Debate about diffusers [Archive]

jens

21st March 2009, 20:25

With recent row about points system there has been a lot of criticism towards FIA, but now another matter is emerging right before the start of the season. Jeez, didn't they find a better time to find a solution to this matter?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73816

Didn't FIA announce in Februrary that the diffusers of Toyota and Williams were legal?

Well, at worst case scenario stewards will declare the diffusers of BrawnGP, Toyota and Williams illegal at the Australian Grand Prix weekend. If that happened, it would be a total farce in F1. The seasons of three teams will be thrown into the bin with immediate effect. So far their diffusers have been considered to be "within the wording of the regulations" and now they don't have enough time to design a new one. But now there seems to exist some kind of uncertainty about that matter...

Nikki Katz

21st March 2009, 20:32

I don't think they're going to do anything about it before the next race, maybe not even before the second. The worst case scenario would be the six cars being disqualified from the first few races at a court decision some time in May.

ioan

22nd March 2009, 11:25

We'll see what the scrutineers say on Thursday.
Than we'll see if it's true that 2 teams have already submitted a complaint to the FIA.
Also we will see Saturday if those teams with "better developed" diffusers will be faster or not.

philipbain

22nd March 2009, 11:38

The diffusers comply with the wording of the law, what the teams that have not made optimised diffusers are bitching about is the fact that they claim they don't comply with the spirit of the law, but then you could use the same argument to get rid of the ugly fences on the front of the sidepods of the Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, Williams, Toyota, BMW, Red Bull, STR & Force India as end fences are allowed in the wording of the rules but go against the mandate of eliminating flip ups, bargeboards and turning vanes. The main problem for the teams that didnt take advantage of the diffuser regs to make an optimal design is that they can't just adapt thier cars to a copy cat design overnight as integral to this interpretation is the shaping of the rear crash structure, this would require a substantial re-design of the rear end to incorporate, so Williams, Toyota and Brawn have stolen the march on the rest of the teams in this area. I am hoping that the wording of the law is upheld and these diffusers are allowed the stay, it comes back to what Max was saying with his plans for budget caps - it should be about out-thinking, not out-spending!

jens

22nd March 2009, 12:11

Robinho

22nd March 2009, 12:41

they'll be declared legal at the race, which will be appealed and then probably upheld, but the rules will be tightened up, OR, they'll be delacred illegal after the race, which will be appealed, and uphed and the rules tightened up.

Bagwan

22nd March 2009, 13:02

I actually suspect that the diffuser-issue may well be Max's next card to try to break the unity of FOTA. Strange that for some time there was silence about the matter, but right after the scandal about points-system arose, Max has decided to turn his attention to the diffusers too, which will give a real test to the strength of FOTA.

Nail hit , right on the head , Jens .
Late timing of the stupid "winner wins", developed out of the Olympic medals gambit has left the diffuser issue until the last moment .

The idea is all about headlines . Controversy breeds lines of text .

I suspect we'll have 4 races with the diffusers before the rules will be amended .
And , that we'll have 14 pages of debate about what they will do .

F1boat

22nd March 2009, 13:03

IMO they will be declared illegal for the European part of the season.

ShiftingGears

22nd March 2009, 13:03

I would not at all be surprised if the FIA moved the goalposts halfway through the season.

wmcot

23rd March 2009, 06:43

I would not at all be surprised if the FIA moved the goalposts halfway through the season.

So which teams are running with goalposts? ;)

AndyL

23rd March 2009, 11:14

ArrowsFA1

23rd March 2009, 11:31

Didn't FIA announce in Februrary that the diffusers of Toyota and Williams were legal?

The rear diffusers of the Toyota and Williams teams have been cleared by Formula One's governing body, according to FIA president Max Mosley.
February 5th 2009 - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

PolePosition_1

23rd March 2009, 11:44

February 5th 2009 - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

Its irrelevant if the FIA say they're legal or not, it'll be up the Stewards whether or not they're legal or not.

The FIA can only simply give its opinion.

Article today on Max, where he is quoted as saying it could go either way.

If Ferrari are one to lodge a protest, it'll highlight huge hypocrisy on their behalf after their floor boards they brought to Australia in 2007.

Knock-on

23rd March 2009, 13:14

It seems bonkers that the FIA can say something is legal and the Stewards something different.

Still, not like it's not happened before :rolleyes:

Yet more controvacy brewing to further mire what should have been a great season.

PolePosition_1

23rd March 2009, 14:00

It seems bonkers that the FIA can say something is legal and the Stewards something different.

It is pretty shocking and just highlights how subjective the Formula 1 rules are, theres no clear right or wrong.

Who would have the final say in this? Max says its up the the Stewards? But I remember in 2006 with the mass dampers, Renault were told by the FIA (Ferrari International Assistance ??) that it was illegal, and the Stewards said it was legal.

That would suggest that it only goes to the FIA to decide if the Steward decision is appealed?

ioan

23rd March 2009, 22:59

If Ferrari are one to lodge a protest, it'll highlight huge hypocrisy on their behalf after their floor boards they brought to Australia in 2007.

Calm down.
When did Ferrari lodge a protest against any team in the last 10 years for example (2007 move against McLaren doesn't qualify for this)?!

As far as I can remember most protest in f1 in the last few years have been lodged by McLaren (who always seek clarification of rules in order to get others ideas banned).

ioan

23rd March 2009, 23:00

This leaves the door wide open:

"The current FIA view is that Williams and Toyota have been clever and have exploited the wording of the rules in a clever way. But somebody may challenge it and the stewards may take a different view - it could happen.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

Notice the use of "current view", also "the stewards may take a different view", and "it could happen"?!

christophulus

23rd March 2009, 23:36

Tazio

24th March 2009, 01:07

The thing that puzzles me is that if it's a "grey area", surely it has to be legal? If it isn't specifically banned then it's fair game I would have thought.

It's the FIA's fault for not making the regulations clear enough, three teams have found an intelligent way of "interpreting" the regulations and therefore in my view have done nothing wrong. It's stupid to have a system where the FIA can say one thing and the stewards another, but what else did we expect?? :) SD seems to agree to at least part of your comments:

"In Italy, Stefano Domenicali, the Ferrari team principal, has urged the FIA to clarify the legality of the diffusers at the rear of the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams cars. Domenicali is convinced that the cars are illegal and he wants a ruling on the matter before protests from his and other teams are issued in Melbourne."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article5962563.ece

PitMarshal

24th March 2009, 07:38

Has anyone seen a full explanation of what the problem is supposed to be with the Williams/Brawn/Toyota diffusers? According to that Autosport article the other teams think they are "unfairly using a bigger diffuser," while the FIA says they are "within the wording of the regulations." Obviously two different interpretations of the facts, but what are the facts?

Autosport tried to explain this a while back. I can't find the article, but from what I remember there is a maximin height for the diffuser as measured from the ground, but the top of the diffuser also has to connect to the floorpan/undertray at the rear of the car. What Williams and the rest have done is basically raise the floor in that area, and then use struts to connect the diffuser to the floorpan, in effect using the floorpan to create a 'double-deck' diffuser.
Personally I can't see what the problem is. If the main body of the diffuser is within the height requirement, and there is nothing to state that the floorpan actually has to be in contact with the diffuser along its entire length, then it's legal. And after all, for the last few years a large part of the millions that teams spend in F1 has been devoted to finding 'grey areas' in the rule book. I'm not Ferrari bashing here but does anyone remember the issue over their barge-boards a couple of seasons back? Or Honda retiring both their cars so that they could fit new engines for the next race without being penalised?
Of course what is going to govern all of this will be the performance of the cars at Melbourne. If they wipe the floor with everyone else then expect protest galore. If they don't, expect the issue to quietly go away.

Dave B

24th March 2009, 09:59

What kind of stupid situation are we in where 3 teams have stated which parts they intend to run in Australia and yet there's still debate as to their legality? We could have the embarassing sight of cars which have done well in the race being disqualified afterwards on a technicality, confusing and alienating viewers and fans.

ArrowsFA1

24th March 2009, 10:13

What kind of stupid situation are we in where 3 teams have stated which parts they intend to run in Australia and yet there's still debate as to their legality?
Particularly as there was known to be an issue back in January (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73038). Almost two months later the FIA now says (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73816) there isn't time to clarify the rules and, as a result, this "will probably come to some sort of a head in Australia" :dozey:

ioan

24th March 2009, 11:10

The thing that puzzles me is that if it's a "grey area", surely it has to be legal? If it isn't specifically banned then it's fair game I would have thought.

It was the same with the flex of the Ferrari floor last season, it passed all the scrutineering tests, still the FIA changed the tests for the next GP.

AndyL

24th March 2009, 11:23

Autosport tried to explain this a while back. I can't find the article, but from what I remember there is a maximin height for the diffuser as measured from the ground, but the top of the diffuser also has to connect to the floorpan/undertray at the rear of the car. What Williams and the rest have done is basically raise the floor in that area, and then use struts to connect the diffuser to the floorpan, in effect using the floorpan to create a 'double-deck' diffuser.

Thanks for that PitMarshal. I also subsequently found this diagram on the F1 web site:
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/0/623.html
which seems to show what you're referring to. Dated 2nd February :rolleyes:

This makes the position of Williams, Brawn and Toyota look a bit weaker in my eyes... if the high floor of the car is acting as a diffuser, doesn't that mean it is a diffuser? And therefore subject to the height limit for a diffuser?

Wasted Talent

24th March 2009, 11:52

Bagwan

24th March 2009, 13:27

It is not so abnormal that the teams try constantly to interpret the rules to thier advantage .
They found an area where the regs , in thier interpretation , where they can gain some down force .

The others will have the same idea on the boards , or even farther in process , in case the protest doesn't work .
They will happily run with the same extra diffuser bits if they are seen to be ok with the stewards . They will just be behind in the development of it .

As I see it , the teams running with the new bits have found a reasonable loop-hole . They will be raced , and the decision will not be to disqualify , but to re-write the rules to greater clarify that it is not allowed .
It will be a "spirit of the rules" issue , and will take effect 4 races in , if the rules will be changed at all .

It seems to me that the issue could not have been sorted out better , if you look at it this way :
The new diffuser design did not happen over night . It took a lot of time to produce , as all F1 parts do when new . It is the issue all teams without it face .
To remove it now dumps those teams , having tested the car with the device , immediately in the bin . That's not a good option .
The other teams , at this point , will have developed a similar option , and it will continue if the idea is accepted .
So , they will not be as far behind .

If the FIA state that it is legal or illegal now , or through it's stewards at the race in a few days , it will set the teams on the same road at the same time .

They will all know how fast it is for real , and FOTA will have to ask itself which road is the better one .
If it's that much faster that it has those teams way down the road , then it's no good .
If it's that much faster that it brings in some different players in the mix , levelling the field for these first few races , then it it's good .

It's good for the suspense factor , and quite possibly will produce some fine racing , one way or the other .

Essentially , the FIA seems to be setting FOTA up for a fall , but it might just see the solidification of the whole thing .

Hopefully FOTA can rule the heads of those who might protest , and ask them first if a protest is indeed the right road .

ArrowsFA1

24th March 2009, 15:22

ioan

24th March 2009, 15:59

This makes the position of Williams, Brawn and Toyota look a bit weaker in my eyes... if the high floor of the car is acting as a diffuser, doesn't that mean it is a diffuser? And therefore subject to the height limit for a diffuser?

Agree.
It not only acts like one but it also looks like one.
Those teams are in fact running a double diffuser.

We could call a horse a mule, it will still be a horse. The same with this diffuser charade.

ioan

24th March 2009, 16:02

Red Bull Racing has said it will protest rival Brawn GP over the design of its diffuser if the team's current design passes scrutineering at Melbourne on Thursday.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73876

If indeed they asked the FIA about the implementation of a similar concept in their car and they were told it wouldn't be legal, than they are right to complain.

How the heck can the FIA technical guys be so dumbe to say no to one team last season and say yes to other teams now?!

V12

24th March 2009, 17:10

IMO "spirit of the law" shouldn't come into it. This is a technical competition, not a tea party. Either it's legal or it ain't. If you manage to find a loophole that can be exploited, well call me old fashioned but I've always believed in rewarding intelligence and original thinking, not punishing it.

Buy all means adapt the 2010 rules to close this loophole, but in the mean time, anyone who hasn't been clever enough needs to just suck it up.

