All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

—
Rule: 3.12.5 says that enclosed holes are allowed in the front section of floor (shaded)


3.12.5 (cont) This explains enclosed holes are only allowed 450mm forward of the rear of the cockpit template (the very front of the sidepods). This implies enclosed holes are not allowed elsewhere.
Forward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below. This does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible, provided each of these areas does not exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the car, or to any parts of the panels referred to in Article 15.4.7.

—

Rule 3.12.10 allows discontinuous surfaces in the outer 50mm of floor

3.12.10 this last rule opens up the outer 50mm of floor for discontinuous surfaces.

“In an area lying 650mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template to 350mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.”

—

Saubers solution clearly shows the slot joins the edge of the floor


However there remain interpretations that can allow these slots to be used. Sauber came up with their solution before Melbourne; they formed an aerofoil section at the trailing edge of the floor ahead of the rear tyre. This has the effect of injecting the energy into the airflow running along the flank of the diffuser. It was legal as the aerofoil section was formed on the outboard 50mm of the floor, the slot could not be inside of this area as the continuous surface rule applies here Additionally the slot ran to the edge of floor and formed part of the periphery of the floor and thus was not an enclosed hole. Their solution gained a degree of interest in Melbourne from the other teams. One this design was accepted, other teams were open to develop their solution.

—

Ferrari’s three smaller slots are still joined to the edge of the floor by a tiny slots


Ferrari soon followed suit with three small scoops set into the floor ahead of the rear tyres. To make these legal, again they say in the outer 50mm of floor and to prevent them being enclosed, each scoop is joined to the periphery of the floor by a thin slot.

—

Having the slot joined to the floors edge, makes the slot a continuation of the floors periphery, which is clearly legal
Red Bull have created a single larger scoop set into the floor, joined at one side to a vertical fence. However unlike the other two aforementioned teams, [B]Red Bull did not keep the slot open, thus they feel that this is not a requirement in this area.

—

Red Bulls slot is not joined to the floors edge, so the hole is enclosed and not part of the floors periphery.

It appears Red Bull feel that the rules do not explicitly say that enclosed holes are not allowed in this area. Presumably because enclosed holes are only explicitly allowed in the front of the floor, the rule implies that they are not allowed in other areas. So with no explicit ban on enclosed in this outer 50cm of floor Red Bull feel justified to do so. The new Technical Directive has clarified this to explicitly ban enclosed opening in any area of the floor other than the aforementioned area.
As Red Bull have had a counter case that the holes are not explicitly banned, there is a difficult case for the FIA to argue that they are in clear contravention of the rules. So the team are allowed to keep their results, but change their design before the next race. Red Bull can now either remove the tyre squirt slot, or more likely add a simple thin slot to join it to the edge of the floor as Ferrari and Sauber have done. This will lose a small percentage of the slots efficiency, but overall the effect of the flow will still be a benefit to the cars performance.
This case had the potential to be a far larger and messier affair. With F1 having an entertaining season so far, perhaps its best that the saga has ended quickly and quietly.