More FIA Double Diffuser Concerns
Discussion
Why has this not been sorted/clarified yet?
The FIA is set to issue a clarification about double diffuser designs prior to the Australian Grand Prix, following concerns about a number of teams exploiting the area for added performance.
FIA's technical chief Charlie Whiting inspected all the cars at the Bahrain Grand Prix and AUTOSPORT understands that there is some unease about teams utilising start motor holes to make their diffusers more effective.
F1's technical regulations state that a hole can exist in the diffuser to allow access for an engine start motor. Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]".
There is no definition of what the 'minimum' requirement is though - and some teams have used exotically shaped starter motors to allow themselves to fit sculpted holes in the diffuser that produce an aerodynamic benefit.
It is understood talks took place between the FIA and at least three teams - including McLaren and Mercedes GP – to sort out the matter. The governing body believes that the outfits are exploiting the rules with what they are doing – even if they are not strictly going against the regulations.
Sources suggest that a clarification will be issued by the FIA prior to the Australian Grand Prix. Reports which suggest the designs had definitely been outlawed are believed to be wide of the mark.
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said about the situation: "I think Charlie came came down and looked at all the cars in that area, but I am not aware that anyone had any action taken against them over it. There were some concerns expressed.
"There is a discussion between all the teams about what we are going to do. There are holes in the diffuser for the starter, the hole in ours is no bigger than the one on the championship winning car last year. And also no bigger than it is on about four other cars."
The FIA is set to issue a clarification about double diffuser designs prior to the Australian Grand Prix, following concerns about a number of teams exploiting the area for added performance.
FIA's technical chief Charlie Whiting inspected all the cars at the Bahrain Grand Prix and AUTOSPORT understands that there is some unease about teams utilising start motor holes to make their diffusers more effective.
F1's technical regulations state that a hole can exist in the diffuser to allow access for an engine start motor. Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]".
There is no definition of what the 'minimum' requirement is though - and some teams have used exotically shaped starter motors to allow themselves to fit sculpted holes in the diffuser that produce an aerodynamic benefit.
It is understood talks took place between the FIA and at least three teams - including McLaren and Mercedes GP – to sort out the matter. The governing body believes that the outfits are exploiting the rules with what they are doing – even if they are not strictly going against the regulations.
Sources suggest that a clarification will be issued by the FIA prior to the Australian Grand Prix. Reports which suggest the designs had definitely been outlawed are believed to be wide of the mark.
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said about the situation: "I think Charlie came came down and looked at all the cars in that area, but I am not aware that anyone had any action taken against them over it. There were some concerns expressed.
"There is a discussion between all the teams about what we are going to do. There are holes in the diffuser for the starter, the hole in ours is no bigger than the one on the championship winning car last year. And also no bigger than it is on about four other cars."
The FIA needs to decide once and for all whether they want to enforce the actual regulation or the 'spirit' of the regulation and state their decision to the teams. Then when a concern is raised they can simply look at the rules and either say yes it meets the rules as they are stated or no it does not meet the rules.
Personally I am of the view that technical regulations are simply a framework. If a team can build something within that framework that gives them an advantage over other teams then I say good luck to them. The teams that protest usually do so because they are bitter they didn't think of it first.
Personally I am of the view that technical regulations are simply a framework. If a team can build something within that framework that gives them an advantage over other teams then I say good luck to them. The teams that protest usually do so because they are bitter they didn't think of it first.
patmahe said:
Personally I am of the view that technical regulations are simply a framework. If a team can build something within that framework that gives them an advantage over other teams then I say good luck to them. The teams that protest usually do so because they are bitter they didn't think of it first.
+1And I've highlighted the word technical because all too often it seems as though technical things are outlawed to prevent a team having a competitive advantage, which to me is not what should be the case.
My main gripe was the Renault mass damper being considered as a moveable aerodynamic device, when it was patently mechanical in operation. It was clever, gave the team an advantage, but was outlawed for entirely the wrong reasons IMO.
Nick M said:
My main gripe was the Renault mass damper being considered as a moveable aerodynamic device, when it was patently mechanical in operation.
It wasn't, though - "moveable aerodynamic device" isn't a phrase that was ever used in the rules, I don't think, although a lot of people misquote it that way.I think the Renault thing was deemed illegal because it a) was moveable, and b) influenced the aerodynamic performance of the car, and that combination is prohibited.
Wanta996Gotta said:
The governing body believes that the outfits are exploiting the rules with what they are doing – even if they are not strictly going against the regulations.
