Historic examples of rule bending and breaking

[mario]

With the current discussions over the proposed banning of the retarded ignition engine maps to blow air through the diffuser when off the throttle, I thought that perhaps it might be worth looking at instances in the past where teams have bent, or broken, the technical regulations in the age old pursuit of a performance advantage.
Of course, some of the more famous examples come from the FISA-FOCA era, when the teams were constantly trying to find ways around FISA both on and off the track. So, to start the ball rolling, how about the pneumatic suspension system on the Brabham BT49C, used to allow the cars to comply with the minimum ride height requirement of 60mm in the pits, but to allow the cars to ride much lower to the ground on track to gain an advantage from a shaped underbody and fixed skirts.

Of course, this lead to an inevitable phase of "if you can't beat them, join them", with everybody soon copying Brabham's trick (albeit with a simpler, on-off switch instead of the more progressive system Murray designed). Chapman in particular, though, was very annoyed about this - and once decided to make a point about the absurd situation the teams were facing, where everybody knew ground effects were being used but the system could not be policed.
To that end, he once had the car riding about eight inches off the ground in the pits, but scraping the ground on track, to make it abundantly clear to all what was happening - and, moreover, the fact he was unhappy at what he saw as a breach of the regulations being allowed by FISA.

[JeremyMcClean]

What about the team orders fiascoes in 2002 and 2010, both with Ferrari?

[GroupLotusRenault]

Driver aids of 1991-1993, Williams were in a leauge of their own both titles 1992-1993. 20 wins in 2 years. Active Suspension, ABS Braking, Traction Control, Automatic gearboxes & Launch Control. 1994 when it was banned many teams were against it, Benetton Ferrari & Mclaren had a different type of Launch Control which for Benetton helped them win 6 of the first 7 races. Apprantly Williams had the seemless gearboxes in 1994 at the begining but the FIA banned it straight away.

[AndreaModa]

How about the double-width rear wing run by Ferrari on Gilles Villeneuve's car at Long Beach in 1982 I believe, which was in protest against the water-cooled brakes of the Williams, and other teams (possibly Brabham and others?) were using at the first race in Brazil. Obviously the water cooled brakes were a complete joke, the water kept the cars above the minimum weight in scrutineering, but then it was drained for the races, allowing the cars to run lighter. Ferrari protested this by running the double width rear wing at the next race at Long Beach and they, along with the other teams for using water cooled brakes were all disqualified from those first couple of races!

I think I've got all that right, might be a bit inaccurate and mixed up though! It's 3 am!

[ibsey]

Nice topic, & its suprising just how many instances there are in the past where teams have bent the technical regulations for a performance advantage. Regarding the all the rule bending during the FISA-FOCA era, I would urge people to read this article regarding the whole affair.

http://8w.forix.com/fiasco-82.html

I found it really fascinating stuff indeed, particularly how at the 1982 Long Beach GP, Ferrari purposely bent/broke the rules (via their double rear wing) & accepted the possible loss of a win or at least some World Championship points simply to make a statement. Insane stuff. Also fascinating was how Tyrell paid heavily in later years simply for completing in the 1982 San Marino GP (I won't spoil the ending for you on that).

At the risk of not leaving any examples for others to post (apologies for that), the ones I can think of off the top of my head include;

Brabham Fan Car in 1976

Lotus 88 car (1982 I believe)

Brabham supposed rocket fuel at the end of 1983

Tyrell lead balast affair in 1984

Senna using spare car after the restart, Brazil 1988

Mclaren's automatic downshifting gearbox in 1994

Ferrari's revised air intakes in the summer of 1994

Mclaren's 3rd break pedal at start of 1998

Ferrari's barge board in Malaysia 1999

BAR's secret fuel tank in early 2005

BMW & Williams supposed illegal fuel after the 2007 Brazilan GP

Nelson Piquet's crash Singapore 2008

However one case I am particularly interested in, is just before the 2000 San Marino GP, Murray Walker interviewed Max Mosley Re; the new measures to tighten up on illegal traction control devices (the interview where Murray Walker does an Ali G impression at the end). Anyway in the interview, Max Mosley said that the new measures had been brought in specifically because the FIA found a midfield team (didn't mention which one) was using some kind of illegal traction control device. It has always bugged me, not knowing which team Max was refering to & I would be extermely grateful if anyone could shed any further light on this?

