[XarokLasa]

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.

You are spot on in saying it is in a gray area. It does sort of contravenes two or three rules, but I do like the way that Craig Scarborough explaines, and then sums up the whole shooting match:
Three rules are obstacles to these slots, covering: openings, enclosed holes and continuous surfaces.
3.12.5 The main floor rule sets out that the floor must be rigid and impervious
All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

—
Rule: 3.12.5 says that enclosed holes are allowed in the front section of floor (shaded)


3.12.5 (cont) This explains enclosed holes are only allowed 450mm forward of the rear of the cockpit template (the very front of the sidepods). This implies enclosed holes are not allowed elsewhere.
Forward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below. This does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible, provided each of these areas does not exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the car, or to any parts of the panels referred to in Article 15.4.7. —
Rule 3.12.10 allows discontinuous surfaces in the outer 50mm of floor

3.12.10 this last rule opens up the outer 50mm of floor for discontinuous surfaces.

“In an area lying 650mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template to 350mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.” —
Saubers solution clearly shows the slot joins the edge of the floor


However there remain interpretations that can allow these slots to be used. Sauber came up with their solution before Melbourne; they formed an aerofoil section at the trailing edge of the floor ahead of the rear tyre. This has the effect of injecting the energy into the airflow running along the flank of the diffuser. It was legal as the aerofoil section was formed on the outboard 50mm of the floor, the slot could not be inside of this area as the continuous surface rule applies here Additionally the slot ran to the edge of floor and formed part of the periphery of the floor and thus was not an enclosed hole. Their solution gained a degree of interest in Melbourne from the other teams. One this design was accepted, other teams were open to develop their solution. —
Ferrari’s three smaller slots are still joined to the edge of the floor by a tiny slots


Ferrari soon followed suit with three small scoops set into the floor ahead of the rear tyres. To make these legal, again they say in the outer 50mm of floor and to prevent them being enclosed, each scoop is joined to the periphery of the floor by a thin slot. —
Having the slot joined to the floors edge, makes the slot a continuation of the floors periphery, which is clearly legal
Red Bull have created a single larger scoop set into the floor, joined at one side to a vertical fence. However unlike the other two aforementioned teams, [B]Red Bull did not keep the slot open, thus they feel that this is not a requirement in this area. —
Red Bulls slot is not joined to the floors edge, so the hole is enclosed and not part of the floors periphery.

It appears Red Bull feel that the rules do not explicitly say that enclosed holes are not allowed in this area. Presumably because enclosed holes are only explicitly allowed in the front of the floor, the rule implies that they are not allowed in other areas. So with no explicit ban on enclosed in this outer 50cm of floor Red Bull feel justified to do so. The new Technical Directive has clarified this to explicitly ban enclosed opening in any area of the floor other than the aforementioned area.
As Red Bull have had a counter case that the holes are not explicitly banned, there is a difficult case for the FIA to argue that they are in clear contravention of the rules. So the team are allowed to keep their results, but change their design before the next race. Red Bull can now either remove the tyre squirt slot, or more likely add a simple thin slot to join it to the edge of the floor as Ferrari and Sauber have done. This will lose a small percentage of the slots efficiency, but overall the effect of the flow will still be a benefit to the cars performance.
This case had the potential to be a far larger and messier affair. With F1 having an entertaining season so far, perhaps its best that the saga has ended quickly and quietly.

[dogdesign]

Here's an actual photo from ESPN F1.com
14905.2.jpg

[Nurba]

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.

Not at all.

It's generally standard practice for teams to allow the FIA run past grey area designs.

Lotus' trick front suspension was initially past by the FIA, the Brawn said the FIA allowed them to run DDD.

It's when the cat is out the bag one decides to play political games.

[eljugadordepoquer]

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

Good to see that after so many years McLaren fans still have class

[Menierofe]

I think the moral of this story is that the FIA need to be much more thorough in their prerace scrutineering
I know we've heard that song many times before.

[BILBONDER]

This has happened many, many times before. The team gets something funny, Charlie gives green light, the team wins and then it is protested and banned, without affecting the opening rounds. It has happened to Renault, McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, etc. It is stupid to demand banning of Webber and even sillier to compare the situation with what happened to Lewis in Spain - when McLaren broke the rule, which was INVENTED because of them and Hamilton.

[VDAu5p33]

I’m cornfused…
Did RBR specifically present the design to the FIA before the Monaco GP to confirm legality?

[cbUDaNFRu]

I’m cornfused…
Did RBR specifically present the design to the FIA before the Monaco GP to confirm legality?

