Red Bull forced to change floor design...

[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!