Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

[NDR008]

I am sorry, but I think the tax laws is a bad comparison because it makes it harder for everyone else including tax payers.

Any motorsport, is about making the fastest car without breaching rules.

The so called spirit of the rules - are the rules itself. The changes from 08 to 09 rules are what embody the effort to decrease the DF and turbulance.

This does not mean "Hey, I came up with a rear wing design that gives us -0.05 extra C.lift". "Oh no, we could not use that we would have more DF then others... stop being so smart, think fair".

I mean come on this is racing, you try and stupidly maximise anything as long as it does not go against the regs. To be honest - I am even fed up of reading 'interpretation' it is just yes or no, the rules specified something - the specifications where made, the extra detail is extra and not for seen as not allowed in the regs....

[Conceptual]

We need to be told a bit more on the issue. I recall now Red Bull saying that about a year ago together with Renault they asked FIA if they could use a similar solution. The answer was NO, and if it was really the case, then I can understand that they are pissed off.

Apart of that I agree with Flavio that it goes against the spirit of the rules. The rules were meant to 1) decrease the DF and 2) decrease the turbulence behind the car. That's why they introduced the simplified diffuser. Now certain teams, including BGP whose boss leads the technical group of FOTA!!!!!, exploit a grey area in the rules to gain advantage in a way it was not supposed to. De facto, by shaping the rare of the car, they end up with a complex diffuser. Although it may be within the formal regulations, it clearly goes against the spirit of the rules and fair-play.

It is a bit like the tax laws, right? They are meant that everyone pays taxes. But some find loopholes to avoid that and of course the people condemns those. It is against the spitit of the law and what it was meant to achieve.

This is my opinion. You may be clever and take different interpretation of the regulations without going against their spitit. Example, Red Bull car!

Dude, you say that you agree with Flavio that it is against the spirit of the rules... Right after saying that Renault wanted to do the same thing!

Flabbio is just mad that his team is not working this year, and are going to be relegated to mediocrity ONCE AGAIN.

And Flabbio is not intelligent when he says that anyone is wrong for finding an advantage, and keeping it to himself.

Well, OK, maybe not a retard, but a hypocrite would be a better term?

He knows that if Renault doesn't work once again this year, that Fernando will be driving at a different team in 2010.

I bet Nando is kicking himself for NOT joining Honda when he had the chance.... He would probably be sitting on pole this race!

[mariof1]

Here's my view on the diffusers.

Diffusers can be as wide as 1000mm.

The central 500mm can be as low as 0mm; the two outer 250mm wide areas must be no less than 50mm high.

When viewed from below, no part of the diffuser must be higher than 175mm, although there can be bodywork as high as 200mm in this area.

Then we have the double-decker concept. The upper tunnel is fed by a V section of the reference plane.

However, I was surprised by this shot:



Is this a triple-decker? You can see under the crash structure a third tunnel with a horizontal air outlet at the 200mm limit.

=D>

[vall]

I disagree. It is similar to the engine freeze issue. The goal was to "freeze" the engine so that do not increase the power. It was not well thought phrased and some teams took advantage of the grey part of the rules. And I think this is against the spirit.

Dude, you say that you agree with Flavio that it is against the spirit of the rules... Right after saying that Renault wanted to do the same thing!

At least they were worried that it may not be legal and that it was not clear. Also, you can be clever without going grey. For example, you may still cleverly shape the diffuser or the rare wing, but still within the regulations and still getting more DF, for example. This is what I call clever, not looking for grey areas in the regs.

[Conceptual]

I disagree. It is similar to the engine freeze issue. The goal was to "freeze" the engine so that do not increase the power. It was not well thought phrased and some teams took advantage of the grey part of the rules. And I think this is against the spirit.

Dude, you say that you agree with Flavio that it is against the spirit of the rules... Right after saying that Renault wanted to do the same thing!

At least they were worried that it may not be legal and that it was not clear. Also, you can be clever without going grey. For example, you may still cleverly shape the diffuser or the rare wing, but still within the regulations and still getting more DF, for example. This is what I call clever, not looking for grey areas in the regs.

Deal with it. Renault is crying simply because they did not bring one to Australia, and are not going to podium, thus starting the end of the renault/Alonso relationship.

So Flabbio can pound sand, and watch his hopes of a good season end in Australia.

[nae]

hmm 'spirit of the rules'
that is just wishful thinking really

there only is the 'wording' of the rules to go on
and not what the rule maker was thinking at the time they made them
or even worse what he thought others would interpret from the wording

i must admit its a bit off for the head of the tech working group (brawn) to
have spotted the loop hole and not closed it in his role as tech head, however
this may have happened after the wording was settled by committee

but the whole remit of a F1 design team is to interpret the rules to gain an advantage and that in itself has to be applauded if not expected

[avatar]

Quick proposal for diffuser developments:

Could you feed hot air from rad's/exhaust to the upper 'deck' of the split diffusers to aid expansion of the cool air currently flowing through them, and create greater draw for the air out the back, aiding the efficacy of the diffuser?

Using the BGP as a model, the whacking great scoop in the centre could be fed by the exhausts to make it act as an expansion chamber, heating the standard cool intake air, jet propulsion style (though not for propulsion and with no fuel feed, and no turbines. clearly) causing the expansion, and greater drawing of air mentioned above.

The effect of this might be too small to consider, and would be hugely affected by ambient temperature, which might Upset the balance.

Any thoughts?

[Agerasia]

F1 afterburners

[vall]

if everyone now copies this diffuser, then what? Again lots of turbulence behind the cars and less overtaking? Do we want that? I thought the rules were changed to avoid that.

I don't know about you, but today I had the feeling that it was much easier to close to the front car and overtake it. So, I think the introduction of the new rules worked.

[Metar]

I agree - it was visibly easier to follow other cars.

I do wonder, too - will the new diffusers affect the wake negatively? Doesn't the difference in height and volume mean different exit-speeds at different parts of the diffuser, thus creating additional turbulence?

[wesley123]

letting the exhaust flow into the diffuser is a bad idea, then it gets really sensitive to throtling, when yo odnt use any thirothlle you'll get a big downforce loss.

[axle]

Yes not exhaust gasses but the more constant temp of the air that been through the rads at removed latent heat might already be in use.

[PlatinumZealot]

hmm.. good question.. I am leaning toward the wings to be a cause of that for some reason.


Is it only me? I think those Double Decker diffusers are actually Diffuser + Spoiler all in one. Yes the air has more Area to escape but at the same time there is an extra surface for the air to press down on.

If you look you can see that the diffuser is not only taller but has the extra slanted surfaces going across the middle that make the "decks"

[hecti]

Here's my view on the diffusers.

Diffusers can be as wide as 1000mm.

The central 500mm can be as low as 0mm; the two outer 250mm wide areas must be no less than 50mm high.

When viewed from below, no part of the diffuser must be higher than 175mm, although there can be bodywork as high as 200mm in this area.

Then we have the double-decker concept. The upper tunnel is fed by a V section of the reference plane.

However, I was surprised by this shot:



Is this a triple-decker? You can see under the crash structure a third tunnel with a horizontal air outlet at the 200mm limit.

=D>

yea that's exactly what it is


and to answer everyone's questions i found a couple of links on the rules and how exactly the three teams got around the rules.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/11634
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73083

[hecti]

hmm.. good question.. I am leaning toward the wings to be a cause of that for some reason.


Is it only me? I think those Double Decker diffusers are actually Diffuser + Spoiler all in one. Yes the air has more Area to escape but at the same time there is an extra surface for the air to press down on.

If you look you can see that the diffuser is not only taller but has the extra slanted surfaces going across the middle that make the "decks"

Its about area and volume or, more properly, volume and flow rate(flow rate involves area)