Good question, they first used it in Bahrain. I'll have to go back and do further research. This is the only thing that I've read in that arena and it is more than a little ethereal:


Red Bull, who are leading McLaren in the constructors' standings by 38 points after six of 20 races, have been adamant that their floor is legal and rebuffed doubts in Monaco. "There was a bit of a fuss after the Bahrain race (won by Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel in April) but it was clear the car complied," said team principal Christian Horner at the time.
"We sought clarification after that, but there is no doubt the car is fully compliant." Red Bull were not immediately available for comment "..... Red Bull told to fix their floor - Sport - DNA

The question is did they seek clarification after Bahrain, or Monaco?
The thing that seems odd is if you look at the Ferrari solution in the image I placed above. They have a hair thin cut to their scoops. I believe they did something like this for cooling vents in the recent past. I just don't see how much less effective their solution is.
BTW Horner is starting to get on my freakin’ nerves

[gomosopions]

"Hey , you can't wear that clown nose . You'll be funnier than us ."

"Nowhere does it say I can't wear this nose , so I will ."

"Can he wear that clown nose ? He'll be too funny . He was already too funny last show ."

"We told you all that your noses could be red , be we also said that they could not restrict the vision of the giant clown feet ."

"But , everyone can see our feet . They're huge !"

"But we meant that you should be able to see them ."

"If we put a slot in the nose , connected to the step plane of the upper surface of each nostril , so that a portion of the bodywork of the giant shoes are clearly viisible from above the nasal area , would that be ok ?"

[Kokomoxcv]

This has happened many, many times before. The team gets something funny, Charlie gives green light, the team wins and then it is protested and banned, without affecting the opening rounds. It has happened to Renault, McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, etc. It is stupid to demand banning of Webber and even sillier to compare the situation with what happened to Lewis in Spain - when McLaren broke the rule, which was INVENTED because of them and Hamilton.

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

[FLOMOUSLY]

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

Very true, alas.

[apannamma]

and cheaper...

[Obebtetibre]

According to reports coming out of the FIA headquarters in Paris , as penalty for having non-slotty holes , members of the Red Bull pit crew will be required to wear red clown noses for the next five races .

[fmrcurter]

New reports coming from the FIA in Paris are saying the noses submitted by the Red Bull team have been found to have a unique ducting system , allowing the crew member to channel air away from the arch section 450mm forward of the heel template on his shoe , to allow for more grip when running to the car , simply by lifting his eyebrows , looking surprised .
Several of the other teams expressed surprise at the Red Bull looking surprised when either of the drivers came in for a pitstop when they appeared ready for them .

[xsVfF9Em]

Reports from Maranello are saying the Ferrari team plan to protest the Red Bull nose's flexibility , slot or not , more because it's red is too close to Corsa Rosso than because of excessive nostril flare .

[dosyrotsbop]

With protocol as it is with teams demanding a clarification - that's like a second opinion.

Unfortunately its a political tool. It's easier to ban a rival team's device than to make your car go faster.

Is it though? As a team, if you see something on a rival car that you thought about implementing, but did not because you thought it illegal, logic dictates that you get it from the horses mouth as to its legality before copying the design and running it.

[skupaemauto]

I've heard of a lot of things in F1 but never "Tyre squirt"!

[LICraig]

I've heard of a lot of things in F1 but never "Tyre squirt"!

Anyone who has a car that does not come with a spare wheel knows what tyre squirt is - a complete and utter waste of time!

[BurdenRobert]

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.

Dave my friend, the car was legal in Monaco. The car is now deemed illegal. If the race with the hole in Canada, it will be excluded. I thought you would be alright with that? It is quite a common occurence in F1 history - someone comes up with something not included in the regs, not approved or disproved - and after one race it is banned. Fair enough. The Brabham fan-car of 1978 is the best example as mentioned earlier by pino.

Ferrari...well, recently they haven't had things as much in their favour, however back in the Schumacher/Ferrari era - the favouritism was appalling. The bargeboards of Malaysia 1999 was a prime example, and personally my most frustrating one was Monza 2003 when Ferrari successfully got Michelin to have to change their tyres because the Bridgestones weren't good enough. It was a shocking decision at the time and cost Montoya the championship in 2003.

[Psymoussy]

Dave my friend, the car was legal in Monaco. The car is now deemed illegal. If the race with the hole in Canada, it will be excluded. I thought you would be alright with that? It is quite a common occurence in F1 history - someone comes up with something not included in the regs, not approved or disproved - and after one race it is banned. Fair enough. The Brabham fan-car of 1978 is the best example as mentioned earlier by pino.

Exactly.