"Rubbishing the Red Bull ride height rumours"

[mnmracer]

Red Bull has been in the headlines again after suggestions the team may have used a system to adjust the ride height of its cars in parc ferme conditions.

The story originated in the German press where it was implied that with the previous system the team could have changed the car's front ride height in parc ferme. It was a point strenuously denied by the team which reaffirmed that it has been entirely compliant with the regulations all season.

What's more the allegations are not even current. They stem from the Canadian Grand Prix, when the FIA advised Red Bull that adjustments to its front dampers must be made using a tool rather than by hand, in line with Article 34.5 of the Sporting Regulations.

Technical regulations stipulate that some adjustments need to be made using a tool, depending on the 'work' required to carry out the change. In Red Bull's instance the FIA deemed the dampers could be adjusted too easily by hand and therefore asked the team to make them tool adjusted instead.

The changes requested by the FIA were made to the car after the Canadian Grand Prix, the car having run in its current configuration ever since.

Pitpass.com

In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in post qualifying parc ferme, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

So, it seems that it was not perse changeable by hand, but that it was not clear enough for the FIA that it wasn't. The tool-in-wipe story is not mentioned at all.

[Pup]

Because Pitpass has never been wrong about anything.

Can't this be discussed in the RB8 thread like the rest of the suspension discussion?

[mnmracer]

Didn't see a thread on this, but maybe a mod can move.

Anyway, I think "exagurated story by Auto und Motorsport and there is a big conspiracy between RB and the FIA" than "clarifying story by Pitpass that makes sense why the FIA has not responded"

[Pup]

Actually, it seems like Pitpass is attempting to distract more than anything else. The AMuS article clearly said it was Canada, as did Autosport, and Horner doesn't dispute the finding: RB was found with a suspension that could be adjusted by hand, and were forced to change it.

I do love PP's clever wording "adjusted too easily by hand". Ha!

As I understand it, the controversy (apart from the obvious) is that the FIA did not make the other teams aware of the discovery.

[thearmofbarlow]

Actually, it seems like Pitpass is attempting to distract more than anything else. The AMuS article clearly said it was Canada, as did Autosport, and Horner doesn't dispute the finding: RB was found with a suspension that could be adjusted by hand, and were forced to change it.

I do love PP's clever wording "adjusted too easily by hand". Ha!

As I understand it, the controversy (apart from the obvious) is that the FIA did not make the other teams aware of the discovery.

It's not the FIA's job to inform teams how each other cars work.

[Pup]

No, but the teams have the right to protest the stewards' decisions, and they can only do that if they know a decision has been made.

[myurr]

It's not the FIA's job to inform teams how each other cars work.

I thought that whenever a clarification was sought or given that it was circulated amongst all the teams.

[Hangaku]

The BBC article relating to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19032217

... just Horner asking for clarification again, I suppose? Pfff.

[hardingfv32]

Just another rule open to interpretation. A team could honestly believe that the adjustment can not be made without a tool. Their rational could be in the context of accuracy. They would never consider a non tool adjustment because it would be completely inaccurate. Thus they view the design as requiring a tool to perform an adjustment.

Brian

[mnmracer]

Didn't Ted Kravitz also just call bullshit on the Canada story?

[Cam]

Just another rule open to interpretation. A team could honestly believe that the adjustment can not be made without a tool. Their rational could be in the context of accuracy. They would never consider a non tool adjustment because it would be completely inaccurate. Thus they view the design as requiring a tool to perform an adjustment.

Brian

Agreed.

Definition of TOOL :a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.

Key word here is AIDS. It does not say it MUST be used to accomplish a task. What happens if I hold my left hand in my right hand to 'accomplish the task'?. My hand is a gripping and multi-function device.

This is where the rules are grey and smart teams get an advantage.

[Pup]

What happens if I hold my left hand in my right hand to 'accomplish the task'?

Then people avoid you in public.

[bhallg2k]

[...]
If Red Bull has a hand adjustable third member, its absolutely against the rules.
[...]

[Pup]

You've been saving that quote for just the right moment, haven't you?

[gato azul]