FIA slams Hill and explains what and why they do [Archive]

ioan

10th November 2007, 13:02

Why they handled the Michelin tires, the Mass dampers and the Ferrari floor as they did:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877

A very interesting part was the one where they name a few of the teams that had to change their floors after Melbourne:

Explaining what happened with the Ferrari floor, which Hill suggested had been 'illegal', the FIA spokesman said: "This device fully satisfied the tests which were in place up to and including the Australian Grand Prix. It was therefore completely legal at that event.

"On learning how the device functioned, the FIA concluded that although it complied with the letter of the rules, it was outside the spirit. Ferrari were therefore asked to modify it as were McLaren and Red Bull who were running similar devices.

Nice to see McLaren being one of them. :p :
Never heard Ron Dennis mentioning that when he was throwing mud at Ferrari. :D

BDunnell

10th November 2007, 13:11

I don't think there ought to be any doubt about the legality of the floor at the time of the Australian GP.

markabilly

10th November 2007, 19:09

Why they handled the Michelin tires, the Mass dampers and the Ferrari floor as they did:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877

A very interesting part was the one where they name a few of the teams that had to change their floors after Melbourne:

Nice to see McLaren being one of them. :p :
Never heard Ron Dennis mentioning that when he was throwing mud at Ferrari. :D

mac probably figured their device was sufficiently different therefore legal or perhaps undectable...little did they know they might change the actual test...... :D

interesting that the stolen mac stuff had designs for devices that would have the effect of mass dampners........... :confused: and there are those who think mac's speed was merely due to ferrari gas pressure in tires and rpms....... :eek:

tinchote

10th November 2007, 19:37

I don't think there ought to be any doubt about the legality of the floor at the time of the Australian GP.

There was not in the view of many, but then we had a certain Ron Dennis saying it was "illegal", and many forumers around here supporting that view.

Now I would love to see those persons saying that McLaren's floor at Australia was illegal, but I guess it won't happen ;)

BDunnell

10th November 2007, 19:40

There was not in the view of many, but then we had a certain Ron Dennis saying it was "illegal", and many forumers around here supporting that view.

Indeed, and I always felt (and said at the time) that it did his case for the defence down.

passmeatissue

10th November 2007, 20:13

There was not in the view of many, but then we had a certain Ron Dennis saying it was "illegal", and many forumers around here supporting that view.

Now I would love to see those persons saying that McLaren's floor at Australia was illegal, but I guess it won't happen ;)

I will be that person, if anyone fancies a civilised debate with reference to the Tech Regs.

Valve Bounce

10th November 2007, 23:58

There was not in the view of many, but then we had a certain Ron Dennis saying it was "illegal", and many forumers around here supporting that view.

Now I would love to see those persons saying that McLaren's floor at Australia was illegal, but I guess it won't happen ;)

McLaren's moveable floors were illegal! I suspect they would come under moveable ballast.

wmcot

11th November 2007, 01:47

I will be that person, if anyone fancies a civilised debate with reference to the Tech Regs.

So then you are in possession of McLaren and RedBull documents explaining the flexibility of their floors at Melbourne? You can verify that they met the tests that you complain that Ferrari did not meet?

Valve Bounce

11th November 2007, 02:47

So then you are in possession of McLaren and RedBull documents explaining the flexibility of their floors at Melbourne? You can verify that they met the tests that you complain that Ferrari did not meet?

Maybe they met the tests at the time because there were no tests at the time. Maybe the Ferrari floor moved backwards and forwards as well as up and down. I don't know!! Does anyone here know?

tinchote

11th November 2007, 05:00

Maybe they met the tests at the time because there were no tests at the time. Maybe the Ferrari floor moved backwards and forwards as well as up and down. I don't know!! Does anyone here know?

Of course not. But we know that uncle Ron said that it was illegal in Melbourne. He just forgot to mention that they also had to change theirs. But no, of course, theirs was not illegal :rolleyes: ;) :D

Ari

11th November 2007, 09:57

McLaren went on to argue that this was something they had 'thought of themselves'. ho hum.....

passmeatissue

11th November 2007, 12:16

McLaren's moveable floors were illegal! I suspect they would come under moveable ballast.

Can you say any more about the McLaren floor design? I have never seen anything about it.

My understanding of the Ferrari floor is that it was fixed at the rear edge, though able to hinge, and at the front edge was fixed by springs with preload. At speed the front of the floor would be pulled down by the airstream, and run closer to the track surface. Any more to add, anyone?

markabilly

11th November 2007, 13:47

Can you say any more about the McLaren floor design? I have never seen anything about it.

My understanding of the Ferrari floor is that it was fixed at the rear edge, though able to hinge, and at the front edge was fixed by springs with preload. At speed the front of the floor would be pulled down by the airstream, and run closer to the track surface. Any more to add, anyone?
No, I have not seen any diagrams or photos of any of the devices, just various descriptions of how it might work, but it would seem to me that there would be a number of different ways to accomplish the same thing, such that the ferrari "device" and the mac "device" would be completely different in design and operation, yet produce the same result of the floor moving down at speed

hence the mac hope might have well been to have the FIA rule the ferrari device to be outside the rules, but in the absence of knowledge as to the mac device and how it worked, would not have bothered with the mac device.

However, when the test was changed, must be that mac, red bull and ferrari "got caught with their floors down" and so changes to all three cars were made..................as basically the ferrari design managed to pass the original test without a problem, but the new test/specification in the regs would not permit it to pass, and probably the same was true of the red bull and mac floors as well in that they could also pass the old test but not the new one......

