F1technical.net

Its funny to see what happens if those higher center section gets banned, BGP can jsut use the underside of their crashbox to make something similair, the central section is gone by the rules but technically still exist, they can only use the part under the crashbox then.

Ive just figured out why McLaren and Force India havnt got involved in the Diffuser Debacle. If Brawn have only taken the Mercedes engine and not the McLaren gearbox, it could be that McLaren and Force India could just give some money to Brawn to supply them with their gearbox and rear end, meaning that its a little more of a coppy and paste exersise for them that it is for Red Bull/STR, Ferarri and Renault.

Meaning that McLaren and Force India dont want to cus their noses off too early as they could get access to the Brawn secrets, but with their design for a rear diffuser.

ESPImperium wrote:Ive just figured out why McLaren and Force India havnt got involved in the Diffuser Debacle. If Brawn have only taken the Mercedes engine and not the McLaren gearbox, it could be that McLaren and Force India could just give some money to Brawn to supply them with their gearbox and rear end, meaning that its a little more of a coppy and paste exersise for them that it is for Red Bull/STR, Ferarri and Renault.

Meaning that McLaren and Force India dont want to cus their noses off too early as they could get access to the Brawn secrets, but with their design for a rear diffuser.

Dejavu?

I said this on the last page, but it is OK, I think it may be something similar...

Especially since both McLaren and FIF1 have both publicly stated they need more downforce...

machin wrote:So... is this the arrangement we're talking about?????

very nice drawing.
i suspect it is not as simple, though.
If it was it would be:
a) fairly obviously legal (given the 75 mm from the center rule)
b) very easy to adapt/replicate, at least provisionally, by pretty much every team
c) unlikely to provide the dramatic advantage we see now

i suspect it is not as simple, though.

I tend to agree... no photo I've seen so far has convinced me that there are holes from the side channels into that upper central section, and I can't really see that if a panel has holes in it it could be deemed to be continuous (which I think the rules require?)...

Its the photo of the Brawn rear end that's confusing.... being able to see the road through the central section....

RE: Williams system.

I read somewhere that the air for the top deck comes from above the floor...maybe I mis understood but I think at least part of the Williams design uses the top of the trick diffuser to accelerate the air over the top of the diffuser to help extract air from under the diffuser. Hence the upside down T bar under the nose splits the air left/right like a barge board to help feed the air round the sidepods. The horizontal part of the T splits the air between the top and bottom of the body helping to reduce pressure under the nose and concequently under the body.

axle wrote:RE: Williams system.

I read somewhere that the air for the top deck comes from above the floor...maybe I mis understood but I think at least part of the Williams design uses the top of the trick diffuser to accelerate the air over the top of the diffuser to help extract air from under the diffuser. Hence the upside down T bar under the nose splits the air left/right like a barge board to help feed the air round the sidepods. The horizontal part of the T splits the air between the top and bottom of the body helping to reduce pressure under the nose and concequently under the body.

That's what I wondered originally too.... very much like an eductor; if you can create a low pressure area above the diffuser (by accelerating the air OVER the floor and diffuser) it will draw more air through the diffuser..... hopefully more than negating the fact that you've created an area of low pressure above the main diffuser panel... basically trying to replicate the interaction of a low rear wing to "suck" air through the diffuser....

Wouldn't it be great to pick one of these things up and turn it over in your hand so you'd know for SURE how it works??!!!!!

machin wrote:So... is this the arrangement we're talking about?????

Great image, but it looks like too much has been cut away on the vertical red sides, and maybe some on the (red) floor needs to be removed?

i'm sure scarbs has a photographer buddy with a huge lens to get a good shot...

:paging scarbs:

machin wrote: ...I can't really see that if a panel has holes in it it could be deemed to be continuous (which I think the rules require?)...

I believe your last drawing nailed it. The rules don't require the diffuser to be one continuous surface. It requires the diffuser to be continuous as seen from below.

theoracle wrote: i suspect it is not as simple, though.
If it was it would be:
a) fairly obviously legal (given the 75 mm from the center rule)

Ross Brawn wrote: For anyone who has read the rules it was quite obvious.

theoracle wrote: If it was it would be:
c) unlikely to provide the dramatic advantage we see now

Looking at the Brawn, Williams and Toyota pics, the added diffuser exit area appears to be no more than 10%. I believe the advantage comes not from the absolute increase in downforce, but from better rear end grip and therefore car balance.

What a retard Briatore is with this comment:

"He knew he had an advantage and he didn't say it. It is a situation that is not in the spirit of the rules," said Renault boss Briatore at a press event for the Italian media.

OF COURSE he knew it was an advantage! OF COURSE he kept quiet about it!

Did Flavio go to the other teams in 05/06 and explain the TMD to them? No? Why not? BECAUSE IT GAVE HIS TEAM AN ADVANTAGE!

Man, will the crybabies please STFU!

Hmm, ain't it funny to call Briatore retard? I'd be happy if I new that in his age I would date the girls he dated
You read what you want to read. I bet he meant that "this is a situation that is against spirit of the rules, but he didn't say it because he has advantage".

And regarding scandal - this is ages old situation. Teams found a gray area in the rules and exploited is. And if that diffuser arrangement increases wake, it is clearly against the spirit of the rule. Problem is FIA would certainly play on this to divide FOTA.

Yes, and it is hilarious that when some big players exploit such gray areas (especially Ferrari) folks scream bloody murder, but when some team from midfield do same, they are called "clever".

I think Briatore is perfectly right, while I also find it highly inappropriate that FOTA's technical representative is the one bending the rules.
If FOTA can't agree on this one and lets Max & Bernie divide and conquer again, so to hell with it.

We need to be told a bit more on the issue. I recall now Red Bull saying that about a year ago together with Renault they asked FIA if they could use a similar solution. The answer was NO, and if it was really the case, then I can understand that they are pissed off.

Apart of that I agree with Flavio that it goes against the spirit of the rules. The rules were meant to 1) decrease the DF and 2) decrease the turbulence behind the car. That's why they introduced the simplified diffuser. Now certain teams, including BGP whose boss leads the technical group of FOTA!!!!!, exploit a grey area in the rules to gain advantage in a way it was not supposed to. De facto, by shaping the rare of the car, they end up with a complex diffuser. Although it may be within the formal regulations, it clearly goes against the spirit of the rules and fair-play.

It is a bit like the tax laws, right? They are meant that everyone pays taxes. But some find loopholes to avoid that and of course the people condemns those. It is against the spitit of the law and what it was meant to achieve.

This is my opinion. You may be clever and take different interpretation of the regulations without going against their spitit. Example, Red Bull car!