Grosjean’s car “not in conformity” with floor regulations

13 comments on “Grosjean’s car “not in conformity” with floor regulations”

1. 

   HUHHII (@huhhii)
   2nd September 2018, 20:18

   Does that mean Sirotkin will now score his first ever point?
   1. 

      f199player (@f199player)
      2nd September 2018, 20:23

      Not yet but likely will be announced soon
2. 

   f199player (@f199player)
   2nd September 2018, 20:22

   Likely disqualification then.
3. 

   Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
   2nd September 2018, 20:23

   So the SF70-H floor was illegal back in 2017 ?
   1. 

      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.
      1. 

         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?
4. 

   Tango (@tango)
   2nd September 2018, 20:30

   Doesn’t seem to catch a break. Poor Grosjean, he has been good those past 5 races
5. 

   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):

   Additionally, the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane must …
   d) Have a 50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each front corner when viewed from directly beneath
   the car, this being applied after the surface has been defined.
6. 

   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?
   1. 

      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
   2. 

      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.
7. 

   erikje
   2nd September 2018, 22:20

   see other topic, but again..
   The FIA did not responded to Haas.

   They said Haas had breached article 3.7.1 d of the Technical Regulations, which focuses on the radius of the leading corners of the floor’s reference plane.

   Back in July, governing body the FIA issued a Technical Directive clarifying the regulation and stipulated that teams must bring their cars into conformity before the Italian Grand Prix.

   It emerged during the hearing that Haas emailed the FIA, as is common in these matters, with details of their new solution but because of the limited time, given the summer break and two-week shutdown, they had asked for some flexibility in the matter.

   They said they would “endeavour to introduce this upgrade for the Singapore GP but will be somewhat at the mercy of our suppliers”.

   The FIA did not respond to the latter point, with Haas telling the stewards at the hearing that it was their understanding that “a lack of response on the matter of timing that their solution and timing were accepted”.

   But the stewards said in their statement: “While the Stewards are also sympathetic to the difficulties of producing these parts, the Stewards noted that at least one other competitor was able to comply in the time provided.
   1. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      3rd September 2018, 11:22

      Failure to reply does not excuse failure to comply with the prevailing regulation.

Comments are closed.