Easy Drifter

11th November 2007, 16:29

Will wonders never cease. I agree with markabilly on something!

markabilly

11th November 2007, 17:04

Will wonders never cease. I agree with markabilly on something!
Sorry I will be more careful in the future......

ioan

11th November 2007, 18:49

passmeatissue

11th November 2007, 20:08

Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

because previous attempts showed that many don't understand this.

PS: =/= means "different".

OK that is a good start. I hope a lot of people will take part, to help agree the meaning of the key words. Could I beg you to read this post thoroughly if you are going to reply.

The regs are here... http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html
Each year's regs are in a separate file, and the changes are highlighted.

There are three clauses that apply, unless anyone knows different...
I have bolded the key words.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when etc etc. The details of the load/deflection tests are not important.

3.17.6 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are
respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further
oad/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
This clause was added between 2005 and 2007, I am not sure exactly when.

I will do a new post with my interpretation of these regs.

passmeatissue

11th November 2007, 20:24

So, for me...

2.4 means cars must comply with all clauses, ie. both 3.15 and 3.17, in parc ferme and at speed on the track.

3.15 means the floor must be "rigidly mounted" to the chassis.
and must "remain immobile" in relation to it.

3.17.6 refers back to 3.15, but it is a test of "bodywork flexibility" - bending of the part itself - not of the mounting rigidity. (Even if this clause applied at Melbourne 07, which I am not quite sure about).

The spring mounting cannot be considered "rigid" or "immobile". Movement is intrinsic to a spring, and you would only use one in order to allow movement. Otherwise you would use a bolt or bonding. The floor was designed to move, and therefore deliberately contravened the regs.

The springs were visible, at least from the side or below, so a car with a sprung floor should have failed scrutineering.

SGWilko

11th November 2007, 20:58

markabilly

12th November 2007, 05:39

We really do not have the deatils to really know how it worked. And Max says similar devices on the other two, but we really do not know what similar actually means. The quote:

"This device fully satisfied the tests which were in place up to and including the Australian Grand Prix. It was therefore completely legal at that event.
"On learning how the device functioned, the FIA concluded that although it complied with the letter of the rules, it was outside the spirit. Ferrari were therefore asked to modify it as were McLaren and Red Bull who were running similar devices."

Now what is similar devices? Similar in terms that they permitted flex or lowering of the floor at speed? Otherwise completely different?

what he says is the test was changed or revised, and as a result, the three teams had a floor problem. The Mac design could have been totally different, may not have lowered as much, may not have relied on springs, the floor and bonding may have used some special composite material that flexed/deflected at speed (just like the wings that were flattening and lowering themselves closer to the ground due to flex and aero loading from speed).......

there has never really been much of an explanation for how the ferrari floor actually operated, and its design details. Same for the Mac and RB floors.

So one can not really say much that really matters as to whetehr the floor was actually sprung or violated some letter of the regulation, until one has far more evdience about all three devices. Otherwise this stuff is just speculation of no meaning....

wmcot

12th November 2007, 07:42

The spring mounting cannot be considered "rigid" or "immobile". Movement is intrinsic to a spring, and you would only use one in order to allow movement. Otherwise you would use a bolt or bonding. The floor was designed to move, and therefore deliberately contravened the regs.

The springs were visible, at least from the side or below, so a car with a sprung floor should have failed scrutineering.

I would imagine that Ferrari would say that the springs acted as dampers or limiters on the flexing of the floor. From the drawings I have seen, that is entirely plausible since you wouldn't want the floor to deflect too much and dig into the track. I'm not sure if the McLaren or RedBull designs used springs since I haven't heard much about their designs.

I doubt the scrutineers would fail the car just because it had springs present when it still passed the (then current) prescribed tests. The only basis they would have to disqualify a car is if it failed the test that was used at the time. That would make the device illegal.

SGWilko

12th November 2007, 08:52

"On learning how the device functioned,.

And here, ye folks in the FIA is the route of your problems. Until you 'learn' how ALL devices work at the design stage, and work on a sign off basis (yes you may need more staff) you will forever be chasing your tail.

What bothers me though about that quote from mad maxy, is that according to NS, the FIA had been alerted to its function and basic design by him, in his role at the time. It seems that Ferraris nonchalent attitude towards the letter and spirit of the rules, and how they ignored NS in all this is likely why he turned to the dark side. (IMHO, of course).

ioan

12th November 2007, 10:08

OK that is a good start.

You mean you'll finally understand what you didn't understand a few weeks ago?
That a part that is rigidly attached to the car's body at least at one point can't move anymore, just flex?!

Could I beg you to read this post thoroughly if you are going to reply.

As you see I'm doing just that!

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.

That's obvious and the deflecting floors were certainly within that, it means that when subjected to the same load as prescribed in the tests the floors were flexing by no more than the prescribed tolerance.
At higher loads the deflection was of course bigger and at smaller ones was smaller. Elementary my dear Watson.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

And the floors were just fine with this, were rigidly secured to the unsprung part of the car, which in turn means they had no degree of freedom = could not move anymore, so they were immobile.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when etc etc. The details of the load/deflection tests are not important.

The details of the tests are important, as there is described the exact way of testing and the loads that are used for testing, loads that would show if the part flexes more than 5 mm. We all know that al the floors passed the tests. So there was no breach of the regulations.

3.17.6 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are
respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further
oad/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
This clause was added between 2005 and 2007, I am not sure exactly when.

And so they did change the testing procedures and loads twice this season, because they were being outsmarted by the team's engineers.

Thanks for posting the regs! ;)

Rusty Spanner

12th November 2007, 10:58

passmeatissue

12th November 2007, 11:13

I found a post in the Atlas-F1 forum that reminded me of the cross-examination by Ferrari's lawyer of Paddy Lowe, in the second WMSC hearing, where the McLaren system was described as having a pre-buckled stay (http://press.fiacommunications.com/wmsc-transcript-13-09-2007a.pdf).