Well what else to they expect? This is precisely why the sport employs some of the best motorsport engineers on Earth.As for the 'spirit' of regulations - that's too open to interpretation IMO. The powers that be need to get their act together and draft some proper regulations so that there is no disparity between the regulations and their 'spirit'.
I don't subscribe to the 'spirit of the rules' thing. It sounds far too much like a cop out for not taking the time to make the rules clear in the first place.
Onus should be on the rules being written clearly in the first place and not having this rediculous situation afterwards where a team has a proverbial sword of damocles being swung over their collective head post race, for something they've done which isn't clearly stated in black and white.
Onus should be on the rules being written clearly in the first place and not having this rediculous situation afterwards where a team has a proverbial sword of damocles being swung over their collective head post race, for something they've done which isn't clearly stated in black and white.
Stu R said:
I don't subscribe to the 'spirit of the rules' thing. It sounds far too much like a cop out for not taking the time to make the rules clear in the first place.
Onus should be on the rules being written clearly in the first place and not having this rediculous situation afterwards where a team has a proverbial sword of damocles being swung over their collective head post race, for something they've done which isn't clearly stated in black and white.
Precisely.Onus should be on the rules being written clearly in the first place and not having this rediculous situation afterwards where a team has a proverbial sword of damocles being swung over their collective head post race, for something they've done which isn't clearly stated in black and white.
patmahe said:
Personally I am of the view that technical regulations are simply a framework. If a team can build something within that framework that gives them an advantage over other teams then I say good luck to them. The teams that protest usually do so because they are bitter they didn't think of it first.
There is a difference between building something within a framework, and exploiting the framework. There is also a difference between "spirit of the rules" and attempting to redefine ordinary words used in the rules in order to circumvent it.When you read a rule, you must interpret what the rule means. What what does "minimum" mean in this particular issue? The FIA has most probably used the ordinary meaning, which is to say that the "minimum" is the minimum size for an ordinarily-shaped starter motor. What the teams seem to have done according to the posted article, is to try to redefine the word "minimum" to what they want it to be, which is actually a circumvention of the rules.
When soccer scoring rules state that the ball must go into the opposition's goal in order to score, the teams can't redefine the words "score" or "ball" to suit themselves. When rules mandate that a car must include four wheels and two wings, teams can't define what a "wheel" is, or what a "wing" is to suit themselves. Neither can they redefine "minimum" away from its ordinary meaning.
Edited by Jungles on Monday 15th March 11:53
'spirit of the rules' ?
Think of banning mirrors to perhaps make racing more enjoyable, i.e no blocking. All teams agree on it, there will be more overtakes and also a cost saving. Then one team installs rear view cameras, they are deemed legal. That would be against the spirit of the rules. Forum posters deem it 'jealousy' because the other engineers didn't think of it first. Although we would never know.
Jungles said:
patmahe said:
Personally I am of the view that technical regulations are simply a framework. If a team can build something within that framework that gives them an advantage over other teams then I say good luck to them. The teams that protest usually do so because they are bitter they didn't think of it first.
There is a difference between building something within a framework, and exploiting the framework. There is also a difference between "spirit of the rules" and attempting to redefine ordinary words used in the rules in order to circumvent it.When you read a rule, you must interpret what the rule means. What what does "minimum" mean in this particular issue? The FIA has most probably used the ordinary meaning, which is to say that the "minimum" is the minimum size for an ordinarily-shaped starter motor. What the teams seem to have done according to the posted article, is to try to redefine the word "minimum" to what they want it to be, which is actually a circumvention of the rules.
When soccer scoring rules state that the ball must go into the opposition's goal in order to score, the teams can't redefine the words "score" or "ball" to suit themselves. When rules mandate that a car must include four wheels and two wings, teams can't define what a "wheel" is, or what a "wing" is to suit themselves. Neither can they redefine "minimum" away from its ordinary meaning.
For that matter, how big an external starter? They don't say.
It sounds like there is concern that some teams may be taking the mickey, interpreting the rule far beyond what would be reasonable. In that case, how did the Brawn with (it seems) the same aperture pass scrutineering for all 17 races last year?
Again like Mclarens rear wing this is just using your initiative and designing a car within the rules. If the rules say minimum size to allow a starter motor but don't specify what starter motor or how big the starter motor is allowed to be then fine use a massive starter motor and allow yourself a bigger hole if that helps. You either make a rule for everything or you allow the teams some flexibility as it stands at the moment.
I still don't know exactly how that rear wing works. Or why a bigger hole in a diffuser would be better than a smaller one.
I still don't know exactly how that rear wing works. Or why a bigger hole in a diffuser would be better than a smaller one.
Latest - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82234
McLaren, Mercedes GP and at least two other teams will have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in time for the Australian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT has learned, after the FIA told them that it is clamping down on a loophole being used by the outfits.
Discussions took place between the FIA and representatives from four teams over the season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix weekend about the size of starter motor holes in their diffusers.
The size of their starter motor holes was believed to be excessively wide, which, although not in breach of the regulations, was reckoned to be going against the spirit of the rules.
F1's technical regulations state that a hole can exist in the diffuser to allow access for an engine starter motor - although there are no strict dimensions laid down.
Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]."
There is no specific definition of what the 'minimum' size is though - so some teams have been using exotically shaped starter motors to allow themselves to feature wide-shaped holes in the diffusers. This concept was pioneered by Brawn GP in 2009.
Such a hole in the diffuser helps create another tunnel for air to flow through - which as well as helping to produce more downforce, also ensures such downforce is more consistent throughout a lap - especially under braking, when the rear of the car rises up and the airflow can stall.
The FIA inspected the diffuser designs in Bahrain and promised to issue a clarification about the matter after the weekend had finished.
AUTOSPORT understands that the FIA has duly sent a note to all teams, laying down strict dimensions for not only a maximum diameter for the holes but also for a maximum projected area.
It is believed that McLaren, Mercedes and two other teams - believed to be Renault and Force India - will now have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in this area prior to the next race in Melbourne.
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said in Bahrain last weekend that his team was one of many that was under investigation over the matter.
"There are holes in the diffuser for the starter, the hole in ours is no bigger than the one on the championship winning car last year," he said. "And also no bigger than it is on about four other cars."
McLaren, Mercedes GP and at least two other teams will have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in time for the Australian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT has learned, after the FIA told them that it is clamping down on a loophole being used by the outfits.
Discussions took place between the FIA and representatives from four teams over the season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix weekend about the size of starter motor holes in their diffusers.
The size of their starter motor holes was believed to be excessively wide, which, although not in breach of the regulations, was reckoned to be going against the spirit of the rules.
F1's technical regulations state that a hole can exist in the diffuser to allow access for an engine starter motor - although there are no strict dimensions laid down.
Article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15. [supposed to refer to starter motor, although this is Article 5.16]."
There is no specific definition of what the 'minimum' size is though - so some teams have been using exotically shaped starter motors to allow themselves to feature wide-shaped holes in the diffusers. This concept was pioneered by Brawn GP in 2009.
Such a hole in the diffuser helps create another tunnel for air to flow through - which as well as helping to produce more downforce, also ensures such downforce is more consistent throughout a lap - especially under braking, when the rear of the car rises up and the airflow can stall.
The FIA inspected the diffuser designs in Bahrain and promised to issue a clarification about the matter after the weekend had finished.
AUTOSPORT understands that the FIA has duly sent a note to all teams, laying down strict dimensions for not only a maximum diameter for the holes but also for a maximum projected area.
It is believed that McLaren, Mercedes and two other teams - believed to be Renault and Force India - will now have to make modifications to their diffuser designs in this area prior to the next race in Melbourne.
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said in Bahrain last weekend that his team was one of many that was under investigation over the matter.
"There are holes in the diffuser for the starter, the hole in ours is no bigger than the one on the championship winning car last year," he said. "And also no bigger than it is on about four other cars."
What a ridiculous scenario, if the cars were legal in Bahrain they are legal in Melbourne. The fact that the FIA wrote the rule badly in the first place is the issue here, all it would take is for the rules to state something like the hole can be no larger than 50mm and must be circular in shape.
As it is the teams who have exploited this have gained themselves a FAIR advantage in my eyes, they have done what the rules currently state. If the FIA have a problem with that then they can re-write the rules.
I think a set of well defined rules should be set and reviewed once a year. The FIA should have the power to change the rules during the course of the season only in the event that to not do so would affect driver safety.
The teams are too heavily involved in writing the rules of the sport, every time someone does something clever the other jump on it simply because they didn't think of it first. The FIA as the sports governing body should make the rules and the teams job should be to obey them, to the letter - there should be none of this spirit bulls
t.
As it is the teams who have exploited this have gained themselves a FAIR advantage in my eyes, they have done what the rules currently state. If the FIA have a problem with that then they can re-write the rules.
I think a set of well defined rules should be set and reviewed once a year. The FIA should have the power to change the rules during the course of the season only in the event that to not do so would affect driver safety.
The teams are too heavily involved in writing the rules of the sport, every time someone does something clever the other jump on it simply because they didn't think of it first. The FIA as the sports governing body should make the rules and the teams job should be to obey them, to the letter - there should be none of this spirit bulls
t.Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff