Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
El Presidente
El Presidente
0
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 00:10

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Toyota seem to be using asymetrical diffuser, don't think we have seen that before.

imightbewrong
imightbewrong
17
Joined: 07 Aug 2008, 16:18

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

BGP diffuser, double decker it seems:
Image

ESPImperium
ESPImperium
64
Joined: 06 Apr 2008, 00:08
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Brawn GP BGP001 Diffuser:

Image
Image

Scotracer
Scotracer
3
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 17:09
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Some new diffuser shots:

FW31:

Image


R29:

Image


F1.09:

Image


F60:

Image


MP4-24:

Image
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

Gecko
Gecko
4
Joined: 05 Sep 2006, 20:40

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

In the words of Max Mosley on some of the diffusers: ""It is a curious idea in a way - where you are not allowed two surfaces, you have a surface and then something that is not a surface because it is unsprung. The view on our technical people is that it is okay, we will wait and see if someone challenges it."

Now this strikes me as odd. If a thing is unsprung, it must somehow be connected to the suspension elements then? Or is Max simply mixing things up here?

Timstr
Timstr
8
Joined: 25 Jan 2004, 12:09

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

According to Briatore there are three teams with illegal diffusers.
The 3rd team he's talking about has to be Brawn than.

axle
axle
3
Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 14:45
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Timstr wrote:According to Briatore there are three teams with illegal diffusers.
The 3rd team he's talking about has to be Brawn than.
Flavio cries foul everytime his team are out thought and out done. He should manage a spec formula not F1 where innovation rules.
- Axle

NDR008
NDR008
0
Joined: 20 May 2004, 12:04
Location: Bristol-Europe

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

axle wrote:
Timstr wrote:According to Briatore there are three teams with illegal diffusers.
The 3rd team he's talking about has to be Brawn than.
Flavio cries foul everytime his team are out thought and out done. He should manage a spec formula not F1 where innovation rules.
He is still rightly pissed off over his mass-damper being banned - Renault have been more cautious regarding rules and you can see why. However I agree with him that things get banned/declared legal to spontaneously - clear cut rules or a fairer way of banning things would reduce the screaming and shouting. Don't forget F1 R&D is probably the highest cost - thinking that for exmaple 'researching the diffuser in a certain way' is illegal and finding your rivals have done what you thought to be illegal - a proper piss taking moment - you would feel like "*&£$ I understood it as illegal - we had the time and money to do that instead of the --- we did" (and this type of reasoning goes for anyone).

It is not a case of "OOOO - that is smart - I didn't think of that".

User avatar
Metar
0
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 11:35

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

News from the FIA:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... nship.aspx

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

(Ammemndment 18/03/09 (Mav)):

One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of
a car may have on a following car.
Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption
is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.



Effectively, doesn't think mean the FIA have banned the Brawn diffuser?

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Metar wrote:News from the FIA:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... nship.aspx

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

(Ammemndment 18/03/09 (Mav)):

One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of
a car may have on a following car.
Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption
is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.



Effectively, doesn't think mean the FIA have banned the Brawn diffuser?
As was said, this has been done for a few years now, and some thought the new rules made them illegal (obviously Symonds at Renault who was the one to suggest de-coupling the rear wing and diffusor), but when these other teams went to the FIA for clarification BEFORE degign was began to get the OK, they effectively can argue that they sought clarification from the governing body, and was assured as to its legality.

I sincerely hope the other teams just jump on and make their own, because if Melbourne starts as a protested race and the winner/points scorers are removed, I don't think that I'd care to even watch the rest of the season.

I've already seen all of that song and dance that I care to, ya know?

Scotracer
Scotracer
3
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 17:09
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

So they've added a vague ruling to a vague regulation....yeah that'll help :wtf: :|
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

User avatar
shir0
0
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 13:44
Location: Acton, MA

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Metar wrote:News from the FIA:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... nship.aspx

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

(Ammemndment 18/03/09 (Mav)):

One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of
a car may have on a following car.
Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption
is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.



Effectively, doesn't think mean the FIA have banned the Brawn diffuser?
Well in this case then, then I think Williams' and Toyota's interpretations are effectively incorrect and illegal.

Brawn's interpretation is a different matter altogether. Their interpretation of the same rule is brilliant!

The tests for "precision" prescribed by the relevant rule: ...Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car

...any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.


However which way you look at it, Brawn's diffuser passes these while Toyota's and Williams' are very shady. That "curvy" surface on the Brawn Diffuser is A SINGLE SURFACE. Pass any (longitudinal/lateral) vertical plane unto that diffuser surface and you will get a single continous line.
"Fortunately I've got a bag with dry ice in [my suit], which I put next to my balls, so at least they stay nice and cool!"- Sebastian Vettel, 2009 Malaysian GP Friday Practice.

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Gecko wrote:In the words of Max Mosley on some of the diffusers: ""It is a curious idea in a way - where you are not allowed two surfaces, you have a surface and then something that is not a surface because it is unsprung. The view on our technical people is that it is okay, we will wait and see if someone challenges it."

Now this strikes me as odd. If a thing is unsprung, it must somehow be connected to the suspension elements then? Or is Max simply mixing things up here?
Yeah I caught that too, Max showing his lack of understanding?

Ruudje
Ruudje
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 14:51

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

Well in this case then, then I think Williams' and Toyota's interpretations are effectively incorrect and illegal.

Brawn's interpretation is a different matter altogether. Their interpretation of the same rule is brilliant!

The tests for "precision" prescribed by the relevant rule: ...Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car

...any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

However which way you look at it, Brawn's diffuser passes these while Toyota's and Williams' are very shady. That "curvy" surface on the Brawn Diffuser is A SINGLE SURFACE. Pass any (longitudinal/lateral) vertical plane unto that diffuser surface and you will get a single continous line.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you try to explain?

When Looking at this picture:
Image
how is different from:
Image


please enlighten me! :)

Ruudje
Ruudje
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 14:51

Re: 2009 Difusser Rule Interpretation

Post

btw: mclaren's new:
Image