2296 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

As it seems sure a diffusor row will erupt at the Melborne GP, I created this discussion thread.

The three teams in question - Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams - have all taken advantage of grey areas in article 2.4 of the technical regulation, with noticeable results in testing, and it is understood that two other teams have now written to the FIA with their concerns, supplying data to back up their objections.

See article Daily Telegraph.

BMW and RedBull have been very quiet on the matter and have hunch they will join the protest as well.


===============================================
Technical regulations:
2.4
Compliance with the regulations :
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.
Should a competitor introduce a new design or system or feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One Technical Department. If clarification relates
to any new design or system, correspondence must include :
- a full description of the design or system ;
- drawings or schematics where appropriate ;
- the competitor's opinion concerning the immediate implications on other parts of the car of any
proposed new design ;
- the competitor's opinion concerning any possible long term consequences or new developments
which may come from using any such new designs or systems ;
- the precise way or ways in which the competitor feels the new design or system will enhance the
performance of the car.

2009 F1 Technical Regulations 12 of 67 17 March 2009
3.12 Bodywork facing the ground :

3.12.1 All sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre
line, and which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the
reference plane or the step plane. This does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible,
provided each of these areas does not exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the
car, or to any parts of the panels referred to in Article 15.4.7.
The step plane must be 50mm above the reference plane.

3.12.2 Additionally, the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane must :
- extend from a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the centre line of the rear
wheels ;
- have minimum and maximum widths of 300mm and 500mm respectively ;
- be symmetrical about the centre line of the car ;
- have a 50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each front corner when viewed from directly beneath the car, this
being applied after the surface has been defined.

3.12.3 The surface lying on the reference plane must be joined around its periphery to the surfaces lying on the
step plane by a vertical transition. If there is no surface visible on the step plane vertically above any point
around the periphery of the reference plane, this transition is not necessary.

3.12.4 The peripheries of the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes may be curved upwards with
maximum radii of 25mm and 50mm respectively. Where the vertical transition meets the surfaces on the
step plane a radius, no greater than 25mm, is permitted.
A radius in this context will be considered as an arc applied perpendicular to the periphery and tangential
to both surfaces.
The surface lying on the reference plane, the surfaces lying on the step plane, the vertical transitions
between them and any surfaces rearward of the surfaces lying on the reference or step planes, must first
be fully defined before any radius can be applied or the skid block fitted. Any radius applied is still
considered part of the relevant surface.

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must
produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit),
impervious surfaces under all circumstances.
Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part
of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below. This does not apply to any parts of rear
view mirrors which are visible, provided each of these areas does not exceed 12000mm² when projected to
a horizontal plane above the car, or to any parts of the panels referred to in Article 15.4.7.

3.12.6 To help overcome any possible manufacturing problems, and not to permit any design which may
contravene any part of these regulations, dimensional tolerances are permitted on bodywork situated
between a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and the rear wheel centre line. A vertical
tolerance of +/- 5mm is permissible across the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes and a
horizontal tolerance of 5mm is permitted when assessing whether a surface is visible from beneath the car.

3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a
point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the
surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is
visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum
required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.

[Anomnader]

Also here

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/73816

but the matter has moved up a gear with at least one team believed to have written to the governing body to state its belief that the design is illegal.

[TickTickBooom]

Maybe they're quiet because they know the diffusers are legal. Or they're too busy redesigning their own.

I mean one team 'interprets' the regulations and there's every chance that between one and all teams will protest. But for three very different teams to interpret the regs in exactly the same way...? I think it'll be a harsh call from the FIA if they're declared illegal in Melbourne (then again, they're good at harsh calls).

It seems to me that the regs are not drawn up with all loopholes closed, and until the FIA learn to do this, they shouldn't be making regs at all.

But this is F1. Put a fast car on the track and someone will find something on it to complain about.

[ensign14]

The biggest row is whether it should be spelt diffusor or diffuser.

[Anomnader]

Thats a very interesting article in the telegraph from Max, I've never seen him so laid back on matters and prepared to say its nothing to do with him.

He's a devious sod, I can just see him sat in a big chair stoking a big white cat, when has he ever sat on the fence or acted powerless?

Quotes


t's going to be difficult.

r saying that it's legal and a very good case for saying that it's illegal

If there had been more time before the detailed objections to the system were sent in, I would probably have sent it to the FIA Court of Appeal before Australia.


But there isn't time. It wouldn't be fair.

But somebody has to make their mind up and fortunately it's not my job




I smell something :

[wingwalker]

For me it was deeply suspicious when he said those diffs are legal, but stewards in Melbourne might think it's not the case shortly after cars were launched. It totally sounded like making grounds for a potential ban.

