Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SeanOg

Diffuser Saga Over Then!!!!

By SeanOg, in F1 Discussions

Recommended Posts

kuskor    0

kuskor
Posted

Anyone can link to a technical article on the diffuser issue and how the rules are interpreted to allow or disallow a diffuser?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

pumpdoc    2

pumpdoc
Posted
In other words, he thought of a way and they didn't. And now Flavio is crying. Boo hoo. What a shame.

Indeed, agreed. Whatever happened to thinking out of the box?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean Todt    4

Jean Todt
Posted
I like where you're going with this. Continue.

I will take over,

Blah blah FIA, Blah blah diffuser.....

so catchy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean Todt    4

Jean Todt
Posted

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh has said Formula One should seek to avoid prolonging arguments such as the one currently surrounding rear diffuser design.

The row over the design of the rear diffuser - an aerodynamic device that generates grip by controlling airflow exiting underneath the rear of a car - on the cars of Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams cast a shadow over the Australian Grand Prix and looks set to continue in Malaysia this weekend.

Although FIA appointed stewards in Melbourne declared the three cars legal, three other teams - Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull - subsequently protested against the decision.

That protest was dismissed by the same stewards. However, the three then launched an appeal against that decision, which is scheduled to be heard by the FIA's International Court of Appeal in Paris on April 14.

With a different panel of stewards presiding over scrutineering at Sepang this week, it is thought the teams will protest again and, should it be rejected once more, then another appeal will likely be launched.

The outcome will then hang on the decision of the independent judges sitting in the Court of Appeal. If they find in favour of the protesting teams, then the results of both the Australian and Malaysian grands prix could be revised.

Headed by the dominant Brawn GP cars, four of the six using the questionable diffusers finished in the points on Sunday - initially five until Toyota's Jarno Trulli was handed a 25-second penalty after the race that demoted him from third to 12th.

The smart money appears to be on the appeal being rejected, however, and that will leave F1's seven other teams struggling to modify their own cars accordingly to yield more performance.

Bad news

Regardless, Whitmarsh has revealed his own frustrations at how the controversy has been allowed to fester for so long.

"We ought to be celebrating the fantastic sport and fantastic contest we have, and the fact we're shrouded in this controversy is a shame for the sport," he said.

"It's bad news really, whatever happens, and it's bad that we're spending time talking about it.

"If the appeal is upheld then it's bad for those teams that have gone this route, and if it isn't, then it's bad for the other seven teams as it's going to cost an awful lot of money to change their route.

"With the FIA and the teams we have to find a better way in the future to avoid these sorts of controversies."

However, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Williams technical director Sam Michael has expressed his belief that the current procedures in place are in order.

"In the last month we've had three rulings from (FIA technical director) Charlie (Whiting) that have caused us to redesign our car," he said.

"But we didn't turn up in Melbourne and protest it. We accepted it because we all work in this industry and have to get on.

"You have to have some type of process, and the process is right.

"Don't get me wrong, there have been times I've walked out of Charlie's office and thought we've just lost big time on that.

"In some ways, that's also encouraging because he's impartial and tries to look at things as black and white as he can.

"Ultimately, the process is there; the stewards are there to cast a different decision to Charlie if necessary, and so is the court of appeal.

"The process is correct and I've been a winner and a loser by it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:D I do get the point he is making,

But..................does this mean, Mclaren are working on diffusers too! ;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean Todt    4

Jean Todt
Posted

Tuesday 14th April 2009

Ross-Brawn-March-26_2067802.jpgRoss Brawn was described as "a person of supreme arrogance" as the opening salvos were fired in the diffuser row hearing.

Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull Racing and BMW Sauber squared up against Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams in front of five judges representing the International Court of Appeal.

At the heart of the matter is the conceptual design of the diffuser - an aerodynamic body part that aids performance - towards the rear of the cars belonging to the three teams in the firing line.

At the FIA headquarters, overlooking the Place de la Concorde in Paris, Brawn and motor sport's world govening body were notably singled out for criticism.

