How long before they all copy the diffusers?

[CaptainRaiden]

Since those diffusers are now deemed legal, I am guessing that by the Malaysian GP, we should see almost all the teams with the same diffusers. I can imagine all the teams' designers already starting work on them as we speak.

If that happens, and if as other teams have said, the diffusers are worth 0.5 seconds a lap, I expect Ferrari and BMW, and maybe Mclaren back on the front by the next race (Well, maybe not Mclaren), especially with the added bonus of KERS in Malaysia. Or going by today's qualifying, if Red Bull get it right, I expect Vettel to be a serious contender!

[dj_bytedisaster]

Since those diffusers are now deemed legal, I am guessing that by the Malaysian GP, we should see almost all the teams with the same diffusers. I can imagine all the teams' designers already starting work on them as we speak.

If that happens, and if as other teams have said, the diffusers are worth 0.5 seconds a lap, I expect Ferrari and BMW, and maybe Mclaren back on the front by the next race (Well, maybe not Mclaren), especially with the added bonus of KERS in Malaysia. Or going by today's qualifying, if Red Bull get it right, I expect Vettel to be a serious contender!

Mercedes Chief Haug on German TV said, that they are working on it already 24h a day, so expect that to be present on all cars at the next GP

[Dave B]

It might be pushing things to have new parts ready to race in Malaysia, but certainly by the start of the European season I expect the confusers (copyright Eddie Jordan!) to be standard equipment.

[goodf1fun]

So if they all use it, the appeal will be canceled?

[F1boat]

I think that soon teams will learn, no matter what FIA decides, that the confusers are not the only advantage of Brawn GP. Our commentator quoted Patrick Head, who said that the diffusers help, but are not the most significant part of the advantage which Brawn, Williams and Toyota enjoy.

[goodf1fun]

Mclaren should buy chassis from Ross and give discount for the engines :P

[F1boat]

Mclaren should buy chassis from Ross and give discount for the engines :P

Haha, I wonder how is Norbert feeling. Mercedes got 1-2!

[goodf1fun]

Poor Hamilton, now he can see how Button was treated for so many years...

[Claus Hansen]

Relax. this is the first race, lets see after the first couple of races, and then i think we are back to normal !

But, its damn nice to see Brawn and Williams ar rhe front !!!

[F1boat]

Relax. this is the first race, lets see after the first couple of races, and then i think we are back to normal !

But, its damn nice to see Brawn and Williams ar rhe front !!!

IMO for some teams it will take longer than that, but I think that the season will be cracking and it will be very difficult to predict who will win it.

[jens]

Next race is only in one week's time, so surely they won't have that diffuser completed so quickly. The beginning of the European season is a more reasonable guess for a starting point.

The other factor, what must be taken into account, is that all F1 cars have different characteristics and simply copying a similar diffuser solution may not suit car's design version. The diffusers of BGP, Toyota and Williams are a bit different too, although all have used the same loophole.

[Valve Bounce]

Wind tunnel round the clock exercise.

[LiamM]

Wind tunnel round the clock exercise.

Which isn't allowed these days

[ioan]

Mercedes Chief Haug on German TV said, that they are working on it already 24h a day, so expect that to be present on all cars at the next GP

The chances that they will have DD diffusers next week end are slim to none.
According to Pat Symonds it won't be before Spanish GP to have an adapted diffuser and not before the summer to have a fully developed and integrated rear end with these diffusers.

We shouldn't forget that starting with this year aerodynamic work hourse have been cut back drastically.

[ioan]

Which isn't allowed these days

Right, they can only run 8 hours a day.

[Sonic]

I'd be very surprised if they ran them next race. Its not as simple as saying -"oh look thats a good design we'll bolt that on".
What works on one car won't automatically work on another. For example Reb Bull with their pull rod rear suspension may be unable to follow the same design route for diffusers as others - that may be why they are the most vocal of those appealing.

[Malbec]

According to Pat Symonds it won't be before Spanish GP to have an adapted diffuser and not before the summer to have a fully developed and integrated rear end with these diffusers.

We shouldn't forget that starting with this year aerodynamic work hourse have been cut back drastically.

Exactly.

Some teams may not have to modify their cars much to get the new diffusers but others will have to redesign the gearbox, rear suspension, rear wing and crash structure to get the thing to work. That can't be done in a couple of weeks, in fact I hear that Ferrari would have to modify their gearbox substantially and RBR's entire rear end would have to be extensively modified.

Having said that the work on developing such a diffuser would have started months ago when the Toyota and Williams first ran, and would only have been accelerated when the Brawn showed its pace.

[RJL25]

I think most teams would be well advanced in the design of these diffusers, I think some teams may have it as soon as the next GP, for others it may still be a number of GP's away

[ozrevhead]

Which isn't allowed these days
they cant use the wintunnel and cant test - teams like renault and RB have to have a new back end to fit them

Im ropable as RB asked FIA if they can use this technology and told it was likly to be illigal so they played fair used a different stragedy instead - now they are screwed

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Right, they can only run 8 hours a day.

That's 16 hours for the RB5/STR4 chassis?

[Tazio]

CFD will have to be playing a bigger role in lieu of wind tunnel/ track testing!

[ioan]

CFD will have to be playing a bigger role in lieu of wind tunnel/ track testing!

CFD usage is being limited too.

[Tazio]

CFD usage is being limited too.

Holy Crap!! :p : F1 is a mess I would rather see it run itself into extinction
than have to endure wholesale changes to the sport for the sake of keeping it afloat.
I guess noone at the FIA had the forethought to consider holding off the practice ban untill the radical changes got sorted out!

[OutRun]

To copy the diffuser they have to redo the rear crash structure and still pass the safety requirements. To do that with a minimum of testing and wind tunnel time compared to the past seems to be impossible.

Honda spent a lot of time developing that chassis. I doubt that Brawn GP will be caught this season.

[DazzlaF1]

I wonder how long it'll be actually for the protesting teams to realise that Brawn and Williams have actually interpreted the rules better than they did, if so, then the designers/teccy directors of the big teams need a serious talking to

[Sonic]

I wonder how long it'll be actually for the protesting teams to realise that Brawn and Williams have actually interpreted the rules better than they did, if so, then the designers/teccy directors of the big teams need a serious talking to

I think they already realise it. Several teams have already stated that they are exploring their own versions.

[BDunnell]

Holy Crap!! :p : F1 is a mess I would rather see it run itself into extinction
than have to endure wholesale changes to the sport for the sake of keeping it afloat.

Well, it got through them before, such as the switch to 1.5-litre engines in the early '60s, and has remained afloat. I'm sure it will now. None of this is the end of the world and it will all sort itself out.

[Sonic]

Well, it got through them before, such as the switch to 1.5-litre engines in the early '60s, and has remained afloat. I'm sure it will now. None of this is the end of the world and it will all sort itself out.

An optimist? YAY!

[V12]

I agree with a few of the posts here - all the teams running "normal" diffusers, if worth their salt will have already got to work before this weekend. It should be what the sport is all about, I love the on-track action but the technical contest is just as interesting for me and it'd be a shame if we lost that.

Red Bull's Newey was on record a few weeks ago about leaving F1 in the near future with the technical challenge being reduced - well here's a challenge for ya ;)

[BDunnell]

Sonic — a realist, hopefully. While the endless protests are indicative of something rather unsavoury, there's no point blowing it all out of proportion.

[BDunnell]

Red Bull's Newey was on record a few weeks ago about leaving F1 in the near future with the technical challenge being reduced - well here's a challenge for ya ;)

Quite!

