Rear diffuser Appeal Predictions

[GTO]

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

I'm certain the FIA will argue with tooth & nail (lie & weasel out somehow) saying that what RBR presented was different and not identical to those used by Brawn.:^o
After 2 races, surely they will not overturn the results & embarrass themselves.

[DaveKillens]

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?

RBR would base it's complaint on the fact that other teams were more creative? And since they did not follow the general consesus, should be punished?

[RacingManiac]

They don't have to overturn the results, much like they didn't with the whole mass damper business, but they could just outlaw its use from this point forward....

[ISLAMATRON]

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

I'm certain the FIA will argue with tooth & nail (lie & weasel out somehow) saying that what RBR presented was different and not identical to those used by Brawn.:^o
After 2 races, surely they will not overturn the results & embarrass themselves.

The FIA never loses out on a chance to embarrass themselves.

[vall]

I'm wondering what would be the implications if DDDs deemed legal? Will we loose some teams 2010? Renault is a good suspect, especially if DDDs are banned for 2010? BMW? What about the drivers?

[xpensive]

I still believe the FIA will clear up the rules today, along the lines Rory Byrne explained the other day. Portrayed as "closing for possible misinterpretations", while letting the results of Australia and Malaysia stand as not to lose face.

If they would elect not to, MrM's "low-cost" F1 is out the window, while he will lose Renault and possibly BMW too.
Toyota will be gone either way.

You simply can't re-shuffle the deck of rules, just to turn everything upside down once again for something like this?

[andartop]

It' still also quite likely that they will deem the diffusers illegal but only punish McLaren about this:

See, they (the FIA) know McLaren believe the double decker diffusers to be illegal but they have not protested against it.

Thus, a competing Team deliberately allowed 3 other Teams to race an apparently illegal part without bringing it to the attention of the FIA as they were obliged to, according to Sporting Regulation No ...


(apologize for separating one subject to three different paragraphs against everything I've known since 1st grade, but this is only to satisfy popular demand)

[xpensive]

Besides, I am sure McLaren told a lie or two in the process, didn't they?

[Chaparral]

Heres a story from Autosport its Ned Flanders and his view on why they should find the 'diffuser 3' guilty and remove the advantage - I take the other end of the spectrum and say this is the very reason they should find that the 'diffuser 3' can keep on with what theyre doing - Ned wants in his mind a 'level playing field' - for gods sake Ned build a better mouse trap - do you want everything in life to be a level playing field which it never is has or will be - my god what a boring world it would be if that were the case - verdict - Ned is a boring person with no imagination

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74462

[kilcoo316]

RBR would base it's complaint on the fact that other teams were more creative? And since they did not follow the general consesus, should be punished?

Err....

No.

If RBR asked and were told "no they couldn't", it wouldn't exactly make sense to waste development time on a supposedly illegal system.

[timbo]

I think in any case FIA should clarify the rules regarding "slots". Cause designers have a tendency to exploit every possibility they have to a maximal extent.

[xpensive]

I have an odd feeling that Rory Byrnes remark the other day was made for a specific reason, in particular this part:

"If you look at the Brawn Mercedes from below, you can see the suspension - and that is forbidden,"

[kilcoo316]

I have an odd feeling that Rory Byrnes remark the other day was made for a specific reason, in particular this part:

"If you look at the Brawn Mercedes from below, you can see the suspension - and that is forbidden,"

I thought that the definition of seeing was only from a vertical perspective?


Admittedly, not sure on that... it could be where all the fuss is coming from.

[Chaparral]

I think in any case FIA should clarify the rules regarding "slots". Cause designers have a tendency to exploit every possibility they have to a maximal extent.

Timbo - simple question - why??

Why narrow the opportunity of someone using their skills to create something different to the next guy within a certain set of guidelines - you have to have a base to work from - but not a definite - otherwise why bother. F1 has been stifled by rules set by the FIA for near a decade now and the first time they loosen them up - many step in and say not fair for this reason or that - its absolute bollocks - and unfortunately those decrying what Williams Toyota & Brawn have done are just attuned to following the party line - thats sad - where are your heads at guys - do you not have your own thoughts outside the last decade of follow the leader.................I hope so. You will note that all 3 of the diffuser gang have a slightly different approach to the end result - doesn't that tell you something. Do you want innovative cars or follow the leader FIA ruled dodgem cars - your call

[kilcoo316]

Timbo - simple question - why??

'cos you cannot have one set of rules for one bunch, and another set for another.


The FIA have dropped the ball (again) - if they had said the things were legal back in January, then we wouldn't have this problem.



edit: Note that clarify does not automatically mean ban - it can mean approval.