Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

[xpensive]

I copied these draft-calculations of mine from another thread to underline the importance of the diffuser:

Downforce = Area * Density * (speed2^2 - speed1^2)/2.

Beginning with a 24000 N (2400 kg) total downforce at top-speed, 305 km/h (85 m/s), a squared relation between speed and force results in half of that downforce, 12000 N, at 215 km/h (60m/s).

For the sake of argument, a contribution from diffuser and floor of 20% means 2400 N at the same speed, 60 m/s, which with an estimated floor-area of 2 sq. meters in turn would suggest an air-speed under the car of 75 m/s.

Now, imagine that Brawn with their "innovative" diffuser, manages to increase underbody air-speed with 4%, from 75 to 78 m/s, downforce from diffuser and floor would jump from 2400 to 3000 N or 25%.
Overall downforce at 215 km/h, would as a consequence increase from 12000 to 12600 N or 5%.

On a curved section, everything else equal, a 5% increase in grip should in theory result in a 2.5% higher speed, when lateral force is m*v^2/R. With 40 seconds, or half the lap, spent in curves, it gives a 1.0 sec advantage over the whole lap.

[jonathan189]

So these rules are about as unclear as they could possibly be, aren't they? From what I hear the problem-rule is now this one:

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances. Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below.

The allegation is that the air intakes for the clever diffusers violate this because they are fed by illegal holes. And the reply from Williams/Brawn/Toyota is that though the diffusers are fed by sneaky clever holes, you can't see any bodywork through the holes when the car is viewed from directly below.

Surely one peek underneath would settle this.

[theoracle]

So these rules are about as unclear as they could possibly be, aren't they? From what I hear the problem-rule is now this one:

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances. Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below.

The allegation is that the air intakes for the clever diffusers violate this because they are fed by illegal holes. And the reply from Williams/Brawn/Toyota is that though the diffusers are fed by sneaky clever holes, you can't see any bodywork through the holes when the car is viewed from directly below.

Surely one peek underneath would settle this.

if the transitions between planes must be solid and continuous, and the allowed holes have to be "lying" on the planes, doesn't that rule out vertical hole gaps?

anyone knows when will we know the response?

[RacingManiac]

I think the verdict is supposed to be delivered tomorrow afternoon Paris time?

[Gecko]

if the transitions between planes must be solid and continuous, and the allowed holes have to be "lying" on the planes, doesn't that rule out vertical hole gaps?

anyone knows when will we know the response?

The quoted rule only applies to the bodywork in front of the rear wheel centerline. On the other hand, the diffuser regulations apply to the bodywork behind the rear wheel centerline. It is precisely at the rear wheel centerline where there is a "hole" in the regulations and the vertical gaps can be placed.

[jonathan189]

I hear that the judges have just thrown out the appeal and rendered the cars legal.

viewtopic.php?p=103357&f=1#p103357

[vasia]

From http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74476

Toyota's Team Principal:

In a statement issued by Toyota shortly after the announcement, Yamashina said he had every faith that his team was correct from the outset - having consulted the FIA from the start about what it was doing.

"I was confident the Court of Appeal would reach this verdict and I am satisfied with it," he said. "It is important to stress we studied the technical regulations in precise detail, consulting the FIA in our process, and never doubted our car complied with them.

It wouldn't hurt for Ferrari, Renault, and Red Bull to stop whining and perhaps read this statement. This just about sums it all up. Williams by the way did the same thing as Toyota, consulting the FIA more than once while working on its diffuser design.

[warmandog]

hate this kind of crap
innovations... and we when ferrari's developed flexi floor, flexi wings, nose hole and so on was just a mere cheating.
I love this sport that FIA is turning into a crap.
come on god damit just open up the rules wide it for god sake. let each team to revelope what desired.. that is formula 1 is about Bernie....that is why where created for.

Congrats Ros ...this would be a direct kick into Lucas ass crap as he deserved for destryoing our team in the way he did.

regards

Alex c.

[warmandog]

JAjajajajajajaja
im gonna be just cutting and direct into this .
Congrats Willie boys.. now please as this is going to be youre last chance to be infront ..please use it!!!! you need that help from FIA if not you would be just laping at midfield where you team realy belongs
........and please if something radical appears at one of the top teams.. just dont start posting arguing than this or that are just illegal and teams IE ( Ferraris, Mclaren , Renault ) are cheating.. its just simple dudes for this case was just inovating for all the other past cases where a plain cheating and ilegality
Congrats... we prayed for F1 movements ..now thanks to FIA helping you midfield teams are improving.. so that stop for all this about FIA-rrari and yada yada yadas you used before dont you!

regards

Alex C.

[Richard]

Editted!!!

Anyone know how long the "holes are ok so long as you can't see the car" clause has been in place? I wonder if it is an old clause that no one realised would provide an escape route for air to bypass the dffuser rule.

The flaw is in the word "visible" ("directly below" doesn't help either). It reads as a direction that you can put holes where ever you like, as long as the view is blocked. Air flows around corners, light doesn't.

Here's betting that 2010 regs will require a continuous surface from front to back with holes of limited size to allow practical construction considerations. No worries about visible or not.

[Metar]

Here's betting that 2010 regs will require a continuous surface from front to back with holes of limited size to allow practical construction considerations. No worries about visible or not.

I pray they do update the 2010 regulations. We read Byrne's interview - there'll be nothing to stop more complicated decks, that stretch further forwards...

[Astro1]

Let's start exploiting every hole in the rules possible, now that the FIA made clear that the "Spirit of the rules" does not exist.

Yep....bring on the quadruple diffusers!!!

[Richard]

Rereading the rules, I've realised that the "can't see the car" bit was probably intended to mean "can see the sky". If they change the rule to "can see the sky" then holes hidden from view aren't allowed.

[wesley123]

Rereading the rules, I've realised that the "can't see the car" bit was probably intended to mean "can see the sky". If they change the rule to "can see the sky" then holes hidden from view aren't allowed.

Yep, but they dont.

Now we've jsut started on aerodynamics, we are gonna see very weird builded parts wich are allowed, and now there aint no stopping as they cant say 'we dont use it as it is against the spirit of the rules' as there is no spirit of the rules.
Believe me, we just started.

[Metar]

Yep, but they dont.

Now we've jsut started on aerodynamics, we are gonna see very weird builded parts wich are allowed, and now there aint no stopping as they cant say 'we dont use it as it is against the spirit of the rules' as there is no spirit of the rules.
Believe me, we just started.

Didn't they ban a certain Braham for a certain rotating bit after a certain German dominated a certain race because it was against a certain spirit of a certain rule? Bring back the BT46! Spirits are for superstitious grannies and alcoholics!

Seriously. Now that we officially have no spirits, every word will be reworked with a thesaurus until teams find a definition that suits them. "Actually, my thesaurus says 'no more than' could mean 'at least', so that's why we turned up with a twin-turbo V10." Now, that's an obvious exaggeration, but quad-decker diffusers could be developed already this year, and what's stopping them from moving next year's suspension forward (as far as the sidepod entrance, perhaps?), and claiming anything behind it is just a venturi-shaped slit? And actually, that's a gargantuan brake-duct, not an unsprung front wing. And this bit here? That's just an extra support for the front wing, to stop it from flexing - that's not a bridge-wing.