The diffuser affair reminds me of several past 'incidents' in various championships involving one or more teams stealing a march on the rest via something that is probably within the rules, but on which immediate clarification isn't forthcoming and which causes great disenchantment amongst the competition. Anyone who recalls the saga of Alfa's aero aids in the 1994 British Touring Car Championship will know exactly what I mean. It was a huge story for a while, but didn't do any great harm in the end.

[ozrevhead]

I wonder how long it'll be actually for the protesting teams to realise that Brawn and Williams have actually interpreted the rules better than they did, if so, then the designers/teccy directors of the big teams need a serious talking to
ummmmmm both RB and Renault asked the FIA if they could use their 'diffuser' and they said it would not be deemed legal- how is that not interperting the rules better??

They have been screwed sideways had have every right to complain! How many times do I have to say this :mad:

[ioan]

ummmmmm both RB and Renault asked the FIA if they could use their 'diffuser' and they said it would not be deemed legal- how is that not interperting the rules better??

They have been screwed sideways had have every right to complain! How many times do I have to say this :mad:

Don't lose your time, around here bias is what rules, anything else is not important.

[BDunnell]

Don't lose your time, around here bias is what rules, anything else is not important.

So you are able to guarantee that everything you have ever posted on here has been utterly impartial, then?

[ioan]

So you are able to guarantee that everything you have ever posted on here has been utterly impartial, then?

99% of the time.

Back to the diffusers now, it seems like 14 April will be the day when the Appeal will be heard.
Until than none of the teams with simple diffusers will use a double decker one even if they would have one ready.

[BDunnell]

Back to the diffusers now, it seems like 14 April will be the day when the Appeal will be heard.
Until than none of the teams with simple diffusers will use a double decker one even if they would have one ready.

One assumes that the FIA will have formed a more definite view as to the legality of the existing diffusers by that point. It could have saved a lot of bother had it done so by now. After all, we're only talking two weeks' difference between now and the appeal, so I'm sure it shouldn't have been beyond the bounds of possibility for a view to have been formed before the Melbourne meeting.

[ozrevhead]

Don't lose your time, around here bias is what rules, anything else is not important.
TOUCHE!

[AndyRAC]

Quite!

The diffuser affair reminds me of several past 'incidents' in various championships involving one or more teams stealing a march on the rest via something that is probably within the rules, but on which immediate clarification isn't forthcoming and which causes great disenchantment amongst the competition. Anyone who recalls the saga of Alfa's aero aids in the 1994 British Touring Car Championship will know exactly what I mean. It was a huge story for a while, but didn't do any great harm in the end.

Didn't Alfa argue that the road versions came with the spoilers not fitted, but in the boot - ready to be fitted? Or something similar?

While not knowing the ins or outs - I really hope that the protests are thrown out. But, once again it appears the FiA have shot themselves in the foot, by telling some teams the diffusers are legal, and telling others they are illegal. How is that? It's slightly overshadowing what could be a really interesting race/season.

[V12]

If the FIA did indeed tell some teams they wouldn't be interpreted as legal (and I don't know as I wasn't party to any of it obviously) then yes that is very bad form. But it's the fault of the FIA, not of Brawn, Williams and Toyota.

[ozrevhead]

If the FIA did indeed tell some teams they wouldn't be interpreted as legal (and I don't know as I wasn't party to any of it obviously) then yes that is very bad form. But it's the fault of the FIA, not of Brawn, Williams and Toyota.
I do agree with that - if its legal, I'm hoping they are going to make up for their mistake by allowing teams that need to change their whole back end to fit the difusers to be able to test & use windtunell for a period (say up till before the 2nd Euro race?)

If not, is it worth the extra .5 of a second to run somthing that could be dangerous to the driver due to lack of testing

[Valve Bounce]

I wonder how long it'll be actually for the protesting teams to realise that Brawn and Williams have actually interpreted the rules better than they did, .................

About the time it takes for a penny to drop! :p :
I would be surprised if one non rebel diffuser doesn't come up with a rebel diffuser by Malaysia.

[Valve Bounce]

99% of the time.

Back to the diffusers now, it seems like 14 April will be the day when the Appeal will be heard.
Until than none of the teams with simple diffusers will use a double decker one even if they would have one ready.

Why? or should I say, why not? I don't believe anyone would lose points accrues - only for the rebel diffuser to be approved, or ruled out for the future. And I suspect that it will be accepted.

[Tazio]

Why? or should I say, why not? I don't believe anyone would lose points accrues - only for the rebel diffuser to be approved, or ruled out for the future. And I suspect that it will be accepted.
Agreed. I think the bandit diffusers are here to stay! ;)

[CaptainRaiden]

I agree with Valve. One of them is at least gonna try an alternative, if not the exact same design during free practice.

[Somebody]

There is *no chance* that anyone who doesn't already have a double-decker diffuser design will have one in Malaysia. If they want to use one, they'll not only have to design & manufacture the parts, they'll also have to repass the rear crash test (the "upper deck" of the D4s is actually the rear crash structure).

[ioan]

There is *no chance* that anyone who doesn't already have a double-decker diffuser design will have one in Malaysia. If they want to use one, they'll not only have to design & manufacture the parts, they'll also have to repass the rear crash test (the "upper deck" of the D4s is actually the rear crash structure).

As I mentioned on the 1st page of this thread, according to Pat Symonds half baked double deckers are expected in Spain and fully integrated ones only in the summer, as they have to make rather extensive changes to the back of the car, other than the redesign of the rear crash structure.

RBR are in an worse situation because their suspension lay out, but they seem to be very fast without fancy diffusers.

[V12]

Credit where credit's due for McLaren: (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74092)


We haven't participated in any protest this weekend, we will concentrate on making our own cars go quicker

:up:

[Mark]

Overall I think that while the other teams may catch up with the double diffuser teams during the season, realistically we're talking 2010 before they can redesign their car according to that interpretation.

So it's up to Brawn, Williams and Toyota to make the most of 2009! I would certainly love to see any one of these teams take the title. It would be quite the breath of fresh air :)

[CNR]

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11711&Itemid=219

At least five Formula One teams have already turned their attention to copying the Brawn-esque diffuser design

[ozrevhead]

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11711&Itemid=219
Like I have said before how are they going to know its safety and if it works unless they can test it?

I hate the idea of sticking a driver in a car that has a untried and untested peice of equiptment stuck on it - your asking for trouble!

[Triumph]

I can't really visualize the differences between the diffusers in question and the ones that don't work as well. Has anyone got any links to any suitable comparison photographs?

I understand that the controversy concerns the centre part of the diffuser and its incorporation into the rear crash structure, but it would be interesting to see what the two version look like.

:-)

[Bagwan]

Credit where credit's due for McLaren: (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74092)

:up:

It wouldn't have anything to do , though , with the fact that only 4% of appeals actually reverse the decision .

It seems it's all a bit moot , though , if you believe Rubens :
"I thought the car was done from that crash, but I survived quite well and, if there is one thing we can say, it is that, if people think that our car is only good because of the diffuser, that big hit broke the diffuser completely - and the car was very strong after that. It didn't have a fantastic pace as the temperature dropped, but it had a pace, so it was still a good car after all."

And , if you believe Fernando , they might as well award the trophy now , and start developing for next year .

[Mark]

Well if the diffuser isn't the issue to my mind makes it even more likely McLaren / Ferrari et al will catch up by mid-season.

[big_sw2000]

I can't really visualize the differences between the diffusers in question and the ones that don't work as well. Has anyone got any links to any suitable comparison photographs?

I understand that the controversy concerns the centre part of the diffuser and its incorporation into the rear crash structure, but it would be interesting to see what the two version look like.