Ferrari's system is described as having springs, and the poster said it included a mass damper system. However McLaren's system was designed to be rigid up to a threshold, then it would allow the floor to drop.

I don't see that the McLaren system can be "rigidly attached" or "immobile" while at speed on the track. So now I don't think it's a Macca vs. Ferrari issue, but a puzzle why the FIA and/or the teams allowed either of them to get as far as turning up for a race. I thought with this kind of innovation the teams always check it with the FIA first. If they did, I don't see how the FIA could have approved it.

passmeatissue

12th November 2007, 11:40

You mean you'll finally understand what you didn't understand a few weeks ago?
That a part that is rigidly attached to the car's body at least at one point can't move anymore, just flex?!

That's obvious and the deflecting floors were certainly within that, it means that when subjected to the same load as prescribed in the tests the floors were flexing by no more than the prescribed tolerance.
At higher loads the deflection was of course bigger and at smaller ones was smaller. Elementary my dear Watson.

And the floors were just fine with this, were rigidly secured to the unsprung part of the car, which in turn means they had no degree of freedom = could not move anymore, so they were immobile.

The details of the tests are important, as there is described the exact way of testing and the loads that are used for testing, loads that would show if the part flexes more than 5 mm. We all know that al the floors passed the tests. So there was no breach of the regulations.

Thanks for posting the regs! ;)

You have not grasped the key aspect. 3.17 is not an exhaustive test of compliance with 3.15. Otherwise 3.15 would not have been written, would it? They had to comply with 3.15 and 3.17.

You don't understand the words you are using, or you are trying to redefine them to suit your argument. "move" does not mean only to separate itself in its entirely and be free to go off to some other space. It includes going from one position to another. If one end moves, it moves. Flexing is bending, not being hinged. Something attached only at one end by a hinge is not "rigidly" attached, and something rotating about one end is not "immobile".

passmeatissue

12th November 2007, 11:47

Regardless of the relative technical merits of the situations the bit I find interesting is the fact the FIA/Max has felt need to respond in a pretty strong (and personal) way to the recent comments by both Hill and Stewart. It isn't something they typically would have done in the past.

No, it seems Max is getting (even) more aggressive in his old age. I think he may be in some trouble now, the choice for the FIA between losing Renault and being obviously unfair is the result of Max's vendetta against Ron. The FIA members might finally start to wonder if their strong leader is a bit too strong.

SGWilko

12th November 2007, 11:59

No, it seems Max is getting (even) more aggressive in his old age. I think he may be in some trouble now, the choice for the FIA between losing Renault and being obviously unfair is the result of Max's vendetta against Ron. The FIA members might finally start to wonder if their strong leader is a bit too strong.

Lets just 'consider the evidence'.

Unless I am very much mistaken, Renault are in the position McLaren were in before the new evidence from the Italian rozzers investigation came to light.

Namely, It would be entirely justified if the verdict against Renault were the same as the original McLaren verdict - that is that yes, they were caught with their pants down, but insufficient evidence would appear to exist to warrant the apportioning of a fiscal penalty.

Of course, if more info comes to light, and the FIA certainly would need to satisfy itself that the 2008 Renault blah blah blah (you get the picture).

So, Renault might just be off the hook.......

SGWilko

12th November 2007, 12:16

Lets just 'consider the evidence'.

Unless I am very much mistaken, Renault are in the position McLaren were in before the new evidence from the Italian rozzers investigation came to light.

Namely, It would be entirely justified if the verdict against Renault were the same as the original McLaren verdict - that is that yes, they were caught with their pants down, but insufficient evidence would appear to exist to warrant the apportioning of a fiscal penalty.

Of course, if more info comes to light, and the FIA certainly would need to satisfy itself that the 2008 Renault blah blah blah (you get the picture).

So, Renault might just be off the hook.......

Excuse me while I correct myself :p :

I think Renault are actually in a bit of a pickle, because it CAN be demonstrated that multiple senior employees within the Regie were party to viewing of the data, and it DID exist on their IT system.

Oops. Now get out of that Max. Talk about making your bed, then having to go sleep in it. This could potentially spell the end for Max if he cannot play fair with the verdict - because........

If he does, and the Reggie are out of the '07 constructors, and get a (proportionate to wealth) fine, I cannot see them sticking around.

If he does not do the above (assume it is the only equitable solution), his position as head of the FIA will likely be untenable.

ioan

12th November 2007, 13:15

You don't understand the words you are using, or you are trying to redefine them to suit your argument. "move" does not mean only to separate itself in its entirely and be free to go off to some other space. It includes going from one position to another. If one end moves, it moves. Flexing is bending, not being hinged. Something attached only at one end by a hinge is not "rigidly" attached, and something rotating about one end is not "immobile".

Thanks for proving that I was right no to debate this from the beginning, and I will not debate with you any further because as I said:

Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

because previous attempts showed that many don't understand this.

PS: =/= means "different".

Have a nice "debate".

passmeatissue

12th November 2007, 13:28

Excuse me while I correct myself :p :

I think Renault are actually in a bit of a pickle, because it CAN be demonstrated that multiple senior employees within the Regie were party to viewing of the data, and it DID exist on their IT system.

Oops. Now get out of that Max. Talk about making your bed, then having to go sleep in it. This could potentially spell the end for Max if he cannot play fair with the verdict - because........

If he does, and the Reggie are out of the '07 constructors, and get a (proportionate to wealth) fine, I cannot see them sticking around.

If he does not do the above (assume it is the only equitable solution), his position as head of the FIA will likely be untenable.

Max's performance is going to be well worth watching! Better than some of the races...

12th November 2007, 13:34

passmeatissue

12th November 2007, 13:34

Thanks for proving that I was right no to debate this from the beginning, and I will not debate with you any further because as I said:".

