Red Bull forced to change floor design...

[pino]

Red Bull will be forced to modify the controversial holes in the floor of its RB8 after the FIA clarified its position and deemed the design was not permissible.


F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100074)

[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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[ShiftingGears]

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.

[CNR]

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.

[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.

[kfzmeister]

...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...

[Tazio]

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.

[gloomyDAY]

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.

[jens]

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. :D 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.

[Ranger]

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.

[BDunnell]

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?

[Bagwan]

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 ." .

[Tazio]

^^^^ 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 :crazy:

[donKey jote]

"we were only interpreting orders" :erm: :andrea: :p

[Bagwan]

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

[Tazio]

I'm trying to find an image of it :crazy:

When in doubt it is always a good idea to check Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1 (http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/)
Here is his diagram of what Red Bull was doing with their floor.


http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rbr_floor.jpg?w=584&h=438

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. :bulb:


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.
:s ailor: Cheaters ;)

[truefan72]

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

[airshifter]

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.

[Tazio]

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)
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tss_front450.jpg?w=300&h=211

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.
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tss_outer50.jpg?w=300&h=211
“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
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dsc04988.jpg?w=300&h=225

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
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ferrari_slot.jpg?w=300&h=199

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, Red Bull did not keep the slot open, thus they feel that this is not a requirement in this area.
—

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tss_enclosedhole1.jpg?w=300&h=211[b]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.

[wmcot]

Here's an actual photo from ESPN F1.com
2958

[wedge]

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.

Not at all.

It's generally standard practice for teams to allow the FIA run past grey area designs.

Lotus' trick front suspension was initially past by the FIA, the Brawn said the FIA allowed them to run DDD.

It's when the cat is out the bag one decides to play political games.

[F1boat]

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

Good to see that after so many years McLaren fans still have class :)

[Tazio]

I think the moral of this story is that the FIA need to be much more thorough in their prerace scrutineering
I know we've heard that song many times before. :(

[F1boat]

This has happened many, many times before. The team gets something funny, Charlie gives green light, the team wins and then it is protested and banned, without affecting the opening rounds. It has happened to Renault, McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, etc. It is stupid to demand banning of Webber and even sillier to compare the situation with what happened to Lewis in Spain - when McLaren broke the rule, which was INVENTED because of them and Hamilton.

[schmenke]

I’m cornfused…
Did RBR specifically present the design to the FIA before the Monaco GP to confirm legality?

[Tazio]

I’m cornfused…
Did RBR specifically present the design to the FIA before the Monaco GP to confirm legality? Good question, they first used it in Bahrain. I'll have to go back and do further research. This is the only thing that I've read in that arena and it is more than a little ethereal: :confused:



Red Bull, who are leading McLaren in the constructors' standings by 38 points after six of 20 races, have been adamant that their floor is legal and rebuffed doubts in Monaco. "There was a bit of a fuss after the Bahrain race (won by Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel in April) but it was clear the car complied," said team principal Christian Horner at the time.
"We sought clarification after that, but there is no doubt the car is fully compliant." Red Bull were not immediately available for comment ".....

Red Bull told to fix their floor - Sport - DNA (http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_red-bull-told-to-fix-their-floor_1697360)

The question is did they seek clarification after Bahrain, or Monaco?
The thing that seems odd is if you look at the Ferrari solution in the image I placed above. They have a hair thin cut to their scoops. I believe they did something like this for cooling vents in the recent past. I just don't see how much less effective their solution is.
BTW Horner is starting to get on my freakin’ nerves ;)

[Bagwan]

"Hey , you can't wear that clown nose . You'll be funnier than us ."

"Nowhere does it say I can't wear this nose , so I will ."

"Can he wear that clown nose ? He'll be too funny . He was already too funny last show ."

"We told you all that your noses could be red , be we also said that they could not restrict the vision of the giant clown feet ."

"But , everyone can see our feet . They're huge !"

"But we meant that you should be able to see them ."

"If we put a slot in the nose , connected to the step plane of the upper surface of each nostril , so that a portion of the bodywork of the giant shoes are clearly viisible from above the nasal area , would that be ok ?"

