Double Diffusers To Be Banned?

[pabloh20 1]

you wanna see my hoovering score. Phenomenal.

Tease

[Dawn 0]

I've been look at the proper time to post this video

Actual opportunity never came, but this was as close as it got

:clap3: Hilarious!!!

Anyway, getting to the topic.

Its not some huge innovation, I get that. My point was, given the restrictions Brawn came up with something to make the cars go faster. Red Bull got their own design of it and could compete with them on lap-times.

I get the entertainment factor, but isn't banning this thing point more towards the incompetence of other teams to reach up to their level?

On the other hand, it would be interesting to know what teams come up with now. Anyway, diffusers are getting banned in 2011, so we still have to live them in 2010.

[Bredda Natty 0]

When you have a lot of rules, you will only see more and more creative loopholes being employed. So, I'm not in favor of more rules, restrictions, freezes or bans on anything.

More governance=less freedom and innovation and progress can only be made by men who are free to do so.

Ergo, the Overtaking Working Group will never achieve it's goals, we're not gonna see more on-track action in the near future.

I agree with El Maestro that it's Todt's turn right now. And I am pretty optimistic about Todt since he doesn't seem to be good friends with Ferrari and LdM.

[Kopite Girl 0]

F1 is supposed to be the cutting edge of automotive technology. Double diffusers weren't a cheating mechanism - they were pure innovation. Teams don't pay their designers zillions of euros to be told it's time to go back to clutches and gearsticks. It really is irrelevant what changes are made as long as FOTA are making them with the full backing of all member teams.

Hey Sean!

I'm an idealist. For me, in an ideal world - F1 would have the cutting edge technology - without any of the driver aids.

Having worked in F1 yourself, do you not wish to see bare down to the wire white knuckle racing? I only ask, as I would love to know what you really think. I value your opinion.

[JHS 1]

[quote name='Dawn' date='09 January 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1263065724' post='307541']
Hilarious!!!


Anyway, getting to the topic.

Its not some huge innovation, I get that. My point was, given the restrictions Brawn came up with something to make the cars go faster. Red Bull got their own design of it and could compete with them on lap-times.

I get the entertainment factor,[b] but isn't banning this thing point more towards the incompetence of other teams to reach up to their level? [/b]

On the other hand, it would be interesting to know what teams come up with now. Anyway, diffusers are getting banned in 2011, so we still have to live them in 2010.
[/quote]

Not really. For me, it shows that the FIA at long last are listening to what the fans are saying and taking some action towards pleasing them. Something that hasn't happened for a long, long time. Sure, there was an act of the teams complaining about something they hadn't thought of, but the teams can fight for all I care as long as we get back to some real good racing. We saw flashes of it in 2009, but I think it would have been a lot lot better if it hadn't been for the double diffusers.

[mikathegreat2 2]

Meh.

[yurp 0]

When you have a lot of rules, you will only see more and more creative loopholes being employed. So, I'm not in favor of more rules, restrictions, freezes or bans on anything.

More governance=less freedom and innovation and progress can only be made by men who are free to do so.

Ergo, the Overtaking Working Group will never achieve it's goals, we're not gonna see more on-track action in the near future.

I agree with El Maestro that it's Todt's turn right now. And I am pretty optimistic about Todt since he doesn't seem to be good friends with Ferrari and LdM.

Totally agree.

F1 should have standard fuel, max dimensions, max weight, min safety requirements and then let the designers design the fastest thing they can.

Minimal rules + maximum freedom = variety, excitement and speed.

Hey Sean!

I'm an idealist. For me, in an ideal world - F1 would have the cutting edge technology - without any of the driver aids.

Having worked in F1 yourself, do you not wish to see bare down to the wire white knuckle racing? I only ask, as I would love to know what you really think. I value your opinion.

I'm not sure if you class double diffusers as driver aids Steph, butthis is a more general point (not specifically directed at you).

I think we have to be careful when defining 'driver aids'. Double diffusers are driver aids in the sense that they allow the car to go faster and make it easier to drive, but they are not in the sense that they cut down on the need for driver ability (one might argue that ABS did).

If we say double diffusers are driver aids, then so are rear wings. Gear levers as opposed to a gear stick are more of a 'driver aid' than double diffusers.

I think (partly because of the blurriness distinction between 'driver aid' and 'good design') that anything should be permitted.

If it makes the car faster by making it easier to drive OR by improving performance why not? Why attempt to make a shady distinction between the way in which an innovation improves speed?

Equally - if we want to make cars harder to drive, why not tie one hand behind their back?