Originally Posted by ioan http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

But ioan, we agree...
Something that is hinged is not rigidly fixed
A test of flexion is not necessarily a test of movement.

SGWilko

12th November 2007, 13:38

[LEFT]Originally Posted by ioan http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:

1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing

But ioan, we agree...
Something that is hinged is not rigidly fixed
A test of flexion is not necessarily a test of movement.

Who gives a flex! :p :

wmcot

13th November 2007, 08:04

"move" does not mean only to separate itself in its entirely and be free to go off to some other space. It includes going from one position to another. If one end moves, it moves. Flexing is bending, not being hinged. Something attached only at one end by a hinge is not "rigidly" attached, and something rotating about one end is not "immobile".

So, you would agree that the front and rear wings also flex/bend and are therefore not immobile? Are they then illegal devices? What about barge boards, winglets, etc.?

passmeatissue

13th November 2007, 09:57

So, you would agree that the front and rear wings also flex/bend and are therefore not immobile? Are they then illegal devices? What about barge boards, winglets, etc.?

Wing flexion is specified explicitly in 3.17. The point about the floor is the mounting, rather than flexion of the floor itself.

This is the thing. 3.15 is about the mounting, 3.17 is about flexion of the body part itself.

passmeatissue

13th November 2007, 10:04

Who gives a flex! :p :

Well yes, fair comment in a sense, but the issue is whether the FIA applies its written set of rules, or alters and ignores them for expediency or to suit its favourites as it goes along.

wmcot

14th November 2007, 08:57

Wing flexion is specified explicitly in 3.17. The point about the floor is the mounting, rather than flexion of the floor itself.

This is the thing. 3.15 is about the mounting, 3.17 is about flexion of the body part itself.

I'm not 100% sure, but the way I understand the construction of the flexible part of the floor is that it is an extension of the main monocoque floor with the rear of the flexible part being and integral part of the main floor. The springs are located near the front of the flexible section to damp/limit the flexing to be within the limits of flex at the original prescribed test weight. That would make the floor rigidly mounted at the rear. Only the frontmost part of the floor would flex. The design is much like a diving board where the rear is rigidly attached, but the extended end flexes.

If anyone has more precise data on the actual configuration of the design, please share it with us all.

ioan

14th November 2007, 10:36

I'm not 100% sure, but the way I understand the construction of the flexible part of the floor is that it is an extension of the main monocoque floor with the rear of the flexible part being and integral part of the main floor. The springs are located near the front of the flexible section to damp/limit the flexing to be within the limits of flex at the original prescribed test weight. That would make the floor rigidly mounted at the rear. Only the frontmost part of the floor would flex. The design is much like a diving board where the rear is rigidly attached, but the extended end flexes.

If anyone has more precise data on the actual configuration of the design, please share it with us all.

You are right on there. :up:
Some people around here are still insisting, for whatever reasons they might have, about it being hinged and so on.
I think that they should take a look at how the under-body of an F1 car actually looks, before posting.

janneppi

14th November 2007, 10:48

passmeatissue

14th November 2007, 11:03

I'm not 100% sure, but the way I understand the construction of the flexible part of the floor is that it is an extension of the main monocoque floor with the rear of the flexible part being and integral part of the main floor. The springs are located near the front of the flexible section to damp/limit the flexing to be within the limits of flex at the original prescribed test weight. That would make the floor rigidly mounted at the rear. Only the frontmost part of the floor would flex. The design is much like a diving board where the rear is rigidly attached, but the extended end flexes.

If anyone has more precise data on the actual configuration of the design, please share it with us all.

From the horse's mouth...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

ioan

14th November 2007, 11:03

How was the spring mounted system on the floor extension or the chassis?
Does anyone know?

IMO if it's somehow rigidly attached at the ends to the extension/chassis, I would call it legal, but if it uses pivots at either end of the spring it could be considered illegal.

Why is that?
The floors are attached rigidly to the chassis, but one of the ends in free.
Towards the free end of the floor there was another mounting that incorporated springs thus was not rigid.

I hate to repeat myself, but if the floor was rigidly (and I mean rigidly, not what some might believe that means) attached to the chassis at least at one point than it was within the rules no matter how many spring systems might have been used at the other end of it.

The free end of the floor had to vertically deflect not more than 5 mm under a load of 50N (I believe) and this requirement was met.

The only problem that the FIA had with it was that as soon as the cars start going real fast the aerodynamic load on the floor was larger and larger, thus pushing the floor down by more than 5mm.
So first the FIA asked the teams not to use those spring mountings, which I doubt that changed to many things because the floors would still flex under the load, and this flex is easy to be controlled by the teams with the use of stratified composite materials.
This is why a few weeks after the first change they came up with a second change to the testing methods and pushed the testing load up to 200N (that's a bit more than 20Kg), so a huge difference which meant that the floors would be way less flexible than before.

So, IMO, the problem lied more within the flexibility of the floor, flexibility that was allowed by the use of a small load for the deflection loads, than with the spring system that was primarily used as a measure of protection of the floor when riding the kerbs.

passmeatissue

14th November 2007, 15:31

Why is that?
The floors are attached rigidly to the chassis, but one of the ends in free.
Towards the free end of the floor there was another mounting that incorporated springs thus was not rigid.

I hate to repeat myself, but if the floor was rigidly (and I mean rigidly, not what some might believe that means) attached to the chassis at least at one point than it was within the rules no matter how many spring systems might have been used at the other end of it.

The free end of the floor had to vertically deflect not more than 5 mm under a load of 50N (I believe) and this requirement was met.

