Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

[ESPImperium]

What id laugh at is if the 7 became say 4 or 5 with say BMW Sauber having a new diffuser that uses the same loophole as well.

Could Brawn have a counter-claim against the side-pod turning vaynes that the rest of the teams have on their cars???

But i do think that a protest should be made at least 14 days before the opening GP of the year, and any enforced changes made after the 4th GP (Or the first Euro race) of the season, give the other teams time to catch up and also give the team with the discriminated part or parts have adiquate time to respond. Thus leading to my stance against a testing ban.

Id have 3 3 day tests in the middle of the season, one before the euro season kicks off, one before the middle point and one before the teams fly off to far off places after the euro season. But limit the teams to no more than 1000 miles at each test with both cars being present for at least one day.

That would be my stance on the rules.

[SoliRossi]

My issue with this is why the "7" have left it until the RACE WEEKEND to decide to protest. In my mind, they obviously left it until the last possible moment so that the "7" would not have time to properly design a competitive diffuser. No better way to slow down the guys in front than cripple them with makeshift parts.

There should be a rule on protests or pleas that allows the defending party enough time to properly compensate from the loss (if any). If the protest is not filed AND completed by so-and-so a date, then too bad, the parts get to run.

My 2¢ anyways... I hope the "7" loose miserably is AUS because of this.

Majic the reason for a late protest is two fold;

Firstly as pointed out by myurr there is no body to deem these things legal....well not prior to a race weekend. Basically a team could run a v12 in testing with no issues, it would mean that they would then have to rock up to race 1 with an untested v8 but basically that is how it works.....you can 'seek' clarification prior to the races but it means little.

Your car will be scrutinised on the Thursday of the race weekend and deemed legal or not legal. Basically prior to that point there is nothing another team can do as there has been no rule broken. But as soon as a car passes scrutineering then its deemed legal and ready to race. This is the only point that a team can protest, no earlier.

It then basically becomes a civil matter, and has to go to a hearing.

Its a silly system and pretty short sighted. But the net result is appeals at the last minuet.

For what its worth, the 3 diffusers in question are clearly not within the spirit of the rules. For crying out loud we had an Overtaking Working Group nut out some regs that they felt would 'improve the spectacle' part of that was reducing the wake from the difusser. Now these teams want to claw back df by a loophole that was not intended in the rules. If questioned it must be banned. Especially if RBR put a similar proposal to the FIA and it was rejected.

[SoliRossi]

Another theory that could prove interesting, does anyone think that Maccas apparent lack of pace is a result of them using their winter program to re-jig the air flow in order to run a double decker difusser?

Prehaps their car was not too bad but when they saw the Toyota solution they thought...hang on we have to respond to this, so they basically dedicated their miles to getting the car to be effective with a bigger difusser. They just omitted to bolt on the actual difusser in order to keep everyone guessing.

If the part is deemed illegal they will have to revert to an extent, however if the 3 teams get the go ahead then i would not be supriseed to see Macca roll out in FP1 wiht a Brawn-esq difusser design.

[enkidu]

For what its worth, the 3 diffusers in question are clearly not within the spirit of the rules. For crying out loud we had an Overtaking Working Group nut out some regs that they felt would 'improve the spectacle' part of that was reducing the wake from the difusser. Now these teams want to claw back df by a loophole that was not intended in the rules. If questioned it must be banned. Especially if RBR put a similar proposal to the FIA and it was rejected.

So Ferrari's idea of moving the side pods back and putting tuning vains on there mounted with the mirrors is totally legal then?? They exploited a loop hole in the rules. Now you can't change the rule book at the start of the first race can you. Imagine football if they suddenly changed the offside rule before a big game etc...

The wake of the difusser is fine for overtaking its the rear wings which cause the problems...

I hope the stewards say its legal I really do!!

[SoliRossi]

For what its worth, the 3 diffusers in question are clearly not within the spirit of the rules. For crying out loud we had an Overtaking Working Group nut out some regs that they felt would 'improve the spectacle' part of that was reducing the wake from the difusser. Now these teams want to claw back df by a loophole that was not intended in the rules. If questioned it must be banned. Especially if RBR put a similar proposal to the FIA and it was rejected.

So Ferrari's idea of moving the side pods back and putting tuning vains on there mounted with the mirrors is totally legal then?? They exploited a loop hole in the rules. Now you can't change the rule book at the start of the first race can you. Imagine football if they suddenly changed the offside rule before a big game etc...

The wake of the difusser is fine for overtaking its the rear wings which cause the problems...

I hope the stewards say its legal I really do!!

Fair call mate, i guess it will be down to the stewards and what they decide to do. Im a RBR fan so i kinda want the parts in question to get the red light but hey, time will tell.

[370HSSV]

Personally I'm a fan of another team however, I'm more interested in exciting racing and ingenious design to want to see something that appears to be technically legal be deemed illegal just because other teams (FIA included) didn't think of it and therefore deem it not within the "spirit" of the rules.