This is a sport about going fast, to put rules in place to limit that speed in ever more complicated and convoluted ways, is (to me) a contradiction.

[HandyNZL 1]

Well, safety, is an issue too. Can't have 1000km/h cars on a track that simply can't be driven at that speed.

There needs to be a set of rules that allows freedom in some respects, but also a set of rules that says you can have a b or c, but not d.

Everyone races to the same rules (hopefully) and there is always more than one way to skin a cat, so....

Diffusers do find their way onto road cars, all be it a little more crude, but higher performance cars will feature a splitter in the front bumper and a diffuser in the rear.

[cavallino 2]

Totally agree.

F1 should have standard fuel, max dimensions, max weight, min safety requirements and then let the designers design the fastest thing they can.

Minimal rules + maximum freedom = variety, excitement and speed.

Yes we will have robot cars with drivers blacking out. Wait, is a driver going to be compulsory in your scheme?

I hate this kind of preposterous arguments, they are the F1 equivalent of the extremist Ron Paul libertarians who want to abolish government, income tax and believe that will fix everything. Yes some of the technical restrictions are stupid, some pointless however that doesn't mean their very existence is the main problem with F1.

, but they are not in the sense that they cut down on the need for driver ability (one might argue that ABS did).

No Sh#t it does.

If it makes the car faster by making it easier to drive OR by improving performance why not?

F1's meant to be a sport, there are championships for robots somewhere, you can go watch them.

Equally - if we want to make cars harder to drive, why not tie one hand behind their back?

Wow did you actually think before you wrote that? Do you really think that makes any kind of sense? You want simple stuff? Since apparently any regulation longer than two lines is too much for you. Here goes:

- Find the line with cars being fast enough to be a huge challenge to drive and safe enough so that noone die.

- make sure a car travelling a percentage faster has a chance to overtake

This is a sport about going fast, to put rules in place to limit that speed in ever more complicated and convoluted ways, is (to me) a contradiction.

I think if it's too complicated for you, you should go follow a simpler sport. Maybe you can play tic tac toe.

I hate this kind of simplistic arguments, makes you thank the FIA for being a million times saner, even if it's completely screwed up.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Totally agree.

F1 should have standard fuel, max dimensions, max weight, min safety requirements and then let the designers design the fastest thing they can.

Minimal rules + maximum freedom = variety, excitement and speed.

I'm not sure if you class double diffusers as driver aids Steph, butthis is a more general point (not specifically directed at you).

I think we have to be careful when defining 'driver aids'. Double diffusers are driver aids in the sense that they allow the car to go faster and make it easier to drive, but they are not in the sense that they cut down on the need for driver ability (one might argue that ABS did).

If we say double diffusers are driver aids, then so are rear wings. Gear levers as opposed to a gear stick are more of a 'driver aid' than double diffusers.

I think (partly because of the blurriness distinction between 'driver aid' and 'good design') that anything should be permitted.

If it makes the car faster by making it easier to drive OR by improving performance why not? Why attempt to make a shady distinction between the way in which an innovation improves speed?

Equally - if we want to make cars harder to drive, why not tie one hand behind their back?

This is a sport about going fast, to put rules in place to limit that speed in ever more complicated and convoluted ways, is (to me) a contradiction.

Sorry Adam, I should have posed the question better. I went off into Stephworld and forgot to mention was a little O/T. But, reading your words - I think I can understand where you are coming from. For me, I'd just like to see a little less car input and a little more driver effort.

[yurp 0]

Well, safety, is an issue too. Can't have 1000km/h cars on a track that simply can't be driven at that speed.

There needs to be a set of rules that allows freedom in some respects, but also a set of rules that says you can have a b or c, but not d.

Everyone races to the same rules (hopefully) and there is always more than one way to skin a cat, so....

Diffusers do find their way onto road cars, all be it a little more crude, but higher performance cars will feature a splitter in the front bumper and a diffuser in the rear.

Actually this is why I mentioned minumum safety requirements and standard fuel in my rule book.

I'l explain...

The type of fuel alone sets natural limits on how fast a vehical can go. Mother nature does the rest with her universal constants.

Fuel is your energy. You can't use it too fast because then you require a huge fuel tank a la the space shuttle which would not allow the car to manouvre (though it could go very fast). At the other end of the spectrum, you can't use fuel too slowly, because then your car wouldn't go fast.

So from there we get an optimum consumption rate therefore an optimum car + driver weight, aero design, tyre width etc etc etc.

Everything follows on and the designers who have everything working in unison closest to perfection will have the best car. That is a lot harder than one might think - change one thing (tyre width say) and everything else is affected. Also setups for tracks must be different.

