- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Good. At least the FIA have been consistent this time around. Now begins the most interesting race: to see who can be the first to produce their own unit and be competitive with it.
Diffuser Battle
- Thread starter Small_Fryz
- 77 comments
- 5,585 views
- 289
go time for ferrari's new aero package...this should be a interesting race in china
- 29,784
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Row 4 and behind, I think...
Although Metar makes a good point, I think the other teams will have to take this one on the chin and roll with it...
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,853
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Happy news indeed. I was not looking forward to the alternative with Brawn possibly losing their wins. I'd put Red Bull & Sauber-BMW ahead of Ferrari and McLaren as well.
IMO the 'diffuser three' have earned their points, and they shouldn't be penalised just because they thought up something that Ferrari & co. did not. 
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
- 58
- powerhouse-trap
just heard it on the news. The FIA has ruled BRAWN GP's diffuser is LEGAL dont know if that includes Toyota and Williams aswell though?
- 7,719
The design an interpretation themselves have been ruled legal - so that includes all teams with these diffusers, in the present and in the future. Toyota are already celebrating.
- 36,809
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
Perhaps reading some earlier posts would give you your answer.
Autosport report posted by GTP_Grenade earlier
- 1,258
- Antti-san
- Antti San88
So how were their designs different from the diffuser three?
In the end, all of this could have been avoided had the FIA worded the new rules more clearly, so that there would have been no room for different interpetations. But still, I'm glad that this episode is finally over.
- 7,719
Sadly, it's over in a way that paves the way for quad-deckers and more - ground-effect racers with suspensions tilted forwards in order to eke out extra diffuser-space.
All because three Brawn, Toyota and Williams engineers sat together for some Scotch, Poker and Pipes, and one of them came up with this:
All because three Brawn, Toyota and Williams engineers sat together for some Scotch, Poker and Pipes, and one of them came up with this:
- 70
- Thirteendog
- thirteendog
- 7,719
Basically, yes - only it's carbon fibre, a piece over a metre wide, and involves a redesigned gearbox (including the suspension mounts), new front-end aerodynamics to feed the proper air into the proper points, sidepods and rear wings to optimize it.. And, when successful, more than double the amount of downforce previously produced by the diffuser.
Ah, a spot of light! Indeed, it'll worsen overtaking: That's what Rory Byrne warns us, at least. Timo Glock, a triple-decker driver, complained he had no grip in traffic...
Peter
(Banned)
- 4,352
- pj-gm
- lol not happening
Less downforce would mean less weight put on the car by airflow so, more acceleration and more passing but less grip so that would happen really on the straights.
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
👍Guess again. Less downforce means less grip following a car in the corners for the car that is behind, if you want to slipstream/kers past a car you need to be close behind the car you want to overtake at the exit of the corner and have good exit speed. If you don't have the downforce to follow them through the corner, you can't get close enough on exit, nor have the exit speed to launch an attack on the next straight (well you possibly could, but it would be much harder and that's the point). We want overtaking to be easier, not harder. I can't say multi-tier diffusers are going to help overtaking. Its not the worst form of ground effects for a trailing car though, apparently the old Chapperal 2J's vacuum fans used to shoot stones out the back at trailing cars.
Last edited:
- 7,719
Serial physics fail.
Less downforce would mean a lower "normal" between the surfaces: It's the same effect, grip-wise, as having more weight, without the actual weight. All other things being equal, a car with less downforce will accelerate, in a straight line, exactly the same - unless limited by grip above 150km/h, which is rarely the case, not even in F1 (in a straight line).
Now, in a corner, less downforce means less grip - so you'll have to wait longer before you can get back on the throttle, and even then, modulate it longer until you can transfer all that power back to the road. So, less time spent accelerating, and even then, accelerating at a slower pace, at least at first - afterwards, equal.
![[FPV]Rusty](/forum/data/avatars/m/50/50391.jpg?1120996378){kind=avatar}
- 492
Its not a pinch of extra downforce, while not a lot, the extra air that runs over the top of the diffuser due to the holes, especially the central part, maybe doesnt create a massive amount of downforce, but the thing that makes the 'groundforces' effect so effective is it creates very little drag compared to how much downforce it creates. Other teams could get just as much downforce in the rear of the car from other places but they'll get more drag, then they've got to think about balance. Brawn/Williams/Toyota can run more downforce on the front and rear of the car to create more grip while still having good balance, and a total drag factor that is similar to the rest of the field. That assumes that the rest of their package is efficient as its competition. I think we can agree that for Brawn at least, that is true.
And people saying the teams that protested are just having a whine because they didn't think of it themselves, this isn't some new revolutionary idea, don't think every other technical director has wanted to more with the diffusers and underside of the car. But the fact is groundforces were banned... well not directly groundforces, I dont have a great knowledge of the over 9000 page rulebook but I'm pretty sure it says something along the lines of 'okay guys, this stuff is too fast now, so no more holes, get it, underside of car, solid piece guys, no holes, no nothing, got that? NO HOLES'.