I suspect it may have been Benetton, for three reasons;

1. Benetton & later on Renualt have always been in the forefront of traction control / launch control devices.

2. They were using a radical Front Torque Transfer system in 1999. Although admittely I don't know the in's & out's of what that system did, so I don't know whether it is likely to have influenced traction control.

3. A mate of mine, reckoned he was at Sliverstone once when Benetton were testing a system that remotely launched the car of the start line (from the pits) around that time. Although as this mate (being a very successful sales person) can occassion stretch the truth, so I'm not sure whether to believe this or not.

[ibsey]

How about the double-width rear wing run by Ferrari on Gilles Villeneuve's car at Long Beach in 1982 I believe, which was in protest against the water-cooled brakes of the Williams, and other teams (possibly Brabham and others?) were using at the first race in Brazil. Obviously the water cooled brakes were a complete joke, the water kept the cars above the minimum weight in scrutineering, but then it was drained for the races, allowing the cars to run lighter. Ferrari protested this by running the double width rear wing at the next race at Long Beach and they, along with the other teams for using water cooled brakes were all disqualified from those first couple of races!

I think I've got all that right, might be a bit inaccurate and mixed up though! It's 3 am!

Damn you beat me to that example.

I think what you have said, seems correct.

[madmark1974]

Sauber at the start of this year - though it was not thought to give them any advantage.

Also, I remember a few races where the winner went on to be DSQd - didn't Elio de Angelis inherit a win that way?

[Faustus]

Brabham Fan Car in 1976

1978.

Lotus 88 car (1982 I believe)

1981.
I love the lotus 88. That car was sheer utter genius and it was completely legal. I still have an A3 poster on my wall at home of that car from a Sport-Auto at that time that my father bought.

[Faustus]

Apprantly Williams had the seemless gearboxes in 1994 at the begining but the FIA banned it straight away.

That was the CVT that was never raced. It was banned during 1993 when the FIA announced the changes to the technical regulations for 1994, but Williams continued testing it, presumably just in case, because these things have a way to coming back around years later. There are some videos of David Coulthard driving the test car on YouTube.

[Faustus]

Driver aids of 1991-1993, Williams were in a leauge of their own both titles 1992-1993. 20 wins in 2 years. Active Suspension, ABS Braking, Traction Control, Automatic gearboxes & Launch Control.

Benetton had all of the above and four-wheel steer as well. That was the Benetton B193B, the so-called 'talking dog' car, according to Pat Symmonds. I remember seeing this car in testing in Estoril and being quite dumbfounded by the engineers testing the four-wheel steering system in the pits with the car jacked-up. Absolutely unbelievable.

[Faustus]

Also, I remember a few races where the winner went on to be DSQd - didn't Elio de Angelis inherit a win that way?

San Marino Grand Prix 1985, where Alain Prost was disqualified for being 2kg underweight.

[Faustus]

I'm sorry I keep posting, but this is one of my favourite things in motorsport.

Arrows in 1978 and the copyright infringement on the Shadow DN9.
Alan Rees, Jackie Oliver, Dave Wass and Tony Southgate left the Shadow team at the end of 1977 after they tried unsuccesfully to buy Shadow from Don Nichols, with financial support from Franco Ambrosio (Shadow's main sponsor at the time). Ambrosio (A), Rees (R), Oliver (O), Wass (W) and Southgate (S) founded Arrows. Tony Southgate took (or reproduced, debatable) the drawings for the Shadow DN9 and made the Arrows FA1. Shadow sued for copyright infringement, claiming that the Arrows FA/1 was just a copy of the Shadow DN9. Arrows lost the court case and had to design a new car.

