http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80766
Will it improve overtaking though?
According to Gascgoyn no
Bye Bye
Edited by Hypnotise, 07 January 2010 - 18:47.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:03
Edited by Hypnotise, 07 January 2010 - 18:47.
Advertisement
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:04
Yeeey the DDD is banned for 2011 !
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80766
Will it improve overtaking though?
According to Gascoin no
Bye Bye
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:05
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:05
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:06
They are banning it at the end of this seasonIts formula 1 . Couldnt they ban diffuser at the end of this season? Now teams are spending **** load of money to develop the double decker just to find it banned next year.
saving costs my ass
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:07
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:09
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:10
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:12
How would most here have reacted if they issued a rule clarification after last years hearing effectively banning them thereby costing only 3 teams the expense of only removing the device?Isn't this just a big waste of money?
The teams have already spent all this cash developing the DDD.
Why not just let them stay?
And when it comes to overtaking, isn't it better having a car that develops downforce using the underbody rather than upper surfaces?
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:12
I meant that teams are spending huge amount of money for developing DD for 2010. While in 2011 its banned. So much about Costs saving!They are banning it at the end of this season
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:14
How would most here have reacted if they issued a rule clarification after last years hearing effectively banning them thereby costing only 3 teams the expense of only removing the device?
Funny how now cost is the reason that some dont want the DDD banned.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:15
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:16
They would develope the aero with certain summ regardless if the rules stay constant or not. The more constant they stay, the more it will cost to find improvements.I meant that teams are spending huge amount of money for developing DD for 2010. While in 2011 its banned. So much about Costs saving!
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:31
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:42
Good decision, imo. But why weren't the DDDs banned half a year ago for 2010!?!
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:49
Posted 07 January 2010 - 15:55
Banning certain type of diffuser (or alternatively not banning it) does not reduce costs, teams spend as much they can raise via sponsorship. If it is not diffusers, it is something else. Of course, now they are all supposed to work with limited budgets (and rest assured no books will be cooked).
I cannot see this ban making following cars through faster corners any easier either (...), something more drastic would be required.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:00
Because the rules clearly said that holes in the floor are not allowed and the FIA agreed with Brawn that they had slots, (not holes) in the floor.Good decision, imo. But why weren't the DDDs banned half a year ago for 2010!?!
Edited by metz, 07 January 2010 - 17:39.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:04
Advertisement
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:06
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:07
The problem is that the diffuser and rear wing(together) are a large part of how 'disturbed' the car's wake is, which most certainly will affect the ability of another car to follow closely(even if it doesn't necessarily allow any noticeable improvement in overtaking).Isn't this just a big waste of money?
The teams have already spent all this cash developing the DDD.
Why not just let them stay?
And when it comes to overtaking, isn't it better having a car that develops downforce using the underbody rather than upper surfaces?
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:21
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:25
I agree to an extent, but don't you see that it's a dead end?It may not make it any easier, but it won't make it harder.
I still think they should be more drastic and ban the diffuser compeletly. Everyone should also stop with the cost saving nonsense. Where the aerodynamics are concerned, unless they mandate standard parts (god forbid) then there will never be cost savings. The teams will continue to spend to find every millisecond of improvement.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:27
I just hope that they've written these regulations well so that no one can turn up in mid-March 2011 so that we don't keep going round in circles.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:33
I agree to an extent, but don't you see that it's a dead end?
Goal of cost cutting - to help the smaller teams remain competitive and prevent "spending races" so that the strength of the idea is more important then how much money is behind it. In other words, an engineering race instead of a spending race. No wonder Toyota have bolted from F1. Money was the only thing they ever had going for them.
If a small team knows it needs to catch up, if it spends a great percentage of it's budget on something that will be banned from 2011, it will be a waste because even if it's successful in gaining some ground, it will lose it once the DDD is banned. And they will be at the back again.
Meanwhile the large teams can spend more money on this dead end route, because they are desperate for whatever it takes to win. But then still have enough resources to be more capable of bouncing back from that and exploring the new areas once it's banned.
