The whole thing is farcical and typically it took forever for Charlie and his minions to issue a clarification.
Technical Red Bull floor declared illegal by the FIA
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
I really wish the FIA would step back fromn this. I still feel if they broke down areas of development in to sections and allowed teams to nominate one or two areas where thay would have relaxed rules (different for each team) the true example of engineering excellence that used to be F1 may rear it's head and you may find cars better able to exploit different parts of different tracks and genuinely fight for places without the artificial stimulants to overtaking.
Kewee
Race Winner
Regarding the legality or otherwise of the Red Bull, teams will always search for gray areas to exploit. The FIA have stated this is exactly that, a gray area, which is why it had not been deemed illegal by Charlie Whiting or other scrutineers. With attention drawn to the floor area of the Red Bull the FIA have simply revisited and clarified the technical regulation and its intent. Whenever a team pushes its development in any gray area they run the risk of pushing things beyond the intent of the regulations and therefore risk having rulings go against them. They know that. Red Bull did exactly that with the blown diffuser. The FIA had made it abundantly clear that the upcoming changes to the regulations were aimed at giving F1 a cleaner greener image, despite this Red Bull continued to develop off throttle burning of fuel to feed their diffusers. That was a perfect example of a team going against the spirit of the regulations. KER's is a part of creating a greener image for F1 and Red Bull, leading the development of off throttle blowing, ignoring the intent of the regulations, cancelled out all the green advantages the FIA were trying to achieve with KER's. Red Bull were lucky to get away with that for the entire season and of course it led to other teams having to do the same, not exactly what the FIA wanted or intended. Obviously the FIA are going to be harder on teams that try to exploit gray areas and won't hesitate in clarifying any regulation that is being exploited. It's the same with any sport driven by technology. Designers will always push to the very limits otherwise they wouldn't be competitive, the inevitable result is occasionally they push just a little too far.
Scarbs' take on it: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/red-bull-floor-hole-legality/#more-2717
That may help to clear a few things up Mephistopheles.
That may help to clear a few things up Mephistopheles.
It looks like that's exactly what they'll do, which the other teams already have.
I wonder if the minimum width of the slot is stipulated anywhere otherwise they could, as you suggest, basically just have something slightly wider than a crack.
I honestly think Red Bull should lose the points they gained in the races they used the slot (I know they won't). The fact is the system was intoduced in Malaysia and since them Red Bull have won 2 races and are now leading the WCC and both it's drivers are not far off in the WDC. Given how strict the FIA was with the technical infringment in qualifying in Spain (sorry to go there again!) and that both Saubers lost 9th and 10th in the 2011 Austrialian GP I think Red Bull have been extremely lucky not to have been excluded from the results.
Cheating is like winning to me. Doesn't matter how much you win by, winning is winning...
Cheating is like winning to me. Doesn't matter how much you win by, winning is winning...
I think the problem is that if the slot was manufactured into the material then you could make it as small as you like, maybe even as small as a few microns but if you have to cut the slot after manufacture then the smallest Kerf value I could find is about 0.5 of a millimetre using a laser and even then this depends on the type of material, thickness of material, speed of cut, laser power and laser frequency.
PS
The Kerf is the width of material removed in any type of cutting process.
PS
The Kerf is the width of material removed in any type of cutting process.
Kewee
Race Winner
Their cars passed scrutineering. No one lodged a protest, therefore the cars were considered legal in the previous races. why should they lose points
Because clearly they weren't legal. The only difference is that for some unknown reason (most likely the scrutineers are inconsistent idiots) the RB8s were disqualified instantly unlike the Sauber C30s were in Melbourne.
Sauber ran a car that didn't meet the rule book, they were disqualified. Red Bull ran a car that didn't meet the rule book, they were not disqualified. Sheer inconsistency.
Sauber ran a car that didn't meet the rule book, they were disqualified. Red Bull ran a car that didn't meet the rule book, they were not disqualified. Sheer inconsistency.
There was nothing "clear" about their legality. ALL cars undergo FIA scrutineering even before they are completed, and RB passed every one of the checks. How is that "cheating"?
If the inspectors had caught the discrepancy earlier in the season, or even during construction, the condition would have been rectified at that time. No objections were raised, so RB assumed that their interpretation of the rules was legal. To claim that they were "cheating" and should lose points shows an anti-RB bias, not based on the facts IMO.
From reading through the posts here (I don't have better more specific knowledge of the regs) it seems that the rules have been consistently applied.
If a car fails scrutineering it is effectively black flagged for the race. If a car is found to be non compliant between races it is required to rectify the infringement.
This seems perfectly logical in the same way that Stewards have a window of opportunity in which they must announce an enquiry into a racing incident, if they miss the cut off then there can be no penalty applied.
I think the sad part of the whole thing is that the symantics of the rule are such that the a microscopic crack can be cut simply to comply with the rule. Any rule that requires stupidity to comply with is surely flirting with the stupid rule territory.
If a car fails scrutineering it is effectively black flagged for the race. If a car is found to be non compliant between races it is required to rectify the infringement.
This seems perfectly logical in the same way that Stewards have a window of opportunity in which they must announce an enquiry into a racing incident, if they miss the cut off then there can be no penalty applied.
I think the sad part of the whole thing is that the symantics of the rule are such that the a microscopic crack can be cut simply to comply with the rule. Any rule that requires stupidity to comply with is surely flirting with the stupid rule territory.
siffert_fan I am not biased against Red Bull, I guess they weren't cheating but the real question behind this is why wasn't this issue picked up earlier because at best it's a grey area. However I feel they should lose points although I know they won't, again I don't think this is based on bias, simply the fact that they ran a car that didn't meet specified rules and benefitted from this.
I don't see why it's fair that Sauber were disqualified instantly for a technical infringement and yet Red Bull have been allowed to get away with it. If I'm biased against anyone here it is the FIA.
I don't see why it's fair that Sauber were disqualified instantly for a technical infringement and yet Red Bull have been allowed to get away with it. If I'm biased against anyone here it is the FIA.
Similar threads
- Article