24th March 2009, 17:15

What kind of stupid situation are we in where 3 teams have stated which parts they intend to run in Australia and yet there's still debate as to their legality?

The same "stupid situation" there has been for years. The same "stupid situation" that has been in existence since you and I first started watching.

Hasn't put us off yet.

Teams will always turn up with something that has interpreted the rules in ways that weren't the intention of the rule. That's the case in every level of motorsport, FIA run or otherwise.

It's always left to the race scrutineers to make a decision as to legality. Always has, always will be.

Colin Chapman fell foul of that, and he wasn't alone or unusual.

The fault, if that is what you believe it to be, isn't with the organisers, it's with the concept of competition....which is the reason we watch in the first place.

Catch 22.

24th March 2009, 17:17

IMO "spirit of the law" shouldn't come into it.

Welcome to the minority.

Unfortunately, there are those out there for whom this isn't a contest of intelligence, but one of moral superiority.

Fortunately, moral superiority doesn't count for championship points.

F1boat

24th March 2009, 18:42

I hope that these three teams are given green light :)

jens

24th March 2009, 19:46

Obviously it won't be easy to make a clear-cut one-sided decision for the stewards' either. There is a notable risk in declaring all three diffusers illegal: not only will the tightness of competition decrease, but it could well mean Toyota's decisive departure from F1 and greater financial uncertainty for Williams and Brawn GP. It's a game with high odds.

The key question remains: Will FOTA see this Max's attempt to brake their unity through and do they manage to respond accordingly without creating too much rifts in themselves?

BDunnell

24th March 2009, 19:49

The same "stupid situation" there has been for years. The same "stupid situation" that has been in existence since you and I first started watching.

Hasn't put us off yet.

Teams will always turn up with something that has interpreted the rules in ways that weren't the intention of the rule. That's the case in every level of motorsport, FIA run or otherwise.

It's always left to the race scrutineers to make a decision as to legality. Always has, always will be.

Colin Chapman fell foul of that, and he wasn't alone or unusual.

The fault, if that is what you believe it to be, isn't with the organisers, it's with the concept of competition....which is the reason we watch in the first place.

Catch 22.

But the result that does no-one, nor the concept of competition, any good is post-race dispute and exclusion.

F1boat

24th March 2009, 20:37

donKey jote

24th March 2009, 21:37

Agree.
It not only acts like one but it also looks like one.
Those teams are in fact running a double diffuser.

We could call a horse a mule, it will still be a horse. The same with this diffuser charade.

Or you could call a mass-damper an aerodynamic device, and then it would become an aerodynamic device :p :

Expect a rule "clarification" in time for Europe.

SGWilko

24th March 2009, 23:00

So which teams are running with goalposts? ;)

Now don't be silly, we all know that the teams running goalposts will be declared illegal, appealed, annointed, christened, touched, tweaked and then decleared legal, until the rings around uranus start interfering with Bernies divorce and Max's bottom starts to bleed again. At which point, all teams will be required to field a pair of Routmaster buses complete with conductor and foul mouthed driver..........

What will eventually be allowed will be a basketball net ;)

SGWilko

24th March 2009, 23:02

Or you could call a mass-damper an aerodynamic device, and then it would become an aerodynamic device :p :

Expect a rule "clarification" in time for Europe.

If I drive fast enough, my nostril hair becomes an aerodynamic device. Heck, even Max's tickle stick creates a vortex at n+120 mph.........

SGWilko

24th March 2009, 23:11

"unfairly using a bigger diffuser,"

Right, that's it. I want to make a complaint.

My wife ran off with the bloke from the Carribean next door, I want to complain that he was unfairly using a bigger.................

;) :laugh:

I hope that no-one thinks that is racist. Sizeist perhaps........

ioan

25th March 2009, 00:44

Now don't be silly, we all know that the teams running goalposts will be declared illegal, appealed, annointed, christened, touched, tweaked and then decleared legal, until the rings around uranus start interfering with Bernies divorce and Max's bottom starts to bleed again. At which point, all teams will be required to field a pair of Routmaster buses complete with conductor and foul mouthed driver..........

What will eventually be allowed will be a basketball net ;)

I'd hazard a guess, that the rings around Saturn will be the ones at fault this season.

ArrowsFA1

25th March 2009, 08:35

25th March 2009, 09:16

Although suggestion that he's rubbing those hands together at the prospect of the (FOTA) teams protesting each other is, of course, wide of the mark :D

It was only a matter of time anyway.

25th March 2009, 09:19

But the result that does no-one, nor the concept of competition, any good is post-race dispute and exclusion.

It's happened before and it will happen again.

Post-race exclusions are part and parcel of interpreting the rule-book. If you don't want to run that risk, then don't interpret the regulations in anyway other than with that mythical "spirit of the law" translator.

It's simple.

Knock-on

25th March 2009, 09:44

According (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37262) to the FIA President it's "not my job" to make a decision either way, so he's washed his hands of this one :p : Although suggestion that he's rubbing those hands together at the prospect of the (FOTA) teams protesting each other is, of course, wide of the mark :D

But hasn't he already confirmed that they are legal?

As per usual, we are furtleing towards a cockup with eyes open wide, knowing the impact is going to happen and not being able to prevent it.

Groundhog day!

ArrowsFA1

25th March 2009, 09:59

But hasn't he already confirmed that they are legal?
Sam Michael of Williams clearly thinks so:

"To be honest we were surprised that it even turned into an issue because for us it was very clearly inside the regulations. It was something that in various forms teams have been doing for two years, so it wasn't really a big issue for us or the FIA. So it was something that we clarified with the FIA well over a year ago."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73888

ozrevhead

25th March 2009, 10:18

I dont know much but from my bro who keeps more inline with F1 than me said that some teams asked to use the defusers ages ago and were refused and now after they modifed the car (and i think they cant use them due to how the back is built) they can use it again

thats grosly unfair -ether its banned or it isnt

25th March 2009, 10:24

But hasn't he already confirmed that they are legal?

With all due respect, the Ferrari "Spring Floor" was passed as legal before the 2007 Australian GP.

Then, after a query after the race, it was deemed illegal before Malaysia.

I mention it only because that is a very similar situation to the current diffuser debate.

At the time, everybody bar Ferrari fans were very happy with that decision.

Same system now and the same people who were happy then are now complaining.

The only consistent thing is the FIA.

25th March 2009, 10:29

Oh, and it's now Max's fault that he isn't a Chief Scrutineer?

SGWilko

25th March 2009, 10:38

Oh, and it's now Max's fault that he isn't a Chief Scrutineer?

Not at all, but Max needs to poke his nose elsewhere if he doesn't want the grief.

And you are correct above about the FIA being consistent - consistently inconsistent.

Next to be protested will be all these pseudo flip ups and turning vanes in a tit-for-tat spat between teams.

It is the FIA's appointed halfwit, sorry, Charley Farley and his band of merry men that have caused this. They allow some designs but not others? For the simple reason that they are not technically savvy in such matters and are very clearly not fit for the jobs they pretend to be able to do.

SGWilko

25th March 2009, 10:40

Not at all, but Max needs to poke his nose elsewhere if he doesn't want the grief.

And you are correct above about the FIA being consistent - consistently inconsistent.

Next to be protested will be all these pseudo flip ups and turning vanes in a tit-for-tat spat between teams.

It is the FIA's appointed halfwit, sorry, Charley Farley and his band of merry men that have caused this. They allow some designs but not others? For the simple reason that they are not technically savvy in such matters and are very clearly not fit for the jobs they pretend to be able to do.

And of course, in hearing the protest, it falls to another set of eejots to decide what is and is not legal.

Christ on a bike, what a farce......

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 10:41

Calm down.
When did Ferrari lodge a protest against any team in the last 10 years for example (2007 move against McLaren doesn't qualify for this)?!

As far as I can remember most protest in f1 in the last few years have been lodged by McLaren (who always seek clarification of rules in order to get others ideas banned).

I'm merely making the point of the hypocrisy IF they did protest.

Quote from SD ""We are convinced that certain interpretations that have been applied do not correspond to the nature of the rules," - but he also says he hopes protest wouldn't be needed, which is positive.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7962869.stm

I have to say, the respect I have for Ferrari grows everytime I read the opinion of SD, he really seems to work for Ferrari, and has the interest of the sport at the same time, he seems to be in tune to whats needed.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 10:42

It was the same with the flex of the Ferrari floor last season, it passed all the scrutineering tests, still the FIA changed the tests for the next GP.

I think you mean 2007 ;)

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 10:47

Welcome to the minority.

Unfortunately, there are those out there for whom this isn't a contest of intelligence, but one of moral superiority.

Fortunately, moral superiority doesn't count for championship points.

I agree, I think they should declare it legal from what I've understood.

However what I would be against is a blatant breach of the rules, i.e. racing an illegal car, but hiding it by tricking the tests. I.e. Ferrari floor boards 2007.

25th March 2009, 10:50

And you are correct above about the FIA being consistent - consistently inconsistent.

So can you tell me when the FIA scrutineers declared a car illegal or legal before it was scrutineered?

If they haven't done that before, then they are being consistent now.

BDunnell

25th March 2009, 10:56

ArrowsFA1

25th March 2009, 11:03

Same system now and the same people who were happy then are now complaining.

The only consistent thing is the FIA.
I think the difference here is the FIA had the opportunity to examine the issue, and the different interpretations of the rules by the various teams, as it was brought before them well before the first race of the season. That wasn't the case in 2007.

We have the FIA President saying (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73816) "you can make a very good case for saying that it's legal and a very good case for saying that it's illegal." That may well be true, but it gives the impression of not exactly wanting to avoid controversy when ultimately it is for the FIA to decide what is, or isn't legal. They make the rules, and they police the rules.

Certainly it is the job of the stewards to look at the cars at each race but if they declare something illegal there is invariably an appeal, which sends the issue right back to the FIA to rule on. If that happens this weekend then we're back to where we were in January (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73058), and it all seems avoidable.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 11:58

With all due respect, the Ferrari "Spring Floor" was passed as legal before the 2007 Australian GP.

Then, after a query after the race, it was deemed illegal before Malaysia.

I mention it only because that is a very similar situation to the current diffuser debate.

At the time, everybody bar Ferrari fans were very happy with that decision.

Same system now and the same people who were happy then are now complaining.

The only consistent thing is the FIA.

To be fair they're not similar situations at all.

One is an interpretation of the rules.

The other is decieving the tests put in place to uphold the rules. In racing conditions, if you could test the car, the car was illegal.

Unless your arguing the rules should only be followed when they're scruitineering the cars, then fair enough. But that means you'd also be for maybe flexi wings which can be activated during the race etc etc, which I think we all agree is illegal.

Don't get me wrong, it was very clever of Ferrari, but to say it was a legal car, when in racing conditions it was illegal, is totally different to an interpretation of the rules as is currently the case with the diffusers.

Dave B

25th March 2009, 12:04

Just landed in Melbourne and I see that Red Bull has confirmed that it will protest the diffuser on the Brawn car, which it believes is worth half a second per lap.

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/protest-on-brawn-imminent/

:rolleyes:

ioan

25th March 2009, 12:16

With all due respect, the Ferrari "Spring Floor" was passed as legal before the 2007 Australian GP.

Then, after a query after the race, it was deemed illegal before Malaysia.

It was never deemed illegal but the rule were changed to make it useless.

ioan

25th March 2009, 12:20

In racing conditions, if you could test the car, the car was illegal.

What a nonsense.
The rules are defined as static rules exactly because they can't test these parts while running at 200 mph!
Did the floor pass the tests? It did!
Was it declared illegal? It wasn't!
What did the FIA? Change the rules to make the floor useless!

You only need a bit of objectivity to understand the situation.

ioan

25th March 2009, 12:23

I think you mean 2007 ;)

Yeah, you are right! I'm getting old! :(

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 12:51

It was never deemed illegal but the rule were changed to make it useless.

How do you work that one out? Charlie Whiting was shown a design of what Ferrari had and is quoted as that that would be illegal.

Sleeper

25th March 2009, 13:02

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73876
Thats a rather hipocritical statement from Helmut Marko as Autosport asked Adrien Newey directly at the launch of the RB5 what he thought of the Williams and Toyota diffusers and said he thought they were completely legal, but he didnt see a huge gain from them which is why the RB cars dont have them.

