Official - Diffuser Appeal Denied

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37547

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74475

[christophulus]

Fantastic news :)

And some consistency! All of the stewards in Australia and Malaysia ruled them to be legal so this was the only logical result :up:

[Valve Bounce]

Fantastic news :)

And some consistency! All of the stewards in Australia and Malaysia ruled them to be legal so this was the only logical result :up:

I agree. I cannot understand how the FIA could possibly find decisions made by their own stewards at two GP's to be wrong.

[ArrowsFA1]

Good :up: Let's get back to racing :s mokin:

[Daniel]

w00t

[F1boat]

Best news ever from FIA. I am sorry that it took so long, but justice has prevailed. Go Brawn GP!

[Knock-on]

Good :up: Let's get back to racing :s mokin:

Amen to that Bro :d

[OutRun]

Great news. :p :

:champion:

[SGWilko]

At last. Thank goodness.

Go Jenson and Rubens!

[Valve Bounce]

I wonder how many here would be displeased? I can think of one guy whose name starts with "i". :p :

[SGWilko]

I wonder how many here would be displeased? I can think of one guy whose name starts with "i". :p :

Ian, Ivor (surname biggun), Icarus? Who goddammit, who? ;)

[SGWilko]

Whats the betting Ferrari turn up with a Routemaster bus at China....

....that is, after all, a double decker.... ;)

[DazzlaF1]

FINALLY, for once in F1, common sense has prevailed

[Mark]

Just got this email from BrawnGP


Following the hearing in Paris on Tuesday 14 April, the International
Court of Appeal today confirmed that the Brawn GP team's BGP 001 car is
fully compliant with the 2009 Formula One Technical Regulations.

Brawn GP Team Principal Ross Brawn said: "We are pleased with the
decision reached by the International Court of Appeal today. We respect
the right of our competitors to query any design or concept used on our
cars through the channels available to them. The FIA Technical
Department, the Stewards at the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix and
now five judges at the International Court of Appeal have confirmed our
belief that our cars have always strictly complied with the 2009
Technical Regulations. The decision of the International Court of Appeal
brings this matter to its conclusion and we look forward to continuing
on the track the challenge of what has been a very exciting start to the season.

2009 FIA Formula One World Championship."

[callum122]

WOOOHOOO!

China shall be a good race.

[Storm]

Good to know that the biggies did not manage to bully the FIA this time around.

Maybe Ferrari should be looking at resolving their tactics and reliability/speed (they took one step already by moving Baldisseri from his on-track role)

[CNR]

with Brawn GP team principal Ross Brawn being on the receiving end of attacks from Renault and Ferrari about his use of the diffuser concept.
However, he has stood firm in his belief that the design was legal – and confirmed recently that he offered rivals the chance to close off the regulations to prevent teams exploiting the diffuser designs, but they rejected the opportunity.
"In March 2008 that was offered," said Brawn, when asked by AUTOSPORT about the matter.
"If I'm frank I didn't say 'look we are going to do this diffuser if you don't accept this rule' because I'm not going to tell people what we're doing, but I explained that I felt that we should have a different set of rules to simplify what needs to be done.
"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.


If this is true why did the teams not get this sorted out last year.

[ArrowsFA1]

It sounds like the hearing was rather tasty :eek: According to Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC:
"The position of the FIA is totally baffling...we urge you to save the FIA from itself...If the appeal is dismissed then the claims by the FIA they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow."
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

[leopard]

Without reading technical rule in details, I'd rather have opinion the rest of teams to adopt the diffuser as part of aero device package. If finally this device considered legal, I think teams already use this device have a relative clever start.

Barring this years engine of teams like Ferrari, McLaren, and BMW are basically inferior than last year, using the same diffuser they might be able to catch up Brawn GP no sooner than decision it is considered legal.

[Knock-on]

It sounds like the hearing was rather tasty :eek: According to Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC:
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

Apparently the fur really flew with Tozzi calling Brawn "supremely arrogant" and Ross taking a swip back :laugh:

[F1boat]

It sounds like the hearing was rather tasty :eek: According to Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC:
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

Tozzi crossed all lines. I am very saddened that Ferrari have turned into a petty malicious team. :(

[stevie_gerrard]

Thank god for that, can we finally get back to racing instead of scandals for once?

Despite the advantage of this diffuser, i think it will be a lot closer this weekend, and i fancy a few teams (i.e. Ferrari) to buck their ideas up because they were quick a coupole of weeks ago without the diffuser. I reckon if they hadn't screwed up so spectacularly, they would have been there challenging.

True, those teams with the diffuser have had some kind of domination in the early stages, but i don't think it guarantees you a good result no matter what. You stuill have to get the thing around the track for the entire race.

Any ideas how long it will take other teams to create these new diffusers?

[MrJan]

Personally I don't agree with the decision. There are people on a few of the other forums that I go on saying that it's 'good for the sport' etc. etc. but I really don't think they'd be of the same opinion if it had been on an MS car painted red :D

I'd have thought that most of the grid will be running them within a few races though, I'd be surprised if similar things haven't been in development while all this fuss has been ongoing.

[Sleeper]

Good decision.

I expect that by the end of the season all the teams that have had to adapt the diffuser will sudenly find that it takes more than just one part to make the car quick.

[ioan]

Tozzi crossed all lines. I am very saddened that Ferrari have turned into a petty malicious team. :(

Tozzi is a lawyer, they are paid to push things as far as possible.

[pino]

I wonder how many here would be displeased? I can think of one guy whose name starts with "i". :p :

Why you need to start this ? Can't you just be happy about the decision and move on ? :crazy: If you haven't noticed I work hard trying to keep this place clean, and confortable for everyone, and your posts makes things more difficult for me...

[F1boat]

Good decision.

I expect that by the end of the season all the teams that have had to adapt the diffuser will sudenly find that it takes more than just one part to make the car quick.

I HOPE so.

[555-04Q2]

:up: Fantastic news :up:

[Mark]

Renault have already said they are ready go to with their own version of the diffuser package. Expect things to get even more interesting from now on!

[Valve Bounce]

Every car will sport a bodgy diffuser by Friday first practice. Even the paint will be dry.

[SGWilko]

Why you need to start this ?

You don't know why? Seriously?

[savage86]

Just got this email from BrawnGP

2009 FIA Formula One World Championship."

Mark dont forget how quickly things can turn around, the 1991 season for instance Mclaren won all of the early races but Williams fought back and took the fight to Senna. The same with the 1998 season where Macca looked good for the title until Ferrari and Goodyear got better and started to challenge. With teams with big budgets and resources like Ferrari, Toyota and Macca around who knows what will happen. It seems to me more than likely they can close the gap and outspend Brawn.

As for the Diffusers I’m very pleased Jenson deserved those wins and to have them taken away would be criminal.

[Wasted Talent]

Good decision.

I expect that by the end of the season all the teams that have had to adapt the diffuser will sudenly find that it takes more than just one part to make the car quick.


Agree with both parts.

Great that Jenson and Brawn can now get on with developing the car!

WT

[wedge]

Mark dont forget how quickly things can turn around, the 1991 season for instance Mclaren won all of the early races but Williams fought back and took the fight to Senna. The same with the 1998 season where Macca looked good for the title until Ferrari and Goodyear got better and started to challenge. With teams with big budgets and resources like Ferrari, Toyota and Macca around who knows what will happen. It seems to me more than likely they can close the gap and outspend Brawn.

Testing is now banned so playing catch up will take longer. What works in the wind tunnels and computer simulations doesn't necessarily works in the real world.

[Sonic]

Gimmie a HELL YEAH!

FIA all is forgiven (until the next time you make t*ts of yourself) :D

It sounds like the hearing was rather tasty :eek: According to Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC:
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

But, hold on....I thought that the FIA stood for Ferrari International Assistance?

[ozrevhead]

Personally I don't agree with the decision. There are people on a few of the other forums that I go on saying that it's 'good for the sport' etc. etc. but I really don't think they'd be of the same opinion if it had been on an MS car painted red :D

I'd have thought that most of the grid will be running them within a few races though, I'd be surprised if similar things haven't been in development while all this fuss has been ongoing.
I read somewhere that Ferrari and Redbull wont have one till Turkey at least

I knew the Defuser would be legal - what gets me so p :mad: :mad: :mad: d off is that RB asked FIA about this and they were told it would most likely be illegal and that was changed untill after RB redesigned the backend....do you know how much time and money will be spend to change the whole suspention and back end - not to mention going through that crash testing whatever they call it!!!

Not happy Jan!

Testing is now banned so playing catch up will take longer. What works in the wind tunnels and computer simulations doesn't necessarily works in the real world.

I agree.....I worked in wind tunnels but find remembering the shopping list difficult.

[veeten]

Why you need to start this ? Can't you just be happy about the decision and move on ? :crazy: If you haven't noticed I work hard trying to keep this place clean, and confortable for everyone, and your posts makes things more difficult for me...

Yes, dear... :bonce:

:p :

[Knock-on]

But, hold on....I thought that the FIA stood for Ferrari International Assistance?

Do you know what. This is a very good point.

In the old days, with Ferrari towing the line with FOM and the collective might of Brawn, Todt, Rory and Schumy directing proceeding, they certainly seemed to be assisted by the FIA on many occassions.

However, since the stranglehold has slipped, Bernie and Max having a little spat and the dream team splitting, the influence they had over the FIA seemes to have lessened don't you think.

Mind you, with the current performance levels at Ferrari, the seem to be leading the non-diffuser pack so if they get one working, I expect to see them bounce back quick so this decision shouldn't hurt them too much.

[AndyL]

BBC's story on the diffuser appeal verdict:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7996698.stm

This bit particularly intrigued me:


And Brawn's criticism of Ferrari consultant Rory Bryne and Red Bull technical guru Adrian Newey saw sparks fly in the courtroom, with the Englishman refusing to retract his statements.


Has anyone seen reported what Ross Brawn said?

[V12]

Phew! Glad that's over and common sense has prevailed.

I had been seriously worried that the diffusers were going to be offered up as sacrificial lambs to the false god of "cost-cutting", thankfully that's not the case.

To the other 7 teams: remember why you're in the sport in the first place and get developing...

[tintop]

Tozzi crossed all lines. I am very saddened that Ferrari have turned into a petty malicious team. :(

The amazing thing is that they were actually on the losing side of a decision, almost unprecedented. Not very gracious in defeat. It seemed like one of those rulings that could have gone so many ways depending on the desires of the judges - m-dampers!!

[Sonic]

Has anyone seen reported what Ross Brawn said?

I saw a report somewhere (don't ask me where) that Ross pointed out the loophole in the regs back in march last year to the rest of the team but they all poo pooed him. Perhaps this is to what they refer.

[ArrowsFA1]

I saw a report somewhere (don't ask me where) that Ross pointed out the loophole in the regs back in march last year to the rest of the team but they all poo pooed him. Perhaps this is to what they refer.
IIRC that is mentioned in the latest issue of GP Week (http://www.gpweek.com/).

[wedge]

Brought up in a TWG/FOTA meeting. Brawn mentioned the loophole but never fully divulged, whereas Flavio recently moaned that Ross should've brought up the matter with all the teams but Ross (quite rightly IMO) seeked FIA approval.

[SGWilko]

Brought up in a TWG/FOTA meeting. Brawn mentioned the loophole but never fully divulged, whereas Flavio recently moaned that Ross should've brought up the matter with all the teams but Ross (quite rightly IMO) seeked FIA approval.

Hey, why not cut out the middle man, and just have Ross tell Chav, sorry, Flav, how to build a good car....... :dozey:

[ioan]

So they are legal, good to finally have a clear cut on this one.

What puzzles me is that both Renault and RBR were told by the FIA ( i.e. Charlie Puppet) that such a design would be illegal.

Given how much Brawn and others have recently stressed that this issue is not influencing the strength of the FOTA I tend to believe that the FIA did play at both ends of the game in order to destroy the unity of the FOTA, and this whole farce about diffuser legality was of their own making.

Anyway, Ferrari tested new aero developments last week at Vairano and a performance improvement that should translate into 0.4 seconds faster lap times is expected for this week ends race.

I expect BMW, RBR, Renault and maybe Mercedes to outperform Williams, Toyoat and probably Brawn as soon as the European races start.

[F1boat]

As Kimi said - we have to wait and see what happens. In my opinion Brawn GP will not be easy to catch and RBR will lose in the development race.

[pettersolberg29]

Bahrain will be very interesting as most teams will have at least a bit of development I'd have thought. I wonder who will be top when all teams have the new diffuser. You're predictions?

I'd say Ferrari are in pole position.

[ioan]

Bahrain will be very interesting as most teams will have at least a bit of development I'd have thought. I wonder who will be top when all teams have the new diffuser. You're predictions?

I'd say Ferrari are in pole position.

I don't know who will be the best after they al sort it out, but Renault will have a DD diffuser on the car this Friday. This means they will be able to take the fight to RBR, Ferrari,Toyota and Williams.

If Ferrari's aero developement will really give 0.4 seconds shorter laptimes than they will also be up there fighting for 2nd best behind the Brawns, unless they manage to outqualify them. On race pace they can already beat all teams but Brawn as long as they don't cock up like they did in the last 2 races. Also keep in mind that Shanghai won't be a late afternoon race, so the practice conditions will not be different from the qualifying and race ones.

[F1boat]

Bahrain will be very interesting as most teams will have at least a bit of development I'd have thought. I wonder who will be top when all teams have the new diffuser. You're predictions?

I'd say Ferrari are in pole position.
Renault.

[jjanicke]

Tozzi crossed all lines. I am very saddened that Ferrari have turned into a petty malicious team. :(

Couldn't agree more.

