FORUMula1.com

[FerrariFan63]

Versa-tech, can you write more about your reasons for saying that the Brawn is legal. Particularly whether there are holes in the car from which bodywork is visible from beneath.

The channel created by the upper surface of the diffuser and the diversion plane of the rear crash structure really isn't a diffuser at all. It is simply a port from which air is accelerated from the corners where the [visible] side bodywork meets the upper surface of the diffuser (also visible). The accelerated air moving in between the low pressure air escaping the diffuser creates a horizontal vortex which not only increases the efficiency of the diffuser, but also counterbalances the opposing vortex coming off the inside edge of the rear wheels effectively decreasing drag.

It's important to remember that the central channel does not create downforce. If it did, it would be considered a wing and would be deemed illegal. Furthermore, the central channel reduces the cars wake, which serves the purpose for which these regulations were enacted in the first place.

Yes, but the rules forbid holes in the bottom of the car through which bodywork is visible. The hole in the Brawn seems to contravene this rule. From what I've read, Brawn's claim that the diffuser is legal is based upon claiming that the hole is not a "hole", but a "slot". It looks like something that meets the definition of a "hole" to me.

[bud]

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/videos/the-di ... lained_66/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

this is a great video explaining the whole diffuser mess