:-)
Dose this help
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95968&f=6

[ioan]

It wouldn't have anything to do , though , with the fact that only 4% of appeals actually reverse the decision .

It seems it's all a bit moot , though , if you believe Rubens :
"I thought the car was done from that crash, but I survived quite well and, if there is one thing we can say, it is that, if people think that our car is only good because of the diffuser, that big hit broke the diffuser completely - and the car was very strong after that. It didn't have a fantastic pace as the temperature dropped, but it had a pace, so it was still a good car after all."

I don't believe what Rubens says.
Any picture of his car's rear to see how damaged the diffusers were?

[ioan]

The following amendment from the FIA F1 technical regulations makes things look even more strange:


One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of
a car may have on a following car.
Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption
is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.
Link: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

To me it looks like this means that it is not permitted to design something that contradicts the spirit of the rules. This is very interesting as it is probably the first time that the notion spirit of the rules is being included in the rules.

[Tazio]

Despite the fact that Briatore is no fan of the bandit diffusers, the teams already using the device proved that, if Renault wants to keep up in 2009, it will become a necessity to develop the diffusers. According to rumours in the paddock, Renault could be racing the new diffuser next month during the Chinese Grand Prix.


http://www.f1technical.net/news/11988

[jens]

I think the advantage of the DD-diffuser is a bit overestimated. Sure enough Brawn was hard to beat (however, I think their car is conceptually the best and not just due to diffuser), but the pace shown by Red Bull (Vettel) and BMW (Kubica) proved that it's possible to be quick without the "super-DDD" too. IMO KERS played a bigger part in the underperforming of factory teams at Melbourne than diffusers.

[Tazio]

I think the advantage of the DD-diffuser is a bit overestimated. Sure enough Brawn was hard to beat (however, I think their car is conceptually the best and not just due to diffuser), but the pace shown by Red Bull (Vettel) and BMW (Kubica) proved that it's possible to be quick without the "super-DDD" too. IMO KERS played a bigger part in the underperforming of factory teams at Melbourne than diffusers.

Ain't buying it Jens ;)

"we have already put similar pieces(of bandit diffusers) in our wind tunnel and it gives 14 per cent more downforce." :eek:


http://www.f1technical.net/news/11988

[jens]

Ain't buying it Jens ;)

"we have already put similar pieces(of bandit diffusers) in our wind tunnel and it gives 14 per cent more downforce." :eek:


http://www.f1technical.net/news/11988

14%? How much of time advantage would such rise in downforce give per lap?

[Triumph]

Dose this help
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95968&f=6

Yes, that's the kind of thing I was after! Thanks! :)

[Tazio]

14%? How much of time advantage would such rise in downforce give per lap?
Can't help you there bro! My degree is in Eglish Lit! :confused:

However:

"Away! these are mere gulleries, 6 horrid things,
Invented by some cheating mountebanks
To abuse us. Do you think that herbs or charms
Can force the will"?

[ArrowsFA1]

To me it looks like this means that it is not permitted to design something that contradicts the spirit of the rules. This is very interesting as it is probably the first time that the notion spirit of the rules is being included in the rules.
Ahhh, but is there an appendix to the rules which gives the definition of "spirit of the rules"? :D

[PSfan]

Dose this help
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95968&f=6

Wow, thanks so much for that, that is very interesting, of note is this pic that I believe shows that the brawn is most likely gonna be deemed illegal:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/ImperiumThroughTheAshes/F1%202009%20Immages/BrawnGP001Diffuser.jpg

The loop-hole that the three teams used was:

3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

I underlined the important part, it doesn't specify directly under the area in question. what the pic shows is you can see race track threw the "upper" diffuser. So Basically you could probably look up from that area under the car, looking up at an angle and see the top of the upper diffuser, and if it isn't within the 175mm rule, then game over...

[CNR]

would the air that is blown out the back of the car stop another car geting close enough to overtake ?

[Valve Bounce]

would the air that is blown out the back of the car stop another car geting close enough to overtake ?

Only if the driver farts long and hard enufffffffffffffff.

[Valve Bounce]

Ahhh, but is there an appendix to the rules which gives the definition of "spirit of the rules"? :D

Kimi reckons it's Vodka!!

[wmcot]

Only if the driver farts long and hard enufffffffffffffff.

So the BrawnGP kitchen is serving up beans and broccoli with every meal? :)

[ioan]

would the air that is blown out the back of the car stop another car geting close enough to overtake ?

Yes it would. If more air is coming out of the diffuser it means that there is more turbulence behind the car.

[wedge]

Yes it would. If more air is coming out of the diffuser it means that there is more turbulence behind the car.

Really? Someone else correct me if I'm wrong but the wings create the turbulent wake. The new aero regs has the rear diffuser extended to create better undercar aero and less wake from the smaller rear wing.

[AndyL]

The loop-hole that the three teams used was:

3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

I underlined the important part, it doesn't specify directly under the area in question. what the pic shows is you can see race track threw the "upper" diffuser. So Basically you could probably look up from that area under the car, looking up at an angle and see the top of the upper diffuser, and if it isn't within the 175mm rule, then game over...


Very interesting. I wonder if there is any "case law" on how "visible from beneath the car" (or visible from above/the side etc) has been interpreted in the past.

The diagram on the official F1 web site (http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/806/637.html) seems to indicate that Williams' design might be vulnerable to this argument too.

[pettersolberg29]

Heidfeld says BMW are already making a diffuser - not for next race but possibly the one after that.

[Tazio]

BMW have officially lodged a protest against the Bandit diffusers!

http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=105978&newlang=&topic=8&catid=0

[Ranger]

BMW have officially lodged a protest against the Bandit diffusers!

http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=105978&newlang=&topic=8&catid=0

...which was rejected:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74263


BMW Sauber's protest against the legality of the diffuser designs on the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams cars has been rejected, meaning the matter will now almost certainly join the FIA International Court of Appeal hearing on April 14.

...

BMW Sauber has appealed that decision, however, which ensures that the results of the Malaysian GP will now be taken into account at the ICA hearing later this month.

[Tazio]

...which was rejected:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74263

Duh!!! April 14th my man :)

[ozrevhead]

Heidfeld says BMW are already making a diffuser - not for next race but possibly the one after that.
easy for them - they dont have to redo their back end and their suspention

RB going to be screwed sideways if this is not overturned :mad:

[F1boat]

I am probably getting tedious, but I will repeat myself - if the teams are DQ for the first two rounds of the season, I will probably quit watching F1 racing. There is no such thing as "spirit of the rules" and I don't care about it. There are rules and if there is a loophole in them, it must be used. Now, if FIA just bans the diffusers for the next rounds, I will be upset, but nothing more. Still, I hope that the diffusers are allowed to stay. Cleverness should be encouraged and F1 must not become a spec series only because an energy drink team and struggling champion teams are caught ill prepared.

[Ranger]

I am probably getting tedious, but I will repeat myself - if the teams are DQ for the first two rounds of the season, I will probably quit watching F1 racing. There is no such thing as "spirit of the rules" and I don't care about it. There are rules and if there is a loophole in them, it must be used. Now, if FIA just bans the diffusers for the next rounds, I will be upset, but nothing more. Still, I hope that the diffusers are allowed to stay. Cleverness should be encouraged and F1 must not become a spec series only because an energy drink team and struggling champion teams are caught ill prepared.

Red Bull and Renault had the same device ready but were told by the FIA that they were illegal in mid-2008, after discussions with them directly.

That is the issue at hand.

It was not that they didn't think of the concept.

The worst part is that Max can't even decide if they are legal or not. Great leadership, right there.

