Red Bull RB8 Renault

[SiLo]

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair that they can run something that is deemed illegal and get away with it. Sauber got penalised I believe Ferrari have been penalised more than once, Honda got penalised for running that dodgey fuel system, Mclaren got penalised for underfueling Hamilton. I wish they would at least be consistent with punishments.

If you run an illegal car, you should be disqualified, simple as that.

On a lighter note, have RB settled on a single exhaust solution yet?

[marcush.]

it´s undisputable they used illegal hardware -open to the view of all -no discussion possible and they get away with it?
where is consistency in FIA ruling? Hamilton was unable to perform a fuel sample check and was kicked to the back of the grid and RB can run illegal cars without real consequences...please someone tell me where this logic stems from.

[aral]

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair that they can run something that is deemed illegal and get away with it. Sauber got penalised I believe Ferrari have been penalised more than once, Honda got penalised for running that dodgey fuel system, Mclaren got penalised for underfueling Hamilton. I wish they would at least be consistent with punishments.

If you run an illegal car, you should be disqualified, simple as that.

On a lighter note, have RB settled on a single exhaust solution yet?

The slot was declared legal by FIA stewards at each race, so results cannot be retrospectively amended! Further, RBR had it in writing from FIA that all was ok. This is now just a clarification, as requested by Ferrari and others. All RBR need to do is to make a tiny slit to the outside, and the slot will be "legal".
Incidentally, FIA have not actually stated that the slot is illegal, only that it cannot be used in said form , in future.

And by the way, the Honda "dodgey fuel system" was a deliberate cheating installation of a second tank. Big difference!

[Cam]

It was only deemed illegal now, not before. If they run again then a penalty is warranted.

[Cuky]

It was only deemed illegal now, not before. If they run again then a penalty is warranted.

well, let's take Sauber as en example for that. Last year in Australia their rear wings were deemed legal before GP weekend started, where cars are checked so that they comply to the rules. But after the race they found that wings are actually not legal and they have disqualified both Sauber cars. I don't see a difference here

[BreezyRacer]

It was only deemed illegal now, not before. If they run again then a penalty is warranted.

well, let's take Sauber as en example for that. Last year in Australia their rear wings were deemed legal before GP weekend started, where cars are checked so that they comply to the rules. But after the race they found that wings are actually not legal and they have disqualified both Sauber cars. I don't see a difference here

Sauber couldn't make an argument as to why it thought it's wings were legal .. they in fact agreed that they didn't match the rules. Red Bull however have had it declared legal BEFORE it was just now declared illegal. I'm sure RB have a simple solution all lined up that won't cost any performance, probably by putting a squiggly slot in the floor will sacrifice some durability. Floors are pretty expensive and take a while to build so I doubt that they have finalized a design till after the ruling. For now I expect a lazer cut slot in a squiggly shape to help minimize vibrations that would weaken the area. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

I hear the Ferrari legalizing slot is so thin you cannot pass paper thru it!

Either way this is a "nothing" issue in terms of performance.

[aral]

it´s undisputable they used illegal hardware -open to the view of all -no discussion possible and they get away with it?
where is consistency in FIA ruling? Hamilton was unable to perform a fuel sample check and was kicked to the back of the grid and RB can run illegal cars without real consequences...please someone tell me where this logic stems from.

Red Bull did not use illegal hardware. If you submit your idea to FIA and they give you a piece of paper stating that it is legal, then they had every right to proceed.

Granted that FIA are not always consistent in penalties, but the Hamilton incident was entirely different, where the team were trying to avoid a penalty for being unable to provide a fuel sample, as required within the clearly stated rules.

[marcush.]

I see the ball entirely in Fia s corner there.We have seen more than once that Ferrari and now RedBull get away with clearly illegal hardware and no consequence apart from:we have introduced a rules clarification...
when Mercedes got stripped of the points when overtaking after a safety car period in Montecarlo or Mclaren failing to provide enough fuel for a sample when making it into the pits.. or Sauber failing a radius rule of a wing -which seems evewn more absurd...
If the rules are the rules you need consistency in their application otherwise it´s just a farce.
The rule about holes is very clear and in fact the little cut wich is missing is the sole problem with it.Why not perform that cut and wait for a rule clarification ?

[Gridlock]

Because the step plane was impervious, once you removed the bodywork strake to reveal the slot. I think. So the rule wasn't very clear, because the scrutineers at 3 races and an FIA opinion all determined no rule had been broken. The rule is now clarified, and the car will change, but nobody has been cheating.

I like the way McLaren told the media off the record it was Ferrari aiming to protest, when it turns out now (for instance see The F1 Show) it was McLaren

[Lurk]

I see the ball entirely in Fia s corner there.We have seen more than once that Ferrari and now RedBull get away with clearly illegal hardware and no consequence apart from:we have introduced a rules clarification...

They applied the same policy for R26 mass dumper or Melbourne MP4-13 brake system. Cars weren't disqualified from all races they ran these systems.
It also would had been the same way if DDD were declared illegal in 2009 or F-Duct in 2010.

[Cuky]

I see the ball entirely in Fia s corner there.We have seen more than once that Ferrari and now RedBull get away with clearly illegal hardware and no consequence apart from:we have introduced a rules clarification...

They applied the same policy for R26 mass dumper or Melbourne MP4-13 brake system. Cars weren't disqualified from all races they ran these systems.
It also would had been the same way if DDD were declared illegal in 2009 or F-Duct in 2010.

Well, you see, there is a difference between mass damper and this: Not only R26 has been using mass damper. It was used by Ferrari, McLaren, Toyota and few other teams as well. They banned it for everyone

When there was a dispute around DDD there was a lot of talking that if DDD was declared illegal all cars which had it would be disqualified.

[bhall]

What Pandora's box does this clarification prevent from being opened?

As has already been mentioned, all Red Bull is going to do is cut a nearly microscopic line from the slot to the edge of the floor. Performance should not shift at all one way or the other. So, what's this really about?

[Ozan]

FIA: 'Red Bull floor declared illegal'

The FIA says the holes in front of the Red Bull RB8’s rear wheels are illegal...

As had been expected, the FIA has clamped down on the controversial Red Bull floor by clarifying its position and stating that the holes in front of the RB8’s rear wheels are illegal.

Other teams had expressed their opposition to RBR’s interpretation of the rules applying to ‘surfaces lying on the step plane,' and the FIA came to its conclusion after reviewing that input – along with Red Bull’s opinion.

Ferrari and McLaren had considered a protest in Monaco but chose not to make one after the race, on the basis that they assumed that the FIA would come to such a conclusion in the days after the race.

Red Bull’s view was that in effect there was a grey area in the rules which did not specify that holes were banned in that particular place. However, the FIA now says “we disagree with this view and consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located there.”

The ruling applies from Canada onward and does not affect past results, which is normal when such clarifications occur.

Although the consensus is that the RBR holes did not necessarily provide a significant performance advantage, the feeling was that it could have led to developments that had a greater impact.

SPEED.com has seen a copy of TD/013-12, the key text of which reads as follows: “Following on from a number of discussions in 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 of 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.”

SPEED TV
formula 1 news

[N12ck]

I believe that rbr had done this deliberately for it to be banned (e.g ferraris fluttering wing ) to prevent this rule being exploited further

[Crucial_Xtreme]

What's kind of interesting was Red Bull weren't arguing that it was a slot that happened to touch bodywork as many of us thought. Red Bull for sure considered it a hole and not a slot. I thought they would argue the opposite.
Now the question is will they introduce a solution similar to Sauber or Ferrari.