FIA to make Mclaren & Renault Revise Diffusers

http://en.espnf1.com/bahrain/motorsport/story/11176.html

Now, I recall in 2007 a big hoo-haa by Mclaren fans claiming that the Ferrari sprung-floor was illegal, despite being passed by scrutineering in Melbourne because it had to be removed for Malaysia.

Will those same people say the same in this instance?

Are your Mclaren cheats now too?

Or are you hypocrites?

[ST205GT4]

Is there any need for this sort of provocation?

Is it not possible to just enjoy the series and forget about this sort of bull****?

And no for the record I'm not a McLaren fan.

Too much of this crap on this forum. Pino should start handing out some bans.

[Hawkmoon]

Is there any need for this sort of provocation?

Is it not possible to just enjoy the series and forget about this sort of bull****?

And no for the record I'm not a McLaren fan.

Too much of this crap on this forum. Pino should start handing out some bans.

While he's provocative, Tam has a point. Long and heated was the discussion about Ferrari's floor and this situation is very similar if not exactly the same. Those who called Ferrari cheats at the time should probably do the same here for McLaren. On the flipside, those who defended Ferrari should defend McLaren now.

Personally, I see no problem here. The FIA has had a quiet word to McLaren and they'll change their gear. Same deal that Ferrari got last time. Case closed really.

[ioan]

McLaren are using an illegal diffuser. What a surprise, not!

And still dead slow! :D

Now I'm looking forward for the McCheats and their fans to be crying about the FIA favoritism. :p

Seriously, I agree with Hawkmoon. There's nothing more than a clarification from the FIA as far as McLaren's and Renault's diffusers are concerned.

[ShiftingGears]

Good decision.

Thumbs down for petty pointscoring.

[ioan]

Good decision.

Thumbs down for petty pointscoring.

Get yourself a sense of humor.

[ShiftingGears]

Get yourself a sense of humor.

Poor humour doesn't count. :D

[ioan]

Poor humour doesn't count. :D

It's better than nothing. ;)

[UltimateDanGTR]

all seems fair to me. If they've been scrutineered then that's fine, whatever is 'illegal' must be something on a clarification side of things, and now the FIA have clarified that all should be fine for the next race with the necessary changes made.

Minimum controversy, minimum fuss, and by the looks of it not a huge problem.

no need for the attempted provocation though. petty IMO.

[Valve Bounce]

http://en.espnf1.com/bahrain/motorsport/story/11176.html

Now, I recall in 2007 a big hoo-haa by Mclaren fans claiming that the Ferrari sprung-floor was illegal, despite being passed by scrutineering in Melbourne because it had to be removed for Malaysia.

Will those same people say the same in this instance?

Are your Mclaren cheats now too?

Or are you hypocrites?

Hell!! let me be a HYPROCITE - sounds like a great Rock Band. CHEATS will never prosper.

[F1boat]

I really think that this things should be checked in testing, however.

[SGWilko]

So now you think Ferrari were illegal, or not? If not, the point of the original post is..... errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, bollocks, as you would post.

Don't bother to reply, what's the point??????

[SGWilko]

[quote="ST205GT4"]Is there any need for this sort of provocation?
QUOTE]

None, but how nice that he is consistent, eh?

[ioan]

So now you think Ferrari were illegal, or not? If not, the point of the original post is..... errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, bollocks, as you would post.

Don't bother to reply, what's the point??????

What's the point of getting angry when we made it obvious that we were just pulling your leg?
You love to make fun of others but when a bit of that comes back and bites your arse you can't handle it at all.

[SGWilko]

What's the point of getting angry when we made it obvious that we were just pulling your leg?
You love to make fun of others but when a bit of that comes back and bites your arse you can't handle it at all.

You bothered to reply, why?

[ioan]

Is there any need for this sort of provocation?
QUOTE]

None, but how nice that he is consistent, eh?

And what was the need for provocation from the Mc fans a couple of years ago, and let's not forget that what you guys posted back then wasn't meant to be a bit of kidding around like Tamb, Hawk and myself did here, you were serious and you kept posting the same rubbish for several years.
Man up now and get some sense of humor (maybe pino can lend you some :p ).

