Red Bull told RB8 floor holes must be removed

F1 Fanatic round-up

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Monaco, 2012In the round-up: the FIA tells Red Bull to make changes to their RB8.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

FIA forces Red Bull to redesign car before Canadian Grand Prix (The Guardian)

“Red Bull will have to revise the design of their car before next weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix after the FIA said that the controversial holes in the rear floor of their RB8 could not be employed.”

Red Bull forced to remove floor holes for Canada (Adam Cooper)

“Locating a fully enclosed hole partly or wholly within the 50mm band which is exempt from the requirements of Article 3.12.10 along the outer edges of the surfaces lying on the step plane does not exempt it from the requirements of Article 3.12.5, those parts lying outboard of Y650 are still parts of the surfaces lying on the step plane.”

Formula 1 powertrains for Le Mans in 2014 (Racecar Engineering)

“It has been made clear that the new generation of Formula 1 V6 engines could be installed, which could give a Ferrari, Mercedes, PURE, Cosworth and Renault a short cut to Le Mans, as they would not have to develop a bespoke engine.”

There?s only one way to drive a F1 car and I haven?t forgotten it: Kimi (Firstpost)

“Nothing has changed, it?s the same as before ?ǣ some rules have evolved, I had KERS three years ago, but now there are DRS and the Pirelli tyres etc but nothing is different. Racing is still done in the same way. The quickest usually wins.” Monaco race edit video

Video highlights from the Monaco Grand Prix.

Formula One seat might not be enough to tear Paffett away from beloved DTM (Kent News)

“Obviously I would like to race in F1, but it wouldn?t be a disaster if I didn’t.”

The Lost – Vocal – Chord (Toro Rosso)

Daniel Ricciardo: “The radar said rain was coming, so the team decided to keep me out on the supersofts past the point where I?d usually have come in. The plan was to wait it out until the rain started to fall, come in for the inters and then take places off those who needed to pit for a second time. The rain never came and in the end I had to pit for the soft tyre and as a result lost quite a bit of track time.”

Comment of the day

As always, choosing a favourite from the many excellent Caption Competition entries proved tricky. Among my favourites were those from Lopek, JamieFranklinF1 and Sunnymir:

But the winning entry from Jay_au is the one that adorns the caption below:

Jenson Button, Gary Paffett, Brands Hatch, 2012

This is where your mirrors are, you might want to check them in Canada this year.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tom Parfitt!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Alain Prost won the Monaco Grand Prix on this day in 1984.

The race is best remembered for the heavy rain storm in which Ayrton Senna, making his fifth F1 start, brilliantly drove to second.

It was also the race in which the similarly inexperienced Stefan Bellof dragged his Tyrrell up to third, keeping pace with and sometimes catching Senna.

This race also began a remarkable streak of success for McLaren, who won nine of the ten races in Monte-Carlo beginning with this one. Five of those were won by Senna from 1989 to 1993. The only one McLaren didn’t win fell to a Lotus – also driven by Senna.

Here is the race being red-flagged with Prost commenting at the end:

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images, DTM/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free


106 comments on Red Bull told RB8 floor holes must be removed

  1. Jake (@jleigh) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:07

    This is good news. It was pretty obvious they were illegal. As Gary Anderson said there is no possible definition or explanation that makes that an impervious surface. I really am surprised no one protested the result. Particularly mclaren, as it would have put Hamilton up to 3rd and made him closer in the championship. But I suppose we shouldn’t expect anything from mclaren that appears to increase the chances of one of their drivers winning the championship!

    • xeroxpt (@) said on 3rd June 2012, 1:40

      Im more surprised that the FIA let that floor run, those holes werent most likely the reason behind red bulls victory but it just shows that at any weekend someone could do something similar and just get away with it.

    • Ady (@ady) said on 3rd June 2012, 9:00

      I assume that Red Bulls interpretation revolved around the design of the hole. Because the air exited the hole horizontally at the back of the floor rather than vertically it could be argued that the floor was still intact, and therefore impervious.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:20

      Autosport ran a story a few days ago saying that the teams didn’t protest the Monaco results because they didn’t want the race to be overshadowed by the controversy of a disqualification.

  2. KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:13

    I’m confused.. Haven’t these holes already passed scrutineering at Monaco? Surely they wouldn’t let the winning car go unscrutinized..