So in other words, the teams in 2010 at the front will continue to develop the DDD and it's harder for the small teams to do that. The other problem with the DDD is that it's an area of the car that has a large scope for finding improvements. There is alot of potential to find time there. ESPECIALLY if the car is designed to contain this diffuser from the core concept when it's launched. So the core concept of the cars will be DDD based in 2010, only to be ditched for the 2009 concept (a variation of it) once they are banned. Which means 2 seasons of dead end aero development. It'll keep things interesting and unpredictable for 2011, but these dead ends should be tried to be avoided. It's like when the teams had to develop the V10s to last 2 races for one season, only to switch to V8s the next year. Or when they had to develop the whole car and setup around making one tyre last for the qualifying and race, only to switch to super soft tyres that could be changed again the next year.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:33
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:41
Why are people fussing over costs?
It should make the racing a little better, so i'm all for it.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:44
How?It should make the racing a little better, so i'm all for it.
Edited by Timstr11, 07 January 2010 - 16:45.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 16:52
How?
Find me one aerodynamicist that says it will improve racing.
It's a myth.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:06
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:07
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:10
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:13
I believe the article mentioned that they were going to look very carefully at the regulations to make sure there were no loopholes.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:13
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:26
Or slots...
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:40
Posted 07 January 2010 - 17:41
Its formula 1 . Couldnt they ban diffuser at the end of this season? Now teams are spending **** load of money to develop the double decker just to find it banned next year.
saving costs my ass
Posted 07 January 2010 - 18:29
Posted 07 January 2010 - 18:31
Edited by Raincoat, 07 January 2010 - 18:32.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:14
maybe i should poll this
good or bad decision?
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:28
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:41
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:55
Edited by Simon Says, 07 January 2010 - 19:56.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:58
Cost savings? What I wouldn't give for just 10% of the money that was spent on KERS.
This really depends on which side of the fence you fall on, either spec racing with spec cars (Drivers Championship) or a series that allows technological innovation and rules interpretation. Enough has been said about the DD but the point is several teams figured out how to build a superior diffuser that was still within the letter of the law, in other words they did their jobs.
I don't mind that they tighten up the rules in that area but still think they need to leave enough of the rules open to allow for designers to put their "stamp" on the cars.
Otherwise be done with it and use a spec chassis and spec engine. Paint the car anyway you want and then put what ever name you want on the valve cover to make the engine manufacturers happy. That should take care of cost savings forever.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 19:59
Good news, I thought they had forgotten about this. I hear Mike Gascoyne doesn't think it'll do anything to overtaking, and I'm not sure it will neither, but hey it's a step in the right direction.
What I don't understand, at all, is why it wasn't banned for this year already. When the FIA deemed it legal at the start of the season, that was a massive ****-up, they should've either deemed it illegal on the basis that it was against the spirit of the regulations (I do understand that would've killed Brawn, though), or started pushing immediately for a 2010 ban. This way they have the teams bolting in half-assed DDDs in their non-DDDs cars in 2009, designing DDD cars in 2010, and then going back to early 2009 in 2011. It's ********.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 20:00
Great, so the teams that didn't have DDD this year are designing brand new cars ( Mclaren and Ferrari ) and then and the end of the year, they need to design an other brand new car again because DDD is not allowed.
That is alot of research and development cost
Posted 07 January 2010 - 20:03
Don't they design brand new cars every year?Great, so all teams are going to have to design brand new cars ( Mclaren and Ferrari ) because of DDD for 2010 and then and the end of the year, they need to design an other brand new car again because DDD is not allowed.
That is alot of research and development cost
Posted 07 January 2010 - 20:05
Edited by Alx09, 07 January 2010 - 20:05.
Posted 07 January 2010 - 20:30
At best this is the teams TWG's recommendations and clearly is not a rule yet just their thoughts on the matter.Once the wording of the rules has been sorted, it will then be put to the FIA's official Technical Working Group for ratification prior to going through the channels required for it to get put into the 2011 regulations.
Edited by Demo., 07 January 2010 - 20:37.