[Faustus]

Tyrell lead balast affair in 1984

And petrol in the water tank.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

I'm sorry I keep posting, but this is one of my favourite things in motorsport.

But Faustus, you have a wealth of information in that smart brain of yours! You even have F1 experience! The unique mix of people that come to this forum is one of the reasons this is the only forum I regularly post on. And the number of brains this forum has, including yourself, mario (of course) and a few others is another reason. I could go on and on with the reasons I have, but it'll be off-topic, which happens to be another trait of this forum which I like!

I'm afraid I don't have anything to post here regarding the actual topic. Sorry...

[Faustus]

Grear topic mario! It's reminded me of all sorts of things that were buried deep in my memories.

Wasn't Larrousse disqualified one year for entering their car as a Larrousse rather than a Lola? The chassis plate said it was a Lola but Larrousse had entered the car as a Larrousse, so there was some controversy about not owning the IP and not having built the cars.
Same goes for Andrea Moda and Coloni in 1992.

The EuroBrun ER189 was disqualified at its first race for not having the minimum roll-over clearance.

The uncanny resemblance between the Ligier JS41 and Benetton B195 in 1995.

The uncanny resemblance between the Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

The uncanny resemblance between the Super Aguri SA07 and the Honda RA106.
The uncanny resemblance between the Super Aguri SA08 and the Honda RA107.

[ibsey]

I'm sorry I keep posting, but this is one of my favourite things in motorsport.

No need to be sorry, as like Jeroen, I love your very insightful posts like the Benetton four wheel steer system. Keep up the good posting.

Scraping the barrel a bit here, but a couple of other possible candidates.

Ligier placing their fuel tank between the engine & the gearbox in (I believe) 1988. Although it may not have bent any rules at the time, per se. From a commen sense & safety point of view, I question whether it should have been allowed in the first place, given that their was still a high chance of fuel fires were in major crashes at that time. Although I don't think that Ligier ever got into a major crash during that particular year.

Also marginal, was when Rubens Barrichello served a 10 sec stop go penalty at the Australian GP in 1999, the mechanics were blowing air at the car to help its cooling when it was stationary. This is marginal because the rules state the mechianics are not allowed to do any work on the car during a penalty. Since then I have never seen another instance of mechanics blowing air at the car during a penalty, so I assume the FIA have closed off that particular loophole.

[ibsey]

Now I seem to have caught the 'unable to resist posting bug' from you Faustus.

One of the untold stories from 1982 was how Derek Daly managed to out qualify Keke Rosberg at the French GP at Dijon (a race Keke won). I'll quote Derek Daly...

"Keke Rosberg was lighting fast and particularly good in qualifying, and there were unusual circumstances surrounding the only time I started ahead of him on the grid that year.

Halfway through the final qualifying session, I tried my car with front wings fitted. I was about four seconds behind John Watson's Mclarenaround the back of the circuit when I missed my braking point for the downhill section. No problem, I simply went down the espace road and rejoined the track, completely by passing the downhill section. Before I rejoined, however I waited waited for Watson to pass and then set off on another lap. So I was only about two seconds behind him when I flashed past the timing beam - to record the fastest lap set by a Williams that weekend.

When I stopped, I was just about to tell the team what happened, when Charlie Crichton-Stuart began congratulating me for the lap and said that Frank Williams had sent orders to put the front wings on Keke's car for his race set-up. I suddenly thought 'Maybe they don't know about the mistake - and just maybe I should keep quiet about it'. Keke didn't know why he was beaten that weekend and was furious but, all these years later, he now sees the funny side.

Despite the fact that I didn't actually do that laptime, I still thought that, with the front wings fitted, the car would be faster in the race. Keke therefore had enough downforce in the race to hound and eventually pass the Renaults late in the race, and go onto his only win of the season. I like to think my inadvertently devious lap actually helped him in the long run."

[midgrid]

Harry Schell did the same thing (cutting out part of the circuit) during timed practice for the 1959 United States Grand Prix at Sebring.

