FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

purely because the other teams are so enraged that they weren't smart enough to do it.

What about Red Bull and Renault the FIA said their designs were illegal a year ago where as Brawn, Williams and Toyota didn't submit their designs so the FIA didn't see them until testing and when they did they said they were legal.

It may well have been that the Renault and Red Bull designs didn't fit wholly inside the loophole - you might have been able to see parts of the car from underneath, which would be illegal. What Renault and Red Bull did not include in their whine was whether or not their design was actually that close to the Brawn, Toyota and Williams designs.

[Frosty]

but it might also break the dimension rules, plus as we all know weight is a key in this, if they are using a diffuser that is mean't to help speed, wouldn't using it for 2 purposes be illegal? as it was built for one thing? but increasing the weight for extra down force should be wrong? plus attaching it to something that should be keeping you safe....Dangerous in which i thought we was improving ?

I'm not sure if I total understand your points but I will say this all three cars have passed the FIA safety tests so the rear crash structure is safe they all meet the weight requirements and that increasing down force by using a diffuser is not illegal.

[scotty]

If these diffusers were ruled illegal, then it is farcical that the mirror 'supports' on several cars (for example) should not be a problem at all, seeing as they are essentially the same clever concept of using loopholes to add aero parts. Also i haven't seen one team who isn't running something that isn't within the 'spirit' of the new regs, that BS doesn't wash with me at all.

[Frosty]

purely because the other teams are so enraged that they weren't smart enough to do it.

What about Red Bull and Renault the FIA said their designs were illegal a year ago where as Brawn, Williams and Toyota didn't submit their designs so the FIA didn't see them until testing and when they did they said they were legal.

It may well have been that the Renault and Red Bull designs didn't fit wholly inside the loophole - you might have been able to see parts of the car from underneath, which would be illegal. What Renault and Red Bull did not include in their whine was whether or not their design was actually that close to the Brawn, Toyota and Williams designs.

Maybe but I find it difficult to see how they would of got that far and not designed the holes correctly it's not hard to produce a vertical hole.

[Denthúl]

but it might also break the dimension rules, plus as we all know weight is a key in this, if they are using a diffuser that is mean't to help speed, wouldn't using it for 2 purposes be illegal? as it was built for one thing? but increasing the weight for extra down force should be wrong? plus attaching it to something that should be keeping you safe....Dangerous in which i thought we was improving ?

Weight doesn't create downforce.

And at the end of the day, making it part of the rear crash structure isn't likely to make it less safe. If it did, it would fail the crash tests that the FIA put all cars through. So from a safety point of view, it's fine.

If these diffusers were ruled illegal, then it is farcical that the mirror 'supports' on several cars (for example) should not be a problem at all, seeing as they are essentially the same clever concept of using loopholes to add aero parts. Also i haven't seen one team who isn't running something that isn't within the 'spirit' of the new regs, that BS doesn't wash with me at all.

purely because the other teams are so enraged that they weren't smart enough to do it.

What about Red Bull and Renault the FIA said their designs were illegal a year ago where as Brawn, Williams and Toyota didn't submit their designs so the FIA didn't see them until testing and when they did they said they were legal.

It may well have been that the Renault and Red Bull designs didn't fit wholly inside the loophole - you might have been able to see parts of the car from underneath, which would be illegal. What Renault and Red Bull did not include in their whine was whether or not their design was actually that close to the Brawn, Toyota and Williams designs.

Maybe but I find it difficult to see how they would of got that far and not designed the holes correctly it's not hard to produce a vertical hole.

It's entirely possible that they couldn't fit any other way in without compromising the design of the car's floor.

[Frosty]

but it might also break the dimension rules, plus as we all know weight is a key in this, if they are using a diffuser that is mean't to help speed, wouldn't using it for 2 purposes be illegal? as it was built for one thing? but increasing the weight for extra down force should be wrong? plus attaching it to something that should be keeping you safe....Dangerous in which i thought we was improving ?

Weight doesn't create downforce.

And at the end of the day, making it part of the rear crash structure isn't likely to make it less safe. If it did, it would fail the crash tests that the FIA put all cars through. So from a safety point of view, it's fine.

If these diffusers were ruled illegal, then it is farcical that the mirror 'supports' on several cars (for example) should not be a problem at all, seeing as they are essentially the same clever concept of using loopholes to add aero parts. Also i haven't seen one team who isn't running something that isn't within the 'spirit' of the new regs, that BS doesn't wash with me at all.

purely because the other teams are so enraged that they weren't smart enough to do it.

What about Red Bull and Renault the FIA said their designs were illegal a year ago where as Brawn, Williams and Toyota didn't submit their designs so the FIA didn't see them until testing and when they did they said they were legal.

It may well have been that the Renault and Red Bull designs didn't fit wholly inside the loophole - you might have been able to see parts of the car from underneath, which would be illegal. What Renault and Red Bull did not include in their whine was whether or not their design was actually that close to the Brawn, Toyota and Williams designs.

Maybe but I find it difficult to see how they would of got that far and not designed the holes correctly it's not hard to produce a vertical hole.

It's entirely possible that they couldn't fit any other way in without compromising the design of the car's floor.

I think we will find out I'm sure their 'Illegal' designs will be used as evidence

[Frosty]

The Williams Diffuser is a nice Triple decker a bit of an in-between the Brawn and the Toyota IMO
The first Deck is highlighted in Red the second Green Third Blue

The second image is actually a link because it's from the F1 website and Bernie will shoot me if I reproduce it the intakes are clearly highlighted in yellow
http://www.formula1.com/photos/ta_artic ... le_637.jpg

[FerrariFan63]

Haven't they made their decision yet?

[Gaz]

Haven't they made their decision yet?

no tommrow afternoon

getting sick of waiting.

[Jamie]

It' stupid, just give us there answer. But to be honest they have to take allot of things on-board.

[racechick]

It' stupid, just give us there answer. But to be honest they have to take allot of things on-board.

Cases of champagne, life jackets, sun bathing gear, novels, wind surfers, water skis...........

Oh yes, scuba diving stuff

[Jamie]

It' stupid, just give us there answer. But to be honest they have to take allot of things on-board.

Cases of champagne, life jackets, sun bathing gear, novels, wind surfers, water skis...........

Oh yes, scuba diving stuff

You forgotten Cuban Cigars

[racechick]

It' stupid, just give us there answer. But to be honest they have to take allot of things on-board.

Cases of champagne, life jackets, sun bathing gear, novels, wind surfers, water skis...........

Oh yes, scuba diving stuff

You forgotten Cuban Cigars

Yep, those too!!!

[Jamie]

Well we'll find out tomorrow while i'm painting

[FerrariFan63]

:hehe:
Well we'll find out tomorrow while i'm painting

Why? It's not like they won't have worked out their decision in private before the hearing. Why make us wait?