|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
#21
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ferrari could gave more trouble, they have a crap car that's also difficult to redesign!! 
|
|
#22
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
What Fabs says is right. Renault and McLarren will be on thier Mk3 diffusers by the time most other teams fit their own first crack at the double deck. (dinfinitions: Mk1 is standard, Mk2 is the first double deck, etc).
Yes the first itteration form Renault is tame, it's 1.5 deck diffuser. The reason is thatthe change required is so comrehensive that it's going to take time and R&D and money (around $10M) to progress down the development path. The first Renault update requires a new floor, a new engine cover/upper body, new lower rear wing, new exhaust, and new engine ancillaries. And you'll need to replace most or all of these things for every update you do! Red Bull at least will also need a new gearbox and rear suspension, which is why they won't have an option until June. The reason Renault and McLaren have developed these things so soon is because they recognised very early that the appeal process was a formality and was never going to be passed by the FIA. It was obvious from the first day before Melbourne when Max Mosely said he didn't see a problem. The thing that's upset the 'other' teams is the fact that Renault and Red Bull at least have confirmed that they asked the FIA if they could use the loophole and they were told 'No'. But the others were told 'Yes' for the same thing. Additionally people aren't understanding the real issue. There is an exclusion zone saying that no aerodynamic part of (including the floor) can be in a certain 'box', only a crash structure, which is the pod the rain lights are mounted on. The double diffuser cars have aerodynamic bodywork in this box. They say it's not part of the floor because what they've done is separate the double deck from the floor by LITERALLY a gap THINNER of a sheet of paper. The rules allow holes, the purpose of which is to affix a bolt so you can hold the floor on, the diffuser three have converted the 'hole' to a 'slot', said it's the same thing and the FIA have agreed with them. Some people are arguing that it's just a clever interpritation of the rules but it's not because it's a blatant cheat against the intention and the working of the rules. The FIA are only letting it fly because they are loving the impression that they've 'fixed' the sport by shuffling the order and now you see teams that haven ever, or haven't recently been anything like competitive (Brawn/Honda, Toyota and Williams) up the front, and more than that they'r etelling people that now it's possible for a privateer team with no money to win, even though that couldn't be further from the truth. Moreover the see that the other bigger teams will eventually catch up, so it's going to be a great season. We'll see what the FIA's reasoning behind the diffuser isssue is when they eventualy concoct and publish thier verdict summary. But you can but it won't acknowledge the fact that the FIA's own officers either deliberatly mislead some teams, or acted negligently. Thus skewing the championship (yet again) and costing the paddock an many tens of millions of dollars extra when we're all trying to same money.
|
|
#23
17-04-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think there's another aspect of the diffusers that has been totally ignored by the press and the FIA.
The FIA had commissionned a group of experts to try and improve overtaking. The results from their studies was reflected by the new regulations : big front wing, small and higher rear wing, adjustable front flap, no winglets and other aero appendices and... much smaller diffuser. This is for the aerodynamics side, while we saw the return to slick tyres on the mechanical grip side of things. The idea being that the cars would be less affected by the wake of the car in front for two reasons: One being that the car in front would create a much lesser wake, the other that the car won't be affected as much by not such a clean air than before. My understanding is that the diffuser has a big impact on those two points. It pretty much negates the smaller, higher rear wing, and the car needs cleaner air to work than without it. Think about it, we've seen quite a bit of overtaking in the past two races, but have we seen a diffuser car being overtaken in normal conditions (by that I mean that it wasn't on massively degraded tyres for melbourne, or on the wrong tyres for malaysia) ? I for myself cannot remember that happening. I know that the difference in pace makes it improbable that a diffuser car will be overtaken by a non diffuser car, but if you think about it, button was never very close to trulli in malaysia. I guess what i'm trying to say is that by allowing those diffusers the FIA has just made a mockery of this overtaking group's study.
|
|
#24
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Didn't realise a diffuser was affected as much as other forms of aero by wake from other cars?