[ioan]

You bothered to reply, why?

For the very same reason you did reply, I have to much time right now as the race is over. :D

[ArrowsFA1]

"A number of teams...have all passed scrutineering."

Blimey :eek:

[wedge]

all seems fair to me. If they've been scrutineered then that's fine, whatever is 'illegal' must be something on a clarification side of things.

Tell that to Honda. Scrutineers okayed their fuel tanks when the FIA overuled them because Honda cheated by using them as ballast.

On the flipside, those who defended Ferrari should defend McLaren now.

Happy to do so.

The Mclaren result today was totally fair.

If they have to revise the diffuser for Melbourne at the request of the FIA and they do so, that is also fair.

But, if Mclaren fans don't turn up in Melbourne with a sense of humour, I think Article 151(c) should be envoked.

[Robinho]

i struggle to see hwy these things should be able to get to the first race, and needing the introduction of rule clarifications - if the rules were clear in the forst place, not grey and riddled with holes you can interpret differently then these things would not happen. but if they deem that the teams (inc Mclaren and Renault) have goen down a route they didn't intend then they are more than entitled to ask them to change it in order to remain in the rules.

also iirc, the Ferrari floor thing necessitated a change in the checking mechanism rather than a clarification in the rule, as the design cleverly could get past the static test, but would technically be flexing under the loads in the race. the test was changed and therefore the floor couldn't get past it anymore. not technically illegal, it was a using the FIA's rules and tests against them to gain an advantage.

i'm kind of sick of this "spirit of the rules" rhetoric, write the rules clearly enough that the spirit of them is impossible to drive a cart and horses through!

[ioan]

i struggle to see hwy these things should be able to get to the first race, and needing the introduction of rule clarifications ....

Because:

1. There is no scrutinizing before the first race week end starts.
2. The teams know that in the worst case they will have to change a part for the next race
3. They might fool Charlie and his minions and get away with it.

First move by the FIA should be to give the boot to Charlie, the guy is a goof, and hire someone who knows how the teams usually try to bend the rules, any ex F1 engineer would be great.

Then they should make it clear that no one is allowed to race with a non compliant part, even if that means that they can't race.

[Robinho]

i agree totally - now they have limited official testing then the cars should be scrutineered properly there and all parts approved or not. if you miss the testing and turn up with parts that don't meet the rules you don't race.

having your car checked and approved repeatedly throughout the close season, passing scrutineering and then having to change it is ridiculous

[ST205GT4]

i'm kind of sick of this "spirit of the rules" rhetoric, write the rules clearly enough that the spirit of them is impossible to drive a cart and horses through!

Great idea. Impossible though. No matter how you write the rules the teams will find some way to interpret them to their advantage.

[Daniel]

Great idea. Impossible though. No matter how you write the rules the teams will find some way to interpret them to their advantage.
Exactly. For the rules to explicitly state everything that you can't do, the rulebook would have to be massively huge.

[Dave B]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!

[Daniel]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!
True :D

[Mark]

That was the beauty of the old BTCC rulebook which opened with "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"!

Which is ok when you're starting with a base of a road car and are allowed to modify certain details. When you're building a car from scratch that doesn't quite work.

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA is set to issue a clarification about double diffuser designs prior to the Australian Grand Prix, following concerns about a number of teams exploiting the area for added performance.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82159

[I am evil Homer]

Sounds to me like very little going on here...there's a hole this year, there was a hole last year.

[SGWilko]

there's a hole this year, there was a hole last year.

Put some hair around it and Max will make a move for it.... :D


Sources suggest that a clarification will be issued by the FIA prior to the Australian Grand Prix. Reports which suggest the designs had definitely been outlawed are believed to be wide of the mark.

[wedge]

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/bahrain-diffuser-clarification/

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/diffuser_starter_hole1.jpg

[ArrowsFA1]

McLaren, Mercedes GP and at least two other teams will have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in time for the Australian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT has learned, after the FIA told them that it is clamping down on a loophole being used by the outfits.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82234

[airshifter]

This entire process is crazy. In the first year I can understand that they might not be aware of loopholes, but being this was an issue last year they could have easily modified the text of the rule for clarification.

Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]."

That could very easily be modified to suit the conditions at hand and make the rule easy to understand and enforce.


I personally don't think any such pushing of the grey area should be considered "cheating" regardless of which teams do it. It's in the nature of racing to push the envelope. The problem I see is rules being so vague that the arguments is that it is skirting the "spirit" of the rules.

[Daniel]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

[christophulus]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

Exactly, it's what engineers and designers are paid to do. Yet another example of the FIA not having black and white rules. All it requires is to add "upto a maximum diameter of x mm" and disaster averted...

[I am evil Homer]

It's certainly not cheating to take advantage of daft rules. If you don't do it someone else will.

Well they have - four people in fact all thought of the same thing! Wouldn't have been that hard to enforce a standard width and length for a start motor.

[Daniel]

Well they have - four people in fact all thought of the same thing! Wouldn't have been that hard to enforce a standard width and length for a start motor.
Personally I think there should be standard FIA designed components

IMHO the FIA should have said here's your starter motor access hole, integrate it to your diffuser but your diffuser can't extend more than x outside of it etc etc.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312NYRSYEVL._AA280_.jpg

[markabilly]

Tell that to Honda. Scrutineers okayed their fuel tanks when the FIA overuled them because Honda cheated by using them as ballast.
Yeah but they only used them as "ballast" when weighin in.....during the race and qualifying they could "adjust" their weight, right up until the last pit stop, where they could tank up and be within limits........good idea if you ask me...sort of like those 100 lb lead helmets that some drivers always took off and left in their car or carried with them to weigh in..

As to Tam and ioan, making you other guys squeak and squawk is like MS beating his old team mates at ferrari....easy work

[wedge]

Personally I think there should be standard FIA designed components

IMHO the FIA should have said here's your starter motor access hole, integrate it to your diffuser but your diffuser can't extend more than x outside of it etc etc.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312NYRSYEVL._AA280_.jpg

If McLaren insist their diffuser/slot was the same as last year then I can only assume McLaren et al took the p*ss by redesigning the starter motor.

I hate the idea of standardised components and it doesn't belong in F1, IMO. There should be a specified tolerance which should give designers a box/ leeway to work with, as with the front wings and mandated central main plain for example.

[Daniel]

Why doesn't it belong in F1? A standardised hole for the starter motor hardly makes them spec cars. Give designers a box and they'll tell you it's something else.......

[airshifter]

Why doesn't it belong in F1? A standardised hole for the starter motor hardly makes them spec cars. Give designers a box and they'll tell you it's something else.......

It's a hole. Given a maximum surface area they could at least try to use it for downforce as well. Give them a "spec" part and someone will cry that "Team X has the FIA under their thumb".

[Rollo]

How come everybody is crying foul on specifically McLaren on this? Mercedes GP and two other teams (one being Renault) also need to change, but don't get people's scorn.

http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motorsport/story/11868.html

Favouritsm perhaps? Or perhaps this is like Fox News version of "Fair and Balanced"

[Saint Devote]

Its as if Mosely never left! Only Todt is worse because he doesn't have the fortitude and determination of Max. He loves committees and consensus.

I am sure the team from Woking will take this in their stride - imagine if it makes the car quicker! Ferrari - will really be hopping mad!

I am sure Mclaren wish THEY could have been nominated legal cheats like Ferrari were with their secret technical veto arrangement.

I am sure Mclaren will have the measure of the prancing donkey and the Red bs cars - and it will be sweet whether it is Jenson or Lewis that wins.

[Saint Devote]

How come everybody is crying foul on specifically McLaren on this? Mercedes GP and two other teams (one being Renault) also need to change, but don't get people's scorn.

http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motorsport/story/11868.html

Favouritsm perhaps? Or perhaps this is like Fox News version of "Fair and Balanced"

Clearly Fox does not adhere to your views!

Renault are used to this sort of thing - remember the front wing saga.

[Daniel]

Errrr Rollo, I don't see McLaren being singled out?

