Red Bull RB8 Renault

[bhallg2k]

OK. That's what I thought you meant. But, it does look attached to me.

Regardless, Whiting has deemed it legal, so it is.

[beelsebob]

OK. That's what I thought you meant. But, it does look attached to me.

Regardless, Whiting has deemed it legal, so it is.

As has been mentioned before – Charlie Whiting is not the FIA. Him saying it's legal does not make it so.

Edit, what *is* important is that Jo Baur has found it legal: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1 ... report.pdf

[bhallg2k]

Easy now. I was only going off of Horner's quote:

"We have got clarification that the technical director agrees with our interpretation."

[ringo]

It is legal in my opinion.
The regs are only as clear as they are writen. Can't base any rulings on what seems unfair.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

What the teams are complaining about is that thr RB slot is a hole. Whereas the Sauber solution technically isnt since there's a open slot. (see bottom arrow)




Ferrari has 3 slots in their floor as well but they have an open part like Sauber on each of them so technically it's not a hole either.

[beelsebob]

What the teams are complaining about is that thr RB slot is a hole. Whereas the Sauber solution technically isnt since there's a open slot. (see bottom arrow)

I think we all got that already – my post above is highlighting that with some clever rule interpretation the RBR one may be a "slot" too.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

What the teams are complaining about is that thr RB slot is a hole. Whereas the Sauber solution technically isnt since there's a open slot. (see bottom arrow)

I think we all got that already – my post above is highlighting that with some clever rule interpretation the RBR one may be a "slot" too.

My apologies. Doesn't this particular part of the Regs seem as though their interpretation is illegal?

Forward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below

I agree is definitely clever, but seems illegal since the strake is considered bodywork. IMHO

[beelsebob]

What the teams are complaining about is that thr RB slot is a hole. Whereas the Sauber solution technically isnt since there's a open slot. (see bottom arrow)

I think we all got that already – my post above is highlighting that with some clever rule interpretation the RBR one may be a "slot" too.

My apologies. Doesn't this particular part of the Regs seem as though their interpretation is illegal?

Forward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below

I agree is definitely clever, but seems illegal since the strake is considered bodywork. IMHO

I don't see how the strake is visible from below tbh.

[ESPImperium]

No protests, however it looks as if that the Technichal Working Group meeting tomorrow in Monaco there will be an aggreement that all iterations of this rule will be banned.

Thus making Sauber, Ferrari, Red Bull and any others with this having a new floor for Canada.

However this could be just the start of a war for all teams to exploit small rules loophones to the maximum.

[GrizzleBoy]

Given that the strake itself is actually one of the edges of a fully enclosed hole in the floor, it must be visible from directly below.

The strake is part of the bodywork.

You're not allowed to see the bodywork from under the car, therefore the hole is illegal.

Edit: In reply to the above post, that's a load of rubbish if that is the truth.

They say its not disobeying the regs, but from this point onwards, doing it is disobeying the regs?

[richard_leeds]

What the teams are complaining about is that thr RB slot is a hole. Whereas the Sauber solution technically isnt since there's a open slot. (see bottom arrow)

[img]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/5393/slotw.jpg[img]


Ferrari has 3 slots in their floor as well but they have an open part like Sauber on each of them so technically it's not a hole either.

[img]http://www.formula1.com/wi/0x0/sutton/2012/dms1202my58.jpg[img]

Well it doesn't really matter if its a hole. It's the outer 50mm, which is free for any kind of shaping. Teams have been putting holes there from last year.
What's interesting here, is how this hole looks in particular, but it doesn't break any regs. Unless we can find the wording that goes against what redbull have done, then it's ok for racing and copying by the other teams.

[alogoc]

Is it me or did RB copyed Ferrari's front jacks for pit stops?

[Matt Somers]

Red Bulls interpretation of the rule will be that their slot/duct interacts with the airflow strake which effectively makes it a slot and not a hole... Yet more lateral thinking/interpretation on a regulation

[beelsebob]

Given that the strake itself is actually one of the edges of a fully enclosed hole in the floor, it must be visible from directly below.

The strake is part of the bodywork.

You're not allowed to see the bodywork from under the car, therefore the hole is illegal.

Edit: In reply to the above post, that's a load of rubbish if that is the truth.

They say its not disobeying the regs, but from this point onwards, doing it is disobeying the regs?

The clever rule interprettation would presumably consider there to be two parts there:
1) the floor, which does not quite close the hole.
2) The strake, which sits on top of the floor, and connects to the section above.

[beelsebob]

Red Bulls interpretation of the rule will be that their slot/duct interacts with the airflow strake which effectively makes it a slot and not a hole... Yet more lateral thinking/interpretation on a regulation

Awesome, sounds like I was spot on in finding their loop hole!