Double Diffusers To Be Banned?

[Dawn 0]

Formula 1 teams are closing in on a move to ban double diffusers in abid to cut downforce and slow the cars down from the start of the 2011season, AUTOSPORT can reveal.

The introduction of doublediffusers into F1 caused huge controversy at the start of last season,when rivals protested the concept that was used to great effect byBrawn GP, Williams and Toyota in the opening races of the campaign.

Thematter eventually went to the FIA International Court of Appeal, wherethe double diffuser was deemed fully legal and other teams had torevise the rear end of their cars to make the most of the extradownforce the design produced.

However, with downforce and carspeeds having increased since then - and the diffuser designs gettingincreasingly more complicated - sources have revealed that moves arenow afoot to change the F1 regulations to outlaw them completely.

Onthe back of predictions that the downforce levels of cars will thisseason potentially go beyond what they were at the end of 2008, teamshave decided to take action.

AUTOSPORT understands thattechnical chiefs discussed reducing downforce levels in a meeting ofFOTA's Technical Regulations Working Group (TRWG) late last year, andagreed that the rules should be changed to effectively outlaw doublediffusers.

The teams want to create regulations that require thefloor to be a continuous section if taken through a longitudinal orlateral plane - which if achieved will get rid of the 'slots' in thefloor that have made the double diffuser concept work.

It isunderstood that efforts are now being made to sort out the wording ofthe regulations to ensure that there are no loopholes that will allowanyone to continue using a double diffuser.

Once the wording ofthe rules has been sorted, it will then be put to the FIA's officialTechnical Working Group for ratification prior to going through thechannels required for it to get put into the 2011 regulations.

It is estimated that the reduction in downforce caused by the doublediffuser ban would result in the cars being slowed by around one secondper lap.

Lotus' chief technical officer Mike Gascoyne confirmed to AUTOSPORT that the move was being made, and it was one he supported.

"Ithink it is exactly right," he said. "It is what we should do, and itis what both FOTA and the FIA are looking at for 2011. I think it isvery sensible and very easy to do

[HandyNZL 1]

Who care's? I just want the cars able to dogfight.

Now on to circuit design......

[HandyNZL 1]

Sorry - double post

[Quiet One 15]

Double diffusser is hardly a technology improvement, oh young one

It was just a clever workaround to extract a little more speed from already nerfed down cars.

Technology advancements as such are, in practice, totally forbidden by the engine freeze and the over-standarized chassis designs (oh, and almost non existant testing). Funny, none of these rules improved overtaking in the least, even though they made the field a lot closer. We got the worst from both worlds.

[JHS 1]

Not good. Why deny technology?

On the other hand, why deny the fans what they pay to go and see? A race.

Really, I think this is a good move from F1 and a step in the right direction of having a lot more on-track action. Just a shame that it couldn't be implemented for the 2010 season as it dogged the '09 one too much.

DDs arn't "technology" in my opinion. They are a hinderance to the racing. KERS is technology, a area which I expect will be on public transports and everyday cars in a different form one day or another. Somehow, i doubt when I get the bus or the train or whatever a few years from now, I'll see a double diffuser there. If anything, they wasted the money of teams who hadn't thought of them straight off to develop a DD for their cars. The way Brawn, Williams and Toyota saw that loop-hole was inspired and it deserves applause, but really, did the DD do anything good for the sport on the whole in '09? From my view, I'd say "no".

For now though, let's concentrate on getting the racing back to just that. Racing.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

I like the advancement of technology, but I also like the "action" of motor racing. We're losing so much of that action with no interesting strategies to follow, so the least they can do is allow the cars to "race" eachother on track a bit more. I liked the 2009 package, but the diffusers was a big flaw. I'm all for innovation, but let it be something relevant and exciting that adds to racing, not takes away from it.

Now on to circuit design......

The circuits are usually not the problem. I've seen good races at even some of the worst circuits in the entire universe (sports cars, touring cars, etc have turned some awful tracks into exciting racing. ALMS put on two great events at Belle Isle, while IndyCar could only muster a single-file festival of safety cars; so many cars crashed that Danica finished P2). There are some tracks on the schedule that are hopelessly dull, but with the right cars, they won't always suck. Cars should be the priority.

You want good action?

Get variety. Sports cars have great on-track action. They have a bazillion different cars and engines...V12s powered by petrol, diesel V10s, a biobutanol-ethanol I4 (that won), etc, etc. And there is no dominant one; they race hard, and it's exciting. Touring cars, too...Camaro vs Mini in the BTCC...neither dominated; they raced very well. It was a close battle; even today's BTCC has FWD vs RWD and it's certainly interesting. If you give them all 2.4L V8s powered by petrol and the same wings and this and that it's really not going to be exciting. Ban the winglets/useless aero crap to keep the racing close, but allow teams to have freedom in designing engines etc.

