[Enalsebeerkawl]

Red Bull will be forced to modify the controversial holes in the floor of its RB8 after the FIA clarified its position and deemed the design was not permissible.


F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

[DouseAuthott]

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.

[Yswxomvy]

An exerpt from a letter to the teams :
"Following on from a number of discussionsin 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 from 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 ."


It's now clear that it's not legal , Dave .
So , perhaps it's more of a clever Newey than a stupid FIA this time .

[Grarypealumma]

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.

It was deemed legal at the time, and there weren't protests. This has happened throughout F1 history, so it isn't much of a surprise.

[j2Y6Ysmb]

how can you have a hole that is fully enclosed ?
fully enclosed holes may not be located in the bodywork just ahead of the rear
wheels.

[rXpX]

My feeling is that since RB got the green light from C. Whiting - that's why their "victory" still stands - Charlie should be removed from taking such decisions anymore.

My suggestion is that from now on these kind of decisions would be made directly by the FIA. I don't beleive in case of an appeal the FIA would be contradicting the................FIA. Although I could be wrong.

In response to Dave, I find it interesting that when it's not Ferrari caught in some wrong doing people seem to be more accepting of the same done by some different team.

[patrycjakolekk]

...Because the FIA likes teams to run ideas past them first before implementation and then is open to reviewing their decision if other teams have an argument which proves illegality, the team is allowed to keep its results during the period the idea is on the car.

Has pretty much happened to all teams...

[seekfrieddy]

how can you have a hole that is fully enclosed ?

What they are saying is a bit of a double positive. A hole by definition is fully enclosed as opposed to a slot, and allows air to be directed very precisely. A slot or a hole that is open-ended is the distinction that they are making, as nebulous a definition as it is.

[QYD8eQ8F]

Good decision. Stops the teams from spending an absurd amount of money to copy the design. Also, now the teams cannot protest since the FIA made a firm stance. Kudos! Let's go racing.

[chppjdf]

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness.

If they were disqualified in retrospect, that would be even a bigger madness as the car was deemed legal at the race weekend. Had FIA reacted quickly and banned it on Thu/Fri, RBR would have had time to modify the car for the race.

In any case, reminds a bit of Brabham's fan-car sole race win in 1978. One race for the car, subsequently banned. Although I'm sure the effect or benefit of current innovation isn't nearly as significant as it was the case back then.

[DeilMikina]

So they won in Monaco with an illegal car yet the result still stands. Madness.

The car was declared legal at the time, and you would prefer them to be retroactively disqualified.

Madness.

[bestformaldress23]

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.

Do you believe the six-wheeled Tyrrell's sole win should subsequently be excised from the record books, then?

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

It was a cheeky design but glad clarification has been exercised. It'll be interesting to see how much of an advantage it brought.

[cyslespitocop]

What they are saying is a bit of a double positive. A hole by definition is fully enclosed as opposed to a slot, and allows air to be directed very precisely. A slot or a hole that is open-ended is the distinction that they are making, as nebulous a definition as it is.

It seems to me that what they are saying is that it can look like a "C" , but not like an "O" , thus making the directing of the air movement through the step plane impossible .

This is a fine illustration of the issue at hand here , as it can be desperately hard to explain even the most basic of principles without the use of a visual cue like a "C" or an "O" ( and that's all assuming the reader understood the cue in the first place) .

This is the plight of any race governing body .
They must not only deal with the infringements on specific measurements , but also with teams saying "You didn't tell us we couldn't , so we did ." .

[Usogwdkb]

"we were only interpreting orders"

[sbgctsa]

^^^^ That is a good way to describe it. I did do a little more research and found that my explanation is a little misleading, because the opening RB used actually was elongated not circular but still not open ended. I'm trying to find an image of it

[avaicavum]

And , thus , the holey decree came down to the masses , ensuring none were fully enclosed in thier holeyness , and ,
it was good .

[Loolasant]

I'm trying to find an image of it

When in doubt it is always a good idea to check Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1
Here is his diagram of what Red Bull was doing with their floor.




He has a very detailed explanation of how these holes offset "tire squirt" and illustrates how this woudn't work if the holes were open ended:


Having introduced a “tyre squirt” slot into the floor ahead of the rear tyres at the Bahrain GP, Red Bull had completed two complete GPs before rival teams raised questions about its legality. On the morning of the Monaco GP, several teams started a discussion regarding the slots legality, as it did not follow the practice of Sauber or Ferrari in linking the hole to the edge of the floor. No formal protest was made, but the Technical Working Group (TWG) wanted the rules around holes in the floor clarified. To read the entire article go to the link I provided at the top of this post.

Having a bad tyre squirt effect will rob the diffuser by as much as 50% of its flow, getting it right merely maximises the potential of the diffuser. Having a slot to negate tyre squirt will gain some downforce and hence lap time. Cheaters

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

My feeling is that since RB got the green light from C. Whiting - that's why their "victory" still stands - Charlie should be removed from taking such decisions anymore.

My suggestion is that from now on these kind of decisions would be made directly by the FIA. I don't beleive in case of an appeal the FIA would be contradicting the................FIA. Although I could be wrong.

In response to Dave, I find it interesting that when it's not Ferrari caught in some wrong doing people seem to be more accepting of the same done by some different team.

I'm not
they should be stripped of the monaco win and 4th place by Vettel
If you can send a car to the back of the grid for low fuel in qualy, then why can't you strip the results of an illegal car

the teams blew it, and C.Whiting blew it (as usual, proving that CW's blessing means nothing) especailly the teams for not protesting the result. It would have taught RBR a well earned lesson

[Audi_z]

I'm not
they should be stripped of the monaco win and 4th place by Vettel
If you can send a car to the back of the grid for low fuel in qualy, then why can't you strip the results of an illegal car

the teams blew it, and C.Whiting blew it (as usual, proving that CW's blessing means nothing) especailly the teams for not protesting the result. It would have taught RBR a well earned lesson

Do you have any evidence that the RB had anything deemed illegal by the FIA? I don't, merely clarification of a very gray at best wording to a rule that was asked to be clarified by the FIA. You can't change or clarify a rule and then state that teams are retroactively guilty of violating that rule.