On a similar note, Vittorio Brambilla secured pole position for the 1975 Swedish Grand Prix because Robin Herd of March realised that the team's pit area was level with the start-finish timing beam. As Vittorio powered past the pits to set a time, Herd swung a pitboard over the wall, "co-incidentally" breaking the beam shortly before his driver arrived.

[midgrid]

Wasn't Larrousse disqualified one year for entering their car as a Larrousse rather than a Lola? The chassis plate said it was a Lola but Larrousse had entered the car as a Larrousse, so there was some controversy about not owning the IP and not having built the cars.
Same goes for Andrea Moda and Coloni in 1992.

Larrousse retrospectively forfeited all of its 1990 constructors' points for this very reason. After some negotiation with FISA, the team was allowed not to take part in pre-qualifying during 1991, but the points were not restored (although all the available data, including the formula1.com archive, still show the team with its original sixth-place classification in 1990). Coincidentally, Larrousse's disqualification allowed the other French team, Ligier - historically preferred by FISA and also benefiting from the decision to move the French Grand Prix from Paul Ricard to Magny-Cours in the same year - to move up to tenth place, thus becoming eligible to receive travel expenses from FOCA.

The EuroBrun ER189 was disqualified at its first race for not having the minimum roll-over clearance.

As was the Osella FA1L, I believe.

[midgrid]

An example of Eddie Jordan's ingenuity: at the 1995 Hungarian Grand Prix, Eddie Irvine's Saturday qualifying times were disallowed as he received an illegal push-start on the circuit, dropping him from seventh to fifteenth on the grid. Jordan, however, noticed that the official time sheet for the session had not been marked "provisional" as it was supposed to, and thus the original result had to stand.

[midgrid]

Driver aids of 1991-1993, Williams were in a leauge of their own both titles 1992-1993. 20 wins in 2 years. Active Suspension, ABS Braking, Traction Control, Automatic gearboxes & Launch Control.

Benetton had all of the above and four-wheel steer as well. That was the Benetton B193B, the so-called 'talking dog' car, according to Pat Symmonds. I remember seeing this car in testing in Estoril and being quite dumbfounded by the engineers testing the four-wheel steering system in the pits with the car jacked-up. Absolutely unbelievable.

I love the old footage of the active-suspended cars being calibrated on the jacks; it looks as if the car is flexing its muscles and priming itself for action.

OK, now I'm the one who is posting too much.

[midgrid]

Senna using spare car after the restart, Brazil 1988

Perhaps Faustus can give us an insider's perspective on Enrique Bernoldi's disqualification for the same offence at the 2002 Australian Grand Prix (and Heinz-Harald Frentzen's DQ for leaving the pit-lane when the red light was illuminated).

[DOSBoot]

Now I seem to have caught the 'unable to resist posting bug' from you Faustus.

One of the untold stories from 1982 was how Derek Daly managed to out qualify Keke Rosberg at the French GP at Dijon (a race Keke won).

That was the Swiss GP. Not the French GP. The Swiss GP was held at Dijon because motor racing is banned in Switzerland. The 1982 French GP was held at Paul Richard.

[Faustus]

Senna using spare car after the restart, Brazil 1988

Perhaps Faustus can give us an insider's perspective on Enrique Bernoldi's disqualification for the same offence at the 2002 Australian Grand Prix (and Heinz-Harald Frentzen's DQ for leaving the pit-lane when the red light was illuminated).

Unfortunately I only know as much as you. I didn't join Arrows until the 22nd of April, the monday before the Spanish Grand Prix.

[ibsey]

Was their any substance in Mclaren fuel iregularities allegations in Italy 1976? Or was it simply a case of the Italian authorities wishing to send Ferrari's main rivals to the back of the grid?

Also how about Mclaren's disqualification in Spain 1976, because their rear wing was deemed to be too wide. Was this simply an innocent mistake by the team, or were there any (more damming) allegations made against them?

Don't think the Mclaren spygate affair has been mentioned yet either.

Nor the Renualt Mass Damper thing in 2006.