Too late, now, though, since no one's left to design engines, but anyway...

F1's still enjoyable as is, so I guess if they ban them or not, I don't really mind. I think I'd prefer them gone.

[AleHop 0]

In 2008 FIA/FOTA decided to ban advance aerodynamics because it was hurting overtaking. That was the spirit of the rule changes for 2009 in this regard, that and no other. At the same time, it was totally ridiculous for a motorsport that more than half the cost of developing a car were spent on aerodynamics, even more when quite a few teams could hardly face all the important spending.

Three teams just moved aerodynamics and placed them under the car. Brilliant, you can call that 'new technology' if you wish. It is not.

The other seven teams had to spend millions to catch up and overtaking resulted damaged worse than ever, the spirit of the law was clearly breached.

In spite of it all, the FIA authorized double diffusers. Brilliant, you can call that 'supporting technological development' if you wish. It is not.

The FIA could have cleared the matter in January 2009 or maybe earlier.

[Kopite Girl 0]

I love the fact we've females here that know our stuff.

However chick. I'm in complete disagreement. Take the technology, bin it, and let them race un-aided. Sorts the men from the boys.

[HandyNZL 1]

I like the advancement of technology, but I also like the "action" of motor racing. We're losing so much of that action with no interesting strategies to follow, so the least they can do is allow the cars to "race" eachother on track a bit more. I liked the 2009 package, but the diffusers was a big flaw. I'm all for innovation, but let it be something relevant and exciting that adds to racing, not takes away from it.

The circuits are usually not the problem. I've seen good races at even some of the worst circuits in the entire universe (sports cars, touring cars, etc have turned some awful tracks into exciting racing. ALMS put on two great events at Belle Isle, while IndyCar could only muster a single-file festival of safety cars; so many cars crashed that Danica finished P2). There are some tracks on the schedule that are hopelessly dull, but with the right cars, they won't always suck. Cars should be the priority.

You want good action?

Get variety. Sports cars have great on-track action. They have a bazillion different cars and engines...V12s powered by petrol, diesel V10s, a biobutanol-ethanol I4 (that won), etc, etc. And there is no dominant one; they race hard, and it's exciting. Touring cars, too...Camaro vs Mini in the BTCC...neither dominated; they raced very well. It was a close battle; even today's BTCC has FWD vs RWD and it's certainly interesting. If you give them all 2.4L V8s powered by petrol and the same wings and this and that it's really not going to be exciting. Ban the winglets/useless aero crap to keep the racing close, but allow teams to have freedom in designing engines etc.

Too late, now, though, since no one's left to design engines, but anyway...

F1's still enjoyable as is, so I guess if they ban them or not, I don't really mind. I think I'd prefer them gone.

Different types of race cars get around the tracks differently - a wings n slicks car will be taking totally different lines, have totally different braking distances, quicker acceleration etc etc, than say a Super V8 tourer on the exact same track and because of this passing opportunities are either increased or reduced.

Tracks are designed to be a happy medium (hopefully). The tracks that still work for overtaking in F1 are generally the older ones, like Spa. What is of most concern is the clean slate tracks such as Valencia (call that a track?) and anything else designed by Tilke, that had every opportunity of having the right combination of corners to give overtaking opportunities. But we don't.

And thats why guys like Sam Michaels are speaking out about it.

These car's can actually pass each other, but the majority of passes are done on only two or three tracks...out of 18 or 19 in a year. The only thing changing is the track, so it's quite right to assume that track design needs looking at.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

Take the technology, bin it, and let them race un-aided. Sorts the men from the boys.

Technology makes cars go zooooooom. That makes them hard to drive. NASCAR racecars have no technology. They go slow.

Motor racing was founded to prove which cars were better, not who was a "man," who was a "boy," and who was a "Rossiter" (I'll have to make a Rossiter signature for myself to make up for bashing the kid based on nothing but your support for him)

And motor racing only became popular because of the cars. It's evident in the demise of Indianapolis Motorsport Speedway: when they stopped bringing radical new designs, when they stopped breaking the track record...qualifying literally became attended by, oh, I don't know, 1,000 people, which looks like nothing at a track that holds roughly 300,000. Qualifying used to be a huge draw, too.

People want drivers that are good, sure, and they care a lot about the WDC, but not because of "men and boys," but rather because they are attached to drivers they can relate to or fantasize about having sexual intercourse with, or both.

The cars will always be the biggest part of motorsport, the biggest factor, the biggest draw...you'll never have a core fanbase without them. People want to see advancement, they want to see records being broken, they want the drivers to be challenged by the fastest cars in the world, not the cars that have no driving aids and can't turn.

