Time For Some Clarrifcations...

[KoolMonkey 0]

I keep reading people going on about Ferrari's movable floor design. Let's get to the bottom of it once and for all.

- Was it a straight out rule infraction akin to Benetton and their rumored TC?

- Or was it another case of a team pushing the boundaries of design and innovation?

And why do people insist this was only Ferrari who had this design system? BMW had it. McLaren wanted to use it. How can people claim Ferrari cheated yet not mention the other 2 teams.

So simply put, was this cheating or a grey area issue.

[goferrarigo 0]

Depends on who you ask,

I would say its a grey issue and Ferrari and BMW pushed the boundaries for a race, and when the test changed they changed their car as well....

But some others, who are fanatically after Ferrari will say they were cheating...

[cavallino 2]

I keep reading people going on about Ferrari's movable floor design. Let's get to the bottom of it once and for all.

- Was it a straight out rule infraction akin to Benetton and their rumored TC?

No

- Or was it another case of a team pushing the boundaries of design and innovation?

Yes

And why do people insist this was only Ferrari who had this design system? BMW had it. McLaren wanted to use it. How can people claim Ferrari cheated yet not mention the other 2 teams.

They're idiots.

So simply put, was this cheating or a grey area issue.

The latter.

[Sixten 0]

So, an "idiot", "mashroom-eater", "pathetic", "fanatic after Ferrari" reader of this forum, simply asks you, oh Great Beholders of the Truth to inform him, quoting your credible sources of information, once and for all to reply on the subject of the floor. Just give us the link to the FIA decision on that one. That simple.

[hookedon-f1 0]

I keep reading people going on about Ferrari's movable floor design. Let's get to the bottom of it once and for all.

- Was it a straight out rule infraction akin to Benetton and their rumored TC?

- Or was it another case of a team pushing the boundaries of design and innovation?

And why do people insist this was only Ferrari who had this design system? BMW had it. McLaren wanted to use it. How can people claim Ferrari cheated yet not mention the other 2 teams.

So simply put, was this cheating or a grey area issue.

Far as i understand it was a grey area to a certain degree. As far as i understand it went something like this - when the car went for scrutineering the floor boards were tested for a certain load( give) when stationery. however at high speeds these floor boards moved/ flexed. ferrari were still within the rules with respect to the minimum that it was allowed to move.

Mclaren wanted "clarification" of the rule and then they amended the rule to test it at a higher load rate, thus causing some teams to "alter" their designs.

So it was more a grey area pushed to the limits than a real infraction.

[Fed up 0]

If you read Stepney's comments on the issue he felt it was a clear breach of the rules and claimed to have told the Ferrai designers accordingly - For me it was similar to the Honda extra fuel tank and should have punsihed with a ban.

[Fed up 0]

1) My initial doubts

In January of 2007 during the assembly of the new car I first bought up the subject about the reservations I had on the concept and legality of the front floor system with the Chief Designer Aldo Costa and another 2 senior design personnel at Ferrari. I pointed out to them the various points that concerned me and what other teams also might eventually pick-upon. The Chief designer said he would look into it. Later on in the month of February a couple of items had been better disguised before the Australian GP, but these were only cosmetic changes. I asked at the time, if we had asked the FIA for any clarification on the system which we could do, as defined under Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations. The response was NO we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken. Up to mid February I was the person responsible for the legality aspects of the car and each previous year I had always spoken to the Technical Director about any reservations I had on the legality of the cars, he would then go away to discuss the details and then come back later with the answers and explain to me where we stood. So this was a normal situation during the course of my duties. I decided in mid February to step down from my role as Technical Manager for various reasons one of which was this new way of approaching the regulations, I also declined to accept the responsibility in my new role of Team Performance Manager, of being responsible for the legality of the car, and made it clear to various other top team representatives that for me the car was illegal in a couple of areas. Nobody took any notice which was very frustrating.

Later on in February I was still not comfortable with this philosophy and contacted Peter Wright to ask him for his technical advice on the subject of the legality of the front floor system. He said he could give his own advice on the subject but I could only get an official clarification from Charlie Whiting, I said for now his own comments would be sufficient. Later on I sent Peter an e-mail on the details of the system and laid out my concerns on the Ferrari's front floor system. I described that for me it did not conform to Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations and it could also possibly be conceived as being at the beginning of a crude lever type mass damper.

