Red Bull accuse Ferrari of having a manually adjustable ride height system

[Dizzi]

Every icon has his dark moments, Ayrton Senna was no angel but he's highly regarded. I'm sure Adrian Newey will be 99% remembered in history for his genius.
Of course Red Bull/AN will say the rules are too ambiguous & should be clearer if the FIA don't want them "interpreted".
The big difference here is what they are doing is illegal whether they use it or not. It's like owning a gun in the UK without a license - no good saying 'but I never use it', it shouldn't be in your cupboard in the first place.
Not condoning Red Bull at all but I wonder how many of the WDC/WCC winning cars were 100% legal??

 

[Kewee]

Dizzi.......In answer to your question "how many winning cars were legal" I would suggest those that have past scrutineering and the FIA regulations as they were written at the time. In saying that, Red Bull were allowed a lot of leeway that the FIA were clearly not happy about, regarding rule interpretations in 2011.

 

[Pyrope]

those that have past scrutineering

You think passing scrutineering mean that it conforms perfectly to the regulations? That's quite funny.

 

[Kewee]

Pyrope.......Not sure why that's funny. Scrutineering has always been and still is the only time a car can be examined for any illegalities. Do you have a better idea? If your suspicious of whether these tests are done correctly I would suggest it's teams like Red Bull and the way they're currently behaving that create those suspicions.

 

[Pyrope]

Kewee, if you are labouring under the delusion that scrutineering can catch all, or even most, of the tricks and wheezes that a good racing car designer can come up with I'd direct your attention to the life and times of Henry "Smokey" Yunick. Now there was a man who knew rule bending.

As with many people who seemed to crop up around the time of the Red Bull flexywing kerfuffle, you seem to think that passing scrutineering means that the car is legal. That's not how it works. All scrutineering does is tell the stewards that, as far as they can tell at that point in time, the car is legal. If the cheat is well hidden then a car can perfectly well pass scrutineering while still being illegal. Just look at Tyrrell in 1984...

 

[Kewee]

Pyrope.......I can assure you I'm not labouring nor am I delusional. I'm totally aware of all the points you raise but regulations and scrutineers to see those regulations are adhered to are all we have. If a team chooses to cheat and are able to hide their dishonesty there is very little that can be done to stop them. The most effective way to stop it is to have very severe punishments when they are caught. At the very least they could be allowed to race starting from the rear of the grid and not be eligible for constructors points, For blatant dishonesty they should receive race bans and in the most extreme cases, thrown out of the championship. With penalties this strong it may well lead them to question the wisdom of pushing the boundaries too far, and could go a long way towards tidying up the sport, making it fair for everyone.

 

[Pyrope]

I don't disagree at all Kewee, but the reality is that the real battle in this sense is between the designers and the scrutineers. I was responding to your phrasing...

"how many winning cars were legal" I would suggest those that have past scrutineering and the FIA regulations as they were written at the time.

My point is that's not actually the case. Scrutineering is the best oversight that we have, but then doping control is the best that athletics have against drug cheats. Does that stop them? No. Are they legal when they compete? No. Are they caught? Not always. Just today we have had a Belarusian athlete withdrawn from the Olympics due to a retest of a urine sample taken eight years ago. At the time he passed, but it has since been shown that he was cheating. Just because a car passes scrutineering doesn't mean that it is unequivocally legal.

I have to admit that when Ross Brawn waded in to the flexywing mire last year with his asinine "it passed the test therefore it is legal" twaddle, my first instinct was to think "oh yes Ross, and what is it you don't want the stewards knowing about on the Merc?"

 

[Fenderman]

I am reminded of an interesting discussion about a suspected Red Bull ride height dodge we had some time ago. For anyone who is interested you can find the thread here:

http://cliptheapex.com/threads/adjustable-ride-height-legal-or-illegal.1264/

There was some speculation that injecting and releasing gas into the dampers was a possible method increasing/decreasing preload - one of my comments on that theory is here ...

http://cliptheapex.com/threads/adjustable-ride-height-legal-or-illegal.1264/page-2#post-19333

Funny how this one has laid dormant only to resurface seemingly unresolved for so long.