[midgrid]

Senna using spare car after the restart, Brazil 1988

Perhaps Faustus can give us an insider's perspective on Enrique Bernoldi's disqualification for the same offence at the 2002 Australian Grand Prix (and Heinz-Harald Frentzen's DQ for leaving the pit-lane when the red light was illuminated).

Unfortunately I only know as much as you. I didn't join Arrows until the 22nd of April, the monday before the Spanish Grand Prix.

Oh well, at least you can claim responsibility for the points finishes then.

[midgrid]

Was their any substance in Mclaren fuel iregularities allegations in Italy 1976? Or was it simply a case of the Italian authorities wishing to send Ferrari's main rivals to the back of the grid?

The highest octane rating permitted at the time was 101. Various samples of fuel were collected by the race organisers on Saturday morning and analysed by SNAM, the national oil company. This produced the following results:

- Ferrari 98.6
- Ligier 98.6
- Lotus 99.7
- Tyrrell 100.7
- McLaren 101.6
- Penske 105.7

James Hunt, Jochen Mass and John Watson all had their Saturday times disallowed, and as Friday's times were set in wet conditions, none qualified. However, the three slowest qualifiers (Otto Stuppacher, Arturo Merzario and Guy Edwards) all withdrew for various reasons, allowing the penalised drivers to start.

All well and good, but two weeks after the race, the CSI announced that its own prescribed methods for analysing fuel samples were inadequate and exonerated the fuel supplier, Texaco, from all responsibility.

A similar situation occurred at the Brazilian Grand Prix in 1995, when Michael Schumacher and David Coulthard, who had finished first and second in the race, were both disqualified for fuel irregularities, but later re-instated on appeal (but the teams' WCC points were forfeit).

Also how about Mclaren's disqualification in Spain 1976, because their rear wing was deemed to be too wide. Was this simply an innocent mistake by the team, or were there any (more damming) allegations made against them?

Purely an innocent error, comparable with Sauber's illegal rear wings this year. At the next race, the mechanics put a "Wide Vehicle" sign on Hunt's rear wing,

[Faustus]

Was their any substance in Mclaren fuel iregularities allegations in Italy 1976? Or was it simply a case of the Italian authorities wishing to send Ferrari's main rivals to the back of the grid?

The highest octane rating permitted at the time was 101. Various samples of fuel were collected by the race organisers on Saturday morning and analysed by SNAM, the national oil company. This produced the following results:

- Ferrari 98.6
- Ligier 98.6
- Lotus 99.7
- Tyrrell 100.7
- McLaren 101.6
- Penske 105.7

James Hunt, Jochen Mass and John Watson all had their Saturday times disallowed, and as Friday's times were set in wet conditions, none qualified. However, the three slowest qualifiers (Otto Stuppacher, Arturo Merzario and Guy Edwards) all withdrew for various reasons, allowing the penalised drivers to start.

All well and good, but two weeks after the race, the CSI announced that its own prescribed methods for analysing fuel samples were inadequate and exonerated the fuel supplier, Texaco, from all responsibility.

I've read in the 1976 season review from L'Automobile that my father bought and dutifully collected (this was a year before I was born) that there were also some questions about the cleanliness of the receptacles used to gather the fuel.

[Faustus]

Nor the Renualt Mass Damper thing in 2006.

This was perfectly legal and was just a very clever idea. Other teams, particularly Ferrari, were unhappy about it because they would have to completely redesign their front suspension to incorporate a similar system.

This made me think of another one that wasn't strictly speaking contravening any regulations. In early 2007, the spring mounted on the floor that everyone was allowed to use (and did) but that Ferrari was being clever and using it to move the central section of the floor closer to the ground. The FIA changed the load test on the floor and doubled the load, prompting everyone to reinforce their floors and eliminate this clever system.

[Faustus]

Perhaps Faustus can give us an insider's perspective on Enrique Bernoldi's disqualification for the same offence at the 2002 Australian Grand Prix (and Heinz-Harald Frentzen's DQ for leaving the pit-lane when the red light was illuminated).