People have posted that the three teams are using the floor pan as part of the diffuser, but what I've read say's its the crash structure thats been shaped toact with the diffuser. rather like Renaults rear suspension was a few years ago (a design that everyone later copied). There's a big difference there as the CS is consider an unsprung part of the car and the floor pan isnt and thats why the FIA said they thought it was finebecause it exploits the wording of the rules, just as moving the sidepods back to allow for barge boards does on other cars. My worry is if its deemed ilegal, what will happen because you cant re-design the crash structure, crash test it and get it on the car within a week for Malaysia. And thats only if they are thrown out after Melbourn, if its ater scrutineering, then we're looking at the first two races being contested by 14 cars, and the contracts with FOM say they musty have 16 cars on the grid.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 13:03

What a nonsense.
The rules are defined as static rules exactly because they can't test these parts while running at 200 mph!
Did the floor pass the tests? It did!
Was it declared illegal? It wasn't!
What did the FIA? Change the rules to make the floor useless!

You only need a bit of objectivity to understand the situation.

The FIA were alerted to the issue when, rather cheekily, McLaren wrote to Charlie Whiting, the FIA's Technical Delegate, asking if they could mount a system that would pass the scrutineering test but would deflect upwards in a straight line. Obviously the FIA's response was a resounding "no" and they then adjusted their test for the next race in Malaysia. All the teams competing passed the new test, although some had to make modifications to the floor of their cars.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what more evidence is needed to say it was illegal. The FIA saying it was illegal.

Were Ferrari right to race it knowing it was breaking the rules, but wouldn't get caught? No there you've got a case. But to say it was legal, when the FIA said it was illegal, I'm sorry, but we're not talking subjective, its either legal or not, and the FIA said it was not.

ioan

25th March 2009, 13:28

How do you work that one out? Charlie Whiting was shown a design of what Ferrari had and is quoted as that that would be illegal.

Everyone can run their mouths and say whatever they want, and Charlie is pants and his opinion isn't worth a dime as we saw after Spa 2008.
Show me the official FIA release that states the F2007 had an illegal floor.

An other argument is that f the floor was declared illegal than there would have been no use changing the rules, isn't it?

ioan

25th March 2009, 13:32

Thats a rather hipocritical statement from Helmut Marko as Autosport asked Adrien Newey directly at the launch of the RB5 what he thought of the Williams and Toyota diffusers and said he thought they were completely legal, but he didnt see a huge gain from them which is why the RB cars dont have them.

People have posted that the three teams are using the floor pan as part of the diffuser, but what I've read say's its the crash structure thats been shaped toact with the diffuser. rather like Renaults rear suspension was a few years ago (a design that everyone later copied). There's a big difference there as the CS is consider an unsprung part of the car and the floor pan isnt and thats why the FIA said they thought it was finebecause it exploits the wording of the rules, just as moving the sidepods back to allow for barge boards does on other cars. My worry is if its deemed ilegal, what will happen because you cant re-design the crash structure, crash test it and get it on the car within a week for Malaysia. And thats only if they are thrown out after Melbourn, if its ater scrutineering, then we're looking at the first two races being contested by 14 cars, and the contracts with FOM say they musty have 16 cars on the grid.

Excellent post! :up:

Knock-on

25th March 2009, 13:36

Stefano is spon on with this statement:

"We are convinced that certain interpretations that have been applied do not correspond to the nature of the rules," he said.

"If that extractor is illegal then it must not be used, while if it is legal it's up to the other teams, including us, to try to adapt as soon as possible, because performance is found in that area of the car."

"There needs to be a great sense of responsibility on everyone's part. I hope this issue can be resolved beforehand."

All we need is clarification at scrutineering at the latest. It would be nice if we could have sorted it already as I thought it had been.

As it is, if it fails scrutineering, the 3 teams will have to patch it up to negate the effect (although Toyota have a redesigned diffuser).

It's not worth going over the Ferrari 07 moveable floor as it's been done to death. It worked in a way that was illegal but was built in such a way to pass the tests. McLaren asked if they could build one and were told that if they did, it would be illegal. Ferrari had raced it but subsequently changed the design so it was legal.

The FIA never said the Ferrari was illegal and when they changed the design it complied with the regulations and test.

End of story.

ioan

25th March 2009, 13:42

[b]The FIA were alerted to the issue when, rather cheekily, McLaren wrote to Charlie Whiting, the FIA's Technical Delegate, asking if they could mount a system that would pass the scrutineering test but would deflect upwards in a straight line.

You call it cheeky I call it hypocrite. It's the same thing McLaren did with regards to Renault's mass damper system.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what more evidence is needed to say it was illegal. The FIA saying it was illegal.

Told you I want a link to a FIA official paper saying the car was illegal.

Were Ferrari right to race it knowing it was breaking the rules, but wouldn't get caught? No there you've got a case. But to say it was legal, when the FIA said it was illegal, I'm sorry, but we're not talking subjective, its either legal or not, and the FIA said it was not.

I don't see where is your written proof that the Ferrari was declared illegal in Oz 2007.
You know where the FIA internet site is? You'll find each and every press release there. Bring me the one that says that the Ferrari ran an illegal car in Melbourne in 2007!

You know where to find me if you ever got the proof to your allegations.

25th March 2009, 13:52

Not everybody's opinion is based on their own personal bias towards/against one team, thank you very much.

I do apologise, I forgot about the Dalai Lama's amongst us.

25th March 2009, 13:56

To be fair they're not similar situations at all.

One is an interpretation of the rules.

The other is decieving the tests put in place to uphold the rules.

And the latter is not an interpretation of the regulations? Seems it is to me.

Unless your arguing the rules should only be followed when they're scruitineering the cars, then fair enough.

Me? A former employee of several F1 teams, arguing that? Shudder the thought.....except....That's exactly what happens and always has.

So long as a car is passed legal, there is no case to answer.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 14:21

Everyone can run their mouths and say whatever they want, and Charlie is pants and his opinion isn't worth a dime as we saw after Spa 2008.
Show me the official FIA release that states the F2007 had an illegal floor.

An other argument is that f the floor was declared illegal than there would have been no use changing the rules, isn't it?

Erm, if your just going to argue back with "charlie opinion is worthless", I can't really say much.

Its like the police saying murder is illegal, and your argument is "well the police are crap etc etc" - its not really a valid argument.

Charlie Whiting actually corrected himself in Spa 2008 and said that Hamilton should have given place back, but by that time Kimi had crashed it.

There is no official FIA press release that states it was illegal Ioan, as you well know, it was never protested nor was it ever a subject talked about, so there wouldn't be.

But McLaren gave an exact example of what Ferrari had, the Charlie Whiting said it was illegal, if you disagree fair enough, but your views have no substance behind them.

And once again your no reading my posts well, maybe its because English isn't your first language so slightly inferior, but the car wasn't illegal during scutineering, as it was designed to cheat the tests in place, it was only illegal during race conditions, hence fact when tests put the car in a closer race type situation, they had to change it because they knew it wouldn't pass.

Knock-on

25th March 2009, 14:22

So long as a car is passed legal, there is no case to answer.

That's the way it should be but isn't as we all know.

Teams get told they are in compliance by the FIA and then find they are not with the Scruitneers or the car is passed and then the FIA come in and decide to do their own test or even the FIA state something is OK and then appeal to the Stewards that it isn't after a race.

It's all very confusing and doesn't need to be.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 14:26

You call it cheeky I call it hypocrite. It's the same thing McLaren did with regards to Renault's mass damper system.

Told you I want a link to a FIA official paper saying the car was illegal.

I don't see where is your written proof that the Ferrari was declared illegal in Oz 2007.
You know where the FIA internet site is? You'll find each and every press release there. Bring me the one that says that the Ferrari ran an illegal car in Melbourne in 2007!

You know where to find me if you ever got the proof to your allegations.

How can you say its the same thing as the mass damper? The FIA and Stewards knew exactly its role and what it did, for over a year. Only because McLaren saw it as having a different function, was it deemed illegal. And even then the Stewards said it was legal, and it would have passed the tests. Renault and co only removed it for fear of it being protested and disqualified at a later date.

The two situations cannot really be compared.

Regarding press release, once again, there is no press release. But there is conclusive evidence which leads us to believe beyond doubt that the car raced at Melbourne 2007 was illegal.

All due respect here Ioan, but I find it hard to have an intelligent debate with you, when your so blinded by your love for Ferrari.

Can I ask, Do you believe that the Ferrari raced in Melbourne 2007 would have passed the Stewards at the following race?

ioan

25th March 2009, 14:26

Erm, if your just going to argue back with "charlie opinion is worthless", I can't really say much.

I argued with more than that.
Now where are your arguments? I'm stil waiting for the official FIA press release that you should find in case the FIA ever declare the Ferrari F2007 floor illegal.

You know how it is everyone is considered not guilty til proven otherwise, so get to work, start searching for that press release.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 14:28

And the latter is not an interpretation of the regulations? Seems it is to me.

Me? A former employee of several F1 teams, arguing that? Shudder the thought.....except....That's exactly what happens and always has.

So long as a car is passed legal, there is no case to answer.

Ok, so say the engine is limited to 17,000rpm, but theres a secret button which removes the limiter during the race. Does that mean its legal?

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 14:29

I argued with more than that.
Now where are your arguments? I'm stil waiting for the official FIA press release that you should find in case the FIA ever declare the Ferrari F2007 floor illegal.

You know how it is everyone is considered not guilty til proven otherwise, so get to work, start searching for that press release.

I'll repeat myself for the 3rd time, because your English is obviously worse than I previously thought.

There is no FIA press release.

Just confirmation from Charlie Whiting that such a system is illegal.

25th March 2009, 14:31

Ok, so say the engine is limited to 17,000rpm, but theres a secret button which removes the limiter during the race. Does that mean its legal?

Very much depends on if it can be proved....and proved that it was ever used in the race.

Just having a secret button isn't enough proof, as I well know.

ioan

25th March 2009, 14:36

How can you say its the same thing as the mass damper? The FIA and Stewards knew exactly its role and what it did, for over a year. Only because McLaren saw it as having a different function, was it deemed illegal. And even then the Stewards said it was legal, and it would have passed the tests. Renault and co only removed it for fear of it being protested and disqualified at a later date.

I did say that McLaren was using the same tactics, I never said it was the same case.

The two situations cannot really be compared.

They can, but not from the POV you are using. See above.

Regarding press release, once again, there is no press release.

Thanks for admiting that you were talking bollocks. Case close.

All due respect here Ioan, but I find it hard to have an intelligent debate with
you...

Same here, and I will not resort to sub par tactics like these:

... when your so blinded by your love for Ferrari.

Can I ask, Do you believe that the Ferrari raced in Melbourne 2007 would have passed the Stewards at the following race?

Sure you can ask. The answer is yes, if the rules were the same!
Now let me ask you: were the rules the same in Malaysia as Australia?!

I hope you see one day how far up sh!t creek you are without any paddle.

25th March 2009, 14:39

That's the way it should be but isn't as we all know.

Teams get told they are in compliance by the FIA and then find they are not with the Scruitneers or the car is passed and then the FIA come in and decide to do their own test or even the FIA state something is OK and then appeal to the Stewards that it isn't after a race.

It's all very confusing and doesn't need to be.

It's the way it always is. Teams make something then see if they can get away with it.

In some instances, it's one race (Australia 2007, Sweden 1978), in others it's half a season (Renault 2006) and in others it's one practice session (Mclaren Australia 98, Lotus Silverstone 81)

The regulators and the scrutineers are, and always have been, one step behind the inventions of the teams.

It is what it is. Having regulations so tight that nothing can be done different would immediately destroy what is a crucial part of F1.

Which is why the FIA can't win. Those who were horrified at a spec series as proposed by Max are mostly the same people getting wound up by the FIA not stamping out differences in diffusers before scrutineering in Australia.

Unfortunately for those vexed by the FIA's reluctance to make a decision prior to scrutineering, real life isn't as straightforward as they would dream it would be. Plus there is that unfortunate real-life scenario of teams always trying it on.

The FIA are quite right to allow the tems to see if they can come to some agreement before scrutineering as to the diffuser debate, but once again I suspect it will be the FIA that has to clear up the mess of yet another unresolved playground squabble.

ioan

25th March 2009, 14:41

I'll repeat myself for the 3rd time, because your English is obviously worse than I previously thought.

There is no FIA press release.

Just confirmation from Charlie Whiting that such a system is illegal.

My English is better than yours obviously, as well as my logic is far better than anything you will ever manage to bring to a discussion.