[wedge]

This has happened many, many times before. The team gets something funny, Charlie gives green light, the team wins and then it is protested and banned, without affecting the opening rounds. It has happened to Renault, McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, etc. It is stupid to demand banning of Webber and even sillier to compare the situation with what happened to Lewis in Spain - when McLaren broke the rule, which was INVENTED because of them and Hamilton.

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

[BDunnell]

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

Very true, alas.

[F1boat]

and cheaper...

[Bagwan]

According to reports coming out of the FIA headquarters in Paris , as penalty for having non-slotty holes , members of the Red Bull pit crew will be required to wear red clown noses for the next five races .

[Bagwan]

New reports coming from the FIA in Paris are saying the noses submitted by the Red Bull team have been found to have a unique ducting system , allowing the crew member to channel air away from the arch section 450mm forward of the heel template on his shoe , to allow for more grip when running to the car , simply by lifting his eyebrows , looking surprised .
Several of the other teams expressed surprise at the Red Bull looking surprised when either of the drivers came in for a pitstop when they appeared ready for them .

[Bagwan]

Reports from Maranello are saying the Ferrari team plan to protest the Red Bull nose's flexibility , slot or not , more because it's red is too close to Corsa Rosso than because of excessive nostril flare .

[SGWilko]

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

Is it though? As a team, if you see something on a rival car that you thought about implementing, but did not because you thought it illegal, logic dictates that you get it from the horses mouth as to its legality before copying the design and running it.

[Mark]

I've heard of a lot of things in F1 but never "Tyre squirt"!

[SGWilko]

I've heard of a lot of things in F1 but never "Tyre squirt"!

Anyone who has a car that does not come with a spare wheel knows what tyre squirt is - a complete and utter waste of time!

[Bezza]

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.

Dave my friend, the car was legal in Monaco. The car is now deemed illegal. If the race with the hole in Canada, it will be excluded. I thought you would be alright with that? It is quite a common occurence in F1 history - someone comes up with something not included in the regs, not approved or disproved - and after one race it is banned. Fair enough. The Brabham fan-car of 1978 is the best example as mentioned earlier by pino.

Ferrari...well, recently they haven't had things as much in their favour, however back in the Schumacher/Ferrari era - the favouritism was appalling. The bargeboards of Malaysia 1999 was a prime example, and personally my most frustrating one was Monza 2003 when Ferrari successfully got Michelin to have to change their tyres because the Bridgestones weren't good enough. It was a shocking decision at the time and cost Montoya the championship in 2003.

[BDunnell]

Dave my friend, the car was legal in Monaco. The car is now deemed illegal. If the race with the hole in Canada, it will be excluded. I thought you would be alright with that? It is quite a common occurence in F1 history - someone comes up with something not included in the regs, not approved or disproved - and after one race it is banned. Fair enough. The Brabham fan-car of 1978 is the best example as mentioned earlier by pino.

Exactly.

[wedge]

Is it though? As a team, if you see something on a rival car that you thought about implementing, but did not because you thought it illegal, logic dictates that you get it from the horses mouth as to its legality before copying the design and running it.

Yes, that is the case but teams who protest are also aware of their own car's disadvantage.


Ferrari...well, recently they haven't had things as much in their favour, however back in the Schumacher/Ferrari era - the favouritism was appalling. The bargeboards of Malaysia 1999 was a prime example, and personally my most frustrating one was Monza 2003 when Ferrari successfully got Michelin to have to change their tyres because the Bridgestones weren't good enough. It was a shocking decision at the time and cost Montoya the championship in 2003.

Bargeboards - It was to do with how they're measured. Brawn initially admitted it was a manufacturing fault to the point he showed/feigned innocence by publicly showing the bargeboards after the race. On appeal it was found they were just within the 5mm tolerence.

Michelin - there was a minimum width for the grooves but the grooves in the Michelins could be significantly narrowed in race conditions and therefore a wider contact patch at the fronts. There was no measurement post race which then Ferrari pushed for.

