94 replies to this topic

[Diablobb81]

Since three teams breached the rules it seems that the regulation was very flexible.

[artista]

Since three teams breached the rules it seems that the regulation was very flexible.

How has it turned from omnicorse telling a story with a question mark in the title and written in conditional tense, a story nobody else has taken (please, don't give me GMM as a source, because it is not), and that has been denied by, at least, two of the teams, into a "since three teams breached the rules"? Where is the confirmation of anything?

------------------------------
Tobi Grüner also says there is nothing:

#F1 I can confirm what @JennieGow wrote. Neither Lotus & Mercedes nor Red Bull was asked to change the splitter. So everybody calm down!

[SealTheDiffuser]

So if Ferrari wins China it will be a coincidence?

[artista]

Isn't Ferrari supposed to bring new parts to China? And it's not that I've seen them doing terribly wrong so far, I even remember a podium in Australia.

Very little faith you have in Ferrari and their R&D team if you think the only two reasons why they can win are coincidences or other teams taking parts away.

I don't know if Lotus, Mercedes and Red Bull were told to change something or not, I'm more inclined to think the story is not real because no reliable source is talking about it and, actually, a very reliable source (Tobi Grüner) says it's not true. The point I was making in my previous post is that it has not been confirmed anywhere and posting using tenses as if it had been confirmed will not get the story confirmed.

[swerved]

So if Ferrari wins China it will be a coincidence?

No, that would be a miracle.


Joke, btw

[bonjon1979a]

Can't believe so many people gave credence to this, from the off it seemed to be based on the premise that three cars were running more rake so the fia have had a word. Never any reliable sources and even a question mark in the title! So obviously just filling column inches in the break.

[SpaMaster]

So this is good news for Ferrari and McLaren guys.

I don't think this is good news. To me, it just shows the damage has been done and Lotus and Red Bull have garnered whatever points they wanted from this solution. F1 engineers are not stupid. They often try solutions just to make hay while sun shines. They will be thinking of introducing something else that would go on for only 2-3 races by that time time they would get enough advantage. Teams like Red Bull seem to be experts in weighing this risk/return strategy.

[Diablobb81]

How has it turned from omnicorse telling a story with a question mark in the title and written in conditional tense, a story nobody else has taken (please, don't give me GMM as a source, because it is not), and that has been denied by, at least, two of the teams, into a "since three teams breached the rules"? Where is the confirmation of anything?

------------------------------
Tobi Grüner also says there is nothing:

It was a pun.

[Treads]

It was a pun.

I laughed. There are humourless people everywhere.

[artista]

It was a pun.

Oops, sorry!

I laughed. There are humourless people everywhere.

maybe, or maybe there is people doing some other things -in other languages, not English- at the same time, and some things get lost in translation.

[BernieEc]

FIA denies it asked teams to change splitter

[Cacarella]

So far denied by all parties except Redbull,,, I knew it!

[chumma]

The FIA needs to crack down, the fact that its Red Bull I don't care about, its 'any' team, that uses an illegal part or part(s) should be excluded from the race that the parts were found to be illegal with.

Like Honda in 05, when they had the fuel cell issue, disqualified and banned for 2 races. How many times, have we heard "the part was not found to conform to the regulations and as a consequence must be changed before the next event to avoid disqualification"

It just invites teams "Hey guys, by all means, cheat in one event, take the win/points/advantage, but make sure once we catch you that you change the part" its just stupid, if its illegal, the car is illegal, end of. The FIA need to grow a pair because since the 90s/early 00's they have lost them. If you cheat, you pay the penalty, simple. If they're worried about 'altering results' then each car should start from the back of the grid at the next event as punishment.

This isn't a stab at Red Bull, they just seem to be in the 'illegal parts' headlines more so than others, and I will use them in an example, Hockenheim last year was an absolute abortion by F1, both Red Bull's should have been made to start from Pit Lane due to having used illegal maps, thus breaking parc ferme to alter them, regardless as to whether it was Vettel's home race or not, that situation was handled terribly.

[Taxi]

Congrats to Felipe Massa for this much waited win.

[bonjon1979a]

The FIA needs to crack down, the fact that its Red Bull I don't care about, its 'any' team, that uses an illegal part or part(s) should be excluded from the race that the parts were found to be illegal with.