[Dave B]

Ross Brawn says that a year ago he proposed a solution which would clarify the rules and effectively disallow DDDs, but that other teams didn't take him up on his offer.

If... they.. could... see him now!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

[F1boat]

Red Bull and Renault had the same device ready but were told by the FIA that they were illegal in mid-2008, after discussions with them directly.

That is the issue at hand.

It was not that they didn't think of the concept.

The worst part is that Max can't even decide if they are legal or not. Great leadership, right there.

But these three teams should at least keep their points. What Max have done, however, if the RBR and Renault's claims are true, is disgraceful - he is trying to split the teams and to weaken them IMO.

[ioan]

I am probably getting tedious, but I will repeat myself - if the teams are DQ for the first two rounds of the season, I will probably quit watching F1 racing.

Your decision.


There is no such thing as "spirit of the rules" and I don't care about it.

This year the spirit of the rules is even written black on white in the FIA regulations.

[pettersolberg29]

For what reason would the three teams keep their points if the diffuser is deemed illegal. Surely one of two things should happen:

1) The diffuser is legal and all points are kept. Other teams scramble to copy it.

2) The diffuser is illegal and all points should be lost and the teams in question have to rebuild their diffuser.

Why any halfway?

[ioan]

For what reason would the three teams keep their points if the diffuser is deemed illegal. Surely one of two things should happen:

1) The diffuser is legal and all points are kept. Other teams scramble to copy it.

2) The diffuser is illegal and all points should be lost and the teams in question have to rebuild their diffuser.

Why any halfway?

The diffusers will not be deemed illegal.
IMO the gray areas in the regulations will be fixed in a way that the diffusers won't be legal anymore, just like it was with Ferrari's floor 2 years ago.

[F1boat]

The diffusers will not be deemed illegal.
IMO the gray areas in the regulations will be fixed in a way that the diffusers won't be legal anymore, just like it was with Ferrari's floor 2 years ago.

This will be a sensible decision by FIA, even if I hope that the diffusers stay. Actually I think that Brawn can win without those things as well, so it might turn to be better :)
But DQ would be a travesty IMO.

[SGWilko]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

When they [diffusers] are passed legal, I hope Ross grabs a loud haler and screams 'told you so' from the rostrum.

He gave them all an Olive branch, and the feckwits through it back at him. Makes Flav and his unfeasably large gob look like the real tother that he is..........

[PSfan]

The way I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes for the 3 teams, and who's to say they will all 3 teams will fit in the same category?

1) Diffusers are deemed legal, and the 7 other teams play catch-up

I think this is unlikely based on this little passage I read of f1 technical: The diffuser itself has been moved backward compared to 2008. While its maximum height was increased to 175mm, the tall central channel is now missing, resulting in a net downforce decrease. The spirit of the rules seem pretty clear from that sentance...

2) The Diffusers are deemed legal, are outside of the spirit of the rules. Then I suspect the previous result would be unchanged, the loopholes will be fixed, and a provision for the 3 teams to compete in China would be created...

3) The Diffuser is illigal, the teams interpretation of the rules is wrong, and the results from the previous 2 races will be removed. The teams ability to compete in China will be determined on if they can have a car that meets the regs in time.

From my interpretation of the rules... Brawn GP is still illegal, as this pic taken on grandprix.com from Saturday still shows daylight when looking threw the triangle portion of the diffuser (note you have to adjust the brightness to see it)
http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pmal09/sat/barrichello3-lg.jpg

The Williams May be ok judging from this BBC pic:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45603000/jpg/_45603376_466_diffuser_glow.jpg

And I haven't seen a good pic of the Toyota yet...

Now the confussion in the regs might stem from reg 3.12.5 which states: Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below.

which I don't believe circumvents 3.12.7s No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane.


So as I stated earlier in this thread, it would appear that you will be able to see badywork more the 175mm above the reference plane with the Brawn, the Williams looks like the view may be to obstructed...

So, could we see some team penalised and some get away with it... for now?

[ioan]

McLaren will also join the protesters in the 14 April ICA hearing.

That makes it 5 teams (6 if you consider both red Bull and Torro Rosso), Force India being the only ones who didn't yet state what their official position is in this case.

[SGWilko]

McLaren will also join the protesters in the 14 April ICA hearing.

That makes it 5 teams (6 if you consider both red Bull and Torro Rosso), Force India being the only ones who didn't yet state what their official position is in this case.

Welcome back! ;)

Interesting - WHat is the motive here? Get them banned or clear the way to put their interpetration in to service on their 'truck'? :D

[V12]

For what reason would the three teams keep their points if the diffuser is deemed illegal. Surely one of two things should happen:

1) The diffuser is legal and all points are kept. Other teams scramble to copy it.

2) The diffuser is illegal and all points should be lost and the teams in question have to rebuild their diffuser.

Why any halfway?

Because there are precedents to this, such as banning the Brabham fan car in 1978, basically saying "it's illegal, starting from now".

The cars passed scrutineering at both of the first two races, and IMO their decisions should not be undermined, although with the Federation of International Arbitrary-decisions in charge, who knows?

[SGWilko]

For what reason would the three teams keep their points if the diffuser is deemed illegal. Surely one of two things should happen:

1) The diffuser is legal and all points are kept. Other teams scramble to copy it.

2) The diffuser is illegal and all points should be lost and the teams in question have to rebuild their diffuser.

Why any halfway?

Well, it looks as if, given the wording of the rules (and ross held out an olive branch to the 'others' last year) there are two clear interpretations.

It's a BIT like two identical glasses of water, both with liquid that reaches the halfway point between top and bottom of glass.

One team interprets the glass as half full, the other half empty. Which is right, and which is wrong? Are they both wrong or both right....

Personally, if the liquid reaches half way from being empty (i.e. filled), it's half full. If it reaches half way from being full (i.e. emptied) it is half empty.... ;)

[schmenke]

... Cleverness should be encouraged and F1 must not become a spec series only because an energy drink team and struggling champion teams are caught ill prepared.

Agreed.

[Tazio]

Meanwhile, McLaren are planning to introduce new developments to their car – which could include a 'double-decker' diffuser should the concept be given the green light at next week's FIA Appeal Court hearing – at the Chinese GP. "They should move us a little closer to the front than we saw in the opening races," said team principal Martin Whitmarsh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/lewishamilton/5133137/Lewis-Hamilton-and-McLaren-face-new-Lie-gate-revelations.html

[shazbot]

So what do we think this type of diffuser is worth over the more conventional type?

[F1boat]

McLaren will also join the protesters in the 14 April ICA hearing.

That makes it 5 teams (6 if you consider both red Bull and Torro Rosso), Force India being the only ones who didn't yet state what their official position is in this case.

ioan, Macca have clarified, that they will not participate in active role.

[Tazio]

ioan, Macca have clarified, that they will not participate in active role.

Yea' they're only their to "Bad Vibe" the protesting teams :laugh:

[Tazio]

So what do we think this type of diffuser is worth over the more conventional type?14% downforce according to Renault!

[ioan]

ioan, Macca have clarified, that they will not participate in active role.

But they confirmed that they will participate and also that in their opinion the DD diffusers are not legal.

[ioan]

14% downforce according to Renault!

Up to 30% if fully integrated with the chassis design, according to the same Renault. That's enormous.

[Knock-on]

I struggle with these numbers.

If you had 30% more downforce, you would be being passed by the pace car down the straight, let alone other cars :laugh:

I think the diffuser issue is about the way the car manages downforce and air flow which is where the benefit lies.

[ShiftingGears]

I struggle with these numbers.

If you had 30% more downforce, you would be being passed by the pace car down the straight, let alone other cars :laugh:

I think the diffuser issue is about the way the car manages downforce and air flow which is where the benefit lies.

