Red Bull RB8 Renault

[turbof1]

It was China 2011. He had a massive fuel leak in the garage and they sent him to the grid without all the rear bodywork attatched so they got out in time. I dont think its against the rules to actually repair damage etc on the grid either, but changing setup is only allowed in the wet I think. Sorry if it's a bit off topic

After China 2011, they changed the rules so that you need to be on the grid with the full bodywork attached. So last minute repair on the grid before the start is not allowed anymore. However, a race red flagged still means damage is allowed to be repaired on the grid.

[myurr]

Well Marko's gone and done it now, accusing Ferrari of running the same system:

Speaking to Auto Motor Und Sport, Marko said: "We have never adjusted anything by hand. I don't know why the others are upset – we know Ferrari has used something like that for a year."

So Red Bull developed a system that allowed them to adjust it by hand but never used it, and it's all okay anyway as Ferrari were doing it too...

Ferrari have since publicly stated that they don't know what Dr Marko is talking about and that they have never used such a system.

Did they really accuse us of cheating? Are you sure? Anyway, we have all the confidence in the FIA's role to make sure all the regulations are fully respected.

Source is Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101690

[turbof1]

Well Marko's gone and done it now, accusing Ferrari of running the same system:

Speaking to Auto Motor Und Sport, Marko said: "We have never adjusted anything by hand. I don't know why the others are upset – we know Ferrari has used something like that for a year."

So Red Bull developed a system that allowed them to adjust it by hand but never used it, and it's all okay anyway as Ferrari were doing it too...

Ferrari have since publicly stated that they don't know what Dr Marko is talking about and that they have never used such a system.

Did they really accuse us of cheating? Are you sure? Anyway, we have all the confidence in the FIA's role to make sure all the regulations are fully respected.

Source is Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101690

It is the same talk from him isn't it? Always trying to downplay things or to put the blaim somewhere else.

[Gridlock]

This article (apologies if posted previously) gets more interesting with hindsight:

“This was to stop people changing springs and ride heights,” according to Lowe. “Where this has got a little bit tricky is that you can design suspensions that self adjust during that period. There are all sorts of physical means to do that. Imagine a suspension where without any human intervention it changes its set up. You could argue that as you haven’t touched it, it’s not been changed. But what the FIA have now clarified is that even if you don’t touch it, if you have programmed it to change you have effectively made a change of set up.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/04/m ... programme/

I've always wondered how you outlaw a system that slowly releases pressure and changes ride height overnight, I think Williams ran one like it.

[.poz]

Marko said: "We have never adjusted anything by hand. "

It's true, they did it using a small screwdriver

[hammarby88]

It was China 2011. He had a massive fuel leak in the garage and they sent him to the grid without all the rear bodywork attatched so they got out in time. I dont think its against the rules to actually repair damage etc on the grid either, but changing setup is only allowed in the wet I think. Sorry if it's a bit off topic

You are allowed to change parts if they are identical iirc. They fixed the problem and sent him out just in time for the grid and then did checks to see it was allright while he was standing on the grid.

[hardingfv32]

It was China 2011. He had a massive fuel leak in the garage and they sent him to the grid without all the rear bodywork attached so they got out in time.

In the McLaren case, they asked and were given permission to replace a 'serviceable' part on the engine. It was observed by a race tech official.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

How would you read that such that it would not make the possibility for manual adjustment illegal? [/quote]

1) The use of the word clear: free from doubt or confusion; certain. In this case is it not possible that I could have a different opinion about what is 'clear' than say you? This is not a black and white word.

2) 'Possibility for manual adjustment', again is it illegal or wrong for me to have a different view of what is possible.

Brian

[gilgen]

It was China 2011. He had a massive fuel leak in the garage and they sent him to the grid without all the rear bodywork attatched so they got out in time. I dont think its against the rules to actually repair damage etc on the grid either, but changing setup is only allowed in the wet I think. Sorry if it's a bit off topic

After China 2011, they changed the rules so that you need to be on the grid with the full bodywork attached. So last minute repair on the grid before the start is not allowed anymore. However, a race red flagged still means damage is allowed to be repaired on the grid.

