Romain Grosjean’s Haas has been found to be ‘not in conformity’ with technical regulations after a protest by Renault led to stewards investigating the floor of the car.
After an investigation into the reference plane of Grosjean’s Haas, the stewards determined that it did not adhere to the regulations. No word of any punishment or penalty has been made by the FIA, but the breach will likely result in disqualification. This would promote Sergei Sirotkin into tenth, giving him his first points of his Formula One career.
Specifically, the stewards found the Grosjean’s car, which was classified in sixth in the Italian Grand Prix, was not in compliance with Article 3.7.1 D) of the Technical Regulations.
This article will be updated
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2018 F1 season
- F1 feared “death knell” for Drive to Survive after Ferrari and Mercedes snub
- McLaren staff told us we were “totally crazy” to take Honda engines in 2018 – Tost
- ‘It doesn’t matter if we start last’: How Red Bull’s junior team aided Honda’s leap forward
- Honda’s jet division helped F1 engineers solve power unit problem
- McLaren Racing losses rise after Honda split
HUHHII (@huhhii)
2nd September 2018, 20:18
Does that mean Sirotkin will now score his first ever point?
f199player (@f199player)
2nd September 2018, 20:23
Not yet but likely will be announced soon
f199player (@f199player)
2nd September 2018, 20:22
Likely disqualification then.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
2nd September 2018, 20:23
So the SF70-H floor was illegal back in 2017 ?
anon
2nd September 2018, 20:52
@tifoso1989, I believe that, in the pre-season tests, the floor on Ferrari’s current car was initially not in compliance with the regulations and subsequently had to be modified to make it compliant. However, I understand that was because it breached a different part of Section 3.7.1 (the rule on not having visible holes in the floor when viewed from directly above), not the section Haas have been deemed guilty of breaking.
In this case, what they appear to be saying is that the front corners of the floor do not have the required radius of 50mm, plus or minus 2mm, as specified in that regulation. I suspect that it is more likely to be down to a production issue – equipment calibration issues, mismeasurement by the user and so on – that has resulted in a slight mistake in the shape of the front of the floor, rather than a deliberate attempt to cheat the regulations.
As others have noted, given the precedent set in the past – for example, with the disqualification of Sauber in 2011 from the Australian GP – the odds are that Grosjean will be disqualified for what sounds like an unfortunate breach of the rules, but nevertheless a case of the team using a part that doesn’t comply with the regulations.
Lithos (@lithos)
3rd September 2018, 21:28
Please, can anyone tell me how Renault was aware of the possible issue? During technical discussions among FIA and teams or?
Tango (@tango)
2nd September 2018, 20:30
Doesn’t seem to catch a break. Poor Grosjean, he has been good those past 5 races
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2018, 20:47
So from a pdf of the rules article 3.7.1 D) is (about the Step and reference planes):
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2018, 20:50
So, would this mean that a) Grosjean used a different/new floor here, b) Renault protested only Grosjean, because they didn’t care for Magnussen since he finished behind them or c) The floor was not in compliance due to damage?
Not sure even what the infringement would be – a sharp-is edge on the front of the floor?
ellybabes (@ellybabes)
2nd September 2018, 21:00
damage during a race doesn’t normally count as an infringement, this is likely to have been an issue on the car pre – race
bosyber (@bosyber)
2nd September 2018, 21:23
So from what @ellybabes says, I think it probably is b) @bascb – and thanks for quoting the regulation above. So, likely the floor was too ‘sharp’ edged I guess.
erikje
2nd September 2018, 22:20
see other topic, but again..
The FIA did not responded to Haas.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
3rd September 2018, 11:22
Failure to reply does not excuse failure to comply with the prevailing regulation.