 

[Kewee]

Pyrope.......We're not far apart on our thinking here. I don't think for one moment you thought I believed if a car passed scrutineering it was unequivocally legal, of course I don't, I was just pointing out, and you appear to agree, that regulations and scrutineers are the best option we have in trying to control the sport. The only way to attempt to stop dishonesty in any sport is to implement draconian punishments so breaking the rules just isn't worth it. The problem with F1 and the money involved is they simply cannot do that. Watch sponsorship dollars drain out of the sport if they try.

 

[Kewee]

As for allegations originating from the FIA and not teams, as I recall the current President of the FIA has rather strong ties to one particular F1 team. Therefore, I cannot totally dismiss the possibility of bias.

He has absolutely no ties to Ferrari anymore nor is he involved in the policing of technical issues.

 

[sportsman]

I have followed this thread with great interest.Many good points raised and many not so good.
So come up with an absolute cheat proof system.Short of spec cars there simply isnt one.
Regarding the ride height issue I have yet to see any response which would work.
I speak from over 40 years of racing competition and a single knurled screw or any other device that would change the ride height without upsetting all of the suspension settings.
Take a look at any F1 car suspension set up and then do a quick pencil sketch of just how you or even Newey could overcome the various effects on the other parts of the car suspension settings.

 

[Kewee]

I think the solution that would satisfy most fans is simple. If the regulations state it shouldn't be possible to make a height adjustment without the use of a tool, design your bloody car so it needs a tool to adjust the ride height.

 

[sportsman]

Kewee.How do you read this regulation.The series I raced clearly states that hydraulic suspension must only be changeable by using tools.If the car is standing on its wheels it is mpossible to turn the adjusting nut by hand.However if the load is taken from the wheel by lifting on a jack or even by a hefty friend to lighten the load it is possible to turn the adjusting nut a couple of clicks with you fingers.The damper is made by SPAX and meets all regulations for the series.So is the damper illegal.Or am cheating by circumventing the need to use a tool.

PS. I am not a fan of any team incidently

 

[Kewee]

sportsman........The situation your referring to clearly doesn't relate to F1 but if your regulations state you must only be able to change settings using a tool and your able to turn an adjusting nut by hand then clearly your breaking the rules. Unless of course the regulations state you must only be able to adjust the suspension using tools when the car is standing on its wheels. Then of course it would be perfectly legal to adjust the suspension by hand when the car is jacked up.

PS. I've only become a fan of Ferrari since they've returned to their roots. I'm a Kiwi and a fan of McLaren for that reason, but that doesn't mean I've automatically approved of how they've conducted themselves in the past. I tend to follow drivers rather than teams.

 

[Pyrope]

sportsman, it depends whether you consider your friend to be a tool or not...

 

[teabagyokel]

Brogan - since Canada, isn't it? Anyway the 2010/11 results are set in stone.

 

[Brogan]

Canada 2012 is when it was discovered by the FIA.
Who knows how long it has actually been in use.

 

[teabagyokel]

Well, then they were illegal in Canada, Europe, Great Britain and Germany. Therefore, they should be turfed out, even if that does make one Spaniard very happy.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Isn't this a simple case of the pot calling the kettle?

I remember cases in the past notably Renault and their mass damper they were told to take it off the car but they were not deducted any championship points for using it so I can't see the FIA doing anything like that to a team of today...

Edit.

Red Bull have been under the spotlight now for so long I don't know about you but I can't even look at the car without thinking there is something dirty about it even if there isn't, and every time Horner opens his mouth I just want him to close it again...

 

[Pyrope]

Mephistopheles, I think the tuned mass damper was definitely more of a grey area than this. Renault had a pretty good defence, after all who would have thought that the movable aerodynamic device rules also covered items that were tucked away inside the car and out of the airflow!