Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FIA declare Caterham and Williams exhausts declared illegal


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,489 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:16

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21508634

The two teams have added extra bodywork rear of the exhaust to help enhance the way the gases work for aerodynamic effect, a key F1 technology.

But the FIA has told both teams it believes the designs contravene the rules governing bodywork in that area.

A Williams spokeswoman said: "The team spoke with the FIA this morning which is when they gave us their view. The team are now seeking further clarification on this and a decision as to whether this design will be carried forward will be made before the first race."

A Caterham spokesman added: "We are continuing to evaluate a range of options at the pre-season tests as per our normal program."



Advertisement

#2 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 7,113 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:18

that was fast. :rolleyes:

#3 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 5,674 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:19

Posted Image

#4 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,360 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:24

Wonder how fast the ruling would have come if it was on a Red Bull/McLaren/Ferrari...

#5 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 57,002 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:26

A Caterham spokesman added: "We are continuing to evaluate a range of options at the pre-season tests as per our normal program."

Translated into English: "**** **** **** ****".

#6 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:30

I though this was standing on very thin ice. Come on, it is like arguing a train tunnel is not really a tunnel because there are holes to the outside used to route the electric wires to the light fixtures.

#7 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,360 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:34

I though this was standing on very thin ice. Come on, it is like arguing a train tunnel is not really a tunnel because there are holes to the outside used to route the electric wires to the light fixtures.


You're talking about a sport where 'slot' and 'hole' are very important definitions.

#8 Saturnus

Saturnus
  • Member

  • 333 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:43

Ferrari has used the very same principle as Williams to have cooling gills on their car a few years back, so I'm not surprised someone tries to bend the rules here.

Like Scarbs put it:
"Also Ferrari have exploited the rule on exhaust opening, while it demands a single opening of a maximum size, the rules do not state how narrow it can be at any point. Thus Ferrari created an exhaust pipe exit inline with the louvers, the four apertures joined by a small slot machined into the bodywork. The slot joins the apertures and effectively makes them one opening, extending the area allowed over a greater area. Critical for Ferrari who have a “U” bend in their exhaust pipe that would otherwise scorch the bodywork."

A small opening/slot from the exhaust to create a single opening that for all practical purposes was four (3 cooling holes + exhaust). Much like the same thing done by Williams now.

http://scarbsf1.file...04/ferrari2.jpg

Edited by Saturnus, 19 February 2013 - 15:49.


#9 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,604 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:44

You're talking about a sport where 'slot' and 'hole' are very important definitions.


It's a blatant F U to the 'spirit' of the regulations but so have plenty of other ideas from Red Bull in recent years, like the slot in the floor, and it has been allowed.

#10 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:51

You're talking about a sport where 'slot' and 'hole' are very important definitions.

And yet again we see how badly the rules are written. The rulemakers are working with very simplistic terms that don't really make sense when applied to fluids. This is how we end up with this "spirit of the rules" nonsense. They want to achieve something but cannot write it down in sufficiently rigorous scientific terminology. The FIA are more like lawyers in this respect, whereas if they were more like scientists they would prescribe simple objective criteria for demonstrating legality rather than having to argue over what words mean.

#11 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 57,002 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 19 February 2013 - 15:58

You're talking about a sport where 'slot' and 'hole' are very important definitions.

They are also important outside F1.

#12 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 February 2013 - 16:10

You're talking about a sport where 'slot' and 'hole' are very important definitions.


Yes it all comes down to the interpretation of the wording. We all know there is no such thing as the 'spirit' of the regulations.

But what the FIA has done is sent a warning about how they would be minded to interpret. This is not the same however as actually arguing the wording and making a judgement.

I guess at the end of the day it will be too risky for Williams to stick with it.

#13 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 7,113 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 16:18

It's a blatant F U to the 'spirit' of the regulations but so have plenty of other ideas from Red Bull in recent years, like the slot in the floor, and it has been allowed.

actually the allowed slot in the floor (with the same spirit, 1 mm cut so it isn't a hole) was ferrari.

#14 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 16:28

actually the allowed slot in the floor (with the same spirit, 1 mm cut so it isn't a hole) was ferrari.


I think he was referring to this

http://scarbsf1.com/...-hole-legality/

#15 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 7,113 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 16:50

I think he was referring to this

http://scarbsf1.com/...-hole-legality/

yes I know what he was referring to, thank you. but that solution was declared illegal, and red bull had to take those off, while ferrari had the same kind of these-are-not-holes-but-cuts as the williams exhaust bridge, ferrari extended those holes to the side of the floor with a 1 mm (or so) wide cut, and these were allowed (red bull's weren't, so he either wasn't talking about those or was wrong)

Edited by Zava, 19 February 2013 - 16:51.


#16 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 14,953 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:05

The "Spirit of the Rules" is the name given to the grey area where the spirit of all teams is to develop anything they can think of in that area.
The ones that don't, haven't thought of anything!

Nice try, Williams and Caterham. But you've been a bit obvious. The FIA can only clamp down quickly, where they can think of an obvious argument.
What you need to do is design bendy bits that don't bend when the FIA try to bend them, or something like that.

#17 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 14,953 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:07

Wonder how fast the ruling would have come if it was on a Red Bull/McLaren/Ferrari...


Interesting. Normally one of these teams is the "special one" depending on ones own support, but in your world all 3 are!

#18 encircled

encircled
  • Member

  • 901 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:11

Wonder how fast the ruling would have come if it was on a Red Bull/McLaren/Ferrari...

IIRC, Newey said that their supposed to be 2012 exhaust solution was banned by the FIA.

Last-minute ban spoiled Red Bull's 2012 start - Newey

Edited by encircled, 19 February 2013 - 17:12.


