Sauber C30 Ferrari

[myurr]

They are DQ:d now due to some broken regulations..

They have broken the minimum radius rules on the short flap of the rear wing.

[ajprice]

Here's the testing wing (if its the same as the race wing). Something to do with the upper wing element, possibly the radius curve being too small. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90294

[myurr]

Cruel blow for the drivers, huge cockup for the team.

[King Six]

They were topping the speed traps weren't they?

[Richied76]

Yeah i remeber seeing them and thinking that the ferrari must be pretty draggy as its the same engine yet they were alot lower down the table. The flater upper element was to get the most out of the DRS was it not? If so the mclarens system must be very efficient as jenson overtook Kamui (sorry dont know the spelling) fairly well on the main straight. either that or mclaren turned up the engine + KERS

[nacho]

Do they have a Gurney flap that's not allowed?

Still it amazes me that Perez did 35 laps on the softs.

[Owen.C93]

Do they have a Gurney flap that's not allowed?

Still it amazes me that Perez did 35 laps on the softs.

Gurney flaps are not included in the measurement.

[Formula None]

Here's the testing wing (if its the same as the race wing). Something to do with the upper wing element, possibly the radius curve being too small. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90294

Its pretty obvious in that image that the inner radius on the flap can't be much less than 100mm. I'm not even a Sauber fan, but the stupidity of this ruling boggles my mind. Red Bull have been getting away with their flexing wing for over a year and the FIA comes down on this? And what about Hamilton's splitter? I should mention, I don't think any of these 3 examples should be punished (Hamilton=racing incident, Sauber=dubious performance advantage, RB=too clever for the lawyers), it just illustrates the FIA's selective nature regarding rules enforcement and their inability to perform more sophisticated tests.

[Dragonfly]

........
I should mention, I don't think any of these 3 examples should be punished (Hamilton=racing incident, Sauber=dubious performance advantage, RB=too clever for the lawyers), it just illustrates the FIA's selective nature regarding rules enforcement and their inability to perform more sophisticated tests.

+1

[timbo]

it just illustrates the FIA's selective nature regarding rules enforcement and their inability to perform more sophisticated tests.

OK, you have 24 cars to check for all sort of stuff.
How do you make your "more sophisticated tests" in time?
Where do you get the money for "more sophisticated" test rigs?
How do you train the people to make those "more sophisticated test"? AFAIK stewards who do the tests are randomly picked folks from local racing associations.

[Formula None]

Those are good questions that the FIA needs to answer, Tim. There's a lot of millionaires (billionaires?) walking the halls in Paris. I'd hope they could pony up for some mobile hyraulic test rigs. Historically themed escort costs do add up though, I suppose.

[kNt]

I think if the rule specifies a minimal radius the problem might be the surfaces on top of the hinges that hold the top flap.

[747heavy]

the closest thing to the Sauber case I can remember, off the top of my head, would be the Ferrari barge boards a couple of years ago.
The stewards at the track dsq`d the Ferrari after the race.
(Ferrari appealed the decision, and won the case in Paris, rightly or wrongly is another matter - Sauber can do the same, it´s not all over yet)

We should not confuse load/deflection tests and simple geometric tests with templates.

First of all, it´s the responsibility of the team (any team) to comply with the rules at all times, not the responsibility of the stewards.
The way I understand the test (using a ball with 100mm diameter), it´s fairly simple and straight forward, so Sauber could have done it at any time in the factory or at the track, no need for fancy equipment.

I´m "sorry" for Sauber, because they put in a strong performance, and would have deserved the points, but such is life.

There must have been a serious "f... u." in their QC process somewhere, as this seems to be a part coming out of an mould, and not simple a mounting error of a "legal" part.

It has happend before, and will happen again, no big deal, let´s not make more out of it, then there is to it.
It´s a mistake by the team, not by the FIA/stewards.

[Just_a_fan]

I believe the various templates are available for the teams to use at the track too. Sauber may have known the flap was wrong but hoped it was "close enough".

[nacho]

They have the hinges exposed, I am not sure other teams have.