Peter came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation, I said he could inform Charlie Whiting but please don't mention where this information came from. Peter also asked me what I wanted and what was I trying to achieve from doing this and I replied I'm not looking for anything except a clean and fair championship.

Peter informed me about 10 days before the start of the Championship that he had discussed this system with Charlie Whiting, he had asked him where he had found the source of information but Peter would not tell him, Charlie Whiting said he was aware of some system but not to this extent and would look further into the subject at the Australian GP. Personally I would have thought that because of the seriousness of the claim that it should have been looked into BEFORE the event!

2) Technical reasons for raising the issues

I will try to answer the points in Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations relating to this system so it can be more clearly seen why Ferrari were not prepared to ask for clarification at the beginning:

a) The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point, the most forward support is a body with 1 compression spring and 1 tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt which seals the floor to the chassis which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help the flexibility and reduce the friction in the system.

This models a complex mass-spring-damper system. The system consists of a mass ,B, suspended on a lever arm, a compression coil spring ,C, and a tension coil spring ,T. This tension coil spring can be pre-loaded to compensate for the varying amounts of mass, therefore allowing always equilibrium within the system. A force, F, is applied to the lever arm.

c) There are no immediate implications on other parts of the car for the Ferrari but if system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass.

d) The possible long term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development it could mean the development to chassis the improvement of the hinge system to the main under tray the necessity to increase the quantity of mass in this area which would depend on how much ballast was available therefore by reducing the weight of other components on the car and the weight distribution requirements.

e) The precise way in which the car system would enhance the performance of the car is in my view the following salient points:

i. It allows the car to ride over the kerbs of chicanes harder because of the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor and disturbing the car less.

ii. The system would allow for a straighter line through chicanes.

iii. Also a ride and aerodynamic advantage could be obtained because of the spring and mass layout on the front floor with the mass damper coming into effect.

iv. The front plank wear is reduced therefore allowing the car to run lower at the front which allows a gain and aerodynamic advantage in efficiency.

v. The car from around 160-180 kms is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the front floor which multiplies nearly up to 19-20mm lower front wing height at the leading edge. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around the components like turning vanes and front wing at the reduced height relative to the ground.

The above points could give a serious advantage over the competitor's cars.

On the Friday of the Australian GP I phoned up Mike Coughlan to ask him how things were going generally and if the FIA had taken any action on any issues, he told me no it was very quiet so far. I asked him if he had time to look at the other teams cars, he said he had a brief look and asked me why I wanted to know if the FIA had taken any actions on what issues, so I told him about the e-mail I had sent to the Peter Wright concerning the front floor system on the Ferrari, he asked me for a copy, so I said I‚'ll send you a copy of the e-mail I sent to Peter Wright. He asked me what I wanted and I replied nothing but a clean and fair championship. I suggested he should make his own judgement and then talk to Charlie Whiting to seek clarification. The rest of the story which unfolded during the event of which I'm sure you're aware of.

I also sent an e-mail to Jo Bauer around the same time of the first e-mail sent to Peter Wright but on another subject. I wanted the FIA to be aware of what was going on again and treated with the same confidentiality as the other issue.

This e-mail contained points relevant to Articles 2.5 and 3.2 in the technical regulations. I pointed out that there was a possibility of the car when sitting statically on the 3 reference plane points was not sitting parallel to the FIA's flat horizontal surface. The advantage from doing this is that you can gain in height relative to the ground on all bodywork facing the ground because by offsetting the 2 front points by -1mm below the reference plane and the rear point that is +1mm above the reference plane. This in terms of height and advantages gained lowers the front wing between 2-3mm towards the ground. This may seem a very small number but any way to reduce the front wing and turning vane height to the ground is a performance advantage. This was subsequently delt with by Charlie Whiting AFTER the Australian GP, but it would have been possible to have modified the cars prior to the Australian GP.