Like Honda in 05, when they had the fuel cell issue, disqualified and banned for 2 races. How many times, have we heard "the part was not found to conform to the regulations and as a consequence must be changed before the next event to avoid disqualification"

It just invites teams "Hey guys, by all means, cheat in one event, take the win/points/advantage, but make sure once we catch you that you change the part" its just stupid, if its illegal, the car is illegal, end of. The FIA need to grow a pair because since the 90s/early 00's they have lost them. If you cheat, you pay the penalty, simple. If they're worried about 'altering results' then each car should start from the back of the grid at the next event as punishment.

This isn't a stab at Red Bull, they just seem to be in the 'illegal parts' headlines more so than others, and I will use them in an example, Hockenheim last year was an absolute abortion by F1, both Red Bull's should have been made to start from Pit Lane due to having used illegal maps, thus breaking parc ferme to alter them, regardless as to whether it was Vettel's home race or not, that situation was handled terribly.

Did you read the links? No car was in breach and no team was spoken to. it was a nonsense story from a nonsense news outlet

Edited by bonjon1979a, 02 April 2013 - 21:07.

[redreni]

I don't know if there's anything in this, but the point of principle is clear. The scrutineers' job is to decide if the cars presented to them conform to the technical regulations. If they're saying to a team or teams "we want that changed before the next race" but not saying whether the item in question is legal or illegal, they're doing something that falls entirely outside the scope of their responsibilities. And if they're saying "change this before the next race to avoid sanction" then this rather seems to imply that the item(s) in question are illegal, meaning the scrutinners are abrogating their responsibilities since what they ought to be doing is insisting the offending parts are changed before the start of the timed sessions or else disqualifying the offending cars from the event.

What they're doing is not transparent, and it's essentially a cheat's charter. This particular story might be BS; considering the source it probably is BS, but Red Bulls "impervious surface" in their floor that had a bloody great hole in it last year was clearly illegal and they faced no sanction, and the FIA even admitted they had caught Red Bull with an illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism and allowed them to run with it without sanction on the basis they hadn't been caught using it. But the regulation said they weren't allowed to have it on the car, whether they used it or not is irrelevant.

Rules are rules. This sort of thing is not good enough.

[chumma]

Did you read the links? No car was in breach and no team was spoken to. it was a nonsense story from a nonsense news outlet

It was directed at the FIA in general not specific to this thread, it has to come from more than one news site other than from the country that supports the only front running team that isn't mentioned above, before I will give it substance.

[loki]

So far denied by all parties except Redbull,,, I knew it!

That's because they're too busy making a more flexible splitter...

[BernieEc]

A new dimension in the splitter issue

http://www.gptoday.c...splitter_issue/

[molpid]

Why not go to the FIA directly? Poor & pathetic atempt from Ferrari if true...

[encircled]

A new dimension in the splitter issue

http://www.gptoday.c...splitter_issue/

So a speculation created another speculation?

[SealTheDiffuser]

we all remember that last year one team had a splitter issue...

[black magic]

Does anyone recall ferrari struggling to challenge a rivals legality or post a clarification from FIA

nothing story getting worse.

why can't they get stuck into the real story the useless tyres - could pirelli hhave planted this story to deflect the heat from themselves??

[Kelateboy]

That's because they're too busy making a more flexible splitter...

Yup. Put it on the car and see whether Jo Bauer and the team would query the part in question or not.

[SpaMaster]

This is just one team whinging and trying to throw a stone and see if something sticks. Pathetic really.

[Iridescent]

Such a non-story really. I know 3 weeks is much of a break but people can come up with unbelievable stuff.

Edited by Iridescent, 03 April 2013 - 14:53.

[prty]

Jennie Gow ‏@JennieGow 2m

Have spoken to Lotus and Merc who say FIA splitter story is just that - a story! Both teams passed tests and no changes to make

Isn't that the usual thing to say when a team is forced to change something?
Not saying that it happened, but that quote is not a proof that it didn't.

[Kelateboy]

What they're doing is not transparent, and it's essentially a cheat's charter. This particular story might be BS; considering the source it probably is BS, but Red Bulls "impervious surface" in their floor that had a bloody great hole in it last year was clearly illegal and they faced no sanction, and the FIA even admitted they had caught Red Bull with an illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism and allowed them to run with it without sanction on the basis they hadn't been caught using it. But the regulation said they weren't allowed to have it on the car, whether they used it or not is irrelevant.