The casual fans make up a majority now, sure, but they'll be gone in a few years no matter what you do. The fans you need, the fans that would keep the sport alive if the whole thing collapsed...they want the cars, the technology, the combination of a WCC and a WDC, the best drivers in the best cars on the best circuits with the best strategies and the best overtakes. Anything less isn't F1.

Different types of race cars get around the tracks differently - a wings n slicks car will be taking totally different lines, have totally different braking distances, quicker acceleration etc etc, than say a Super V8 tourer on the exact same track and because of this passing opportunities are either increased or reduced.

Tracks are designed to be a happy medium (hopefully). The tracks that still work for overtaking in F1 are generally the older ones, like Spa. What is of most concern is the clean slate tracks such as Valencia (call that a track?) and anything else designed by Tilke, that had every opportunity of having the right combination of corners to give overtaking opportunities. But we don't.

And thats why guys like Sam Michaels are speaking out about it.

These car's can actually pass each other, but the majority of passes are done on only two or three tracks...out of 18 or 19 in a year. The only thing changing is the track, so it's quite right to assume that track design needs looking at.

Yeah, the tracks aren't perfect, and if you have to keep the cars as is, then yes, tracks could be fixed. I'd prefer different guys designing them rather than the same guy designing every single one, of course. It's not really realistic to expect anything to change, though, and I don't mind, I guess, since I still watch.

[Quiet One 15]

I love the fact we've females here that know our stuff.

However chick. I'm in complete disagreement. Take the technology, bin it, and let them race un-aided. Sorts the men from the boys.

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

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

[HandyNZL 1]

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

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

[AleHop 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

In Spain you could go to jail for less than that these days.

[cavallino 2]

Double Diffusers are themselves the result of restrictions on technology. They were invented because we banned 20 things, if we ban them it means we banned 21. Big difference.

I am tired of technology talk anyway, F1 isn't about cutting edge technology any more. And I don't think I care that much..

[pabloh20 1]

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

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

Excellent

[Rainmaster 7]

Jean Todt needs to consider that it's not necessarily the individual rule changes which are the issue, but the nature in which the rules are created and managed. All of the different themes & ideas in F1 such as "more overtaking", "green credentials", "cost reduction", "cutting edge technology" or "road relevant technology" should all be considered in relation to each other before a new rule is implemented. At the moment, the only theme which is essentially guaranteed to be considered when creating the rules is "safety" (however when the idea of no tyre warmers was put forward even that went out the window, the window of a safe operating temperature that is).

The situation under Mosley was one where a rule would be created which solved one issue but created or exacerbated another; this really demonstrated a lack of planning in rule making. For example, the aero rules were changed for 2009 to increase overtaking and reduce downforce, yet double diffusers were allowed to be used which could only have hindered overtaking and increased downforce. That decision not only defeated the spirit of that particular set of rule changes, but also conflicted with the rapidly emerging theme of "cost reduction". My point is: the frequency of the rule changes is exacerbated by the fact a lot of them are in conflict.

As usual, it's the fans that suffer the most. Now its Todt's turn to show his style of rule making.

[AleHop 0]

At the moment, the only theme which is essentially guaranteed to be considered when creating the rules is "safety" (however when the idea of no tyre warmers was put forward even that went out the window, the window of a safe operating temperature that is).

Imagine a team bring ovens to warm the tyres in Bahrain. They could say oh, these are not tyre warmers just ovens. And then FIA could say, it's fine and they can use the ovens. That's what happened with the double diffusers.

Max Mosley - Bridgestone conversation

Mosley: Look, we are very deep in banning anything... Can we...

Bridgestone: Are you planning to ban tea.

Mously: Tea? Why...

Bridgestone: Doesn't matter, go ahead with your question.

Masley: Would it be possible to ban tyre warmers?

Bridgestone: You mean no tyre warmers at all?

Moxley: Yes, precisely that. Even if it's as cold as the tip of my toe.

Bridgestone: No, it could be very dangerous.

Muesli: Oh, fantastic, perfect... We want more exciting moments rather than overtakings.

[Kopite Girl 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

Wow! So THATS what diffusers are for? Yes Andres! I can see it now! Its suddenly all clear!

I'd have beaten the sh*t out of her score though.

[HandyNZL 1]

Wow! So THATS what diffusers are for? Yes Andres! I can see it now! Its suddenly all clear!

I'd have beaten the sh*t out of her score though.

i thought you were a good girl....

[Insider 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.