It's from the diffuser. 30% more downforce does not mean 30% more drag.

[ioan]

I struggle with these numbers.

If you had 30% more downforce, you would be being passed by the pace car down the straight, let alone other cars :laugh:

Least thought post of the year!

[shazbot]

I'd imagine most of the non piggy back diffuser cars are within a hundred or so pounds, with similar differences in efficiency. Lets say the cars generate 2500 lbs at 150 mph. A 30% gain on that would be 750 lbs. The piggy back diffusers by themselves could be worth 300lbs (maybe more) of mostly rear df. By the time this is re balanced with the front wing it could be 400lbs +. Diffusers are pretty efficient drag wise and a re balance with the front wing would only increase the efficiency. Rear downforce within the current regs (and for the past few years) is the holy grail. A 400lbs advantage with little drag penalty is huge.

[AndyL]

Meanwhile, McLaren are planning to introduce new developments to their car – which could include a 'double-decker' diffuser should the concept be given the green light at next week's FIA Appeal Court hearing – at the Chinese GP. "They should move us a little closer to the front than we saw in the opening races," said team principal Martin Whitmarsh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/lewishamilton/5133137/Lewis-Hamilton-and-McLaren-face-new-Lie-gate-revelations.html

I hope the double decker confusers do get ruled legal, then we'll find out exactly how much difference they make as everyone else fits them to their cars.

[Valve Bounce]

Interesting that McLaren is declining to attend teh Diffusergate hearing. What's the bet that McLaren already have a bodgy diffuser ready to be bolted on!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74376

[Tazio]

Interesting that McLaren is declining to attend teh Diffusergate hearing. What's the bet that McLaren already have a bodgy diffuser ready to be bolted on!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74376

The FIA confirmed on Thursday that eight teams, including McLaren, will attend the hearing that will decide on the legality of the rear diffusers of the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams teams
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74376


As to you, Mr.Valve Bump, i say unto you this:

Originally Posted by pino
Valve, I am tired of reading stupid and pointless comments by you, stop it right now ! :p :
Sorrrrrrry ;)
:rotflmao:

[Valve Bounce]

The FIA confirmed on Thursday that eight teams, including McLaren, will attend the hearing that will decide on the legality of the rear diffusers of the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams teams
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74376


Sorrrrrrry ;)
:rotflmao:

OK, they will be there, but not speak: "McLaren will not attend next week's International Court of Appeal hearing in an active role, the British squad has clarified."

If they are going to attend in a non active role, perhaps they will just put an exhaust pipe on the floor to represent them.

Oh God!! I've just posted something stupid. :(

OK!! OK!! this is more interesting: Brawn had offered 12 months ago how the technical regulations could be tidied up to avoid this whole mess, but it was rejected. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

"I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.

"Because it was clear that when we started to work on the regulations that there were things that you could do, and we needed to perhaps clean them up, but nobody was interested. They are interested now."

[Tazio]

OK, they will be there, but not speak: "McLaren will not attend next week's International Court of Appeal hearing in an active role, the British squad has clarified."

If they are going to attend in a non active role, perhaps they will just put an exhaust pipe on the floor to represent them.

Oh God!! I've just posted something stupid. :(

OK!! OK!! this is more interesting: Brawn had offered 12 months ago how the technical regulations could be tidied up to avoid this whole mess, but it was rejected. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

"I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.

"Because it was clear that when we started to work on the regulations that there were things that you could do, and we needed to perhaps clean them up, but nobody was interested. They are interested now."
I suggested on a thread (possibly this one) that McLaren were only going to "Bad Vibe" the protesting teams :laugh:

[F1boat]

t in their opinion the DD diffusers are not legal.

This dooms the appeal ;)

[wmcot]

One team interprets the glass as half full, the other half empty. Which is right, and which is wrong? Are they both wrong or both right....


Answer: Yes. And there we have the quantum theory of F1. :)

[wmcot]

Interesting that McLaren is declining to attend teh Diffusergate hearing. What's the bet that McLaren already have a bodgy diffuser ready to be bolted on!!


That's a lie! (Oh, sorry, wrong thread.)

[ioan]

Here's Rory Byrne's view of the Brawn diffuser:



Article 3.12.5 of F1's technical regulations states: "Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below."

The three teams at the centre of the dispute claim that breaks in the floor of their car are not holes, but gaps between the step and reference planes of the car - so exempt from the requirement that no part of the car be visible through them.

Byrne has told Gazzetta dello Sport that he is sceptical about such a suggestion, however, saying teams had never thought like that before.

"It's a rule set at least 14-15 years ago, and that for many years everyone interpreted in the same way," said Byrne, who won many world titles for Ferrari working alongside Ross Brawn. "If you look at the Brawn car from underneath, you can see the suspension."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74409

If it's true what he says about the holes in the floor of the BrawnGP car, than we have at least one of the 3 DDD cars running an illegal aerodynamic package. Not surprisingly it's the fastest of them who has the biggest question marks hanging over them.

[gloomyDAY]

Yo, Rory! See these grapes? They taste pretty sour.

[ioan]

Yo, Rory! See these grapes? They taste pretty sour.

Take my advice, you shouldn't eat them, or you'll probably spend the night in an unpleasant manner! :p :

[SGWilko]

OK, they will be there, but not speak: "McLaren will not attend next week's International Court of Appeal hearing in an active role, the British squad has clarified."

If they are going to attend in a non active role, perhaps they will just put an exhaust pipe on the floor to represent them.

Oh God!! I've just posted something stupid. :(

OK!! OK!! this is more interesting: Brawn had offered 12 months ago how the technical regulations could be tidied up to avoid this whole mess, but it was rejected. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

"I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.

"Because it was clear that when we started to work on the regulations that there were things that you could do, and we needed to perhaps clean them up, but nobody was interested. They are interested now."


Err, Valve - coooeey. Wakey wakey!

See post #85 in this 'ere thread. ;)

[PSfan]

Here's Rory Byrne's view of the Brawn diffuser:



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74409

If it's true what he says about the holes in the floor of the BrawnGP car, than we have at least one of the 3 DDD cars running an illegal aerodynamic package. Not surprisingly it's the fastest of them who has the biggest question marks hanging over them.


So let me get this straight, the whole creative interpretation of the rules comes down to the difference between a gap and a hole?!?!?!

Guess it's time to pull out the dictionary again:

Gap:
gap [gap]
n (plural gaps)
1. break in structure: a break or opening in a structure or arrangement such as a fence or military defense line

Hole:
hole [hōl]
n (plural holes)
1. cavity: a hollow space in a solid object or area
*The hole had filled with water.

2. aperture: a gap or opening in or through something
* a hole in my socks

Certainly sounds like they aren't legal within the the 3.12.5 wording, and I'm even more certain that they don't meet 3.12.7 either...

What I'm starting to think thanks to this new revelation and the Australia exhaust issues, am I the only one thinking that Brawn might have brought cars he knew would be illegal, but he could probably talk through the initial inspections so that he could put on a good enough show to finalize a deal with virgin?

[SGWilko]

So let me get this straight, the whole creative interpretation of the rules comes down to the difference between a gap and a hole?!?!?!

Guess it's time to pull out the dictionary again:

Gap:
gap [gap]
n (plural gaps)
1. break in structure: a break or opening in a structure or arrangement such as a fence or military defense line

Hole:
hole [hōl]
n (plural holes)
1. cavity: a hollow space in a solid object or area
*The hole had filled with water.

2. aperture: a gap or opening in or through something
* a hole in my socks

Certainly sounds like they aren't legal within the the 3.12.5 wording, and I'm even more certain that they don't meet 3.12.7 either...