[jesee]

There is no way, the FIA is going to declare these diffusors illegal under the current economic circumstances, unless they want Williams and Brawn gp especially to leave the sport. They might be technically illegal but looking at the bigger question, it would be stupid to state so.

I believe they will give a fumbled ruling allowing the status quo to remain and therefore pave way for other teams to adapt to this design. That would be the sensible thing to do.

[ATM_Andy]

Originally posted by ensign14
The biggest row is whether it should be spelt diffusor or diffuser.

Diffuser, well it's spelt that way in my 40 year old Thermodynamic laws book.

As there is noting actually wrong, illegal, with the extended diffuser design any successful protest would result in a technical rule change. It would be pretty difficult to enforce a technical rule change now, with the lack of testing.

[reason42]

And as a consequence of the FIA not dealing with the matter sooner the result of the AUS GP will be in doubt until the matter is dealt with by the court of appeal.


The FIA really are a shambles.

[reason42]

Originally posted by ATM_Andy


Diffuser, well it's spelt that way in my 40 year old Thermodynamic laws book.

As there is noting actually wrong, illegal, with the extended diffuser design any successful protest would result in a technical rule change. It would be pretty difficult to enforce a technical rule change now, with the lack of testing.

ATM_Andy,

Do you think the result of the GP could be changed through points being deducted?

[ATM_Andy]

Originally posted by reason42


ATM_Andy,

Do you think the result of the GP could be changed through points being deducted?

I seriously doubt it will get that far.

[EvilPhil II]

Its obvious what will end up happening. All cars will race as are. Then in several months the Teams Contructors points will be deducted but the drivers will keep theirs.

[ATM_Andy]

Originally posted by EvilPhil II
Its obvious what will end up happening. All cars will race as are. Then in several months the Teams Contructors points will be deducted but the drivers will keep theirs.

I really don’t think so, there is nothing illegal with the design/s as is.

Even if the FIA did change the rules to make the design/s illegal they can’t really declare a perfectly legal car illegal because of a retrospective rule change.

[HoldenRT]

It's pretty simple.

If you support Toyota/Williams/Brawn you will like the diffusers and cry if they are banned.

If you support the other teams you won't like the diffusers and cry if they are not banned.

Round 1 *FIGHT*

No one knows what will happen. Since the big guns haven't designed them, there is probably more chance of them being banned but who knows. It's a risk for the teams to run them but since Toyota/Williams/Brawn are in desperation for results for their own survival, it was a risk worth taking.

edit - FIA could easily prevent these things, if they would make a solid ruling outside of GP weekends, without protests required. If they told the teams they are illegal/legal as soon as the cars were launched, there would be no problem. Many people have mentioned this, but FIA don't seem to realise it.

[pRy]

This bit stood out for me..

"It will also provide a stern test the unity of the Formula One Teams Association, with certain teams demanding penalties of others."

[hallo]

How absurd is it that a regulatory body that designs the regulations cannot offer conclusive rulings on them? Intead it relys on random stewards, at the races (when its way too late) and screws around with the fans and teams who never know exactly where they stand?

Why cant the FIA rule conclusively immediately from the beginning?

This is just more incompetency from Mosley and his circus.

[Madras]

I think it's interesting that both Ferrari and McLaren have avoided using one of these diffusers. BMW too.

My theory is they probably knew it would be an advantage to have a diffuser like that but the chances of it getting banned would compromise their car so they chose to design their cars from scratch for a standard design diffuser.

[Madras]

Originally posted by hallo
How absurd is it that a regulatory body that designs the regulations cannot offer conclusive rulings on them?

It's because the FIA did not go into enough detail in the rules about the diffusers. They therefore cannot say they are illegal because if you look at the rules they are not illegal. But the go against the spirit of the rules the FIA intended, so secretly I'm sure they want them banned.

[Massa_f1]

F1 is going down hill very quickly this season for me and it hasent even started! Still thats what you get with the 2 idiots in charge of the sport.

[EVO2]

The FIA still maintains that it is the governing body of the sport.;

The FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting was asked whether the Toyota and Williams diffusers were legal, his opinion was that they were.

That should be an end to the matter.

Simples!!!!!!

[BorisTheBlade]

IF 3M and Bernie are all for entertainment they will ultimatively declare those diffusors legal. There's nothing better in racing than having some underdogs with a head start and playing catch-up with the big teams.

[EvilPhil II]

Originally posted by ATM_Andy

I really don’t think so, there is nothing illegal with the design/s as is.