Can see how it creates worse wake for the following cars though! I just think (from direct experience of motorsport and arguing rules with stewards etc) that it is extremely difficult without having seen how the questions were worded to claim teams knowingly cheated and the fia deliberately stiched up Renault/Red Bull etc. The wording of the question makes a HUGE difference, and as far as I know no-one knows what that wording was?? Finally, Honda weren't always bad and it's pure bad grapes from people to claim the only good thing on the Brawn is the diffuser!! Also, please remember the 3 teams who built diffusers were the 3 teams who weren't in the overtaking working group (so I've been told anyway) and therefore just read the rules, did not know "intent"! The whole purpose of a lot of F1 design is to take advantage of gaps in the rules to get an advantage, and these teams did that! No team can claim these deliberately cheated but also then say they themselves asked to, so Renault are saying they tried to cheat but got told no!!?? "That team have deliberately cheated". "Its not fair, we asked to do that but got told no". Errr wake up any team saying this, how can the other team have deliberately cheated if you thought it was ok too until the fia said no??? With dev time, in case anyone forgot Brawn had bugger all pre-season, so bigger all development of setup time etc. The reason for interim solutions is because design time is needed, once the full diffusers are on the cars there shouldn't be much difference due to ongoing development through the season (at a guess) as Brawns worked straight away!! Renault/Mclaren need to make hay from getting designs sorted quicker!!
|
|
#25
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shhhhh Fabs! the maFIA will get you for saying stuff like that. It's perfectly true, and that's one of the problems. The FIA have undone the good work regarding aero grip and it will soon be back to where it was where you can't follow close to another car. Already you can't follow close to a diffuser car, and when everyone fits a diffuser it'll be square 1. Their latest ruling totally conradicts all of the pre season stated aims and objectives of the FIA and the Overtaking WG.
|
|
#27
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A rose by any other name is still a rose, and changing the name of the diffuser to 'impact structure' doesn't mean it stops being a diffuser. There's no doubt the Brawn is an all over stand out car. It has many good features developed by the cleverest guy in the pit lane in conjunction with 700 staff, two windtunnels and huge Honda money. BUT, alot of the 1 second advantage they have comes form the aero side. There is a scoop under the front (between the t-tray and the drivers legs) that scoops air in and then uses that air to supercharge the action of the diffuser. I think for any other team to implement that this year they'll need to make and homologate new tubs. Most don't have that kind of cash. Like I say, they've got a great car, but if it's a second faster than a normal car, 0.6s+ looks like it's coming from the way they've skirted the rules. And the OWG was only made up by Memebers from Ferrari, Renault McLaren and the FIA. Not everyone except the diffuser three. I've seen that rumor too and it's not right.
|
|
#28
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm not saying otherwise Fabs, I'm saying it's not more affected by this than other elements though such as front wing etc, you seemed to suggest before that the diffuser is more affected by wake than a front wing etc is
|
|
#29
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cheers for the correction on who was in the working group. Am intrigued how you know what each and every team asked the fia though! I'd have thought only the fia know that!
And as for "a rose by...", well, I could claim any kind of engine mapping system etc or adjustable diff was traction control and cheating if I wanted, the point is the written rule! Every team tried ways to improve traction with traction control banned, that's not cheating! The rule should have been worded better!! I'll post a simple example of this later, but f1 examples include the brabham fan car, the lotus dual chassis thing (can't remember the wording) etc
|
|
#30
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You can't make that argument for traction control because TC is defined as a closed loop sytem. A TC sytem then has to have a feedback where it takes acount of wheelspeed to tell the ECU to ignore what the driver does and fix the slip. Thus a computer interviens. Anything you do with mapping engines and diffs isn't a closed loop system. You might argue its helps the driver, just like expo on a RC handset. But the rules in F1 and RC or anywhere don't class mapping movement as a electronic driver aid.
|
|
#31
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Oh, and I work for a car manufacturer, but that doesn't mean I know what other car manufacturers confidentially discuss!? Unless those letters were published for the hearing this week or at some other time, then the only way of knowing is industrial espionage, which is....that's right, cheating!! If they are published let us know where as I'm intrigued to read them!!