Now - back to safety...

Because these natural constraints exist, we have no need to worry about 1000km/h cars. They are a physical impossibilty given the weight of 1 man and the energy contained in the fuel. We can fairly easily work out a top theoretical speed (in reality not too much faster than they go now) and make sure our minimum safety requirements cover that.

Mother nature is a beautiful lady - she sets her own rules.

Yes we will have robot cars with drivers blacking out. Wait, is a driver going to be compulsory in your scheme?

...etc

Started badly, got worse.

Cav - if you wish to discuss what I've actually said (as Handy and Steph did), that's fine.

If you wish to misread and willfully misconstrue what I've written in order to make a false argument that you can debate, then don't expect a response.

If you think I want to see robot cars, then I should say - "if you want to watch racers unaided by technology, go watch the olympics."

You see - Accusing your counterpart of the extremity of their opinion is ludicrous either way. Not to mention disingenuous.

Up to you.

And anyway, robot cars simply couldn't compete with F1 cars piloted by people. If you want me to explain why, post with thought.

Sorry Adam, I should have posed the question better. I went off into Stephworld and forgot to mention was a little O/T. But, reading your words - I think I can understand where you are coming from. For me, I'd just like to see a little less car input and a little more driver effort.

Not to worry Steph - I get you.

It's an interesting question - where does the technology that makes the car go faster cross that line into being a driver aid?

I agree that driver effort and skill is of paramount importance. We all want to see the best driver win.

However the winner is always the best driver+car combination. What we are discussing, I suppose, is how the combination should be managed.

You can't ake too much away from the designers because most of us don't want a spec series.

*If you haven't read my answer to Handy's post above, you should read it now - it explains the existence of an upper limit to performance.*

I think, that by adopting a simple rule set we'd have a few seasons where 1 team was dominant and then things would even out as the designers got as close as possible to the best possible package using the type of fuel they have and the technology available to them.

After things close up again as other teams catch up, we'd have a close series of cars running as fast as they could and winners would be determined by driver skill and track setups - technological innovation would occur too as it wouldn't be discouraged by limiting rules and silly court cases, but the result of those innovations would be minimal (but still worth the research) because they'd be running closer to the best possible performance.

That would be the series that F1 has always wanted to be.

[HandyNZL 1]

Actually this is why I mentioned minumum safety requirements and standard fuel in my rule book.

I'l explain...

The type of fuel alone sets natural limits on how fast a vehical can go. Mother nature does the rest with her universal constants.

Fuel is your energy. You can't use it too fast because then you require a huge fuel tank a la the space shuttle which would not allow the car to manouvre (though it could go very fast). At the other end of the spectrum, you can't use fuel too slowly, because then your car wouldn't go fast.

So from there we get an optimum consumption rate therefore an optimum car + driver weight, aero design, tyre width etc etc etc.

Everything follows on and the designers who have everything working in unison closest to perfection will have the best car. That is a lot harder than one might think - change one thing (tyre width say) and everything else is affected. Also setups for tracks must be different.

Now - back to safety...

Because these natural constraints exist, we have no need to worry about 1000km/h cars. They are a physical impossibilty given the weight of 1 man and the energy contained in the fuel. We can fairly easily work out a top theoretical speed (in reality not too much faster than they go now) and make sure our minimum safety requirements cover that.

Mother nature is a beautiful lady - she sets her own rules.

Started badly, got worse.

Cav - if you wish to discuss what I've actually said (as Handy and Steph did), that's fine.

If you wish to misread and willfully misconstrue what I've written in order to make a false argument that you can debate, then don't expect a response.

If you think I want to see robot cars, then I should say - "if you want to watch racers unaided by technology, go watch the olympics."

You see - Accusing your counterpart of the extremity of their opinion is ludicrous either way. Not to mention disingenuous.

Up to you.

And anyway, robot cars simply couldn't compete with F1 cars piloted by people. If you want me to explain why, post with thought.

Not to worry Steph - I get you.

It's an interesting question - where does the technology that makes the car go faster cross that line into being a driver aid?

I agree that driver effort and skill is of paramount importance. We all want to see the best driver win.

However the winner is always the best driver+car combination. What we are discussing, I suppose, is how the combination should be managed.

You can't ake too much away from the designers because most of us don't want a spec series.

*If you haven't read my answer to Handy's post above, you should read it now - it explains the existence of an upper limit to performance.*

I think, that by adopting a simple rule set we'd have a few seasons where 1 team was dominant and then things would even out as the designers got as close as possible to the best possible package using the type of fuel they have and the technology available to them.

