FIA slams Hill and explains what and why they do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Excuse me while I correct myself :p :

I think Renault are actually in a bit of a pickle, because it CAN be demonstrated that multiple senior employees within the Regie were party to viewing of the data, and it DID exist on their IT system.

Oops. Now get out of that Max. Talk about making your bed, then having to go sleep in it. This could potentially spell the end for Max if he cannot play fair with the verdict - because........

If he does, and the Reggie are out of the '07 constructors, and get a (proportionate to wealth) fine, I cannot see them sticking around.

If he does not do the above (assume it is the only equitable solution), his position as head of the FIA will likely be untenable.

---

Max's performance is going to be well worth watching! Better than some of the races...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Lets just 'consider the evidence'.

Unless I am very much mistaken, Renault are in the position McLaren were in before the new evidence from the Italian rozzers investigation came to light.

Namely, It would be entirely justified if the verdict against Renault were the same as the original McLaren verdict - that is that yes, they were caught with their pants down, but insufficient evidence would appear to exist to warrant the apportioning of a fiscal penalty.

Of course, if more info comes to light, and the FIA certainly would need to satisfy itself that the 2008 Renault blah blah blah (you get the picture).

So, Renault might just be off the hook.......

---

Renault also claim that they notified the FIA, something which Mclaren did not.

That alone might well result in a less harsh verdict.

At the moment, my personal take on this is that Renault will get the same verdict as Mclaren got first time round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Thanks for proving that I was right no to debate this from the beginning, and I will not debate with you any further because as I said:".

---

Originally Posted by ioan http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...s/viewpost.gif
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

But ioan, we agree...
Something that is hinged is not rigidly fixed
A test of flexion is not necessarily a test of movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

[LEFT]Originally Posted by ioan http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...s/viewpost.gif
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

But ioan, we agree...
Something that is hinged is not rigidly fixed
A test of flexion is not necessarily a test of movement.

---

Who gives a flex! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

"move" does not mean only to separate itself in its entirely and be free to go off to some other space. It includes going from one position to another. If one end moves, it moves. Flexing is bending, not being hinged. Something attached only at one end by a hinge is not "rigidly" attached, and something rotating about one end is not "immobile".

---

So, you would agree that the front and rear wings also flex/bend and are therefore not immobile? Are they then illegal devices? What about barge boards, winglets, etc.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

So, you would agree that the front and rear wings also flex/bend and are therefore not immobile? Are they then illegal devices? What about barge boards, winglets, etc.?

---

Wing flexion is specified explicitly in 3.17. The point about the floor is the mounting, rather than flexion of the floor itself.

This is the thing. 3.15 is about the mounting, 3.17 is about flexion of the body part itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Who gives a flex! :p :

---

Well yes, fair comment in a sense, but the issue is whether the FIA applies its written set of rules, or alters and ignores them for expediency or to suit its favourites as it goes along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Wing flexion is specified explicitly in 3.17. The point about the floor is the mounting, rather than flexion of the floor itself.

This is the thing. 3.15 is about the mounting, 3.17 is about flexion of the body part itself.

---

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.

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.

---

You are right on there. :up:
Some people around here are still insisting, for whatever reasons they might have, about it being hinged and so on.
I think that they should take a look at how the under-body of an F1 car actually looks, before posting.

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.