Even if the FIA did change the rules to make the design/s illegal they can’t really declare a perfectly legal car illegal because of a retrospective rule change. [/B]

1993 Canadian GP
The entire grid is declared illegal baring one team (Lola-Ferrari).
http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr539.html 1993 Canadian GP

[wrighty]

Originally posted by wingwalker
For me it was deeply suspicious when he said those diffs are legal, but stewards in Melbourne might think it's not the case shortly after cars were launched. It totally sounded like making grounds for a potential ban.

that's the nub of the problem for me too.....the FIA technical delegate can read a written submission from a team asking to check on their interpretation and say 'yep, you're right', then they build the part, test it, refine it, he can visit them and inspect the part and say 'yep, that's legal'.
When the teams get to a race, a protest can be lodged or a scrutineers inspection can interpret a rule a different way and say 'no, that's illegal'.....it's not patently ridiculous that two 'employees' of the same organisation can interpret something differently, but it IS patently ridiculous that, if the technical delegate can rule something legal, a scrutineer can effectively over-rule him OR a team can look and say 'well i don't think its legal' and go to the FIA and get a different decision....

while the rulebook is written in the vague woolly method it is (and lets face facts, Timstr's reproduction above is almost incomprehensible) there will be grey areas, but my honest and firm belief is that if a team gets a clarification and approval on an item then that should be it, full stop, finito. Perhaps it would be better to extend the ratification beyond more than one person, but on the whole i find it inconceivable that the teams can be at the mercy of a scrutineer or the FIA when it's an FIA delegate who's given them the all clear.

Finally (before i topple off the soap box), for Max to say 'its a bit late' and 'its a bit difficult' is just pathetic.....again......is he in charge or not? ffs, more buffoonery from King Buffoon.....no doubt when the teams are forced to modify their entire aerodynamic principle with no testing allowed he'll just say 'wasn't my fault' and deflect the crap elsewhere again......tosser

[EVO2]

Wrighty is absolutely, well, right.

We cannot have an exciting race weekend ending with doubts as to who has won because either the driver or the team has broken a rule.

All proposed changes to the cars should be submitted and approved ( or not ) before a race weekend or at the very latest submitted at 8am on Thursday morning at the beginning of a race weekend. The technical delegate can then rule on it. only the team submitting the part can appeal, and they then don't use the part and the appeal is heard before it is ever raced.

There should be a permanent, consistent professional group of Stewards to rule on driver and team behaviour during the event so that we don't have the kind of problems we saw last year.

Only in the most exceptional cases should a race-deciding appeal be heard after the event is over.

[Wouter]

The incompetence/political games of the FIA are staggering. Mosley and co want there to be as much controversy as possible, so they can divide the teams and keep control over the results.

[muramasa]

BS, why cant we just have racing?

[sainsburypeter]

What would actually happen if the 3 teams are declared illegal prior to the start? Are they allowed to race current configuration? Will their results be stripped afterwards? Mosley suggests in his interview that one suggestion would be diffusers to be changed by Spain?

[Timstr11]

The FIA has OK-ed the diffusor, which is key. So they cannot retrospectively penalize the teams using the device.
What will happen is a clarification after the below process has taken place:
-Team protest
-Stewards decision
-Appeal to International Court of Appeal (ICA).

Once there is a clarification, teams cannot be asked to scrap their current diffusor immediately, as it is not reasonable to ask them to change diffusor within the space of a week or two.

So even if the advantage is eventually taken away, Williams, Toyota and Brawn will have it for quite a few races to come.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by sainsburypeter
What would actually happen if the 3 teams are declared illegal prior to the start? Are they allowed to race current configuration? Will their results be stripped afterwards? Mosley suggests in his interview that one suggestion would be diffusers to be changed by Spain?

thats the whole point....they don't know, we don't know....i don't think the FIA even know.....if there's a possibillity that a car can be deemed illegal at the track, surely then the position and opinion of the technical delegate becomes all-important, whereby he has made a ruling on a specific item and the team are using it, and yet here we are, a week before the first race and more than 3 months since the items were deemed 'legal' wondering not only whether they are actually legal, but wondering how that illegality would be handled?!?!? Has Max already decided that, if they are protested, they'll be made to change the part by a certain date? What happened to the Court of Appeal that he mentioned in the same article? It's rotten to the core

sorry, wanted to add.....

Originally posted by Timstr11
The FIA has OK-ed the diffusor, which is key. So they cannot retrospectively penalize the teams using the device.
What will happen is a clarification after the below process has taken place:
-Team protest
-Stewards decision
-Appeal to International Court of Appeal (ICA).

