12 Jul 2014, 03:33 (Ref:3433071)
|
#3740
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,376
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel
What I note with some amusement is the ACO-FIA's evident move to prevent or at least greatly restrict the ability to create interactions between the exhaust flow and the rear diffuser area. It would seem that the ACO-FIA are mainly targeting Audi and their LM-spec exhaust layout which literally complies with the current rule restrictions, but may nevertheless be seen to be too close to the "edge".
Now, when it comes to the explicit ban on "movable parts/elements of the bodywork (...) when the car is in motion", the ACO-FIA have evidently decided that revisions were not at all required in the rules, at least for now. The ACO-FIA however have yet to issue clarifications regarding the interpretation of this other provision, which the Toyota "movable rear wing" appears to literally infringe.
Why is it that the ACO-FIA believe that revisions are required in respect of the ban on "blown diffusers", even though there appears to be no real or evident controversy about this particular issue, while they appear to do nothing (so far) with respect to the ban on "movable bodywork", which other provision is evidently interpreted differently by the various manufacturers ?
|
If Audi's exhaust ran, it should be legal. What difference is the wording to Audi? Just like the "rigidly attached" rear wing wording.
|
|
|