    • Lord Stig (@lord-stig) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:41

      Yep. This judgment was made post Monaco. This is not retroactive so Red Bull are in the clear in terms of the Monaco result.

      • rantingmrp (@rantingmrp) said on 3rd June 2012, 8:06

        Strange. So if one can find something that’s borderline and take advantage of it, any post-race judgement doesnt affect the result? Weird.

        • BBT (@bbt) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:36

          Not that strange it happens all the time.

          Mclaren were told to fix their moveable front wing (with the splits in the nose supports) last year.
          A number of teams were told to change the area around the starter hole (last year or the year before, I forget which) etc. These were raced and they were told to ‘fix’ them or face DSQ in the coming races.

        • Kany (@kani) said on 3rd June 2012, 11:44

          Erm …Yes @rantingmrp.
          Unless of course the team in question is Vodafone McLaren Mercedes! In which case a disproportionate penalty would be applied. That’s the FIA way!

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:21

      @keeleyobsessed – They were approved by the scruitineers, but the teams protested it. They dropped the protest, but the FIA decided to go back and review the car anyway, and decided that the holes were illegal.

      Red Bull no doubt knew that the holes would be questionable, and when called to the scrutineers, they would have had some explanation for it being legal.

  3. electrolite (@electrolite) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:16

    So they wait for a whole race to pass (and the result remains) simply to identify the fact ‘this is a hole’.

    • Alehud42 (@alehud42) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:19

      Welcome to the world of the FIA.

      • Gerry de C said on 3rd June 2012, 10:47

        Yup, welcome indeed. Had this been the Mclaren team, they would have been disqualified and had all their points taken away. FIA you suck!!

    • Julian (@julian) said on 3rd June 2012, 2:43

      The funny thing is all they need to do to make them legal now is cut paper thin slots in the holes to the edge of the floor like Ferrari have done.
      And I bet that is what we will see come Montreal (if they have time to implement it of course)

  4. Banburyhammer (@banburyhammer) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:19

    Hmm, so the 2014 V6 engines would be legal at Le Mans. But who in their right minds would choose to install a comparitively expensive, over stresseed, under sized, thirsty and a powerplant that may not be able to last the 24 hrs in thier prototype?

    Unless the LMP1 category will reduce the petrol tubo limit to 1.6L Im not sure this will entice Ferrari, McLaren, Renault et al into running Le Mans.

    • sam3110 (@sam3110) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:20

      Maybe they could open a whole new category for them, call it LMP3 or something.

    • Eggry (@eggry) said on 3rd June 2012, 3:56

      I don’t think F1 engines would last as long as 24 hours but endurance race is not just 24 hr or Le Mans. There are some 6 hour races and that’s exactly how long F1 engine is required to last. F1 race is about 2 hours and an F1 engine should last at least 3 races according to the rules. so 6 hours or even 12 hours(in 2014, engine allocations will be tighten) is reasonable target.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:38

        That and, they never said adjustments can’t be made, and that the engines have to be used in the same way…

        I think they could make them last much longer.

      • Todd (@braketurnaccelerate) said on 3rd June 2012, 9:05

        Remember, most LMP1 engines only make 500-600hp. Very easy to detune the F1 engines to last much longer.

      • bag0 (@bag0) said on 3rd June 2012, 11:09

        I think there was a documentary made with Williams in the early 2000s where they showed how do the factory test the new engines. They put it on a dyno like machine and push it on full throttle for 24 hours, if the measured data is within the right interval, they deem the engine good. So they could last that long (I know those are different engines). Also if you take into account a race weekend with FPs Qs and Rs, 1 engine/ 3 weekend you could say the engines can last at least about 12 hours. And if they dont use full power maybe they could make them last longer.

        • Eggry (@eggry) said on 3rd June 2012, 11:29

          as far as I know teams use 1 or 2 engines only for FPs and Qs is not so many laps. so now an F1 engine is used for about 1000km. still, It doesn’t mean engine life is just 1000km. It means after then engine performance would be dropped significantly but I don’t know LMP engines are the same or they can manage fine performance much longer.