Just do what Schumi did! Stop the engine and have the car pushed into pits where changes can then be made to allow the car to start from pit lane .

[amc]

it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

How would you read that such that it would not make the possibility for manual adjustment illegal?

1) The use of the word clear: free from doubt or confusion; certain. In this case is it not possible that I could have a different opinion about what is 'clear' than say you? This is not a black and white word.

2) 'Possibility for manual adjustment', again is it illegal or wrong for me to have a different view of what is possible.

Brian

It is clear from physical inspection of that post that you have not read the regulation in question.

When read as a whole the regulation is very precise, and given Mr Horner and Dr Marko's reactions, I would suggest they are not even disputing the fact that the regulation was broken.

[hardingfv32]

It is clear from physical inspection of that post that you have not read the regulation in question.

When read as a whole the regulation is very precise, and given Mr Horner and Dr Marko's reactions, I would suggest they are not even disputing the fact that the regulation was broken.

The word 'clear' is used in the regulation. It was 'clear' to RB that the adjustment could only be done with a tool but not 'clear' to the FIA official. It is no bother to RB to modify the system so as to satisfy the FIA official because they had no requirement to make hand adjustments. If RB thought there was value in retaining the design they would have protested the request.

If the regulation was broken then there would have been a penalty.

So it is 'clear' to me that the regulation is not precise, contrary to your opinion.

Brian

[turbof1]

It was China 2011. He had a massive fuel leak in the garage and they sent him to the grid without all the rear bodywork attatched so they got out in time. I dont think its against the rules to actually repair damage etc on the grid either, but changing setup is only allowed in the wet I think. Sorry if it's a bit off topic

After China 2011, they changed the rules so that you need to be on the grid with the full bodywork attached. So last minute repair on the grid before the start is not allowed anymore. However, a race red flagged still means damage is allowed to be repaired on the grid.

Just do what Schumi did! Stop the engine and have the car pushed into pits where changes can then be made to allow the car to start from pit lane .

Better: step into a Red Bull X1 prototype and claim it was a setup change :p.

[Ral]

it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

How would you read that such that it would not make the possibility for manual adjustment illegal?

1) The use of the word clear: free from doubt or confusion; certain. In this case is it not possible that I could have a different opinion about what is 'clear' than say you? This is not a black and white word.

2) 'Possibility for manual adjustment', again is it illegal or wrong for me to have a different view of what is possible.

Both your points are essentially the same one: what is clear to one person might not be clear to someone else and what is possible for one person might not be possible to another.

But both points are also refuted the same way: if there is doubt, that means it is not clear and if someone can do it, that means it is possible.

And your point that

It was 'clear' to RB that the adjustment could only be done with a tool

is refuted by the fact that Horner is on the record saying that it was possible, in other words while it was not clear to the scrutineer, it was very much clear to RBR that the possibility existed.

Horner admitting that it was possible to make adjustments manually, also means he admits they broke the rules. Which takes me back to my original question: why was no penalty handed out, even if "only" a quiet, out of the limelights monetary one.

[SDG31]

Horner admitting that it was possible to make adjustments manually, also means he admits they broke the rules. Which takes me back to my original question: why was no penalty handed out, even if "only" a quiet, out of the limelights monetary one.

It is strange that there isn't even a hint of any penalties, especially after all the little controversies in the Red Bull garage this year. Just wondering is there actually any outlines in the rules for the kind of punishment which could have been given to Red Bull or even a precedent for a similar situation?

[bhallg2k]

It is strange that there isn't even a hint of any penalties, especially after all the little controversies in the Red Bull garage this year. Just wondering is there actually any outlines in the rules for the kind of punishment which could have been given to Red Bull or even a precedent for a similar situation?

If any wrongdoing by Red Bull can be definitively proven, the precedent is exclusion.

F1 bosses seeking BAR exclusion (And they achieved it.)