F1technical.net

They say you can bore holes.. just that they you are not suppose to see any part of the car through it when you look from directly below?

To me it means a hole in the vertical plane. Like machin's drawing.

The "not supposed to see any part of the car" part, sounds silly. sounds like the hole must be hole that you can't see through from below AT ALL! ie.. a hole in the vertical plane.

hmm??

machin wrote: So it doesn't apply..... this rule basically means you can only have one lower aerofoil element in your rear wing.... the next rule, 3.10.2 says you can have only two upper elements in your rear wing.

Brain fade sorry! I quoted the beam wing dimensions

Hi i have been a big fan of Mclaren and Lewis Hamilton, i was wondering is it possible for them to change the diffuser to a double Decker like the rest looking at the other images it looks like all they need to do it take off 2 thin covers.

I also found this
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/03/ ... er-add-on/

So it looks like they tested it and decided against it.

danny224 wrote:Hi i have been a big fan of Mclaren and Lewis Hamilton, i was wondering is it possible for them to change the diffuser to a double Decker like the rest looking at the other images it looks like all they need to do it take off 2 thin covers.

I also found this
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/03/ ... er-add-on/

So it looks like they tested it and decided against it.

To the best that I know, that add on was to collect data on the airflow. I don't think it helped with aerodynamics at all.

Looks like BMW Sauber have now protested against the Brawn, Toyota & Williams designs now. Check the FIAs F1 Media centre for confirmation.

Hey machin, according to formula1.com the Williams diffuser is exactly as your drawing.



link

That picture's "a bit" better than mine!!!!

Looks like the BBC are not on the diffuser 3's side. Look at this picture on their website.

This whole situation is so utterly politically pathetic, does anyone for a second belive this "interpretation" of the rules would have passed if coming from Ferrari, let alone McLaren?

Conceptual wrote:

chris17 wrote:Am I right in thinking that all Toyota and Williams have done have reshaped the rear floor and crash structure to create a second 'area' and then add the diffuser to that. If so how's it been passes legal if it exceeds 175mm? Is it because it's classed as part of the crash structure?

Quite brilliantly, yes!

The question then is actually what do you call a "diffuser"? Is it the single "classic" device, like the one Ferrari, McLaren, etc, have, or it is all parts (classic diffuser + everything else ) that all together effectively play the role of a diffuser? If you take the former, then it is legal (this is what the stewards look at). But if you accept the second view, which IMO is the correct one, then the DDD is illegal. I support the second view because the rear floor and crash structure add components to the diffuser, which all together effectively create a new component that serves as a "diffuser". If you count this, it it illegal. But I guess this indeed needs to be solved in a court. It goes beyond the stewards.

vall wrote:The question then is actually what do you call a "diffuser"? Is it the single "classic" device, like the one Ferrari, McLaren, etc, have, or it is all parts (classic diffuser + everything else ) that all together effectively play the role of a diffuser? If you take the former, then it is legal (this is what the stewards look at). But if you accept the second view, which IMO is the correct one, then the DDD is illegal. I support the second view because the rear floor and crash structure add components to the diffuser, which all together effectively create a new component that serves as a "diffuser". If you count this, it it illegal. But I guess this indeed needs to be solved in a court. It goes beyond the stewards.

As far as I know the rules don't mention the word "diffuser", so no definition of the word is neccessary. If you go by the wording in the rule-book, there is no doubt that the double-decker diffusers are perfectly legal.

...which of course won't stop the FIA from banning them anyway.

xpensive wrote:This whole situation is so utterly politically pathetic, does anyone for a second belive this "interpretation" of the rules would have passed if coming from Ferrari, let alone McLaren?

<Raising Hand>

Can I hazard a guess?

xpensive wrote:This whole situation is so utterly politically pathetic, does anyone for a second belive this "interpretation" of the rules would have passed if coming from Ferrari, let alone McLaren?

Forget about those two, what about Renault's history with parts getting banned?

In a situation where FOTA started to look like a serious political threat, MrM and MrE was handed a fantastic tool from Brawn GP to divide and conquer once again, when Ross Brawn is chairing FOTA's technical arm at that.

I can imagine BMW, Renault and possibly also Mercedes thinking of giving the whole thing up, when it's getting farcial.

Just take a look at that:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74282

There, Brawn states, that back in March 2008 he wanted to change the regulations for the diffuser area and the area in front of the sidepods in order to close some grey area. But the other teams didn't comply. So this must be the killer argument for the 3 teams in the appeal.

Just laughed my ass of after reading that.