[Tech Issue] The Diffusers

[Marbot]

Full FIA diffuser decision.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666

[manwell]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Full FIA diffuser decision.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666

I find this a bit questionable.

"Fully Enclosed Holes

a) Arguments of the parties

70. The Appellants submit that the Contested Design Concept contravenes Art. 3.12.5 TR because the space that exists between the surfaces of the different transitions constitutes a “hole” and, under the second sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR, holes are permitted as exceptions only if they meet two conditions: (i) that they are “fully enclosed” and (ii) that they appear on the surfaces of either the step or reference planes.

71. The Contested Design Teams and the FIA submit that, while there may be spaces between different surfaces, the surfaces themselves do not have holes in them. They contend that the spaces between different surfaces are not holes within the very specific meaning of Art. 3.12.5 TR, and that their arguments do not rely on the exception contained therein.


By that rational then we could see the venting trumpets (were they exhaust?)back couldnt we?
Didnt they have to get rid of the trumpets because of the part of the rule saying there could be no holes in the bodywork in certain areas.
But going by the above ruling, the venting trumpets wouldnt be a hole in the bodywork. The "surface" doesnt actually have a hole in it, its just 2 surfaces at different planes.

Am i wrong, or have they opened up a can of worms?

[fourWheelDrift]

Interesting and logical judgement I think. Nice to know what the holes are in, ie the vertical part of the floor which joins reference plane and step plane, that wasn't at all clear to me before. The reason it is 'not a hole' then is that it is bounded by the surface of the car in the reference plane at the bottom, the surface of the car in the step plane at the top and the vertical ends of two surfaces in the transition between the two. It is a hole in the car but it is not a hole in any of these surfaces (step/reference/transition) becuase at the point of the 'hole in the car' none of these three surfaces are present. They must be simple rectangular openings as if they weren't the transition would exist at that point and, guess what, it would have a hole in it which is not allowed.

I notice that Red Bull's question was about holes in the reference plane which sounds like a completely different issue to me and as if someone has been playing politics by trying to conflate the two issues. Might explain why Adrian Newey has been so quiet on the issue.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by manwell

By that rational then we could see the venting trumpets (were they exhaust?)back couldnt we?
Didnt they have to get rid of the trumpets because of the part of the rule saying there could be no holes in the bodywork in certain areas.
But going by the above ruling, the venting trumpets wouldnt be a hole in the bodywork. The "surface" doesnt actually have a hole in it, its just 2 surfaces at different planes.

Am i wrong, or have they opened up a can of worms?

The problem is you are appealing to ten years ago. They still have the same exhaust idea, but they exit upwards way nearer the rear-end of the car. You are highlighting an issue that does not exist in all reality.

Well, perhaps more accurately, you have highlighted an interpretation the teams do not wish to get into.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by manwell

Am i wrong, or have they opened up a can of worms?

It seems that you can't have 'holes' in surfaces,but should these surfaces be put together so as to make a 'hole' then that's fine.At the end of the day it was a lot more complicated than just diffuser height.

I'm sure that all the teams will now be looking to find where they can put 'holes' that aren't really 'holes' at all.

[the.cosmic.pope]

57. At the hearing, Ferrari acknowledged that multiple vertical transitions had been used by many teams in the past, including Ferrari itself, and argued that all such prior uses (including its own) had constituted a technical violation of the TR which had been tolerated. However, it argued that where multiple transitions had been used at the front of the car, rather than the rear, this constituted only a minor breach which could have been easily remedied, had it been necessary to do so, without a significant detriment to performance. Ferrari contends that multiple vertical transitions at the rear of the car have not been seen before and constitute a more serious violation which should not be tolerated.

