FIA clamps down after suspicions Red Bull exploited trick with F1 car
F1’s governing body have solidified their parc ferme checks ahead of this weekend’s US Grand Prix
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The FIA has responded immediately after suspicions arose of a car ride-height adjustment trick being utilised by Red Bull.
F1 cars are placed in parc ferme between qualifying on Saturday and the race on Sunday, where changes to the aerodynamic configuration of the cars are not allowed in the regulations, aside from the front wing.
Yet suspicions were abound in the paddock that Red Bull had designed its car in a manner where the front bib – or the T-tray – was adjustable through a change of setting inside the cockpit.
Several teams, according to the report from Autosport, raised their concerns to the FIA who have come out to clarify the rulebook and announced a change in procedure to check on the cars from this weekend’s US Grand Prix in Austin.
A Red Bull spokesperson said: “Yes, [the device] exists, although it is inaccessible once the car is fully assembled and ready to run. In the numerous correspondence we have with the FIA, this part came up and we have agreed a plan going forward.”
Lando Norris believes he has been dealt a boost in his bid to beat Max Verstappen to world championship glory as a result of the ruling.
“If it has been helping them, and they have been utilising it in a way that people think they have, then maybe it will shift in our direction,” he said.
“But they wouldn’t have got several poles and wins because of such a device. I don’t think it will really change anything, but then when you look at the gaps in qualifying, and when the gap has been just hundredths of a second, then you might say this has helped.
“It is good that the FIA are doing such a thing. There is a difference between black and white stuff like this, and a difference between Formula One and pushing the boundaries and innovating. That is what we have done a very good job on, but been sure not to go any further than that.”
Before Red Bull had been identified as the team involved, an FIA spokesperson said: “Any adjustment to the front bib clearance during parc ferme conditions is strictly prohibited by the regulations.
“While we have not received any indication of any team employing such a system, the FIA remains vigilant in our ongoing efforts to enhance the policing of the sport.
“As part of this, we have implemented procedural adjustments to ensure that front bib clearance cannot be easily modified.
“In some cases, this may involve the application of a seal to provide further assurance of compliance.”
On parc ferme rules, Article 40.2 of F1’s technical regulations state: “The aerodynamic set up of the front wing may be adjusted using the existing parts.
“No parts may be added, removed or replaced.”
Article 40.9 adds: “A competitor may not modify any part on the car.”
The clarification of the rulebook comes ahead of the final six races of the season and the fourth sprint weekend of 2024 taking place this weekend at the Circuit of the Americas.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments