Diffuser Row Grows Ahead Of Melbourne

[maure 1]

And there is this:

[url="http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/11835/900/"]http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/11835/900/[/url]

[i]Controversial diffusers 'illegal' - 5 tenths a lap gain

Mar.23 (GMM) The spectre of official protests against the rear diffusers of three 2009-spec cars on Monday grew ever larger. Mere days ahead of scrutineering for the Australian grand prix, Red Bull's motor racing advisor Helmut Marko declared that the solutions on the Toyota, Williams and Brawn cars are "illegal".


"They have a double-diffuser which gives them five tenths per lap (extra)," the Austrian told sportnet.at on Monday.

"Seven teams - including Red Bull - are united: they are illegal," said Marko, raising the probability of a formal protest at the scene of the season opener this weekend.

[b]He claims both Renault and Red Bull discussed the legality of a similar aerodynamic concept with the FIA early last year and "at that time there was a negative answer".[/b][/i]

Well, well...

[Oli 1]

Five tenths a lap! If that's true that's a damn good advantage.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Five tenths a lap! If that's true that's a damn good advantage.

Yep in F1 standard measurement terms that's almost 1 Alonso

[Insider 0]

Does anyone know the specifics of those diffusers that are being called into question?

I heard something in regards to their height being outside the rules...

2009 F1 Technical Regulations 8 of 67 17 March 2009

3.5 Width behind the rear wheel centre line :

3.5.1 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and less than 200mm above the reference plane

must not exceed 1000mm.

3.5.2 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and more than 200mm above the reference plane

must not exceed 750mm.

3.6 Overall height :

No part of the bodywork may be more than 950mm above the reference plane.

3.7 Front bodywork :

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than

250mm from the centre line of the car, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the

reference plane.

The key section is 3.5.2, Maure

3.7.2 Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located forward of a point lying 450mm forward of the front

wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line, and between 125mm and 200mm above the

reference plane, may only contain two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2

The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.

Once fully defined, the sections at 125mm above the reference plane must be projected vertically to join

the profile required by Article 3.7.3. A radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections

join.

3.7.3 Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car

centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained

within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line. Furthermore, with the exception

of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 attaches to this section, the profile,

incidence and position of this section must conform to Drawing 7.

3.7.4 In the area bounded by lines between 450mm and 1000mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, 250mm

and 400mm from the car centre line and between 75mm and 275mm above the reference plane, the

projected area of all bodywork onto the longitudinal centre plane of the car must be no more than

20,000mm2.

3.7.5 Ahead of the front wheel centre line and between 750mm and 840mm from the car centre line there must

be bodywork with a projected area of no less than 95,000mm2 in side view.

3.7.6 Ahead of the front wheel centre line and between 840mm and 900mm from the car centre line there must

be bodywork with a projected area of no less than 28,000mm2 in plan view. Furthermore, when viewed

from underneath, the bodywork in this area must form one continuous surface which may not be more than

100mm above the reference plane.

3.7.7 Any longitudinal vertical cross section taken through bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line and

between 840mm and 900mm from the car centre line must contain an area no greater than 15,000mm2.

3.7.8 Only a single section, with must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section

taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less

than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.

Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for the purpose

of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of 1500mm2 and being situated

forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt from the above.

[Insider 0]

Five tenths a lap! If that's true that's a damn good advantage.

Red Bull are bitching because they claim they had a similar design in development last year which the FIA acted negatively towards. They did not say it was illegal, however. If the Williams/Toyota/Brawn diffuser designs add 5/10ths, I say - tough s##t, Red Bull - you should have persevered, you twats!

[maure 1]

2009 F1 Technical Regulations 8 of 67 17 March 2009

3.5 Width behind the rear wheel centre line :

3.5.1 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and less than 200mm above the reference plane

must not exceed 1000mm.

3.5.2 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and more than 200mm above the reference plane

must not exceed 750mm.

3.6 Overall height :

No part of the bodywork may be more than 950mm above the reference plane.

3.7 Front bodywork :

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than

250mm from the centre line of the car, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the

reference plane.

The key section is 3.5.2, Maure

3.7.2 Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located forward of a point lying 450mm forward of the front

wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line, and between 125mm and 200mm above the

reference plane, may only contain two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2

The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.

Once fully defined, the sections at 125mm above the reference plane must be projected vertically to join

the profile required by Article 3.7.3. A radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections

join.

3.7.3 Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car

centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained

within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line. Furthermore, with the exception

of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 attaches to this section, the profile,

incidence and position of this section must conform to Drawing 7.

3.7.4 In the area bounded by lines between 450mm and 1000mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, 250mm

and 400mm from the car centre line and between 75mm and 275mm above the reference plane, the

projected area of all bodywork onto the longitudinal centre plane of the car must be no more than

20,000mm2.

3.7.5 Ahead of the front wheel centre line and between 750mm and 840mm from the car centre line there must

be bodywork with a projected area of no less than 95,000mm2 in side view.

3.7.6 Ahead of the front wheel centre line and between 840mm and 900mm from the car centre line there must

be bodywork with a projected area of no less than 28,000mm2 in plan view. Furthermore, when viewed

from underneath, the bodywork in this area must form one continuous surface which may not be more than

100mm above the reference plane.

3.7.7 Any longitudinal vertical cross section taken through bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line and

between 840mm and 900mm from the car centre line must contain an area no greater than 15,000mm2.

3.7.8 Only a single section, with must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section

taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less

than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.

Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for the purpose

of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of 1500mm2 and being situated

forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt from the above.

By how many millimiters are they off?

[Insider 0]

By how many millimiters are they off?

A gnat's nachos?

The diffuser is a 'double decker' design: the 'U' shaped centre section does not form the roof of the diffuser, but is simply the lower deck of the set-up. The upper deck is formed around the crash structure and hence is a few centimetres higher than the limit of 175mm - this extra exit area is critical in gaining downforce.

SOURCE: Autosport/BGP001 Technical analysis/Mar 19th 09

[Insider 0]

I also apologise for telling you to look at an irrelevant section. Senility! You have to read it all, basically.

[maure 1]

I also apologise for telling you to look at an irrelevant section. Senility! You have to read it all, basically.

No apologies necesary. Thank you for indulging me.

A gnat's nachos?

The diffuser is a 'double decker' design: the 'U' shaped centre section does not form the roof of the diffuser, but is simply the lower deck of the set-up. The upper deck is formed around the crash structure and hence is a few centimetres higher than the limit of 175mm - this extra exit area is critical in gaining downforce.

SOURCE: Autosport/BGP001 Technical analysis/Mar 19th 09

A "few centimiters" (when talking about 17.5 centimiters) is a few too many millimiters.

So it does seem that the complaining teams have a case after all...

[elgo 1]

Good,the season starts with controversy!One of the things why we love F1!

Yep in F1 standard measurement terms that's almost 1 Alonso

[raw 0]

Brawn GP diffuser is perfectly legal, but it's a loophole indeed. Probably others were intend to use a solution closer to 2008 diffuser which would be nailed to the "bumper part with a light" so FIA was negative about it.

[Insider 0]

No apologies necesary. Thank you for indulging me.

A "few centimiters" (when talking about 17.5 centimiters) is a few too many millimiters.

So it does seem that the complaining teams have a case after all...

The complaining teams have an excellent case but so again do Brawn - you have the the wish-washy FIA wording to thank for that. This row started at Barca. Whiting ruled the BGP001 was not illegal. Saying something is NOT illegal and saying something IS legal appears to be a distinction the FIA always have trouble with. Surely, if Charlie says something in NOT illegal, then it is legal - right? No. Otherwise, Christian Horner wouldn't be crying into his energy drink and Max wouldn't be passing the buck to the stewards in Melly and ultimately, the WMSC or the FIA International Court of Appeal. Bernie doesn't want it to be illegal because he wants to see a shake up on the grid and podium.

Charlie Whiting is FIA Formula One Race Director, Safety Delegate, Permanent Starter and head of the F1 Technical Department, in which capacities he generally manages the logistics of each F1 Grand Prix, inspects cars in Parc ferm

[Insider 0]

It would seem Red Bull are determined to stop Brawn using their current diffuser in Melly. They clearly know better than Charlie Whiting - we will see. Brawn will appeal it and if Bernie has his way, the whole thing will be sent to the FIA International Court of Appeal. If everyone had just copied it weeks back, there would be no problem - right?

[maure 1]

It would seem Red Bull are determined to stop Brawn using their current diffuser in Melly. They clearly know better than Charlie Whiting - we will see. Brawn will appeal it and if Bernie has his way, the whole thing will be sent to the FIA International Court of Appeal. If everyone had just copied it weeks back, there would be no problem - right?

You said it. Ecclestone wants to shake things up. That teams under the 30 million budget won't be restricted is proof of that. And if it works, it will be absurdity at its best. A team beating another one with a tenth of the budget _exactly_because_ it is allowed to bend the rules.

Which, btw, makes one wonder if the "copying" has been held up because of budget constraints. If it is as easy as simply changing a rear-view mirror and, there you are, half a second faster, all teams will have it by Friday...

[Insider 0]

You said it. Ecclestone wants to shake things up. That teams under the 30 million budget won't be restricted is proof of that. And if it works, it will be absurdity at its best. A team beating another one with a tenth of the budget _exactly_because_ it is allowed to bend the rules.

Which, btw, makes one wonder if the "copying" has been held up because of budget constraints. If it is as easy as simply changing a rear-view mirror and, there you are, half a second faster, all teams will have it by Friday...

I am not an expert in matters technical but I believe the Brawn diffuser to be legal within the interpretation of the regulations as they are currently written. There is scope in that area of the car to get smart with the regs and three teams have done it. Teams have been exploiting loopholes since the conception of F1 and will continue to do so - it's part and parcel of the sport.

[Jenson_Rules 0]

I love how when a couple of teams are clever enough to interpret the rules to suit them the others get all s##tty and complain! Jealousy! Just because they didn't think of it, anyone who did should be banned from using it!!

[Max Mosley 2]

You said it. Ecclestone wants to shake things up. That teams under the 30 million budget won't be restricted is proof of that. And if it works, it will be absurdity at its best. A team beating another one with a tenth of the budget _exactly_because_ it is allowed to bend the rules.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Why should F1 be a fund-raising contest rather than an engineering challenge?

I am not an expert in matters technical but I believe the Brawn diffuser to be legal within the interpretation of the regulations as they are currently written. There is scope in that area of the car to get smart with the regs and three teams have done it. Teams have been exploiting loopholes since the conception of F1 and will continue to do so - it's part and parcel of the sport.

I agree. But likely it will be banned anyway.

[yurp 0]

Red Bull are bitching because they claim they had a similar design in development last year which the FIA acted negatively towards. They did not say it was illegal, however.

This is the crux of it. If RB/Renault can prove that they had a similar design and that the FIA actually said a comprehensive "no" then they might have a case. If not, then the only people they can be p**sed off at would be the FIA and/or themselves for listening to the FIA.

If the FIA "acted negatively" towards RB/Renault's design, then it would be somewhat cheeky to then give the Brawn/Toyota/Williams design a green light. It would put RB/Renault (if they are being honest about their own design and the FIA's reaction) in the position of feeling shat upon with no legal recourse. I would feel some sympathy for them.

I still think that if the Brawn/Toyota/Williams design is technically legal, it should be allowed though. As I said earlier - it would be wrong to penalise them for the FIA's incompetance in rule writing.

Now it sounds like RB and Renault may suffer from the FIA's incompetance in consistency.

No matter how they play it now, the FIA will **** someone over - no change there then.

[maure 1]

I don't see what's wrong with that. Why should F1 be a fund-raising contest rather than an engineering challenge?

Because changing regulations based on budget is absurd.

Does it make sense to allow mechanical aids to olympian pole vaulters if they are from a developing country?

Imagine what that would do to soccer or football... it's quite idiotic to think that, in order to "level" the field, a poorly funded baskball team should be allowed 7 players on the field or a lead of 10 points or 4 free throws after a fault, etc...

[aussief1 4]

And there is this:

http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/11835/900/

Controversial diffusers 'illegal' - 5 tenths a lap gain

Mar.23 (GMM) The spectre of official protests against the rear diffusers of three 2009-spec cars on Monday grew ever larger. Mere days ahead of scrutineering for the Australian grand prix, Red Bull's motor racing advisor Helmut Marko declared that the solutions on the Toyota, Williams and Brawn cars are "illegal".

"They have a double-diffuser which gives them five tenths per lap (extra)," the Austrian told sportnet.at on Monday.

"Seven teams - including Red Bull - are united: they are illegal," said Marko, raising the probability of a formal protest at the scene of the season opener this weekend.

He claims both Renault and Red Bull discussed the legality of a similar aerodynamic concept with the FIA early last year and "at that time there was a negative answer".

Well, well...

The FIA should be open and clear when discussing with teams the legitamacy of certain ideas /concepts.

Maybe the Renault & Red Bull design differed enough to the design that Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota have come up with in such a way where their design is legal, whilst what Renault & Red Bull put forward was illegal??

Yep in F1 standard measurement terms that's almost 1 Alonso

Classic

Fernando is nver going to live that comment down - well not if members of TF1 have anything to do with it.

Red Bull are bitching because they claim they had a similar design in development last year which the FIA acted negatively towards. They did not say it was illegal, however. If the Williams/Toyota/Brawn diffuser designs add 5/10ths, I say - tough s##t, Red Bull - you should have persevered, you twats!

Agreed, I wonder if the fabricators back at Milton Keynes and Enstone are working around the clock (which is illegal I know thanks to cost cutting measures) to come up with that rear diffuser they previuosly presented the FIA??

It would seem Red Bull are determined to stop Brawn using their current diffuser in Melly. They clearly know better than Charlie Whiting - we will see. Brawn will appeal it and if Bernie has his way, the whole thing will be sent to the FIA International Court of Appeal. If everyone had just copied it weeks back, there would be no problem - right?

Agreed.

You said it. Ecclestone wants to shake things up. That teams under the 30 million budget won't be restricted is proof of that. And if it works, it will be absurdity at its best. A team beating another one with a tenth of the budget _exactly_because_ it is allowed to bend the rules.

Which, btw, makes one wonder if the "copying" has been held up because of budget constraints. If it is as easy as simply changing a rear-view mirror and, there you are, half a second faster, all teams will have it by Friday...

Yup thats exactly what Bernie wants, and what Bernie wants Bernie gets.

This is the crux of it. If RB/Renault can prove that they had a similar design and that the FIA actually said a comprehensive "no" then they might have a case. If not, then the only people they can be p**sed off at would be the FIA and/or themselves for listening to the FIA.

If the FIA "acted negatively" towards RB/Renault's design, then it would be somewhat cheeky to then give the Brawn/Toyota/Williams design a green light. It would put RB/Renault (if they are being honest about their own design and the FIA's reaction) in the position of feeling shat upon with no legal recourse. I would feel some sympathy for them.

I still think that if the Brawn/Toyota/Williams design is technically legal, it should be allowed though. As I said earlier - it would be wrong to penalise them for the FIA's incompetance in rule writing.

Now it sounds like RB and Renault may suffer from the FIA's incompetance in consistency.

No matter how they play it now, the FIA will **** someone over - no change there then.

Thats it though its hard to say if the FIA gave a definate NO to the concept Red Bull and Renault put forward.

But this is all rumours until the cars go through scrutineering on Friday. After that well won't the sh!t hit the fan.

Because changing regulations based on budget is absurd.

Does it make sense to allow mechanical aids to olympian pole vaulters if they are from a developing country?

Imagine what that would do to soccer or football... it's quite idiotic to think that, in order to "level" the field, a poorly funded baskball team should be allowed 7 players on the field or a lead of 10 points or 4 free throws after a fault, etc...

Exactly right.

[yurp 0]

Thats it though its hard to say if the FIA gave a definate NO to the concept Red Bull and Renault put forward.

But this is all rumours until the cars go through scrutineering on Friday. After that well won't the sh!t hit the fan.

Indeed.

From the sound of it the FIA didn't actually say "NO", but obviously made it clear that they wouldn't smile upon RB and Renault's ideas. This leaves RB and Renault without a pot to p**s in legally, but I sympathise with their angst if the FIA now okays Brawn/Toyota/Williams diffuser (which, I think they should if it's legal).

As I said - the FIA will **** someone over whatever they do now having been their usual incompetant, inconsistent selves over the past few months.

[dribbler 6]

Does it make sense to allow mechanical aids to olympian pole vaulters if they are from a developing country?

Am I the only one imagining a whole new sport?

[maure 1]

Am I the only one imagining a whole new sport?

As long as you keep it within budget, bring on the sexual turpitudes...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

As long as you keep it within budget, bring on the sexual turpitudes...

Well Maure I would not want to disappoint you - so let the "knob-gags" commence:

Pole vaulters eh? Wey hey! That sounds rude....

[Medilloni 6]

The Williams, Toyota and BrawnGP diffusers might all be in dispute with the others, and they might be similar (as previous ideas from Red Bull might have been), but 'similar' is not the 'same'............

By the letter of the rules it appears that it's the Toyota diffuser that's running closer to the wind than the rest, purely becasue of the positioning of the end, and height, of the exit of the diffuser at its center.

Then we have other key parts of the design that are in dispute - for example, the start of the diffuser must appear to be a 'continuous surface' so viewed from the correct angle, it's possible to have two surface appear to be one surface, and this ruling is affected by the start point of the diffuser (in relation to the rear axle line), an area that does allow a break in the floor.

The airflow into the diffuser is stipulated, the wording again is vague, something along the lines of " openings in the floor pan must not be seen, as viewed from underneath the car" (it doesn't say there can't be holes). Well, it's possible to have holes in the diffuser/floor pan directly above suspension arms, therefore hiding the holes from view - the FIA does say 'as viewed from underneath - this isn't the car on ramps, it's technical drawings, so there's no way you could say, "if I tilt my head a bit I can see it". [As an example of 'similar', did the designs submitted to Charlie Whiting, from Renault, Red Bull etc meet this rule of 'appearance of one continuous surface, and the same with the other fine detail?]

There's a lot more to it than that, but it's been bad wording such as 'as viewed from', 'must appear to be' that have brought on all this bollocks - and then there's the icing on the cake; no-one said (and the rules allowed for...) the top of the diffuser meeting the rear light/crash structure was out of bounds (which BGP, Team Willy and Toyota have done), indeed, the top surface of the centre of the diffuser is considerably lower than on the those teams cars that are whinging about it.

That's my simplistic view. I can do simple