Rules are rules. This sort of thing is not good enough.

I doubt that the regulations state that they can't have a ride-height adjustment mechanism on the car. How are the teams going to make the changes during the race, if the needs arise?

[Skinnyguy]

I doubt that the regulations state that they can't have a ride-height adjustment mechanism on the car. How are the teams going to make the changes during the race, if the needs arise?

Uh? You surely mean FP. That´s the supposed advantage they had, being able to tweak the height much faster and try different solutions in less time during FP. Obviously any adjustment between quali and race would be illegal, and any adjustment during the race pointless given the time lost would always be way bigger than the advantage.

[SpaMaster]

Isn't that the usual thing to say when a team is forced to change something?
Not saying that it happened, but that quote is not a proof that it didn't.

No, that's not how teams usually deny a story. They don't say things like "it's just that - a story". There is a dismissive tone in those statements. To neutral onlookers it would look like they are saying that someone is silly.

Edited by SpaMaster, 03 April 2013 - 16:17.

[Kelateboy]

Uh? You surely mean FP. That´s the supposed advantage they had, being able to tweak the height much faster and try different solutions in less time during FP. Obviously any adjustment between quali and race would be illegal, and any adjustment during the race pointless given the time lost would always be way bigger than the advantage.

FP and/or race - either one or both. The car has to pass pre-race scrutineering a day before FP1. Therefore, the ride-height mechanism could not be illegal as it may be required by the team during FP and/or race. I am aware that changing anything while the car is in the parc-ferme condition (other than those allowed under the technical Sporting regulations) will result in the car starting from the pitlane.

I understand what the OP was trying to say (tools vs no tools). But taking a potshot at RBR without understanding the issue at hand is quite uncalled for.

edit - sporting regulations

Edited by Kelateboy, 03 April 2013 - 17:06.

[redreni]

I doubt that the regulations state that they can't have a ride-height adjustment mechanism on the car. How are the teams going to make the changes during the race, if the needs arise?

No, the regulations say they can't have an illegal ride height adjustor mechanism on the car, i.e. one that is capable of being adjusted without tools, i.e. the one Red Bull were running last year until the scrutineers said to Adrian Newey "look here, old chap, would you mind awfully changing this illegal part next time you've got a minute and then we'll turn a blind eye, atta boy. And by the way, you can keep it for this weekend, no problem."

The background to the rule is nothing to do with how long it takes to make adjustments during FP, it's about the FIA being able to be confident that when the car is in parc ferme nobody is going to be able to make non-permitted adjustments without the scrutineers noticing it. That's why you can't have a ride heght adjustor mechanism that can be adjusted without tools. Obviously if this regulation is broken but the ride height is not in fact adjusted while the car is in parc ferme then there will be no performance advantage gained, but how does the FIA know if that's the case or not?

The team knew exactly what the regulation was and they broke it so there's no reason at all to give the team the benefit of the doubt here. The reason the regulation exists is because if tool-free adjustor mechanisms are availabe the regulation prohibitng ride-height changes in parc ferme cannot be reliably enforced, and that in turn is why the rule is drafted in such a way that the FIA does not need to prove or even allege that any illegal adjustments actually took place in order to throw the book at a team that has the capability to make ride-height adjustments without tools. You'd have to ask the FIA why they gave themselves that power and then elected not to use it, which of course sets a precedent which is essentially a cheat's charter.

Edited by redreni, 03 April 2013 - 19:09.

[JimiKart]

No, the regulations say they can't have an illegal ride height adjustor mechanism on the car, i.e. one that is capable of being adjusted without tools, i.e. the one Red Bull were running last year until the scrutineers said to Adrian Newey "look here, old chap, would you mind awfully changing this illegal part next time you've got a minute and then we'll turn a blind eye, atta boy. And by the way, you can keep it for this weekend, no problem."

The background to the rule is nothing to do with how long it takes to make adjustments during FP, it's about the FIA being able to be confident that when the car is in parc ferme nobody is going to be able to make non-permitted adjustments without the scrutineers noticing it. That's why you can't have a ride heght adjustor mechanism that can be adjusted without tools. Obviously if this regulation is broken but the ride height is not in fact adjusted while the car is in parc ferme then there will be no performance advantage gained, but how does the FIA know if that's the case or not?

