FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

we all know what happened the last time McLaren photocopied something!

[darwin dali]

we all know what happened the last time McLaren photocopied something!

Oh, don't go there!

[Gaz]

Surely if mclaren just copy brawn it wont actually work that well, each one should be designed to the airo dynamics of the car.

Yep, but they won't literally just copy them...

Yeh they will just take the concept.

[Tony_sa]

we all know what happened the last time McLaren photocopied something!

Oh God ......not again !!!

[racechick]

McLaren have one for this weekend

[Gilles 27]

Yeh, not a very comprehensive response but i imagine that opening up any more of that area would require aero revisions further forward that they aren't ready to deploy just yet

[Big Azza]

I honestly cannot see a Ferrari or McLaren winning any of the Championships. But, Brawn won't be as successful this season with other cars matching their rear diffuser. I see their rear diffuser more "illegal" than the other two. I have absolutely no problem with the other two cars.

The Brawn actually has the most legal diffuser of the 3. But that's a nonsensical thing to say since things are only legal or illegal - and all three diffusers are perfectly legal.

Jenson, you've always brought me up on my "nonsensical" opinions. I hope you understand I'm uneducated in Formula One. Last season was the first time I've really hung on every race. It's not like I was actually going to read into all the rules and regulations of a rear wing. I'm not that devoted!

The reason for my observation is that it looks the most different of all the wings of the other cars on the grid. What I'd like to bring up though is that the Red Bull is looking very good this year, even without an innovative rear wing. Imagine how they'd go with one. Vettel should've had second or third at the Australian Grand Prix. And then imagine what BMW could've done.

McLaren should return to the top ten again, but, 'm adamant that their problems are not focussed entirely on the diffuser controversy. That car is pretty awful and they have have to look elsewhere. It's good to see they've been working for this Sunday's race. So heres hopin...

[Jensonb]

Jenson, you've always brought me up on my "nonsensical" opinions. I hope you understand I'm uneducated in Formula One. Last season was the first time I've really hung on every race. It's not like I was actually going to read into all the rules and regulations of a rear wing. I'm not that devoted!

The reason for my observation is that it looks the most different of all the wings of the other cars on the grid. What I'd like to bring up though is that the Red Bull is looking very good this year, even without an innovative rear wing. Imagine how they'd go with one. Vettel should've had second or third at the Australian Grand Prix. And then imagine what BMW could've done.

McLaren should return to the top ten again, but, 'm adamant that their problems are not focussed entirely on the diffuser controversy. That car is pretty awful and they have have to look elsewhere. It's good to see they've been working for this Sunday's race. So heres hopin...

Sorry, the "nonsensical" was directed purely at the idea of levels of illegality or legality because, as I said, things can only be legal or illegal. I understood where your opinion was coming from. My bad, should have been clearer.

But since, you're so new, I will tell you that the Wings and the diffusers are different. The Rear Wings are the bits at the top, which stick out of the back. The dispute relates to the diffuser, which is the black area at the bottom, which forms the back of the floor. They are separate aerodynamic devices. The reason the Brawn is the most within the rules (Assuming one uses the incorrect, stricter interpretation) is because it only has one extra deck, a smaller curved one. The other two cars feature 2 and 3 extra decks, which are squarer and have multiple additional planes.

But, as has been discussed, they are all legal.

Edit:

Rear Wing


Diffuser is the bit at the bottom here, with the black vertical planes and the curved shape towards the centre.

[Big Azza]

Oh...

I always thought the diffuser and the rear wing were kind of the same thing... I thought it was part of the wing. Thanks for the clarification Jenson.

Who knows, next I might be told something ridiculous like the cars have a limited engine capacity... hehehe /nervous laugh.

[texasmr2]

Oh...

I always thought the diffuser and the rear wing were kind of the same thing... I thought it was part of the wing. Thanks for the clarification Jenson.

Who knows, next I might be told something ridiculous like the cars have a limited engine capacity... hehehe /nervous laugh.

[Griff]

[McLaren Fan]

From autosport.com:

Parr clarifies Ferrari legality comments

By Jonathan Noble Friday, April 17th 2009, 06:24 GMT

Williams CEO Adam Parr has insisted he never meant to imply that Ferrari and Renault had been using an illegal car for years in Formula 1, as he moved to clarify remarks he made at this week's FIA International Court of Appeal hearing.

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali and Flavio Briatore have been upset by suggestions Parr made in the Paris hearing, where he stated that if rivals thought his team's diffuser was in breach of the regulations, then they had to accept their own machines had been illegal for years.

Parr has made it clear, however, that his remarks were simply a response to Ferrari's own assertions in the trial that the Williams was illegal.

"I think that there has been a very fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the court on Tuesday," said Parr, responding to a request from Domenicali to clarify his remarks.

"Part of the case presented against us related to what we call as the use of multiple vertical transitions. Essentially, you have to have a reference plane, which is like the plank, and 50mm above that you have the step planes. One of the key issues in the case was: when do you have to have a transition between those two?

"Essentially you have to have a vertical transition between the two when the step plane is visible directly above the periphery of the reference plane. Where you don't, it is explicit that you don't have to have one. So one of the key issues in the case was that if you don't have to have one at certain points then by definition you can have many transitions.

"Ferrari's case was that you could only have one or at best only one on each side. The problem that they had was that for many years cars have had multiple vertical transitions because at the front, where they have turning vanes or bargeboards, they have had a slot in that transition that creates more than one.

"So, they actually said in their submissions that on a strict interpretation of their case, their cars were illegal. Then they gave various reasons why that should not matter, but they said in their submissions and in their evidence, by their interpretation of the rules, that those cars were illegal."

He added: "To be absolutely clear, it was never our case that their cars were illegal. It was, if anything, their case. So we rejected that as being quite wrong. I want to be absolutely clear, on the record, that we have never said and we do not believe that for one minute either the Ferrari cars, or Renault cars, or anyone else's cars, for the last eight years have been illegal. What we say is that they, and we, have used the same principles for eight or nine years."

Parr said he would go and talk with Domenicali to clear up any misunderstanding between them over the matter.

"Stefano Domenicali is a man who you cannot but respect," said Parr. "I've always found him to be incredibly straight. It is not just that he is a charming guy; he is an intelligent, straightforward man.

"I think he is about a week older than me, and in some ways we have a similar education he is from a legal/economic background although he has worked for years in F1 unlike me. He is just someone you just get on with, you trust and you like instantly.

"We've known him in his previous role for many years and one of the first things I did when he became the team principal was, when I spoke to Tim Newton (Williams team manager) I said he was a guy you could always trust. I would just hate anybody to think that there was any disagreement between myself and Stefano, or between Williams and Ferrari."

[Frosty]

Because were into the new season and 2010 will be the next season does that mean it would now take all of the teams to agreeing to a regulation change to ban the diffusers for next year?

[scotty]

So this looks like the new Renault diffuser... it's very different to the others!

[EwanM]

The diffusers are so weird. I mean I could easily take my Black and Decker and drill a hole in there.