You are claiming the F2007 was illegal without there being any official FIA release saying that.

On top of that Ferrari won the Oz race in 2007 and were declared winners, which obviously wouldn't have been the case if the car would have been illegal.

Other than not liking Ferrari do you have any other argument to continue this tiresome discussion?
If you continue posting without bringing some OFFICIAL PROOF I can not do better than to ignore you future post. I hope you understand this.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 15:02

I did say that McLaren was using the same tactics, I never said it was the same case.

They can, but not from the POV you are using. See above.

Thanks for admiting that you were talking bollocks. Case close.

Same here, and I will not resort to sub par tactics like these:

Sure you can ask. The answer is yes, if the rules were the same!
Now let me ask you: were the rules the same in Malaysia as Australia?!

I hope you see one day how far up sh!t creek you are without any paddle.

When did I ever say the FIA released a Press Release saying the Ferrari 2007 Australia was illegal? I've never said that.

Yes the rules were the same in Australia 2007 and Malaysia 2007. But they changed the testing procedures to stop teams decieving the tests and racing illegal cars.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 15:11

My English is better than yours obviously, as well as my logic is far better than anything you will ever manage to bring to a discussion.

You are claiming the F2007 was illegal without there being any official FIA release saying that.

On top of that Ferrari won the Oz race in 2007 and were declared winners, which obviously wouldn't have been the case if the car would have been illegal.

Other than not liking Ferrari do you have any other argument to continue this tiresome discussion?
If you continue posting without bringing some OFFICIAL PROOF I can not do better than to ignore you future post. I hope you understand this.

We're just going around in circles here, so feel free to ignore my posts.

But I'll say again, the Ferrari car used in Australia 2007 was never declared illegal, because it was never investigated and subject to a protest. And the system it had in place decieved the tests in place to make sure flexi floor baords weren't used.

Its like I said earlier, there is enough information to say conclusively that it was an illegal car:

a) Charlie confirmed it was illegal.
b) Ferrari had to change car before Malaysia once tests were changed.
c) McLaren explained their design, and were told it was illegal.

With your requests for an official Press Release, which you know doesn't exist, is pretty petty. Its like a murder, where police have DNA evidence, location of crime and can place suspect at scene, but because theres no video footage, means he can't be guilty.

Rules clearly state flexi boards are illegal. They had one. Making their car illegal. They found a loophole, and exploited it, fair play to them. They found a way of cheating without being caught. Should they have been disqualified? Thats subjective, as you can very well argue its up to the FIA to close these loopholes.

But whether the car was illegal or not, its a right or wrong type answer. And according the Charlie Whiting, on behalf of the FIA, it was illegal.

With regards to the car being illegal or not, there isn't much to argue about.

If you want to argue about whether they should have been stripped of result etc etc is another matter altogether.

Knock-on

25th March 2009, 15:30

Sure you can ask. The answer is yes, if the rules were the same!
Now let me ask you: were the rules the same in Malaysia as Australia?!

I hope you see one day how far up sh!t creek you are without any paddle.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rules didn't change to make it illegal after Aus.

All the FIA did was modify the way it tested for compliance to those rules prompting Ferrari to change the car to ensure it complied to the regulations.

I'm not going to argue about it as it's history as I said previously :z

Dave B

25th March 2009, 16:00

It sounds like diffusers may be just one of many rows brewing in Australia. Early night as tomorrow could be a very long day!

http://twitter.com/LeeMcK/statuses/1387215758

Sounds ominous :s

ioan

25th March 2009, 16:28

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rules didn't change to make it illegal after Aus.

All the FIA did was modify the way it tested for compliance to those rules prompting Ferrari to change the car to ensure it complied to the regulations.

They changed the way the flex of the bodywork was measured, increasing the efforts quite a few times. That sure must be in the rules otherwise why would anyone obey them?

[quote="Knock-on":ukczak5p]
I'm not going to argue about it as it's history as I said previously :z [/quote:ukczak5p]

Totally agree. It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 16:32

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rules didn't change to make it illegal after Aus.

All the FIA did was modify the way it tested for compliance to those rules prompting Ferrari to change the car to ensure it complied to the regulations.

They changed the way the flex of the bodywork was measured, increasing the efforts quite a few times. That sure must be in the rules otherwise why would anyone obey them?

Totally agree. It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.

They changed way its tested, the rules prohibited flexi floor boards before and after Australia.

Reading through the rulebook, I don't see it saying exactly how its tested, as part of the rules, merely whats allowed and not allowed.

PolePosition_1

25th March 2009, 16:34

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rules didn't change to make it illegal after Aus.

All the FIA did was modify the way it tested for compliance to those rules prompting Ferrari to change the car to ensure it complied to the regulations.

They changed the way the flex of the bodywork was measured, increasing the efforts quite a few times. That sure must be in the rules otherwise why would anyone obey them?

Totally agree. It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.

If you read my posts in this topic, I state how much respect I have for Ferrari and SD in particular, all I mentioned was that IF they did protest the diffusers, it would be hypocritical. And it seems to have expanded from that. Its what I call a discussion board.

ArrowsFA1

25th March 2009, 16:39

It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.
The subject was only introduced (here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=605726&postcount=48)) by way of a comparison with what we are seeing now in relation to the diffuser issue.

Tazio

25th March 2009, 17:08

Back on subject,
I think it is significant that Red Bull, and Renault asked for a clarification on the concept of using similar diffusers being used by BR, Toyota, and Williams, while they were in the early stages of development, and were told it would not be legal by an FIA Rep. If it is acceptable to misinform these teams, than the same can be said of the teams that have developed it. The Stewards ruling will have to take precedence if it is true that the FIA have misinformed teams in the early stages of development. Then going to sleep for months without declaring that their original statement was incorrect, or irrelevant, in an expeditious manner! MO

Knock-on

25th March 2009, 17:18

25th March 2009, 17:36

It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.

Ooops...that would be me who started it, but it has nothing to do with my sentiments towards a specific team.

I feel that the circumstances are similar. A team turns up with something suspected by another team of being illegal, presenting it for scrutineering, passes scrutineering but is then asked to change the item for the next race is similar to a team turning up with something suspected by another team of being illegal and presenting it for scrutineering....the only difference at the moment is that

A) The team(s) suspecting illegality have voiced their opinion before the race
and
B) Scrutineering hasn't taken place yet, so we don't know if it will be passed or not.

BDunnell

25th March 2009, 18:22

It's a pity that someone felt the need to start it again just based on his sentiments towards a team.

Not something you would ever do, of course... ;)

BDunnell

25th March 2009, 18:23

Ooops...that would be me who started it, but it has nothing to do with my sentiments towards a specific team.

I feel that the circumstances are similar. A team turns up with something suspected by another team of being illegal, presenting it for scrutineering, passes scrutineering but is then asked to change the item for the next race is similar to a team turning up with something suspected by another team of being illegal and presenting it for scrutineering....the only difference at the moment is that

A) The team(s) suspecting illegality have voiced their opinion before the race
and
B) Scrutineering hasn't taken place yet, so we don't know if it will be passed or not.

That's very much my take on it, too.

Tazio

25th March 2009, 19:13

I hadn't heard this. All I had heard was that the FIA said the Williams and Toyota ones were compliant with the regs.

Typical p1ss-up in the brewery if you're right.I'm not sure of the validity of the claim. I am quoting this article:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37288

"Marko claims that his team and Renault went to the FIA last year and
discussed a similar aerodynamic concept to that being now used by
Brawn, Williams, and Toyota but says that at the time there was a negative answer".

ioan

25th March 2009, 19:23

Not something you would ever do, of course... ;)

Well I didn't do it. :p :

Back to the diffusers at hand now.

25th March 2009, 20:21

Back to the diffusers at hand now.

Is that your attempt to "diffuse" the situation?

I've got more material....take my mother-in-law...no, please, do....

Sorry....I'll stick to the day job.

SGWilko

25th March 2009, 20:54

Is that your attempt to "diffuse" the situation?

I've got more material....take my mother-in-law...no, please, do....

Sorry....I'll stick to the day job.

Oh dear......... ;)

ioan

25th March 2009, 22:53

Is that your attempt to "diffuse" the situation?

I've got more material....take my mother-in-law...no, please, do....

Sorry....I'll stick to the day job.

It seems that your brain had enough time to relax during the ban, maybe a bit too much! :p :

Valve Bounce

25th March 2009, 23:24

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73888

"It was something that in various forms teams have been doing for two years, so it wasn't really a big issue for us or the FIA. So it was something that we clarified with the FIA well over a year ago.

I find this incredible that something which should have been cleared up months and months ago should drag on right down to the AGP; and beyond because whichever way the stewards rule, the loser of the ruling will take the matter to the appeals court later.

This is an FIA matter, and the FIA should have made a clear ruling on it a year ago.

ioan

26th March 2009, 07:32

BMW will surely lodge a protest and other teams will probably join them.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73899

Dave B

26th March 2009, 07:46

Now that Sky News have temporarily stopped banging on about a dead chav 24/7, they ran a Formula One story this morning which far from building excitement about the first race simply painted the sport in a terrible light - talking of confusion and rows.

This is the image that the sport is sending out to the general public, and it was completely avoidable.

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 07:52

I'm not sure of the validity of the claim. I am quoting this article:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37288

"Marko claims that his team and Renault went to the FIA last year and
discussed a similar aerodynamic concept to that being now used by
Brawn, Williams, and Toyota but says that at the time there was a negative answer".
If true, then you have to ask why were the diffusers of the Toyota and Williams teams cleared by the FIA in February?

Also, if the FIA are able to make rulings like these during the off-season when teams are finalising designs, why are they now passing the buck onto the stewards when it comes to the first race of the season? I know the stewards are there to scrutineer the cars during the race weekend, but why then do the FIA make the rulings they have before cars arrived in Australia?

Whatever the answer to that it has created the situation whereby different teams, having sought clarification from the FIA, have developed different diffuser solutions with the rather inevitable result.

Now we're faced with the prospect of watching a race on Sunday and quite possibly not knowing the result for days or even weeks after :dozey:

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 08:33

Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull Racing have lodged protests about the legality of diffusers on rival cars, after BMW Sauber's similar complaint was rejected on a technicality.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73901

AndyRAC

26th March 2009, 08:41

If true, then you have to ask why were the diffusers of the Toyota and Williams teams cleared by the FIA in February?

Also, if the FIA are able to make rulings like these during the off-season when teams are finalising designs, why are they now passing the buck onto the stewards when it comes to the first race of the season? I know the stewards are there to scrutineer the cars during the race weekend, but why then do the FIA make the rulings they have before cars arrived in Australia?

Whatever the answer to that it has created the situation whereby different teams, having sought clarification from the FIA, have developed different diffuser solutions with the rather inevitable result.

Now we're faced with the prospect of watching a race on Sunday and quite possibly not knowing the result for days or even weeks after :dozey:

Marvellous, just what we all want - issues rumbling on and on - days, weeks after the race.
Either they're legal or illegal - though it's not like the FiA to cause confusion, is it?

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 08:49

A spokesman for governing body the FIA said it hoped to have a verdict on the appeal by the end of Thursday.

But whatever that verdict is, the losing parties are likely to make an appeal against it - and that hearing is unlikely to be scheduled by the FIA until after the second race of the season in Malaysia on 5 April.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7965056.stm

Dave B

26th March 2009, 08:53

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 09:02

The FIA need to understand that they don't have the authority to declare a car legal or otherwise - that's the job of the stewards.

There needs to be a procedure where teams can get a definative ruling about a part before the season starts. Maybe having a team of scrutineers at the official pre-season tests would be the way to go: they could sign off parts or reject them, and their decision would be binding.

But don't the teams have to submit the cars pre season to ensure they comply with FIA regulations anyway?

26th March 2009, 09:30

But don't the teams have to submit the cars pre season to ensure they comply with FIA regulations anyway?

Only crash tests and engine homologation.

Other than that, you can check with the FIA if they think what you are doing is legal, but the Scrutineers at a race meeting are the ones who make the first official decision.

Of course, that decision can be appealed against and it goes to the FIA court of appeal.

I could have sworn, though, that last year, when somebody was told they could not appeal a penalty in a race, people complained that there should be an appeal, yet now some of the same people want an immediate decision that doesn't go to appeal.

Very strange.

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 09:38

Other than that, you can check with the FIA if they think what you are doing is legal, but the Scrutineers at a race meeting are the ones who make the first official decision.
Essentially then, any clarification or clearance from the FIA, such as was given to Williams & Toyota, is worthless.