What I'm starting to think thanks to this new revelation and the Australia exhaust issues, am I the only one thinking that Brawn might have brought cars he knew would be illegal, but he could probably talk through the initial inspections so that he could put on a good enough show to finalize a deal with virgin?

Is it a whole hole, or half a hole? Either way, there's a whole lotta trouble brewing.... ;)

[Valve Bounce]

I have prepared specifications for much of my professional career as an Engineer, I have followed rules in yacht racing, been involved in protests and chaired same, and I have not come across any rules as ambiguous as the F1 rules. The important thing is to specify lengths and dimensions, not what you can or cannot see when you look through holes.

[F1boat]

Well said, Valve...

[ioan]

You people scare me with all this talk about holes! Do you all have a fixation or what?!

[SGWilko]

You people scare me with all this talk about holes! Do you all have a fixation or what?!

Stick some hair round it and I'll have a bash..... ;)

[PSfan]

I have prepared specifications for much of my professional career as an Engineer, I have followed rules in yacht racing, been involved in protests and chaired same, and I have not come across any rules as ambiguous as the F1 rules. The important thing is to specify lengths and dimensions, not what you can or cannot see when you look through holes.

Somehow I doubt there would be rules for yacht racing specifying what you can and can't see when viewed threw a hole from directly underneath a yacht... :p :

[ioan]

Somehow I doubt there would be rules for yacht racing specifying what you can and can't see when viewed threw a hole from directly underneath a yacht... :p :

:rotflmao: :laugh: :rotflmao: Excellent!

[Valve Bounce]

:rotflmao: :laugh: :rotflmao: Excellent!

Well, actually, all the dinghies and yachts that I raced were always placed on the hard standing after races and I often worked on our yacht, sanding the keel and hull down with #400 wet and dry, as well as doing routine maintenance on the yacht. But there are holes beneath dinghies which are enclosed with special drainage devices which drain any water inside the dinghy when the dinghy starts planing. And there are also holes and openings at the back of the boat for drainage purposes.

But that has nothing to do with the rules, really. there are holes on the side of yachts called portholes, and then there are openings for you to actually get into the cabin. So yeah!! there are holes and openings in yachts where you can look through. But yachting rules are written in a way where you don't go looking through these holes.

So before you start laughing, try to understand what you are laughing at, ioan. Don't display your ignorance here in public.

[Valve Bounce]

...................and for the benefit of those who may not know, all the yachts in the America's Cup and the Sydney Hobart are measured out of the water. This includes the sails.

[PSfan]

Well, actually, all the dinghies and yachts that I raced were always placed on the hard standing after races and I often worked on our yacht, sanding the keel and hull down with #400 wet and dry, as well as doing routine maintenance on the yacht. But there are holes beneath dinghies which are enclosed with special drainage devices which drain any water inside the dinghy when the dinghy starts planing. And there are also holes and openings at the back of the boat for drainage purposes.

But that has nothing to do with the rules, really. there are holes on the side of yachts called portholes, and then there are openings for you to actually get into the cabin. So yeah!! there are holes and openings in yachts where you can look through. But yachting rules are written in a way where you don't go looking through these holes.

So before you start laughing, try to understand what you are laughing at, ioan. Don't display your ignorance here in public.


My god Valve... did we really need your life story on sanding boats?!?

My post was on holes underneath yachts, not on top of yachts not under a dinghy!!! Have a problem with english?

And to stay somewhat on topic, since you know why there may be holes under a dinghy, then if there was a need to limit the size of the hole to regulate the capacity of the drainage equipment then you would understand the inclusion of those in the rule book (if there is a rule book for dinghies.) Do you know why holes underneath a F1 needs to be regulated? No? Then don't suggest such a rule over complicates things if you don't know why it's there!!!


...................and for the benefit of those who may not know, all the yachts in the America's Cup and the Sydney Hobart are measured out of the water. This includes the sails.

Thanks for that Valve... here I thought they sent guys in scuba gear to scrutinize the yachts :s

[Valve Bounce]

I'm sorry, Mr PSfan, but as I've already mentioned to you before, I cannot read your posts, so I cannot respond to them.

[F1boat]

Buddies, will we learn the results today or tomorrow?

[Valve Bounce]

Buddies, will we learn the results today or tomorrow?

Well, that might diffuse the situation somewhat. :p :

[Psycho!]

Buddies, will we learn the results today or tomorrow?
I think on Wednesday afternoon we will now the 'final' decision...!!

[ioan]

Well, actually, all the dinghies and yachts that I raced were always placed on the hard standing after races and I often worked on our yacht, sanding the keel and hull down with #400 wet and dry, as well as doing routine maintenance on the yacht. But there are holes beneath dinghies which are enclosed with special drainage devices which drain any water inside the dinghy when the dinghy starts planing. And there are also holes and openings at the back of the boat for drainage purposes.

But that has nothing to do with the rules, really. there are holes on the side of yachts called portholes, and then there are openings for you to actually get into the cabin. So yeah!! there are holes and openings in yachts where you can look through. But yachting rules are written in a way where you don't go looking through these holes.

So before you start laughing, try to understand what you are laughing at, ioan. Don't display your ignorance here in public.

Brighten up mate! PSfan's post was meant to be a joke. You know what jokes are?!

I'd also say that you should take up pino's advice, once again.

[F1boat]

I think on Wednesday afternoon we will now the 'final' decision...!!

Ah, so fast, again...

[PSfan]

Buddies, will we learn the results today or tomorrow?

An independent panel will hear arguments from both sides in Paris on Tuesday, with a verdict expected the following day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7996698.stm

[Valve Bounce]

Brighten up mate! PSfan's post was meant to be a joke. You know what jokes are?!

I'd also say that you should take up pino's advice, once again.

Sorry ioan, I cannot read Mr PSfan's posts.

You want to laugh, you're on your own.

[pino]

So before you start laughing, try to understand what you are laughing at, ioan. Don't display your ignorance here in public.

Valve, do yourself a favour, go and read my sticky thread on top page...once more !

[PSfan]

I decided to edit this post after noticing Pino's post and deemed it a little redundant, and didn't feel like adding salt to Valves wound. also sorry for this post being a little off topic, I just can't seem to think of anything "deffuser" relevant at the moment :p :

[pino]

Back to the topic now thank you !

[Valve Bounce]

Valve, do yourself a favour, go and read my sticky thread on top page...once more !

I have!! I don't see where I have made a personal attack on anyone. But if I have, then I am sorry for doing so.

[PSfan]

They really should consider moving the FIA CoA to Australia... We might have had a decision on the deffusers by now... :p :

[Valve Bounce]

Here's what Mario has to say:"Those teams without the double-decker diffusers have been developing their own similar designs in case they are declared legal – although most teams may have to wait until the Spanish Grand Prix in May to bring them onto their cars.

Theissen added: "We are definitely not leaning back. We are developing a similar solution, despite thinking it doesn't comply with the idea of the rules and it costs a lot of money. We don't want to go this path but we have no choice, we have to develop it in case it is declared legal.

"I have to say I don't know where we are right now, or when it will be worth applying it to the car. It goes way beyond just developing a new diffuser, it affects the entire aero concept, so it requires quite a lot of development work.

"At the moment I cannot predict at what race we will have something that will be beneficial compared to what we have today."

The problem is whether a new diffuser added to the rear of the car without extended testing will work, and how long it will take to make it work.

And if the rules are altered either way, will cars which have to be modified be permitted to test the new modifications.

[Valve Bounce]

And for those who want a summary of the whole debacle, here's a good read:
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/4/9170.html
The results of the hearing are expected tomorrow arvo.

