Diffuser Battle

  • Thread starter Small_Fryz
  • 77 comments
  • 5,074 views
Metar
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.
Click to expand...

Are there any rules for wheelbase length?


[sarcasm]I'm guessing what we'll see is the FIA banning McLaren's future diffuser.[/sarcasm]
 
C'mon people take it easy with all the physics lessons, i'm a 12 year old boy who says before he thinks. I know i say some stupid stuff alot, but i'm in 8th grade and i don't even do physics yet. But i don't want to be treated young or anything, just understand.
 
PJ-FFL
C'mon people take it easy with all the physics lessons, i'm a 12 year old boy who says before he thinks. I know i say some stupid stuff alot, but i'm in 8th grade and i don't even do physics yet. But i don't want to be treated young or anything, just understand.
Click to expand...

I will say this (if you're speaking the truth): Your English is very, very good for a 12 year and far above what most "adults" are seemingly capable of posting on the internet.

As far as insults/looking down occuring on the internet - just ignore it. It happens regardless of your age. I would just try to learn what you can from the posts and post questions on topics you're still not sure about.

930-Racer, where and when did that photo come from? Very interesting to say the least :P
 
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but all we know is that Renault and Red Bull asked about the diffuser design. What we don't know is the specifics of that design; for all we know, the proposed diffusers were similar to those run by Brawn, Williams and Toyota but were different enough that they were outside the rules. I doubt Red Bull and Renault will give details of the design they were looking at since they're playing the double standards card.

You also have to consider the context this is in: for the first time in years, a team other than Ferrari or McLaren have proven that they can consistently win in Formula One, and I imagine it would have brought about a massive boost in ratings, particularly considering the idea that three months ago Jenson Button was almost out of the sport entirely and now he's leading the World Chamionship. The FIA have to do what is in the best interests of the sport, and declaring the diffusers to be legal may well have fallen in line with that agenda even if they would have been declared illegal if it were Ferrari or McLaren who had made them. If the FIA banned the diffusers and forced Brawn, Toyota and Williams to re-desgn their cars - and quite possibly amending the results of both the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix - public interest would decline rapidly, with even a lot of long-standing fans of the sport rebelling because of the politics taking precedence over the actual racing. So if I were the FIA and my choices were to rule that the diffusers were legal and keep interest in Formula One going or to enforce the rules and regulations, change the results and risk a massive public backlash that would overshadow the new regulations designed to make the sport more competitive, I know which one I'd take every day of the week. Yes, I'd be a hypocrite, but the FIA cannot risk the future of the sport just to keep a handful of teams happy because they didn't think of a particular part the wa the others did.
 
PJ-FFL
C'mon people take it easy with all the physics lessons, i'm a 12 year old boy who says before he thinks. I know i say some stupid stuff alot, but i'm in 8th grade and i don't even do physics yet. But i don't want to be treated young or anything, just understand.
Click to expand...

When you say something wrong, we can't just sit there and agree. If you don't know physics then don't try making up your own.
 
Metar
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.
Click to expand...

More than double the downforce? Do you have links to proof of that?
 
Hun200kmh
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.
Click to expand...

The actual case was on the interpretation of the "holes" in the gap between the reference plane, which is regulated, and the diffuser-zone behind the rear wheel centreline.

But as for banning "because it's against the spirit", well - they did that often enough in the past. Michelin's 2003 tyres were within the regulations and outlined testing-procedures, but were banned because expanding tyres were "against the spirit" of the limitations (though, in this case, a serious safety risk), as was the 1978 Brabham BT46 Fancar, the Renault's mass-dampers, Williams' early-winter 2001 diffuser (which was similar to the current Brawn ones!), Ferrari's flexible wings - and later flexible floors. All despite conforming to the regulations currently at work.

Do you race?
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.
Click to expand...

Two potentially incorrect declarations don't make a right. The Renault mass-dampers were declared legal by every stewards from it's introduction somewhere in 2005, up to and including the German GP 2006. By then, it was also a feature on the Ferraris and other cars. Didn't stop the FIA from declaring it illegal.

930-Racer
diffuserf60.jpg

Hmmmmm...
Click to expand...

Photoshop. AtlasF1 forums show the original:

120569.jpg


ROAD_DOGG33J
Are there any rules for wheelbase length
Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't have to change the wheelbase - just the way the suspension itself is designed. If the mounts are moved forward, and the suspension itself "tilts" backwards, you maintain the same wheelbase.

Do you race?
Yes, but all we know is that Renault and Red Bull asked about the diffuser design. What we don't know is the specifics of that design; for all we know, the proposed diffusers were similar to those run by Brawn, Williams and Toyota but were different enough that they were outside the rules. I doubt Red Bull and Renault will give details of the design they were looking at since they're playing the double standards card.

