- 10 Jul 11, 17:42#264976
Yes there is.
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12060.html
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12223.html.
It's ironic, you all seem to complain about the FIA helping Ferrari so want them to help McLaren instead.
The overruns are illegal.
I tend to agree but there is nothing on the current regs to ban them on.
Yes there is.
Q: Why does the FIA believe that the use of blown diffuser technology may be illegal when used with certain engine maps?
Charlie Whiting: It became apparent to us, through examination of data, that what we thought was a fairly benign feature was turning into something that was being used, in our opinion, illegally. An exhaust system is there for the purpose of exhausting gasses from the engine and when you’re off-throttle, it isn’t doing that any more. Therefore it’s being used to influence the aerodynamic characteristics of the car. We think arguably, this infringes Article 3.15 of the technical regulations.
Q: Why has this issue been raised now, rather than last season, over the winter period, or earlier this year?
CW: Simply because these things start off little, appearing to be quite benign. They then get worse and worse. Now we are faced with the possibility of even more extreme systems coming along. We felt it was time to do something about it.
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12060.html
Blown diffusers
Q: Why will the off-throttle blown diffusers be banned from Silverstone onwards?
CW: We know exhaust gasses have an influence on the aerodynamic performance of the car and we accept that. The point is that a design should not attempt to use the exhaust for a completely different reason [aerodynamics as a primary, rather than a secondary effect].
Q: What are the new operating conditions with regard to throttle-opening and spark?
CW: We only want to target this one specific issue - what we think is illegal use of maps for aero reasons. We don't want to influence the perfectly legitimate systems on the car - engine braking for example. We're happy for them to use that, but we want to be sure it isn't being abused.
We're saying that if a driver comes off the throttle - zero pedal - then the throttles have got to be [maximum] 10 per cent open at 12,000rpm and [maximum] 20 per cent open at 18,000rpm.
One engine manufacturer is asking for a little bit more - for what appear to be genuine reasons. We have the ability to go back on this particular point, to look at 2009 maps, when [teams] did not have in place the exhausts that they have now. If they needed 28 per cent throttle in order to achieve 0Nm at 18,000rpm back then, then that would appear to be a perfectly reasonable request.
The engines haven't changed: they are homologated engines and identical to the ones we have used from 2007 onwards.
Similarly, we will look at any extreme use of ignition. We will know what the team used to do with regard to fuelling and ignition. If we see a clear imbalance then I think we will suspect it is being done for different reasons [other than delivering torque]. We haven't put clear limits, we haven't put plus or minus 20¡, for example, for a given torque demand. We have just said the set up that you use for fuelling and ignition must be normal for the demanded torque. We are looking for anything abnormal. I think that's the best we can do for the moment.
Q: Does that mean there will not be blanket limits across all makes of engine?
CW: A lot of it depends on engine architecture. For example, we have to be very careful not to disadvantage barrel throttles versus butterfly throttles, because they have a distinctly different way of working. In answer to the question, if it's clear that in 2009 one engine with a butterfly throttle only needed 15 per cent [at zero pedal] but another engine using a barrel throttle needed 20 per cent, we could make a distinction. We don't want to put a figure across the board which will affect one team in a different way to another.
Q: Why will this ban appear at Silverstone? Why not earlier?
CW: Our argument is that there is a strong case to suggest they [blown diffusers] are illegal. Ultimately, the stewards will decide.
We have not had protests yet. I think we got close to a protest in Monaco. I gave the team in question an assurance that we were going to follow this through; we weren't going to give it up. On that basis we haven't had any protests yet, though I have always emphasised to the teams that this option is open to them.
I think everyone is doing the same thing, to some degree, so I think we need to be sensible about this and approach it in a pragmatic way to get the situation under control.
Q: There is a perception that decisions like this are political rather than technical, and damage the image of F1. What is your opinion?
CW: I'm aware of some stories being written, but to be frank with you, I know it's not a political decision. I know it's purely a technical intervention on our side and I feel perfectly comfortable with that.
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12223.html.
so much bitching and corruption look at the FIA, FIFA s*** any top notch sporting body in the EU.
). The FiA has for half a season been weak and indecisive. That led to a head to head fight between McLaren and Red Bull. From day one SF has steered clear of this, yet now you read in some places this is an SF fueled incident. For what its worth, Ferrari signed the agreement as soon as it was presented to them. That was confirmed by Bernie and Horner. Much to Stefano's credit he made the point that, although it may disadvantage SF, the team signed in the best interests of F1, something others didn't seem able to do.
