Following a long meeting and discussions between the involved teams, Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota have been given allowance to compete in this weekend's Australian Grand Prix with their current diffuser designs.
Especially if FIF1, McLaren, and BMW show up at this race, or the next with similar diffusors, it will then be 6 against 4.
FIF1 has stated that they NEED downforce, so I can understand why they would want this to be legal, and maybe McLaren are hoping that this will fix some of their problems as well.
Anyways, in that diffusor pic of the McLaren, it looks like there is an aweful lot of camber on the rear wheels... After reading Comp. Susp., I was under the belief that necessary camber was because of excess body roll. I really didnt think that with 3rd springs that they would roll quite so much to need that much camber!
Maybe I am way off, but WOW does that look like a LOT of camber!
Last edited by Conceptual on 26 Mar 2009, 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
This question has been asked by many... "How come the FIA did not make a 100% clarification of the diffuser rules when the subject became controversial?"
There are two reasons why. First off, Max just loves rules that are ambiguous. That way, whenever clarification is sought, he becomes involved and has the opportunity to manipulate the rules and situation to fit his personal agenda. Witness the Renault mass damper fiasco. Renault (and Alonso)was in a comfortable lead in the season when suddenly it was "discovered" that their mass damper was illegal. The end result? It tightend up the chase, and gave Schumacher a good shot at the title. Hey, if we see a runaway season viewership and fan interest drops.
Secondly, delaying leadership and not dealing with rules issues finds us in a situation Bernie and Max love. Teams fighting each other, protests and all that crap. It's all in an attempt by Max and Bernie to destroy their largest threat, FOTA.
Max and Bernie really do not care about the fans. It's obvious to all that fans want to see the Grand Prix circus, the excitement, the glamour, the racing. Fans do not want to have a sword hanging over their heads... to delay learning who won what in Australia. The final decision of diffuser legality will not be decided for at least one month, and we have to wait that long to see where the race results and points wind up. Total, absolute bullcrap.
But Bernie and Max do not care about the here and now. They look to the future, and how to deal with threats to their power and income. They make moves to promote their personal agendas. And if the results of the Australian GP lay in shambles, so be it, it's all part of how Max and Bernie do business.
Last edited by DaveKillens on 26 Mar 2009, 16:07, edited 1 time in total.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
I think fan interest will remain if the run away team is a HUGE underdog...
Look at the what happened in Monza '08. People like to see underdogs win.
I, for one, would just like to see someone other than Ferrari/McLaren with a shot at the title.
And does anyone think that Alonso is kicking himself for NOT going to Honda this year? I believe that I said it would be his best move when it was discussed here last year, and it is great to see that it would have been his best move after all...
donskar wrote:Yes, in a perfect world, we would not have ambiguity and protests. But what is the alternative? I can only see rules so clear and precise that we have a spec series -- earlier posts have already suggested a standard diffuser. Do we really want that.
It's been a LONG time since my mech engin courses, but I don't think it is possible to write rules that are totally without any ambiguity whatever. Would we need to have "rules" in the form of blurprints and 3D drawings?
I hope we all agree that we do NOT want F1 to be a spec series. (Yes, islamatron will disagree, sorry).
I dont F1 to be a spec series either... I merely mentioned Standardized stickers... dont go to far.
It's going to be VERY interesting to see what the other teams do now
will pull rod make RB have no space to copy that?
It's rumoured that this is the case, along with the design of their gearbox.
Can we discuss this more please...
I dont see why either the gearbox or the rocker placement would effect airflow from under the car(which is a standard height for all the cars) towards the rear crash structure.
donskar wrote:Yes, in a perfect world, we would not have ambiguity and protests. But what is the alternative? I can only see rules so clear and precise that we have a spec series -- earlier posts have already suggested a standard diffuser. Do we really want that.
It's been a LONG time since my mech engin courses, but I don't think it is possible to write rules that are totally without any ambiguity whatever. Would we need to have "rules" in the form of blurprints and 3D drawings?
I hope we all agree that we do NOT want F1 to be a spec series. (Yes, islamatron will disagree, sorry).
The alternative is to have the rules writen to minimise the ambiguity and to have a body that can make binding decisions whenever the teams ask them. That way the teams could have approached the FIA with their interpretation of the rules and had a definitive decision as to whether or not they are correct.
The FIA don't operate in that way. They will give their opinion on whether or not the rules have been correctly interpreted but the team has to wait until a formal investigation from the stewards for a final decision to be made. We've seen several examples in the past of the FIA deciding one thing in private to the teams only to overturn that decision at arbitrary points later.