Leading the debate was Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC, who successfully argued the team's case over 'spygate' and at last year's inquest into Lewis Hamilton's chicane-cutting move at the Belgian Grand Prix.

Tozzi drew reference to a seemingly emotional statement made by Brawn as part of his team's submissions amongst the mountain of paperwork to hand for the five judges to wade through.

In it, Brawn claims the appeal is "vindictive", and "for people too slow off the mark".

However, Tozzi concluded his 90-minute opening remarks by claiming that "only a person of supreme arrogance would think he is right when so many of his esteemed colleagues would disagree".

Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams have designed what has become known as a "double-decker diffuser", central to which are two apertures that increase airflow, so aiding downforce that in turn increases speed.

Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull Racing and BMW Sauber insist there is nothing in the technical regulations that allow for such "holes".

As Tozzi noted: "Anyone with a command of English will tell you it is a hole, so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules."

He added: "The appeal is not because we have not made the most of an opportunity, but because Brawn, Toyota and Williams have not acted within the regulations."

The FIA, and in particular technical director Charlie Whiting, also came under fire, with Tozzi accusing them of "getting it wrong, and not understanding the point".

That appeared to be made clear when Renault's legal representative, Andrew Ford, noted the FIA and Whiting had early last season ruled illegal a design by the French manufacturer similar to that currently being used by Toyota.

As Ford remarked: "It is not that Renault missed the boat, as Brawn have pointed out, it is because the FIA said it was illegal."

Ford added: "It was at that point the diffuser was abandoned."

Ford has confirmed Renault has a prototype diffuser ready to go, potentially for this weekend's race in China, should the appeal be dismissed.

Tozzi continued: "The position of the FIA is totally baffling...we urge you to save the FIA from itself."

It was pointed out that crucial to the seven teams without the new diffuser is the cost of redevelopment as the part concerned has a bearing on several other elements of a car.

Tozzi added: "It was Max Mosley who said recently that costs must be reduced by limiting the opportunities for technical innovation.

"If the appeal is dismissed then the claims by the FIA they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow."

A further assertion is that the 'double-decker' diffuser limits the opportunities for following cars to pass, in contrast to the aims of F1's Overtaking Working Group, in particular with regard to this year's new regulations.

Given the magnitude of the case, other than the five judges, there are 38 people present, either legal counsel, team personnel or from the FIA.

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

icemanrules!    0

icemanrules!
Posted
Tuesday 14th April 2009

Ross-Brawn-March-26_2067802.jpgRoss Brawn was described as "a person of supreme arrogance" as the opening salvos were fired in the diffuser row hearing.

Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull Racing and BMW Sauber squared up against Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams in front of five judges representing the International Court of Appeal.

At the heart of the matter is the conceptual design of the diffuser - an aerodynamic body part that aids performance - towards the rear of the cars belonging to the three teams in the firing line.

At the FIA headquarters, overlooking the Place de la Concorde in Paris, Brawn and motor sport's world govening body were notably singled out for criticism.

Leading the debate was Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC, who successfully argued the team's case over 'spygate' and at last year's inquest into Lewis Hamilton's chicane-cutting move at the Belgian Grand Prix.

Tozzi drew reference to a seemingly emotional statement made by Brawn as part of his team's submissions amongst the mountain of paperwork to hand for the five judges to wade through.

In it, Brawn claims the appeal is "vindictive", and "for people too slow off the mark".

However, Tozzi concluded his 90-minute opening remarks by claiming that "only a person of supreme arrogance would think he is right when so many of his esteemed colleagues would disagree".

Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams have designed what has become known as a "double-decker diffuser", central to which are two apertures that increase airflow, so aiding downforce that in turn increases speed.

Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull Racing and BMW Sauber insist there is nothing in the technical regulations that allow for such "holes".

As Tozzi noted: "Anyone with a command of English will tell you it is a hole, so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules."

He added: "The appeal is not because we have not made the most of an opportunity, but because Brawn, Toyota and Williams have not acted within the regulations."