  5. sam3110 (@sam3110) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:19

    I must admit I am not for changing the result of a race a week later, but surely there is something wrong with the rules and scrutineering if it was deemed legal in Monaco, but is now illegal? Did they come to that conclusion because Red Bull didn’t have the parts to change that area of the car in Monaco? If so, then I think that is wrong and hope that this area of Formula 1 can be looked into and changed. If they were let in with an illegal car then the rules are flawed. Maybe this could be changed by forcing the teams to submit the cars after FP2 for checks and everything on the car at that point must stay on the car, and if it’s illegal then they must change it before FP3?

    • Snafu (@snafu) said on 3rd June 2012, 6:25

      well I’m pretty sure if it was Mclaren or any other team, they would have their win taken away. I remember Sauber being disqualified after a race because their car was illegal and they weren’t even championship contenders! but now RBR drivers are 2nd and 3rd in championship thanks to a race with an illegal car.

      • bag0 (@bag0) said on 3rd June 2012, 11:12

        @snafu I dont think they got away with it because it was a RB, but because it was Monaco. Imagine the headlines: Cheating team wins in Monaco, Monaco win is a fraud, etc.. very bad PR for the most valued GP on the calendar.

        • racerdude7730 (@racerdude7730) said on 3rd June 2012, 17:06

          Yet racing in a country where they are openly killing their own people and everyone around the world did not want F1 to race there was ok in the press? Am i crazy… or no?

    • mcrbide said on 3rd June 2012, 6:59

      What I don’t get is why they couldn’t have just put aero tape over the holes? there is plenty of other bits of tape on the car from time to time…

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:22

      I must admit I am not for changing the result of a race a week later

      They’re not going to change the parts. The floor is only illegal from the moment the FIA says it is illegal. If the floor was used in a race before the FIA declared it illegal, then the floor was considered legal when it was raced.

  6. John H (@john-h) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:21

    Only in F1 can an illegal car win a race. Teams shouldn’t have had to protest the result, there were holes in the floor so the car didn’t meet the regs. What is the point of scrutineering at all?

    Note to other teams, ignore the regs at Montreal, go win the race and Charlie will just have a quiet word a few days later.

    • Jeanrien (@jeanrien) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:43

      I don’t see any difference considering the attempt of cheating with the underfueling of McLaren and we know how severely they have been penalised (dsq of the quali because the car was recognized to be not conform during that part) … As the RedBull was not conform during quali and race, the decision is pretty clear to me
      (Even if I’m not a huge fan of dsq afterward because that makes the result a bit messy and the race would have been different with two cars removed …)

  7. TED BELL said on 3rd June 2012, 0:25

    They broke the rules and got caught. The race win at Monaco should be striken from the records and the team should be penalised both in points and fines that reflect the nature of the infraction. If you cheat then there is a price to pay, otherwise everybody should make up their own rules, race and let it be decided at some point into the future

    • DVC (@dvc) said on 3rd June 2012, 1:35

      It’s not cheating any more than being off-side is in football. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be disqualified though. Break the rules, and the penalty in the rules should apply, just as it did for Hamilton in qualifying 2 races back.

      Let me be clear here though, this ruling should have been made in scrutineering on the weekend. If the scrutineers failed to pick it up then Red Bull just got lucky. A retrospective disqualification after the cars have passed scrutineering is inappropriate.

      • David BR2 said on 3rd June 2012, 3:01

        Amazing indeed how everyone knew that the holes were there but the FIA scrutineers missed it.

        I’d guess a deal was made between the teams to allow Red Bull to run in the race for whatever reasons and then FIA obeyed this decision by simply ‘missing’ the infringement until after the race.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 3:17

          Amazing indeed how everyone knew that the holes were there but the FIA scrutineers missed it.

          I very much doubt they missed it. When Red Bull presented their cars for scruitineering, the FIA would have requested an explanation for the holes. Red Bull would have given it, and it would have satisfied the FIA enough to pass scruitineering.

          Take, for example, Lotus’ reactive ride height system. When they first pitched the idea, they told the FIA that it was designed to maintain a constant ride height at the front of the car when under braking or acceleration. The FIA accepted this definition, and deemed the parts later. But the teams requested clarification, and it was discovered that maintaining a stable ride height was only a secondary function of the device – its primary purpose was to produce more downforce, but Lotus had downplayed this effect.