Unfortunately I only know as much as you. I didn't join Arrows until the 22nd of April, the monday before the Spanish Grand Prix.

Oh well, at least you can claim responsibility for the points finishes then.

I had absolutely nothing to do with Frentzen's 6th place in Spain, because I had just started and was still trying to figure out who everyone was and trying to not get in the way. I would like to think that I contributed to the team effort in achieving the 6th place in Monaco.

[Klon]

I had absolutely nothing to do with Frentzen's 6th place in Spain, because I had just started and was still trying to figure out who everyone was and trying to not get in the way. I would like to think that I contributed to the team effort in achieving the 6th place in Monaco.

Did you actually work with Frentzen sometimes? If yes, how was he?

[Faustus]

I had absolutely nothing to do with Frentzen's 6th place in Spain, because I had just started and was still trying to figure out who everyone was and trying to not get in the way. I would like to think that I contributed to the team effort in achieving the 6th place in Monaco.

Did you actually work with Frentzen sometimes? If yes, how was he?

I was assistant race engineer to Graham Taylor, who engineered Frentzen's car. Graham was also chief race engineer so he was a very busy man, dealing with the race strategy as well and other stuff, so I got to handle the race engineering on my own a couple of times. HHF was a really good guy, very sensitive to minute changes in the car set-up, with superb racecraft and excellent at reading race conditions. In Silverstone, when it was still raining a little but a dry line was appearing, he made the decision to change to slicks and he called it perfectly. Also, I learned from him the value of low-speed downforce in Monaco. I didn't appreciate just how much of a difference a few kilograms of extra front downforce can have on the car's low-speed handling.

[ibsey]

This made me think of another one that wasn't strictly speaking contravening any regulations. In early 2007, the spring mounted on the floor that everyone was allowed to use (and did) but that Ferrari was being clever and using it to move the central section of the floor closer to the ground. The FIA changed the load test on the floor and doubled the load, prompting everyone to reinforce their floors and eliminate this clever system.

IIRC, the very fact that Mclaren where asking the FIA to ban Ferrari's new floor so soon after Ferrari had first introduced it in Australia 2007 made Ferrari suspicious about how Mclaren came to be aware of their floor so quickly. Remember rival teams wouldn't be able to see the Ferrari floor in Parc Ferme etc. Which ultimately led to the Spygate affair.

Also wasn't their some kind of contraversey RE; Mclaren & Renualt in early 2008...or is my memory playing tricks on me yet again?

[ibsey]

I had absolutely nothing to do with Frentzen's 6th place in Spain, because I had just started and was still trying to figure out who everyone was and trying to not get in the way. I would like to think that I contributed to the team effort in achieving the 6th place in Monaco.

Did you actually work with Frentzen sometimes? If yes, how was he?

I was assistant race engineer to Graham Taylor, who engineered Frentzen's car. Graham was also chief race engineer so he was a very busy man, dealing with the race strategy as well and other stuff, so I got to handle the race engineering on my own a couple of times. HHF was a really good guy, very sensitive to minute changes in the car set-up, with superb racecraft and excellent at reading race conditions. In Silverstone, when it was still raining a little but a dry line was appearing, he made the decision to change to slicks and he called it perfectly. Also, I learned from him the value of low-speed downforce in Monaco. I didn't appreciate just how much of a difference a few kilograms of extra front downforce can have on the car's handling.

Great insight & I vividly remember HHF slowing down on the Hanger Straight after his superb performance at Sliverstone in 2002. I was gutted for him & the team, so I can't begin to imagine what you must have been going through.

Incidentially I ask this question on the Williams thread but maybe you didn't see it. In your opinion, how much untapped potenial was left within the 2002 Arrows car? IIRC Arrows had a pretty sorted car, but couldn't develop it as much as they wanted because they didn't have the resources / finance to do any testing with it.

[mario]

I have to say, I really am surprised, and glad, to see how quickly this thread has expanded - especially with some of the more amusing or technically interesting examples of rule bending.

Nor the Renualt Mass Damper thing in 2006.