26th March 2009, 09:40

Essentially then, any clarification or clearance from the FIA, such as was given to Williams & Toyota, is worthless.

Pretty much.

Dave B

26th March 2009, 09:48

Only crash tests and engine homologation.

Other than that, you can check with the FIA if they think what you are doing is legal, but the Scrutineers at a race meeting are the ones who make the first official decision.

Of course, that decision can be appealed against and it goes to the FIA court of appeal.
Indeed. At the moment we have this possible scenario:

Brawn: Hello, FIA. We've got a new diffuser. Is it legal?

FIA: Probably, yes.

Brawn: So we're ok to run it in Australia?

FIA: Probably yes.

BMW Sauber: Excuse me, FIA. We think Brawn's diffuser is illegal.

FIA: That's a matter for the stewards.

BMW Sauber: Hello stewards, we think you should investigate Brawn's diffuser.

Stewards: We can't do that, you didn't get the paperwork completed in time.

Red Bull: We'll help you, BMW. Stewards, we also think Brawn's diffuser is illegal.

Stewards: Ok then, we'll have a look. (looks at car) Yup, don't worry, it's fine.

Brawn: Good good.

(much later...)

Brawn (clutching constructor's trophy): Well done Rubens / Jenson, a fine victory!

Red Bull: You do know we're appealing, don't you?

Brawn: Not to me you're not.

Red Bull: No, silly, appealing to the FIA about your diffuser.

FIA: We'll have another look at it. But not just yet. Next week, in Paris. That won't be inconvenient for anybody, will it, what with us racing in Australia and Asia this month?

Brawn: Fair enough. So did we win?

FIA: We'll let you know.
Now, tell me how any of that is supposed to make sense to us, the hardcore fans, let alone the casual viewer.

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 10:00

Only crash tests and engine homologation.

Other than that, you can check with the FIA if they think what you are doing is legal, but the Scrutineers at a race meeting are the ones who make the first official decision.

Of course, that decision can be appealed against and it goes to the FIA court of appeal.

I could have sworn, though, that last year, when somebody was told they could not appeal a penalty in a race, people complained that there should be an appeal, yet now some of the same people want an immediate decision that doesn't go to appeal.

Very strange.

I think we're mixing up technical requirements with Dtewards penalties here.

This instance involves something that has been going on for months and should be dealt with by the FIA clarifying the situation prior to going racing.

The instance you mentioned was during a race where if a penalty would have been applied, it would have had little impact on the race. However, the teams checked with the FIA representitive who said he didn't see a problem but who subsequently after the race suggested to the stewards that they should investigate it which they did.

The initial penalty was pretty dubious and the way it was dealt with was a disgrace as this is shaping up to be.

I agree with you that direction and governance given by the FIA is pretty worthless.

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 10:04

Indeed. At the moment we have this possible scenario:

Brawn: Hello, FIA. We've got a new diffuser. Is it legal?

FIA: Probably, yes.

Brawn: So we're ok to run it in Australia?

FIA: Probably yes.

BMW Sauber: Excuse me, FIA. We think Brawn's diffuser is illegal.

FIA: That's a matter for the stewards.

BMW Sauber: Hello stewards, we think you should investigate Brawn's diffuser.

Stewards: We can't do that, you didn't get the paperwork completed in time.

Red Bull: We'll help you, BMW. Stewards, we also think Brawn's diffuser is illegal.

Stewards: Ok then, we'll have a look. (looks at car) Yup, don't worry, it's fine.

Brawn: Good good.

(much later...)

Brawn (clutching constructor's trophy): Well done Rubens / Jenson, a fine victory!

Red Bull: You do know we're appealing, don't you?

Brawn: Not to me you're not.

Red Bull: No, silly, appealing to the FIA about your diffuser.

FIA: We'll have another look at it. But not just yet. Next week, in Paris. That won't be inconvenient for anybody, will it, what with us racing in Australia and Asia this month?

Brawn: Fair enough. So did we win?

FIA: We'll let you know.
Now, tell me how any of that is supposed to make sense to us, the hardcore fans, let alone the casual viewer.

Nope.

Just one question.

With the 30m budget caps, does that include all the transport and legal representation needed to do battle with the FIA every year? If so, McLaren will have less that £50 to develop and run a car :D

Seriously though, if it does, it will mean that teams will not have the spare funds to appeal the FIA giving Max even more autonomy to dictate championships.

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 10:05

Pretty much.
And yet the FIA give such clearance or clarification, on the basis of which teams develop and design their cars then ship them off to race with the perfectly reasonable understanding that they are legal.

The FIA, having given clearance, then say 'there's a good argument that says the diffuser is legal, and there's a good argument that says it's illegal, but it's not for us to decide. That's the stewards job'.

As Fernando Alonso says (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73905):

"Unfortunately we had a bad last three or four weeks for our sport, with the change in rules and this attempt to change the world championship, to be decided by victories. We are happy they regretted their decision and they went back to the normal points. But now there's this diffuser thing, and I think for the fans it is impossible to understand how Formula 1 can start a championship like this with so many doubts and so many changes. We will see when it's over, and then for race one we can talk about the sport, about having fun in the car, and hopefully the spectators will enjoy it."

AndyRAC

26th March 2009, 10:51

Reminds me of San Remo 1986....Italian scrutineers throwing the Peugeots out. Only for the UK scrutineers to pass them a month later - same car!

Sonic

26th March 2009, 10:53

Nope.

If so, McLaren will have less that £50 to develop and run a car :D

That much??

Formula One is becoming a laughing stock. Either its legal or its not. The stewards have declared it legal. Case closed. Now stop running to mummy and saying its not fair and get on with making your cars better!

ozrevhead

26th March 2009, 11:06

That much??

Formula One is becoming a laughing stock. Either its legal or its not. The stewards have declared it legal. Case closed. Now stop running to mummy and saying its not fair and get on with making your cars better!

well when you tell one group they couldnt have it when they first asked and then allow it after they modify the car so they cant use it then it isnt bloody fair!

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 11:14

well when you tell one group they couldnt have it when they first asked and then allow it after they modify the car so they cant use it then it isnt bloody fair!

To be fair, we don't have any proof that they were talking about exactly the same idea. Even Marko said it was "similar".

Technically, grooved tyres are similar to slicks.

Marko and Flav may just be p1ssed that they didn't figure a way around it enough.

BDunnell

26th March 2009, 11:22

And yet the FIA give such clearance or clarification, on the basis of which teams develop and design their cars then ship them off to race with the perfectly reasonable understanding that they are legal.

The FIA, having given clearance, then say 'there's a good argument that says the diffuser is legal, and there's a good argument that says it's illegal, but it's not for us to decide. That's the stewards job'.

Which is utterly ludicrous. It surely has to give some direction either way at some point.

ozrevhead

26th March 2009, 11:24

To be fair, we don't have any proof that they were talking about exactly the same idea. Even Marko said it was "similar".

Technically, grooved tyres are similar to slicks.

Marko and Flav may just be p1ssed that they didn't figure a way around it enough.
semantics

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 11:54

semantics

I totally agree with you. It probably did come down to semantics.

Ferrari showed how a team needs to be intelligent with their cooling wheel frisbees. If they had made an arguement about them being moveable aero, unhomogonated devices, they would have had them thrown out.

As it was, they put together an excellent arguement to "prove" they were cooling aids and therefore legal.

They just used their noggin to interperet the rules in their favour.

keysersoze

26th March 2009, 12:17

So only the three slowest cars in testing--McLaren, Force India (McLaren "B"), and STR (Red Bull "B")--didn't complain?

More evidence that McLaren may be sandbagging? :eek:

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 12:31

Good news folks. We're in safe hands.

Ólafur Kristinn Gudmundsson, Vice President of the Icelandic Automobile Association and honorary member of the Bikers Association of Iceland, along with Radovan Novak, member of the WMSC and winner of various Czech rally competitions are the stewards for the Australian GP

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Pages/home_page.aspx

Dave B

26th March 2009, 12:34

http://allenonf1.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/meerk1.jpg

Genius.

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/lets-compare-notes/

Robinho

26th March 2009, 12:36

or evidnece that they don't want to risk a Mercedes powered car being taken out of the hunt for the race victory?

Charlie Whiting and Jo Bauer have given their opnion to the teams that they considered the diffusers legal, but that it would be up to the stewards.

in Scrutineering the race Stewards have cleared the devices, saying they are legal, yet Ferrari, BMW, Red Bull and Renault continue with an appeal, which either way it ends the result will be appealed!

there should be aline drawn in the sand, either its legal or its not.

i fear it will be cleared and then the rules to test diffusers will be changed, meaning they then fail, and we'll be back where they started.

for me, if the device is within the regulations, spirit or not, its up to the others to catch up, not the innovaters be punished.

if something is designed deliberatley to contravene the rules and/or circumnavigate the static tests then they should be reined in

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 12:41

http://allenonf1.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/meerk1.jpg

Genius.

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/lets-compare-notes/

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 12:44

for me, if the device is within the regulations, spirit or not, its up to the others to catch up, not the innovaters be punished.

if something is designed deliberatley to contravene the rules and/or circumnavigate the static tests then they should be reined in

100% right.

Stefano has already said that if it's legal, then Ferrari and the others need to accept it and move on. I hope everyone heeds his advice.

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 12:51

Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota have been given the go-ahead to take part in the Australian Grand Prix after the FIA stewards rejected a protest against the design of their diffusers late on Thursday night.
Following more than four hours of presentations and discussions between the stewards and the various teams involved in the dispute, the FIA issued a statement confirming that the stewards believe the cars are legal.
Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull Racing had lodged protests against their rivals because they believed the designs of their diffusers were illegal. BMW Sauber had also been due to join the protest, but their complaint was rejected on a technicality after it was not correctly submitted in time.
It is expected that the teams will appeal against the stewards' decision, which will force the matter to go to a hearing of the FIA's International Court of Appeal.
Such a meeting cannot take place until after the Malaysian Grand Prix, meaning that Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota will unofficially be racing under appeal at this weekend's race in Australia and would likely be subject to another appeal in Sepang.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73915

Bagwan

26th March 2009, 13:09

"It is expected that the teams will appeal against the stewards' decision, which will force the matter to go to a hearing of the FIA's International Court of Appeal."

Who exactly expects this ?

We know the others will have these items in process , so what would be the point of complaining now ? It would only show the rift that can be created by the FIA in the strength of FOTA .

At this point , those without , or more properly put , behind in the development , will have the perfect excuse for doing poorly .
And , through it's inaction , the perfect scapegoat , in the FIA .

I expect that the FIA will be busy before the next race , testing rear crash structures .

If an appeal is lodged , then nothing has changed .
If not , FOTA appears strong .

I don't believe they will appeal .
At least , I hope not .

PolePosition_1

26th March 2009, 13:25

The FIA need to understand that they don't have the authority to declare a car legal or otherwise - that's the job of the stewards.

There needs to be a procedure where teams can get a definative ruling about a part before the season starts. Maybe having a team of scrutineers at the official pre-season tests would be the way to go: they could sign off parts or reject them, and their decision would be binding.

Agreed, there definately needs more clarity.

Its like in summer of 2006, when the FIA said the mass dampers were illegal, and Stewards insisted they were. Two different answers from the same rule book, and no clear indicator as to who has the authority to define it.

It is a bit of a joke.

Dave B

26th March 2009, 13:49

Stewards give all-clear to rear diffusers :up:

Ferrari, Red Bull and Renault confirm they will appeal :down:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73915

Dave B

26th March 2009, 13:51

Should any of the six drivers racing for Toyota, Williams or Brawn GP finish in the top eight in either Sunday's race or a week later in Sepang, their points scored would be held under appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7965056.stm

Farcical :rolleyes:

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 13:57

Stewards give all-clear to rear diffusers :up:

Ferrari, Red Bull and Renault confirm they will appeal :down:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73915

Well, the respect I had for Stefano over this matter has just done a 180. What a hypocrite :down:

RJL25

26th March 2009, 14:01

Formula One can be a complete joke sometimes...

BDunnell

26th March 2009, 14:06

Dave B

26th March 2009, 14:09

It is expected that McLaren may also have a similar diffuser on its cars, which may have appeared at the very last minute.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/not-so-silent-night/

Interesting. Maybe they won't be so slow after all :D

ioan

26th March 2009, 14:11

Its like in summer of 2006, when the FIA said the mass dampers were illegal, and Stewards insisted they were. Two different answers from the same rule book, and no clear indicator as to who has the authority to define it.