When they had Brawn pushing the rules envelope we heard little to nothing (with the exception of the Michelin saga). Now that they are faced to deal with Brawn they have their lawyer crying foul and disparaging the guy that brought them the early '00's success.

[jjanicke]

But, hold on....I thought that the FIA stood for Ferrari International Assistance?

Apparently they are finally making reparations. ;)

[pettersolberg29]

How come Renault are sorted so quickly? Will it be on the cars for raceday or just practice?

[jjanicke]

So they are legal, good to finally have a clear cut on this one.

What puzzles me is that both Renault and RBR were told by the FIA ( i.e. Charlie Puppet) that such a design would be illegal.

Given how much Brawn and others have recently stressed that this issue is not influencing the strength of the FOTA I tend to believe that the FIA did play at both ends of the game in order to destroy the unity of the FOTA, and this whole farce about diffuser legality was of their own making.

Anyway, Ferrari tested new aero developments last week at Vairano and a performance improvement that should translate into 0.4 seconds faster lap times is expected for this week ends race.

I expect BMW, RBR, Renault and maybe Mercedes to outperform Williams, Toyoat and probably Brawn as soon as the European races start.

Obviously the Renault and RBR solutions are not the same solutions as BrawnGP, Toyota or Williams, otherwise they would have been deemed legal.

[ioan]

Obviously the Renault and RBR solutions are not the same solutions as BrawnGP, Toyota or Williams, otherwise they would have been deemed legal.

And you obviously saw them and can draw such a conclusion!
Don't make me laugh.

[F1boat]

Obviously the Renault and RBR solutions are not the same solutions as BrawnGP, Toyota or Williams, otherwise they would have been deemed legal.

I agree. I wonder why some member so badly want the diffuser three to fail. Maybe that's the beauty of motorsport - we got passionate about stupid things. :) However, I think that it is immature to doubt that FIA sabotaged Renault and RBR on purpose. I do not like the way the organization works with its slow decisions and infuriating appeals, and I think that it would have been disastrous to DQ the teams retrospectively, but to think that FIA on purpose have tried to ruin RBR and Renault is not serious, not at all.

[big_sw2000]

How come Renault are sorted so quickly? Will it be on the cars for raceday or just practice?
Dose not sound like a quick fix any more
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090415162756.shtml

[ioan]

I wonder why some member so badly want the diffuser three to fail.

Who knows?
Might be that these people have a sense of justice stronger than their need for a contrived and artificial show?! This may be the answer you are searching for.

[pettersolberg29]

^ I agree

[pettersolberg29]

People keep saying Brawn, Toyota are doing well but they're not really doing any more than expected. They have a better car. It's like giving Totenham Hotspur an extra player, they win the league, and everyone seems surprised.

These 'diffuser teams' may be legal, may have technical nouse, but the fact they're doing well is because they have a better car for disputable reasons.

[MrJan]

People keep saying Brawn, Toyota are doing well but they're not really doing any more than expected. They have a better car. It's like giving Totenham Hotspur an extra player, they win the league, and everyone seems surprised.

These 'diffuser teams' may be legal, may have technical nouse, but the fact they're doing well is because they have a better car for disputable reasons.

That's obviously ridiculous......Spurs couldn't win the league with only 12 men :D :D :D

[pettersolberg29]

That's obviously ridiculous......Spurs couldn't win the league with only 12 men :D :D :D


Well, how about Everton then! ;)

[yodasarmpit]

Well, how about Everton then! ;)

Even less chance :)

[pettersolberg29]

Even less chance :)

Fulham, West Ham, Villa?

[UltimateDanGTR]

Im relieved and happy that the FIA got this decision spot on. thank you FIA for actually doing something right for once

[F1boat]

Im relieved and happy that the FIA got this decision spot on. thank you FIA for actually doing something right for once

Yes... I bashed them a lot, but thank you, indeed.

[yodasarmpit]

http://www.yodasarmpit.com/pics/brawngp.jpg

[Cooper_S]

I too am glad that the diffusers where declared legal, for the sake of the racing...

However I do think the FIA have back tracked on two of their stated goals for the sport...that is to reduce the down force levels of the cars and reduce costs to the teams...

The teams should now tell the FIA to stick it when they carp on about reducing this and that in future...

[Cooper_S]

Some of the other teams came up with a similar two tier design but because they where first with it the FIA (at that time) deemed them to be illegal... THAT IS WHY THEY FOUGHT AGAINST THE OTHER 3 TEAMS... however that is in the past now... moving on I think they will not want to just copy the existing designs but to improve and push the boundary of what today's ruling mean... and the FIA have little choice but to sit back and watch...

How ironic would it be for the gang of 3 to challenge the designs of the other 7...

[ioan]

I too am glad that the diffusers where declared legal, for the sake of the racing...

Interesting, what racing are you talking about? Who will spend more in a shorter time maybe?

[Wasted Talent]

Originally Posted by jjanicke
Obviously the Renault and RBR solutions are not the same solutions as BrawnGP, Toyota or Williams, otherwise they would have been deemed legal.


And you obviously saw them and can draw such a conclusion!
Don't make me laugh.

You don't know either Ioan, neither do I but I guess that jjanicke is more right than you

WT

[Caroline]

Very pleased - can sit back and watch the next race secure in the knowledge that the results can't all change because of the diffusers.

[PSfan]

Well I must say this ruling is a popular one, perhaps the best result for F1, but having dug into the regs, I still believe according to the rules, it was the wrong decision.

Don't get me wrong, I expected this decision after reading some reports from the hearing yesterday. You read about the bickering, name calling, regs being thrown about and, Judges "nodding off" And you could almost predict it from that. But add to that, what are the chances that the 3 teams could not have cars ready for china if theirs was deemed illegal. What if, being declared illegal and having their results of the first two races had done to Williams who I believe won the contract for cars for Mosley's F2?

Until I read the "full reason" for the decision, and transcripts of the hearing, I will hold onto the opinion that while being for the best, this is still the wrong decision based on the rules.

[F1boat]

Interesting, what racing are you talking about? Who will spend more in a shorter time maybe?

Racing with innovative and interesting technologies, not spec racing.

[jjanicke]

And you obviously saw them and can draw such a conclusion!
Don't make me laugh.

So apparently you did and can make the conclusion that they are the same.

Don't make me laugh.


I agree. I wonder why some member so badly want the diffuser three to fail. Maybe that's the beauty of motorsport - we got passionate about stupid things. :) However, I think that it is immature to doubt that FIA sabotaged Renault and RBR on purpose. I do not like the way the organization works with its slow decisions and infuriating appeals, and I think that it would have been disastrous to DQ the teams retrospectively, but to think that FIA on purpose have tried to ruin RBR and Renault is not serious, not at all.

agreed!

[jjanicke]

Some of the other teams came up with a similar two tier design but because they where first with it the FIA (at that time) deemed them to be illegal... THAT IS WHY THEY FOUGHT AGAINST THE OTHER 3 TEAMS... however that is in the past now... moving on I think they will not want to just copy the existing designs but to improve and push the boundary of what today's ruling mean... and the FIA have little choice but to sit back and watch...

How ironic would it be for the gang of 3 to challenge the designs of the other 7...

Could you demonstrate some proof of these "other teams"?

BrawnGP approached the FIA well over a year ago. How long ago did these "other teams" approach the FIA?

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/06/brawn-mentioned-diffusers-a-year-ago/

[MrJan]

Fulham, West Ham, Villa?

Give it a few years and try Exeter City http://www.exeweb.com/forums/images/smilies/rowans-nose.gifhttp://www.mr2oc.co.uk/images/smiles/clap.gif

[grantb4]

Don't worry all. The two-step diffuser will be banned by next year. Its existence runs contrary to the objectives of the new rules.

Having said that, I'm happy that Brawn, Button, et al get to keep their magical year going, but it should really have never come to this.

[ioan]

You don't know either Ioan, neither do I but I guess that jjanicke is more right than you

WT

How objective! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

So apparently you did and can make the conclusion that they are the same.

Don't make me laugh.

The teams concerned expressed their view on the matter and the FIA confirmed that the teams did contact them last year, but they never said why they declared those illegal either!

I take it on face value and on what we have at hand, similar solutions being declare legal for the lesser teams and illegal for the top dogs.

IMO it's all about politics.

As for the laughing part, forget it, you already make me cringe when I read your "objective" posts.

[Triumph]

Excellent news! :-)

[jjanicke]

The teams concerned expressed their view on the matter and the FIA confirmed that the teams did contact them last year, but they never said why they declared those illegal either!

I take it on face value and on what we have at hand, similar solutions being declare legal for the lesser teams and illegal for the top dogs.

IMO it's all about politics.

As for the laughing part, forget it, you already make me cringe when I read your "objective" posts.

I would only suggest not confusing "similar" with "the same".

[ioan]

I would only suggest not confusing "similar" with "the same".

FYI the BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota DD diffusers are similar but not the same either!

So, what's the difference between similar and similar?! :rolleyes:

[Valve Bounce]

FYI the BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota DD diffusers are similar but not the same either!

So, what's the difference between similar and similar?! :rolleyes:


One of them are both the same. Got it?

[mstillhere]

I wonder how many here would be displeased? I can think of one guy whose name starts with "i". :p :

I am not happy either

[Ari]

The FIA are nothing but a bunch of clowns. Put as simple as they are. RBR were told NO and were a part of a committee to create the specs of what can and can't be put on the car. Meanwhile the 3 teams which went against the regulations and spirit of the sport were NOT a part of said committee.

Now I'm not annoyed at the 3 teams which are running the double diffuser. Congratulations to them. I'm impressed with their innovative spark to see an opportunity and pounce on it.

What annoys the crap out of me is that the FIA have deemed it legal for some and not legal for others. This inconsistancy is the problem here. Coupled with the fact that there is no in-season development and what we have here is a championship with a * next to it decided by the FIA's inability to manage their major sporting body.

Adrian Newey of Red Bull Racing.
"What angers us is the fact that we had approached [Charlie] Whiting for a clarification on a diffuser solution like the one in question and we were told it was illegal, therefore we did not pursue it any further though our design team had similar ideas," said Marko.

"I wonder what impact this will have on cornering speeds. I assume there will be problems soon when cars are going too fast, and the airflow the double diffuser creates for sure will make overtaking more difficult again. Thus it is against the spirit of the rules agreed in the working groups."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74483

[mstillhere]

As Kimi said - we have to wait and see what happens. In my opinion Brawn GP will not be easy to catch and RBR will lose in the development race.

With all due respect, I am getting tired in having to wait...and wait....and wait... to see what happens

[mstillhere]

I too am glad that the diffusers where declared legal, for the sake of the racing...

However I do think the FIA have back tracked on two of their stated goals for the sport...that is to reduce the down force levels of the cars and reduce costs to the teams...

That's exactely why Ferrari and the other teams not having a diffuser complained. Flavio himself said the same thing: saving money? Mking F1 cheaper? It's not going to happen.

[Valve Bounce]

How come Max has not been mentioned anywhere in this whole saga?

[jjanicke]

FYI the BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota DD diffusers are similar but not the same either!

So, what's the difference between similar and similar?! :rolleyes:

Kind of a dumb question, but according to the FIA their differences aren't enough to make any one of the 3 illegal. The same can't be said for the differences of RBR and Renault DD proposals.


That's exactely why Ferrari and the other teams not having a diffuser complained. Flavio himself said the same thing: saving money? Mking F1 cheaper? It's not going to happen.

So help me understand the logic here. Ban the diffusers because, according to the language of the rules they are not illegal, but because they add more downforce, which was a reason for changing the rules in the 1st place.

I understanding amending the rules again to reduce downforce. But as we all know any changes couldn't be rolled out until 2010, unless all the team agree, which clearly 3 wouldn't. But making DD diffuser illegal because a few teams outsmarted the language of the rules seems ridiculous to me.

The FIA has not acted like that in the past so why would they now.

[Valve Bounce]

I know that the diffusers of the two Toyota teams are similar, but are somewhat different from the Brawn's. Now, what we don't know are the diffuser designs submitted by the anti-diffuser brigade and whether they are anything like those of the diffuser brigades'.

From an above quote, it seemed to me that Ross Brawn offered to clean up the diffuser regulations but the FIA knocked him back. Now if all the teams back Ross Brawn, things might have turned up differently, including cleaning up the barge boards and all the winglets.

What I fail to understand is why all the teams did not come together and made a broad submission to cover themselves altogether. It is not as if the anti-diffuser brigade didn't know what the diffuser brigade were doing.

And as far as the Ferrari lawyer's tirade against Ross Brawn, I feel Ferrari should have stopped him on the spot. After all, he is a Ferrari legend and hero. That sort of behavior only turns a judiciary in the opposite direction.

[CNR]

BBC's story on the diffuser appeal verdict:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7996698.stm

This bit particularly intrigued me:


Has anyone seen reported what Ross Brawn said?

it is all too shocking :s mokin:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/95384/Button-s-joy-but-Dennis-views-exit


Brawn had claimed their case was “a vindictive response...that amounted to a fishing expedition”.

Brawn also accused Newey of “being unethical and of bringing the sport into disrespute




Ross Brawn, formerly Ferrari’s technical director who moved to Honda 18 months ago and now owns the team, told the appeal court: “We didn’t consider this to be a radical new design. It was an innovative approach to an existing idea and Formula One is all about innovative design.”
Brawn was twice asked to retract remarks made in personal submissions in which he criticised Rory Byrne of Ferrari and Red Bull designer Adrian Newey.
Byrne is a long-standing colleague of Brawn – together they won five drivers’ and six constructors’ titles earlier this decade – and now works as a consultant for Ferrari.
Brawn had claimed their case was “a vindictive response...that amounted to a fishing expedition”.
Asked to withdraw his comment as it was claimed it served as a slight against Byrne, Brawn said: “I have the highest regard for Mr Byrne. But we are on opposite sides in this argument, so I stand by my statements.”
In his written submission, Brawn also accused Newey of “being unethical and of bringing the sport into disrespute”.

