For the other solutions that I listed it can be argued that they have a different primary objective and the generation of an outwash vortex is a secondary effect. I think this is the main difference.kenshi_blind wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 17:35I understand where you're coming from, i just don't see why this should be treated in a different way compared to the numerous solutions the teams found (those you've mentioned). whether it is obvious or not should not have any incidence assuming it is legalmatteosc wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 17:22Outwash is the main thing that the new rules wanted to avoid. Teams were able to get that effect (partially) back, mainly using the fences at the entrance of the floor and the pressurization below the sidepods entrances to do that. This is why overtakes have gotten harder, and teams got away with it because they did not do it in such a obvious way.kenshi_blind wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 17:09How do we know that it defies the purpose of the rule ? how can people here be so certain of that fact ? am i missing something here ?
we've already seen that overtakes got harder in year 2 of the new regs so all this nonsense about the purpose of the rule can be thrown into a dumpster fire as far as i am concerned
Trying to recreate a Y250 vortex in the way this front wing is designed seems way too blunt to me. This obviously a personal opinion and by the way: I have no doubt that it works and it works well.
then again the FIA has been known lately to crack on innovations coming from Merc so who knows
The new rules aimed at avoiding the Y250 vortex. If you introduce a device that aims uniquely at reproducing it, then it is possible that you will run into troubles.