The FIA, and in particular technical director Charlie Whiting, also came under fire, with Tozzi accusing them of "getting it wrong, and not understanding the point".

That appeared to be made clear when Renault's legal representative, Andrew Ford, noted the FIA and Whiting had early last season ruled illegal a design by the French manufacturer similar to that currently being used by Toyota.

As Ford remarked: "It is not that Renault missed the boat, as Brawn have pointed out, it is because the FIA said it was illegal."

Ford added: "It was at that point the diffuser was abandoned."

Ford has confirmed Renault has a prototype diffuser ready to go, potentially for this weekend's race in China, should the appeal be dismissed.

Tozzi continued: "The position of the FIA is totally baffling...we urge you to save the FIA from itself."

It was pointed out that crucial to the seven teams without the new diffuser is the cost of redevelopment as the part concerned has a bearing on several other elements of a car.

Tozzi added: "It was Max Mosley who said recently that costs must be reduced by limiting the opportunities for technical innovation.

"If the appeal is dismissed then the claims by the FIA they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow."

A further assertion is that the 'double-decker' diffuser limits the opportunities for following cars to pass, in contrast to the aims of F1's Overtaking Working Group, in particular with regard to this year's new regulations.

Given the magnitude of the case, other than the five judges, there are 38 people present, either legal counsel, team personnel or from the FIA.

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5187619,00.html

strong words there

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Mosley    2

Max Mosley
Posted
Tozzi continued: "The position of the FIA is totally baffling...we urge you to save the FIA from itself."

:lol:

People say that about me a lot. Anyway most of what Tozzi says is just 'someone attempting to be clever with words'. Would be fun to see a complete transcript of the proceedings.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BradSpeedMan    6

BradSpeedMan
Posted
:lol:

People say that about me a lot. Anyway most of what Tozzi says is just 'someone attempting to be clever with words'. Would be fun to see a complete transcript of the proceedings.

it won't be fun if they win the case, which i'm starting to think is actuyally quite likely....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Mosley    2

Max Mosley
Posted

Yeah it's so hard to say. From the little I've heard, I think Tozzi has a good case, despite all the bluster above. In the end I think it will come down to commercial and entertainment considerations. Getting rid of the double diffusers would aid overtaking but would probably ruin the fairytale Brawn. I'll bet they won't ban them for this year, but who knows.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikathegreat2    2

mikathegreat2
Posted
I would not actually say strong words... I would prefer to say.... extremely strong words

:D

Hella whingebags strong words! Luca, Flabbio, Horndog & pedo moustachio can all screw themselves! *looks @ TV*, come on Liverpool, just 1 more goal, 2 for good measure! Damn where's Steph??

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

freaky2    1

freaky2
Posted
Hella whingebags strong words! Luca, Flabbio, Horndog & pedo moustachio can all screw themselves! *looks @ TV*, come on Liverpool, just 1 more goal, 2 for good measure! Damn where's Steph??

So it was YOU who jinxed them?? Ok, thanks so much... you wait until I come back!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikathegreat2    2

mikathegreat2
Posted
So it was YOU who jinxed them?? Ok, thanks so much... you wait until I come back!!
3 fukn 2 now to the scumbags, no more Champions League!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

yurp    0

yurp
Posted

Tozzi continued: "save the FIA from itself."

Too little, to late. Why weren't you saying that last year? Oh hang on - I know why.

Ultimately though, it's a telling statement. The diffuser argument is, in no small part, down to the FIA...

If they think it should be illegal - they should write the rules better.

If they think it should be legal - they should write the rules better.

Either way - don't tell one thing to some teams and another to other teams (if indeed they did).

Either way - don't give either set of teams a reason to feel hard done by (which they obviously have).

"FIA - Sort your s##t out" would be the best judgement they could make in Paris.

Any how, who knows what the outcome will be - we shall see.

I just hope we'll be able to get on with the racing after today's announcement.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go To Topic Listing
×
×
  • Create New...