The only problem that the FIA had with it was that as soon as the cars start going real fast the aerodynamic load on the floor was larger and larger, thus pushing the floor down by more than 5mm.
So first the FIA asked the teams not to use those spring mountings, which I doubt that changed to many things because the floors would still flex under the load, and this flex is easy to be controlled by the teams with the use of stratified composite materials.
This is why a few weeks after the first change they came up with a second change to the testing methods and pushed the testing load up to 200N (that's a bit more than 20Kg), so a huge difference which meant that the floors would be way less flexible than before.

So, IMO, the problem lied more within the flexibility of the floor, flexibility that was allowed by the use of a small load for the deflection loads, than with the spring system that was primarily used as a measure of protection of the floor when riding the kerbs.

This is Charlie Whiting's view...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Charlie doesn't see any room for doubt, it was "quite clearly....strictly prohibited."

So why the car was allowed to run and score points is a mystery.

SGWilko

14th November 2007, 15:43

This is Charlie Whiting's view...

"
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
"
(my underline)
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Charlie doesn't see any room for doubt, it was "quite clearly....strictly prohibited."

So why the car was allowed to run and score points is a mystery.

Right, this could go on ad infinitum. You (passmeatissue and Ioan) need to agree to disagree.

You can see how the FIA rules are so cocking (can I use that word?) badly written that this ambiguity happens ALL the time.

Both of you, save the atoms in your fingers and on your keyboards and draw a line in the FIA sanctioned sand.

Please.

Thank you.

As any good Chav would say - End of, innit! ;)

ioan

14th November 2007, 15:51

Right, this could go on ad infinitum. You (passmeatissue and Ioan) need to agree to disagree.

You can see how the FIA rules are so cocking (can I use that word?) badly written that this ambiguity happens ALL the time.

Both of you, save the atoms in your fingers and on your keyboards and draw a line in the FIA sanctioned sand.

Please.

Thank you.

As any good Chav would say - End of, innit! ;)

;)

Wilderness

14th November 2007, 15:55

SGWilko

14th November 2007, 15:58

ioan

14th November 2007, 16:01

passmeatissue

14th November 2007, 16:20

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/MediaCenter/action/player?filtro=Video&testoRicerca=fondo&pagina=1&passo=7&uuid=6cb83acc-e40d-11db-a9ea-0003ba99c667&navName=1&provenienza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

Thanks!

Well I take note that you've has enough of the floor issue, SGWilko, I know it's an old one and I certainly don't mean to p*ss everyone off. But for me FIA consistency is still a live issue, and this is part of what a forum is about, using debate as a means of assembiling information and looking at aternative points of view. I personally have learned quite a bit that I didn't know before, and generally if you keep going with information-based replies you more often than not find that two people who are at loggerheads in the beginning find they agree more than they realised.

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

SGWilko

14th November 2007, 16:29

Thanks!

Well I take note that you've has enough of the floor issue, SGWilko, I know it's an old one and I certainly don't mean to p*ss everyone off. But for me FIA consistency is still a live issue, and this is part of what a forum is about, using debate as a means of assembiling information and looking at aternative points of view. I personally have learned quite a bit that I didn't know before, and generally if you keep going with information-based replies you more often than not find that two people who are at loggerheads in the beginning find they agree more than they realised.

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

Hey, don't worry, my post was a little tongue in cheek y'know! I agree with you 100% on the consistency within the FIA issue, its been an issue for yonks, and no doubt always will be.

Not p***ed off at all. And you are right, I've also learned quite a lot from both you and Ioan on this.

But look. Ioan thinks it was legal because it passed the test - and hey, the FIA tech dept isn't exactly NASA is it?

Your take on it (as is mine, but I've let it go now, so what, it's in the past) is that it should have been deemed illegal because it was against the spirit of the rules.

I guess that both the points can be viewed as valid (glass half empty or half full).

Anyway, moving on, what lovely weather we are having........

wmcot

14th November 2007, 22:53

And I am still quite keen to see how ioan would respond to Charlie Whiting's definitive ruling that it was illegal... :D

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

BDunnell

14th November 2007, 22:59

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

It could very well be that he has only realised that it's illegal subsequently. We may not think this is good enough, but this isn't something that's ever come up before (in recent times, at least) and he is only human.

It's sometimes worth remembering the latter point in relation to F1. These are people doing jobs and nothing more. No matter how much any of them earn, and how well-known they are, they have to deal with the same sort of things at work as any of us do.

passmeatissue

14th November 2007, 23:45

That brings up the question that if Whiting determined it to be "illegal," why did he not disqualify the cars?

Well the conspiracy theorist's guess (that's me :D ) would be that McLaren could have modified their pre-buckled stay in time (it just needed beefing up), but Ferrari couldn't have got their more complex spring system compliant in time for the race. So rather than have a ruckus at the first race of the season, and set Ferrari back, he fudged it.

Sound familiar at all?

Wish I knew what McLaren actually ran in the race. Anyone know? If they did modify it, that would explain why they brought the issue up in the WMSC hearing. Otherwise, that decision looks a bit silly, which is how Nigel Tozzi made them look.

Anyway, back on topic, Damon was quite right, Ferrari did run an illegal floor in Australia, and kept the points.

ioan

15th November 2007, 00:00

Well the conspiracy theorist's guess (that's me :D ) would be that McLaren could have modified their pre-buckled stay in time (it just needed beefing up), but Ferrari couldn't have got their more complex spring system compliant in time for the race. So rather than have a ruckus at the first race of the season, and set Ferrari back, he fudged it.

Sound familiar at all?