"so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules,"

So says Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74472

Funny, because my other half is a lawyer and she reckons her job is exactly that!

[ioan]

Brawn is trying hard to be clever with words:


"But I hope that common sense prevails on our side and the appeal court judges that there is a mechanism, a procedure, a policy and that it was followed properly and we should be left to get on with it."

But it sounds rather like Ronspeak.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74472

Let's see what tomorrow brings.

[SGWilko]

Back to the topic now thank you !

Hazelnuts in every bite.....

[F1boat]

Fingers crossed for no DQ!

[Ranger]

Fingers crossed for no DQ!

Any retrospective DQ's for diffusers would be disgraceful.

However, if they ban them from future races that would be a better outcome and the only reasonable solution if they are found to be illegal.

[F1boat]

Any retrospective DQ's for diffusers would be disgraceful.

However, if they ban them from future races that would be a better outcome and the only reasonable solution if they are found to be illegal.

This is up to FIA to decide. Personally I hope that they will stay, but if they are banned without DQ of the three teams, it is still a decent decision.

[christophulus]

FIA technical director Charlie Whiting also faced a grilling, facing accusations that his organisation are "getting it wrong, and not understanding the point".

Now this puzzled me. For all we dislike about the FIA, they make the rules. Therefore they decide what's legal and what isn't! It's not much of a defence if you try to make out that the rule makers don't understand their own rules.

(Let's not be cynical about this, you know what I mean :) )

[Knock-on]

Now this puzzled me. For all we dislike about the FIA, they make the rules. Therefore they decide what's legal and what isn't! It's not much of a defence if you try to make out that the rule makers don't understand their own rules.

(Let's not be cynical about this, you know what I mean :) )

Well, I want to see the FIA and Stewards decision upheld in this matter as I believe the teams have intelligently and creativly used the rules to their advantage and demonstrated innovation which should be encouraged.

It's not like they have broken any rules or even gone against the spirit of the rules by doing something illegal but finding a way to bypass the testing process so it wont show up.

They have taken the rules, asked "is this OK" and had it confirmed that it is so I think they have a good arguement.

The confusion occurs if as Renault claim, they have gone through the same process and had it confirmed that the same diffuser would be illegal.

If this has happened, then it seem that the FIA are confused and inept. IF this has happened.

If not, then Flav and the boys are basically lying to the media and have slandered the FIA.

Pretty black and white but it's my guess Renault submitted a different design from the ones being used that doesn't conform to the regs.

With the FIA, you never know.

[ShiftingGears]

This is up to FIA to decide. Personally I hope that they will stay, but if they are banned without DQ of the three teams, it is still a decent decision.

The teams won't get DQ'd from the Australian and Malaysian grands prix if the diffusers are ruled to be illegal. That's never been the FIA's style.

[F1boat]

Fortunately, the diffusers stay!

[Valve Bounce]

I would say that the majority of teams, if not all the others, will appear with bodgy diffusers in China this weekend. Sometimes we just wonder what the fuss was all about. If they could knock up bodgy diffusers in such a short time, one wonders why they didn't all join the bodgy diffuser brigade in the first place.

[Knock-on]

Right result.

[Valve Bounce]

Right result.

Wrong thread, knockie, wrong thread. :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

The confusion occurs if as Renault claim, they have gone through the same process and had it confirmed that the same diffuser would be illegal.



I personally think that Renault asked the wrong questions. They probably asked if a hole in the floor was allowed. They should have said is a slot permitted.

[SGWilko]

Wrong thread, knockie, wrong thread. :rolleyes:

Nah, I say wrong needle.....

[F1boat]

I personally think that Renault asked the wrong questions. They probably asked if a hole in the floor was allowed. They should have said is a slot permitted.

Yes.. they were stupid and now they whine.

[CNR]

http://www.sportinglife.com/others/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=others/09/04/15/AUTO_Diffuser_Lead.html



Renault yesterday announced during a marathon eight-hour ICA hearing in Paris that they have a prototype ready to be installed, potentially as early as this Sunday's race in China.
It is fair to expect Ferrari, BMW Sauber and Red Bull Racing - the other trio of appellants - will be at a similar stage of readiness, along with McLaren.

[ioan]

Now this puzzled me. For all we dislike about the FIA, they make the rules. Therefore they decide what's legal and what isn't! It's not much of a defence if you try to make out that the rule makers don't understand their own rules.

(Let's not be cynical about this, you know what I mean :) )

Don't know about the FIA as a whole, but Charlie W. is a tool, that's been proved numerous times.

[ioan]

Yes.. they were stupid and now they whine.

How do you know what exactly happened between Renault/RBR and the Whiting?

[ioan]

I personally think that Renault asked the wrong questions.

IMO Charlie gave the wrong answer, again! ;)

[Knock-on]

Don't know about the FIA as a whole, but Charlie W. is a tool, that's been proved numerous times.

We agree. I used to have the upmost respect for CW but the Spagate dispelled a lot of that and he hasn't done anything since to change my mind.

[ioan]

We agree. I used to have the upmost respect for CW but the Spagate dispelled a lot of that and he hasn't done anything since to change my mind.

I doubt he will get any wiser from now on.
The worse part of it is that he's in charge of the FIA technical department and his the one and only race director!
FGS the guy messed up the timing of the first SC session this season.
He's not reliable anymore.

[Valve Bounce]

I doubt he will get any wiser from now on.
The worse part of it is that he's in charge of the FIA technical department and his the one and only race director!
FGS the guy messed up the timing of the first SC session this season.
He's not reliable anymore.

Charlie is old and suffers from MDD :(

[Knock-on]

I doubt he will get any wiser from now on.
The worse part of it is that he's in charge of the FIA technical department and his the one and only race director!
FGS the guy messed up the timing of the first SC session this season.
He's not reliable anymore.

That was a very long delay. Anyone know of any reason given?

[Valve Bounce]

That was a very long delay. Anyone know of any reason given?

That's how long it takes Charlie Whiting to type N O

[SGWilko]

That was a very long delay. Anyone know of any reason given?

He was doing his best 'Horace Wimp' impression....

"He just stood there a mumblin and fumblin" :laugh:

With all respect to ELO.

[ArrowsFA1]

He was doing his best 'Horace Wimp' impression....
:laugh: :rotflmao:

[Knock-on]

He was doing his best 'Horace Wimp' impression....

"He just stood there a mumblin and fumblin" :laugh:

With all respect to ELO.

Then a Max from above said....

[ArrowsFA1]

...Charlie boy, this is your boss...

[SGWilko]

...Charlie boy, this is your boss...

Go out and make McLaren cross.....

[ArrowsFA1]

Take a stand, and be a man,
And I'll make sure they get a ban

[SGWilko]

Take a stand, and be a man,
And I'll make sure they get a ban

:rotflmao: :up:

Got one for Bernard, too.....

Calling America.... ;)

[christophulus]

I doubt he will get any wiser from now on.
The worse part of it is that he's in charge of the FIA technical department and his the one and only race director!
FGS the guy messed up the timing of the first SC session this season.
He's not reliable anymore.

I agree with you on that point. I can't see why he's the head of the Technical Department if what he decides is so open to debate.

Him suggesting the diffusers were legal is no use at all, as he did before this all kicked off. Either his word should be law (a worrying thought) or he should keep his opinions to himself. He's just added unnecessary confusion to the whole matter.

Also, why are the teams able to contact him during a race (or try to...) if he can't give a definitive yes or no answer? Or worse, have what he says overturned in a court appeal later on! I know it's somewhat off-topic but it all stems from the same thing.

