Following a long meeting and discussions between the involved teams, Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota have been given allowance to compete in this weekend's Australian Grand Prix with their current diffuser designs.
Brain fade sorry! I quoted the beam wing dimensionsmachin wrote: So it doesn't apply..... this rule basically means you can only have one lower aerofoil element in your rear wing.... the next rule, 3.10.2 says you can have only two upper elements in your rear wing.
To the best that I know, that add on was to collect data on the airflow. I don't think it helped with aerodynamics at all.danny224 wrote:Hi i have been a big fan of Mclaren and Lewis Hamilton, i was wondering is it possible for them to change the diffuser to a double Decker like the rest looking at the other images it looks like all they need to do it take off 2 thin covers.
I also found this
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/03/ ... er-add-on/
So it looks like they tested it and decided against it.
The question then is actually what do you call a "diffuser"? Is it the single "classic" device, like the one Ferrari, McLaren, etc, have, or it is all parts (classic diffuser + everything else ) that all together effectively play the role of a diffuser? If you take the former, then it is legal (this is what the stewards look at). But if you accept the second view, which IMO is the correct one, then the DDD is illegal. I support the second view because the rear floor and crash structure add components to the diffuser, which all together effectively create a new component that serves as a "diffuser". If you count this, it it illegal. But I guess this indeed needs to be solved in a court. It goes beyond the stewards.Conceptual wrote:chris17 wrote:Am I right in thinking that all Toyota and Williams have done have reshaped the rear floor and crash structure to create a second 'area' and then add the diffuser to that. If so how's it been passes legal if it exceeds 175mm? Is it because it's classed as part of the crash structure?
Quite brilliantly, yes!
As far as I know the rules don't mention the word "diffuser", so no definition of the word is neccessary. If you go by the wording in the rule-book, there is no doubt that the double-decker diffusers are perfectly legal.vall wrote:The question then is actually what do you call a "diffuser"? Is it the single "classic" device, like the one Ferrari, McLaren, etc, have, or it is all parts (classic diffuser + everything else ) that all together effectively play the role of a diffuser? If you take the former, then it is legal (this is what the stewards look at). But if you accept the second view, which IMO is the correct one, then the DDD is illegal. I support the second view because the rear floor and crash structure add components to the diffuser, which all together effectively create a new component that serves as a "diffuser". If you count this, it it illegal. But I guess this indeed needs to be solved in a court. It goes beyond the stewards.
<Raising Hand>xpensive wrote:This whole situation is so utterly politically pathetic, does anyone for a second belive this "interpretation" of the rules would have passed if coming from Ferrari, let alone McLaren?
Forget about those two, what about Renault's history with parts getting banned?xpensive wrote:This whole situation is so utterly politically pathetic, does anyone for a second belive this "interpretation" of the rules would have passed if coming from Ferrari, let alone McLaren?