Talk about playing both sides of the rules.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope

57. At the hearing, Ferrari acknowledged that multiple vertical transitions had been used by many teams in the past, including Ferrari itself, and argued that all such prior uses (including its own) had constituted a technical violation of the TR which had been tolerated. However, it argued that where multiple transitions had been used at the front of the car, rather than the rear, this constituted only a minor breach which could have been easily remedied, had it been necessary to do so, without a significant detriment to performance. Ferrari contends that multiple vertical transitions at the rear of the car have not been seen before and constitute a more serious violation which should not be tolerated.

Talk about playing both sides of the rules.

Yeah, that is already ridiculous.

[old man]

I have to agree with the two previous posts, Ferrari are saying yeh! we broke the rules a bit but this is worse than what we did. As I recall, Mr Brawn was the man at Ferrari at the time and is simply using the same argument as he would have used then had anybody bothered to contest their design.

Interesting stuff and I have to feel that this is exactly what Mr Brawn had in mind when he offered to rewrite the rules.

[manwell]

Originally Posted by Dutton

The problem is you are appealing to ten years ago. They still have the same exhaust idea, but they exit upwards way nearer the rear-end of the car. You are highlighting an issue that does not exist in all reality.

Well, perhaps more accurately, you have highlighted an interpretation the teams do not wish to get into.

Maybe im incorrect saying they were exhaust trumpets. Having a look at them now they are probably too far forward for that and are just cooling vents.
Either way these are the vents i was referring to (circled in yellow), this example is on the 2008 McLaren.



They are obviously important as they were on last years cars. Im assuming they were not utilised this year due to the no holes in bodywork rule. But with the ruling on the diffusers, then could these not be classified as holes? The bodywork curves and slopes up in a more verticle plane around them. So the hole isnt acually in the bodywork, the hole is created by the verticle planes of the bodywork.

Another drawing of a Renault from a couple of years back.

You can see the bodywork is creating the hole, the hole isnt in the bodywork.
(Note: i didnt add the arrows, they were already there. But what im talking about is the lower large red arrow)

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Interesting and logical judgement I think. Nice to know what the holes are in, ie the vertical part of the floor which joins reference plane and step plane, that wasn't at all clear to me before. The reason it is 'not a hole' then is that it is bounded by the surface of the car in the reference plane at the bottom, the surface of the car in the step plane at the top and the vertical ends of two surfaces in the transition between the two. It is a hole in the car but it is not a hole in any of these surfaces (step/reference/transition) becuase at the point of the 'hole in the car' none of these three surfaces are present. They must be simple rectangular openings as if they weren't the transition would exist at that point and, guess what, it would have a hole in it which is not allowed.

I notice that Red Bull's question was about holes in the reference plane which sounds like a completely different issue to me and as if someone has been playing politics by trying to conflate the two issues. Might explain why Adrian Newey has been so quiet on the issue.

I'm still a bit confused about where the entry to the "upper section" of the diffuser is. The regs to me seem fairly clear on the floor forward of the rear axle so presumably the "intakes" are behind that? By definition there aren't surfaces present where there is a hole, I don't see how that logic can fly. And if such holes lead into the upper diffuser area then they also aren't closed.

Has there been any pictures shown of any of the "contested design teams" cars that show the relevant areas?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by johnh875

I'm still a bit confused about where the entry to the "upper section" of the diffuser is. The regs to me seem fairly clear on the floor forward of the rear axle so presumably the "intakes" are behind that? By definition there aren't surfaces present where there is a hole, I don't see how that logic can fly. And if such holes lead into the upper diffuser area then they also aren't closed.

Has there been any pictures shown of any of the "contested design teams" cars that show the relevant areas?

The horizontal surface of the floor at the centre of the car (where the plank is) is in the reference plane, from which everything is measured. Outboard of the plank the floor is required to be higher in the stepped plane (50mm? not sure). These two surfaces are joined by vertical surfaces and while you can't have holes in any of these horizontal or vertical surfaces you can use any number of vertical surfaces, which must have straight vertical edges, the use of multiple vertical surfaces allows spaces between them and that's where the air flow goes.

At least that is my understanding, someone may know better.