Red Bull RB8 Renault

[alogoc]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99969

[Crucial_Xtreme]

The always interesting Gary Anderson says he thinks the Red Bull slot is indeed illegal, but he says he doesn't think protesting is the way to resolve it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWxPnpU_TOQ[/youtube]

[godlameroso]

So the slots are exploiting the tire squirt to help feed the diffuser? There are probably better areas to develop.

[Matt Somers]

Effectively yes it's one rule vs the other

It doesnt matter the hole in the floor can be seen from beneath as it is not a hole in the floor as it interacts with the bodywork above the floor. They will argue the two are not mutually exclusive. I'll look into it more when I've had some sleep but that's the way I see it at the moment.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

So the slots are exploiting the tire squirt to help feed the diffuser? There are probably better areas to develop.

Yes the slots are to generate a vortex to help stabalize tyre squirt and help diffuser. Anderson says he thinks it can be worth a tenth. A tenth in this F1 is quite an advantage.

[bill shoe]

I can think of two possibilities.

One. There is a tiny slot (disconnection) between the red horizontal-ish fin just in front of the tire and the black vertical fin just inboard of it. Maybe we just don't see it. This would be a conventional explaination. Red Bull would simply be positioning their tiny legality slot more inboard than other teams.

Two. Remeber the FIA has tightened up the floor vertical tolerance to 3 mm this year. The inboard edge of the horizontal red fin is more than 3 mm above this tolerance zone. Therefore the point where it is connected to the black vertical fin does not constitute part of the floor. This becomes a halfway plausible argument because the abrupt vertical surface it attaches to (i.e. the black vertical fin) can be claimed to not be part of the floor. If the inboard end of the red horizontal fin simply transitioned back down to the floor then this argument would lose out at that transition.

For possibility two, Red Bull would be arguing the opening is a slot in the floor that happens to be enclosed by a vertical fin that is not part of the floor. This would be using the floor vertical tolerance "against" the FIA, clever. This would seem to open the door for all kinds of floor openings as long as they abut to vertical surfaces.

Sorry for awkward wording. Not arguing in favor of RB, just putting ideas out there.

[Owen.C93]

It's not as if it would be the end of the world if they were to put a tiny slit in it anyway. But an interesting idea which sounds like it could have further implications if the whole "strake isn't part of the floor" argument it valid.

[Cam]

Two. Remeber the FIA has tightened up the floor vertical tolerance to 3 mm this year. The inboard edge of the horizontal red fin is more than 3 mm above this tolerance zone. Therefore the point where it is connected to the black vertical fin does not constitute part of the floor. This becomes a halfway plausible argument because the abrupt vertical surface it attaches to (i.e. the black vertical fin) can be claimed to not be part of the floor. If the inboard end of the red horizontal fin simply transitioned back down to the floor then this argument would lose out at that transition.

For possibility two, Red Bull would be arguing the opening is a slot in the floor that happens to be enclosed by a vertical fin that is not part of the floor. This would be using the floor vertical tolerance "against" the FIA, clever. This would seem to open the door for all kinds of floor openings as long as they abut to vertical surfaces.

Sorry for awkward wording. Not arguing in favor of RB, just putting ideas out there.

Your wording is good. That's a really clever insight you have and yes, I think you may be on to something. It is a slot, connected to a fin. LOL, if that's the argument I'm impressed.

[bgroovers]

Anyone with a picture of the part they are talking about; we need to know more about it.

Could this be useful?

Where has the exit gone from the tunnel cross over? There used to be an exit on the bottom of the sidepod down slope just below the pull rod. The tunnel entrance is still present and is not blocked up as the RBs have experimented with.
Maybe they have another hole in the floor with a vertical fence...

If the "hole" in front of the tire is really a slot with a vertical fence next to it then surely the "slot" must continue just behind the vertical fence and form a cut out that then runs backwards to the edge of the floor . In other words being an L shape "slot" that is bisected by the vertical fin to form the hole. This being the one leg of the L and the other hidden in the photos sitting parallel with the fin.

[Matt Somers]

The tunnel is now exiting inside the engine cover

[boson]

2 points:
1. I love how old school gary anderson is, he uses the BBCF1 ipad as a clipboard so he can use pen and paper!
2. If I were red bull I would deliberately make a hair line crack joining the hole to the edge of the floor, so its effectively the same as the sauber solution but in practice its no different to what they currently have :p

[nacho]

Just make a slight crack but make the L-extensions stong enough.

[Matt Somers]

You may or may not be interested but I have added an article on my blog about this:
http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ ... -duct.html

[yzfr7]

Two. Remeber the FIA has tightened up the floor vertical tolerance to 3 mm this year. The inboard edge of the horizontal red fin is more than 3 mm above this tolerance zone. Therefore the point where it is connected to the black vertical fin does not constitute part of the floor. This becomes a halfway plausible argument because the abrupt vertical surface it attaches to (i.e. the black vertical fin) can be claimed to not be part of the floor. If the inboard end of the red horizontal fin simply transitioned back down to the floor then this argument would lose out at that transition.

For possibility two, Red Bull would be arguing the opening is a slot in the floor that happens to be enclosed by a vertical fin that is not part of the floor. This would be using the floor vertical tolerance "against" the FIA, clever. This would seem to open the door for all kinds of floor openings as long as they abut to vertical surfaces.

I like this argument, but I am not so sure it would stand. Wouldn't the FIA (or whoever else) be able to say that whatever is "below" the 3mm tolerance zone be considered as "the floor"?

Consider there are three ways of building the floor with this fin: one would be as you said, with a slot and then a vertical fin placed in this slot. The second would be a floor with a hole on it, and then the fin on top of the floor. Or a third way, which would be to make the floor with the fin as a single part with the hole there (which I guess is how they actually do, from the photos...). I guess the only way one could say it is the first and not the second or third would be to analyse the lay up of the carbon fibre or some other test even less impractical.

That is why I think this argument might not stand, unless RB can actually prove that from their manufacturing process. Or one could go to the extreme of saying that if you "subtract" the sidepods from the car, there is huge hole in the middle of the floor... I hope it all ends with simlpler arguments.

[Nando]

Anyone noticed on the after show on Sky when they talked about the slot, they showed video of the car rolling by and you could see part of the floor was painted in some dark black/grey color?

in front of the tire and on the inside of the tire. Not all the way up to the exhausts.