Rear diffuser Appeal Predictions

[bonjon1979]

The argument is all about semantics. For example what does 'viewed from directly below' mean? Is there a spot they have to stand on and look up in the very centre of the car. Or is it the outer edge of the car? When viewing from directly below does the angle at which one looks have to be straight up. If so, does this mean that only the skidplate be viewed directly while the rest has to be from peripheries? I know I'm being slightly facetious but I'm just highlighting the point that you could argue the case in many different ways most of which has little to do with the cars themselves and more to do with the wording used in the regulations. I just hope that the matter is put to bed tomorrow one way or another and pray that it isn't referred back to the FIA to clarify the regulations as that'll mean another two or three weeks not knowing what the hells going on!

[PlatinumZealot]

This is how I imagine it:

Viewed directly from below you can not see through a hole if it is placed on the vertical plane. You would just see a line.

[bonjon1979]

That's your interpretation and is a perfectly valid one. But what if 'Directly below' was in line with the back edge of the rear wing. You'd still be directly below the car but would now be able to see the hole. I'm not saying you're incorrect just that this isn't an argument that has definitive rights or wrongs, so it's impossible to be an absolutist because the rules and the definitions therein are open to interpretation. Hence the pickle we find ourselves in with this little gathering in Paris.

Good drawing though!

[PlatinumZealot]

It's MS paint

I assume they meant an Orthographic view. (All viewing lines are parallel to each other).

[The FOZ]

DEAR XPENSIVE , HEEDING TO YOU REQUEST I'M REVERTING TO BLOCK LETTERIG
I AM ALSO USING DIFFERENT COLOURS SO THAT YOU WILL NOT FIND IT BORING
LET ME BEGIN WITH A CLASSIC EXAMPLE
WHEN NASA BEGAN THE LAUNCH OF ASTRONAUTS INTO
SPACE, THEY FOUND OUT THAT THE PENS WOULDN'T WORK AT
ZERO GRAVITY (INK WOULDN'T FLOW DOWN TO THE WRITING
SURFACE ).
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM , IT TOOK THEM THREE MONTHS AND
$12 MILLION .


THEY DEVELOPED A PEN THAT WORKED AT ZERO GRAVITY , WROTE UPSIDE
DOWN, UNDERWATER, AND PRACTICALLY ANY SURFACE INCLUDING CRYSTAL
WORKING IN A TEMPERATURE RANGE FROM
BELOW FREEZING TO OVER 300 DEGREE C.
AND WHAT DID THE RUSSIANS DO ??????????
THEY USED A PENCIL =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

THAT IS WHAT YOUR DEAREST FERRARI HAVE DONE . THEY USELESSLY COMPLICATED STUFF .THEY SPENT MONEY ONLY TO END UP WITH A --- CAR . BUT TEAMS LIKE BRAWN WERE LIKE THE RUSSIANS , THEY USED THEIR GREY MATTER THEY WENT TO FOTA TO CLEAR THE LOOPHOLES BUT YOUR WONDERFUL PEOPLE AT FERRARI,REDBULL OR WHATEVER DIDN'T CARE.NOW WHEN THEY SEE THAT THEIR CARS SUCK THEY START CRYING FOUL

JUST A DIRTY TRICK TO COVER UP THEIR INCOMPETENCE


AND FINALLY WHEN THE RULING IS MADE THAT THESE DIFFUSERS ARE LEGAL YOUR GREAT SAINT FERRARI / SAINT RED BULL / WHATEVER SAINT WILL COPY THESE DESIGNS SHAMELESSLY LIKE NOTHING EVER HAPPENED .

SUCH GREAT PEOPLE INDEED ( MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TONS OF BLOODY SARCASM )


I HOPE YOU HAD AN EDUCATIVE EXPERIENCE AND THAT YOU ARE TRULY ENLIGHTENED XPENSIVE

IF THIS DIDN'T HELP YOU MAY GOD BLESS YOUR SOUL

Hey, just FYI, that wasn't how it happened. A private corporation developed the pens in the hope of selling them to NASA. Also, the Russians didn't use pencils in space, although the Americans considered it, but because of the danger of bits of graphite breaking off and floating in zero G, none made it into space. Russia (USSR) and the USA BOTH wound up using the zero-G pen in their space programs.

So...yeah. Reasoning through analogy is inherently flawed, particularly if you later find out your analogy is incorrect. But even so, analogies are useless in logical reasoning.

[xpensive]

Good Lord, forgot about that colored posting, how could I possibly do that when it was directed to me personally?
Darn that Alzheimer, or was it my inclination to ignore childish messages repeating age-old urban legends?

Either way, I also believe today's verdict is about semantics, as bonjon so wisely expressed it, and if F1's rulebook should
be subject to whatever preposterous interpretations going against the obvious intentions of the same?

I remember back in 81, when Ferrari showed up with a two-plane rear wing, only laterally staggered as to effectively
make one full car-wide wing. Not sure wether this was totally serious, but it was thrown out anyway. Now:

- Against the letter of the rules? Ferrari didn't seem to think so at the time.
- Creative, innovative or simply an unfair attempt of getting an advantage?

[kilcoo316]

A "fully enclosed" hole is one that forms some sort of circle on the same plane - in which case, if part of it is raised, it's not "fully enclosed"?

Yeap.

My take on it too - at least - that is where I think the argument is risinjg.


If its not a planar hole, it *may* not be defined as a hole.


But then as I said, the FIA can switch tacks and say slots are not allowed... I think.

[kilcoo316]

We don't know what RBR's design looked like. Unless RBR shows their proposed design, it's impossible for observers to say whether or not the design was similar to what the 'Diffuser 3' are currently running, or whether the design was simply flat-out illegal.

The post makes sense in the context of the sequence of posts it was responding to.


In isolation, yes, if RBR presented something critically different, then it could be flat out illegal.


No doubt this will all come out shortly.

[Miguel]

Regarding "open" and "closed" holes, it would be soooooo wonderful if the rule-writers had any clue about geometry in a mathematical point of view. I imagine though the havok of a typical journalist trying to explain what the heck a multiply connected surface is.