FIA slams Hill and explains what and why they do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

I'm not 100% sure, but the way I understand the construction of the flexible part of the floor is that it is an extension of the main monocoque floor with the rear of the flexible part being and integral part of the main floor. The springs are located near the front of the flexible section to damp/limit the flexing to be within the limits of flex at the original prescribed test weight. That would make the floor rigidly mounted at the rear. Only the frontmost part of the floor would flex. The design is much like a diving board where the rear is rigidly attached, but the extended end flexes.

If anyone has more precise data on the actual configuration of the design, please share it with us all.

---

From the horse's mouth...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

How was the spring mounted system on the floor extension or the chassis?
Does anyone know?

IMO if it's somehow rigidly attached at the ends to the extension/chassis, I would call it legal, but if it uses pivots at either end of the spring it could be considered illegal.

---

Why is that?
The floors are attached rigidly to the chassis, but one of the ends in free.
Towards the free end of the floor there was another mounting that incorporated springs thus was not rigid.

I hate to repeat myself, but if the floor was rigidly (and I mean rigidly, not what some might believe that means) attached to the chassis at least at one point than it was within the rules no matter how many spring systems might have been used at the other end of it.

The free end of the floor had to vertically deflect not more than 5 mm under a load of 50N (I believe) and this requirement was met.

The only problem that the FIA had with it was that as soon as the cars start going real fast the aerodynamic load on the floor was larger and larger, thus pushing the floor down by more than 5mm.
So first the FIA asked the teams not to use those spring mountings, which I doubt that changed to many things because the floors would still flex under the load, and this flex is easy to be controlled by the teams with the use of stratified composite materials.
This is why a few weeks after the first change they came up with a second change to the testing methods and pushed the testing load up to 200N (that's a bit more than 20Kg), so a huge difference which meant that the floors would be way less flexible than before.

So, IMO, the problem lied more within the flexibility of the floor, flexibility that was allowed by the use of a small load for the deflection loads, than with the spring system that was primarily used as a measure of protection of the floor when riding the kerbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Why is that?
The floors are attached rigidly to the chassis, but one of the ends in free.
Towards the free end of the floor there was another mounting that incorporated springs thus was not rigid.

I hate to repeat myself, but if the floor was rigidly (and I mean rigidly, not what some might believe that means) attached to the chassis at least at one point than it was within the rules no matter how many spring systems might have been used at the other end of it.

The free end of the floor had to vertically deflect not more than 5 mm under a load of 50N (I believe) and this requirement was met.

The only problem that the FIA had with it was that as soon as the cars start going real fast the aerodynamic load on the floor was larger and larger, thus pushing the floor down by more than 5mm.
So first the FIA asked the teams not to use those spring mountings, which I doubt that changed to many things because the floors would still flex under the load, and this flex is easy to be controlled by the teams with the use of stratified composite materials.
This is why a few weeks after the first change they came up with a second change to the testing methods and pushed the testing load up to 200N (that's a bit more than 20Kg), so a huge difference which meant that the floors would be way less flexible than before.

So, IMO, the problem lied more within the flexibility of the floor, flexibility that was allowed by the use of a small load for the deflection loads, than with the spring system that was primarily used as a measure of protection of the floor when riding the kerbs.

---

This is Charlie Whiting's view...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Charlie doesn't see any room for doubt, it was "quite clearly....strictly prohibited."

So why the car was allowed to run and score points is a mystery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

This is Charlie Whiting's view...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Charlie doesn't see any room for doubt, it was "quite clearly....strictly prohibited."

So why the car was allowed to run and score points is a mystery.

---

Right, this could go on ad infinitum. You (passmeatissue and Ioan) need to agree to disagree.

You can see how the FIA rules are so cocking (can I use that word?) badly written that this ambiguity happens ALL the time.

Both of you, save the atoms in your fingers and on your keyboards and draw a line in the FIA sanctioned sand.

Please.

Thank you.

As any good Chav would say - End of, innit! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Right, this could go on ad infinitum. You (passmeatissue and Ioan) need to agree to disagree.

You can see how the FIA rules are so cocking (can I use that word?) badly written that this ambiguity happens ALL the time.

Both of you, save the atoms in your fingers and on your keyboards and draw a line in the FIA sanctioned sand.

Please.

Thank you.

As any good Chav would say - End of, innit! ;)

---

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

How was the spring mounted system on the floor extension or the chassis?
Does anyone know?

IMO if it's somehow rigidly attached at the ends to the extension/chassis, I would call it legal, but if it uses pivots at either end of the spring it could be considered illegal.