You also have to consider the context this is in: for the first time in years, a team other than Ferrari or McLaren have proven that they can consistently win in Formula One, and I imagine it would have brought about a massive boost in ratings, particularly considering the idea that three months ago Jenson Button was almost out of the sport entirely and now he's leading the World Chamionship. The FIA have to do what is in the best interests of the sport, and declaring the diffusers to be legal may well have fallen in line with that agenda even if they would have been declared illegal if it were Ferrari or McLaren who had made them. If the FIA banned the diffusers and forced Brawn, Toyota and Williams to re-desgn their cars - and quite possibly amending the results of both the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix - public interest would decline rapidly, with even a lot of long-standing fans of the sport rebelling because of the politics taking precedence over the actual racing. So if I were the FIA and my choices were to rule that the diffusers were legal and keep interest in Formula One going or to enforce the rules and regulations, change the results and risk a massive public backlash that would overshadow the new regulations designed to make the sport more competitive, I know which one I'd take every day of the week. Yes, I'd be a hypocrite, but the FIA cannot risk the future of the sport just to keep a handful of teams happy because they didn't think of a particular part the wa the others did.
Click to expand...

Actually, now that spirits and stuff officially don't exist anymore (they used to use this argument quite often in the past), all sorts of interpretations will now have to be technically legal. However, the decision was made in order to make some teams happy - just not the complaining teams. I'm not claiming this was the main factor for the decision... But look at the Diffuser-Three teams: BrawnGP/Honda was very nearly out of the sport just a month and a half ago. Toyota is under constant threat from management, and finally successful. Williams is nearly bankrupt, and losing sponsors every day. Telling these teams to bugger off and redesign their cars, and telling them their victories and podiums meant nothing, would've forced them out of the sport.

Tired Tyres
More than double the downforce? Do you have links to proof of that?
Click to expand...

The interviews by Flavio, Byrne and Vasselon all talked about "from 15% diffuser-generated downforce, to 40%." Also, unlinkable, are Craig Scarborough's RCE articles. Considering you have far more volume, and more speed through the diffuser - thus lower pressures, that makes mathematical sense. Such an increase in downforce would correlate with the calculated 0.8-1s advantage enjoyed by these teams (race-pace, not qualifying). Remember, the diffuser is half the deal: As soon as you have more rear downforce, you can finally add downforce at the front without messing up the balance. The Renault, McLaren and Ferrari all use very simple front wings, simply because having more downforce would only create a bad balance.

Now that I think of it... Back in May 2008, an insider on F1Technical posted that Honda, apparently, already clawed back 80% of their 2008 downforce. We had a good laugh saying that 80% of their 2008 downforce could very well mean no downforce at all - but look what happened after all...
 
Last edited:
Metar
Two potentially incorrect declarations don't make a right. The Renault mass-dampers were declared legal by every stewards from it's introduction somewhere in 2005, up to and including the German GP 2006. By then, it was also a feature on the Ferraris and other cars. Didn't stop the FIA from declaring it illegal.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this could well be the case where two potentially-incorrect decalarations are more right - we're thinking on a holistic level here - than the alternative.

Metar
But look at the Diffuser-Three teams: BrawnGP/Honda was very nearly out of the sport just a month and a half ago. Toyota is under constant threat from management, and finally successful. Williams is nearly bankrupt, and losing sponsors every day. Telling these teams to bugger off and redesign their cars, and telling them their victories and podiums meant nothing, would've forced them out of the sport.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was getting at, I'm just not very articlate about it. This is why I'm arguing that the decision was right in context when it may have been blatantly wrong when all you're looking at is the paper. That doesn't mean teams should develop parts they know to be outside the rules (or at the least inside a very dark grey area) and then use their position to extort the FIA into declaring them legal - any team that did would probably be booted faster than Andrea Moda - but rather that in the here and now, the future of the sport has to take precedence over the legalty of finding and exploiting loopholes.
 
I have to say I am overjoyed at the decision, as it has breathed life into the sport. The fact that Ferrari are getting a bloody nose from this situation makes it even more worth while watching, as for years they have seemed to get away with murder.

Things have been shaken up and the grid has been turned on it's head, I congratulate the teams that have designed this diffuser. There would not of been an argument if Ferrari had designed it, serves them right for been so arrogant. :D

Jenson Button now can go on and get what he deserves for his loyalty.

Grim 👍
 
Hmm, after all that I'm not sure whether it was the right decision. I'm being swayed more and more by points raised here by Metar - where will it stop? The more downforce generated by ever-more complex diffusers the more development will be put in producing downforce at the front of the car. This could lead to the car becoming increasingly aero dependent, and therefore more susceptible to the wake of a leading car - undoing the work that went into the 2009 rule changes.

I'm not saying that without the diffusers there wouldn't be aero development, but I think it's an early blow for the long term goal of reduced spending and "simpler" F1 cars.
 
They can always close the grey area next year if its proven to completely undo the overtaking so its not all doom and gloom.
 
The Grim Reaper
There would not of been an argument if Ferrari had designed it, serves them right for been so arrogant. :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure that if Ferrari had designed it there would also be argument. And I'm even more sure that in such a case, and with McLaren so far at the back, this FIA decision would be claimed by many here as being just another proof that the FIA is the Ferrari International Assistance.

So, in a way, it's a positive thing that Ferrari didn't design one of the questioned diffusers.
 
Well, at lest now the engineers at ferrari can think of new designs for the car, and maybe, one day they all might have this same thing about something else with the tables turned
 
And so, Renault collects the award for fastest adaptation: New double-decker, plus new engine-cover and exhaust-arrangement to match. P2 in qualifying, though who knows what fuel-loads - yet.

1663.jpg
 
Are Renault still running a shark-fin? The size of the ING logo suggests yes, but the curve of the engine cover could say no.
 

Latest Posts

Back