[woody2goody]

Well, to anyone who still disputed this decision, after it has been decided in favour of Brawn, Toyota and Williams for efectively the third time -

Ross Brawn gave the other teams a chance to stop them from designing these diffusers and they turned him down. Now they see that the three teams in question are faster than them, they are naturally jealous. Justice has definitely been done.

As for who will be fastest after all the teams have incorporated their version of the DDD, it will still be Brawn, Toyota and Williams, because they have had time to develop other parts.

You never know, they could have trouble with their new aero pieces, and the others could have major balance issues with the new diffusers. It's still anyone's game, but I reckon the pecking order won't change a lot, apart from ferrari moving into a clear '5th fastest' spot.

[aryan]

Who knows?
Might be that these people have a sense of justice stronger than their need for a contrived and artificial show?! This may be the answer you are searching for.

Yes, and maybe some people's sense of justice is stronger than their affiliation with a particular team.

What strikes me most here, is that you are always on the anti-standardisation, more-innovation, more-technology side of the argument. And now, here we have 3 teams that have clearly read the rules, and have in an ingenious manner while keeping within the rules. I would have expected you to be squarely on their side.

And yet, just because your favourite team is on the other side of the argument, you find yourself in the awkward position of having to argue for standaridsation and cost-cutting.

Just shows how blind support for a team has blinded your eyes.

[Ari]

Every car will sport a bodgy diffuser by Friday first practice. Even the paint will be dry.

Not true. Most are talking about Monaco or Turkey before they have a dd ready to go. The injustice here is that those teams which did the right thing and decided to work with the FIA on the committee are now being disadvantaged by those who didn't. I hope the FIA isn't expecting any help from now on.

[tinchote]

The FIA has not acted like that in the past so why would they now.

Interesting comment ;)

First examples that come to mind are the Brahbam "fan car" from 1978 and McLaren's 3rd pedal in 98. Both cars won races with a device that was later deemed illegal, precisely because it fitted the letter but not the spirit of the rules.

"Not acted like that in the past"? Wrong.

[jjanicke]

Not true. Most are talking about Monaco or Turkey before they have a dd ready to go. The injustice here is that those teams which did the right thing and decided to work with the FIA on the committee are now being disadvantaged by those who didn't. I hope the FIA isn't expecting any help from now on.

If it were only that innocent.

[F1boat]

Buddies, do you know how immensely cool is to read this argument in the morning and to think - it's over! Justice has prevailed!
It is so cool!!!

[555-04Q2]

And as far as the Ferrari lawyer's tirade against Ross Brawn, I feel Ferrari should have stopped him on the spot. After all, he is a Ferrari legend and hero.

Well said Valve :up:

[wmcot]

Obviously the Renault and RBR solutions are not the same solutions as BrawnGP, Toyota or Williams, otherwise they would have been deemed legal.

Did you ever think that it might not have been the same stewards as those at Australia and Malaysia who looked at their designs? ...another bit of evidence that F1 needs consistency!

[Ari]

If it were only that innocent.

Oh so true!

[ioan]

Kind of a dumb question, but according to the FIA their differences aren't enough to make any one of the 3 illegal. The same can't be said for the differences of RBR and Renault DD proposals.

Yep I agree, it's dumb, because you are making suppositions based on nothing but bias, while choosing to ignore what the 2 teams stated (and the FIA never ever commented on this, they never tried to say it isn't true).

[callum122]

Surely without any development the other teams won't be gaining the half a second a lap from using their new DD diffusers.

Without any testing does it become conceptual engineering?

[F1boat]

ioan, I heard that FIA announced that they never were asked by these two teams about DD. I wouldn't trust Flav and Horner so much. IMO the three diffuser teams had nothing to lose and risked and won.

[ioan]

Yes, and maybe some people's sense of justice is stronger than their affiliation with a particular team.

What strikes me most here, is that you are always on the anti-standardisation, more-innovation, more-technology side of the argument. And now, here we have 3 teams that have clearly read the rules, and have in an ingenious manner while keeping within the rules. I would have expected you to be squarely on their side.

And yet, just because your favourite team is on the other side of the argument, you find yourself in the awkward position of having to argue for standaridsation and cost-cutting.

Just shows how blind support for a team has blinded your eyes.

I think that you are going a bit far on the supposition track there.
What does this all have to do with Ferrari?
Why your need to mix Ferrari in my point?
Where did I sat that Ferrari are wronged?!
Can't you think out of the box where you only see ioan=Ferrari? It seems you can't.

To put things clear once and for all (also for those who have a grudge on me or Ferrari as it is obvious from this thread), my point is that RBR and Renault are wronged, because they were denied to pursue a similar design.

I'm all for innovation, but first of all I'm for equal chances in the innovation process, which isn't the case because of the above mentioned fact.

I hope that makes it clear enough.

[ioan]

ioan, I heard that FIA announced that they never were asked by these two teams about DD. I wouldn't trust Flav and Horner so much. IMO the three diffuser teams had nothing to lose and risked and won.

I never read that anywhere, but I would trust anyone over Charlie "Muppet" Whiting, that's 101% sure.
Also I strongly doubt it that the teams would have said it in front of a panel of judges if that wasn't true, they would have risked to get what McLaren is getting right now.

[ioan]

It is not as if the anti-diffuser brigade didn't know what the diffuser brigade were doing.

I doubt that they are exchanging technical ideas up to that level.

[F1boat]

I never read that anywhere, but I would trust anyone over Charlie "Muppet" Whiting, that's 101% sure.


That's your choice, of course. But do not accuse others if their opinion differs. :)

[F1boat]

I doubt that they are exchanging technical ideas up to that level.

Although I heard that originally the DD was a Super Aguri's idea, then it leaked from Aguri to Honda. Then a man from Honda left from Toyota and from Toyota to Williams-Toyota.
Who knows if this is true...

[ioan]

That's your choice, of course. But do not accuse others if their opinion differs. :)

I wonder why you did ignore the rest of my post:



Also I strongly doubt it that the teams would have said it in front of a panel of judges if that wasn't true, they would have risked to get what McLaren is getting right now.

Your choice obviously.

[ioan]

Although I heard that originally the DD was a Super Aguri's idea, then it leaked from Aguri to Honda. Then a man from Honda left from Toyota and from Toyota to Williams-Toyota.
Who knows if this is true...

Obviously no one leaked it too the other 7 teams.

[F1boat]

Obviously no one leaked it too the other 7 teams.

That's my opinion. It was a genuine surprise. Now the others say - we knew it, but we were told that it's illegal... I don't buy that.

[Valve Bounce]

Not true. Most are talking about Monaco or Turkey before they have a dd ready to go. The injustice here is that those teams which did the right thing and decided to work with the FIA on the committee are now being disadvantaged by those who didn't. I hope the FIA isn't expecting any help from now on.

You Queenslanders always seem to have a different view to Victorians. When are you coming back? We are going to roast Kangaroos this weekend.

[Valve Bounce]

pino, just in case you may think I am having a go at Ari. I am. He should be here at Docklands cheering for the mighty Bombers this weekend. :up:

But as far as the diffusers are concerned, and regarding "you know who", my lips are sealed. :(

[ioan]

But as far as the diffusers are concerned, and regarding "you know who", my lips are sealed. :(

Perfect.

[Valve Bounce]

...............only while I'm watching TV. :)

[PolePosition_1]

I'm disappointed with the outcome. Whilst I think the results from the first two races should have been held up, as they were declared legal at the time.

The principle of the DDD (Doube Decker Diffuser) goes against everything what the rules were introduced for. They found a loophole, the rules weren't written with DDD in mind, and yet they ain't closed it.

And dare I say, I think this outcome is because its good for the sport to mix the pack up, having different teams winning, which I agree. But its a shame they ain't taken a stand for what the rules stand for, essentially increasing overtaking and reducing dependency on aerodynamic downforce, which the DDD is reported to increase by 15%.

They should have stated them legal, and closing the loophole for the next race, or at least for 2010.

Instead they're keeping it legal, so when all the teams have finally copied them, which they have to to be competitive, turbalence will become more of a factor making it more difficult to overtake.

[ioan]

I'm disappointed with the outcome. Whilst I think the results from the first two races should have been held up, as they were declared legal at the time.

The principle of the DDD (Doube Decker Diffuser) goes against everything what the rules were introduced for. They found a loophole, the rules weren't written with DDD in mind, and yet they ain't closed it.

And dare I say, I think this outcome is because its good for the sport to mix the pack up, having different teams winning, which I agree. But its a shame they ain't taken a stand for what the rules stand for, essentially increasing overtaking and reducing dependency on aerodynamic downforce, which the DDD is reported to increase by 15%.

They should have stated them legal, and closing the loophole for the next race, or at least for 2010.

Instead they're keeping it legal, so when all the teams have finally copied them, which they have to to be competitive, turbalence will become more of a factor making it more difficult to overtake.

This is one of those rare occasions when we agree!

The decision is not based on the rules or the reason these rules were introduced, it's only about politics and money.

Anyway, by the time they get to race in Europe the better teams will catch up with BrawnGP (Toyota and Williams are already slower than RBR and possibly even Ferrari and BMW).

[F1boat]

Pole, I guess that they will announce them illegal for 2010 in November this year, to "spice the competition" a bit ;) But I am happy that they are legal at least for this season. I am all for innovation. If I want spec formula racing, I can watch Indycar, it is also very cool, but different.

[PolePosition_1]

Pole, I guess that they will announce them illegal for 2010 in November this year, to "spice the competition" a bit ;) But I am happy that they are legal at least for this season. I am all for innovation. If I want spec formula racing, I can watch Indycar, it is also very cool, but different.


I'm not saying I'm after spec racing.

All I'm saying is that we had a raft of rule changes to improve overtaking. And so far, it looks like its worked. Primarily due to the reducation of aerodynamically grip.

The DDD give them an extra 15% grip, all down to aero, therefore increasing turbalence, making it harder to overtake.

I believe the 3 teams were more than in their right, as they found a loophole, but that loophole should be closed. Because it goes against all of what the rule was intended to do.

At end of the day, all the teams are now going to have to adapt to the DDD, essentially creating a spec diffuser. So we have a choice of essentially a spec double decker diffuser putting emphasis on aerodynamically grip, reducing overtaking, or a spec single diffuser, where emphasis is on mechanical grip.

To me, it just seems logical that the loophole should have been closed, as per the mass damper, flexi floor boards, third peddle, I'm sure the list could go on.

It hasn't, and its refreshing to see different teams at the front, and I think this is a big part of the reason behind yesterdays outcome. I feel if it were Ferrari and McLaren with the DDD, and dominating, they would have closed the loophole.

We then also have questions as to why Red Bull and Renault, when they comfronted the FIA with a similar concept, were told the idea was illegal. Whats the difference between them? Will we ever find out?

[PolePosition_1]

This is one of those rare occasions when we agree!



Shocker!

[ioan]

At end of the day, all the teams are now going to have to adapt to the DDD, essentially creating a spec diffuser. So we have a choice of essentially a spec double decker diffuser putting emphasis on aerodynamically grip, reducing overtaking, or a spec single diffuser, where emphasis is on mechanical grip.

To me, it just seems logical that the loophole should have been closed, as per the mass damper, flexi floor boards, third peddle, I'm sure the list could go on.

Exactly.



It hasn't, and its refreshing to see different teams at the front, and I think this is a big part of the reason behind yesterdays outcome. I feel if it were Ferrari and McLaren with the DDD, and dominating, they would have closed the loophole.

Right again. What a sad situation F1 finds itself in.



We then also have questions as to why Red Bull and Renault, when they comfronted the FIA with a similar concept, were told the idea was illegal. Whats the difference between them? Will we ever find out?

I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened there. It's not in the interest of the show.

[wedge]

The DDD give them an extra 15% grip, all down to aero, therefore increasing turbalence, making it harder to overtake.

There's minimal drag penalty from the diffuser/undercar aero compared to the wings hence less turbulence - which is why there is a school of thought where undercar aero is suited for following the wake of a car.

[PolePosition_1]

There's minimal drag penalty from the diffuser/undercar aero compared to the wings hence less turbulence - which is why there is a school of thought where undercar aero is suited for following the wake of a car.

Are you stating that the DDD's actually help with regards to following another car?

[F1boat]

Pole, Rosberg denied that the DD cars are harder to overtake than the standard ones. Also, to me the car which is harder to overtake is the Renault and it is without DD. Maybe it is Fernando, he is a brilliant defender, but still...

[PolePosition_1]

Pole, Rosberg denied that the DD cars are harder to overtake than the standard ones. Also, to me the car which is harder to overtake is the Renault and it is without DD. Maybe it is Fernando, he is a brilliant defender, but still...

Rosberg denied it, thats not exactly coming from a voice of someone without a vested interest in it.

I can quite easily find a source saying otherwise......http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/16/overtaking-harder-with-new-diffusers-theissen/

It seems common sense to me that turbalence from the DDD's will make overtaking harder. Hence the fact the regulations, introduced to encourage overtaking, were designed to reduce the downforce and turbalence to to help overtaking. The DDD increase aero downforce and turbalence and was not what was in mind when the rules were written.

The Renault is hard to overtake because Alonso is amazing at defending, and on top of that has KERS.

To argue that DDD isn't negative for overtaking seems like a ludicurious arguement to have. We may as well argue whether the earth is flat or round?

