http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/279438/red-bull-floor-declared-illegal-by-fia/ Formula 1 governing body the FIA has brought an end to the controversy surrounding Red Bull's floor design, forcing the current World Champions to remove the holes that sit in front of the RB8's rear wheels ahead of the Canadian Grand Prix. Ferrari and McLaren were amongst a number of teams to voice their concerns over the interpretation in Monaco, later threatening to protest. However, despite Mark Webber's victory, nothing was lodged by rival squads and the result stood. Webber's eighth career victory will stand, as rival teams failed to pursue a protest The FIA has since reassessed the situation and declared the holes as a breach of the regulations. This was outlined in the pre-Canada technical directive, issued to all teams prior to the race. "Following on from a number of discussions in Monaco, during which it became clear that certain misunderstandings existed, we feel it would be helpful to make our position clear with respect to the presence of a fully enclosed hole in any surface lying on the step plane," the technical directive (codenamed TD/013-12) explains. "It has been argued that, as it is not explicitly stated that fully enclosed holes cannot be located in a surface lying on the step plane rearward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit template, then they may be located in such areas. We disagree with this view and consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located there. "If they were permitted the opening part of the second paragraph of Article 3.12.5 (which was added to the regulations at the same time as Articles 3.12.9 and 3.12.10 for 2011) would be superfluous. "Furthermore, locating a fully enclosed hole partly or wholly within the 50mm band which is exempt from the requirements of Article 3.12.10 along the outer edges of the surfaces lying on the step plane does not exempt it from the requirements of Article 3.12.5, those parts lying outboard of Y650 are still parts of the surfaces lying on the step plane." As Webber's Monaco victory was not protested, his and the team's previous 2012 results will remain in place, but the outfit must make prompt changes to its floor.
Good question..... My 02c - Not at all! My guess is these little "bits & bobs" make Adrian and the aero nerds happy, but as a practical matter I'd almost bet they could duct-tape 'em up and go just as quick. OTOH, seems Seb's not at all happy with his rear end eek already, and this could affect his confidence more than be a real performance killer. Happy nobody protested and that Marks victory stands. For sure, the way that's worded (and I haven't yet read TD/013-12) suggests that had someone protested he would have been excluded. Good for them! For all the *****ing & moaning that goes on they do all have the best interests of the sport at heart...... Cheers, Ian
I'm not convinced it will have no aero effect on the car. Why court controversy for a couple of benign holes? I have no idea how prominent the holes are or if they were designed to mitigate some of the after effects from the blown-diffuser ruling, but I doubt that they served no functional purpose on the car.
Oh, please don't get me wrong - I'm sure the CFD & the tunnel show some positives, or else they wouldn't have tried it - I guess they'll lose a little D/F and/or drag will be increased, but I don't see this putting them on the back foot either. A little surprised this hasn't been reported anywhere else as yet - It sure seems to be legit, but normally Autosport, Bernies site and/or the FIA site publish this stuff PDQ. I guess it's the weekend and they're out partying Cheers, Ian
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/7791932/-FIA-Declare-Red-Bull-RB8-s-Floor-Illegal- Hours after Christian Horner claimed the FIA's upcoming ruling on his RB8's hole would declare it legal, it has reportedly done just the opposite. In the build-up to the Monaco GP it was revealed that several teams had questioned the legality of Red Bull's RB8 based on a hole found in the floor in front of the rear wheels. The Monaco stewards deemed the car to be legal despite article 3.12.5 of F1's technical rules, which states that "all parts lying on the reference and step planes must produce uniform, solid, hard continuous rigid, impervious surfaces under all circumstances." But instead of protesting, the teams requested a clarification of the rule, which Horner believed would back his team. "The rules are written in such a way that they are open to interpretation and our interpretation of that particular rule was accepted by the scrutineers, by the technical delegate and the other teams got a little bit agitated," he told Sky Sports F1 on Friday evening. "But we were always confident that our car complied fully with the regulations. I think the regulation is quite a grey area, and I think a clarification will come out before Montreal that will tidy it up through a technical directive." The ruling came down on Saturday and will result in Red Bull having to remove the hole from their RB8's floor ahead of next weekend's Canadian GP as motorsport's governing body considers it "implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located" in front of the rear wheels. According to F1 journalist Adam Cooper, the teams have been sent a note about this from the FIA, which read: "Following on from a number of discussions in Monaco, during which it became clear that certain misunderstandings existed, we feel it would be helpful to make our position clear with respect to the presence of a fully enclosed hole in any surface lying on the step plane. "It has been argued that, as it is not explicitly stated that fully enclosed holes cannot be located in a surface lying on the step plane rearward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit template, then they may be located in such areas. We disagree with this view and consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located there. "If they were permitted the opening part of the second paragraph of Article 3.12.5 (which was added to the regulations at the same time as Articles 3.12.9 and 3.12.10 for 2011) would be superfluous. "Furthermore, locating a fully enclosed hole partly or wholly within the 50mm band which is exempt from the requirements of Article 3.12.10 along the outer edges of the surfaces lying on the step plane does not exempt it from the requirements of Article 3.12.5, those parts lying outboard of Y650 are still parts of the surfaces lying on the step plane."
