I dont F1 to be a spec series either... I merely mentioned Standardized stickers... dont go to far.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).
Can we discuss this more please...myurr wrote:It's rumoured that this is the case, along with the design of their gearbox.Scania wrote:will pull rod make RB have no space to copy that?Henning wrote:Sanity rules.
It's going to be VERY interesting to see what the other teams do now
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.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).
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.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.
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.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?"
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.freedom_honda wrote:sorry i should have chosen my words more carefully im just not having a very good day. sorry.jwielage wrote: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
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.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!
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.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