Argue that innovative, cleaver, and mixes up the grid nicely, fair enough, you have a strong case, but no one can argue that it is the opposite of what the rules set out to create.

[wedge]

Are you stating that the DDD's actually help with regards to following another car?

Yes, possibly doing a better job than the front wings which are more sensitive to the wake.

Rosberg didn't run KERS in Australia and he was nippy at overtaking when he was on the prime tyres.

[wedge]

Rosberg denied it, thats not exactly coming from a voice of someone without a vested interest in it.

I can quite easily find a source saying otherwise......http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/16/overtaking-harder-with-new-diffusers-theissen/

It seems common sense to me that turbalence from the DDD's will make overtaking harder. Hence the fact the regulations, introduced to encourage overtaking, were designed to reduce the downforce and turbalence to to help overtaking. The DDD increase aero downforce and turbalence and was not what was in mind when the rules were written.

The Renault is hard to overtake because Alonso is amazing at defending, and on top of that has KERS.

To argue that DDD isn't negative for overtaking seems like a ludicurious arguement to have. We may as well argue whether the earth is flat or round?

Argue that innovative, cleaver, and mixes up the grid nicely, fair enough, you have a strong case, but no one can argue that it is the opposite of what the rules set out to create.

It's more of a case of who do you believe? Nico will obviously publicly defend Williams and Theissen will defend BMW's stance.

Diffusers work by channelling a zone of low pressure underneath the car to speed up air flow thereby acting as suction device with minimal drag - that is a fact not theory.

[ioan]

Pole, Rosberg denied that the DD cars are harder to overtake than the standard ones. Also, to me the car which is harder to overtake is the Renault and it is without DD. Maybe it is Fernando, he is a brilliant defender, but still...

When did Rosberg overtake another car fitted with DD diffuser?! All Rosberg is doing is blowing hot air with no info at all.

[ioan]

It's more of a case of who do you believe? Nico will obviously publicly defend Williams and Theissen will defend BMW's stance.

Diffusers work by channelling a zone of low pressure underneath the car to speed up air flow thereby acting as suction device with minimal drag - that is a fact not theory.

And all that airflow sped up by the diffuser will it be more or less disturbing with a DD diffuser?!

I say it will be more disturbing given that it more downforce means that more and faster air is being sucked through it.

[ioan]

Yes, possibly doing a better job than the front wings which are more sensitive to the wake.

Only that it's the front wing that is disturbed, by the wake of air coming from the diffuser of the preceding car, not the diffuser.

having a diffuser that gives you more downforce on the rear of the car while your front wing is producing less when following a DD diffuser car will upset the balance of the car exactly in the same way it was happening until last year.

[wedge]

And all that airflow sped up by the diffuser will it be more or less disturbing with a DD diffuser?!

I say it will be more disturbing given that it more downforce means that more and faster air is being sucked through it.

Does quicker air equate to being turbulent air?

[wedge]

Only that it's the front wing that is disturbed, by the wake of air coming from the diffuser of the preceding car, not the diffuser.

:confused:

[big_sw2000]

Does quicker air equate to being turbulent air?
To me a deffusa, is more a ground effect item, with minimal air disturbence.
Can not see how a DD Deffusa will cause more air disturbance, it was the low rear wings last year creating the problem with car following each other.

[Sleeper]

Having read all 7 pages of this thread, its amazing just how much utter rubish is flying around here.

First off, the other teams wont just slap on a new diffuser for the next race because it just isnt that easy, we are talking about a part of the car that is inherant to the overall aero concept of the car and requires specific design changes to the crash structure, floor, rear suspension, possibly sidepods and certainly the underside of the monocoque. In Red Bulls casew maybe even the rear wing up rights as well but this is all dependant on the indavidual designes of each part of a car. Because of this, I reckon that Brawn, Toyota and Williams will stay towards the front of the pack because they have all spent a long time developing allong these lines, but I expect that the others will catch up at some point, just because testing is band in season doesent mean development has been stoped, it will probably be only slightly less frantic than recent years and teams will be a bit more cautious about putting them on the car for a race.

As to the Spirit of the rules debate, I'm in full agreement with Adrian Newey when he says theres no such thing, the rules are there to provide a frame work to design a car within. Those that come up with the rules might have specific goals to achieve with them but do remember that the one and only job of the designers is to interpret these rules and push the letter of them as far as possible to make the fastest possible car, not the cheapest or most overtacking friendly car. Any suggestion to the contrary (I'm looking at the people that have said the DDD's are against the spirit of the rules) is delusional.

Mario Thiessen has stated that this will drive up costs. Personally, I think thats utter rubbish, a team will spend all of what they've got on the car, chances are that MT wanted to run parallel development programs so that he wont lose what his team is currently working on but will be able to develop the necessary parts to run the DDD at the same time so he went and asked for more money from the board. This is a guess, but its probably closer to the mark than them magically needing more money for new development as theirs nothing to stop them swithcing the focus of their design team from other projects without any major additional cost.

As for safety, chances are that its the introduction of slick tyres that has done more to increase cornering speads than the diffusers because of the increase in contact patch, which is what the available downforce works through. As I dont think we were ever looking at a particularly huge downforce reduction anyway, and the suggestion is that the diffuser helps best in slow to medium speed corners anyway, I dont exactly agree with this line of thinking.

One thing that I am concerned about is that Red Bull and Renault apparently asked about this design rout last year and were told it was illegal. What I have noticed is that neither the FIA nore the two teams have been specific about the designs they were asking about. As I previously mentioned the job of the designers is to push the letter of the law as far as possible and I suspect that Newey and Bell pusheed things just a little too far with their designs and its not the FIA's job to tell them that a small change is all they would need to be legal, they're supposed to be able to figure it out for themsleves. But, until we get all the facts on this lets stop the jumping to conclusions.

Finally, I'll address this last par to PolePosition as you've been most vocal on this. The DDD's catagorically do not make a car substatially harder to follow because the very nature of venturi tunnels (which a diffuser effectively is) means that for the same down downforce as an aerofoil they produce rufelly 1/3 the drag/turbulance. You'll forgive me if I dont go into the specifics of this as its been a while since I studied thermodynamics but take it as read that the diffusers will not make a huge difference to how difficult a car is to overtake, that reside mostly with the rear wing of the car in front and the front wing of the car behind, and the front wing was specifically lowered and widened to make it less suceptable to turbulance than previously.

Effectively, the reasons that Williams, Toyota, Red Bull and Brawn are the leading teams this year is because they have spent the longest developing their car and have all pushed the letter of the rules furthest, though in different ways, and unlike BMW, whos car looks to be very simple aerodynamically in comparison to any of those 4 mentioned.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt it was needed.

[wedge]

You'll forgive me if I dont go into the specifics of this as its been a while since I studied thermodynamics


My brother was bored me to death with Bernoulli's principle over the Easter weekend.

[ioan]

Does quicker air equate to being turbulent air?

A long as it's injected in a mass of still air it will create turbulence, and more speed and volume of injected air = more turbulence.

[F1boat]

Having read all 7 pages of this thread, its amazing just how much utter rubish is flying around here.

First off, the other teams wont just slap on a new diffuser for the next race because it just isnt that easy, we are talking about a part of the car that is inherant to the overall aero concept of the car and requires specific design changes to the crash structure, floor, rear suspension, possibly sidepods and certainly the underside of the monocoque. In Red Bulls casew maybe even the rear wing up rights as well but this is all dependant on the indavidual designes of each part of a car. Because of this, I reckon that Brawn, Toyota and Williams will stay towards the front of the pack because they have all spent a long time developing allong these lines, but I expect that the others will catch up at some point, just because testing is band in season doesent mean development has been stoped, it will probably be only slightly less frantic than recent years and teams will be a bit more cautious about putting them on the car for a race.

As to the Spirit of the rules debate, I'm in full agreement with Adrian Newey when he says theres no such thing, the rules are there to provide a frame work to design a car within. Those that come up with the rules might have specific goals to achieve with them but do remember that the one and only job of the designers is to interpret these rules and push the letter of them as far as possible to make the fastest possible car, not the cheapest or most overtacking friendly car. Any suggestion to the contrary (I'm looking at the people that have said the DDD's are against the spirit of the rules) is delusional.

Mario Thiessen has stated that this will drive up costs. Personally, I think thats utter rubbish, a team will spend all of what they've got on the car, chances are that MT wanted to run parallel development programs so that he wont lose what his team is currently working on but will be able to develop the necessary parts to run the DDD at the same time so he went and asked for more money from the board. This is a guess, but its probably closer to the mark than them magically needing more money for new development as theirs nothing to stop them swithcing the focus of their design team from other projects without any major additional cost.

As for safety, chances are that its the introduction of slick tyres that has done more to increase cornering speads than the diffusers because of the increase in contact patch, which is what the available downforce works through. As I dont think we were ever looking at a particularly huge downforce reduction anyway, and the suggestion is that the diffuser helps best in slow to medium speed corners anyway, I dont exactly agree with this line of thinking.

One thing that I am concerned about is that Red Bull and Renault apparently asked about this design rout last year and were told it was illegal. What I have noticed is that neither the FIA nore the two teams have been specific about the designs they were asking about. As I previously mentioned the job of the designers is to push the letter of the law as far as possible and I suspect that Newey and Bell pusheed things just a little too far with their designs and its not the FIA's job to tell them that a small change is all they would need to be legal, they're supposed to be able to figure it out for themsleves. But, until we get all the facts on this lets stop the jumping to conclusions.

Finally, I'll address this last par to PolePosition as you've been most vocal on this. The DDD's catagorically do not make a car substatially harder to follow because the very nature of venturi tunnels (which a diffuser effectively is) means that for the same down downforce as an aerofoil they produce rufelly 1/3 the drag/turbulance. You'll forgive me if I dont go into the specifics of this as its been a while since I studied thermodynamics but take it as read that the diffusers will not make a huge difference to how difficult a car is to overtake, that reside mostly with the rear wing of the car in front and the front wing of the car behind, and the front wing was specifically lowered and widened to make it less suceptable to turbulance than previously.

Effectively, the reasons that Williams, Toyota, Red Bull and Brawn are the leading teams this year is because they have spent the longest developing their car and have all pushed the letter of the rules furthest, though in different ways, and unlike BMW, whos car looks to be very simple aerodynamically in comparison to any of those 4 mentioned.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt it was needed.

I agree 100%. IMO I think that all the wrath is because one certain team is disadvantaged and a fan of it is unhappy. However, I can understand this and I am very passionate fan myself.

[ioan]

The DDD's catagorically do not make a car substatially harder to follow because the very nature of venturi tunnels (which a diffuser effectively is) means that for the same down downforce as an aerofoil they produce rufelly 1/3 the drag/turbulance. You'll forgive me if I dont go into the specifics of this as its been a while since I studied thermodynamics but take it as read that the diffusers will not make a huge difference to how difficult a car is to overtake, that reside mostly with the rear wing of the car in front and the front wing of the car behind, and the front wing was specifically lowered and widened to make it less suceptable to turbulance than previously

I would still like to have a more in depth explanation about exactly how a diffuser will produce the same amount of downforce while creating only 1/3 of the turbulence, because I think this isn't the case.

[Bagwan]

Ross said he mentioned this area of the rear of the car needed to be regulated more strictly so that designers would not take advantage in this area .
He did not mention specifics of what he had in mind , but , it seems , it was a clue for Toyota and Williams that something was up .
They came up with similar concepts that fit the loophole as well .

Other teams asked about the concept , and were told it would be illegal .

It all comes down to how they did that asking , I believe .
Did they show conceptual drawings ? Did they simply ask whether they could now have holes in the diffuser ?
Or , was the design they had , simply a hole , and not strictly "double-decked" ?

For whatever reason , it was denied .
Those teams without , then saw BrawnGP and the 2 Toy cars going fast in testing , and decided to pin all the hopes on the fact that they would be found illegal .

I would be very surprised to find that the 3 diffuser rebel teams didn't have a regular set-up to bolt on if the parts were banned .
I'd bet they were ready .

The rest of them were warned of the issue , and only Toyota and Williams reacted .

[ioan]

I agree 100%. IMO I think that all the wrath is because one certain team is disadvantaged and a fan of it is unhappy. However, I can understand this and I am very passionate fan myself.

Stop talking rubbish, there are 7 teams disadvantaged (2 off them, RBR and Renault, being literally ripped off by the FIA) and all the real and all the knowledgeable F1 fans should worry about the direction the sport is heading in.

PS: Be man enough to say it when you refer to me next time, don't hide behind your finger.

[Bagwan]

Hey , Ioan , is it not a bit like rolling the dice , gambling on it being illegal ?

Would it not have been prudent to hedge the bets , and have one of thier own in reserve ?
Did it prompt the teams at all to try to understand why Brawn thought it's diffuser was legal , in technical terms , or did they just put the development money into the lawyers ?

We've never had much detail from the Red Bull guys as to how similar the design they asked about was , and no comment from the FIA on the subject either .
Both aspects suggest that they are being frugal with the facts .

[F1boat]

Stop talking rubbish, there are 7 teams disadvantaged (2 off them, RBR and Renault, being literally ripped off by the FIA) and all the real and all the knowledgeable F1 fans should worry about the direction the sport is heading in.

PS: Be man enough to say it when you refer to me next time, don't hide behind your finger.

Be nice :)

[Sleeper]

I would still like to have a more in depth explanation about exactly how a diffuser will produce the same amount of downforce while creating only 1/3 of the turbulence, because I think this isn't the case.

As I said I'm running off memory from courses I took 4 years ago. However, I believe its largely down to the fact that a diffuser only accelerates the airflow and that a wing works by altering the direction of the flow, at least to some extent depending on the angle and profile of the wing. This creates vorticies that are reffered to as turbulance.