#19 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:28

yes I know what he was referring to, thank you. but that solution was declared illegal, and red bull had to take those off, while ferrari had the same kind of these-are-not-holes-but-cuts as the williams exhaust bridge, ferrari extended those holes to the side of the floor with a 1 mm (or so) wide cut, and these were allowed (red bull's weren't, so he either wasn't talking about those or was wrong)


Red Bull was allowed to keep their wins with the illegal "fully enclosed" hole before they add the slot solution.

The reasoning behind William ruling was not the slots in the hole, but the way the exhaust gases flow out of their system.

Edited by fabr68, 19 February 2013 - 17:30.


Advertisement

#20 four1

four1
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:30

They are also important outside F1.

:lol: very cheeky

#21 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,360 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:40

Interesting. Normally one of these teams is the "special one" depending on ones own support, but in your world all 3 are!


It was just a general musing on previous incidents.

#22 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:54

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21508634


Well I pretty much expected that as I felt it all started to move to a certain direction on a too slippery slope.



#23 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,989 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 19 February 2013 - 17:56

:lol: very cheeky

Probably not the best choice of words... :rotfl:

#24 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 February 2013 - 18:00

Red Bull was allowed to keep their wins with the illegal "fully enclosed" hole before they add the slot solution.

The reasoning behind William ruling was not the slots in the hole, but the way the exhaust gases flow out of their system.


That's a key point, this apparently has nothing to do with slots but with the fact that the channel is not U-shaped (at least not along it's entirety).

#25 Saturnus

Saturnus
  • Member

  • 333 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:10

The good thing is that these issues are clearified BEFORE the season starts.
Far to many times we have seen the argument of legal/not legal go on for several races.

#26 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 1,305 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:21

I don't see what is illegal with the Williams solution? Other than having a rounded off edge on the end of the slot, what is so difference about it?

#27 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:33

I don't see what is illegal with the Williams solution? Other than having a rounded off edge on the end of the slot, what is so difference about it?


Something in the following text is infringed.

5.8.3 The last 100mm of any tailpipe must in its entirety :
a) Form a thin‐walled unobstructed right circular cylinder whose internal diameter is no greater than 75mm with its axis at +/‐10° to the car centre line when viewed from above
the car and between +10° and +30° (tail‐up) to the reference plane when viewed from the side of the car. The entire circumference of the exit should lie on a single plane normal to the tailpipe axis and be located at the rearmost extremity of the last 100mm of the tailpipe.
b) Be located between 250mm and 600mm above the reference plane.
c) Be located between 200mm and 500mm from the car centre line.
d) Be positioned in order that the entire circumference of the exit of the tailpipe lies between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line and which lie 500mm and 1200mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.
5.8.4 Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a right circular truncated cone which :
a) Shares a common axis with that of the last 100mm of the tailpipe.
b) Has a forward diameter equal to that of each exhaust exit.
c) Starts at the exit of the tailpipe and extends rearwards as far as the rear wheel centre line.
d) Has a half‐cone angle of 3° such that the cone has its larger diameter at the rear wheel centre line.
Furthermore, there must be a view from above, the side, or any intermediate angle perpendicular to the car centre line, from which the truncated cone is not obscured by any
bodywork lying more than 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.

#28 Red17

Red17
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 20 February 2013 - 00:07

The good thing is that these issues are clearified BEFORE the season starts.
Far to many times we have seen the argument of legal/not legal go on for several races.

And by before not on the Thursday before the race.
But it still took them quite some time in Caterham's case.

#29 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:30

Can someone post a link to a photo of the Caterham exhaust? I haven't found a good image of it yet.

#30 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:42

And yet again we see how badly the rules are written. The rulemakers are working with very simplistic terms that don't really make sense when applied to fluids. This is how we end up with this "spirit of the rules" nonsense. They want to achieve something but cannot write it down in sufficiently rigorous scientific terminology. The FIA are more like lawyers in this respect, whereas if they were more like scientists they would prescribe simple objective criteria for demonstrating legality rather than having to argue over what words mean.

Exactly; for years I thought if you cannot quantify it, than don't put it into specs. Qualitative statements invite manipulation, and a wasted season, if design change cannot be corrected quickly in January.

#31 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,258 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 15:15

Can someone post a link to a photo of the Caterham exhaust? I haven't found a good image of it yet.


Posted Image


#32 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,668 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 February 2013 - 18:27

I think it becomes about time that the rules for exhausts are modified into an instruction to make them long wide pipes, ending at the very end point of the car at a certain hight, preferrably at the utter rear overhang lenght of the car so that for once and for all the possibilities to ùse` exhausts gas flows for thing other then a turbo are no longer possible.

kill off a form of innovation and aviod the hassle it creates

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 20 February 2013 - 18:27.


#33 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 20:39

does the caterham have a winglet/guiding vane ?

#34 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 20:54

Thanks KnucklesAgain, it does look quite blatant now I've seen it.

I think Charlie Whiting mentioned that the walls at the side of the channel had to be vertical and couldn't meet at the top. From what I can tell that doesn't seem to be in the regulations but could be in some technical guidance somewhere.

#35 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 9,030 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:05

There is no such thing as "sprint of the rules". There may be interpretation but either you are legal, or in this case, you aren't. Some places I've raced call it "pushing the gray".

#36 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,258 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 February 2013 - 17:45

Thanks KnucklesAgain, it does look quite blatant now I've seen it.

I think Charlie Whiting mentioned that the walls at the side of the channel had to be vertical and couldn't meet at the top. From what I can tell that doesn't seem to be in the regulations but could be in some technical guidance somewhere.


IIRC Autosport and others wrote that it's combination of actual rules and some secret technical directives. And actually, CW said that the walls "must not converge in any way", which is what AFAICT makes the Williams solution illegal; I think Williams counted on "must not meet" (hence the gap).