          It’s likely that the same thing happened here: the holes are designed to focus exhaust gasses under the car, creating more downforce. Red Bull probably would have downplayed this to get the parts approved, but when it occurred to the FIA that this was the primary function of the hole, they banned it.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:41

          Or maybe, the decision on whether it’s legal or not isn’t that clear cut?

          Move on, this is a relatively minor issue. Other teams have similar things on their cars.

          • BBT (@bbt) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:51

            @mike well said, the correct decision has now been made, that should be the end of it.

            I posted last Sunday about the subject, Horner said they had a letter saying it was legal, so in reality the scrutineers couldn’t do anything, nothing to do with missing it, everyone knew it was there.

            As for DSQ, at various points nearly all the teams as some point have raced car or parts later deemed to be illegal. As I pointed out above ‘start holes’ a few teams, Mclarens flexi front wing etc non of these had points removed they just had to fix it by the next race. Most of the time this ‘fixes’ are under the radar and don’t make the mainstream media but the happen fairly regularly, well more than most of us hear about.

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 3rd June 2012, 9:51

      Read the article people. The decision wasn’t clear cut-apparently some of the points in the technical regs are confusing and unclear(surprise, surprise). The FIA DID inspect the car at Monaco and decided the car was legal. Had the other teams protested it, they might have had to reverse this decision, alas they did not. So as the FIA decided at the time it was legal and no one protested-the result stood, no other choice. That’s the end of it. Anything else is just an emotional reaction from other team’s fans who would like to benefit from RBR’s disqualification.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:23

      This wasn’t cheating. It was simply Red Bull providing an interpretation of the rules that the FIA initially accepted, but later changed their minds on. The same thing happened with Lotus and the reactive ride height system at the start of the year, and with Mercedes’ front-wing f-duct (though the FIA accepts it). There was no malicious intent here, and I think you’re only suggesting it because Red Bull are the ones who did it. If we were talking about Marussia, I doubt you’d so much as bat an eyelid over it.

  8. Opprtunist said on 3rd June 2012, 0:30

    %@**^> FIA does it again.
    How can F1 carry any credibility? And I bet there’s more.
    For sure the advance in performance we’ve seen with the Merc and the Ferrari are down to dodgy design!! I’m willing to bet my house on it!!

  9. Yaya Ishaq (@ferrari_412t) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:34

    I’m confused. Just because you run out of fuel you are demoted from pole to dead last. But a car with illegal parts is allowed to lead the teams championship! Fair enough, the fuel issue was McLaren’s fault but that can’t be worse than this surely??

    • DVC (@dvc) said on 3rd June 2012, 1:36


    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd June 2012, 2:00

      Good point actually. I wasn’t too bothered about it before, because a post-race results change will always appear farcical even if it was clearly contested illegally. But a whole race being run with an illegal car, vs a mistake in quali which meant a minor procedure wasn’t followed? And the (according to sense) worse offence is unpunished while the one which had next to no impact on results means the pole-sitter is disqualified from quali? I’m not saying Red Bull should be punished (necessarily), but the FIA really need to tighten up the punishments in the rule book.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:59

        I think this is being taken out of context, There was a clear rule regarding the Hamilton incident, so lets put that aside.

        As for the holes, there are very similar concepts on other cars, including specifically the Sauber I believe. The difference is that the Red Bull version, is a “hole”, where as the other’s are “slots”.
        As you can probably imagine, this can get complicated. :D

        • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd June 2012, 6:46

          So why not just tell Red Bull already in Bahrain when they first had it on the car (or was it a race before that?) to just go and change the hole to a slot already or not race? I do have trouble understanding that part @mike

          • Mike (@mike) said on 3rd June 2012, 16:54

            I don’t know, but by the same token as Ferrari.Mclaren not contesting the Monaco results, maybe the FIA didn’t think it was a problem? (for whatever reason).

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd June 2012, 11:37

          I don’t know, holes and slots are pretty clearly different. But my point isn’t that Hamilton’s punishment was unfair, just that this further illustrates the discrepancy in punishments.

        • de Hooch said on 3rd June 2012, 17:58

          regarding Hamilton: I’m really surprised everyone’s buying that story that it was a mistake (the engineer found out too late the fuel pump hadn’t worked properly!!)
          Fuel pump my a%* ! More like Hamilton and the team were cheating their way to a pole and had the story ready for when they were caught. And they were caught.
          Reminds me of the days of dodgy Schum the 7 times champ cheat!!

