Brawn, Toyota, Williams: Legal or not?

[Jungles]

It looks like a formal complaint will be lodged for scrutineers at Melbourne about the "illegal" diffusers. It's not just Ferrari either. Renault and Red Bull also consider them illegal.

What is the verdict of the PistonHeads jury?

[AndrewW-G]

Whilst I'd love them to be legal if only to watch as Button pisses all over hamilton (who's going to have some real problems if the McLaren isnt on pace) I think they'll be judged as being outside of the rules and banned from racing in that configuration.

[Chassis 33]

Legal or not, shirley Brawn et al. are switched on enough to be developing a diffuser in the style or the remaining teams' should the stepped diffuser be declared illegal? I doubt it will be as simple as a unbolt the old bolt on the new solution however I doubt the entire aerodynamic/chassis concept of the cars is based around the rear diffuser.

Regards
Iain

[stevesingo]

To the letter of the rules I'm sure they are legal. But they will be deemed as not in the spirit of the rules and be banned. The "SPIRIT" is something that can only be defined with prejudice and influence, which lies with the teams complaining.

Steve

[Dr KT]

Can someone please clarify what is it that makes them ilegal?

Is it the way the spoilor meets the diffuser?

K

[Chassis 33]

Its the way the flat floor meets with the diffuser. The issue as far as I can see is that the flat floor is extended on these three cars forming a secondary "diffuser" that is outside of the permitted area.
A few piccies and a better explaination here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73083

Regards
Iain

[german tony]

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

[Ahonen]

german tony said:

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

The so-called 'spirit' of the rules is utter rubbish. If the rules have been badly written then they are there to be exploited. It's no good getting them 'clarified' or the FIA saying 'we didn't mean that': the regs have been signed off with that exact wording, so the diffusers are legal to the letter of the rules, which is the only thing that matters.

As ever, the guys who didn't spot the loophole are complaining. It's basic politics and I suspect the ingenious designers will now be punished because the less lateral thinking teams will jump up and down and make a noise.

I get annoyed by the whole 'spirit of the rules' argument. It's used by teams who didn't think of the idea first. If everyone complied with the spirit of the rules then some of the cleverest ideas and best cars in motorsport would never have seen the light of day.

[ginettag27]

german tony said:

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

translated into Ecclescake speak as "Ferrari haven't thought of it, therefore it's illegal"

[Scuffers]

Ahonen said:

german tony said:

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

The so-called 'spirit' of the rules is utter rubbish. If the rules have been badly written then they are there to be exploited. It's no good getting them 'clarified' or the FIA saying 'we didn't mean that': the regs have been signed off with that exact wording, so the diffusers are legal to the letter of the rules, which is the only thing that matters.

As ever, the guys who didn't spot the loophole are complaining. It's basic politics and I suspect the ingenious designers will now be punished because the less lateral thinking teams will jump up and down and make a noise.

I get annoyed by the whole 'spirit of the rules' argument. It's used by teams who didn't think of the idea first. If everyone complied with the spirit of the rules then some of the cleverest ideas and best cars in motorsport would never have seen the light of day.

exactly (and as opposed to re-interpreting a bit of the rules to meet your illegal cars needs ie. Ferarri and the 5mm tolerance)

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 24th March 11:47

[Chassis 33]

Ahonen said:

german tony said:

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

The so-called 'spirit' of the rules is utter rubbish. If the rules have been badly written then they are there to be exploited. It's no good getting them 'clarified' or the FIA saying 'we didn't mean that': the regs have been signed off with that exact wording, so the diffusers are legal to the letter of the rules, which is the only thing that matters.

As ever, the guys who didn't spot the loophole are complaining. It's basic politics and I suspect the ingenious designers will now be punished because the less lateral thinking teams will jump up and down and make a noise.

I get annoyed by the whole 'spirit of the rules' argument. It's used by teams who didn't think of the idea first. If everyone complied with the spirit of the rules then some of the cleverest ideas and best cars in motorsport would never have seen the light of day.

Turning that on its head, the purpose of a designer/engineer is to wholly exploit the performance permitted by the regulations, hence the spirit of the rules is to design cars right on the edge of those regulations and as such it could be argued that the engineers not exploiting the loophole are infact the ones not designing to the spirit of the rules and are giving it the smoke and mirrors treatment to hid their blunder.

Regards
Iain

[DangerousMike]

for technical regulations, there is no "spirit of the rules." When you can quantitatively define something, with dimensions etc, then the concept of the rules having a blurry, diffuse interpretation intertwined with the literal reading is pointless.

When it comes to sporting rules, like rules on overtaking etc. then I accept there is such a a thing.

The fact is the rules say something like "when viewed from below blah blah the diffuser can only be X high." If stuff that you can't see from below is higher than X, it doesn't matter, the rules haven't been broken.

[flemke]

Ahonen said:

german tony said:

There's no doubting how clever this solution is but it's outside the spirit of he rules & that's that.

The so-called 'spirit' of the rules is utter rubbish. If the rules have been badly written then they are there to be exploited. It's no good getting them 'clarified' or the FIA saying 'we didn't mean that': the regs have been signed off with that exact wording, so the diffusers are legal to the letter of the rules, which is the only thing that matters.

