Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

[ISLAMATRON]

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.

Not just that, it is a major source of downforce, but at a very minimal cost of drag, unlike the little winglets that kept popping up the last couple years.

[DaveKillens]

So what will happen now? Most likely the cars will pass scrutineering. Then those parties offended by the diffuser design on the Williams, Brawn, and Toyota will lodge a protest. Trouble is, the protest will not be dealt with immediately, but most likely around a month from now. So the three teams with the controversial dissuser have two choices.. bolt on a diffuser design that will be legal, or will race under appeal and any points they win would be provisional until the case is heard in the FIA Court of Appeal in three or four weeks' time.
Rumor is that Toyota has a back-up diffuser just in case. But rumor has it that neither Brawn or Williams have an alternative, and would be forced to race under appeal.
Geez, this is no way to run a race.

[RH1300S]

It's such a shame that a debate is even necessary.

The FIA should police the rules - and that should be the end of it.

I understand that the teams in question sought clarification early in the design process and received the green light.

Now, if the FIA then decides that the rules need adjusting at some point during the year - then they should be adjusted.

As a general point I would tend to fall with the camp that says these things are merely an interpretation of the rules - and the solutions are clear for all to see (there is no intent to deceive). Likewise the various aero appendages that have sneaked in where there were not expected/intended by the rules (Ferrari?) - these are merely clever interpretations.

Was it Colin Chapman who said:

"Rules are for the interpretation of wise men and the obedience of fools"

This is not the same as some past discussions, where there were suspicions are deliberate attempts to circumvent the rules in a less than obvious way; say for flexible aero devices (floors that deflect under certain load conditons, wings that deflect in ways not tested by the scrutineers - perhaps even launch control commands deep in the software )

[Conceptual]

So what will happen now? Most likely the cars will pass scrutineering. Then those parties offended by the diffuser design on the Williams, Brawn, and Toyota will lodge a protest. Trouble is, the protest will not be dealt with immediately, but most likely around a month from now. So the three teams with the controversial dissuser have two choices.. bolt on a diffuser design that will be legal, or will race under appeal and any points they win would be provisional until the case is heard in the FIA Court of Appeal in three or four weeks' time.
Rumor is that Toyota has a back-up diffuser just in case. But rumor has it that neither Brawn or Williams have an alternative, and would be forced to race under appeal.
Geez, this is no way to run a race.

If the cars pass scrutineering, why would they be racing under appeal?

It will be the OTHER TEAMS that are trying to overturn the scrutineers decision, so how does that make BGP/Toyo/Bills anything but legal?

[jwielage]

It's such a shame that a debate is even necessary.

The FIA should police the rules - and that should be the end of it.

I agree completely. The FIA should have been clarifying these rules early in winter testing to avoid such a situation.

---- WARNING, The following section is ENTIRELY CONJECTURE----
While I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but I think the origin of this dilemna can be traced back to the non FOTA powers in F1.

Bernie has a financial interest to see close racing and Championships that come down to the wire. In the last few years the title chase has come down to the final GP (I think Alonso had to score one point to gain the championship in Interlagos'06, but I could be wrong). Bernie loves this, it lines his pockets.

I think he wants to have an ace in the hole, in this case having parts ruled illegal to restores some type of competitive balance. The result is a longer title chase. Now there would have to be some dubious plot between Bernie and Max to orchastrate such a plan, however I think its possible. Think back to '06, why was Renault able to openly run their mass damper system only to have it deemed illegal after half of the GPs had been run? It just doesn't make sence.

Now I am not saying that this is something that regularly happens, or that F1 is fixed. I just think that some of the ambiguity and inconsistancies in how parts are deemed legal, and illegal can be used to benifit certain interests. And when those interested parties see an opertunity as a result of vauge rules they can use their weight to "make things happen" at just the precise moment.

[Nealio]

Granted that the tech rules are vaguely written to suit the whims of the FIA. Still, it is very amusing to hear some of the team principles interpretation of them to the effect that the rules state that no other team's engineers may be more clever or intelligent than their own! Briatore is hilarious! If in no other field, F1 still is the funniest show in town.

[safeaschuck]

jwielage - Ouch, shocking that you can imagine it and I can believe it entirely possible.
There is a special four letter word for those two.

[Moanlower]

All this nonsense needs to be stopped. Let's hack Bernie and Max's pacemaker. Attack it with a trojan horse or something. j/k .. they don't have a pacemaker.

[Conceptual]

All this nonsense needs to be stopped. Let's hack Bernie and Max's pacemaker. Attack it with a trojan horse or something. j/k .. they don't have a pacemaker.

There are a few NLP "dark side" tricks that can be used to get them to terminate themselves, but I would rather see them just walk away.

Isn't Max's term up in 2009? Maybe half the Dysfunctional Duo will be gone this year anyways!

[Rob W]

It's such a shame that a debate is even necessary.

The FIA should police the rules - and that should be the end of it.

I understand that the teams in question sought clarification early in the design process and received the green light.

I agree. This reflects really poorly on the way F1 is run. They've had over a month of discussion about this amongst teams, not to mention widely in the public arena - including comments by Max himself... but, no, it has to run into the season potentially screwing up points etc and adding yet another unnecessary layer of confusion for people who watch the sport.

The fact that teams were given the green light should exonerate them from losing any points until this can be properly addressed at a technical meeting (whenever that is..).

F1 need to put their heads on straight and prioritise what is important for the sport: talking clap-trap day in day out to the media, or getting onto pressing issues which could affect the outcome of races like this.

[freedom_honda]

watching this diffuser nonsense is like watching a bunch of five year-old kids fighting for an ice cream. The diffusers are within the rules, the dimensions are right otherwise they wouldn't be on the car. When toyota first rolled out their diffuser, people whing about it so FIA check it out and gave them the green light. So what's the point of seeking clarification AGAIN? Even if they want clarification, why didn't they do it when they first saw Brawn's diffuser two weeks ago? Why only they protested AFTER seeing Brawn kicking everyone's asses? Its sour grapes, and its embarrassing for a bunch of grow-man acting like this in the pinnacle of all sports.

And what sort of spirit of the rules are they talking about? Rules are rules, you are either within it, or breaking it. It's black and white.

This is getting ridiculous. It shows how childish are these grown-man. I'm deeply disappointed by how this whole issue has developed.

[jwielage]

Rules are rules, you are either within it, or breaking it. It's black and white.

freedom_brawn,

Im not sure what is more glaring, the juvenile simplicity of your argument or your blatant favoritism toward the Honda, err... I mean BRAWN team. No offense but I'm pretty sure this is a discussion thread not a billboard for your personal fact maker, uhh.... I mean opinion. But other than that post away

Regards,
jwielage

[imightbewrong]

The williams diffuser seems to get busier by the minute:


And McLaren seems to be ready to remove the covers of theirs, looks more and more like it is prepared for a double decker and an attachment under the crash structure ala toyota. Kind of a mix between toyota and brawn

[enkidu]

Quote from ITV-f1.com

Although all three cars passed the official FIA scrutineering in Melbourne today, four teams – understood to be Ferrari, BMW, Renault and Red Bull – have now made official protests.

ITV.com/f1 understands that the issue revolves around what can be seen from beneath the car, and whether this is within the new rules.


What can be seen from under the car.... Anyone care to explain?

[Tbox]

What can be seen from under the car.... Anyone care to explain?

The rule book. They glue a copy to the underside of every car, in addition to the barge board.