I would like to add the following remarks:

a) I believe Charlie Whiting acted in the best interests of the sport in the way he handled these issues. I also think he never made any reference to the mass damper to reduce any possible aggravation or he believed it was never an issue. By making a general across the board decision on the changes to the regulations no single team was pointed out as having circumnavigated the regulations.

The only issues for me are why did he not take action earlier in the event therefore reducing the advantage any team may have had?

c) If McLaren had not asked for clarification of the legality of the Ferrari system would Charlie Whiting still have taken the same action or waited 2 to 3 races or never ?

d) Knowing this information why were the cars allowed through scrutineering when there was possibly some doubt into the eligibility of the cars presented for scrutineering?

3) Personal involvement

[Elizabeth Sterling 0]

Hmmm... now what would Stepney have to gain from making Ferrari look bad?

[Sixten 0]

@Fed up: Thank you for your post, as I believe it clarifies some statements I made on another thread.

[Elizabeth Sterling 0]

If you read Stepney's comments on the issue he felt it was a clear breach of the rules and claimed to have told the Ferrai designers accordingly - For me it was similar to the Honda extra fuel tank and should have punsihed with a ban.

Interesting you should compare it to the Honda ban, you see, the Honda ban came not because it could be proven that they broke the regulations, (there are literally none against what they did) but because the FIA had come to test a car's weight without fuel, which then made the car underweight. It was decreed that this made the car illegal because FIA practices for measuring and testing legality constitute regulation.

[KoolMonkey 0]

Interesting read. However, even if what Stepney says holds some truth, who is going to believe him. He appears to be saying he took the high road and didn't want to go along with Ferrari's sinister plans to dominate the world, I mean have a flexing floor. So instead of notifying the FIA, he then sends 700 pages of blueprints, designs, test results and other goodies to a competing team, so that that team can inform the FIA? Like I said, even if what he says is true, his actions don't match up with what he's saying. Such, that I for one find it hard to believe anything coming from this guy.

[pabloh20 1]

Interesting read. However, even if what Stepney says holds some truth, who is going to believe him. He appears to be saying he took the high road and didn't want to go along with Ferrari's sinister plans to dominate the world, I mean have a flexing floor. So instead of notifying the FIA, he then sends 700 pages of blueprints, designs, test results and other goodies to a competing team, so that that team can inform the FIA? Like I said, even if what he says is true, his actions don't match up with what he's saying. Such, that I for one find it hard to believe anything coming from this guy.

Yes, indeed, as you say his actions don't match his supposed convictions. Especially when he says all he wants is 'a clean and fair championship' - he was in the wrong sport for that.

[Rainmaster 7]

*yawn*. It passed the FIA test designed to find out it's legality - therefore it was legal. What's so difficult to understand about this?

[goferrarigo 0]

Hmmm... now what would Stepney have to gain from making Ferrari look bad?

Exactly...

[Rainmaster 7]

Hmmm... now what would Stepney have to gain from making Ferrari look bad?

Careful, for some that might require a little thought. Stepney is such a credible guy as well, it's not like he's been involved in any big scandals or anything, and of course his relationship with Ferrari is great as well, no problems there. So what would Stepney have to gain from making Ferrari look bad? Well of course the answer is nothing...

Also, if Ferrari's floor was illegal, how did it magically pass the test? Now that is a tough one...

[David Adams 0]

Most certainly legal.

The device was shown to the stewards before it was used too wasn't it? And they said it was fine - until McLaren brought the issue up - at which time (after the race) they said the test to check for it would be amended.

There seemed to be a major balls up with communication/sanity from the FIA stewards on this one (Charlie Whiting himself I believe?).

Im just surprised McLaren didn't use it themselves in the first race - if you can't beat em....

[Sixten 0]

*yawn*. It passed the FIA test designed to find out it's legality - therefore it was legal. What's so difficult to understand about this?

Ferrari's floor passed the FIA test only when the car was stationary... Which is a different situation from a moving car...

All F1 cars must have a shadow plate to meet the stepped floor regulations. With the high-nosed F1 car, this results in the so-called splitter at the front of the floor.

Before 2000, when the front wings were allowed to be lower, teams tried to run the front of the car as low as possible to make the wing work better.