[Sleeper]

I agree 100%. IMO I think that all the wrath is because one certain team is disadvantaged and a fan of it is unhappy. However, I can understand this and I am very passionate fan myself.

I dont think thats fair boat, this has probably got more to do with the fact that ioan is highly distrustful of Max and Bernie, and rightly so, but I think he's abit off with this one.

[F1boat]

Maybe, yes... I also mistrust them. And I don't like the way that FIA takes its decision - too slowly. But I do not think that the sport is dying because for once Ferrari lost an appeal. Don't get me wrong, I think that the FIA's decisions about McLaren in previous years were right. As I think that their decision about the DD teams is right as well. But the perception was that Ferrari always win the appeals and now we know that this is not true. It should be celebrated and not bashed. Now it seems that the FIA is not biased in favor them, although the latest actions from Max to McLaren IMO are too much.

[ioan]

Hey , Ioan , is it not a bit like rolling the dice , gambling on it being illegal ?

What if they didn't gamble on it being illegal.
I seriously believe that the teams who protested were convinced about it being illegal (especially Renault and RBR who were told so by the FIA one year ago!)

If they were not sure about the interpretation of the rules they would have come up with a similar design themselves as soon as the FIA said it was legal, back in February.

[ioan]

As I said I'm running off memory from courses I took 4 years ago. However, I believe its largely down to the fact that a diffuser only accelerates the airflow and that a wing works by altering the direction of the flow, at least to some extent depending on the angle and profile of the wing. This creates vorticies that are reffered to as turbulance.

IMO by accelerating that mass of air, in order to create downforce (ie. suction) the diffuser is creating more turbulence than what is created by a wing of similar width, plus given the position of the diffuser the turbulence is created exactly at the worse possible level for the following car, at the level of the front wing.

The size of the diffusers and the height of the rear wing were changed in order to create less turbulence at the level of the following car front wing.

Also the front wing size was increased and they have movable planes in order to improve front downforce when closing in on a car in order to overtake.

By allowing the double decker diffusers the FIA is in fact annihilating the chances to improvce the overtaking compared to what we got during the last seasons, and the whole work done by the OWG has been wiped out.

How the heck should fans continue following a sport where the governing body is contradicting their own rules and ideas in order to break up the unity of the teams association (FOTA)?! Because I for one have no doubt that this is the reason why we got this idiotic ruling.

It's also sad that Brawn and Williams are tacitly approving such moves given that the small teams stand to win most from the FOTA actions.
Do they believe that they will be able to generate as much publicity and cash flow for themselves in the 6-8 races where they will be able to stay at the front before the manufacturer teams will start beating them day and night again?

[ioan]

Be nice :)

I am. ;)

[F1boat]

I am. ;)

Have you read the fantasy novels of David Eddings? They spoke like that in it ;)

[SGWilko]

"you know who", (

You've been reading J K Rowling books again, haven't you?

[Bagwan]

What if they didn't gamble on it being illegal.
I seriously believe that the teams who protested were convinced about it being illegal (especially Renault and RBR who were told so by the FIA one year ago!)

If they were not sure about the interpretation of the rules they would have come up with a similar design themselves as soon as the FIA said it was legal, back in February.

I think you're right about those non-diffuser teams thinking they were illegal .
But , meanwhile , Toyota noticed something Ross had suggested , that the majority declined .
Toyota understood the interpretation that Ross was seeing .

As it has been put forward that the others had thier own , I would suggest that it may not have the requirements of Brawn's and then Toyota's interpretation , therefore , was said to be illegal .
Simply having the 2 decks attached incorrectly , or perhaps more appropriately said as , differently , may result in more of a view that it is a hole , rather than a slot or gap .

They seem not to have tried to change it to make it comply , but rather to have just decided to protest that the others were illegal .
And , by the time it went to the hearing , it had been scrutinized 4 times , and OK'd to race .
That would suggest that the designs shown to the FIA by Red Bull did not comply with the rules , and that Brawn's did .

It does sound compelling when one hears that they were told it was illegal , but that's all we've ever heard of it .

If it were slightly different , it may have been quite illegal , and may explain why the Brawn diffuser has never been said to be so by anyone other than those without .

[ioan]

As it has been put forward that the others had thier own , I would suggest that it may not have the requirements of Brawn's and then Toyota's interpretation , therefore , was said to be illegal .
Simply having the 2 decks attached incorrectly , or perhaps more appropriately said as , differently , may result in more of a view that it is a hole , rather than a slot or gap .

They seem not to have tried to change it to make it comply , but rather to have just decided to protest that the others were illegal .

I do not believe for a second that the Renault guys, who produced championship winning cars are any less intelligent than the Toyota, Williams or BawnGP design team, and I'm sure enough that Newey is way smarter than the BrawnGP designer, whomever he/she is cause last time I checked the bike guy left too.

Based on only the facts we know, and without making any assumptions I stand by the opinion that this was a political move by the FIA to destroy FOTA's unity, and based on what people declared after the hearing it seems that the FIA might have achieved their goal.

[ioan]

Have you read the fantasy novels of David Eddings? They spoke like that in it ;)

I wish I had time to read anything other than news and scientific papers.

[ArrowsFA1]

I stand by the opinion that this was a political move by the FIA to destroy FOTA's unity, and based on what people declared after the hearing it seems that the FIA might have achieved their goal.
I liked what Stefano Domenicali had to say (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74500) about that suggestion:
"I don't want to say that. What I can say for sure is that this is something that puts all the teams in a difficult situation."

[ioan]

It's pretty obvious given the language used in court.
From what I heard and read there were insults flying left, right, up and down. Apparently Brawn used some pretty hard words towards Byrne and he was asked to retract them.

How on Earth can they go ahead with such a behavior?!

[wedge]

IMO by accelerating that mass of air, in order to create downforce (ie. suction) the diffuser is creating more turbulence than what is created by a wing of similar width, plus given the position of the diffuser the turbulence is created exactly at the worse possible level for the following car, at the level of the front wing.

You're wrong. The diffuser also decelerates air exiting creating less turbulence. The height of the diffuser was lowered to lower downforce nothing to do with wake (source?).

[ioan]

Diffusers work by channelling a zone of low pressure underneath the car to speed up air flow thereby acting as suction device with minimal drag - that is a fact not theory.


You're wrong. The diffuser also decelerates air exiting creating less turbulence.

I don't know how wrong I am but you clearly are mixing things.



The height of the diffuser was lowered to lower downforce nothing to do with wake (source?).

No kidding?

The lower height diffuser is creating less downforce AND less wake and thus less turbulence, in order to allow a following car closer and make overtaking a reality.

AFAIK the bigger the diffuser = more air can be efficiently sucked out = more downforce but also more wake and turbulence.
There is no such thing as producing the same amount of downforce with less air and less wake, otherwise the DD diffusers wouldn't have been needed.

[jjanicke]

Did you ever think that it might not have been the same stewards as those at Australia and Malaysia who looked at their designs? ...another bit of evidence that F1 needs consistency!

Stewards are race officials. Charlie Whiting and his crew were the ones that told the teams their designs were illegal, not the stewards. It wasn't until Australia that the Stewards first ruled on the legality of the 3 diffusers.


Yep I agree, it's dumb, because you are making suppositions based on nothing but bias, while choosing to ignore what the 2 teams stated (and the FIA never ever commented on this, they never tried to say it isn't true).

Perhaps that's what you think I am doing. But contrary to what you think, I'm not.

I'm choosing to assume that the FIA has acted in a non-bias fashion and that the 2 illegal diffuser design are different enough from the 3 legal design to make them illegal. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Lastly I'm pretty sure the FIA does not have to reply to every comment fielded by teams.


Link?

I don't have one. Can you show me the rule stating the FIA must respond to every media question surfaced by F1?

[ioan]

Lastly I'm pretty sure the FIA does not have to reply to every comment fielded by teams.

Link?

[jjanicke]

A long as it's injected in a mass of still air it will create turbulence, and more speed and volume of injected air = more turbulence.

How profound. Now take it one step further and explain to all of us how the materially will impact the overtaking ability today.


Stop talking rubbish, there are 7 teams disadvantaged (2 off them, RBR and Renault, being literally ripped off by the FIA) and all the real and all the knowledgeable F1 fans should worry about the direction the sport is heading in.

PS: Be man enough to say it when you refer to me next time, don't hide behind your finger.

Let's not assume that the FIA "ripped off" 2 teams. This is purely your opinion, nothing more.

[wedge]

I don't know how wrong I am but you clearly are mixing things.

So how was my explanation any less different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)


As the air enters towards the front of the car it accelerates and reduces pressure. There is a second suction peak at the transition of the flat bottom and diffuser. The diffuser then eases this high velocity air back to normal velocity and also helps fill in the area behind the car making the whole underbody a more efficient downforce producing device by reducing drag on the car and increasing downforce.

[jjanicke]

As I said I'm running off memory from courses I took 4 years ago. However, I believe its largely down to the fact that a diffuser only accelerates the airflow and that a wing works by altering the direction of the flow, at least to some extent depending on the angle and profile of the wing. This creates vorticies that are reffered to as turbulance.

It's has been even longer for me since thermo and fluid dynamics, but diffusers, ground effects and wings all work of the same principle. The Bernoulli effect. They both change the speed of the fluid flowing through them and because of the general belief that fluids are not compressible (although this isn't the case for air) something has to happen. In this case the Bernoulli effect states that low pressure occurs where the air is flowing fast, and higher pressure where the air is flowing slow. Because F1 wings are essentially upside down wings, the air going under the wings is forced to move faster than the air flowing over the wings (more distance to travel), creating a low pressure under the wing and pulling the car down.

The diffuser, and ground effects work even better because they not only use the underside of the body for aerodynamic advantage but also the surface of the track the car is on. By creating a small gap between the ground and the bottom of the car the air naturally has to speed up, and therefore creates a negative pressure under the car, sucking it down. Due to the nature of the diffuser it actually helps accelerate the air under the car even more because it's designed to create even more low pressure sucking more air out from under the car, making even more downforce.


IMO by accelerating that mass of air, in order to create downforce (ie. suction) the diffuser is creating more turbulence than what is created by a wing of similar width, plus given the position of the diffuser the turbulence is created exactly at the worse possible level for the following car, at the level of the front wing.

The size of the diffusers and the height of the rear wing were changed in order to create less turbulence at the level of the following car front wing.

Also the front wing size was increased and they have movable planes in order to improve front downforce when closing in on a car in order to overtake.

By allowing the double decker diffusers the FIA is in fact annihilating the chances to improvce the overtaking compared to what we got during the last seasons, and the whole work done by the OWG has been wiped out.

How the heck should fans continue following a sport where the governing body is contradicting their own rules and ideas in order to break up the unity of the teams association (FOTA)?! Because I for one have no doubt that this is the reason why we got this idiotic ruling.

It's also sad that Brawn and Williams are tacitly approving such moves given that the small teams stand to win most from the FOTA actions.
Do they believe that they will be able to generate as much publicity and cash flow for themselves in the 6-8 races where they will be able to stay at the front before the manufacturer teams will start beating them day and night again?

This is the beauty of the ground effects. Because of the significant separation of air flow the ground effects and diffuser that suck the car down actually produce less turbulence compared to a traditional wing. With a traditional wing you have air flow over and under the wing. And when they come back together behind the air foil they generate alot of turbulance.

The ground effects and diffuser on the other hand act more like the dimples on a golf ball. Because the diffuser is able to "break" the boundary layer there is less drag and less impact on the air behind the car.

[jjanicke]

I don't know how wrong I am but you clearly are mixing things.




No kidding?

The lower height diffuser is creating less downforce AND less wake and thus less turbulence, in order to allow a following car closer and make overtaking a reality.

AFAIK the bigger the diffuser = more air can be efficiently sucked out = more downforce but also more wake and turbulence.
There is no such thing as producing the same amount of downforce with less air and less wake, otherwise the DD diffusers wouldn't have been needed.

Wedge is actually right. The diffuser pulls the air from underneath the car, accelerating the flow underneath the car. Once it expands in the diffuser and exits it is moving slower than the air under the car, and therefore you have the great downforce without the drag penalty.

And if I were you I wouldn't be making statements ("There is no such thing as producing the same amount of downforce with less air and less wake") that you clearly know little about.

[Bagwan]

I do not believe for a second that the Renault guys, who produced championship winning cars are any less intelligent than the Toyota, Williams or BawnGP design team, and I'm sure enough that Newey is way smarter than the BrawnGP designer, whomever he/she is cause last time I checked the bike guy left too.

Based on only the facts we know, and without making any assumptions I stand by the opinion that this was a political move by the FIA to destroy FOTA's unity, and based on what people declared after the hearing it seems that the FIA might have achieved their goal.

You can do this .
You can't do this .
If you take the stance of the FIA stewards as genuine , and not a ploy to undermine FOTA , it is the word "this" in those first 2 sentences , having 2 different meanings , that makes the most logical explanation , in my view .

Using the space as a typical diffuser , is not allowed , as I understand it , but the Brawn is mixing air off the sidepods , effectively adding to the stream , and low pressure .
Mixing this air in should somewhat flatten the wake , and that should reduce the effect on a following car , shouldn't it ?

Mind you , there are people who work on creating as much wake as is possible without compromising to much drag .

[F1boat]

The funny thing is that BMW is still protesting the Malaysian GP:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74512

Boy, they are desperate. Why not focus on racing?

[Valve Bounce]

I don't know how wrong I am but you clearly are mixing things.



I think that's called an each way bet :p : :D

[Valve Bounce]

The lower height diffuser is creating less downforce AND less wake and thus less turbulence, in order to allow a following car closer and make overtaking a reality.