The team knew exactly what the regulation was and they broke it so there's no reason at all to give the team the benefit of the doubt here. The reason the regulation exists is because if tool-free adjustor mechanisms are availabe the regulation prohibitng ride-height changes in parc ferme cannot be reliably enforced, and that in turn is why the rule is drafted in such a way that the FIA does not need to prove or even allege that any illegal adjustments actually took place in order to throw the book at a team that has the capability to make ride-height adjustments without tools. You'd have to ask the FIA why they gave themselves that power and then elected not to use it, which of course sets a precedent which is essentially a cheat's charter.

Excellent post, spot on... in the end you can clearly see that once again RB was allowed to run an illegal car and go unpunished, keeping the points and changing the offending bits after the fact... and all the explaining-away around here won't change anything.

[femi]

So a speculation created another speculation?

Suspicion is that Ferrari planted the story which in turn created the speculation. I hope it is true for RB though..

Edited by femi, 05 April 2013 - 07:19.

[Kelateboy]

No, the regulations say they can't have an illegal ride height adjustor mechanism on the car, i.e. one that is capable of being adjusted without tools, i.e. the one Red Bull were running last year until the scrutineers said to Adrian Newey "look here, old chap, would you mind awfully changing this illegal part next time you've got a minute and then we'll turn a blind eye, atta boy. And by the way, you can keep it for this weekend, no problem."

The point I am making is that you can have a ride height adjustment mechanism on your car - it is legal under the regulations. Provided that such mechanism is operated with tools.

Your earlier post did not mention anything about using tools to adjust such mechanism. The blanket statement that you can't have a ride height mechanism on your car is inaccurate.

BTW, please show me a report from the FIA or any reputable sources that RBR has such an illegal ride-height mechanism on its car - one that can be adjusted manually without the use of tools.

[as65p]

The point I am making is that you can have a ride height adjustment mechanism on your car - it is legal under the regulations. Provided that such mechanism is operated with tools.

That should be easy enough to follow. Make the rideheight adjuster a little torx screw instead of a knob and equip the drivers with a tiny magnetized screwdriver.

Other than Monaco, there should be enough time on the straights for the drivers to 'screw' with their cars rideheight....

[maverick69]

That should be easy enough to follow. Make the rideheight adjuster a little torx screw instead of a knob and equip the drivers with a tiny magnetized screwdriver.

Other than Monaco, there should be enough time on the straights for the drivers to 'screw' with their cars rideheight....

Yep...... Although I heard the Red Bull drivers were doing the adjustments on the grid to account for the added weight and getting rid of the "tool". Legal - but against the so called "spirit of the rules".

Where I heard that I cannot for the life of me remember.......... Must have been pissed or something

[Kelateboy]

That should be easy enough to follow. Make the rideheight adjuster a little torx screw instead of a knob and equip the drivers with a tiny magnetized screwdriver.

Other than Monaco, there should be enough time on the straights for the drivers to 'screw' with their cars rideheight....

You have such an active imagination, that it might have worked several years ago. Unfortunately, nowadays, this type of driver's operated system even with a tool would run foul of the technical regulation that states "No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion."

[redreni]

The point I am making is that you can have a ride height adjustment mechanism on your car - it is legal under the regulations. Provided that such mechanism is operated with tools.

Your earlier post did not mention anything about using tools to adjust such mechanism. The blanket statement that you can't have a ride height mechanism on your car is inaccurate.

Go back and read my post again - I used the phrase "illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism" and that's exactly what I meant. It's true I didn't specify in what way it was illegal, but I had assumed nobody who comes on here would seriously think that I would be suggesting F1 cars are or could be built with fixed, unchangeable ride-heights. Oh well, you live and learn, I suppose...

You wanted a reputable source for Red Bull having run the illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism; will Christian Horner do?

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/101572

Read the extract from the Sporting Regs, then read the quote from Horner "it was something that could eiher be changed by hand or by tool" and draw your own conclusions. The article makes clear the team were asked, in Canada, to change it for the next race but allowed to run it in Canada, and Horner also explicitly states that they'd run the same thing at other races prior to Canada, presumably without the scrutineers noticing.