After things close up again as other teams catch up, we'd have a close series of cars running as fast as they could and winners would be determined by driver skill and track setups - technological innovation would occur too as it wouldn't be discouraged by limiting rules and silly court cases, but the result of those innovations would be minimal (but still worth the research) because they'd be running closer to the best possible performance.

That would be the series that F1 has always wanted to be.

The highlighted bit is whats wrong though - the cars are too close in performance (due to engine freeze, same tyres, similar weights) and hence a person following has little hope of overtaking as their car just doesn't have the 10-15km/h advantage it needs. This year we "should" have disparity across the field - we might even have 1-2sec grid spreads, rather than the 0.5secs.

It used to be that commentators would say "they're closing on some back markers, here's an opportunity for so-and-so in second place to get around so-and-so in first". This was due to the ever present "mobile chicane". These throw in another "what if" scenario for the drivers...do I dive under here, outbrake and block here...etc.etc.

The cars have been so close, how often, except for unplanned pitstops, did we have lapped cars last season? Hardly ever happened. Cars that are slower create passing opportunities for the faster guys when they are lapping. In club racing, you will see this all the time...the combination of corner, braking distance and back marker makes a passing opportunity possible.

We need a bigger spread in performance - not closer. Or just abandon blue flags.

2011 will see more overtaking anywho's and hows ya father, with or without double diffusers.....there's going to be a change in tyres for all...maybe even two brands...who knows...but some teams will make the new tyres work and others won't, but what we will know is that there will be very very very little data on the tyres for the teams to design around and set cars up from. Both Goodyear and Michelin have said they're not interested, and Pirelli is said not to be keen either. Dunlop then? Avon? Cooper? Companies that have either had no F1 experience, or their experience was last in the '60's. The tyre situation is more of a problem in 2011, than is double diffusers or other innovations. All going to mean squat if the cars are sitting on axle stands with no black rubber round donut thingees.

[Quiet One 15]

Actually this is why I mentioned minumum safety requirements and standard fuel in my rule book.

I'l explain...

The type of fuel alone sets natural limits on how fast a vehical can go. Mother nature does the rest with her universal constants.

Fuel is your energy. You can't use it too fast because then you require a huge fuel tank a la the space shuttle which would not allow the car to manouvre (though it could go very fast). At the other end of the spectrum, you can't use fuel too slowly, because then your car wouldn't go fast.

So from there we get an optimum consumption rate therefore an optimum car + driver weight, aero design, tyre width etc etc etc.

Everything follows on and the designers who have everything working in unison closest to perfection will have the best car. That is a lot harder than one might think - change one thing (tyre width say) and everything else is affected. Also setups for tracks must be different.

Now - back to safety...

Because these natural constraints exist, we have no need to worry about 1000km/h cars. They are a physical impossibilty given the weight of 1 man and the energy contained in the fuel. We can fairly easily work out a top theoretical speed (in reality not too much faster than they go now) and make sure our minimum safety requirements cover that.

Mother nature is a beautiful lady - she sets her own rules.

Started badly, got worse.

Cav - if you wish to discuss what I've actually said (as Handy and Steph did), that's fine.

If you wish to misread and willfully misconstrue what I've written in order to make a false argument that you can debate, then don't expect a response.

If you think I want to see robot cars, then I should say - "if you want to watch racers unaided by technology, go watch the olympics."

You see - Accusing your counterpart of the extremity of their opinion is ludicrous either way. Not to mention disingenuous.

Up to you.

And anyway, robot cars simply couldn't compete with F1 cars piloted by people. If you want me to explain why, post with thought.

Not to worry Steph - I get you.

It's an interesting question - where does the technology that makes the car go faster cross that line into being a driver aid?

I agree that driver effort and skill is of paramount importance. We all want to see the best driver win.

However the winner is always the best driver+car combination. What we are discussing, I suppose, is how the combination should be managed.

You can't ake too much away from the designers because most of us don't want a spec series.

*If you haven't read my answer to Handy's post above, you should read it now - it explains the existence of an upper limit to performance.*

I think, that by adopting a simple rule set we'd have a few seasons where 1 team was dominant and then things would even out as the designers got as close as possible to the best possible package using the type of fuel they have and the technology available to them.

After things close up again as other teams catch up, we'd have a close series of cars running as fast as they could and winners would be determined by driver skill and track setups - technological innovation would occur too as it wouldn't be discouraged by limiting rules and silly court cases, but the result of those innovations would be minimal (but still worth the research) because they'd be running closer to the best possible performance.

