Illegal parts on cars

[beelsebob]

There's been a fair number of cases of illegal parts on cars...

Lotus' recently discovered front suspension
McLaren's flexing front wing assembly
(not confirmed but fairly certain) Red Bull's flexing front wing/nose/splitter.

In all of these cases, the FIA's response seems to have been "that's not on, change it for the next race".

But, my mind goes back to Australia a couple of years ago, where Sauber got an excellent result, and were then found to have a rear wing with a marginally too high curvature, and disqualified.

Is there a reason why teams are being allowed to get away with illegal parts now, when Sauber were so unceremoniously dumped out of the results a couple of years back?

[stefan_]

Maybe they realized it was a case of overreacting in the Sauber matter (because it really was).

Now they are something like "OK, that is illegal, you have to take it off the car for the next race" because we all know engineers are pushing the rules as much as they can and it's not always a case of bad will or breaching a rule intentionally.

And after all the troube they had with Pirelli, Mercedes and their test, disqualifying Lotus or something like that will probably blow up the paddock.

[beelsebob]

Maybe they realized it was a case of overreacting in the Sauber matter (because it really was).

Now they are something like "OK, that is illegal, you have to take it off the car for the next race" because we all know engineers are pushing the rules as much as they can and it's not always a case of bad will or breaching a rule intentionally.

And after all the troube they had with Pirelli, Mercedes and their test, disqualifying Lotus or something like that will probably blow up the paddock.

Haha, yeh, not suggestiong Lotus should be DQed... I'm just kinda intrigued by whether there was something more to the Sauber issue, or if Sauber simply weren't as good at politics, or what.

[Tim.Wright]

I think its because the flexing wings are in a regulation grey area. As has been discussed a million times you can't outlaw complience you can only define allowable limits which they have done in only a few areas. But if they (the teams) then choose to flex something else in a different way, the FIA either need to make a specific test for it or issue a clarification saying its not on.

The Sauber case was a clear cut non compliance to a rule which is easily defined and measured.

I'm not familiar with the problems with the Lotus suspension.

I do think the decision not to penalise Red Bull regarding the holes in the spindle was wrong because to me that was a clear cut break of the moveable aero rule.

[LionKing]

If the authorities reduces the speed limit at a road, it does not mean the cars were previously speeding and breaking the law. The flexible wings were passing the FIA tests and (are still passing the more stringent tests) and hence were compliant.

[Juzh]

I do think the decision not to penalise Red Bull regarding the holes in the spindle was wrong because to me that was a clear cut break of the moveable aero rule.

The rule was changed and therefore made their hole ilegal. Before that however, this was not the case.

[Tim.Wright]

How so?

I didn't folow this case so closely but to me its was a moveable aerodynamic device which has been banned for more than 20 years.

[iotar__]

F1 is all about preserving correct pecking order, that's all, Be it through tyre choices, technical innovation's legality, penalties or distribution of profits.

- When Sauber in the beginning of 2012 had the same illegal part like McLaren, Ferrari, RB diffuser blowing was suddenly OK. Imagine if them or Lotus were the only teams using it.
- When Mercedes (judging by tyre-test-gate FIA's favourites) introduced wing stalling based on moving, driver operated part specifically designed for something else, it was suddenly clever interpretation and Whiting was laughing at those who thought such system was illegal, based on informal talks.

Same with penalties: you can't have Force India scoring podium in Brazil after Abu Dhabi, slam Hulkenberg with ridiculous penalty, if Perez was driving Sauber this season, trigger happy stewards would have penalised him at least once, and don't even start me with Grosjean's penalties and reasons for them

Having said that I don't recall Sauber's penalty related to dimensions being controversial, it's not like every time there has to be something behind it.

[LionKing]

How so?

I didn't folow this case so closely but to me its was a moveable aerodynamic device which has been banned for more than 20 years.

Why would a hole be a moveable aerodynamic device? What is moving?

[wesley123]

- When Sauber in the beginning of 2012 had the same illegal part like McLaren, Ferrari, RB diffuser blowing was suddenly OK. Imagine if them or Lotus were the only teams using it.

What illegal part? I cant remember any part being illegal

- When Mercedes (judging by tyre-test-gate FIA's favourites) introduced wing stalling based on moving, driver operated part specifically designed for something else, it was suddenly clever interpretation and Whiting was laughing at those who thought such system was illegal, based on informal talks.

It was very clear why it wasnt illegal.

Same with penalties: you can't have Force India scoring podium in Brazil after Abu Dhabi, slam Hulkenberg with ridiculous penalty, if Perez was driving Sauber this season, trigger happy stewards would have penalised him at least once, and don't even start me with Grosjean's penalties and reasons for them

Are you high or something?

Having said that I don't recall Sauber's penalty related to dimensions being controversial, it's not like every time there has to be something behind it.

What penalty? Am I missing something?

[Tim.Wright]

How so?

I didn't folow this case so closely but to me its was a moveable aerodynamic device which has been banned for more than 20 years.

Why would a hole be a moveable aerodynamic device? What is moving?

It was on the rotating spindle wasn't it? Therefore its a moving part

[LionKing]

- When Mercedes (judging by tyre-test-gate FIA's favourites) introduced wing stalling based on moving, driver operated part specifically designed for something else, it was suddenly clever interpretation and Whiting was laughing at those who thought such system was illegal, based on informal talks.

Again Mercedes's design was not illegal until it was explicitly outlawed.

The moving, driver operated part was DRS, which was working exactly as it does in other cars. An adjustable flap to be operated by the driver under specific conditions in certain parts of the track. And it is an an exception to the rule banning the moving parts whose primary purpose is aerodynamic.

Why exactly Mercedes's system was illegal? Was there a rule that banned the end plate design of Mercedes at that time? or that the vents being exposed as a byproduct of flap moving?

[oT v1]

Are you high or something?

Only the brutal assault on Webber in Suzuka and the Schumacher touch in Malaysia were clear cut for me, his fault by far. All the others had some part to play from others, e.g touched by Alonso in Monaco and hit off in Oz by Maldonado. On Oz, later in the season we even saw Vettel get a penalty in Monza for running an opponent off track, its also been top of the discussion list with Kimi/Perez this season. Spa was nasty but the offense was simply running Hammy too tight, on the first corner at that! Hammy could of got out of the fight a lot earlier too.

He is inconsistent, but no Maldonado in my opinion.

[LionKing]

How so?

I didn't folow this case so closely but to me its was a moveable aerodynamic device which has been banned for more than 20 years.

Why would a hole be a moveable aerodynamic device? What is moving?

It was on the rotating spindle wasn't it? Therefore its a moving part

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4s_NDu-DN5U/T ... d-to-m.gif

I think this is another example of something that is legal till it was explicitly banned.

The hole is not moving, there is no driver operated or autonomous mechanism that opens up or closes the hole. The hole is stationary with respect to the assembly. Just that the whole thing is rotating together.

Are the rims of an F1 car a moving aerodynamic device too?

[Tim.Wright]

They are moving with respect to the sprung mass which is what matters. This is the reason that the wheel covers of a few years ago were fixed. Its also the same reasons fan blades incoporated into the wheels to do the same job were banned a few years ago. The only possible leg they had to stand on is if they tried to argue that they were holes for weight reduction.