When even lower ride heights were stopped by the floor rubbing on the ground, the teams introduced flexible floors that would bend up, allowing the car to run lower.

The FIA stepped in and introduced a deflection test on the floor. This test uses the scrutineering rig in the first pit garage, where a hydraulic ram pushes the floor up from under the car and detects how much deflection is measured for a given load.

As with wings, if the part passes this deflection test it is deemed legal, even if the part may flex under a greater load.

Since 2001, front wings have been progressively raised and flexible floors have not been required to allow low ride heights.

But with the increased amount of ballast located in the floor, the FIA has allowed the teams a degree of freedom in mounting the exposed floor, so that it won't be damaged over kerbs. Despite this degree of flexibility allowed, floors are still subject to the deflection test.

The recent allegations, following the Australian Grand Prix, suggest the Ferrari floor could lift at high speed leading the diffuser to stall. This could either increase straight-line speed through a loss in drag, or improve the car's balance by reducing rear downforce.

To do this, the spring could allow the floor to pass the FIA test and still move when at higher speed.

The Ferrari case:

Under Articles 3.15 and 3.17.4 of the Technical Regulations, bodywork must be rigid and no freedom of movement is permitted at all. McLaren specifically have asked the FIA for clarification on the matter. As a result the FIA issued a statement which reads:

“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.

“We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4. Therefore, with immediate effect, we will be testing bodywork in the relevant area with any such devices removed.”

What happens if the team in question is not Ferrari:

Both Midland cars have been disqualified from the results of the German Grand Prix for having rear wings that were deemed to be flexible. Christijan Albers and Tiago Monteiro had finished 13th and 14th respectively at Hockenheim.

Flexible rear wings have been the subject of much scrutiny this season and the latest interpretation of Article 3.15 of Formula One racing’s Technical Regulations requires parts of the car influencing aerodynamic performance to be rigidly secured to and remain immobile in relation to the unsprung part of the car.

After examining the Midland cars, race stewards decided that the lower element of their rear wings contravened this, hence both cars were removed from the official results. Midland have the right to appeal the stewards’ decision.

What happened in Australia:

The issue of flexible floors first came to light in Australia at the beginning of the season, and as usual most fingers in the paddock were being pointed at Ferrari. Pat Symonds, Renault's Executive Director of Engineering told the BBC at the time that he noticed a few interesting parts and springs on the Ferrari car when he popped his head into the garage at the end of one of the practice sessions. Not that Ferrari are the only ones who ran this system.

The FIA were alerted to the issue when, rather cheekily, McLaren wrote to Charlie Whiting, the FIA's Technical Delegate, asking if they could mount a system that would pass the scrutineering test but would deflect upwards in a straight line. Obviously the FIA's response was a resounding "no" and they then adjusted their test for the next race in Malaysia. All the teams competing passed the new test, although some had to make modifications to the floor of their cars.

So what is the benefit of a flexible floor? Without going into the detailed explanation the simple benefit is that if you have a floor that flexes upwards under a high load then your car will go quicker in a straight line.

Teams like to run their cars as low to the ground as they can, as that makes the aerodynamic parts on the car much more effective. That creates more grip, so ideal for cornering at high speeds. The obvious downside of this is that in a straight line the more aerodynamic grip the car has the less potential you have for straight line speed.

The basic idea of the flexible floor is that the faster you go in a straight line the more pressure builds up on the underside of the car and while the floors in question were built to pass the initial FIA test, after a certain "upward load" the floor would deflect upwards allowing more air underneath the car, reducing the effect of the aerodynamic grip and generating more straight line speed.

Still with me? We all thought that after the FIA introduced their new method of testing the floors of the cars this issue had gone away. Charlie Whiting had other ideas. He has now written to all the teams saying:

"Following detailed examination of the cars during the Malaysian and Bahrain Grand Prix it has become evident that some teams are attempting to gain an aerodynamic advantage by designing bodywork which is flexible and/or not flat."

"Explanations for this seem to centre around the need to ensure the front of the chassis or reference plane isn't badly damaged when it makes contact with the ground, however, whilst we acknowledge these arguments may have some validity, such designs quite clearly contravene Article 3.15 of the 2007 F1 Technical Regulations."