[ioan]

I am sure the team from Woking will take this in their stride - imagine if it makes the car quicker! Ferrari - will really be hopping mad!

Rubbish, if another design would have been better they wouldn't have used the present one.

[Daniel]

Rubbish, if another design would have been better they wouldn't have used the present one.
LOL SD strikes me as a sort of Comical Ali type figure :)

The Bahrain track ran red with the bloody of Ferrari and it's drivers! Ferrari were embarassed! All hail the mighty silver cars! Victory will be ours!

[Daniel]

If only F1 car design never dated eh?
Good point BUT you know what he means. The design they had at Bahrain was the best one up to that point for their car as it is.

[ShiftingGears]

Its as if Mosely never left! Only Todt is worse because he doesn't have the fortitude and determination of Max. He loves committees and consensus.

Todt is getting things done and there is nothing wrong with taking more into consideration before taking action. It is the trait of considered and intelligent leaders.

[Big Ben]

Its as if Mosely never left! Only Todt is worse because he doesn't have the fortitude and determination of Max. He loves committees and consensus.

I am sure the team from Woking will take this in their stride - imagine if it makes the car quicker! Ferrari - will really be hopping mad!

I am sure Mclaren wish THEY could have been nominated legal cheats like Ferrari were with their secret technical veto arrangement.

I am sure Mclaren will have the measure of the prancing donkey and the Red bs cars - and it will be sweet whether it is Jenson or Lewis that wins.

I guess you don´t see the irony in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afMsXWRWbOk&feature=related

do you?

[ioan]

If only F1 car design never dated eh?

I doubt they will be able to extract more air through a much smaller hole, so I fail to see how the FIA limitation will automatically make them improve their design.

Sure in the long term they will find a better solution, a solution they would have anyway found during the cars development cycle.

[wedge]

Why doesn't it belong in F1? A standardised hole for the starter motor hardly makes them spec cars. Give designers a box and they'll tell you it's something else.......

There's spec mid-plane on the front wing, no aero foils on the sidepods.

A spec hole for starter motor? Won't be long till more and more parts get standardised

[Retro Formula 1]

Clever use of the regs by the teams which just goes to show that the more they try and clamp down on the rules, the more the seive leaks.

It would be nice to suppose the Fia will give some standard rules that allow innovation but that goes against the controlling culture of the FIA.

[SGWilko]

I personally think they should have;

Standard wings - front and rear - that produce next to no downforce but provide sponsor space.

No diffusers, and a standard floor.

Everything else should be within not particularly or overrestrictive rules.

[Daniel]

I personally think they should have;

Standard wings - front and rear - that produce next to no downforce but provide sponsor space.

No diffusers, and a standard floor.

Everything else should be within not particularly or overrestrictive rules.
Agreed. Screw the people who whine about standard bits

[wedge]

Or even wingless F1 cars would be interesting. Perhaps tyre technology have come on leaps and bounds more than we realise.


Screw the people who whine about standard bits

Great, let's turn F1 into NASCAR!

F1 will be the pinnacle.... not!

[SGWilko]

Or even wingless F1 cars would be interesting. Perhaps tyre technology have come on leaps and bounds more than we realise.

Or, cars with benign wings.....

Spec parts in certain areas could be agreed by trading free reign on, for example, engines. All the FIA has to do is say;

"no limitation on engine or energy recovery, but you will only get x fuel for the weekend.

Gearboxes are unrestricted so long as they are manual.

[Sonic]

Or, cars with benign wings.....


"no limitation on engine or energy recovery, but you will only get x fuel for the weekend.



Amen Brother! How I would LOVE to see a V12 take on a KERS boosted V8, or a turbo charged V6.

[K-Pu]

With manual gearboxes, If I may add.

[airshifter]

Great, let's turn F1 into NASCAR!

F1 will be the pinnacle.... not!

Yes, given spec parts the "pinnacle" of motorsports to progress to a point that it uses less tech than street cars!

[Daniel]

Or even wingless F1 cars would be interesting. Perhaps tyre technology have come on leaps and bounds more than we realise.



Great, let's turn F1 into NASCAR!

F1 will be the pinnacle.... not!
What's this obsession with being the pinnacle even if that means being slightly boring?