How is that two different answers :?:

ioan

26th March 2009, 14:13

ioan

26th March 2009, 14:14

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/not-so-silent-night/

Interesting. Maybe they won't be so slow after all :D

Would they use a never tested part?

ArrowsFA1

26th March 2009, 14:30

Somewhat inevitably the seed of discord that was sown has begun to flower.

Those who have appealed this decision had to do so within an hour of it being announced, but I think everyone involved should now meet before this goes any further, preferably before Sunday's race, and decide what is best for the sport.

The lack of testing during the season makes a decision like this even more significant, particularly for those who feel disadvantaged, but beginning a season like this is not good for anyone, least of all for us watching.

K-Pu

26th March 2009, 14:31

Tazio

26th March 2009, 14:37

Is it really untested since there´s been quite a fuss about diffusers for a while?

If they use "that diffuser" I´m sure thay have tested it, no matter how much have they complained. And that goes for all the teams, because after all, F1 is F1.It will involve changing several elements of the undertray!
Not just a snap on solution me thinks!

ozrevhead

26th March 2009, 14:53

Ferrari, Red Bull and Renault confirm they will appeal :down:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73915
good - u cant tell one team they cant use it then tell others they can later on

No one in their right mind could say RB dont have a case

PolePosition_1

26th March 2009, 15:06

How is that two different answers :?:

The stewards said it was legal and the FIA said it was illegal.

PolePosition_1

26th March 2009, 15:08

Well, the respect I had for Stefano over this matter has just done a 180. What a hypocrite :down:

Me also, judging from the quotes previously, it looked like they would have just gone down and copied them.

I guess they're just looking after their own interests which is fair enough, though hypocritical nevertheless.

jens

26th March 2009, 15:12

Would they use a never tested part?

McLaren seems to be in a desperate situation, hence they just might do it!

ioan

26th March 2009, 15:16

Is it really untested since there´s been quite a fuss about diffusers for a while?

If they use "that diffuser" I´m sure thay have tested it, no matter how much have they complained. And that goes for all the teams, because after all, F1 is F1.

I didn't see such a diffuser on the McLaren in any of the pictures from the testing sessions.
Maybe they will test it tomorrow during free practice.

ioan

26th March 2009, 15:16

The stewards said it was legal and the FIA said it was illegal.

Well, that's not what you said in your previous post.

ioan

26th March 2009, 15:19

good - u cant tell one team they cant use it then tell others they can later on

No one in their right mind could say RB dont have a case

I'm with you on this one.
IMO the FIA and it's stewards are taking decisions based on politics, and now they are more than happy that this situation allows previous backmarkers to come to the fore and fight for race wins.

It's all about politics and nothing about the sport.

BDunnell

26th March 2009, 15:28

I'm with you on this one.
IMO the FIA and it's stewards are taking decisions based on politics, and now they are more than happy that this situation allows previous backmarkers to come to the fore and fight for race wins.

It's all about politics and nothing about the sport.

I think it is clearly a genuine grey area. After all, some teams have decided by themselves that they wish to run with these diffusers and think it's OK. Others, for whatever reason, haven't. Can you say, based on the tech regs, whether they should be declared legal or not?

Knock-on

26th March 2009, 15:38

I think it is clearly a genuine grey area. After all, some teams have decided by themselves that they wish to run with these diffusers and think it's OK. Others, for whatever reason, haven't. Can you say, based on the tech regs, whether they should be declared legal or not?

I'm with you on this one.

It looks like a genuine case and one the teams have flirted with last year.

I think it's a genuine innovation that has been confused, if true, by the FIA saying it wouldn't be allowed to some teams and would be to others.

If thet's really the case :?:

wedge

26th March 2009, 15:58

Agreed, there definately needs more clarity.

Its like in summer of 2006, when the FIA said the mass dampers were illegal, and Stewards insisted they were. Two different answers from the same rule book, and no clear indicator as to who has the authority to define it.

It is a bit of a joke.

What about the hidden Honda ballast tank? OK by the stewards but FIA correctly over-ruled them.

The lack of testing during the season makes a decision like this even more significant, particularly for those who feel disadvantaged, but beginning a season like this is not good for anyone, least of all for us watching.

Would there still have been an appeal if there was no testing ban? I think not. It seems Brawn has put the frighteners in rival teams, how can the rivals catch up to Brawn with no testing?

Robinho

26th March 2009, 17:41

can't see the point of the appeal.

FIA say its probably ok, but up to the stewards.

The Stewards say its ok in Scrutineering, and then again afetr a protest.

Now its appealed, back to the FIA who said they thought it was ok, there is no way that they will overturn that now. i fully expect some new parts to be appearing on the protesters very soon

Dave B

26th March 2009, 17:45

If the FIA do overturn the two rulings by the stewards, as well as their own earlier opinion, they are either hypocrites or very very stupid indeed. So don't rule it out :\

Robinho

26th March 2009, 17:46

when you put it like that i am much less confident!

F1boat

26th March 2009, 19:24

I hope that the appeal of Red Bull and the other losers is deemed to be inadmissible :-) No, seriously, I want the new design allowed. F1 needs some innovation. When I watch Le Mans series I love the different designs of the prototype cars. F1 should be like this, not like the IRL :)

OutRun

26th March 2009, 20:00

Ferrari weren't complaining last season after they stretched the engine freeze rules in pursuit of "reliability". They missed a loophole for once. Due to the cut back in testing, it may be mid-season before they can find a solution.

Valve Bounce

26th March 2009, 21:44

Stewards sat until the early hours this morning and declared the cars legal.

ozrevhead

26th March 2009, 22:11

that is a whole lot a Bulldust

They told RB they couldnt use their version of the defusers and now after they make it legal, they have changed the car and the car is unable to use them

FUMING :mad:

Now its appealed, back to the FIA who said they thought it was ok, there is no way that they will overturn that now. i fully expect some new parts to be appearing on the protesters very soon
I cant remeber the reason why (techy people on the forum should know) but red bull would need a compleaty new back end to fit the difusers and have them safe enough to be on there...Can you do that in 4hrs - no i dont bleeing think so :mad:

If they told it would of been legal from the start then there wouldnt be an issue

BDunnell

26th March 2009, 22:18

that is a whole lot a Bulldust

They told RB they couldnt use their version of the defusers and now after they make it legal, they have changed the car and the car is unable to use them

Can someone more knowledgeable about such things than I explain (a) what the difference was between the RB diffusers and those of Williams, Brawn and Toyota, if any, and (b) on what grounds they were informed that they could not be used?

ioan

26th March 2009, 22:32

I cant remeber the reason why (techy people on the forum should know) but red bull would need a compleaty new back end to fit the difusers and have them safe enough to be on there...Can you do that in 4hrs - no i dont bleeing think so :mad:

If they told it would of been legal from the start then there wouldnt be an issue

It's because they need to redesign the whole rear crash structure and submit it to the FIA for crash tests and homologation (or whatever it's called).

Also I don't know how this would work with RB's pull-rod suspension in the way.

ioan

26th March 2009, 22:33

Can someone more knowledgeable about such things than I explain (a) what the difference was between the RB diffusers and those of Williams, Brawn and Toyota, if any, and (b) on what grounds they were informed that they could not be used?

a) Not before we see what RB and Renault submitted to the FIA techs last year.
b) depending on which side of the bed Charlie woke up that day.

ozrevhead

26th March 2009, 22:37

It's because they need to redesign the whole rear crash structure and submit it to the FIA for crash tests and homologation (or whatever it's called).

Also I don't know how this would work with RB's pull-rod suspension in the way.
Thanks for reminding me - I was told with someone who's really into the techy side of F1 where they cant use the diffusers with their suspention so RB would have to change their suspention too

Its like having in a under 16 football tournament and some teams are told they cant use a number of overage players and tell the others they can when its too late for the first group to start recuriting.

Thanks again mate :)

BDunnell

26th March 2009, 22:38

It's because they need to redesign the whole rear crash structure and submit it to the FIA for crash tests and homologation (or whatever it's called).

Also I don't know how this would work with RB's pull-rod suspension in the way.

I was under the impression that the latter was the case, and that it is currently impossible in some way for the diffuser to be installed on the RB because of the design of the rear end.

Valve Bounce

26th March 2009, 23:18

Stewards find (just past midnight) that the three diffusers are legal. GOOD!!

Easy Drifter

26th March 2009, 23:45

But an appeal will not be heard until after the next race which could change the results of the first two races.
Here we go again. The FIA couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

AndyRAC

26th March 2009, 23:50

But an appeal will not be heard until after the next race which could change the results of the first two races.
Here we go again. The FIA couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

How many times have we heard this.....

...it's like a broken record.

As for Charlie Whiting.............he's just as bad!

What potentially could have been one of the most interesting starts to a season, now looks as though it has been 'ruined' by FiA incompetance. :mad:

Valve Bounce

27th March 2009, 01:01

We need a strong sensible person in charge of the FIA: I propose Jean Todt.

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 02:43

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 02:45

We need a strong sensible person in charge of the FIA: I propose Jean Todt.

Perhaps you are just joking (I can never tell :) ), but I eerily agree with your proposal.

Anyone is better than Max at this point, but that shouldn't discredit Todt.

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 02:47

But an appeal will not be heard until after the next race which could change the results of the first two races.
Here we go again. The FIA couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

Most likely they will not change the results. Just look back 1 year ago. Ferrari (and I believe another team) were told to change their flexing floors after the 1st round at Australia without penalty.

At worst I would expect the same here, but you never know (with the FIA).

Valve Bounce

27th March 2009, 03:15

Perhaps you are just joking (I can never tell :) ), but I eerily agree with your proposal.

Anyone is better than Max at this point, but that shouldn't discredit Todt.

No! I am serious about having Jean Todt as President of the FIA. We have had too much BS and conflicting interests and directives from Max.

And No! I'm not going to list them - look them up yourselves if anyone wants to know what they are.

Tazio

27th March 2009, 03:18

AndyRAC

27th March 2009, 08:06

Perhaps you are just joking (I can never tell :) ), but I eerily agree with your proposal.

Anyone is better than Max at this point, but that shouldn't discredit Todt.

Preferably somebody who will remind Bernie who actually runs the sport, i;e the FiA/Teams, and what Promoting actually means......

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 10:12

This debarcle is obviously all over the mainstream media and has plunged F1 into farce yet again.

Was listening to R2 last night and they were having a good old laugh at the mess within F1.

Bloody joke

Dave B

27th March 2009, 11:29

Bloody joke
Simon Mayo? He's no Chris Evans, but that's a bit harsh :p

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 11:33

Simon Mayo? He's no Chris Evans, but that's a bit harsh :p

Sir Tel this morning as well.

Just waiting for the Mr Whippy jokes to start again

ioan

27th March 2009, 11:39

I just wanted to point out that Ferrari were one of the teams lodging the complaint against the diffusers.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/03/26/stewards-reject-diffuser-protesting/

The only reason I bring this up is that some Tiffosi would like the rest of us to believe that Ferrari are not the ones that have lodged complaints in the past. That might, or might not (I'm too lazy to dig into the past), be the case, but it isn't anymore.

We all know who lodged the protest this time: Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull and BMW (the last one was not accepted by the FIA).

So it's not like when McLaren "questioned" if they can use similar systems in the past, when they were looking for a ban on those systems. Nor like when they stole the whole Ferrari data.

If I were you I'd rather hide under a stone instead of pointing the finger to fans of honest teams.

PS: McLaren didn't protest for several reasons:
1. their car is pants and Brawn GP are the only Mercedes powered team that has a chance to the podium.
2. they never protest on face value so they will ask the FIA for a clarification because they intend to use a similar device. :p :

ioan

27th March 2009, 11:46

I was under the impression that the latter was the case, and that it is currently impossible in some way for the diffuser to be installed on the RB because of the design of the rear end.

99% that their suspension layout would make it very difficult to adopt a ddecker difuser.
But even the other teams will need quite some time before they redesign the whole rear of the car and run enough WT tests before installing it on their cars.
Not before the European season IMO.

BDunnell

27th March 2009, 11:58

ioan

27th March 2009, 12:12

ioan, there is no need to bring the discussion down to likes/dislikes of one team over another yet again. I think we could all do without this. I know I could.

