Rear diffuser Appeal Predictions

timbo · Post 10 Apr 2009, 08:35

virtuso13 wrote:But I do salute those in small teams like williams ,brawn and tayota .

Either this is classic case of trolling, or your definition of small vaguely differs with mine

virtuso13 · Post 10 Apr 2009, 10:16

Giblet

Post subject: Re: Rear diffuser Appeal Predictions

* Quote Giblet

Those numbers are insane.

Sorry, but if I have a pre-established fab shop with people in place that can work, I can make a front wing or cheaper than $21,500.

Some of those numbers look like they were made up to get a bigger budget from a board of directors.
Those numbers are insane.

Sorry, but if I have a pre-established fab shop with people in place that can work, I can make a front wing or cheaper than $21,500.

Some of those numbers look like they were made up to get a bigger budget from a board of directors.

Sorry guys i didn't care to check the numbers there , i copied it from the following link and it is really very very very old .http://www.f1-country.com/f1cost.html

But check out this site , this is also very old(2003) but the guys claim to have spoken to top guys in the team and it also has breakups for each team .Really interesting - http://www.fastmachines.com/f1/the-price-of-formula-1/

Sorry for the stupid numbers , i'll try to get some of this years figures

czt · Post 10 Apr 2009, 11:56

The component costs shown in the table are miles out - $320 for a steering wheel?! They have tens of thousands worth of electronics in them for a start! Even the basic carbon shell would cost a multiple of the figure given. Likewise bodywork at $8400, not a chance!

Chaparral · Post 10 Apr 2009, 15:29

xpensive wrote:Better watch yourself Chap, I'll be in Sydney and Hobart for business the coming of May this year.

By the way, why did Dan Gurney have to go in 1970, never got that one. Castrol?

Well X I may be in Sydney in May I go there quite often and lived there for 30 years off and on and in the last 12 months moved 500 kms north to a rural home Ive had for a number of years so if Im down there I would catch up for a coffee. Ive never been sure on that Gurney thing I remember reading long ago it was a conflict of interest - he had a Castrol logo on the driving suit or car however Mclaren (which he was driving at the time) were sponsored by Gulf..........I must pull the Pete Lyons book out again and take a look.

bonjon1979 · Post 13 Apr 2009, 17:57

My friend met a lawyer at the weekend who is working for one of the teams protesting the diffusers. He was fairly confident that the appeal is going to be thrown out. Most interestingly, from what he has learnt from the team he is representing, even if the diffusers were banned the Brawn would still be a long way ahead as the difference it makes isn't as massive as people are making out, certainly not as great as a second a lap as some suggest. He also said that it would take a long time for the team he's working for to adapt their car to suit, certainly until after barcelona and when they do they didn't expect to be able to close the gap to Brawn.

xpensive · Post 13 Apr 2009, 18:20

Wonder why in the world any self-respecting team would hire a lawyer like that?

Don't tell me...your friend met this lawyer in a bar, right?

timbo · Post 13 Apr 2009, 18:26

xpensive wrote:Wonder why in the world any self-respecting team would hire a lawyer like that?

Wasn't it a viking belief that after death warriors would wait for a great final battle in which they would be inevitably defeated?
Maybe they hired a lawyer who would eat some shrooms go berserk and saw Ross' head off?

xpensive · Post 13 Apr 2009, 18:36

MrM is a lawyer and I have always suspected his secret is ego-shrooms cultivated in that whipping-dungeon of his.

ISLAMATRON · Post 13 Apr 2009, 19:03

I want to hear more about the claims from RBR that they showed plans for a similar type dual level diffuser and was told no by the FIA... if they have this incident well documented it could be a real sticking point in tomorrow's proceedings.

vall · Post 13 Apr 2009, 19:14

ISLAMATRON wrote:I want to hear more about the claims from RBR that they showed plans for a similar type dual level diffuser and was told no by the FIA... if they have this incident well documented it could be a real sticking point in tomorrow's proceedings.

some time ago, somewhere in the forum I asked the same. I think it was both RBR and Renault who asked FIA.

bonjon1979 · Post 13 Apr 2009, 19:35

xpensive wrote:Wonder why in the world any self-respecting team would hire a lawyer like that?

Don't tell me...your friend met this lawyer in a bar, right?

Members club in London, but ostensively, yes in a bar! I suppose there's hundreds of lawyers employed by those teams at the moment, probably drunk in bars, possibly shooting their mouth off. Interesting to hear what he had to say though, he was virtually writing the season off for everyone, saying the other teams have little chance of catching up with Brawn who they expect will have further updates at barcelona that will put them furthe ahead.

Agerasia · Post 13 Apr 2009, 19:49

Generally lawyers do not represent the teams at the court of appeal as it's not a "court" as in what most people percieve it to be. It's not criminal and only deals with issues involved with motor sport.
Teams will send their representitives or those members who have a high knowledge of what's involved.
The lawyers who are there are used to submit paperwork, send documents and talk to the press etc.

DaveKillens · Post 13 Apr 2009, 19:56

Three teams made more imaginative and better interpretation of the rules. Everyone was operating by the same set of rules, yet the rest failed to realize and capitalize on this loophole. All teams search vigorously for loopholes to exploit.
Just because a few teams or just one team find a new way to exploit a loophole, while the rest did not, is no reason to roll the rules back and punish the ones being clever.

mikhak · Post 13 Apr 2009, 20:06

Is it not the FIA's job to close these loopholes. The FIA cant predict what innovative solutions the teams will come up with but when they do come up with something which goes against what they were tryin to achieve then i would think they would want to close the loophole that allows this other interpretation.
Judging by what rory byrne says these double deck diffusers do the opposite of what the FIA set out to do, ie. promote overtaking. And the paths that double deck diffuser development would take is also against what the FIA is trying to achieve. Theres alot of people delighted that Brawn GP is doing so well and finally we have Ferrari and Mclaren doing --- and yes of course if the double deck diffusers are made legal ferrari and mclaren have more than enough money and know how at their disposal to come up with a good design for their cars but then what was the point in changing the rules in the first place if this leads back to the days of cars that are 2sec a lap quicker sitting behind the other car for 20laps until the pitstops.

ISLAMATRON · Post 13 Apr 2009, 20:16

DaveKillens wrote:Three teams made more imaginative and better interpretation of the rules. Everyone was operating by the same set of rules, yet the rest failed to realize and capitalize on this loophole. All teams search vigorously for loopholes to exploit.
Just because a few teams or just one team find a new way to exploit a loophole, while the rest did not, is no reason to roll the rules back and punish the ones being clever.

and what if RBR presented that very idea to the FIA and was told it was illigal? What then?