That would be the series that F1 has always wanted to be.

I should have known that only our resident tw@tface could come with such a theory. An F1 consisting of cars driven by monkeys in Star Trek costumes? And how did you make Heikki fit in all this?

(Even worse than a misdirected reply to a lengthy post is a short misdirected reply)

[yurp 0]

Thehighlighted bit is whats wrong though - the cars are too close inperformance (due to engine freeze, same tyres, similar weights) andhence a person following has little hope of overtaking as their carjust doesn't have the 10-15km/h advantage it needs. This year we"should" have disparity across the field - we might even have 1-2secgrid spreads, rather than the 0.5secs.

It used to be thatcommentators would say "they're closing on some back markers, here's anopportunity for so-and-so in second place to get around so-and-so infirst". This was due to the ever present "mobile chicane". Thesethrow in another "what if" scenario for the drivers...do I dive underhere, outbrake and block here...etc.etc.

The cars have been soclose, how often, except for unplanned pitstops, did we have lappedcars last season? Hardly ever happened. Cars that are slower createpassing opportunities for the faster guys when they are lapping. Inclub racing, you will see this all the time...the combination ofcorner, braking distance and back marker makes a passing opportunitypossible.

We need a bigger spread in performance - not closer. Or just abandon blue flags.

2011will see more overtaking anywho's and hows ya father, with or withoutdouble diffusers.....there's going to be a change in tyres forall...maybe even two brands...who knows...but some teams will make thenew tyres work and others won't, but what we will know is that therewill be very very very little data on the tyres for the teams to designaround and set cars up from. Both Goodyear and Michelin have saidthey're not interested, and Pirelli is said not to be keeneither. Dunlop then? Avon? Cooper? Companies that have either had noF1 experience, or their experience was last in the '60's. The tyresituation is more of a problem in 2011, than is double diffusers orother innovations. All going to mean squat if the cars are sitting onaxle stands with no black rubber round donut thingees.

Sorry- I wasn't clear on the bolded part. I didn't mean 'close up' as in 1race. I meant 'close up', as in over the course of a few seasons the lower teams performance would start to equal that of the better teams because we would be working to physical limits (mother nature) rather than abitarily set ones that we have now (FIA rules).

But actually, you make an interesting point about having a range of performance in the field + exciting overtaking moments relying on backmarkers.

It's a seperate but related discussion and I'll think about my stance before continuing...

*5 mins later*

Okay - thought about it.

I entirely agree, that if we can't have everyone at the top end overtaking on their own, then some mobile chicanes are always a nice addition to the recipe.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for having 20 cars driving equally fast too.

My guess is that if all the teams were allowed to go as fast as their technical knowledge allowed, things would be pretty damn close. I think we'd have a lot more overtaking and varying pole sitters and racewinners.

It would be rather like a spec series in the sense that things would bevery even and drivers would make all the difference with no actual need for any spec, and so encouraging innovation and making setup also important.

As for asking for a bigger spread in performance rather than less (as a general desire), I'm afraid, here we disagree. I think a greater spread leads to more seasons like the one we just had. I don't like to see the championship (realistically) down to 2 drivers by midway through the season. I don't like to see 1 manufacturer so far ahead that driver skill doesn't matter. I don't like to see 6 out of 7 GP won in processional style at the start of the season.

I think that backmarkers can create a bit of fun, but on balance, I don't think it's worth putting up with boring processional racing (in order of car performance) just for some interesting backmarker action once in a while.

Eliminating blue flags on the other hand is an interesting idea - Ithink it might lead to complaints when 2nd drivers drop a lap back just to **** up their teammates competition, but then again, I would like to see drivers having to overtake backmarkers rather than having backmarker battles screwed up by lead drivers moseying through.

I agree the next few seasons will see more overtaking, but the issue is this...

It constitutes a false dawn, because every season's excitement depends on changing rules every year. It is only because they move the goal posts every year (and do so incompetently) that things are interesting at all.

What I want is a consistent set of rules which allow for no bending/loopholes and which produce good, close racing where innovation and driver talent matter more than anything else.

The only way to achieve that (to my mind) is with a minimum set of solid/simple rules.

Like I say - let mother nature do the rest.

Ishould have known that only our resident tw@tface could come with sucha theory. An F1 consisting of cars driven by monkeys in Star Trekcostumes? And how did you make Heikki fit in all this?

(Even worse than a misdirected reply to a lengthy post is a short misdirected reply)

Testicles?

[Quiet One 15]

Testicles?

No, thanks.

[yurp 0]

No, thanks.

Rhubarb it is then.