There was no need either for him to start a discussion out of nothing. Some people may have a boring life and only come here to start fights.

Sleeper

27th March 2009, 12:20

^And you always have to take the bait Ioan.

ANYWAY. I'm glad the protests were thrown out and I hope the same happens in the appeal before China. As for Red Bull, I dont think they would have a problem. Teams tend to connect the suspension to the engine and gearbox housing and the crash structure is situated behind the 'box, and its that that needs redesignning. If they cant actually do that then I suspect they will find a way to use that very tight rear end packaging to pull more air flow down to the diffuser and make it work harder, something no other team could do without a complete re-design of the rear end of the car.

27th March 2009, 12:21

I just wanted to point out that Ferrari were one of the teams lodging the complaint against the diffusers.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/03/26/stewards-reject-diffuser-protesting/

The only reason I bring this up is that some Tiffosi would like the rest of us to believe that Ferrari are not the ones that have lodged complaints in the past. That might, or might not (I'm too lazy to dig into the past), be the case, but it isn't anymore.

Never was the case, and this Tifosi wouldn't have said Ferrari have never protested anyway.

2003 - Michelin Tyre Issue.
1998 - Mclaren 4th Pedal

There are many others too, I just don't remember the details.

But any team that thinks something should be queried is quite within its rights to do so. I had no problem with Mclaren querying the sprung floor Ferrari ran two years ago.

Sometimes it requires a protest to clarify a ruling.

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 12:33

Never was the case, and this Tifosi wouldn't have said Ferrari have never protested anyway.

2003 - Michelin Tyre Issue.
1998 - Mclaren 4th Pedal

There are many others too, I just don't remember the details.

But any team that thinks something should be queried is quite within its rights to do so. I had no problem with Mclaren querying the sprung floor Ferrari ran two years ago.

Sometimes it requires a protest to clarify a ruling.

Totally agree.

If a team think something is illegal, they have every right to protest or ask for clarification. Protesting should not be a dirty word and I have no problem with the teams that have.

However, they should now do what Stefano D suggested and accept that the FIA and Stewards are happy with the design so move on and get a wiggle on designing their own version.

F1 will not be served by dragging this out any more.

27th March 2009, 12:44

Totally agree.

If a team think something is illegal, they have every right to protest or ask for clarification. Protesting should not be a dirty word and I have no problem with the teams that have.

However, they should now do what Stefano D suggested and accept that the FIA and Stewards are happy with the design so move on and get a wiggle on designing their own version.

F1 will not be served by dragging this out any more.

But, since they have the right to appeal, they might as well, surely? It's the same principle, isn't it?

I'm not sure how the FIA are to blame for giving the teams the opportunity to appeal the stewards decision.....I think it's very reasonable to have an appeal process. That way, nobody can have any complaints after the process has finalised.

People complained that F1 was a dictatorship, that F1 needed to be more democratic, and now lambast the FIA for not being dictatorial enough.

What this situation shows is that FOTA just isn't the silver bullet some of the anti-Max crew were hoping for. Teams competitive instincts will always over-ride any sense of what is "good for the sport".

A teams priority, its number one objective, is to win, not to uphold some mythical Corinthian spirit.

FOTA has, in my opinion, failed just 6 months after its formation. The teams are just as guilty of this current situation as are the FIA. More so, since they were the ones whose "Working Group" came up with the current aero regulations.....regulations they now can't agree on how they are interpreted.

If the teams can't agree on their own regulations, why blame the FIA?

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 12:53

But, since they have the right to appeal, they might as well, surely? It's the same principle, isn't it?

I'm not sure how the FIA are to blame for giving the teams the opportunity to appeal the stewards decision.....I think it's very reasonable to have an appeal process. That way, nobody can have any complaints after the process has finalised.

People complained that F1 was a dictatorship, that F1 needed to be more democratic, and now lambast the FIA for not being dictatorial enough.

What this situation shows is that FOTA just isn't the silver bullet some of the anti-Max crew were hoping for. Teams competitive instincts will always over-ride any sense of what is "good for the sport".

A teams priority, its number one objective, is to win, not to uphold some mythical Corinthian spirit.

FOTA has, in my opinion, failed just 6 months after its formation. The teams are just as guilty of this current situation as are the FIA. More so, since they were the ones whose "Working Group" came up with the current aero regulations.....regulations they now can't agree on how they are interpreted.

If the teams can't agree on their own regulations, why blame the FIA?

Come on Tamb, this isn't a FOTA issue, it's a team issue.

FOTA is the body for negiotiating on behalf of all the teams and nothing to do with this. In fact, I think they are getting stronger by the day.

The teams do have a right to appeal but is there any point? The FIA have said it's OK as have the Stewards. Isn't it time to suck it up and move on as SD said they should?

What purpose will dragging this out serve?

27th March 2009, 13:03

Come on Tamb, this isn't a FOTA issue, it's a team issue.

FOTA is the body for negiotiating on behalf of all the teams and nothing to do with this. In fact, I think they are getting stronger by the day.

The teams do have a right to appeal but is there any point? The FIA have said it's OK as have the Stewards. Isn't it time to suck it up and move on as SD said they should?

What purpose will dragging this out serve?

On the FOTA issue, we'll have to disagree. You evidently think the teams will remain united, I very much doubt that but so be it, we shall see. The only thing I'll add is that if you think that the teams won't fall out about money, when they fall out over who has what pit garage and paddock space, let alone who has what aero gimmick, then I think you'll be disappointed.

But, as for what purpose will dragging this out serve....well, total certainty that you, as a team, have done everything you can to get a verdict one way or the other if you really believe they have a case.....which it appears they believe they have.

An appeal serves that vital purpose and that is why they should appeal. Final clarification isn't something that should be rushed.

ArrowsFA1

27th March 2009, 13:23

The teams are just as guilty of this current situation as are the FIA. More so, since they were the ones whose "Working Group" came up with the current aero regulations.....regulations they now can't agree on how they are interpreted.

If the teams can't agree on their own regulations, why blame the FIA?
FOTA does not draw up, police or implement any regulations.

That remains the FIA's responsibility.

The "Working Group" you refer to -the Overtaking Working Group - was an FIA body created in 2006 and made up of the technical directors of Renault, Ferrari and McLaren (not FOTA), plus Charlie Whiting. They proposed a package that was intended to give a following car less disturbance and would make overtaking less difficult. One part of that was a proposal to make the diffuser smaller.

There is a clear distinction between competitive instincts, and determining the future of the sport. As John Howett has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73925): "In FOTA we talk about long term strategic issues for developing the sport for the future, things that are right. Racing is racing, and under racing it is perfectly understood that a team can protest another team if they consider they have valid grounds to do so."

ArrowsFA1

27th March 2009, 13:33

On the FOTA issue, we'll have to disagree. You evidently think the teams will remain united, I very much doubt that but so be it, we shall see.
Indeed. Time will tell. Unity has certainly been tested early :p

BDunnell

27th March 2009, 13:37

But, since they have the right to appeal, they might as well, surely? It's the same principle, isn't it?

I'm not sure how the FIA are to blame for giving the teams the opportunity to appeal the stewards decision.....I think it's very reasonable to have an appeal process. That way, nobody can have any complaints after the process has finalised.

Very fair point. But there does come a juncture at which this sort of affair starts to become ridiculous. Whose fault this is varies from case to case. In this instance, I for one don't blame the teams making the protest.

What this situation shows is that FOTA just isn't the silver bullet some of the anti-Max crew were hoping for. Teams competitive instincts will always over-ride any sense of what is "good for the sport".

A teams priority, its number one objective, is to win, not to uphold some mythical Corinthian spirit.

FOTA has, in my opinion, failed just 6 months after its formation. The teams are just as guilty of this current situation as are the FIA. More so, since they were the ones whose "Working Group" came up with the current aero regulations.....regulations they now can't agree on how they are interpreted.

If the teams can't agree on their own regulations, why blame the FIA?

Again, I can't argue with any of that, bar one small matter. I agree it's a shame the teams are unable to agree on the regulations, but this should be an opportunity for the FIA to show some teeth, and it isn't doing so. Instead, it seems as confused as everybody else as to the legality of the diffusers. Given that the FIA remains the ultimate sanctioning body in charge of F1 and its technical regulations, I think this is a poor show on its part. FOTA, after all, has no jurisdiction over the matter. The FIA does.

ArrowsFA1

27th March 2009, 13:47

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 13:48

Again, I can't argue with any of that, bar one small matter. I agree it's a shame the teams are unable to agree on the regulations, but this should be an opportunity for the FIA to show some teeth, and it isn't doing so. Instead, it seems as confused as everybody else as to the legality of the diffusers. Given that the FIA remains the ultimate sanctioning body in charge of F1 and its technical regulations, I think this is a poor show on its part. FOTA, after all, has no jurisdiction over the matter. The FIA does.

I beg to differ slightly on this.

The FIA has loosly sanctioned the diffuser of both Williams and Toyota so the teams have turned up at Aus.

The Stewards have heard a protest and confirmed they are within the regulations.

I do agree that this could have been resolved by the FIA before this juncture by being more proactive but that is not their way, is it ;)

There also remains the confusion about telling some teams that it would be illegal although this is a rumour at this stage with no proof.

ioan

27th March 2009, 14:20

27th March 2009, 14:25

FOTA does not draw up, police or implement any regulations.

That remains the FIA's responsibility.

The "Working Group" you refer to -the Overtaking Working Group - was an FIA body created in 2006 and made up of the technical directors of Renault, Ferrari and McLaren (not FOTA), plus Charlie Whiting. They proposed a package that was intended to give a following car less disturbance and would make overtaking less difficult. One part of that was a proposal to make the diffuser smaller.

There is a clear distinction between competitive instincts, and determining the future of the sport. As John Howett has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73925): "In FOTA we talk about long term strategic issues for developing the sport for the future, things that are right. Racing is racing, and under racing it is perfectly understood that a team can protest another team if they consider they have valid grounds to do so."

My mistake about the "working group", although it shows quite clearly how Brawn, Symonds and the like can agree then interpret deifferently what that agreement means!

As for Howett......talking about unity and being united are two seperate things. One's easy, the other is constantly under pressure, and if any of the teams think that either Brawn, Toyota or Williams have pulled a fast one, watch them stick the knife in at the first opportunity.

In a way, Brawn remind me of Toleman....about to break into the top tier, then suddenly without tyres due to the actions of the top tier teams and reduced to running out of date Avons!

That was long before the current FIA system....and had feck all to do with the FIA....that was totally down to the attitude of the other teams.

As the French say - "Plus Ca Change"

wedge

27th March 2009, 14:26

Listening to Ian Phillips on the BBC commentary this morning was interesting. He appeared to be suggesting that the teams protesting were "fishing" rather than actually knowing what they were protesting against. The inference being, perhaps, that this wasn't so much an issue of legality, rather than one of "bugger, they're quicker than us, we'd better try to do something about it" :p :

Of course it is.

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/

A thought occurs to me. The seven teams who unsuccesfully protested the diffusers of Brawn, Williams and Toyota are actually in a worse position than before.

With the appeal not likely to be heard for at least a couple of weeks, what do they do now? Do they put their own copy of the Brawn diffuser in the wind tunnel and burn up valuable tunnel time, which could be spent on something else, trying to make it work with their car, when the whole thing could be wasted if the appeal succeeds? Or do they not spend that time in the tunnel with the copy and risk losing two weeks development time if the appeal finds for Brawn et al?

Very tricky. As a racer you’d do option 1.

The other teams reckon it’s worth half a second. They are having to catch up. And time is of the essence.

ioan

27th March 2009, 14:30

Allen is a bit shortsighted on this one.
1. It isn't even sure that the FIA will accept the appeal.
2. The teams might decide to give up on the appeal if they develop a similar solution a nd it works for their cars.

V12

27th March 2009, 14:31

I for one find it refreshing, on the back of Friday's practice times, to see good old fashioned clever design and engineering coming to the fore, rather than established teams with the biggest budgets optimising their way to the front, which I'm sure will happen before long.

However I think the diffusers will be banned - and I'll tell you why. Some of the other teams have been grumbling in the media about the "cost" of designing and building their own. I'm sure this is a very deliberate play on words. The whole "cost cutting" thing, while I'm sure it could be argued is kind of necessary at the moment, is in danger of becoming some sort of sacred idol that one dare not criticise or fly in the face of.