All this talk of a spec series is funny considering how much of a spec series this has become. And unfortunately these rules and F1 current research base is going to standardise the solutions fairly quickly. As with the V8 rules before these changes, F1 always finds the most expensive way to standardise everything.
Islamatron, I've been watching this develop for a while with the RB Pull Rod issue and if you have a good look at the red bull rear crash structure, it appears to project from a very low perspective and I am sure it is to do with overall integration of the Pull rod and gearbox on that car. I am sure if they had've had the expectation of these diffuser interpretations they would've ended up with something that gave them better options in this regard. As with most things on the Adrian Newey mould, there is not much room for compromise. Certainly the location of the pull rod into the rear body interface is well outside the area where the diffuser would be effected, but there would be lots more to it than pull rod vs push rod.
Agerasia wrote:Interestingly the McLaren's top section still falls within the 175mm's even if it is double decker. I think they played it safe.
If they really have one into their sleeves, the crash structure will add to those 175mm, creating a volume above those poor barn doors that cover it today.
DaveKillens wrote:This question has been asked by many... "How come the FIA did not make a 100% clarification of the diffuser rules when the subject became controversial?"
The other reason is when the teams ask for clarification from the FIA is that they word their questions in such a way as to always receive a positive response. Positive responses always go back to the teams asking the question, negative responses get circulated as a memo with the question and answer to all the teams.
Dear Max,
We haven’t had much success recently and have fallen on hard times. We have had a great idea for making ours cars go a little bit faster than the rest of the grid. Would you mind awfully if we build the rear diffuser above the limit laid down and into the rear crumple zone. The chaps that play with the windmills tell me that the cars will go quicker through the bendy bits of the track if we add this extension to the back of the cars.
Regards
The Backmarkers
Last edited by Shaddock on 26 Mar 2009, 20:17, edited 1 time in total.
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
sorry i should have chosen my words more carefully im just not having a very good day. sorry.
Freedom_Honda, Its all good, we all have those kind of days. I appologize if my post came off as abrasive, I'm not hear to critisize others or ruffle feathers. In addition, as a Brawn supporter I could understand your frustration. I invite you to take the opertunity to critisize my next ill-constructed post, I mean really tear me apart. Then we will be even.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so" - Mark Twain
Conceptual wrote:...
Anyways, in that diffusor pic of the McLaren, it looks like there is an aweful lot of camber on the rear wheels... After reading Comp. Susp., I was under the belief that necessary camber was because of excess body roll. I really didnt think that with 3rd springs that they would roll quite so much to need that much camber!
Maybe I am way off, but WOW does that look like a LOT of camber!
This could be because the car jacked up on those wheel-carriers, or whatever there technical name is. And the wheels are in the air, making it seem like the suspension has way too much camber as they are weighed down.
I hope the appeal fails as well, these protests are extremely lame, I can't believe Ferrari, RBR, and BMW would do such a stupid thing. Suck it up and develop your own version.
Which person or group within a team would make the decision to lodge a protest
Okay, now that the initial scrutineering and 3 team protest has so far upholds the legality of the diffusers for BrawnGP, Toyota and Williams, and assuming the the appeal, to be heard after Sepang, Malaysia GP, also upholds the cars as legal, how fast do you think the other teams will produce new cars / diffusers?
How will the current year regulations on wind tunnel, and car testing affect refining the new diffusers? It will certainly make friday practice sessions more interesting... Also how good will be the CFD modeling?
It looks like McLaren already has a new diffuser in the works.
Maybe Ferrari will drop their litigation against Nigel Stepney, if he can help them out of this sticky situation? (not!) [-X
cloudman wrote:Okay, now that the initial scrutineering and 3 team protest has so far upholds the legality of the diffusers for BrawnGP, Toyota and Williams, and assuming the the appeal, to be heard after Sepang, Malaysia GP, also upholds the cars as legal, how fast do you think the other teams will produce new cars / diffusers?
How will the current year regulations on wind tunnel, and car testing affect refining the new diffusers? It will certainly make friday practice sessions more interesting... Also how good will be the CFD modeling?
It looks like McLaren already has a new diffuser in the works.
Maybe Ferrari will drop their litigation against Nigel Stepney, if he can help them out of this sticky situation? (not!) [-X
I recon that if the Malasian scruteneers up hold the "Ingenious 3" as im gonna call them, i recon that Ferarri, RBR/STR and Renault will have to move pretty sharpish to reclaim the advantage they dont have.
I recon that at Sepang there will be 3 new diffusers on the grid, McLaren, BMW Sauber and Force India as it has been rumored those teams have a "Ingenious 3" style diffuser.
Fernando alonso had it right stating that Brawn GP were two-and-a-half months ahead of them.