[Robinho]

i never, ever, thought i'd see an impromtu improvised ELO sing-a-long on the forum - kudos to all involved :up:

[SGWilko]

i never, ever, thought i'd see an impromtu improvised ELO sing-a-long on the forum - kudos to all involved :up:

Always like to keep my audience riveted..... ;)

[Knock-on]

Gentlemen, I give you a Masterpiece :laugh:

"He just stood there a mumblin and fumblin" :laugh:

Then a Max from above said....

...Charlie boy, this is your boss...

Go out and make McLaren cross.....

Take a stand, and be a man,
And I'll make sure they get a ban

Come on Charlie W. We can count on you

We should be on the Telly. Are you reading this BBC!!

[SGWilko]

Gentlemen, I give you a Masterpiece :laugh:







We should be on the Telly. Are you reading this BBC!!

OK, which artist shall we pick on next then? ;)

[SGWilko]

OK, which artist shall we pick on next then? ;)

Hmmm, the Eagles - especially for Tozzi....

'Hole in the World'! :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Hmmm, the Eagles - especially for Tozzi....

'Hole in the World'! :laugh:

Or "Shutuper yer face"

[Bagwan]

Take it easy , Wilco .

"You Can't Hide Your Lyin' Eyes"

Sounds like Glen Frey was a race steward in Malaysia.

[SGWilko]

Take it easy , Wilco .

Roger, out.

[SGWilko]

For Charlie, it must be - 'I can't Tell you Why'

For Ferrari - 'Get Over It'

For Brawn - 'Life in the Fast Lane'

McLaren - 'The Long Run'

Max - 'The Last Resort'

MW - 'Desperado'

Ryan - 'Already Gone'

Sheesh, these guy's must be F1 fans.......

[Tazio]

Brawn.... New Kid in Town

Lewis......Tequila Sunrise

[PSfan]

Ok, back to the topic:

Can anybody confirm if this pic is legit?

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6169/diffuserf60.jpg

Guess time will tell...

[ozrevhead]

For Charlie, it must be - 'I can't Tell you Why'

For Ferrari - 'Get Over It'

For Brawn - 'Life in the Fast Lane'

McLaren - 'The Long Run'

Max - 'The Last Resort'

MW - 'Desperado'

Ryan - 'Already Gone'

Sheesh, these guy's must be F1 fans.......
I was thinking along the lines of "Bad Day" by Daniel Power - either way hes screwed sideways as we wont have a DD untill Monaco (not to mention he cant have KERS on the car either!) :(

[ioan]

Ok, back to the topic:

Can anybody confirm if this pic is legit?

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6169/diffuserf60.jpg


I guess it's not legit. The middle part of the DDD is partially covering the starter slot, this isn't normal IMO.

[CaptainRaiden]

Ok, back to the topic:

Can anybody confirm if this pic is legit?

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6169/diffuserf60.jpg

Guess time will tell...

My job is designing using Photoshop, and that is a photoshop'ed image through and through, albeit a pretty good job at that. The only thing he forgot to take care of was that the mid "hole" part looks clearly cropped and pasted on the image, with the shadow of the original image from where it was cropped, standing out a bit. I don't know if I did a good job of explaining it, but I am kinda very sleepy right now. :D

And to make sure that it's not very easily recognizable, he made the picture a bit blurred and grainy. I was able to find the original. ;)

http://images.gpupdate.net/large/120569.jpg

Plus, I am sure Ferrari can't test the diffuser anywhere, since the practice at Shanghai hasn't begun yet, and if it was at Maranello, the FIA would know.

[ioan]

Plus, I am sure Ferrari can't test the diffuser anywhere, since the practice at Shanghai hasn't begun yet, and if it was at Maranello, the FIA would know.

I agree it's photoshoped, as I pointed it out in the previous post, but you're wrong about the testing part.
Teams have the right to conduct 8 straight line tests during the season!

[CaptainRaiden]

Teams have the right to conduct 8 straight line tests during the season!

Oops, didn't know that. By saying straight line tests, does it mean they can only run the car on a straight? Are they prohibited to turn?

[ioan]

Oops, didn't know that. By saying straight line tests, does it mean they can only run the car on a straight? Are they prohibited to turn?

Well they are allowed to turn in order to run back down the same straight, but that's it.

They are also allowed 50 km shake down sessions for new chassis before races. In this case they are allowed to test properly on a track, for what it's worth running 10-15 laps.

[F1boat]

This is a cool way to prepare... for NHRA.

[Valve Bounce]

Well they are allowed to turn in order to run back down the same straight, but that's it.

They are also allowed 50 km shake down sessions for new chassis before races. In this case they are allowed to test properly on a track, for what it's worth running 10-15 laps.

I did notice, and posted it, that several cars were running around 8 o'clock in the morning on both Friday and Saturday morning at Albert Park. I just wonder how many cars will be without the bodgy diffusers this weekend in Shanghai.

[ioan]

I did notice, and posted it, that several cars were running around 8 o'clock in the morning on both Friday and Saturday morning at Albert Park. I just wonder how many cars will be without the bodgy diffusers this weekend in Shanghai.

Shake down sessions are not done on the race tracks during the race week ends.

[AndyL]

Ok, back to the topic:

Can anybody confirm if this pic is legit?

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6169/diffuserf60.jpg

Guess time will tell...

As X-ecutioner said, definite photoshop... this is the real Ferrari double decker diffuser:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25736183@N05/3444466637/
;)

[Valve Bounce]

:up:

[Psycho!]

Veeeeeeeeery funny... :dozey: :dozey:

[SGWilko]

As X-ecutioner said, definite photoshop... this is the real Ferrari double decker diffuser:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25736183@N05/3444466637/
;)

No standin' on de top deck please.... ;)

[Tazio]

Following the approval of the diffuser gang cars, many rival teams are already in the process of developing new diffusers for their cars. Renault and McLaren are even expected to run modified diffusers at China, while other teams are rushing developments

After all, the double decker diffusers (DDD) provide 14% additional downforce - a figure found at Renault after testing a simple model, and even with a basic update the car could gain several tenths per lap. The French team also brought a rear suspension update in an attempt to resolve their lack of rear traction.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/12144

[AndyL]

The loop-hole that the three teams used was:

3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

I underlined the important part, it doesn't specify directly under the area in question. what the pic shows is you can see race track threw the "upper" diffuser. So Basically you could probably look up from that area under the car, looking up at an angle and see the top of the upper diffuser, and if it isn't within the 175mm rule, then game over...

Some interesting stuff related to this question in the appeal verdict (as linked to by jjanicke on the other thread: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/court_appeal/judgments/Documents/ICA-14-04-2009-a.pdf). Paras 73-78 relate to the visibility of bodywork above 175mm.

As you pointed out PSFan, the 175mm rule, 3.12.7 in the technical regs, talks about bodywork "visible from beneath the car". This is in contrast to 3.12.5, which does specifically refer to bodywork visible from directly beneath.

However the non-diffuser teams did not raise this as an argument - they don't appear to have pointed out the omission of the word "directly" in 3.12.7, or suggested that it should apply to bodywork visible at an angle from beneath the car. I think they may have missed a trick there.

In their finding, the court did explicitly interpret 3.12.7 as meaning bodywork "visible from directly beneath":


76. The Court finds that Art. 3.12.7 TR clearly applies only to “bodywork which is
visible from beneath the car”. Parts which are not visible from directly beneath
are not required to comply with the measurements in Art. 3.12.7 TR. In this
case, no party submitted proof that any part of the Contested Design Concept
which is visible from below lies more than 175mm above the reference plane.

[Sonic]

Newey says RBR can be adapted.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74680