The FIA's spoken agenda is to drastically cut costs, however an unspoken (actually they've been quite blunt about it) part of that agenda is to enable the smaller teams to thrive and compete with the bigger ones. If they had declared the diffusers illegal they would have been punishing two smaller teams and an under-achieving behemoth.
It might also explain why Charley Whiting told Red Bull, Renault and a number of others that their designs would be illegal on the one hand, whilst informing Brawn, Williams and Toyota theirs were totally fine. Even though the designs clearly contradict the intent of the rules governing aerodynamics! If I was a suspicious man I would say Charley Whiting is a two faced, lying sh*t h**d! Which in fact I am and I am.
Diffusers ruled legal by the International Court of Appeal
Moderators: cmlean, Ed, The Qualiflyer, The Heretic
-
Julian Mayo
- Forum Hall of Fame
- Posts: 15661
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:07 am
- Location: Tying the antenna to the tallest tree I can find.
Whiting sits on Max's knee, with Max's hand inserted somewhere. When it looks like Whiting is speaking, have a close look at Max's lipsSnowy wrote:The FIA's spoken agenda is to drastically cut costs, however an unspoken (actually they've been quite blunt about it) part of that agenda is to enable the smaller teams to thrive and compete with the bigger ones. If they had declared the diffusers illegal they would have been punishing two smaller teams and an under-achieving behemoth.
It might also explain why Charley Whiting told Red Bull, Renault and a number of others that their designs would be illegal on the one hand, whilst informing Brawn, Williams and Toyota theirs were totally fine. Even though the designs clearly contradict the intent of the rules governing aerodynamics! If I was a suspicious man I would say Charley Whiting is a two faced, lying sh*t h**d! Which in fact I am and I am.
The Mountain is a savage Mistress.
Thank you Ed.
The document gives technical description of the diffuser and how it sidesteps the rules:
About downforce and overtaking:
About Renault protests in particular:
Finally, a quote I like to keep in mind about the preamble to article 3 Bodywork and dimensions:
The document gives technical description of the diffuser and how it sidesteps the rules:
45. The Contested Design Teams submit that they have shaped the step and
reference planes to prevent them from overlapping at various points, so that
vertically above these points on the reference plane, the step plane is not
visible. As there is no surface visible on the step plane vertically above the
periphery of the reference plane at these points, the transition is not necessary
and has not been placed. There continue to be transitions joining the points
where the step and reference planes overlap.
46. Thus, rather than having just one continuous transition, the Contested Design
Concept involves the use of multiple vertical transitions between which air may
pass (rather than a single continuous transition through which air may not pass).
The spaces between these multiple vertical transitions allow air to be channeled
towards an additional diffuser which is not visible from directly beneath the car
(as it is placed above the visible lower diffuser).
74. The Contested Design Teams point out that Art. 3.12.7 TR states that:
No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane.
They argue that Art. 3.12.7 TR does not constrain the design of bodywork
unless it is visible from directly beneath the car. They submit that, regardless of
whether their Contested Design Concept might be in excess of 175mm in height
above the reference plane, it is not visible from beneath and therefore not
constrained by this measurement.
75. Further they argue that there is no regulation which prohibits their diffusers
from beginning to direct air upwards at a point which is forward of the rear
wheel centre line.
About downforce and overtaking:
41. Moreover, no party has submitted conclusive evidence demonstrating to the
Court that the use of the Contested Design Concept increases the detrimental
effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car, and indeed some
evidence to the contrary was submitted.
About Renault protests in particular:
84. The FIA argues that in no previous statement did it deal with the Contested
Design Concept. The questions put to it in previous cases were different and
answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position.
Finally, a quote I like to keep in mind about the preamble to article 3 Bodywork and dimensions:
Mr WHITING said that rather than an instrument for penalising offenders the paragraph was intended as a safeguard, which would allow the changing of the regulations if the F1TWG considered that 2006 levels of downforce were being regained.