xpensive wrote:That's a good point too, Fil. My guess would be that if a hole is not fully enclosed, it is not a "hole" anymore.
Perhaps it is a "slot", which seems to be one of Brawn's arguments, but define "fully enclosed"?.
That could be where the FIA do the double-deckers...
If it is not a fully enclosed hole, its not legal. But if it is a fully enclosed hole*, you can see body work** above it (in this case the diffuser).
*it won't be a planar hole, hence why you can see body work from directly below (which I take as looking at a normal to the reference plane)
** for the purposes of this, the diffuser is treated as bodywork - and you can see a secondary surface distinct from the first surface nearest the ground plane.
All ifs, buts & maybes. But that is the way the FIA works