Yeah, it looks like so many other stupid "FIA favors Ferrari" theories! :p :

BDunnell

15th November 2007, 00:05

Yeah, it looks like so many other stupid "FIA favors Ferrari" theories! :p :

And all those other 'FIA favours XXXX' theories...

markabilly

15th November 2007, 00:52

All of this discussion just illustrates why the greatest and most valuable engineer talent that should be most in demand is "cheating without getting caught"

janneppi

15th November 2007, 08:03

http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/MediaCenter/action/player?filtro=Video&testoRicerca=fondo&pagina=1&passo=7&uuid=6cb83acc-e40d-11db-a9ea-0003ba99c667&navName=1&provenienza=REDAZIONE

Prego.

Thanks

Why is that?

sorry it took so long, I forgot all about this thread. :)
If the video is accurate, then IMO the spring system was against the aero rules.
The spring system can rotate around the upper and lower pivot points which means it is not fixed on the chassis. And as such is against the 3.15(?) aero rule that prohibits any use of moveable mechanisms.

ioan

15th November 2007, 10:06

Thanks

sorry it took so long, I forgot all about this thread. :)
If the video is accurate, then IMO the spring system was against the aero rules.
The spring system can rotate around the upper and lower pivot points which means it is not fixed on the chassis. And as such is against the 3.15(?) aero rule that prohibits any use of moveable mechanisms.

But the spring system isn't an aero device. Or should I point it out that all the aero parts on the car that are fixed with bolts, that can rotate around their own axis, are illegal than?
Also the floor can't rotate nor translate, just flex.

ArrowsFA1

15th November 2007, 10:41

But the spring system isn't an aero device.
In itself maybe not, but isn't at least one of its purposes to improve the aero under the car?

janneppi

15th November 2007, 10:47

But the spring system isn't an aero device.
It situates in the airflow, isn't part of the suspension or is governed by any other regulation, Then what is it?
A mass damper? :p :

ioan

15th November 2007, 10:48

In itself maybe not, but isn't at least one of its purposes to improve the aero under the car?

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).

ArrowsFA1

15th November 2007, 10:54

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).
Yes (it's kerbs btw ;) ), that was one purpose.

passmeatissue

15th November 2007, 11:08

No it's purpose was not to allow the floor to flex to much downwards because than it would have been destroyed when going over the curbs (or is it kerbs?).

It only works at high speed, not the speed they go over kerbs. Its purpose was to reduce drag on the straights.

passmeatissue

15th November 2007, 11:19

I found this...
(my underlines)

"If the front of the floor drops at speed it could create an aerodynamic stall, which improves straightline performance (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/#).

That won’t necessarily show up with stunning speed trap (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/#) figures, as it could also allow cars to run a bit more wing and have better performance – with less taken out of the tires – in the corners.

The rules allow for a certain amount of “absorption” in that area of the car (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/#) because the floor takes a lot of punishment from the curbs, and if it is too rigid, the chassis would suffer. However, if the floor is actually capable of lowering, it would be an illegal movable aerodynamic device.

All cars have a form of stay holding the front of the floor in place, but rivals noticed an unusually complex arrangement on the Ferrari when the bodywork was off the car in the Melbourne pit garage.
"

Also the likely answer to why they were allowed to run...

Ron is quoted as saying...

"“There is a whole range of things that come to light in the first race (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/#) and you go and you say what is legal, and what is not legal. Most teams are given that current race to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I think there will be a rationalization of some aspects of some cars that would close the gap if no one did anything."

http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=197806

So it was illegal, but not a conspiracy after all. Phew!! :)

ioan

15th November 2007, 11:49

It only works at high speed, not the speed they go over kerbs. Its purpose was to reduce drag on the straights.

What kind of speeds have F1 cars through the Lesmo's? Or through Eau Rouge?
I dare say they go over 200 kmh there, and there are other so called chicanes where they do 200 kmh.

passmeatissue

15th November 2007, 12:36

What kind of speeds have F1 cars through the Lesmo's? Or through Eau Rouge?
I dare say they go over 200 kmh there, and there are other so called chicanes where they do 200 kmh.

It drops at speed. So they wouldn't calibrate it to lower the floor over kerbs. Well, only once... :eek:

ioan

15th November 2007, 12:58

It situates in the airflow, isn't part of the suspension or is governed by any other regulation, Then what is it?
A mass damper? :p :

Drivers head is situated in the airflow to and isn't part of the suspension and isn't governed by any other regulation, it can also act like a mass damper, so what is it? :p :

TMorel

15th November 2007, 16:31

Ioan, I didn't think the drivers used their head any more - just look at Alonso and Hamilton for proof !

SGWilko

15th November 2007, 17:18

Drivers head is situated in the airflow to and isn't part of the suspension and isn't governed by any other regulation, it can also act like a mass damper, so what is it? :p :

Simple, just re site the drivers head to his crotch. It's out of the air flow then. There is a common side effect to this however, a tendency to crash more often than Andrea de Cesaris!! :p :

wmcot

15th November 2007, 21:39

WOW! It's the middle of November and we're still re-hashing a single device that only ran in the first race of the season! Remember, it was a device that the FIA did not determine to be illegal (no disqualifications) and no formal appeal was launched by any other team. I think it's time to drop it - it just leads to frustration no matter which side you're on.

I'm surprised that there isn't still a thread going on about the McLaren brake-steer pedal! :)

ioan

15th November 2007, 22:09

I'm surprised that there isn't still a thread going on about the McLaren brake-steer pedal! :)

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

wmcot

15th November 2007, 22:40

Didn't this start out as a thread about Damon Hill's remarks about the FIA?

It seems that from now on, all posts on any subject will end up being anti-Ferrari-flexible-floor posts.

As a final note for those anti-Ferrari and blinkered-McLaren fans - the Ferrari flexing floor had far less to do with the WDC outcome than a trip to the gravel in China and a bad passing move at Brazil!

passmeatissue

15th November 2007, 22:42

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

When you've been proved wrong, for the third or fourth time, you can be reduced to dodging ;) .