As ever, the guys who didn't spot the loophole are complaining. It's basic politics and I suspect the ingenious designers will now be punished because the less lateral thinking teams will jump up and down and make a noise.

I get annoyed by the whole 'spirit of the rules' argument. It's used by teams who didn't think of the idea first. If everyone complied with the spirit of the rules then some of the cleverest ideas and best cars in motorsport would never have seen the light of day.

This situation may be different from the norm.
Normally, the regulators go into their cone of silence, decide what they're going to impose on the entrants, and then issue dictates to them. There might be some communication between the two groups prior to finalisation of the regs, but it's an "us-versus-them" relationship.
In this case, the "Overtaking Working Group" was formed specifically to improve the show, and its leaders were from the teams themselves. They functioned not as regulators dictating to the entrants, but rather as representatives of the entrants.
I would not know how much communication or consultation there might have been between the OWG and the entrants who were not part of its leadership. Nonetheless, the OWG "rulesmakers" in this case were on the same side and shared the same interests as all the other entrants. For that reason, one can understand why some entrants would be saying "Come on, guys, we designers all know damn well what we meant." After all, the whole point of the exercise was to manage the rear airflow in a particular way, consistent from car to car. The more creative diffuser designs work against that.

I'm not saying that either entrant group is in the wrong, just that one can see why one group might be justifiably miffed.
The only party in this that is in the wrong is the FIA, as per usual. That should have made it clear long before now - as soon as the issue arose more than a month ago - what will be allowed. The idea that the FIA cannot carlify the rule until an entrant has formally protested, and that now can only be done in Australia, is risible. Just another example of the FIA's gross irresponsibility and capriciousness.

[mikee boy]

If it's a definite technical infringement then they're illegal in my book. If some bright spark has identified a way of legally interpreting the rules to gain an advantage then it's not illegal.

The spirit of motor racing should be to win, legally. That's why rules are written and why they're so long-winded. All teams have the opportunity to spot a performance advantage, those that don't fail the Darwinian 'Natural Selection' test.

[Colesy21]

The simple fact is, the FIA should have sorted this out weeks ago. They should have had some back-bone to stand up and make a decision so that it gives either:

- the teams with the queried difusers a chance to develop something new and TEST them (this is now not an option for them)

or

- the other teams to develop their own versions of the difusers (they're hardly going to waste testing time doing this whilst the rules are unclear)

It's such a shame the first race of the season is guaranteed to go the stewards. Does the FIA not realise how much of a mockery this makes of the sport?

[german tony]

In this instance the spirt of the rules was to reduce the diffuser area (to allow for more overtaking etc etc) to a specific size. What Toyota/Williams have done & Brawn has copied is a method of clawing back some lost downforce. It's not a different way of doing things, it's a way of circumnavigating the regs.

I'm not critiscing Williams/Toyota for trying it, indeed, I am hoping to be most amused when they turn up at Oz without it knowing that they have wasted their rivals' time with it or armed with a very good laywer to get it accepted. That's what the sport is about.

I don't think that they will be able to run with it without a damn good lawyer though 'cos it is against the spirit of the rules, to the tune of about 0.5 secs a lap & that's without considering the adverse effect on overtaking.

[IainT]

If the rule was writtent to effectively limit the performance of the diffuser but worded poorly enough to allow this clever interpretation that removes the limit then it's both clever and in need of outlawing.

The intention of the rule has been circumvented. Bad wording and shame on the FIA for it their lack of quick response it a bigger issue though. Leaving it unclarified until race weekend is a poor show.

[DangerousMike]

Rules don't have intentions, rule writers do.

All you can do as a constructor is read the rules and make the best car that complies with them. If it goes against the intention of the rule writers, the problem is with the rules and not the car.

So its down to badly written rules. Keep the rules for this year but close the loophole next year. The designers of the cars have done nothing wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Why do you say Brawn copied it? They probably had this diffuser 6 months ago as they were the first to design a car for these regs.

The whole system is a farce.

What should happen is the teams should get the technical delegate from the FIA to inspect their design and sign it off, which is what has happened so far on these cars. That decision should stand for the season, no if's or buts. If there is then a problem with that interpretation of the rules the FIA should re-write the regs to be applied for the following season.

If that isn't the case, as we have now and have seen in the past with the "mass damper" for example, then there is zero point clarifying your design with the FIA. If they did as i suggest there would be no opportunity to influence the championship via meddling with car spec later on in the season.

The reason Ferrari got away with their barge boards being out of spec was that the FIA didn't have an accurate means of measuring the car at that time, thats why they then went out and purchased a granite bed measuring rig which is used at the GP's during scrutineering checks.

[Jungles]

johnfelstead said:

The whole system is a farce.

What should happen is the teams should get the technical delegate from the FIA to inspect their design and sign it off, which is what has happened so far on these cars. That decision should stand for the season, no if's or buts. If there is then a problem with that interpretation of the rules the FIA should re-write the regs to be applied for the following season.

Well, to be fair, only one team (unnamed) has had their design "signed off". Charlie Whiting did take a look at the cars during testing and commented positively on their legality, but as far as I know, it wasn't really a formal inspection.

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Once the designs are OK'ed by FIA, that should end all arguments about legality.

Edited by Jungles on Tuesday 24th March 12:56