Once there is a clarification, teams cannot be asked to scrap their current diffusor immediately, as it is not reasonable to ask them to change diffusor within the space of a week or two.

wasn't the Renault mass damper approved and deemed legal until the FIA decided to re-interpret their own rules several months later and decide that it wasn't legal after all, following a protest from a team that couldn't get the same effectiveness from the system?

[Apollonius]

Originally posted by EVO2
The FIA still maintains that it is the governing body of the sport.;

The FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting was asked whether the Toyota and Williams diffusers were legal, his opinion was that they were.

That should be an end to the matter.

Simples!!!!!!

That should be the end of the matter but MR Whiting has been known to give out misleading information to teams in the past so why change the habit of a lifetime?


This whole situation stinks to high heaven.

[JonC]

The diffuser designs being run by Brawn, Williams and Toyota are exactly the same in concept as the diffuser designs run by many teams in 2008. McLaren, Williams and Red Bull all ran diffusers that had a "false ceiling" that met the regulations but with an additional tunnel above, the roof of which was formed by the rearward leg of the rear lower wishbone. Ferrari had a less extreme design which still utilised a false ceiling with a larger tunnel above.

In concept and spirit this is exactly the same as what the teams are doing now. The rule explicitly says, no bodywork viewed from beneath the car from the RWCL to 350mm beyond the RWCL must be more than 175mm above the ground and must form one continuous section. The diffusers meet the rules to the letter of the law, and therefore any rule changes would be grossly incorrect, based on the rules and also previous precedent.

[SchumiBoy]

Originally posted by Timstr11
Once there is a clarification, teams cannot be asked to scrap their current diffusor immediately, as it is not reasonable to ask them to change diffusor within the space of a week or two.

Why not ?

When FIA has "clarified" things in the past they have been banned and never allowed again.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Timstr11
The FIA has OK-ed the diffusor, which is key. So they cannot retrospectively penalize the teams using the device.
What will happen is a clarification after the below process has taken place:
-Team protest
-Stewards decision
-Appeal to International Court of Appeal (ICA).

Once there is a clarification, teams cannot be asked to scrap their current diffusor immediately, as it is not reasonable to ask them to change diffusor within the space of a week or two.

So even if the advantage is eventually taken away, Williams, Toyota and Brawn will have it for quite a few races to come.

Welcome to Formula One. I see you've never followed the sport before. Enjoy!

[SchumiBoy]

Originally posted by wrighty
wasn't the Renault mass damper approved and deemed legal until the FIA decided to re-interpret their own rules several months later and decide that it wasn't legal after all, following a protest from a team that couldn't get the same effectiveness from the system?

The best part about the mass damper affair is that the FIA declared it illegal before the German GP. The Stewards at Hockenheim then declared it perfectly legal to be raced.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by SchumiBoy


The best part about the mass damper affair is that the FIA declared it illegal before the German GP. The Stewards at Hockenheim then declared it perfectly legal to be raced.

that's right, they appealed their own stewards decision didn't they farce , pure farce....

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by tifosi


Welcome to Formula One. I see you've never followed the sport before. Enjoy!

I've been following it for 20 years. Thank you.

[wingwalker]

Originally posted by Timstr11
The FIA has OK-ed the diffusor, which is key.

Oh no they haven't. Whiting said he thinks is OK, Max said he sees arguments for both cases, in the end it will come down to what stewards think (if there is a protest). And then to whatever body teams can apply to if they don't agree with the stewards, as Max says.

I'm starting to wonder whether it is not deliberate action to break FOTA unity.

[Phucaigh]

Max Mosley auditions for Pontius Pilate in the yet to be announced movie 'The Passion of the racing', Mosley is to play a character who washes his hands when it comes to making a decison.
This is seen as a progression from his previous roles where he gained a lot of negative remarks from the critics for his role in 'Who wants to be a team mate', the saga of rival team mates where Mosley played a detective and judge', personally didn't like that movie but the worse was when he played a role in 'More than you ever wanted to see', a film about a man whose rear diffuser was spanked a lot by women who believed he should be locked up, a lot of people who saw that film on diffusers agreed....

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Timstr11
I've been following it for 20 years. Thank you.

And you actually believe your comment.

Hint: The FIA has pretty much proven it can make any decision it wants whenever it wants.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by wingwalker


Oh no they haven't. Whiting said he thinks is OK, Max said he sees arguments for both cases, in the end it will come down to what stewards think (if there is a protest). And then to whatever body teams can apply to if they don't agree with the stewards, as Max says.

I'm starting to wonder whether it is not deliberate action to break FOTA unity.

In the end it will come down to what the ICA thinks, which will take some time.
The teams running the controversila diffusor made use of article 2.4, which is about compliance to the regulations. FIA's answer must have been that it is compliant, but it is the ICA that gives the final answer.