Actually this has been quite a good thread, that did answer the question.

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

wmcot

16th November 2007, 01:07

When you've been proved wrong, for the third or fourth time, you can be reduced to dodging ;) .

The only proof it was illegal would have been disqualification.

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
But knowingly chose not to act on it? Shouldn't he be removed from his position?

There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

So we'll see turbo V12's and slicks at the opening race next year?

GP-M3

16th November 2007, 03:11

Sum up:
Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
There is a convention that the rules can be pushed at the first race, without penalty.

Hmmm... your posts have been fairly logical, I guess we can overlook one clearly wrong one! :)

SGWilko

16th November 2007, 11:08

It's just that Ferrari fans know when to give up arguing over obvious things. ;)

Ioan, that comment was priceless. I actually fell off my chair. :laugh:

SGWilko

16th November 2007, 11:12

As a final note for those anti-Ferrari and blinkered-McLaren fans - the Ferrari flexing floor had far less to do with the WDC outcome than a trip to the gravel in China and a bad passing move at Brazil!

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

555-04Q2

16th November 2007, 11:20

If

Life is all about IF's...

ioan

16th November 2007, 11:27

Ioan, that comment was priceless. I actually fell off my chair. :laugh:

This might explain some of latest post! :p :

ioan

16th November 2007, 11:34

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

Well, If everyone would have been disqualified for the slightest mistake than LH has maybe the longest list of DQ's waiting for him:

1). floor in OZ (Max said that McLaren were also concerned by the flexing floor problem in Oz so according to some around here the floors of several teams were illegal, not my view though)
2). put back on the track by a crane in Nurburgring
3). disregarded the SC car rules in very difficult condition at Fuji
4). used more wet weather tires than allowed by the rules in Brazil
5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

That's 18 points by my calculations.

Let's see how many you can find for Kimi! Than you do the maths and see who had more points.

SGWilko

16th November 2007, 11:40

5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Hope you're fine! :p :

I am thanks. Fat ar5e = soft landing!!! :p :

Turning to the first quote above, and being generally a little more serious.....

I think Ferrari already did the blocking thing last year with FA. It was then stated by the FIA that this will be looked at differently in the future.

Don't start the kettle and pot thing........... ;)

ioan

16th November 2007, 11:51

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Yep, I wanted a more lighthearted approach, like yours! ;)

Turning to the first quote above, and being generally a little more serious.....

I think Ferrari already did the blocking thing last year with FA. It was then stated by the FIA that this will be looked at differently in the future.

Yeah I saw that they still punished some people this season for the same offense but chose not to look at it when Hamilton was involved! :rolleyes:

SGWilko

16th November 2007, 12:33

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Yep, I wanted a more lighthearted approach, like yours! ;)

Yeah I saw that they still punished some people this season for the same offense but chose not to look at it when Hamilton was involved! :rolleyes:

Well, that tells us one thing, the rules are very inconsistent. Why can't someone take a stand and get a clarificati.......

Oh, wait. Someone is......

Thank goodness. A drop of common sense in a season of madness.

;)

ioan

16th November 2007, 13:28

Well, If everyone would have been disqualified for the slightest mistake than LH has maybe the longest list of DQ's waiting for him:

1). floor in OZ (Max said that McLaren were also concerned by the flexing floor problem in Oz so according to some around here the floors of several teams were illegal, not my view though)
2). put back on the track by a crane in Nurburgring
3). disregarded the SC car rules in very difficult condition at Fuji
4). used more wet weather tires than allowed by the rules in Brazil
5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

That's 18 points by my calculations.

Let's see how many you can find for Kimi! Than you do the maths and see who had more points.

I just remembered one more for Lewis:

6) McLaren run a new lightweight gearbox in Hungary without submitting it first to be crash tested by the FIA

That makes it 28 points less for Hamilton. Doesn't look good at all!

passmeatissue

16th November 2007, 15:56

Hmmm... your posts have been fairly logical, I guess we can overlook one clearly wrong one! :)

Still logical, Captain, see posts 43 and 64 :)

passmeatissue

16th November 2007, 16:12

A note to say it's worth keeping an eye on earlier posts, because some of the more logical posts do quickly 'disappear' up the thread when hypocritical members, who pretend it is other people who don't debate properly, quickly post replies to other posts to avoid acknowledging them or letting them develop the real argument. So you may not see the logical posts referred to at all, if such a member(s) is on the ball. And sometimes such members seem to be on 24/7.

That's why I posted the summary, but I agree it's not that convincing on its own.

wmcot

16th November 2007, 21:57

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

And how many points was Lewis leading by going into China? 17. If he had kept that lead, Kimi's 10 points from Australia wouldn't have mattered at all. He choked twice and lost a 17 point lead! Yes, I am serious! Losing 17 points was far more detrimental to LH's championship than Kimi winning 10. Do the math!

SGWilko

17th November 2007, 10:48

And how many points was Lewis leading by going into China? 17. If he had kept that lead, Kimi's 10 points from Australia wouldn't have mattered at all. He choked twice and lost a 17 point lead! Yes, I am serious! Losing 17 points was far more detrimental to LH's championship than Kimi winning 10. Do the math!

If the fact that IF Ferrari HAD been disqualified from Oz Lewis or Nando had become world champion, then I think it is wrong to say it has far less to do with the championship.

We KNOW LH lost 17 points in the last two races, that is fact, and I can manage the mathematics of it thanks.

The point I made was that you were wrong to dismiss the potential effect of the floor (legal or not) issue.

ioan

17th November 2007, 11:39

We KNOW LH lost 17 points in the last two races, that is fact, and I can manage the mathematics of it thanks.

