FIA slams Hill and explains what and why they do

[wmcot]

The spring mounting cannot be considered "rigid" or "immobile". Movement is intrinsic to a spring, and you would only use one in order to allow movement. Otherwise you would use a bolt or bonding. The floor was designed to move, and therefore deliberately contravened the regs.

The springs were visible, at least from the side or below, so a car with a sprung floor should have failed scrutineering.

I would imagine that Ferrari would say that the springs acted as dampers or limiters on the flexing of the floor. From the drawings I have seen, that is entirely plausible since you wouldn't want the floor to deflect too much and dig into the track. I'm not sure if the McLaren or RedBull designs used springs since I haven't heard much about their designs.

I doubt the scrutineers would fail the car just because it had springs present when it still passed the (then current) prescribed tests. The only basis they would have to disqualify a car is if it failed the test that was used at the time. That would make the device illegal.

[SGWilko]

"On learning how the device functioned,.

And here, ye folks in the FIA is the route of your problems. Until you 'learn' how ALL devices work at the design stage, and work on a sign off basis (yes you may need more staff) you will forever be chasing your tail.

What bothers me though about that quote from mad maxy, is that according to NS, the FIA had been alerted to its function and basic design by him, in his role at the time. It seems that Ferraris nonchalent attitude towards the letter and spirit of the rules, and how they ignored NS in all this is likely why he turned to the dark side. (IMHO, of course).

[ioan]

OK that is a good start.

You mean you'll finally understand what you didn't understand a few weeks ago?
That a part that is rigidly attached to the car's body at least at one point can't move anymore, just flex?!

Could I beg you to read this post thoroughly if you are going to reply.

As you see I'm doing just that!

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.

That's obvious and the deflecting floors were certainly within that, it means that when subjected to the same load as prescribed in the tests the floors were flexing by no more than the prescribed tolerance.
At higher loads the deflection was of course bigger and at smaller ones was smaller. Elementary my dear Watson.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

And the floors were just fine with this, were rigidly secured to the unsprung part of the car, which in turn means they had no degree of freedom = could not move anymore, so they were immobile.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when etc etc. The details of the load/deflection tests are not important.

The details of the tests are important, as there is described the exact way of testing and the loads that are used for testing, loads that would show if the part flexes more than 5 mm. We all know that al the floors passed the tests. So there was no breach of the regulations.

3.17.6 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are
respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further
oad/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
This clause was added between 2005 and 2007, I am not sure exactly when.

And so they did change the testing procedures and loads twice this season, because they were being outsmarted by the team's engineers.

Thanks for posting the regs!

[Rusty Spanner]

Regardless of the relative technical merits of the situations the bit I find interesting is the fact the FIA/Max has felt need to respond in a pretty strong (and personal) way to the recent comments by both Hill and Stewart. It isn't something they typically would have done in the past.

[passmeatissue]

I found a post in the Atlas-F1 forum that reminded me of the cross-examination by Ferrari's lawyer of Paddy Lowe, in the second WMSC hearing, where the McLaren system was described as having a pre-buckled stay (http://press.fiacommunications.com/w...3-09-2007a.pdf).

Ferrari's system is described as having springs, and the poster said it included a mass damper system. However McLaren's system was designed to be rigid up to a threshold, then it would allow the floor to drop.

I don't see that the McLaren system can be "rigidly attached" or "immobile" while at speed on the track. So now I don't think it's a Macca vs. Ferrari issue, but a puzzle why the FIA and/or the teams allowed either of them to get as far as turning up for a race. I thought with this kind of innovation the teams always check it with the FIA first. If they did, I don't see how the FIA could have approved it.

[passmeatissue]

You mean you'll finally understand what you didn't understand a few weeks ago?
That a part that is rigidly attached to the car's body at least at one point can't move anymore, just flex?!

That's obvious and the deflecting floors were certainly within that, it means that when subjected to the same load as prescribed in the tests the floors were flexing by no more than the prescribed tolerance.
At higher loads the deflection was of course bigger and at smaller ones was smaller. Elementary my dear Watson.

And the floors were just fine with this, were rigidly secured to the unsprung part of the car, which in turn means they had no degree of freedom = could not move anymore, so they were immobile.

The details of the tests are important, as there is described the exact way of testing and the loads that are used for testing, loads that would show if the part flexes more than 5 mm. We all know that al the floors passed the tests. So there was no breach of the regulations.

Thanks for posting the regs!

You have not grasped the key aspect. 3.17 is not an exhaustive test of compliance with 3.15. Otherwise 3.15 would not have been written, would it? They had to comply with 3.15 and 3.17.

You don't understand the words you are using, or you are trying to redefine them to suit your argument. "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".

[passmeatissue]

Regardless of the relative technical merits of the situations the bit I find interesting is the fact the FIA/Max has felt need to respond in a pretty strong (and personal) way to the recent comments by both Hill and Stewart. It isn't something they typically would have done in the past.

No, it seems Max is getting (even) more aggressive in his old age. I think he may be in some trouble now, the choice for the FIA between losing Renault and being obviously unfair is the result of Max's vendetta against Ron. The FIA members might finally start to wonder if their strong leader is a bit too strong.

[SGWilko]

No, it seems Max is getting (even) more aggressive in his old age. I think he may be in some trouble now, the choice for the FIA between losing Renault and being obviously unfair is the result of Max's vendetta against Ron. The FIA members might finally start to wonder if their strong leader is a bit too strong.

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.......

[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.......

Excuse me while I correct myself :

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.

[ioan]

You don't understand the words you are using, or you are trying to redefine them to suit your argument. "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".

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:

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

because previous attempts showed that many don't understand this.

PS: =/= means "different".

Have a nice "debate".