AFAIK the bigger the diffuser = more air can be efficiently sucked out = more downforce but also more wake and turbulence.
There is no such thing as producing the same amount of downforce with less air and less wake, otherwise the DD diffusers wouldn't have been needed.

You are correct here. I think the intent of the new rules was to decrease the size of the diffuser, which reduces turbulence behind the car. The Bodgy Diffuser Brigade effectively installed their diffuser in such a way that created a double decker diffuser with the cars bodywork, and thus increasing the turbulence behind the car.

[tintop]

The funny thing is that BMW is still protesting the Malaysian GP:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74512

Boy, they are desperate. Why not focus on racing?

Or maybe they have a point? How do you weigh in on the technical strength of their challenge?

[F1boat]

You can do this .
You can't do this .
If you take the stance of the FIA stewards as genuine , and not a ploy to undermine FOTA , it is the word "this" in those first 2 sentences , having 2 different meanings , that makes the most logical explanation , in my view .

Using the space as a typical diffuser , is not allowed , as I understand it , but the Brawn is mixing air off the sidepods , effectively adding to the stream , and low pressure .
Mixing this air in should somewhat flatten the wake , and that should reduce the effect on a following car , shouldn't it ?

Mind you , there are people who work on creating as much wake as is possible without compromising to much drag .

Yeah, also Renault was busy at the end of last season, winning races instead of focusing on this season.

[F1boat]

Or maybe they have a point? How do you weigh in on the technical strength of their challenge?

Three times stewards denied them.
The ICA denies them.
Mario said it - "we have to accept it".
He is just being petty. They sacrificed last year's development for 2009 and he got a midfield car and a lost of frustration. Well, maybe that's what BMW can do... I personally am very frustrated by them and I wish them no more wins. Look at McLaren instead - they put the DD and are now P1...

[Valve Bounce]

Wedge is actually right. The diffuser pulls the air from underneath the car, accelerating the flow underneath the car. Once it expands in the diffuser and exits it is moving slower than the air under the car, and therefore you have the great downforce without the drag penalty.

.

And you are quite correct - that's called the Bernoulli effect. However, what you fail to follow up with is that the larger the diffuser, the greater the turbulence behind the car. And that is what makes the front of a following car less stable and overtaking more difficult.

[ioan]

Wedge is actually right. The diffuser pulls the air from underneath the car, accelerating the flow underneath the car. Once it expands in the diffuser and exits it is moving slower than the air under the car, and therefore you have the great downforce without the drag penalty.

And if I were you I wouldn't be making statements ("There is no such thing as producing the same amount of downforce with less air and less wake") that you clearly know little about.

My point is that the air exiting the diffuser will be still much faster than the standing still air around the car and that when the two get in contact turbulence will be produced. I hope we agree at least on that.

If we agree on that than we can go to next point, and that is that a bigger diffuser will extract more air thus will create more turbulence.
And this is where I think that Brawn and others are making fun of everyone with a brain by saying that it is the opposite.

[ioan]

And you are quite correct - that's called the Bernoulli effect. However, what you fail to follow up with is that the larger the diffuser, the greater the turbulence behind the car. And that is what makes the front of a following car less stable and overtaking more difficult.

Bingo!
It does take someone with an open mind to understand something the others are not even willing to consider! :up:

[ioan]

The funny thing is that BMW is still protesting the Malaysian GP:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74512

Boy, they are desperate. Why not focus on racing?

Desperate? :laugh:
I love it when people are desperate to fight for the truth, it's much better than when people are desperate to cheat.

What's so difficult to understand?
BMW always stated that they believe the DD solution is illegal. It is their right to question what they think is not right and IMO they are showing that they have a spine, something rare nowadays.

And in what way is that supposed to distract BMW from racing?!

PS: BMW are probably also waiting to see what exactly were the reasons of teh ICA to declare the diffusers legal.

[F1boat]

They are desperate to win in court as they were unable to win on track, not with Williams, and not with Sauber now. Heck, they have trouble winning against the funny SEAT cars in WTCC ;)
And of course they have the right to protest. They used it. They were rejected three times in a row and yet they continue to moan. Sounds like desperation to me. At best they may be ridiculed, at worst, they may anger the FIA and become the new favorites of Max :evil:
I won't be saddened after all the whining!

[ArrowsFA1]

From what I heard and read there were insults flying left, right, up and down. Apparently Brawn used some pretty hard words towards Byrne and he was asked to retract them.

How on Earth can they go ahead with such a behavior?!
They have to, for the good of the sport. Max 'n' Bernie's "divide and rule" games have already done enough damage, and the latest trip to Paris did yet more. As Stefano Domenicali said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74500) the diffuser issue "should have been handled before the start of the season, in a very clear way", but instead it was seen as an opportunity by Max :rolleyes:

[ioan]

They are desperate to win in court as they were unable to win on track, not with Williams, and not with Sauber now. Heck, they have trouble winning against the funny SEAT cars in WTCC ;)
And of course they have the right to protest. They used it. They were rejected three times in a row and yet they continue to moan. Sounds like desperation to me. At best they may be ridiculed, at worst, they may anger the FIA and become the new favorites of Max :evil:
I won't be saddened after all the whining!

You're becoming tiresome with this labeling of all teams desperate. This is no soap opera, it's a highly technological sport where people advance by power of thought rather than sentiments.

[F1boat]

You're becoming tiresome with this labeling of all teams desperate. This is no soap opera, it's a highly technological sport where people advance by power of thought rather than sentiments.

You are wrong.
Of course that it is a high-tech sport (to want the DD go, you want it to be less high tech, however). Of course that people advance trough the power of thought. But you need passion - without your heart in your work, you can not achieve a success, not in F1, not anywhere.
If there was no sentiments, would the teams cheer after victory?
As there are cheering after a win, there is bitterness, anger, after a defeat. When you lose year after year after year, the anger grows. When you sacrifice the year at the point when your driver is leading the WDC, for the next year, only to discover that some people were smarter than you, you become desperate. And try to win not on track. But on court. And to me THIS and not the innovative design of the Diffuser Three, is cheating.
And something else. If you find my posts tiresome, ignore me. I also may find your whining posts for "truth" and "justice" tiresome, but it is not my place to lecture you, so I apologize for doing it now. However, I just want to say, if you don't like my posts, ignore me as I will do yo you.

[ioan]

You are wrong.

If you say so, how could I defeat such a strong argument?! :laugh:



Of course that it is a high-tech sport (to want the DD go, you want it to be less high tech, however). Of course that people advance trough the power of thought. But you need passion - without your heart in your work, you can not achieve a success, not in F1, not anywhere.
If there was no sentiments, would the teams cheer after victory?

But since when the only sentiment is desperation?

[ioan]

They have to, for the good of the sport. Max 'n' Bernie's "divide and rule" games have already done enough damage, and the latest trip to Paris did yet more. As Stefano Domenicali said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74500) the diffuser issue "should have been handled before the start of the season, in a very clear way", but instead it was seen as an opportunity by Max :rolleyes:

I agree they have too, but that isn't simple when the technical director of the FOTA uses certain words to label the members of other teams in a public court.

The fact that they could not keep it civilized it's a big problem from my POV. It means that their sentiments can be easily steered in the wrong direction anytime.

[PolePosition_1]

As I said I'm running off memory from courses I took 4 years ago. However, I believe its largely down to the fact that a diffuser only accelerates the airflow and that a wing works by altering the direction of the flow, at least to some extent depending on the angle and profile of the wing. This creates vorticies that are reffered to as turbulance.

I won't even try and compete with you on knowledge in this area, as you've obviously studied this at an academic level.

But surely the double decker diffusers alter the air flor more than the standard diffuser?

[ioan]

But surely the double decker diffusers alter the air flor more than the standard diffuser?

Obviously, and you don't need an academic degree in fluid dynamics to get to that conclusion.

[PolePosition_1]

Reading up about the diffusers in more detail, in particular looking at the first post in this topic:

http://forums.f1-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4400&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

It does seem that these diffusers do not create extra turbalence, and do fall in line with the principle of the rule changes, to increase overtaking.

If this is the case, then I do think the FIA Court of Appeal made the right choice.

There's a loophole, which when used does not go against the whole point of the rule changes, and some team used it others didn't.

The teams were offered to close the loophole by Brawn himself, but it wasn't taken up.

My only area is dissatisfaction is why Red Bull and Renault were denied their designs and others were.

[ioan]

Reading up about the diffusers in more detail, in particular looking at the first post in this topic:

http://forums.f1-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4400&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

It does seem that these diffusers do not create extra turbalence, and do fall in line with the principle of the rule changes, to increase overtaking.

If this is the case, then I do think the FIA Court of Appeal made the right choice.

There's a loophole, which when used does not go against the whole point of the rule changes, and some team used it others didn't.

The teams were offered to close the loophole by Brawn himself, but it wasn't taken up.

My only area is dissatisfaction is why Red Bull and Renault were denied their designs and others were.

I'm not sure about the "no extra turbulence part".
They need more air flow to get more downforce at the same speed.
Once the airflow quits the diffuser it impacts with the air behind the car that is almost still and the difference of speed between the two masses of air creates turbulence. Thus more airflow through the diffuser will create more turbulence.

This is all based on common fluid dynamics knowledge, and I stand by it as long as we get someone to make a comparison test with result that say otherwise.

As for why the other 2 teams were denied this route, that is down to Charlie being a muppet and Max being the muppet master who takes advantage of anything and everything.

[aryan]

My only area is dissatisfaction is why Red Bull and Renault were denied their designs and others were.

Maybe because their design were different?

I hate to defend the FIA, and I actually agree with ioan in that this was an attempt by the FIA to break FOTA, and they might have partially succeeded in this (only time will show). But, we have no independent source saying that the RBR and Renault designs were similar to the 3-teams' design. They might have been double diffusers, but perhaps of a different type.

[PolePosition_1]

Maybe because their design were different?

I hate to defend the FIA, and I actually agree with ioan in that this was an attempt by the FIA to break FOTA, and they might have partially succeeded in this (only time will show). But, we have no independent source saying that the RBR and Renault designs were similar to the 3-teams' design. They might have been double diffusers, but perhaps of a different type.


Well, reading the articles I did, I definately read that the designs they put forward followed the exact principles that the current 3 DDD teams are using currently.

I'll try find you the source, but pretty sure I read it on autosport if you fancy having a look yourself.

[Valve Bounce]

If you say so, how could I defeat such a strong argument?! :laugh:




But since when the only sentiment is desperation?

Before SchM, Brawn et al joined Ferrari. OK, I'll throw in panic - that was their other sentiment.

[ioan]

Before SchM, Brawn et al joined Ferrari. OK, I'll throw in panic - that was their other sentiment.

Nah, by then they were already used to not being champions.

[PolePosition_1]

I'm not sure about the "no extra turbulence part".
They need more air flow to get more downforce at the same speed.
Once the airflow quits the diffuser it impacts with the air behind the car that is almost still and the difference of speed between the two masses of air creates turbulence. Thus more airflow through the diffuser will create more turbulence.

This is all based on common fluid dynamics knowledge, and I stand by it as long as we get someone to make a comparison test with result that say otherwise.

As for why the other 2 teams were denied this route, that is down to Charlie being a muppet and Max being the muppet master who takes advantage of anything and everything.


I'm inclined to agree with you here Ioan.

My stand on this is as previously stated, if it goes against the principle of the rule changes, they should have closed the loophole. But if it doesn't then I think they made the right choice, in that it rewards innotative designs and reading between the lines, whilst still achieving the objective of the rule changes.

And your explanation, to me, does seem like common sense to me, however I admit I'm no expert of this technical matter, and searching through the internet for technical articles, I haven't been able to find any technical explanations concluding its bad for overtaking, and several saying it won't make a difference. And on that basis, I'm for the DDD.

The FIA can't and shouldn't change the rules to make closer racing (for a short term objective), its up to the teams to do the best they can within the rules set out.

But I'm happy to change my stance, if I (or anyone) can source me a technical explanation of why the DDD are bad for overtaking.

Though one thing which can't be denied, is that both the FIA and the teams are partly responsible for this mess. The FIA apparently don't have any system in place for which it could give a ruling of this earlier than 2 races after the season start, despite the issue arising in Feb. And the teams, who were given the opportunity to clsoe this loophole, but failed to spot it.

[ioan]

Maybe because their design were different?

Already the 3 DDD teams do not use the same design, there are several notable differences and none of them is the same.



I hate to defend the FIA, and I actually agree with ioan in that this was an attempt by the FIA to break FOTA, and they might have partially succeeded in this (only time will show). But, we have no independent source saying that the RBR and Renault designs were similar to the 3-teams' design. They might have been double diffusers, but perhaps of a different type.

I'm very interested seeing if the FIA ICA findings due to be made public next week will let us know what exactly was the reasoning behind declaring the RBR and Renault designs illegal.
But the fact that it takes them 1 week to let us know something they should have based their decision on, makes me feel that they are making the content up as we speak, and the decision was a purely political one.
I expect some complicated technical terms, drawn up by lawyers, that in the end when put together will not make any sense at all.

[ioan]

And the teams, who were given the opportunity to clsoe this loophole, but failed to spot it.

To be honest, these teams stated that a DD diffuser design was a big NO for 15 years already because of the way that the terms 'hole' and 'slot' and 'gap' were previously defined.
From their point of view there was no doubt that it would be illegal, and that's exactly why some of them did specifically asked the FIA technical delegate bout this.

Anyway, now that it's free for all I looking forward to see the big teams dwarf the 3 DDD teams in a couple of months (latest by half season), and I hope that the FIA will not change their tune once that happens.