This was perfectly legal and was just a very clever idea. Other teams, particularly Ferrari, were unhappy about it because they would have to completely redesign their front suspension to incorporate a similar system.

This made me think of another one that wasn't strictly speaking contravening any regulations. In early 2007, the spring mounted on the floor that everyone was allowed to use (and did) but that Ferrari was being clever and using it to move the central section of the floor closer to the ground. The FIA changed the load test on the floor and doubled the load, prompting everyone to reinforce their floors and eliminate this clever system.

I have to agree that banning the tuned mass dampers was a particularly sad affair - it was an elegant, yet simple, solution to a traditional and complex problem (the oscillation of the car as it struck a kerb causing slight shifts in handling).
That said, whilst Ferrari are often treated as the villains in that whole affair, since the 248 F1 was able to leapfrog the R26, my understanding was that it might have actually been McLaren who were lobbying the hardest to have the mass damper banned. To a certain extent, had a strong incentive for it to be banned, since they had an alternative damper system, the J-damper (aka inerter), which used a variable damping rate to achieve the same effect; getting the mass damper banned, therefore, gave them a temporary competitive advantage (although most teams now use an inerter, or J-damper).

IIRC, that season there were quite a few allegations about flexible body parts, particularly wings (showing that the current arguments over flexing wings goes back a number of years). One of them was the 248 F1, as the bridge wing was caught flexing under load by the nose mounted camera - I believe that the connection between the bridge wing and nose was relatively slender, allowing it to twist under load. On top of that, the rear wing was also thought to be flexing under load, allowing it to shed drag on the straights (ironically, by using the same air stalling technique that McLaren exploited for what was commonly known as their F-duct system).
That said, for most of the season all of the teams were at it - leading to the FIA eventually having to introduce a slot gap separator to prevent the rear wing elements from flexing excessively and closing the mandatory gap between the rear wing elements. http://www.f1technical.net/development/40

That said, even after that there were allegations of excessive rear wing flexibility - IIRC, Renault (and Symonds in particular) was complaining that the rear wing of the RB3 was deflecting excessively the following year, not to mention the complaints that the bridge wing running across the nose of the 2008 McLaren was flexing significantly under load (hence the additional stiffener that McLaren later added).

[ibsey]

Just remembered that because of Senna's pole positions, people were questioning whether the 1986 Lotus was legal or not. Although I can't remember what they were specifically being acused of? (perhaps someone else can remember).

All I remember is that in Mexico 1986, Lotus put out a press statement basically saying; 'we are sick of all the allegations of cheating we have had, if other teams think we are cheating then stop acusing us & prove it'.

In reaction to this Williams put out a very funny press release jokely saying something along the lines of ' we do not think the Lotus car is illegal & we do not wish to protest it.'

I have to say, I really am surprised, and glad, to see how quickly this thread has expanded - especially with some of the more amusing or technically interesting examples of rule bending.

It's a great thread, so thank you for starting it Mario. I am surprised just how many examples there are. Indeed it makes you wonder just how many more might have gone undetected?

[Faustus]

Great insight & I vividly remember HHF slowing down on the Hanger Straight after his superb performance at Sliverstone in 2002. I was gutted for him & the team, so I can't begin to imagine what you must have been going through.

Incidentially I ask this question on the Williams thread but maybe you didn't see it. In your opinion, how much untapped potenial was left within the 2002 Arrows car? IIRC Arrows had a pretty sorted car, but couldn't develop it as much as they wanted because they didn't have the resources / finance to do any testing with it.

Sorry ibsey, I must have missed your post in the Williams thread. Sorry about that.
The Arrows A23 was a good car, no doubt about it, it was definitely very good out of the box, considering how little testing was done. From memory, I think there was 1 shakedown at the Bedford Aerodrome and 2 pre-season tests, in Valencia and Barcelona. There were 2 tests during the season that I remember taking part in, 1 in Silverstone and 1 in Valencia.
Around June, there was a significant upgrade. The upgrade was for a new floor, front and rear wings and some geometry changes to the rear suspension. It worked reasonably well, because Frentzen outqualified the Jaguars, who were always our target, since we had the same engine. With more resources, I honestly think we could realistically have aimed for 5th place in the constructors championship. The BAR wasn't very good, same for the Jordan and the Jaguar, so I do think we could have rivalled Sauber. The Cosworth CR-4 was a seriously good engine all-round, with very good power, decent torque and very good fuel consumption.

