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.bhallg2k wrote:OK. That's what I thought you meant. But, it does look attached to me.
Regardless, Whiting has deemed it legal, so it is.
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 wrote: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)
My apologies. Doesn't this particular part of the Regs seem as though their interpretation is illegal?beelsebob wrote: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 wrote: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 don't see how the strake is visible from below tbh.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:My apologies. Doesn't this particular part of the Regs seem as though their interpretation is illegal?beelsebob wrote: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 wrote: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)
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
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.Crucial_Xtreme wrote: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/2 ... 58.jpg[img]
The clever rule interprettation would presumably consider there to be two parts there:GrizzleBoy wrote: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?
Awesome, sounds like I was spot on in finding their loop hole!Matt Somers wrote: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