Red Bull declared illegal.....

[HustleRussell]

I don't really see what you're struggling with here- the reason Red Bull hasn't and won't be penalised for any alleged regulations contravention has been explained to you at least twice.

[Alfie Noakes]

Life Saab Itch said:

Brazil '81 iirc.

Wasn't Piquet disqualified from the win and someone else from second place (reuteman?)
Possibly for the "water cooled brakes".

I think the water cooled brakes was Tyrell. Using up water during the race to lighten the car. Topping up water near the end to bring it up to minimum weight. Seem to remember Brundle being the driver.

[Life Saab Itch]

Alfie Noakes said:

I think the water cooled brakes was Tyrell. Using up water during the race to lighten the car. Topping up water near the end to bring it up to minimum weight. Seem to remember Brundle being the driver.

That was Brundle in 1984 when Tyrrell was topping up the water catch tanks with lead shot to be within the weight limit.


Brabhams had the water cooled brakes to get them under the weight limit. Some other teams did too.


Reports from drivers and onlookers that there was no water left to cool the brakes with past the end of the pitlane...

[Life Saab Itch]

williamp said:

as alwats LSI I bow to your superior knowledge!!

You want to be careful doing that, I could well be wrong.


Although I reckon it was the race where Piquet collapsed on the podium and Rosberg looked on very bemused. Possibly '82 then...

[ian964]

Story in Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100074

[Alfie Noakes]

Life Saab Itch said:

Alfie Noakes said:

I think the water cooled brakes was Tyrell. Using up water during the race to lighten the car. Topping up water near the end to bring it up to minimum weight. Seem to remember Brundle being the driver.

That was Brundle in 1984 when Tyrrell was topping up the water catch tanks with lead shot to be within the weight limit.


Brabhams had the water cooled brakes to get them under the weight limit. Some other teams did too.


Reports from drivers and onlookers that there was no water left to cool the brakes with past the end of the pitlane...

That last bit sounds just like The Bolt.

You are right of course, as I was writing the idea of lead shot kept coming to ming.

[ivanhoew]

Alfie Noakes said:

You are right of course, as I was writing the idea of lead shot kept coming to ming.

...er.......thats one i hadn't heard of !

[RYH64E]

trackdemon said:

I've read the link RYH64E refers to but it doesn't shine an awful lot more light on the subject of RB illegality/Monaco. I don't want Webber to lose his spot (or Vettel his 4th) but I'm still interested in the apparent inequality of a car being ruled illegal (however small the infringment) yet retaining significant race results results whilst racing in the same trim.

The link wasn't intended to throw more light on the subject, it was in response to your call of BS based on the story not being reported elsewhere.

Other posters have already pointed out that the result will stand as it wasn't protested within the time limit, there has to be a time limit beyond which the results will not change because the alternative is un-workable.

[woof]

All the teams, including RB knew this was coming.
Horner was interviewed on the F1 show on Friday (SKY are doing a really good job with that show)and said he expected for it to be "clarified" before Montreal.

[mattikake]

Life Saab Itch said:

williamp said:

as alwats LSI I bow to your superior knowledge!!

You want to be careful doing that, I could well be wrong.


Although I reckon it was the race where Piquet collapsed on the podium and Rosberg looked on very bemused. Possibly '82 then...

Brazil '82 Piquety and Rosberg were DSQ'd for being underweight. Whether that was for using 'water-cooled' brakes, possibly. I say 'water-cooled' because it wasn't really, was it? It was just a means to run the cars lighter over the course of a race and to adjust the ballast before the start of a race, letter of the law defeating the spirit of the law etc., hence DSQ.

[Use Psychology]

it was a bit wimpy of ferrari and mclaren not to protest the result in monaco... can't see jean todt or maybe ron dennis choosing not to, espeically since the FIA made it clear in monaco that they thought the floor was illegal.

[Mr_Thyroid]

Strikes me of something of a storm in a teacup.

To fix the car all they need to is take a junior hacksaw and cut a slot between hole and the edge of the floor. The differential in performance would surely be tiny.

[Mr_Thyroid]

Use Psychology said:

it was a bit wimpy of ferrari and mclaren not to protest the result in monaco... can't see jean todt or maybe ron dennis choosing not to, espeically since the FIA made it clear in monaco that they thought the floor was illegal.

Or good mannered.


Horner and Newey said they had a letter from someone saying their floor way legal - who was the letter from or was it a lie?

[Munter]

Mr_Thyroid said:

Strikes me of something of a storm in a teacup.

To fix the car all they need to is take a junior hacksaw and cut a slot between hole and the edge of the floor. The differential in performance would surely be tiny.

Exactly. And why nobody wanted anybody results changed I would think. More of a wink and nudge that the car doesn't meet the letter of the rules.

[EDLT]

Mr_Thyroid said:

Strikes me of something of a storm in a teacup.

To fix the car all they need to is take a junior hacksaw and cut a slot between hole and the edge of the floor. The differential in performance would surely be tiny.

I agree, the Red Bull wasn't miles ahead of the rest of the field because their slot was technically a hole. I doubt they will suffer in Canada.

[davepoth]

mattikake said:

Brazil '82 Piquety and Rosberg were DSQ'd for being underweight. Whether that was for using 'water-cooled' brakes, possibly. I say 'water-cooled' because it wasn't really, was it? It was just a means to run the cars lighter over the course of a race and to adjust the ballast before the start of a race, letter of the law defeating the spirit of the law etc., hence DSQ.

IIRC the rule was that the cars should be weighed with all fluids less fuel. "water cooled brakes" meant that they could brim the car with water, and then "cool" the brakes using all of the water by the end of the first lap.

[Use Psychology]

Mr_Thyroid said:

Or good mannered.


Horner and Newey said they had a letter from someone saying their floor way legal - who was the letter from or was it a lie?

it was a letter from charlie whiting saying he thought the red bull interpretation was allowable.

he was then consulted by other teams who put their case to him, and has revised his interpretation.

the stewards at scrutineering at each race meeting are the people who decide if a car is legal or not - now I am sure they would take into account the opinion of charlie whiting but they have to interpret the regulations as they see fit.

[Life Saab Itch]

Munter said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

Strikes me of something of a storm in a teacup.

To fix the car all they need to is take a junior hacksaw and cut a slot between hole and the edge of the floor. The differential in performance would surely be tiny.

Exactly. And why nobody wanted anybody results changed I would think. More of a wink and nudge that the car doesn't meet the letter of the rules.

At the French GP in 1967, John Cooper of the Cooper team had a quiet word with Colin Chapman that the exhaust pipes on the Lotus 49 were 3-4 inches longer than the regulations allowed. For the next race, Lotus had fabricated little "bump bars" to be bolted on the back of the gearbox. These then formed the rearmost part of the chassis which was the datum point to measure how much the exhausts protruded beyond the car.

The car was now legal, it wasn't for the first couple of races, but no-one protested it.



Not everything gets sorted via tantrums in F1.

[TerzoNeil]

RB should have been punished for winning with an illegal car

[HustleRussell]

TerzoNeil said:

RB should have been punished for winning with an illegal car

That's funny