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:00

      @ferrari_412t – I don’t agree with that; Charlie himself said that the car was legal during the Monaco weekend, and there was no protest at all for the previous rounds in Bahrain & Spain.
      Adrian Newey interpreted the rules well to Red Bull’s advantage, coming up with something the other teams hadn’t managed to the same extent, and the inconsistent FIA have only now deemed it illegal.
      The penalty on Mclaren I think was very harsh; he should’ve just had his lap time erased, but that was clearly defined in the rules due to a previous incident by Mclaren, they shouldn’t have sent him out without enough fuel.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:25

      Just because you run out of fuel you are demoted from pole to dead last. But a car with illegal parts is allowed to lead the teams championship!

      The rules are quite clear: a car must have enough fuel to return to pits at the end of qualifying, and still have enough left over for a sample to be taken. If the car does not have enough fuel, it is excluded from the results.

      In the case of Red Bull, the car was initially declared legal, with the team providing an adequate explanation for how the holes were legal. Upon review, the FIA decided that the car was no longer legal.

      • Gerry de C said on 3rd June 2012, 10:52

        But it was not legal. The FIA was wrong. And as a result McLaren and others LOST position and POINTS! FIA you suck!!

        • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 3rd June 2012, 12:04

          Get a dictionary or a tutor! Your anger that your loved one Lewis was demoted due to a team error is clouding your judgement. During the Monaco weekend and previous races the holes in the floor were deemed LEGAL. The team has been asked to change the floor as further investigation has revealed a discrepancy.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd June 2012, 12:47

            No, it wasn’t legal, it was deemed legal, which in retrospect was wrong. The rules haven’t changed- the car doesn’t conform with them now, so didn’t then, so was illegal. But that it was deemed legal (incorrectly) is enough that they avoid punishment. Also, he never mentioned Hamilton, so you appear to be the one with a chip on your shoulder.

    • HewisLamilton said on 4th June 2012, 16:02

      The RB passed scrutineering at Monaco. They were not told to change it, so they didn’t. Simple….

  10. Jake (@jleigh) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:39

    Interestingly, when Hamilton broke a technical regulation in Spain he was excluded from the result without the need for any protests. Now Red Bull have done the same but, due to no teams protesting the result, it is allowed to stand.

    • Harvs (@harvs) said on 3rd June 2012, 3:40

      Remember both Saubers were disqualified after last years Australian GP for a minor infringement on the real wing, the car did not comply with the rules. Just because charlie “said” it was legal before the race does not mean that the car complied with the written regulations in the rule book, everyone knew that it did not comply, therefor the both Red Bulls should have been disqualified after the Monaco GP, in the same way the Saubers where in Australia. Red Bull are not the ones to blame here but the lack of discipline and consistency by the FIA.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd June 2012, 6:48

        No, they should have been not allowed to enter qualifying with that hole, but even then should indeed have been told to change the floor for the race. Parc Ferme rules don’t mean you can’t change things with FIA permission, like to make the car comply to the rules (but then, if it means they didn’t comply in quali, oh, gosh, they should have been demoted to contest the back row with Perez and Maldonado, logically).

    • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:34

      The comparison with the Hamilton penalty is not valid. It’s not like the McLaren fuel level was checked and passed as ok with the FIA before hand. The fuel level in qualifying is a very clear rule, whereas this Red Bull situation was anything but, and until the latest directive was open to interpretation.

      The real question is, if the Red Bull was illegal under the rules as they were written at the beginning of the year (even if by a combination of other rules), why did the FIA did they say it was okay in the first place? That is a bigger issue, isn’t it? If the FIA aren’t policing the rules properly even when teams check potentially illegal parts with them, then what faith can teams have that the rules will be applied properly at all?

      Also, the Saubers’ rear wings were not checked by the FIA before last year’s Aussie GP, and clearly broke an explicit rule (more than one actually). As I understand it, the Red Bulls broke a rule that wasn’t explicitly stated, but was breaking the rules only when two other rules were considered in tandem. Even then, the FIA only determined this to be the case after a number of technical meetings.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd June 2012, 6:53

        Yes, I agree @toro-stevo, why did it pass scrutineering before is indeed a big question, and maybe it means that any “interesting” interpretations that come up there need to be communicated to other teams. Harder to keep something new secret, clearly, but if it is something that effectively clarifies how rules are judged, it is needed so everyone plays to the same rules.