What a load of shite! SPIRIT? I thought the spirit was to race to win, not to just fall into line and follow the precession.

What about all the other tech inovations over the years, none of them were in the spirit of the rules but were each ingenious ideas that either were adopted by others or banned outright.

I don't profess to know the full details on the 3 diffusers in question, but I pretty dam sure that 3 constructers would not purposely make illegal cars. They maybe pushing the envelope slightly but that is the only way to win races. Basically what I'm saying is if the FIA cannot produce clear and consise rules regarding these cars then they are open for interpretation ergo all the other teams should STFU.

I doubt the Brawn will be a race winner, and likewise for the Williams, I guess Toyota will have a good season but I bet we'll all look back at the end of the season at this "diffuser-gate" and ask wtf was that all about!

[wesley123]

this was expected by red bull, as they arent the fastest and there is getting alot of expectations from them. Formula 1 aint f1 anymore, races and championships are getting won at the court instead on the track, drivers can better walk the race and then still win it at the court.

I think im gonna need to study laws in order to complete it to f1

[donskar]

Interesting that Red Bull has come out in the open and said that they will protest. Interesting because Adrian Newey has the wll-deserved reputation for being the master of "creative interpretation" of the rules.

It's all a lot of BS, but it's better to have this current turmoil result in close racing than watching a season-long Brawn procession.

[Moanlower]

I'm curious of how the diffusers from Renault and RBR looks like that were rejected by the FIA about year ago according to them.

I'm not really a fan of how the FIA works but I can't imagine they would reject a similar diffuser by one and approve it for another. There must have been some crucial differences.

Maybe we'll never know, but if I were let's say Renault I would reveal the prove of a likewise diffuser that was rejected don't you What's there to lose, an ingenious design everybody is eager to copy [-X

[ISLAMATRON]

Interesting that Red Bull has come out in the open and said that they will protest. Interesting because Adrian Newey has the wll-deserved reputation for being the master of "creative interpretation" of the rules.

It's all a lot of BS, but it's better to have this current turmoil result in close racing than watching a season-long Brawn procession.

And what if RBR presented the same idea to the FIA and was told it was illigal? and thus were in a different design direction. Is that not being said by one of the teams on the grid?

[Moanlower]

Interesting that Red Bull has come out in the open and said that they will protest. Interesting because Adrian Newey has the wll-deserved reputation for being the master of "creative interpretation" of the rules.

It's all a lot of BS, but it's better to have this current turmoil result in close racing than watching a season-long Brawn procession.

It's something I directed to when the fancy RBR was revealed. Let's hope for them it's not all show but no go. Compare Newey's design to the more advanced but 'plain simple' looking design of the Brawn. Maybe Newey was a little lucky in the past with his designs and was therefore overrated

Sometimes you can a have a great result after designing something. What seperates a genious from a lucker is for instance knowing what made the car go fast.

[donskar]

Interesting that Red Bull has come out in the open and said that they will protest. Interesting because Adrian Newey has the wll-deserved reputation for being the master of "creative interpretation" of the rules.

It's all a lot of BS, but it's better to have this current turmoil result in close racing than watching a season-long Brawn procession.

It's something I directed to when the fancy RBR was revealed. Let's hope for them it's not all show but no go. Compare Newey's design to the more advanced but 'plain simple' looking design of the Brawn. Maybe Newey was a little lucky in the past with his designs and was therefore overrated

Sometimes you can a have a great result after designing something. What seperates a genious from a lucker is for instance knowing what made the car go fast.

Understand your point, but Newey has designed a LOT of very fast cars. I think he is no worse than #2 or #3 among all active designers.

[Conceptual]

If the OWG was really that concerned about diffusor design, they should have made it a standard part like the mid-section of the front wing.

The fact that they did not should make it obvious that every designer was going to maximize the effect of what they were designing. (actually, RBR short changed their diffusor by not going full width...)

Anyways, lets see how this ends up.

And to the person that doesn't want to see a Brawn procession all year...

Wouldn't it be better to see someone else win for a change? In the last 12 years or so it has been Ferrari, McLaren and Renault...

I think it is just sour grapes of low-talent losers...

And no-one has explained how a 25mm increase in height of 25% of the diffusor can lead to .5seconds/lap advantage.

I am really interested how that is possible!

[Moanlower]

I'm not an expert but I read in an article from Honda some time ago that the diffuser is good for approx 20% of the total downforce level.

Having such vague rules on such an important part asks for troubles.

[axle]

And this is the nub of it. How can you expect designers and engineers to NOT look for a re-interpretation of the rules? Unless you provide a spec part?

TBH if they ban the three then they should provide an exact template of what is allowed and force all to use a spec part.

But it should be deemed illegal only it's proovable beyond reasonable doubt that it they don't conform with the rules.

This talk of the spirit of the rules etc is BS. Again the spec part should be produced if you don't want engineers to find the loopholes.