Mark my words - the diffusers will be banned on "cost cutting" grounds. And naturally I'd love to be forced to eat a wedge of humble pie on this one.

ioan

27th March 2009, 14:32

As for Howett......talking about unity and being united are two seperate things.

We live in a time when talking about unity is much more important than being really united.

nigelred5

27th March 2009, 15:22

They need one set of stewards, not a race to race arrangement.

BDunnell

27th March 2009, 15:23

Typical journalistic attitude. They understand squat of the rules but can make an elephant out of a mosquito.

I am assuming, therefore, that you have conclusive proof that what Ian Phillips said is wrong and that none of the teams involved are merely 'fishing'?

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 15:29

I am assuming, therefore, that you have conclusive proof that what Ian Phillips said is wrong and that none of the teams involved are merely 'fishing'?

I think there may be an element of gamesmanship going on.

The teams have known about these diffusers for ages and that it was likely the Stewards would back the FIA line.

I'm wondering if they will be in a position to pull their own ones out at the next GP and are trying to unsettle the opposition at worst and have them blown apart if they did win.

Ultimatly, I think they know they've been caught with their pants down and are limiting damage.

ioan

27th March 2009, 16:28

I am assuming, therefore, that you have conclusive proof that what Ian Phillips said is wrong and that none of the teams involved are merely 'fishing'?

Your Ian Phillips was implying that these teams only contested the diffusers because the ddecker diffuser cars are better and that they are trying to get them banned.
I think that this journo's opinion is biased and wrong.

The teams contested the diffusers in order to get an official stance from the FIA. Especially RBR and Renault whom were refused the use of such a concept on their cars.

I agree with Knockie that the move and the following appeal are probably more of a move to destabilize the other 3 teams while they are working hard to catch up.

BDunnell

27th March 2009, 16:32

I think there may be an element of gamesmanship going on.

The teams have known about these diffusers for ages and that it was likely the Stewards would back the FIA line.

Was it, though?

Knock-on

27th March 2009, 16:47

Was it, though?

Who knows? Who knows what the feck is happening in F1 at the moment.

The FIA tells some teams diffusers are legal and others no, FOTA demands monies owed by Bernie who says he's paid, medals are in, out and shake it all about while there will be 200 cars on the grid under a budget cap of $3.26.

Who the hell knows :confused:

Dave B

27th March 2009, 17:10

Typical journalistic attitude. They understand squat of the rules but can make an elephant out of a mosquito.

Yes, of course. I mean, it's not as if he's the commercial director of a current team or anything... :\

Bagwan

27th March 2009, 18:00

They had to protest .
In protest , they guaranteed that the others must face some of the same development , as the three teams who have it must also have a non-aero crash structure ready for the third GP .
The appeal effectively has them all working on the 2 separate , but opposite solutions before the final decision , levelling the field .

Whether we end up with or without is less important in the end , than what they do with the first 2 races , should the trick diffusers be banned .

I think the best solution would be to allow them , but restrict them to a size significantly smaller with a few more lines of text in the rules .
Firstly , if it's enough different , then they will all have to re-design .
Secondly , it might take some of that half second away , levelling the field a little more .
Thirdly , it might give all those poor guys that designed all those winglet thingys something to do so they don't throw up any more goofy looking mirror supports .
Take a few miles per hour out of the corners and the tires might stay on the cars rather than rub off into little ridges of goo off-line as well .

Bagwan

27th March 2009, 18:22

Heikki had this to say :
"The team’s engineers and designers can’t wait to show what they can do," Kovalainen said. "So, maybe this was a good wake-up call after the championship year."

He seems to think he knows why they are so far behind .

If the Brawn machine works so well , maybe a little exchange of info might buy a few engines .

27th March 2009, 18:22

Thirdly , it might give all those poor guys that designed all those winglet thingys something to do so they don't throw up any more goofy looking mirror supports

Thank you Bagwan for giving support to the Aerodynamics Union, Airfix!

We Aero's have had enough criticism over the years, what with flip ups and chimneys, but all that was supposed to have been a thing of the past due to the reduction and removal of Aero gadgets and we were confined to the scrap heap of F1 history.

One things for sure....the Australian GP won't be plagued by aerodynamic devices...

.....DOH!

Bagwan

27th March 2009, 18:37

Thank you Bagwan for giving support to the Aerodynamics Union, Airfix!

We Aero's have had enough criticism over the years, what with flip ups and chimneys, but all that was supposed to have been a thing of the past due to the reduction and removal of Aero gadgets and we were confined to the scrap heap of F1 history.

One things for sure....the Australian GP won't be plagued by aerodynamic devices...

.....DOH!

No , no , the aero guys have merely gone underground , or underbody to be more specific .
They sprout out everywhere you wouldn't expect .
The creep from under the crash structure .
They squeeze sidepods to and fro to eke out little areas where they can practice the black art of aeros .

They are denizens of the dark diffuser tunnels now , where few dare to tread .

I think you fit in better with the black carbon fibre gang . I've never imagined you much of a "flip-up" kind of guy .

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 18:58

We all know who lodged the protest this time: Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull and BMW (the last one was not accepted by the FIA).

So it's not like when McLaren "questioned" if they can use similar systems in the past, when they were looking for a ban on those systems. Nor like when they stole the whole Ferrari data.

If I were you I'd rather hide under a stone instead of pointing the finger to fans of honest teams.

PS: McLaren didn't protest for several reasons:
1. their car is pants and Brawn GP are the only Mercedes powered team that has a chance to the podium.
2. they never protest on face value so they will ask the FIA for a clarification because they intend to use a similar device. :p :

Ferrari isn't anymore inocent in asking Charlie or the FIA for "clarification" of the rules to bring discrepancies to their attention.

Seem perfectly reasonable to question the validity of a design vs. protesting it. I see nothing wrong with that.

Mclaren-gate is Mclaren-gate and they won't be defended by many on this board. I do remember this guy, a Ferrari employee (Nigel Stepney) before the scandal broke, that had an equal part in that matter though. ;)

Let's call this bye-gones though. Mclaren paid a massive fine, and in 2009 any knowledge gained is probably worth little to nothing now. :)

There was no need either for him to start a discussion out of nothing. Some people may have a boring life and only come here to start fights.

It didn't come from nothing. A couple of days ago you posted that Ferrari have not been the "protesters" as of late, and firmly placed the blame with Mclaren (with past protests). I was merely highlighting a recent contradiction.

Never was the case, and this Tifosi wouldn't have said Ferrari have never protested anyway.

2003 - Michelin Tyre Issue.
1998 - Mclaren 4th Pedal

There are many others too, I just don't remember the details.

But any team that thinks something should be queried is quite within its rights to do so. I had no problem with Mclaren querying the sprung floor Ferrari ran two years ago.

Sometimes it requires a protest to clarify a ruling.

"Some Tifosi" did not include you or Tazio. ;) I don't feel compelled to name names. I think most of us know (even prior to ^)

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 19:13

My mistake about the "working group", although it shows quite clearly how Brawn, Symonds and the like can agree then interpret deifferently what that agreement means!

As for Howett......talking about unity and being united are two seperate things. One's easy, the other is constantly under pressure, and if any of the teams think that either Brawn, Toyota or Williams have pulled a fast one, watch them stick the knife in at the first opportunity.

In a way, Brawn remind me of Toleman....about to break into the top tier, then suddenly without tyres due to the actions of the top tier teams and reduced to running out of date Avons!

That was long before the current FIA system....and had feck all to do with the FIA....that was totally down to the attitude of the other teams.

As the French say - "Plus Ca Change"

Perhaps (and only perhaps) Brawn saw that interpretation long before, and therefore continued to push the aero package without clueing his fellow working group members of his ideas. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not the working groups job to vet our all possible uses of regulation, simply to recommend a structure of framework by which all teams will be regulated by the FIA.

Brawn is one smart f'er after all, and probably knew alot more about where he would be in '09 than anyone else.

Allen is a bit shortsighted on this one.
1. It isn't even sure that the FIA will accept the appeal.
2. The teams might decide to give up on the appeal if they develop a similar solution a nd it works for their cars.

3. The cost of appeal (lawyers aren't cheap after all) could tap into their budget. ;)

I am assuming, therefore, that you have conclusive proof that what Ian Phillips said is wrong and that none of the teams involved are merely 'fishing'?

I think you have a point (that teams were fishing). One of the protests was thrown out.

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 19:22

Your Ian Phillips was implying that these teams only contested the diffusers because the ddecker diffuser cars are better and that they are trying to get them banned.
I think that this journo's opinion is biased and wrong.

The teams contested the diffusers in order to get an official stance from the FIA. Especially RBR and Renault whom were refused the use of such a concept on their cars.

I agree with Knockie that the move and the following appeal are probably more of a move to destabilize the other 3 teams while they are working hard to catch up.

I would say that points more the fact the RBR and Renault diffuser concept weren't similar to the other 3, violated the rules, and therefore was refused. Not because of some vendetta.

ioan

27th March 2009, 19:28

I would say that points more the fact the RBR and Renault diffuser concept weren't similar to the other 3, violated the rules, and therefore was refused. Not because of some vendetta.

I doubt that any of us have seen the proposed RBR and Renault diffusers.
In fact the only ones that can draw a conclusion are the two teams and the FIA.

ioan

27th March 2009, 19:30

It didn't come from nothing. A couple of days ago you posted that Ferrari have not been the "protesters" as of late, and firmly placed the blame with Mclaren (with past protests). I was merely highlighting a recent contradiction.

As far as I know my comments were true when I made them a few days ago.
I'm not Nostradamus. And I acknowledge that Ferrari is one of the teams that protested the 3 double decker diffusers.

jjanicke

27th March 2009, 19:38

I doubt that any of us have seen the proposed RBR and Renault diffusers.
In fact the only ones that can draw a conclusion are the two teams and the FIA.

We don't have to see the proposal. We just have to rely of the belief that the FIA be impartial. In fact had RBR and Renault felt slighted by their refusal and the other 3 allowance I'm 100% positive we would know about it.

As is, the other teams are just doing their best to minimize the impact of being behind, potentially way behind, the "smarter" 3.

I must say that I do find it interesting that when the shoe fits your argument of "we don't know so how could we have an opinion" pops up often. And at other times you somehow know what "we don't know" (i.e. that Ian Phillips implied something or another). How do you know what he "implied"?

ioan

27th March 2009, 21:21

We don't have to see the proposal. We just have to rely of the belief that the FIA be impartial. In fact had RBR and Renault felt slighted by their refusal and the other 3 allowance I'm 100% positive we would know about it.

Impartial? Maybe!
Not so smart? For sure! Just take a look at how it turned out last season when Charlie said something, it was always the opposite that happened.

BTW RBR and Renault did already complain about the fact that they were not allowed to build a car using similar a similar diffuser.

I must say that I do find it interesting that when the shoe fits your argument of "we don't know so how could we have an opinion" pops up often. And at other times you somehow know what "we don't know" (i.e. that Ian Phillips implied something or another). How do you know what he "implied"?

Some people have a brain and use it to think, others just have a brain.

Valve Bounce

27th March 2009, 21:35

If the teams can't agree on their own regulations, why blame the FIA?

Possibly because they are the ruling body, not GOTA. But I do agree that this is ridiculous, leaving such an issue so late. This will leave a very sour taste in some teams mouths no matter which way the appeal goes, as points in two races will be involved.

Valve Bounce

27th March 2009, 21:37

Some people have a brain and use it to think, others just have a brain.

They do ???? :confused:

markabilly

28th March 2009, 01:16

Possibly because they are the ruling body, not GOTA. But I do agree that this is ridiculous, leaving such an issue so late. This will leave a very sour taste in some teams mouths no matter which way the appeal goes, as points in two races will be involved.

My opinion where one team secretly cheats and is caught, time to strip.
Where one team is challenged and the stewards say go ahead, before the race, then the points stay, even if the appeal be successful.....but it will be a short term advantage because all the teams will just imitate the diffuser three...

Valve Bounce

28th March 2009, 01:46

My opinion where one team secretly cheats and is caught, time to strip.
Where one team is challenged and the stewards say go ahead, before the race, then the points stay, even if the appeal be successful.....but it will be a short term advantage because all the teams will just imitate the diffuser three...

I fully agree. I am just stunned that some teams maintain that when they were asked about installing the dodgy diffusers, they were informed they were illegal. Surely to god they should have had the request and reply in writing so that there could not be any dispute.