        I do think that this incident again shows that maybe the not enough fuel in quali rule should be changed again, because it leads to unreasonably large penalties for minor infractions, in light of the events of recent races.

        After all, the FIA did change the team-orders rule back to it being allowed quite simply, and that has much bigger impact on how the teams have to run a weekend. Rules that don’t work should be re-evaluated, or just scrapped.

        • BBT (@bbt) said on 3rd June 2012, 10:57

          why did it pass scrutineering before is indeed a big question

          Reposted from above:
          Horner said they had a letter saying it was legal, so in reality the scrutineers couldn’t do anything, nothing to do with missing it, everyone knew it was there.

  11. Olivier42 (@olivier42) said on 3rd June 2012, 0:52

    I get it that fans from teams other than Red Bull are calling for the results from Monaco to be cancelled, you want your team to win, but let’s be realistic here – Charlie Whiting had deemed them legal and none of the teams protested. Of course the clarified rules are not retroactive!
    Calling RBR cheaters and having an illegal car is a stretch – F1 is all about interpreting rules in the most interesting ways to gain small advantages. Their interpretation was accepted in Monaco and in the previous races. Now the FIA/Charlie Whiting has changed its mind. Of course, if the holes were still legal, every major team would have them within a few races…

  12. Victor. (@victor) said on 3rd June 2012, 1:00

    It’d be pretty ridiculous if RB weren’t disqualified from the results…

  13. GT_Racer said on 3rd June 2012, 1:01

    For those wandering, The reason Red Bull won’t be excluded from past races is that the cars were legal under the rules at the time. The hole’s been there for several races & was tested Pre-Season & has passed all legality checks to this point.

    Whats changed is that the FIA have issued a rules clarification which now makes the hole illegal.

    • Exactly. It’s the finer points of the interpretation of the rules that have now changed, as I understand it. I know a lot of people don’t like it, but RBR had been told by the FIA that the floor was legal, and now other teams have made their case and convinced them that it isn’t.

    • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:29

      Exactly, much like Lotus being told mid winter that they could run their trick new brake balance gizmo, only to have the FIA reverse their decision a few weeks later before the start of the season.

  14. PaulT (@pault) said on 3rd June 2012, 1:28

    James Allen does a good job of describing the FIA decision process in his article here –

    Red Bull have done nothing wrong. They interpreted the rules as all teams do, ran it past Charlie Whiting and went racing with an approved (and therefore legal at the time)design.

    • Jack Flash (Aust) said on 3rd June 2012, 4:28

      Absolutely. Not RBR’s fault. They were told by FIA that they could race with it.
      Now that the FIA have done a back-flip under post race “clarification”, all RBR will do is cut a slit from the hole to the outer edge like Sauber have done (no longer a ‘fully enclosed hole’).
      RBR will get most of the original hole’s aero effect, even as a slotted version. RBR will not lose any sleep over the ruling change; and they will not lose that much in performance by having to change to a slotted version. Jack Flash

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd June 2012, 7:02

        Well said Jack.

        And yes, Red Bull probably will have some tiny slit of some kind to make it legal, an interesting interpretation that Ferrari introduced in 2009 to re-gain shark gills. That too now has a life of it’s own, allowing all teams gills near allowed holes in the bodywork, negating part of the other rules, but at least in a way everyone understands, and relatively harmless, it seems.

  15. nackavich (@nackavich) said on 3rd June 2012, 2:05

    At least they’re consistent in their inconsistency.
    Then again, the F-ducts must’ve been deemed legal to begin with before they were banned, so this is more or less the same thing but obviously on a much smaller scale.
    So why all the fuss?

    • OOliver said on 3rd June 2012, 5:02

      But they refused to close the loop hole that allowed for the double diffuser when only 3 struggling teams had implemented it. Which makes me believe sometimes sentiments are involved, or Whiting is just inconsistent as usual.

    • Mike (@mike) said on 3rd June 2012, 5:02


      I agree @nackavich.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd June 2012, 12:58

      F-ducts weren’t banned, they were written out of the following years rules- they were legal and used through all of 2010.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.