No, no, he lost 18 points in the last 2 races! :p :

SGWilko

19th November 2007, 11:49

No, no, he lost 18 points in the last 2 races! :p :

My mistake, my fingers types what I was thinking, not what I was meaning.

I meant he lost his 17 point lead.

Doh. ;)

wmcot

20th November 2007, 09:21

The point I made was that you were wrong to dismiss the potential effect of the floor (legal or not) issue.

So what exactly are the "potential effects?"

SGWilko

20th November 2007, 10:06

So what exactly are the "potential effects?"

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?

ioan

20th November 2007, 10:40

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?

But McLaren's floor had to be changed too!
And they run an illegally fitted light gearbox in Hungary!

So, who would have won it in the end? ;)

SGWilko

20th November 2007, 10:47

But McLaren's floor had to be changed too!
And they run an illegally fitted light gearbox in Hungary!

So, who would have won it in the end? ;)

Look, I appreciate that, but I was referring to specific comment, on a specific subject, and what affect that might have on the championship.

If the comment had included the McLaren, that that would be relevant, but it didn't, it wasn't and so I didn't refer to it.

ioan

20th November 2007, 13:14

Look, I appreciate that, but I was referring to specific comment, on a specific subject, and what affect that might have on the championship.

If the comment had included the McLaren, that that would be relevant, but it didn't, it wasn't and so I didn't refer to it.

The championship is over a whole season and it should be seen as a whole.

While I appreciate your try to comment specific subjects, and how that would appreciate the final outcome, I think that it is not correct to overlook all the other factors involved in the matter.
It is completely irrelevant to talk about one fact that would have an influence on the final outcome while discarding all the other factors.

wmcot

21st November 2007, 08:58

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?

As Ioan pointed out, McLaren were running a similar floor. If Ferrari had been disqualified, I assume McLaren (and Red Bull) would have been, also. The results would be the same.

The point is that if Lewis had managed 2 additional points from China or Brazil, nobody would care about the floors at Melbourne!

F1boat

21st November 2007, 09:33

The floors were perfectly legal in Melbourne. Kimi is champion. End of story.

passmeatissue

21st November 2007, 18:19

The floors were perfectly legal in Melbourne. Kimi is champion. End of story.

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

ioan

21st November 2007, 19:05

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:

ioan

21st November 2007, 19:06

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA ( I bet Ron would support your idea) and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:

passmeatissue

21st November 2007, 20:20

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:

Are you denying that he said that?

Firstgear

21st November 2007, 22:36

As Ioan pointed out, McLaren were running a similar floor. If Ferrari had been disqualified, I assume McLaren (and Red Bull) would have been, also. The results would be the same.

Not that it matters, but your statement that the results would be the same is incorrect. Kimi would have lost 10 points, the others would have lost less.

wmcot

22nd November 2007, 03:09

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

So do a lot of people on this forum, but that doesn't change anything, either. They also seem to forget that if Ferrari was "illegal" then so were McLaren and RedBull!

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.

wmcot

22nd November 2007, 04:02

Not that it matters, but your statement that the results would be the same is incorrect. Kimi would have lost 10 points, the others would have lost less.

You are technically correct with the point totals, but I was just pointing out that everyone points to the Ferrari floor and ignores the McLaren and RedBull floors which would also be "illegal" according to the strict interpretation of the rules.

janneppi

22nd November 2007, 07:34

Well, if you can give any details what the other floors were like, those can be discussed, sofar there has been details only of the Ferrari floor.
BTW, didn't f1.com suggest that BMW were running a similar setup too, one with some sort of elastomers as springs?

passmeatissue

22nd November 2007, 10:50

"All cars have a form of stay holding the front of the floor in place, but rivals noticed an unusually complex arrangement on the Ferrari when the bodywork was off the car in the Melbourne pit garage.
"

Also the likely answer to why they were allowed to run...

Ron is quoted as saying...

"“There is a whole range of things that come to light in the first race (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/#) and you go and you say what is legal, and what is not legal. Most teams are given that current race to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I think there will be a rationalization of some aspects of some cars that would close the gap if no one did anything."

http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=197806

McLaren apparently used a "pre-buckled stay", which seemed rigid in the paddock but yielded at a certain threshold speed on the track.

So you are right wmcot, there were several illegal floors. I have a suspicion that the Ferrari floor could not have been modified to pass scrutineering for the race, while the RB and Macca's could, by just reinforcing their stays. But no evidence. I hadn't heard about BMW's polymer one.

But quite a sudden trend to the idea, wasn't it? Makes you wonder if a few emails circulated about the concept... ;)

passmeatissue

22nd November 2007, 11:01

So do a lot of people on this forum, but that doesn't change anything, either. They also seem to forget that if Ferrari was "illegal" then so were McLaren and RedBull!

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.

Well I was really just contesting another member's assertion that the floor could not be discussed because it was unarguably legal. My view is like janeppi's, that the way forward is to introduce more information.

For those who don't want to discuss it anymore, fair enough, just don't post about it :p .

leopard

22nd November 2007, 11:11

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.

The hardest part of playing ping-pong is when you do smashing out of the table and ask your opponent to pick up the ball himself back and forth. :p :

btw Jannepi came with useful solution, especially about Peters town :)

wmcot

28th November 2007, 09:44

Well I was really just contesting another member's assertion that the floor could not be discussed because it was unarguably legal. My view is like janeppi's, that the way forward is to introduce more information.

For those who don't want to discuss it anymore, fair enough, just don't post about it :p .

I enjoy finding out more info on F1 cars. I wish there was more of it on this forum. The problem is that all threads seem to head toward endless bashing of one form or other. I would love to learn more about the McLaren and Red Bull floors as well as many more technical details as to what makes an F1 car work!