Don't get me wrong. This could have been handled differently by the FIA and as someone already said, it could be a ploy to break the ranks among the FOTA teams.

[DCult]

As long as McLaren doesn't belong to the "illegal" group and Ferrari can fight at the front, Mosley won't ban them.

[peroa]

Originally posted by Timstr11


Don't get me wrong. This could have been handled differently by the FIA and as someone already said, it could be a ploy to break the ranks among the FOTA teams.

Well, it`s not "could be", it definitely is.

[stevewf1]

Oh great! Looks like we may not know the "official" results at Melbourne until a couple of weeks after the race...

[tkulla]

Originally posted by stevewf1
Oh great! Looks like we may not know the "official" results at Melbourne until a couple of weeks after the race...

I know logic doesn't apply to the FIA, but wouldn't it be easy to include some form of scrutineering when the crash testing of the cars is done in the preseason? Teams get their crash test done early enough to make changes if necessary, so if any parts were deemed outside the regulations they'd have time to correct those as well.

[Lazy Prodigy]

This is really frustrating. Not because the other teams didnt think of the diffuser, but more like because they thought there was only going to be a certain way to do it. Either there is a gray area or there isnt. I remember Ferrari had a floor banned a few years ago because it wasnt in the "spirit of the rules" but it was legal. The FIA needs to say something about gray area be you can work in it or you can't and how they will regulate it.

[peroa]

Originally posted by tkulla


I know logic doesn't apply to the FIA, but wouldn't it be easy to include some form of scrutineering when the crash testing of the cars is done in the preseason? Teams get their crash test done early enough to make changes if necessary, so if any parts were deemed outside the regulations they'd have time to correct those as well.

The FIA is aware of the "issue" for 2 months now.
If they wanted to fix the problem, issue a clarification, whateva`, they would have done it, of course if they had any interest in keeping the "sport" neat, clean, transparent ...

Instead Charlie "The Tool" "Whiter as white" Whiting says it is legal but if the stewards "feel like" they can ban any team after the race.

Max is going even further with his "wicked" attempts to split the FOTA and says that the teams should discuss and come to a conclusion themselves.

[wdh]

Originally posted by peroa
Well, it`s not "could be", it definitely is.

Dunno if it was to start with, but in the aftermath of the Drivers' Championship FIAsco being pointed up by FOTA, I'm absolutely certain that's what it is now.

So, look at it from the point of view of Presidente sMax.
What way of playing things would cause maximum strife within FOTA?
Work that one out, and you have a good prediction of which way the FIAsco will jump.

Don't think about the long term health of the sport - or even its immediate prospects.
Remember to think only about the political game. Power.
And right now, for the FIAsco, preserving (or restoring) sMax's power means getting the teams at each others throats.

How would it be if they were allowed to race the big diffusers, then at a protest hearing afterwards they were banned and the teams running them lost their constructor's points (money) - for which they'd blame the protesters. After that, they are allowed to continue racing them, pending their final appeal. However, since every single point (dollar) earned would depend on the outcome of the appeal, it raises the stakes with every race.
This could be life or death for Williams, maybe Brawn too, and likely could risk triggering Toyota's withdrawal.
The passions should be running high.
String the appeal out for several months (as long as you can) while calling for committees (not individuals) to submit technical reports and investigations (which always take time) and you have a recipe for simmering resentment that could stop FOTA working together for at least the first half of the season. And certainly prevent any idea of them acting as a unified body capable of considering a 'breakaway'. How about asking the Overtaking Working Group to submit a report? That should be a truly wonderful recipe for disagreement!
How delicious that the bulk of FOTA membership should then be in agreement with the FIAsco on the diffuser question! Wanting to rebel, but being dependant on the FIAsco.
To keep the grid populated, you'd probably eventually allow the appeal, declaring the big diffusers unwelcome but technically legal. That means the others have to scramble to try and develop them without testing.
However, at that point, sMax can declare that because these are contrary to the intention of the Regs, and to encourage cost-cutting (or maybe overtaking) the rules will be re-drafted for 2010 so that big diffusers are to be banned. Thus those forced into late and expensive development will have Williams, Brawn & Toyota to blame for extra development costs that are going to be rendered worthless for next season.

That's just my guess.
But I'm sure that sMax is much cleverer than I am at dividing and ruling!

[peroa]

Nicely put, wdh.


Should not forget to add Greedy to the mix, him and Spanky are on a mission ...

[rolf123]

These 3 teams running illegal diffusors should be banned.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by rolf123
These 3 teams running illegal diffusors should be banned.

that would make the sport fun with 14 cars....