|
|
#32
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'll give you a real personal rule ambiguity issue I experienced when racing in a touring car support championship (much lower level obviously, but the principles apply):
Our championship had introduced a rule stipulating "the maximum allowable camber of the front of the car is 4 degree's" when we'd found the optimum camber was more like 4.5. Well, we decided to run with 4.2 on the outer wheel and 3.7 on the inner wheel (eg on clockwise circuit, left front had more camber). Well, having qualified on pole at Brands Hatch our competitors were looking for an excuse to get us kicked out so watched my car Being scrutineered and those numbers being called out, and then complained. The KEY thing in the argument was that the rule did not say "on any given axle", or "as measured against a flat ground surface", so although clearly against the spirit of the rules we were within the letter of them by arguing our average camber was within 4 degrees. Seems to me from your post above that unless the rules stipulate the gaps allowed to be only holes rather than slots, and unless it specifically defines shape/size of hole allowed, then they couldn't rule against Brawn etc could they?? What I am surprised about is that the fia didn't rule in their favour but then make up some overriding safety issue in order to outlaw them from now on, to help the overtaking etc, I'd normally expect that type of thing from the fia!!
|
|
#33
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is a bit like a brick wall but- Some teams asked if they could use the loophole and were told absolutely not- it's against the rules. Then that rule isn't enforced for other teams. The fact that the FIA have have given different people in the same championship opposing views is the point.
|
|
#34
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
By the way, the rule wouldn't need to say against a ground surface because the definition of camber is 'angle measured against the ground plane'. That definition will be in the glossary of the MSA handbook. Camber is never considered as a total value across an axle in the way toe might be, or as an average of both sides.
|
|
#35
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I love this argument of "in the spirit of the rules" it is an absolute cracker. I saw an awesome quote on this very argument a couple of weeks ago. This question was put to someone senior in one of "the diffuser 3" teams (I genuinely can't remember who it was, or even which team). I have a gut feeling, but not fair to mention it!!
The question was put along the lines of did he think it was against the spirit etc etc....... His response as i recall was along the lines of "no not especially, but i do think it's against the spirit to be competing against thick fcu#ers who can't read the rules........." etc etc. That has to be the best quote that i've seen on this whole discussion. We all know all teams are looking for loopholes/favourable interpretations! to improve their chances, it's what they do. Flexy wings anyone?? independent break pedals? History is littered with items that one team or another has fitted to their cars that they've known haven't been "technically" in line with what was "intended" for the rules as written.
__________________
Matthew White
|
|
#36
17-04-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
This made me lol: http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...tore-comments/
Quote:
|
|
#37
17-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The great thing was, everyone else was so obsessed with finding a cheat (by the next race the guy 2nd in the championship had decided I had a trick ecu which I "wiped" by flashing the lights at the end of the race, mental!) that they weren't looking for the real reason we were quicker, and even better accepted being slower in their minds because of it, which well worked in my favour!!  I assume by the way your team never ever asks it's drivers to go offline on the slowing down lap to pick up rubber?? Matt's right, loads of people look for loopholes, and for me motor racing is partly about following the letter of the rules regardless of the spirit, for anyone in f1 to claim to never cross the "spirit" line is laughable!! Where did that term "unfair advantage" come from again?!
|
|
#38
18-04-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
"Well, let's see.. Could it be Mansell?? Yesss.. it is.. Nigel Mansell has spun out of the Australian Grand Prix..."
|
|
#39
18-04-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
What did I say ? Watch Alonso !
This guy is just amazing they fitted the diffuser over night and here he is, probably still setting the car up in qualifying, 2nd on the grid... That'll certainly keep the guys playing down the impact of the diffuser a little bit more quiet...
|
|
#40
18-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ha ha, well I've certainly seen my arse over Alonso's speed, even if he's running light!!
 Although Fabs, you may not have noticed, but, erm, the car in front is not using a fancy diffuser. Or the car in 3rd. So I'm still not sure it's the be all and end all... Have RBR changed anything this race, I know they've not got the diffuser but where has the jump to first come from, just fuel?? Renault engines top 3? Wow, after the allowed winter mods imagine what Flavio would be saying if it was any other engine!!! Btw, interesting story on autosport website from Williams team on the legal arguments, which exactly shows the rules ambiguity I was talking about!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