[pingu666]

there is some weight to the story imo, the lotus has been sparking like its 1992 on occasion. so they (lotus) have found something, legal or illegal

[Kelateboy]

Go back and read my post again - I used the phrase "illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism" and that's exactly what I meant. It's true I didn't specify in what way it was illegal, but I had assumed nobody who comes on here would seriously think that I would be suggesting F1 cars are or could be built with fixed, unchangeable ride-heights. Oh well, you live and learn, I suppose...

You wanted a reputable source for Red Bull having run the illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism; will Christian Horner do?

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/101572

Read the extract from the Sporting Regs, then read the quote from Horner "it was something that could eiher be changed by hand or by tool" and draw your own conclusions. The article makes clear the team were asked, in Canada, to change it for the next race but allowed to run it in Canada, and Horner also explicitly states that they'd run the same thing at other races prior to Canada, presumably without the scrutineers noticing.

The article also clearly said that "It was something that could either be changed by hand or by tool, but the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used,".

It is possible that a technical directive was issued to the teams which the public is unaware of, hence Horner's statement that stated "the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used". Bear in mind that at the start of the 2012 season, a technical directive was also given by the FIA on the use of braking torque to affect the ride height, but nobody really knows the actual wording of that directive. There are certain directives that are not made public by the team and the FIA, and this might be one of the cases.

[One]

The forbiden front floor.

This image has a shot of floor attachment that are discussed in this thread. Is it as simple as saying that the attachment in discussion, located under the nose at the front end of floor, has some kind of flex dumper effect that let this part work as mass dumper? If so then screwing up this connection to rigid will change the character of the car behavior instantly.

[GhostR]

Go back and read my post again - I used the phrase "illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism" and that's exactly what I meant. It's true I didn't specify in what way it was illegal, but I had assumed nobody who comes on here would seriously think that I would be suggesting F1 cars are or could be built with fixed, unchangeable ride-heights. Oh well, you live and learn, I suppose...

You wanted a reputable source for Red Bull having run the illegal ride-height adjustor mechanism; will Christian Horner do?

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/101572

Read the extract from the Sporting Regs, then read the quote from Horner "it was something that could eiher be changed by hand or by tool" and draw your own conclusions. The article makes clear the team were asked, in Canada, to change it for the next race but allowed to run it in Canada, and Horner also explicitly states that they'd run the same thing at other races prior to Canada, presumably without the scrutineers noticing.

Horner should have just said that he thinks all of RBR's employees are a "bunch of tools" and they would have been fine.

[redreni]

Horner should have just said that he thinks all of RBR's employees are a "bunch of tools" and they would have been fine.

[redreni]

The article also clearly said that "It was something that could either be changed by hand or by tool, but the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used,".

It is possible that a technical directive was issued to the teams which the public is unaware of, hence Horner's statement that stated "the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used". Bear in mind that at the start of the 2012 season, a technical directive was also given by the FIA on the use of braking torque to affect the ride height, but nobody really knows the actual wording of that directive. There are certain directives that are not made public by the team and the FIA, and this might be one of the cases.

Come on mate, you can do better than that, can't you? You're just throwing mud at the issue now. It's not a case of what some unspecified FIA man apparently said at Canada last year (according to Christian Horner) that he "preferred"; a scrutiner's preference would mean nothing if there wasn't something in the rule book to back it up. In this case it's in the rules in black and white - not as a preference or a guideline but as a requirement. Look at the sporting regulation quoted in that autosport story I posted. Nowhere does Horner claim that the FIA's preference was expressed as a technical directive - the only person making that claim is you, and by your own admission you don't have a shred of evidence for the existence of any such directive other than to say it might exist. Fairies might exist. But let's say it exists, and it says the FIA "prefers" tools to be used to change ride heights rather than manipulation by hand, are you saying that would override the sporting regulations? I think you'll find in the event of conflict, the regulations prevail.

And by the way, Christian Horner is a good source for me to use when arguing against you because if he has any bias on this issue it will favour your perespective rather than mine. For the same reason he's a terrible source for you to use in an argument against me. Why should I believe a word he says on this? Why should I believe him when he says the FIA told the team this or that, or when he says that the illegal mechanism wasn't used in parc ferme and wasn't adjusted by hand? He has to say that! And even if I believe him, Red Bull have still broken the rules.