[midgrid]

Re 2006 aero arguments, don't forget BMW Sauber's "twin towers" bolted onto the nose for the French Grand Prix and banned thereafter.

On a similar note, Jordan and Arrows both tried wings mounted in front of the cockpit during free practice for the 2001 Monaco Grand Prix, but these were banned before qualifying for safety reasons. The "X-wings" pioneered by Tyrrell in 1997 and adopted by almost all of the other teams in 1998 were also banned for safety reasons, after Jean Alesi tore one of his off on an air line in the pit lane during the 1998 Argentine Grand Prix.

Just remembered that because of Senna's pole positions, people were questioning whether the 1986 Lotus was legal or not. Although I can't remember what they were specifically being acused of? (perhaps someone else can remember).

All I remember is that in Mexico 1986, Lotus put out a press statement basically saying; 'we are sick of all the allegations of cheating we have had, if other teams think we are cheating then stop acusing us & prove it'.

In the official season video review, narrated by Clive James, he says at one point after another Senna pole position, "although some thought his whole car was a qualifying tyre".

[Faustus]

I am surprised just how many examples there are. Indeed it makes you wonder just how many more might have gone undetected?

I think it's damn near impossible to conceive just how many illegalities have gone unnoticed. I remember talking at great length at the 2007 FIA GT race at Silverstone to a mate who is a suspension design engineer at Force India (he was with them back then, or rather Spyker) and he was 100% convinced that every car on the grid was, to a lesser or greater extent, illegal to the letter of the regulations. Including Spyker.

[mario]

I am surprised just how many examples there are. Indeed it makes you wonder just how many more might have gone undetected?

I think it's damn near impossible to conceive just how many illegalities have gone unnoticed. I remember talking at great length at the 2007 FIA GT race at Silverstone to a mate who is a suspension design engineer at Force India (he was with them back then, or rather Spyker) and he was 100% convinced that every car on the grid was, to a lesser or greater extent, illegal to the letter of the regulations. Including Spyker.

Exactly - many of the examples that we have mentioned were those which were found out about - countless other ways will have got past the public and the FIA over the years. After all, with the rules as they are, one persons grey area will be what Roger Penske called "the unfair advantage" he always sought (i.e. ways that were not necessarily illegal going by the letter of the rules, but perhaps against the spirit of the rules whatever that may be judged to be).

Just remembered that because of Senna's pole positions, people were questioning whether the 1986 Lotus was legal or not. Although I can't remember what they were specifically being acused of? (perhaps someone else can remember).

All I remember is that in Mexico 1986, Lotus put out a press statement basically saying; 'we are sick of all the allegations of cheating we have had, if other teams think we are cheating then stop acusing us & prove it'.

In reaction to this Williams put out a very funny press release jokely saying something along the lines of ' we do not think the Lotus car is illegal & we do not wish to protest it.'

I have to say, I really am surprised, and glad, to see how quickly this thread has expanded - especially with some of the more amusing or technically interesting examples of rule bending.

It's a great thread, so thank you for starting it Mario. I am surprised just how many examples there are. Indeed it makes you wonder just how many more might have gone undetected?

I think that one of the bones of contention on the 98T was the suspension system - it featured a system that allowed the driver to adjust the ride height, which some of the other teams might not have been entirely happy about. Considering that Lotus were working on active suspension systems (indeed, the 99T featured an early form of active suspension, which was why the car was so competitive on street tracks and bumpy circuits), perhaps the teams suspected that the 98T might have had such a feature? Still, it was one of those cars where the rumours swirled around it, but never quite seemed to take on a definite form, or result in any form of protest.