---

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/Media...enza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilderness

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/Media...enza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

---

That's all foreign to me! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilderness

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/Media...enza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

---

Thanks! :up:

Exactly what I was saying for a month at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilderness

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/Media...enza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

---

Thanks!

Well I take note that you've has enough of the floor issue, SGWilko, I know it's an old one and I certainly don't mean to p*ss everyone off. But for me FIA consistency is still a live issue, and this is part of what a forum is about, using debate as a means of assembiling information and looking at aternative points of view. I personally have learned quite a bit that I didn't know before, and generally if you keep going with information-based replies you more often than not find that two people who are at loggerheads in the beginning find they agree more than they realised.

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Thanks!

Well I take note that you've has enough of the floor issue, SGWilko, I know it's an old one and I certainly don't mean to p*ss everyone off. But for me FIA consistency is still a live issue, and this is part of what a forum is about, using debate as a means of assembiling information and looking at aternative points of view. I personally have learned quite a bit that I didn't know before, and generally if you keep going with information-based replies you more often than not find that two people who are at loggerheads in the beginning find they agree more than they realised.

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

---

Hey, don't worry, my post was a little tongue in cheek y'know! I agree with you 100% on the consistency within the FIA issue, its been an issue for yonks, and no doubt always will be.

Not p***ed off at all. And you are right, I've also learned quite a lot from both you and Ioan on this.

But look. Ioan thinks it was legal because it passed the test - and hey, the FIA tech dept isn't exactly NASA is it?

Your take on it (as is mine, but I've let it go now, so what, it's in the past) is that it should have been deemed illegal because it was against the spirit of the rules.

I guess that both the points can be viewed as valid (glass half empty or half full).

Anyway, moving on, what lovely weather we are having........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

---

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

---

It could very well be that he has only realised that it's illegal subsequently. We may not think this is good enough, but this isn't something that's ever come up before (in recent times, at least) and he is only human.

It's sometimes worth remembering the latter point in relation to F1. These are people doing jobs and nothing more. No matter how much any of them earn, and how well-known they are, they have to deal with the same sort of things at work as any of us do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

---

Well the conspiracy theorist's guess (that's me :D ) would be that McLaren could have modified their pre-buckled stay in time (it just needed beefing up), but Ferrari couldn't have got their more complex spring system compliant in time for the race. So rather than have a ruckus at the first race of the season, and set Ferrari back, he fudged it.

Sound familiar at all?

Wish I knew what McLaren actually ran in the race. Anyone know? If they did modify it, that would explain why they brought the issue up in the WMSC hearing. Otherwise, that decision looks a bit silly, which is how Nigel Tozzi made them look.

Anyway, back on topic, Damon was quite right, Ferrari did run an illegal floor in Australia, and kept the points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Well the conspiracy theorist's guess (that's me :D ) would be that McLaren could have modified their pre-buckled stay in time (it just needed beefing up), but Ferrari couldn't have got their more complex spring system compliant in time for the race. So rather than have a ruckus at the first race of the season, and set Ferrari back, he fudged it.

Sound familiar at all?

---

Yeah, it looks like so many other stupid "FIA favors Ferrari" theories! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Yeah, it looks like so many other stupid "FIA favors Ferrari" theories! :p :

---

And all those other 'FIA favours XXXX' theories...

All of this discussion just illustrates why the greatest and most valuable engineer talent that should be most in demand is "cheating without getting caught"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilderness

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/Media...enza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

---

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Why is that?

---

sorry it took so long, I forgot all about this thread. :)
If the video is accurate, then IMO the spring system was against the aero rules.
The spring system can rotate around the upper and lower pivot points which means it is not fixed on the chassis. And as such is against the 3.15(?) aero rule that prohibits any use of moveable mechanisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Thanks


sorry it took so long, I forgot all about this thread. :)
If the video is accurate, then IMO the spring system was against the aero rules.
The spring system can rotate around the upper and lower pivot points which means it is not fixed on the chassis. And as such is against the 3.15(?) aero rule that prohibits any use of moveable mechanisms.

---

But the spring system isn't an aero device. Or should I point it out that all the aero parts on the car that are fixed with bolts, that can rotate around their own axis, are illegal than?
Also the floor can't rotate nor translate, just flex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

But the spring system isn't an aero device.

---

In itself maybe not, but isn't at least one of its purposes to improve the aero under the car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

But the spring system isn't an aero device.

---

It situates in the airflow, isn't part of the suspension or is governed by any other regulation, Then what is it?
A mass damper? :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

In itself maybe not, but isn't at least one of its purposes to improve the aero under the car?

---

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).

---

Yes (it's kerbs btw ;) ), that was one purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).

---

It only works at high speed, not the speed they go over kerbs. Its purpose was to reduce drag on the straights.

I found this...
(my underlines)

"If the front of the floor drops at speed it could create an aerodynamic stall, which improves straightline performance.

That won’t necessarily show up with stunning speed trap figures, as it could also allow cars to run a bit more wing and have better performance – with less taken out of the tires – in the corners.

The rules allow for a certain amount of “absorption” in that area of the car because the floor takes a lot of punishment from the curbs, and if it is too rigid, the chassis would suffer. However, if the floor is actually capable of lowering, it would be an illegal movable aerodynamic device.

All cars have a form of stay holding the front of the floor in place, but rivals noticed an unusually complex arrangement on the Ferrari when the bodywork was off the car in the Melbourne pit garage.
"

Also the likely answer to why they were allowed to run...

Ron is quoted as saying...

"“There is a whole range of things that come to light in the first race and you go and you say what is legal, and what is not legal. Most teams are given that current race to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I think there will be a rationalization of some aspects of some cars that would close the gap if no one did anything."

http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=197806

So it was illegal, but not a conspiracy after all. Phew!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

It only works at high speed, not the speed they go over kerbs. Its purpose was to reduce drag on the straights.

---

What kind of speeds have F1 cars through the Lesmo's? Or through Eau Rouge?
I dare say they go over 200 kmh there, and there are other so called chicanes where they do 200 kmh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What kind of speeds have F1 cars through the Lesmo's? Or through Eau Rouge?
I dare say they go over 200 kmh there, and there are other so called chicanes where they do 200 kmh.

---

It drops at speed. So they wouldn't calibrate it to lower the floor over kerbs. Well, only once... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

It situates in the airflow, isn't part of the suspension or is governed by any other regulation, Then what is it?
A mass damper? :p :

---

Drivers head is situated in the airflow to and isn't part of the suspension and isn't governed by any other regulation, it can also act like a mass damper, so what is it? :p :

Ioan, I didn't think the drivers used their head any more - just look at Alonso and Hamilton for proof !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Drivers head is situated in the airflow to and isn't part of the suspension and isn't governed by any other regulation, it can also act like a mass damper, so what is it? :p :

---

Simple, just re site the drivers head to his crotch. It's out of the air flow then. There is a common side effect to this however, a tendency to crash more often than Andrea de Cesaris!! :p :

WOW! It's the middle of November and we're still re-hashing a single device that only ran in the first race of the season! Remember, it was a device that the FIA did not determine to be illegal (no disqualifications) and no formal appeal was launched by any other team. I think it's time to drop it - it just leads to frustration no matter which side you're on.

I'm surprised that there isn't still a thread going on about the McLaren brake-steer pedal! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

I'm surprised that there isn't still a thread going on about the McLaren brake-steer pedal! :)

---

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

Didn't this start out as a thread about Damon Hill's remarks about the FIA?

It seems that from now on, all posts on any subject will end up being anti-Ferrari-flexible-floor posts.

As a final note for those anti-Ferrari and blinkered-McLaren fans - the Ferrari flexing floor had far less to do with the WDC outcome than a trip to the gravel in China and a bad passing move at Brazil!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

---

When you've been proved wrong, for the third or fourth time, you can be reduced to dodging ;) .

Actually this has been quite a good thread, that did answer the question.

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

When you've been proved wrong, for the third or fourth time, you can be reduced to dodging ;) .

---

The only proof it was illegal would have been disqualification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

---

But knowingly chose not to act on it? Shouldn't he be removed from his position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

---

So we'll see turbo V12's and slicks at the opening race next year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

---

Hmmm... your posts have been fairly logical, I guess we can overlook one clearly wrong one! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

---

Ioan, that comment was priceless. I actually fell off my chair. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

As a final note for those anti-Ferrari and blinkered-McLaren fans - the Ferrari flexing floor had far less to do with the WDC outcome than a trip to the gravel in China and a bad passing move at Brazil!

---

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

If

---

Life is all about IF's...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Ioan, that comment was priceless. I actually fell off my chair. :laugh:

---

This might explain some of latest post! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

---

Well, If everyone would have been disqualified for the slightest mistake than LH has maybe the longest list of DQ's waiting for him:

1). floor in OZ (Max said that McLaren were also concerned by the flexing floor problem in Oz so according to some around here the floors of several teams were illegal, not my view though)
2). put back on the track by a crane in Nurburgring
3). disregarded the SC car rules in very difficult condition at Fuji
4). used more wet weather tires than allowed by the rules in Brazil
5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

That's 18 points by my calculations.

Let's see how many you can find for Kimi! Than you do the maths and see who had more points.