Exhaust blown diffusers and FIA restrictions/ban

[WhiteBlue]

The open throttle in corners is a waste of fuel

You realize this is F1, and as such fuel is used to go faster?

There are a million ways to make a car go faster and most of them are banned. You are not supposed to put a fan under your car or fit a 10L engine. So your point is pretty moot in my view. F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

[Hangaku]

Does this mean that we are going to see drivers on the brakes AND throttle through corners?

I hear what you're saying, and I can't be sure. It would make it incredibly difficult. I would love to hear from someone who has a more definitive answer.

They all left foot brake anyway, so I guess it would just mean that some of them would need to train their right foot to keep a certain amount of pressure applied where normally they would pull it all the way off.

[shadowkhas]

That'll lead to more brake wear, though. It'll be a balancing act if it comes to that.

[Just_a_fan]

F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

In your opinion, of course.

Me, I'd like to see racing cars doing what they do best - turning dino-juice in to noise and speed with no compromise.

I do fuel saving at home; I don't want to watch it during my "fantasy 90 minutes" every fortnight...

Anything else is "greenwash".

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91481

another "announcement"

So the ban will not be enforced this weekend. They will probably give the teams more time to experiement with setups befor the ban is finally executed. One can speculate when that will be. I think they probably need two or three races.

[Hangaku]

Sure enough, brake wear is a factor. I wonder how close they are to eating a full set of pads up during a race currently.

[andrew]

F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

In your opinion, of course.

Me, I'd like to see racing cars doing what they do best - turning dino-juice in to noise and speed with no compromise.

I do fuel saving at home; I don't want to watch it during my "fantasy 90 minutes" every fortnight...

Anything else is "greenwash".

Amen to that! I don't buy any of the stuff put around under the heading of "green". Far too much hyperbole and scaremongering.

Surely if F1 was serious about going green then diesel engines should be looked at. Worked for Audi.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

In your opinion, of course.

Me, I'd like to see racing cars doing what they do best - turning dino-juice in to noise and speed with no compromise.

I do fuel saving at home; I don't want to watch it during my "fantasy 90 minutes" every fortnight...

Anything else is "greenwash".

I have read that from you for a long time. It is your point of view but not that of the governing body and majority of people who want to keep F1 exciting but make it fuel efficient at the same time. Wasting fuel is not at all a prerequisite of good racing. People who think so are either bad engineers or have no technical understanding at all. Your "greenwash" propaganda is nothing but that as soon as people do a bit of thinking. F1 racing can be very engineering oriented and exciting for technical people and still be fuel efficient.

[BreezyRacer]

Yes it appears as though they have reversed themselves and it will now be a "topic of conversation" rather than a rule at the moment. The way it's now worded it may never become a rule .. Quote From Autosport ..

"A high level source indicated that the decision had been taken because a number of 'unforeseen and unintended consequences' of the ban had been brought to the FIA's attention.

It is not clear what these consequences were, but teams that had benefited the most from the blown diffuser regulations may have complained about potential difficulties that they may have faced in making necessary changes to car set-up in such a short space of time.

Although off-throttle usage of blown diffusers remains in place for now, AUTOSPORT understands that the matter has been put to the top of the agenda for the next meeting of F1 think tank, the Technical Working Group.

It is understood that the FIA is keen for the off-throttle usage to be stamped out as soon as it can be implemented without causing further complications for the teams."

[copperkipper1]

F**K this was some real good news. Anything for someone to break that goddamn vettel finger! It's gotta be Hamilton in Canada I guess.. CMON MCLAREN!

[bot6]

So basically they chickened out, because they noticed it would hurt Vettel. Great.

[Mr Alcatraz]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCM6TZgTMI[/youtube]

[djos]

How pathetic!!! Once more innovation in F1 is being crushed by the paper pushers!!!

[PhillipM]

So basically they chickened out, because they noticed it would hurt Vettel. Great.

Nope, 'cause it was a bloody stupid ruling to introduce without a seasons warning.

[DaveKillens]

So far, nothing official, so this has to fall into the category of being just a rumor. It will probably come to pass, though.

If this is implimented, it will cost teams a lot of money to make changes. So although the rule may be justified by the green initiative, it flies against the concept of containing costs.

I wonder why this appears as a very clumsy and poorly-timed rule change by the FIA. And even then, nothing official but just rumors. This sounds like something politicians do all the time, leak something out just to gauge the public's reaction.

Can the FIA do it and is it acceptable conduct by the people who write the rules? Sadly, yes to both questions.

The FIA has the authority to make any rule changes without any notice based solely on the excuse it's safety-related. And yes, because it may fall within the category of a moveable aero device, it can also be argued it does relate to safety.

And the history of motor racing is also one of rapid and unexpected rule changes. I can think of numerous examples of where a great idea is flat-out banned because it made the car too successful. Jeff Gordon's 1997 T-Rex http://nascar.speedtv.com/article/all-s ... ex-growls/ and the Brabham BT46B come to mind.

Something this big usually affects all the teams. The successful ones have spent a truckload of cash making it work, and now have to spend another truckload engineering around the new change, while those struggling have most likely spent a big part of their meagre budget hoping to make it work in their quest to move up the rankings.

I doubt if any teams campaigned very hard for this change, if at all. It does represent the opportunity for advancement because there will be a period of change where weird things happen. The triple D story is a good example.

I believe that all this is driven by the FIA's wanting to appear "green". The sad part, as pointed out in a previous post, is that a much larger amount of fuel is burned by fans travelling to races, as well as the logistics of supporting racing.

This rule change really won't change anything when it comes to protecting our precious environment. In fact, it lends support towards just making superficial postures instead of making real change. That's the part I really don't like.