[F1boat]

I think that Stefano was right when he said that this issue should have been closed before the start of the season. For sure, FIA is to blame, as it is responsible for the rules. However, now this issue must be closed, so hopefully BMW will focus on their own DD, instead of trying to win the race in court and bring the sport into another lose-lose situation - another doomed appeal, which is signs of desperation or a farcical reorder of races which were finished before months. I was impressed when Williams decided not to protest the wings of RBR and Ferrari in Oz and I think that BMW should follow the example of these gentlemen. F1 is a tough sport and sometimes you are outsmarted and outwitted. Ask the very same Williams team which once dominated championship after championship and now it is struggling for survival. If one team is strong and smart enough, it will win, of not, it shouldn't try to gain advantage in the court, unless in very special circumstances, as 2007 season.
Of course, I can't help myself, but blame FIA again - it should have rejected the Malaysian GP appeal of BMW as well (on April 14th). The structure of FIA is not optimal for such fast and exciting sport.

[ioan]

I was impressed when Williams decided not to protest the wings of RBR and Ferrari in Oz...

I was impressed too, that they were losing everyone's time when there was nothing to be protested.

[Sleeper]

Ioan, as has already been mentioned by jjanick, the rear part of a diffuser is going to slow down the accelerated air to some degree plus it is being directed largely along the centre line of the cars and with this years front wings the centrel sections have a neutral profile, turbulance wont effect them there. Your probably right that their will be an increased turbulance off of the DDD's, but it will still be tiny compared to that created by the rear wing and the tyres.

Also, stop talking about the "still air" behind an F1 car, theres no such thing.

[ShiftingGears]

I'm very unimpressed with how this diffuser problem was not dealt with before the seasons start. Very shambolic.

[Dave B]

I've said before, and I'll say again, there needs to be a procedure where teams can submit a part in winter testing for official approval - not a vague nod from Charlie that it's "probably" okay.

When we turn up in Melbourne not knowing whether cars will be declared legal, we have a farcical situation which the FIA could easily avoid.

[wedge]

And you are quite correct - that's called the Bernoulli effect. However, what you fail to follow up with is that the larger the diffuser, the greater the turbulence behind the car. And that is what makes the front of a following car less stable and overtaking more difficult.

Wake infill - which means it shouldn't be creating turbulence. Too much turbulence = drag = not enough downforce.

[Ranger]

I was impressed too, that they were losing everyone's time when there was nothing to be protested.

I wasn't. ;)

[ioan]

Also, stop talking about the "still air" behind an F1 car, theres no such thing.

There is "still air" all over the place, unless you consider that the whole atmosphere is moving with speeds comparable with the air sucked out by the diffuser.
So, sorry but I don't see why should I stop talking as long as what I say it's correct.

[ioan]

I've said before, and I'll say again, there needs to be a procedure where teams can submit a part in winter testing for official approval - not a vague nod from Charlie that it's "probably" okay.

When we turn up in Melbourne not knowing whether cars will be declared legal, we have a farcical situation which the FIA could easily avoid.

:up:

[ShiftingGears]

I've said before, and I'll say again, there needs to be a procedure where teams can submit a part in winter testing for official approval - not a vague nod from Charlie that it's "probably" okay.

When we turn up in Melbourne not knowing whether cars will be declared legal, we have a farcical situation which the FIA could easily avoid.

Agreed, completely.

[schmenke]

I'm not sure about the "no extra turbulence part".
They need more air flow to get more downforce at the same speed.
Once the airflow quits the diffuser it impacts with the air behind the car that is almost still and the difference of speed between the two masses of air creates turbulence. Thus more airflow through the diffuser will create more turbulence....

No. The whole purpose of the diffuser is to deccelerate the high velocity air exiting the underside of the car avoiding the "impact" of this air with the relatively slow moving air at the rear, thus minimising the turbulance.

[F1boat]

I've said before, and I'll say again, there needs to be a procedure where teams can submit a part in winter testing for official approval - not a vague nod from Charlie that it's "probably" okay.

When we turn up in Melbourne not knowing whether cars will be declared legal, we have a farcical situation which the FIA could easily avoid.

You are absolutely right, sir :)

[yodasarmpit]

I've said before, and I'll say again, there needs to be a procedure where teams can submit a part in winter testing for official approval - not a vague nod from Charlie that it's "probably" okay.

When we turn up in Melbourne not knowing whether cars will be declared legal, we have a farcical situation which the FIA could easily avoid.

Couldn't agree more.

[ioan]

No. The whole purpose of the diffuser is to deccelerate the high velocity air exiting the underside of the car avoiding the "impact" of this air with the relatively slow moving air at the rear, thus minimising the turbulance.

Really? So they build all kind of complicated diffusers only to make sure they do not disturb teh air behind the car?!

The diffuser is there to create low pressure zone under the rear of the car by expanding the volume which the air, coming from under the car, has at it's disposal. In this way it gives the possibility to get even more air sucked out from under the floor of the car and thus creates more downforce.

That the air will slow down a bit is only a side effect of all this story, but still it will be fast enough to create turbulence behind the car, and I stress it again and again that more efficient the diffuser = more air being thrown out at the back of car = more turbulence.

[schmenke]

Really? So they build all kind of complicated diffusers only to make sure they do not disturb teh air behind the car?!...

Yes.

The diffuser does not create "more air" being thrown out at the back of the car. The total volume of air is fixed by the amount of air available underneath the car. The diffuser does not "create" air. You are correct that the diffuser creates more downforce, but it does this by "diffusing" the air exiting the rear. Without a diffuser the high velocity air exiting the under body would mix violently with the slow moving air at the rear, creating turbulance, slowing the car down.

The primary purpose of the diffuser is to deccelerate the air exiting the rear of the underbody.

[jjanicke]

Really? So they build all kind of complicated diffusers only to make sure they do not disturb teh air behind the car?!

The diffuser is there to create low pressure zone under the rear of the car by expanding the volume which the air, coming from under the car, has at it's disposal. In this way it gives the possibility to get even more air sucked out from under the floor of the car and thus creates more downforce.

That the air will slow down a bit is only a side effect of all this story, but still it will be fast enough to create turbulence behind the car, and I stress it again and again that more efficient the diffuser = more air being thrown out at the back of car = more turbulence.

"More turbulence" than what? a smaller less efficient diffuser? To that point the way the rear suspension geomtry is designed, the exhaust system, the gear box, the wing, the brake ducts, the bodywork, and every other part of the car that comes in contact with air flow creates more or less turbulence.

I fail to see any relevance. As a matter of fact ground effects and diffusers generate significantly less turbulence than other aero dynamic devices (wings, etc). The 2009 aero regulation have restricted these aero dynamic devices which has subsequently cleaned up the air flow behind the cars significantly. It's as apparent as day if you watch a 2009 F1 race. Cars are following each other, even DDD, much closer thru turns than in the last decade.

Yes some of the teams have legally used the rules to claw back some of the downforce lost due to the aero device limitations. And they have done so by producing significantly less turbulence than before, for the same amount of downforce.

What's really the issue?

Cars are passing more than we've seen in the last 10 years. There's has been a well needed shake up in the pecking order and F1 is actually interesting again. What's wrong with this?

And remember the diffusers are LEGAL!

[F1boat]

What's wrong with this?



Ferrari are not winning.

[gloomyDAY]

This is certainly going to break up FOTA.

Especially Brawn's rude attitude at the hearing.
Probably won't go well with many teams.

[F1boat]

If Ross was rude, Nigel and Flavio today can try to get part in a third part of the "Hills Have Eyes" remake series.

[wedge]

That the air will slow down a bit is only a side effect of all this story, but still it will be fast enough to create turbulence behind the car, and I stress it again and again that more efficient the diffuser = more air being thrown out at the back of car = more turbulence.

The diffuser shouldn't create turbulence because if it is then it is either stalling or not working properly.

Seriously where did you get your information from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/diffuser.htm
http://www.symscape.com/blog/secrets_of_diffusers

[Bagwan]

One thing is for sure , that diffuser certainly has caused a lot of turbulence in FOTA .

[jjanicke]

The diffuser shouldn't create turbulence because if it is then it is either stalling or not working properly.

Seriously where did you get your information from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/diffuser.htm
http://www.symscape.com/blog/secrets_of_diffusers

Classic :)

Nice job. Good links!

[F1boat]

Lewis 3rd and Nelson 5th with interim diffusers. IMO the Brawn dominance will not suddenly end, but the competition will become extremely close between the diffuser three and the top teams very soon. Go Racing!

[Valve Bounce]

The diffuser shouldn't create turbulence because if it is then it is either stalling or not working properly.

Seriously where did you get your information from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/diffuser.htm
http://www.symscape.com/blog/secrets_of_diffusers


The first link, he don't work.

The second and third links, they don't say nothing about no turbulence behind the car.

I think we should go ask Obama - YES! YOU CAN! - he knows everything.

[Triumph]

What is the relationship between 'drag' and turbulence, when applied to this subject?

On the BBC they have just been speaking to Mike Gascoyne and he said that the controversial diffusers produce 5% more downforce for 'no extra drag'.

Does that fact suggest that there would be no increase in turbulence, or is it unrelated?

[ioan]

Ferrari are not winning.

Another stupid comment, from someone who doesn't have any idea what's the difference between right and wrong as long as he get's to watch the circus.

All you contributed lately to this forum is poor tries at stabbing Ferrari and their supporters! :down:

[ioan]

What is the relationship between 'drag' and turbulence, when applied to this subject?

On the BBC they have just been speaking to Mike Gascoyne and he said that the controversial diffusers produce 5% more downforce for 'no extra drag'.

Does that fact suggest that there would be no increase in turbulence, or is it unrelated?

They are related but not exactly directly proportional.

Drag is mainly a function of the geometrical form of a part and it's relative speed to the fluid.

Turbulence has more to do with the type of the flow current generated and the difference of speed between adjacent layers of fluid.

[Triumph]

Okay, thanks. I did wonder! :-)

I was thinking that maybe if drag was the same, then that would dictate an equal disturbance of the air, therefore preventing it from generating a different level of turbulence.

[wedge]

The first link, he don't work.

The second and third links, they don't say nothing about no turbulence behind the car.

I think we should go ask Obama - YES! YOU CAN! - he knows everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)


A diffuser, in an automotive context, is a shaped section of the car underbody which improves the car's aerodynamic properties by enhancing the transition between the high-velocity airflow underneath the car and the much slower freestream airflow of the ambient atmosphere. It works by providing a space for the underbody airflow to decelerate and expand so that the boundary between the car's airflow and "external" airflow is less turbulent. It also provides a degree of "wake infill" (the wake being a turbulent area of low pressure that is caused by the passage of the vehicle through the air; this can cause pressure drag).

[Valve Bounce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(automotive)

That still don't say nothing about turbulence behind the car. It says the boundary between the car's airflow and external airflow is less turbulent. Now, if you look at this strictly, it actually refers to the airflow beside, above and below the car and not behind. Not that I would take wikipedia's word as gospel.

Quote me something from a recognised Physics textbook about the turbulence created behind the car, and we'll have a look at that.

[wedge]

That still don't say nothing about turbulence behind the car. It says the boundary between the car's airflow and external airflow is less turbulent. Now, if you look at this strictly, it actually refers to the airflow beside, above and below the car and not behind. Not that I would take wikipedia's word as gospel.

Quote me something from a recognised Physics textbook about the turbulence created behind the car, and we'll have a look at that.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineer-Win-3747ap-Carroll-Smith/dp/0879381868

page 238

(9) A major portion of the total download is generated by the flat area of the tunnel. The throat only exists ONLY to generate download. The entrance exists merely to smoothly accelerate the airstream into the flat area and, will the accelerated air in the diffusor is at a pressure less than atmospheric, the diffusor's major purpose in life is to exit the accelerated air from the flat area in a smooth flow so as to avoid separation and turbulence.

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineer-Win-3747ap-Carroll-Smith/dp/0879381868

page 238

(9) A major portion of the total download is generated by the flat area of the tunnel. The throat only exists ONLY to generate download. The entrance exists merely to smoothly accelerate the airstream into the flat area and, will the accelerated air in the diffusor is at a pressure less than atmospheric, the diffusor's major purpose in life is to exit the accelerated air from the flat area in a smooth flow so as to avoid separation and turbulence.

OK, I admit you are correct! :up:

Now comes the tricky part: does the single row diffuser produce more or less turbulence than the double decker diffuser?

....or does it just suck more air into the venturis and create greater downforce?

[ioan]

I think people are missing the point about the turbulence caused or not by a diffuser.

The question isn't if there is or not turbulence with the use of a diffuser, cause it is more than sure that there is.

The question is if there is more or less.

Now if the diffuser was there only to reduce drag created by the high speed air pressed under the car than I would agree that a bigger diffuser reduces the drag and the turbulence.
However the diffuser is also an extractor that create more downforce by sucking more and more air from under the car and thus allowing a bigger air volume to be used for creating downforce.

I argue that the bigger the diffuser the more air will extracted and thrown into the stiller air and will produce more turbulence.

[wedge]

OK, I admit you are correct! :up:

Now comes the tricky part: does the single row diffuser produce more or less turbulence than the double decker diffuser?

....or does it just suck more air into the venturis and create greater downforce?

I'm inclined to go with the latter. DD is only a extension in height of the central section of the diffuser not the full width.

[schmenke]

I...
I argue that the bigger the diffuser the more air will extracted and thrown into the stiller air and will produce more turbulence.

A diffuser does not cause "more air" to to be extracted. The total volume of air is fixed.

[ioan]

A diffuser does not cause "more air" to to be extracted. The total volume of air is fixed.

