Other Formula One teams have accused the leaders in the constructors, Ferrari, of violating the regulations when they participated in a Pirelli tire test on the Monday following the Emilia Romagna GP in Imola.
Ferrari is the subject of controversy after being charged with violating F1 regulations.
The Scuderia has mostly benefited from the new rules in 2022, dominating both the constructors’ and drivers’ races. Max Verstappen won the race in Miami on Sunday, but Charles Leclerc still has a 19-point advantage over the defending world champion.
Even though there are still 18 races left in 2022, he and Carloz Sainz have amassed a slim six-point lead over the Red Bull team. However, the Italian team’s competitors are upset since they noticed a possible disparity during the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix two weeks ago.
The Monday following the race at Imola, both drivers participated in a Pirelli tire test, with Leclerc finishing second behind Verstappen while Sainz crashed out early. The Spaniard, who had run in the morning session, was observed using a different floor pattern than his teammate from Monaco.
Such a procedure appears to be expressly prohibited by the FIA’s tyre testing regulations. They specify that all components must have been utilized in prior races or testing and must adhere to the technical requirements. They also prohibit the use of any experimental parts.
Ferrari insists that they cooperated with the FIA, which has exonerated them of all wrongdoing. Other teams were not pleased with the outcome, and they have now demanded complete openness from the authority.
Zak Brown, CEO of McLaren, was one well-known person to criticize, saying: “What’s crucial, in my opinion, is that we fully trust the FIA to regulate the sport, whether it’s during a test or a race weekend. But we also require complete transparency. I’ve heard it stated that it might have been an older floor.”
“That may have been the case. But if that’s the case, please show it to the teams so that we can have faith that it has been handled properly and in complete openness.”
The FIA looked into Ferrari about the engine the team was using back in 2019. Brown used that story to illustrate the necessity for further explanation this time around.
“A few years ago, there was an engine infringement here, and there was a hefty fine as a result. We don’t know exactly what was done, nor do we know how much, “He went on.
“I believe that complete transparency will assist the sport comprehend what happened, why it happened, and what has been done about it in today’s day and age,” the author says.
The Spanish Grand Prix in Barcelona will resume the F1 season in two weeks. Ferrari hopes to slow Verstappen and Red Bull’s momentum at the same track where they excelled in preseason testing.
In This Article...
The FIA accuses several teams of using their floors to commit fraud.
The controversy over the 2022 Formula One car design specifications has not been seen in the sport in years. The premise that the cars should be able to follow and overtake more readily underlies the shift toward lowering aero from the top of the car to under the floor. However, some teams and drivers have criticized the new regulations for causing severe discomfort through bouncing.
The FIA made the decision to take action the week before the Canadian Grand Prix and issued a technical directive meant to collect data from the vehicles to establish a metric for vertical oscillations and compel teams to configure their cars to lessen the impact on the driver.
The FIA finished their data analysis in the weeks leading up to Silverstone and amended the technical directive with a max oscillations metric that they asked the teams to track through the French GP.
This maximum oscillation statistic will be used in Paul Ricard, although the FIA has continued their inquiry. They think that some teams are applying rules in ways that weren’t intended.
There are regulations that allow for some freedom regarding the “plank” that rests beneath the floor and must always be a specific thickness.
The leading edge of the plank and around halfway down the chassis are the two locations where the plank is fastened to the car and both have a defined flexibility of just 2mm.
The FIA believes that certain teams altered the attachment of the plank there to allow a cushioning effect even though there are no limits at the rear of the plank.
The skids can be used more vigorously if they are flexing more than 2mm, but they won’t wear down below the required levels of wear.
The Race questioned Toto Wolff about if Mercedes knew in advance that the FIA would be looking at the “plank.” “Which was to the great amazement of all the teams,” he retorted, “because what’s in the regulations and what the regulations’ goal was, it’s quite clear.
“There is no justification for how that might divert more than what is allowed by law. To put it mildly, a bombshell rather than much of a surprise.
Wolff may be engaging in some political maneuvering, as is customary in Formula One. The regulations only allow for 2mm of flexibility at 2 mounting points.
Finding creative methods to adhere to the rules while going above and beyond—isn’t this always the genius of F1 car designers?
Although Red Bull’s cars are “totally compliant anyway,” according to Christian Horner, the French plank does not need to be uniformly rigid.
But if a car gets wide at Copse, I’m sure the driver’s rear is getting fairly heated with the amount of wood he’s leaving on the aggressive kerbing there, the Red Bull CEO noted. He believes the FIA have opened a bag of worms for themselves.
“As the regulators, they are closely monitoring it to ensure that there hasn’t been any abuse of it.
It remains to be seen if the FIA went too far. But isn’t that what the FIA is attempting to encourage if some teams have decreased “porpoising” by reading the rules to enable cushioning at the back of the plank?