The idea being that that will all but eliminate the effect of ground forces.
Thus the term 'spirit of the rules'. Now wether its vague in wording, or another rule contradicts parts of it, It can not be denied that the purpose behind the rule that stats the cars must have a solid underbody was to eliminate groundforces.
All the other teams understood that, don't think that they don't know how to make a Brawnesque diffuser, they just figure it was illegal. Thats how its all ways been interpreted.
The one thing that sways me to the diffuser threes side is the fact Brawn basically told the other teams theres a loop hole, offered them a chance to close it because if it wasn't fixed, and the rest of his package was good, his cars would dominate, and they rest of the teams were just like 'yeah right Ross, lololol'
With all that said, that's not a slot, that's a hole!
- 70
- Thirteendog
- thirteendog
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
@PJ-FFL, downforce is a bit like adding weight without adding any mass. Normally when we think of a car, by adding weight to it we slow its acceleration, essentially we are adding mass to the vehicle and the equation F = ma explains why the added mass reduces acceleration.
Downforce doesn't add mass to the vehicle and therefore doesn't add weight. Downforce does decrease linear acceleration (assuming sufficient traction) but this is due to drag rather than increased weight.
I disagree, unless I have miss understood you.
Two identical cars with different levels of downforce will accelerate at different rates entirely. If we assume both cars have perfect traction, then the car with more downforce will accelerate slower (assuming downforce is proportional to drag).
Downforce doesn't add mass to the vehicle and therefore doesn't add weight. Downforce does decrease linear acceleration (assuming sufficient traction) but this is due to drag rather than increased weight.
I disagree, unless I have miss understood you.
Two identical cars with different levels of downforce will accelerate at different rates entirely. If we assume both cars have perfect traction, then the car with more downforce will accelerate slower (assuming downforce is proportional to drag).
Last edited:
- 70
- Thirteendog
- thirteendog
- 7,194
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
After reading all interesting posts I have just one thing to say. It's possible, probable, likely (pick the word) that the "diffuser three" cars have more downforce then the others, and itmay even happen that the gain in downforce means that the ability to follow a car very closely is more troublesome. But, within the rules, any team has to get the best compromise to get the best car possible, and of course there are multiple trade-offs being made, not only in each car's setup, but also in the designing of the car itself. so there's nothing new to see here.
What was new, in this case, is that Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, BMW, Red Bull, Force India and STR were trying to build a case not on the rules, but on their supposed "spirit".
This is not normal to begin with. And, most of all, it isn't "healthy". I can just imagine the very sinister scenarios that would be possible if the FIA felt entitled to issue verdicts based on "technical-rules-spirit", not the rules themselves.
Let's suppose that a team comes up with a rear spoilker design that is effective to their car, but creates a turbulence at the back that makes it impossible for other cars to come close and maintain grip. Or a front spoiler that is better than all others in "free air" but turns to very weak when closely following another car. If these parts make the car faster overall, and if they comply with the published rules, could the FIA rule that they are illegal because this wasn't supposed to happen with parts designed under the new regulations??????? I don't think so.
This is what I think about this "diffuser case". If the Brawn, Toyota and Williams diffusers comply with the rules, it would be wrong, and dangerous to the sport, to ban them because they don't comply with the rules' spirit.
My two cents
What was new, in this case, is that Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, BMW, Red Bull, Force India and STR were trying to build a case not on the rules, but on their supposed "spirit".
This is not normal to begin with. And, most of all, it isn't "healthy". I can just imagine the very sinister scenarios that would be possible if the FIA felt entitled to issue verdicts based on "technical-rules-spirit", not the rules themselves.
Let's suppose that a team comes up with a rear spoilker design that is effective to their car, but creates a turbulence at the back that makes it impossible for other cars to come close and maintain grip. Or a front spoiler that is better than all others in "free air" but turns to very weak when closely following another car. If these parts make the car faster overall, and if they comply with the published rules, could the FIA rule that they are illegal because this wasn't supposed to happen with parts designed under the new regulations??????? I don't think so.
This is what I think about this "diffuser case". If the Brawn, Toyota and Williams diffusers comply with the rules, it would be wrong, and dangerous to the sport, to ban them because they don't comply with the rules' spirit.
My two cents
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I hope so. I think a lot of the criticism over the decision stems from the fact that the FIA have made some other calls in the past that have been perceived as fallacious, biased or outright wrong and people are judging this decision based on those previous outcomes as opposed to the case presented for this one. It could be that the FIA made another wrong call, but that shouldn't be assumed to be the case simply because it's the FIA making the decision. Let's not forget that the diffusers were declared legal by Charlie Whiting befoe the season began, and by two sets of stewards at the Australians and Malaysian Grands Prix.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
Well, there is some fair cause for criticism of the FIA even in this case - they did also tell Renault and Red Bull that their similar diffuser designs were illegal and really these rules should have been a little more clear cut rather than playing the "ask Charlie" game. I mean, Charlie isn't always reliable person to ask and I'm sure he gives an honest answer, he isn't the person who decides these things.