Fixed? By whom?!

[Dave B]

Fixed? By whom?!
By the amount going in at the front of the car. You can't get more out than you put in - that's simple physics.

[jjanicke]

A bigger diffuser causes increases the rate of air extraction, creating a larger differential in pressure. That differential happens at the throat, but the total amount of air is relatively constant.

A bigger diffuser is going to cause marginally more turbelence, but nothing compared to where F1 was in '08 and before.

[ioan]

By the amount going in at the front of the car. You can't get more out than you put in - that's simple physics.

And what exactly limits the amount you put in, smarty?

[ioan]

A bigger diffuser is going to cause marginally more turbelence, but nothing compared to where F1 was in '08 and before.

We are finally thinking in the same direction, that's good.

[jjanicke]

And what exactly limits the amount you put in, smarty?

The amount that's available.

[ioan]

The amount that's available.

As far as I know it's enormous. ;)

[wedge]

And what exactly limits the amount you put in, smarty?

First suction point is underneath the front end, the other suction point is between the flat bottom-diffuser transition.

You need the change of air pressuren into the bottom front-end or you'll generate lift.

[Valve Bounce]

First suction point is underneath the front end, the other suction point is between the flat bottom-diffuser transition.

You need the change of air pressure into the bottom front-end or you'll generate lift.

I have been thinking about this. The greater the diffuser suction, the more air can be "sucked" under the car. Where does this air come from? From air that would have gone over the wing or forced to the side of the car. If you think of the extreme where there is no diffuser, then much of the air simply goes around or over the wing as well as under the car.

Now, I do have the impression that in the case of the bodgy diffusers, some of the air is actually funneled/ducted from the side of the car into the tunnels. In fact, since the tunnels are low pressure areas, and there are no skirts, this is quite possible. If this is the case, then more air is actually expelled from the rear of the car than enters the front under the wing.

This is where the whole controversy of the Bodgy diffusers comes from. They can get more air going into the tunnels through greater suction from the diffusers and because the tunnels are probably all the same size for all the cars, the air must move faster in the tunnels, thus decreasing the pressure there even more and in so doing, increasing downforce.

It is very difficult for me to think back all those years to my Physics; it comes back after awhile.

So!! what do you think?

[markabilly]

I think people are missing the point about the turbulence caused or not by a diffuser.

The question isn't if there is or not turbulence with the use of a diffuser, cause it is more than sure that there is.

The question is if there is more or less.

Now if the diffuser was there only to reduce drag created by the high speed air pressed under the car than I would agree that a bigger diffuser reduces the drag and the turbulence.
However the diffuser is also an extractor that create more downforce by sucking more and more air from under the car and thus allowing a bigger air volume to be used for creating downforce.

I argue that the bigger the diffuser the more air will extracted and thrown into the stiller air and will produce more turbulence.


And what exactly limits the amount you put in, smarty?


The amount that's available.


First suction point is underneath the front end, the other suction point is between the flat bottom-diffuser transition.

You need the change of air pressuren into the bottom front-end or you'll generate lift.


Actually as to the turbulence, all are wrong....the better the diffuser for downforce, the more VACCUM or lack of air from reduced air pressurre is being created in the wake of the car for the resultant downforce underneath the car.

Not only from the effect of the diffuser but the rear wing and other bodies parts---Indeed, even without the wing, the body of the car will create this vaccum area behind the car, and the diffuser uses and magnifies the vaccum effect beneath the car

Unfortunately as the air travelling over and around the car hits the area of reduced pressure, it starts attempting to collapse this vaccum pocket, but given the different air flows and air pressures generated by the wings and other parts, it creates the mismatched flows generating the turbulence issues

So the car running behind is hit with areas or streams of reduced air flow that causes it to not have sufficient air flow over the wings to create downforce as would occur if the other car was not in front--something that happens anyway behind any car (but at the same time creating an opportunity to draft another car)
But the diffuser is literally attempting to diffuse the air flow pattern from underneath the car and to diffuse the vaccum behind the car from the air flow over the rear wing.

Problem is with the upper wings create the reduced pressure as a result of increased air velocity over the top of the wings which comes together with air moving at a much slower velocity, creating the turbulence.

Add in the diffuser doing the same from undernaeth the car, and you have two high velocity, reduced air pressure streams meeting the "non-vaccum" air that is attempting to collapse the vaccum, creating more turbulence of a more random and complicated pattern.
(actually many multiple air flows intermixing at varous angles, velocities and pressures depending on what the car is doing--running straight or turning into a corner--corner air flows are much more complicated, hence why the current air tunnel technology only goes so far, and one must take to the race track to see how well it is all working)

A real world example is to ride a motocycle (or drive a small car) behind a large truck where both are going 70 mph---as one approaches the rear of the truck, one will feel a great deal of turbulence from side air flows from around the truck as one approaches. As one gets closer, that turbulence will seem to disappear and be replaced with the vaccum area that pulls you in as part of the "draft" but is relatively non-turnbulent.

Unfortunately the better the diffuser, the more increased is this area of turbulence behind the car coupled with the increased vaccum behind the car.

Result, the calm vaccum that you feel behind the large truck is reduced by a huge percentage to where the actual calm drafting area becomes almost non-existant for the following car, but this area of turbulence is far larger and far more intense, depending on how the diffuser and rear wings are designed.

so now, the car behind must not only deal with the reduced air pressure and air flow over its wings, but loses the drafting effect of being able to follow a car and use it to sling shot---a double benefit for the car in front, but a double whammy for the car behind

To eliminate this effect, one has to really needs to begin with eliminating the wing or the diffuser.....and no seems to be willing to do this

So they just try to reduce the severity of this effect by reducing the effect of these devices.....hence these wing and diffuser issues

[ioan]

I have been thinking about this. The greater the diffuser suction, the more air can be "sucked" under the car. Where does this air come from? From air that would have gone over the wing or forced to the side of the car. If you think of the extreme where there is no diffuser, then much of the air simply goes around or over the wing as well as under the car.

Now, I do have the impression that in the case of the bodgy diffusers, some of the air is actually funneled/ducted from the side of the car into the tunnels. In fact, since the tunnels are low pressure areas, and there are no skirts, this is quite possible. If this is the case, then more air is actually expelled from the rear of the car than enters the front under the wing.

This is where the whole controversy of the Bodgy diffusers comes from. They can get more air going into the tunnels through greater suction from the diffusers and because the tunnels are probably all the same size for all the cars, the air must move faster in the tunnels, thus decreasing the pressure there even more and in so doing, increasing downforce.

It is very difficult for me to think back all those years to my Physics; it comes back after awhile.

So!! what do you think?

Excellent points.
I'm amazed how people continue denying that the DD diffuser needs more air in order to create more downforce, and also that more air produces more turbulence, don't know how much more but certainly more.

[Valve Bounce]

I've been thinking about this because one of the explanations about how it acts relies on the air not to stall.

Sails have tell tales on both sides; one set near the leading edge and another set at the trailing edge. For optimum setting, both sets should be horizontal, indicating the air is flowing past the outside of the curve at maximum speed and thus creating lift. (that's how a planes wing works). If you set the sail incorrectly, the tell tales will droop down, indicating the air is stalled, and you lose speed immediately.

Same with a diffuser except the angle of the tunnel cannot be changed, but the diffuser is designed for the air to exit at maximum speed. If you don't, the diffuser will stall and the air in the tunnel will slow down, forcing some air to go over the front wing or even around the side of the car. The worst thing when the air in the tunnel slows down is that you will get uplift instead of downforce.

[markabilly]

I have been thinking about this. The greater the diffuser suction, the more air can be "sucked" under the car. Where does this air come from? From air that would have gone over the wing or forced to the side of the car. If you think of the extreme where there is no diffuser, then much of the air simply goes around or over the wing as well as under the car.

Now, I do have the impression that in the case of the bodgy diffusers, some of the air is actually funneled/ducted from the side of the car into the tunnels. In fact, since the tunnels are low pressure areas, and there are no skirts, this is quite possible. If this is the case, then more air is actually expelled from the rear of the car than enters the front under the wing.

This is where the whole controversy of the Bodgy diffusers comes from. They can get more air going into the tunnels through greater suction from the diffusers and because the tunnels are probably all the same size for all the cars, the air must move faster in the tunnels, thus decreasing the pressure there even more and in so doing, increasing downforce.

It is very difficult for me to think back all those years to my Physics; it comes back after awhile.

So!! what do you think?
It would work better if there were skirts as the ultimate goal is to reduce pressure underneath the car, but skirts are not allowed....(but that is exactly the intended effect of those wing dams located behind the front wheelsbeneath the radiator openings) so air will be sucked under from all sides, excpet where the velocity of the car affects such air flow

At high speed, the flow from the sides becomes very reduced.....
but at speed, the other problem is to reduce air presure against other body parts where it may cause drag or lift, and hence the design effect you are talking about, is to use the vaccum to suck away or reduce air pressure (but of course there is a cost to doing this, so the trick is to balance the cost of increasing the volume of air flow thorugh the diffuser compared to the benefit recieved elsewhere)

I have wondered if the wings were completely eliminated but the cars were still permitted to use the diffusers, if the overal effect would be less turbulence, less reduced air pressure effect from following a car in front, less turbulence, better drafting of the car in front and therefore better passing of the car in front?????

[jjanicke]

Excellent points.
I'm amazed how people continue denying that the DD diffuser needs more air in order to create more downforce, and also that more air produces more turbulence, don't know how much more but certainly more.

More air actually would not generate more downforce. If true the low pressure due to increased velocity would be negated by the fact that more air is being sucked in.

The only way you are going to generate more downforce is by creating lower pressure under the car. This is done by either increasing the velocity with relatively constant air mass, or decreasing the air mass.

But increasing the air mass and velocity will in effect cancel out the added low pressure.

So that said, I do not believe the statement to be true that "more" air is being sucked under the car due to the DDD. I do subscribe to the notion that DDD creates additional low pressure by helping extract the air faster.

[Valve Bounce]

More air actually would not generate more downforce. If true the low pressure due to increased velocity would be negated by the fact that more air is being sucked in.

The only way you are going to generate more downforce is by creating lower pressure under the car. This is done by either increasing the velocity with relatively constant air mass, or decreasing the air mass.

But increasing the air mass and velocity will in effect cancel out the added low pressure.

So that said, I do not believe the statement to be true that "more" air is being sucked under the car due to the DDD. I do subscribe to the notion that DDD creates additional low pressure by helping extract the air faster.

Wait a minute!! If you have a fixed cross section area in the tunnels, then increase the volume of air, the velocity of the air must increase, thus increasing the Bernoulli effect and downforce.

You cannot increase the velocity if the air mass remains constant.


This is becoming a very interesting physics discussion; God! it takes me back many, many years. :)

[jjanicke]

Wait a minute!! If you have a fixed cross section area in the tunnels, then increase the volume of air, the velocity of the air must increase, thus increasing the Bernoulli effect and downforce.

You cannot increase the velocity if the air mass remains constant.


This is becoming a very interesting physics discussion; God! it takes me back many, many years. :)

:) You can accelerate the constant air (governed by the speed of the car). Keep the amount air flow per second the same, then the pressure has to drop. That's how the whole system works. If you could instantly add more air the system would not work.

[Valve Bounce]

:) You can accelerate the constant air (governed by the speed of the car). Keep the amount air flow per second the same, then the pressure has to drop. That's how the whole system works. If you could instantly add more air the system would not work.

Sorry my man - my thesis was in fluid mechanics, and I got a distinction for Fluid Mech that year.

The pressure drops because of an increase in velocity. Now, if you want to increase the velocity some more, while the tunnel volume remains constant, you have to feed in more air.

You can start by using considering the velocity of air in an air hose. The volume is constant, and if you increase the amount of air going in, then the velocity has to increase.

In the same way if the car is standing still, there is no downforce from the diffuser. As the speed increases, more air goes in, the tunnel increases the velocity and the downforce increases. (Bernoulli effect)

[wedge]

Brawn diffuser

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/821/643.html

Toyota's triple-decker diffuser:

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/821/642.html

[jjanicke]

Sorry my man - my thesis was in fluid mechanics, and I got a distinction for Fluid Mech that year.

The pressure drops because of an increase in velocity. Now, if you want to increase the velocity some more, while the tunnel volume remains constant, you have to feed in more air.

You can start by using considering the velocity of air in an air hose. The volume is constant, and if you increase the amount of air going in, then the velocity has to increase.

In the same way if the car is standing still, there is no downforce from the diffuser. As the speed increases, more air goes in, the tunnel increases the velocity and the downforce increases. (Bernoulli effect)

That's understood, however it's not what we are discussing here.

Comparing the regular diffuser to the DDD is the question. And for a car going the same speed the amount of air available to go through the system is the same, regardless of regular or DD diffuser. The reason the DD creates more downforce is that it is better able to extract the air, which causes, because air mass is relatively constant, the pressure to drop.

[jjanicke]

Some very interesting points from the FIA hearing last week:

[quote="http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/court_appeal/judgments/Documents/ICA-14-04-2009-a.pdf"]

Third Plea &#8211]

So I'm OK believing that the DDD does not have a material impact on the turbulence.

[Valve Bounce]

That's understood, however it's not what we are discussing here.

Comparing the regular diffuser to the DDD is the question. And for a car going the same speed the amount of air available to go through the system is the same, regardless of regular or DD diffuser. The reason the DD creates more downforce is that it is better able to extract the air, which causes, because air mass is relatively constant, the pressure to drop.

And I am arguing that the bodgy diffuser increases the intake of air, hence the greater velocity in the "tunnels" and increase in downforce.

If you are extracting the same amount of air, then the velocity in the tunnels is the same.