Indeed, what's so difficult to uderstand about this?...

And I believe with the written statement from CW (in bold) everything is cleared on this subject...

As well as that the "Midland" incident mentioned earlier gives us an example of "equal treatment"...

[Autumnpuma 0]

It doesn't matter which team used it, it was illegal. It was a moving device that affected the aero of the car, hence 'moveable aero'. That has been illegal for quite some time. It's simple, unless you support one of the teams that used this illegal device....then of course you would have a vested interest in making this simple matter complex and rather muddy.

[Rainmaster 7]

Ferrari's floor passed the FIA test only when the car was stationary... Which is a different situation from a moving car...

What you have written is exactly what Ferrari realised, they only had to pass the test when the car is stationary, and it did.

Let's look at what happens in F1.

1)The FIA makes a set of rules.

2)The FIA designs various tests and measures to ensure the cars adhere to those rules.

3)The teams study the rules with great attention, then attempt to find loopholes in those rules.

4)The teams find a possible loophole in the rules, then design a car to exploit that loophole, thereby gaining a competitive advantage.

5)The FIA are made aware of this advantage, they either allow it or disallow it, in the case of the latter there is often a change of regulation, or perhaps a change of the way that rule is enforced (as we see here).

All Ferrari have to do is design a car which passes all the tests the FIA ask for, if they do this, there car is legal in the sense that you can't 'prove' that the floor is flexing. What you (the FIA) can then do is say 'We think Ferrari's floor is flexing, let's redesign our test so that we can find out'. Ferrari's response is to simply change their floor for the new, more relevant test (therefore maintaining their car's legality).

Now it's quite simple really, the fault actually lies with the FIA's original test - Ferrari (and others) realised this and decided to take advantage of that simple fact, can you honestly blame them for that? Or instead do you expect Ferrari to think to themselves 'well we could gain maybe half a second a lap here, BUT, if we did design this flexi-floor then that would be against the spirit of the rules (even though it would pass the test!!!)'?

To put it simply, Ferrari or any team only have to design cars which pass the FIA's tests, it's then up to the FIA to decide whether any other innovations made are to be allowed or not, and act accordingly. That's what happened here, end of.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as you have missed the point, that is that you can't 'see' a floor flexing, which means you'd have to have a test which checked for this (the FIA didn't, or it wasn't good enough). So technically you can't prove that Ferrari's floor did flex in the race (as it's not possible to check during the race).

How can you disqualify a team if their car passes the test that you have designed yourself? You can't, but you can change that test.

Surely if the test had not been changed that would be a better example of favouritism (allowing Ferrari to keep their advantage)?

[james 0]

It doesn't matter which team used it, it was illegal. It was a moving device that affected the aero of the car, hence 'moveable aero'. That has been illegal for quite some time. It's simple, unless you support one of the teams that used this illegal device....then of course you would have a vested interest in making this simple matter complex and rather muddy.

Unless you can show me a rule that says that bodywork can't flex, you can't say its illegal. The aero of a car is going to move at least a little. The bridge wing on the Mclaren obviously move a little. But not enough that they don't pass the tests that are used. Ferrari exploited a loophole. Pure and simple. They may have violated the spirit of the rule but according to the written word they were in the clear.

[pabloh20 1]

It doesn't matter which team used it, it was illegal. It was a moving device that affected the aero of the car, hence 'moveable aero'. That has been illegal for quite some time. It's simple, unless you support one of the teams that used this illegal device....then of course you would have a vested interest in making this simple matter complex and rather muddy.

I may be getting mixed up, Mike, but didn't you say at the time that it was legal until the FIA ruled it illegal?

[KoolMonkey 0]

Apart from some dubious F1 new tabloid sites, I don't recall the FIA saying anything about the floor being illegal. Rather they simply asked Ferrari to modify their design as I recall it and changed the testing process as well. I do recall Max or the FIA saying it was more a spirit of the sport thing and nothing at all was mentioned about it being illegal. Only the news websites and forum pundits have uttered that word.

[rodders47 2]

GEEZ lets simplify everything and allow ANYTHING as long as it fits in a box, size to be determined, and bugger the cost LOL