[ioan]

What's this obsession with being the pinnacle even if that means being slightly boring?

Top shelf technology can't be boring.

[Jag_Warrior]

Top shelf technology can't be boring.

But who among us watches racing to see technology? A high tech parade is still a parade.

[Daniel]

But who among us watches racing to see technology? A high tech parade is still a parade.
Exactly. It seems that people like wedge and ioan can't see the wood for the trees.

But who among us watches racing to see technology?

Intelligent people.

[ioan]

But who among us watches racing to see technology?

I do.

[Daniel]

Intelligent people.
So people who watch racing to actually see people race are unintelligent? That does not compute.

[ioan]

So people who watch racing to actually see people race are unintelligent? That does not compute.

You are right it doesn't compute, because you are wrong.

It was asked who is watching F1 for technology. Tamb answered that intelligent people do that, he didn't say that the intelligent people do only that.
His answer did not imply what you somehow managed to deduct using false logic.

[ArrowsFA1]

Who among us watch racing to actually see people race?

[ArrowsFA1]

Fair point :p :s mokin:

[wedge]

What's this obsession with being the pinnacle even if that means being slightly boring?

Because F1 has, will, and should be - to a certain extent to the detriment of the 'show' and driver aids - a technological arms race.

If I wanted entertainment then I watch NASCAR. From a technical standpoint the homogeneity of the COT had sucked the life out of it. Gone are the days of Jeff Gordon driving a T-Rex, a car built specifically to push the envelope of the rules and made the rest of the garage and NASCAR sit up, take notice and ban it.

[Daniel]

Because F1 has, will, and should be - to a certain extent to the detriment of the 'show' and driver aids - a technological arms race.

If I wanted entertainment then I watch NASCAR. From a technical standpoint the homogeneity of the COT had sucked the life out of it. Gone are the days of Jeff Gordon driving a T-Rex, a car built specifically to push the envelope of the rules and made the rest of the garage and NASCAR sit up, take notice and ban it.
Go read a bloody magazine, leave the SPORT that is F1 to be a SPORT.

[ioan]

Go read a bloody magazine, leave the SPORT that is F1 to be a SPORT.

:laugh:

A sport? :confused:
What kind of sport is that where 99% of the work is done by a mechanical device aka engine?! And where the engineers count for like 70% of the final outcome!
I always thought it was a technology exhibition where the best car manufacturers show what hey can achieve.

[Daniel]

:laugh:

A sport? :confused:
What kind of sport is that where 99% of the work is done by a mechanical device aka engine?! And where the engineers count for like 70% of the final outcome!
I always thought it was a technology exhibition where the best car manufacturers show what hey can achieve.
So what you're saying is if you put me in a top car I'll be withing 1% of Alonso, Massa, Hamilton and friends? :)

[ioan]

So what you're saying is if you put me in a top car I'll be withing 1% of Alonso, Massa, Hamilton and friends? :)

I never said that, where did you read it?

[Mia 01]

This issue is over with now, move on.

[ioan]

This issue is over with now, move on.

Are you pino's niece or something? :confused:

[wedge]

Go read a bloody magazine, leave the SPORT that is F1 to be a SPORT.

One teams of engineers/designers competing to build the better race car against teams.

The key word being competition. That has been the essence of racing.

Don't like it? Watch NASCAR, IRL, GP2, WSR or better even better - Go read a bloody magazine!

[Retro Formula 1]

Almost all Sports are reliant on Technology even if it's a runner with space age designed sneakers, advanced fibre materials and specially designed axcercise and training devices.

At the end of the day, it's the nut behind the wheel that turns it otherwise we wouldn't have anything to compare drivers against. Is Hamilton agressive with a tail happy technique? Is Button measured and acurate? Does Massa have the equalivent of a glass jaw when under pressure?

Technology is hugely important but I like to think that a driver has a small part to play as well.

[ioan]

Technology is hugely important but I like to think that a driver has a small part to play as well.

Sure drivers have a part to play, but it's around 30%, maximum 35%, which means the sport is like 35% of the whole. The rest is science and technology.