Rear diffuser Appeal Predictions

[axle]

Max Mosley was bemoaning a lack of innovation...well here it is, accept it or shut up.

[andartop]

My personal opinion on the whole deal, as I've said before, is that I'd much rather see the FIA deem the double decker diffusers legal and enjoy the rest of the season waching Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, RBR and BMW trying to catch up..

It would make for a very interesting second half of the season to have (hopefully) 8 or even 9 teams (if we include TR) fighting for race wins!

However, I can't help but wonder whether certain people in this forum would have the same opinion on the "ingenuity" and "legality" of the double decker diffuser had for example Ferrari been the only team using such a diffuser!

[Chaparral]

Timbo - simple question - why??

'cos you cannot have one set of rules for one bunch, and another set for another.


The FIA have dropped the ball (again) - if they had said the things were legal back in January, then we wouldn't have this problem.



edit: Note that clarify does not automatically mean ban - it can mean approval.

Irish I hear where your coming from - but its one set of guidelines for all and its all in the interpretation - which is what it should be all about - forget setting in concrete rules that stifle the creative souls left in the business. As for the FIA settling this back in January yes they had two teams (Williams & Toyota) who they indeed ruled were within the guidelines at that time - suddenly when Brawn came on the scene in testing the other teams were allowed to question the validity of the design of not only Brawn but Toyota & Williams then it escalated when Brawn won the Australian GP and subsequently the shortened Malaysian GP. The FIA have to stand up and be counted - the rules/guidelines are never going to be perfect but dont kill the goose when it comes to freedom of design application

[timbo]

I think in any case FIA should clarify the rules regarding "slots". Cause designers have a tendency to exploit every possibility they have to a maximal extent.

Timbo - simple question - why??

I'm not against technical innovation. But I'm against ridiculous innovation. And in my view the perspective of creating unmeaningful suspension geometries (to avoid them being seen from below) to only allow bigger diffuser is dumb and potentially dangerous.

[xpensive]

Someone kindly pointed out, on a related thread, that the following is the exact wording of the rule discussed:

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances. Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below.

"when viewed from direcly below", does that necessarily mean perpendicular to the reference plane, anyone?

[Fil]

xpensive, what about the hole being 'fully enclosed' terminology then?

i do hope the double diffusers are kept legal for this season purely for the intrigue that such a ruling will continue for this season with the top funded teams chasing down the Creative 3.

[xpensive]

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"?.

[timbo]

Anyone has 2008 regulations?
I want to know how long that article is and what is the purpose.
Why there are holes permitted in the floor irrelevant of their arrangement? Is it to work as vents or let suspension members through?

[kilcoo316]

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"?.

Hmm....

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

[xpensive]

The way I understand this now is the following:

Firstly, the vertical openings channeling air to the xtra-level central diffuser are viewed as legal "slots" by the renegade-three, but as illegal "holes" by the other teams.

Secondly, if you take an underneath look perpendicular to the reference-plane, you cannot see the suspension parts through said openings, but from an angle you can.

Please correct me if and where I got things wrong?

[Fil]

what's the difference between a hole and a slot?

sounds like Brawn, Williams, Toyota used a thesaurus to clarify the rulebook whilst the other 7 used a dictionary..

[Metar]

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"?.

I'm not a native speaker, so I may have a different view, but perhaps by "fully enclosed" they simply mean to prevent a "valley" or channel? If you look at, say, the regular diffuser, it's a "channel" - not fully enclosed - but if covered at the end, it'd be "fully enclosed"?

[nae]

in my (mis) understanding a ball is a fully enclosed hole

[Metar]

You gave me the words I was looking for.


Basically, my interpretation is yours, but in this case, on a plane.. A "fully enclosed" hole is one that forms some sort of circle on the same plane - in which case, if part of it is raised, it's not "fully enclosed"?

[vasia]

Err....

No.

If RBR asked and were told "no they couldn't", it wouldn't exactly make sense to waste development time on a supposedly illegal system.

We don't know what RBR's design looked like. Unless RBR shows their proposed design, it's impossible for observers to say whether or not the design was similar to what the 'Diffuser 3' are currently running, or whether the design was simply flat-out illegal.

Williams say they approached the FIA last year to clarify the legality of their design and the FIA was fine with it last year.

Something about RBR and Renault's stories doesn't quite make sense.

Toyota also has mentioned that they approached and clarified with the FIA multiple times before launching their car regarding the legality of their design.