As everyone knows, I'm not the biggest fan of the lie sheet that is PF1 Seems (in typical for them fashion) they're just rehashing the exact words from GPupdate.... [One of the better sources IMHO] No matter - it's definitely true - Confirmation just published at Autosport; http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100074 Cheers, Ian
Now you mention it, I think you could be right....... IIRC, they're a "different" kind of hole though Certainly, they (and RB & Mcl if the stories are to be believed) were adamant that RB was doing something different to them. Again, IIRC, and I'm sketchy on it, didn't RB claim their holes were actually slots that extended into "no mans land" and were therefore OK? Time to read the regs. Cheers, Ian
Huh? Tin foil hat handy there?..... I've gotta throw the BS flag on that for any # of reasons; 1. Bernie is simply not involved in this process. JT *could* be, but as know, he's not Bernie's puppet ala Mad Max. [Fortunately! ] 2. "Technical clarifications" are issued by Charlie all the time - If you notice, this is the 13th issued this year. Most of 'em don't make the news, but it's SOP during the season as they all push the envelope. 3. I don't believe it's going to have any discernible effect upon their performance - They'll remain "there or thereabouts". Given that, the rivalries will continue as before - No "free wins" to be had by anyone. As I said above, I'm just glad no one protested & the result stands. Cheers, Ian
This news comes as no surprise to Me. As I'd heard it, long before Bahrain and Monaco, Ferrari had already looked into having a similar fully enclosed hole in the same position on their car but had been advised that it would not be within the rules - hence their curiosity as to how the Red Bull version was legal. It seems that the FIA had sent out inconsistent information about the interpretation of the rule to different teams. Ferrari and Sauber were both told they could not have an enclosed hole, it had to have an open end to the outside edge in order for it to be deemed part of the floor rather than a hole or air intake mounted on the floor. Red Bull however had a letter from the FIA stating that their enclosed hole was part of the floor and therefore was within rules. Now it seems that the FIA have realised that they've made a pigs ear with the information they gave to the teams and have quietly tidied up the situation. As for any difference it'll make to the Red Bull: Not that much I suspect. An open end design like Ferrari and Sauber use will bleed off some of the air pressure but it's not going to make the car suddenly unbalanced and impossible to drive.
Just imagine all the conspiracy theorists if Red Bull were running away with the titles again this year and this happened. Some of you guys are funny.
I was joking. But Gary Anderson said that the hole could bring up to 1 tenth. That´s quite significant in modern F1, even more this season.
+1 Good point, hadn't even thought of that!...... The tin foil hat brigade would be having a *field* day! [Right until after the next race and their domination continued of course ] Cheers, Ian
+1 I think the key words there are "up to" however.... He's covering his bases nicely What would be cool is if they let 'em run both ways - It'd have to be the same session & jockey, but the delta (if any ) could only be measured that way..... I wonder how many compute cycles and tunnel hours were spent on it? Cheers, Ian
Gary Anderson also said after the Monaco GP that as he read the rule, the Red Bull floor wasn't legal and that the letter that red Bull had from the FIA declaring it legal was wrong. Looks like it's Gary Anderson 1 : FIA 0
In terms of effect the holes seem to be much ado about nothing. I suspect that the other teams so distrust the cleverness of Newey that they protest any RB innovation reflexively. Whether they understand it or not.
Why on earth would that be? A minor "Charlie clarification"? Now, IIRC, his contract is indeed up at the end of 2013, so who knows whether he'll stay or go, but the implication that this little deal could affect his decision? I don't think so. Furthermore, Dr Helmut says; Dr H seems to be giving it the response Cheers, Ian