[Insider 0]

Jean Todt needs to consider that it's not necessarily the individual rule changes which are the issue, but the nature in which the rules are created and managed. All of the different themes & ideas in F1 such as "more overtaking", "green credentials", "cost reduction", "cutting edge technology" or "road relevant technology" should all be considered in relation to each other before a new rule is implemented. At the moment, the only theme which is essentially guaranteed to be considered when creating the rules is "safety" (however when the idea of no tyre warmers was put forward even that went out the window, the window of a safe operating temperature that is).

The situation under Mosley was one where a rule would be created which solved one issue but created or exacerbated another; this really demonstrated a lack of planning in rule making. For example, the aero rules were changed for 2009 to increase overtaking and reduce downforce, yet double diffusers were allowed to be used which could only have hindered overtaking and increased downforce. That decision not only defeated the spirit of that particular set of rule changes, but also conflicted with the rapidly emerging theme of "cost reduction". My point is: the frequency of the rule changes is exacerbated by the fact a lot of them are in conflict.

As usual, it's the fans that suffer the most. Now its Todt's turn to show his style of rule making.

Great post - spot on. You are the goat!

[Kopite Girl 0]

i thought you were a good girl....

Typical bloke. You assumed I meant the last half. Not so. I'm the worlds fastest leg shaver and I can iron clothes at twice the speed she can.

See. Dirty mind. Tuttut.

[Max Mosley 2]

On the other hand, why deny the fans what they pay to go and see? A race.

Really, I think this is a good move from F1 and a step in the right direction of having a lot more on-track action. Just a shame that it couldn't be implemented for the 2010 season as it dogged the '09 one too much.

DDs arn't "technology" in my opinion. They are a hinderance to the racing. KERS is technology, a area which I expect will be on public transports and everyday cars in a different form one day or another. Somehow, i doubt when I get the bus or the train or whatever a few years from now, I'll see a double diffuser there. If anything, they wasted the money of teams who hadn't thought of them straight off to develop a DD for their cars. The way Brawn, Williams and Toyota saw that loop-hole was inspired and it deserves applause, but really, did the DD do anything good for the sport on the whole in '09? From my view, I'd say "no".

For now though, let's concentrate on getting the racing back to just that. Racing.

I agree with that completely.

In Spain you could go to jail for less than that these days.

Yes here too almost. It was funny.

Jean Todt needs to consider that it's not necessarily the individual rule changes which are the issue, but the nature in which the rules are created and managed. All of the different themes & ideas in F1 such as "more overtaking", "green credentials", "cost reduction", "cutting edge technology" or "road relevant technology" should all be considered in relation to each other before a new rule is implemented. At the moment, the only theme which is essentially guaranteed to be considered when creating the rules is "safety" (however when the idea of no tyre warmers was put forward even that went out the window, the window of a safe operating temperature that is).

The situation under Mosley was one where a rule would be created which solved one issue but created or exacerbated another; this really demonstrated a lack of planning in rule making. For example, the aero rules were changed for 2009 to increase overtaking and reduce downforce, yet double diffusers were allowed to be used which could only have hindered overtaking and increased downforce. That decision not only defeated the spirit of that particular set of rule changes, but also conflicted with the rapidly emerging theme of "cost reduction". My point is: the frequency of the rule changes is exacerbated by the fact a lot of them are in conflict.

As usual, it's the fans that suffer the most. Now its Todt's turn to show his style of rule making.

Good post as usual but I also think FIA president is a very difficult job because you have to manage so many conflicting interests. In such a complex sport, it's pretty hard to come up with a set of regulations that, no matter how the teams try to get round them, provide the outcomes we want.

Imagine a team bring ovens to warm the tyres in Bahrain. They could say oh, these are not tyre warmers just ovens. And then FIA could say, it's fine and they can use the ovens. That's what happened with the double diffusers.

Max Mosley - Bridgestone conversation

Mosley: Look, we are very deep in banning anything... Can we...

Bridgestone: Are you planning to ban tea.

Mously: Tea? Why...

Bridgestone: Doesn't matter, go ahead with your question.

Masley: Would it be possible to ban tyre warmers?

Bridgestone: You mean no tyre warmers at all?

Moxley: Yes, precisely that. Even if it's as cold as the tip of my toe.

Bridgestone: No, it could be very dangerous.

Muesli: Oh, fantastic, perfect... We want more exciting moments rather than overtakings.

[pabloh20 1]

Typical bloke. You assumed I meant the last half. Not so. I'm the worlds fastest leg shaver and I can iron clothes at twice the speed she can.

See. Dirty mind. Tuttut.

Oh bollocks, that's how I know I am getting old........I was actually more interested in your ironing score

[Kopite Girl 0]

Oh bollocks, that's how I know I am getting old........I was actually more interested in your ironing score

you wanna see my hoovering score. Phenomenal.