But is it Ferrari? Brawn GP had their DDD's given the OK, MGP had their W-duct given the OK. There's that name again... Ross Brawn!

[Malbec]

Michelin - there was a minimum width for the grooves but the grooves in the Michelins could be significantly narrowed in race conditions and therefore a wider contact patch at the fronts. There was no measurement post race which then Ferrari pushed for.

I don't believe that was the case, IIRC the Michelins deformed more under lateral loading and therefore part of the outside shoulder of the tyre would come into contact with the ground, increasing the contact patch but also increasing the width of the 'tread' in excess of that allowed. The Bridgestones had stiffer sidewalls that did not deform in such a way and were therefore disadvantaged as their contact patches would remain constant whatever the lateral loading. Michelin's defence was that if the outside shoulder came into contact with the ground then part of the inside of the tyre would lift off it so the width of the tread at any one time would be under the limit allowed. The FIA did not agree.

[SGWilko]

I don't believe that was the case, IIRC the Michelins deformed more under lateral loading and therefore part of the outside shoulder of the tyre would come into contact with the ground, increasing the contact patch but also increasing the width of the 'tread' in excess of that allowed. The Bridgestones had stiffer sidewalls that did not deform in such a way and were therefore disadvantaged as their contact patches would remain constant whatever the lateral loading. Michelin's defence was that if the outside shoulder came into contact with the ground then part of the inside of the tyre would lift off it so the width of the tread at any one time would be under the limit allowed. The FIA did not agree.

I think Wedge was right - the entire tread patch on the Michelins was slightly wider at the base than the top - thus if the rules changed and measurment of said tread patch was taken after the race, they would not conform.

[Malbec]

I think Wedge was right - the entire tread patch on the Michelins was slightly wider at the base than the top - thus if the rules changed and measurment of said tread patch was taken after the race, they would not conform.

The tread of the Michelins before use was legal. The problem was that during the race the tyre would deform and the contact patch would widen because the shoulders would be used. After the race there would be clear wear visible on the shoulders of the tyre, and the 'tread' as measuring the width of the worn areas was in excess of that allowed. However if you took the tread to be just the part of the tyre in contact with the ground even after use and you measured it while static in the paddock the tread remained legal.

The grooves weren't the problem.

Its quite complicated to explain verbally but 2 or 3 pictures would tell the whole story.

[SGWilko]

The tread of the Michelins before use was legal. The problem was that during the race the tyre would deform and the contact patch would widen because the shoulders would be used. After the race there would be clear wear visible on the shoulders of the tyre, and the 'tread' as measuring the width of the worn areas was in excess of that allowed. However if you took the tread to be just the part of the tyre in contact with the ground even after use and you measured it while static in the paddock the tread remained legal.

The grooves weren't the problem.

Its quite complicated to explain verbally but 2 or 3 pictures would tell the whole story.

OK - But I seem to recall it being exlained that Ferrari had photographic evidence of the Michelin shod cars trundling down the pitlane, and were able to demonstrate the increasing width of the tread as it neared the carcass.

[Malbec]

OK - But I seem to recall it being exlained that Ferrari had photographic evidence of the Michelin shod cars trundling down the pitlane, and were able to demonstrate the increasing width of the tread as it neared the carcass.

IIRC the photographic evidence was twofold, one of the used discarded Michelins post-race with wear clearly visible on the shoulders, and another of Michelins deforming under hard cornering showing the shoulder of the tyres in contact with the ground.

Personally I think Michelin was within the wording of the regulations but not the spirit, but then again the regulations regarding tread were extremely vague until this incident happened so...

[wedge]

IIRC the photographic evidence was twofold, one of the used discarded Michelins post-race with wear clearly visible on the shoulders, and another of Michelins deforming under hard cornering showing the shoulder of the tyres in contact with the ground.

Personally I think Michelin was within the wording of the regulations but not the spirit, but then again the regulations regarding tread were extremely vague until this incident happened so...

The photos showing the worn shoulders rings a bell.

Thanks for the clear up.