They appear to have considered vehicles that minimized bouncing before concluding that what they are doing is unlawful.
Formula One Floor Flexing: Redbull and Ferrari
Red Bull’s vehicles, according to Christian Horner, fully adhere to the new technical requirement.
According to the FIA, Red Bull and Ferrari have suspiciously flexible bodywork in the plank region that moves with the motion of the car. When Mercedes became aware of this, they seized the chances. Red Bull and Ferrari were among the loudest opponents of the FIA’s intervention when it was being planned before of the Canadian Grand Prix.
In order to give teams less time to prepare, the FIA released the revised technical directive to them the day before the race. The fact that Mercedes has not had as much success with their vehicle as Redbull has in porpoising is a significant aspect in the porpoising problem.
Red Bull maintains that if some teams followed the regulations and weren’t porpoising or bouncing dangerously, it would be unjust to impose modifications on all teams. Horner warned that “this is a perilous route to walk down,” and he has been outspoken in his opposition of the latest revisions.
If the FIA controls setups in F1 racing, according to Horner, it won’t be beneficial for the sport.
The FIA discovered that there are some interpretations of the rules that it disagrees with. The floor flexing in F1 would comply if the teams are prohibited from designing for underground reasons.
When was Ferrari busted for fraud?
At the Brazilian Grand Prix, the opening round of the 1994 season, there were accusations of cheating. Senna, who was leading the race in the Williams, made a pit stop on lap 21, followed closely by Michael Schumacher in the Benetton. Schumacher was given an extremely quick pit stop by the Benetton crew, which allowed him to pass Senna and take the lead in the race. Senna spun out of the race, and Schumacher went on to win the Grand Prix. This led to rumors that Benetton had a method for doing pit stops more quickly than their competitors.
The Ferrari test driver Nicola Larini, who had taken over for Jean Alesi for the first few months of the season, revealed to the Italian media that he had employed traction control during the race’s practice session at the Pacific Grand Prix weekend in April. Later, Ferrari and Larini refuted the allegations to the international media. The “leak” by Larini increased concerns that teams were utilizing unlawful driving aids to gain an advantage in competition. Senna retired from the race on the opening lap following a collision with Mika Hakkinen, a driver for McLaren. Senna chose to stay around and watch the drivers finish the race rather than returning to the Williams pit area in order to listen for any sounds that would indicate the other cars were using traction control illegally. After the race, Senna went back to the Williams pit area with the suspicion that the Benetton car was unlawful.
Ferrari F1: Did they cheat?
Rival Formula One teams are pressing the FIA for information about cheating allegations against FERRARI.
The Monday following the Emilia Romagna GP in Imola, the Italian squad participated in a Pirelli tire test.
Although Charles Leclerc, Carlos Sainz’s teammate, had run in the morning session, Carlos Sainz was using a different floor design. This was discovered by keen-eyed teams.
There are specific guidelines for the tire tests. All parts must have been utilized in tests or races in the past and adhere to the technical rules. No experimental parts may be used.
The Italian team claims that they cooperated with the FIA, which has since cleared Ferrari of all wrongdoing.
However, dissatisfied teams are still not happy with the FIA’s lack of an answer and have urged the organization to be completely transparent.
What went wrong for Ferrari?
Ferrari unintentionally installed a set of brand-new soft tires on Leclerc’s car during his first run in the final round of qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix.
Prior to handing him a fresh set of the red-walled compound for the last Q3 efforts, the team had planned to send him out on used softs for the first run.
Over the radio, Leclerc enquired about the tire call, to which the team responded, “Sorry, that was a mistake. After deciding against doing another run, he finished the session in fourth place overall, over eight tenths of a second slower than Max Verstappen’s best time.
After qualifying, Leclerc remarked, “I assume there was a miscommunication, it wasn’t a big deal. “But certainly I brought it up because I was a little taken aback.
After serving a power unit penalty, Leclerc will start the race from position 16 on the grid, one position behind title contender Verstappen who will also experience a grid drop.
Verstappen finished nearly six tenths of a second ahead of the competition after skipping his final run in Q3, highlighting his dominance at Spa.
Red Bull, in Leclerc’s opinion, had been “very strong” throughout the Spa weekend, and its speed had come as “a surprise, since I guess we anticipated to cut the gap in qualifying a little bit more.”
It is a wide gap. I thus hope that it will change in Zandvoort. But before that, tomorrow’s race is coming up, and we appear to be a little more competitive. We’ll see how it turns out.
George Russell, a Mercedes driver, has picked Verstappen to come from 15th on the grid and win the race. Verstappen acknowledged that he would be disappointed if he could not make a comeback to place third.
If he maintains his pace from today, Leclerc added, “I will also be sad if I don’t get back on the podium, but since he’s with me, it’s going to be very difficult for me to go back on the podium.”
But we never know, right? We can regain the lead with a strong first stint and a clean race, I’m confident.