FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

:banghead:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5768
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5746
and a thousand other threads covering this topic.

TBH I think the thread was started as it was for the technical side of things and not the mud slinging that was going on, on other threads at the time

[FerrariFan63]

TBH I think the thread was started as it was for the technical side of things and not the mud slinging that was going on, on other threads at the time

Yes, that's exactly why I started it. To look into the question about whether the regulations, interpreted in an objective way, support the legality of the double decker diffusers. At present, I'm still not informed enough to form a firm opinion, it depends on the form of the holes that supply air to the diffuser, and I don't know what they look like.

[bud]

Picture 1.png

Picture 2.png

i dont think there is question of their legality, they have passed scrutineering so they are legal as i write this. whats going to be questioned is their interpretation of the regulations and both sides have a strong case.

[EwanM]

Thanks for posting this Bud. Good illustration.

[Jabberwocky]

good lad I like pictures I can understand them

[Versa-Tech]

I have studied this issue obsessively. I can say that without a doubt that Brawn is within regulations. However, Toyota and Williams are clearly in violation. The real tragedy here is in the media's ignorance. They group the three designs together as if they are all legal or all illegal. If these journos would actually look at the diffusers in question, they would clearly see that the Brawn design has nothing in common with the Williams and Toyota designs.

[bud]

How so? That doesn't make any sense!

[FerrariFan63]

Versa-tech, can you write more about your reasons for saying that the Brawn is legal. Particularly whether there are holes in the car from which bodywork is visible from beneath.

[bud]

Brawn have a quite different central channel to their diffuser, with the shape of the deformable structure being used to create a sort of double-decker (black arrows) design. However, the most important and controversial aspect is that to work properly this section of the diffuser needs to be fed by air. Highlighted in yellow, you can easily see the hole in the reference plane (red arrow), which actually starts far further forward than is apparent from the drawing, thanks to the small dimensions of the gearbox. The hole increases the speed of airflow as it heads towards the higher rear venturi section, where it expands and creates more downforce. Other teams are arguing that the presence of the hole is against the regulations.

[bud]

Here is a good photo which was probably used for the above illustration, you can see the "hole" quite clearly which above is highlighted in yellow.

[texasmr2]

Looks legal to me.

[scotty]

I have studied this issue obsessively. I can say that without a doubt that Brawn is within regulations. However, Toyota and Williams are clearly in violation. The real tragedy here is in the media's ignorance. They group the three designs together as if they are all legal or all illegal. If these journos would actually look at the diffusers in question, they would clearly see that the Brawn design has nothing in common with the Williams and Toyota designs.

I would say that the Toyota is the odd one out to be honest... the Williams and Brawn diffusers seem to follow the same general design trends with the second 'deck' being shallower and wider, whereas the Toyota just has the tall central section. Unfortunately i can't find a good closeup of the Toyota.

Here are the Williams and Toyota diffusers:



Williams



Toyota

The Toyota looks similar to the rest of the pack save for that 'central section' that i mentioned above - you can see it stretches back further than the rest of the diffuser, however it basically appears to form the rear wing support structure (wonder if it's linked to their qualifying dq in Melbourne?) - hard to say from the photos i've seen.

[Versa-Tech]

Versa-tech, can you write more about your reasons for saying that the Brawn is legal. Particularly whether there are holes in the car from which bodywork is visible from beneath.

The channel created by the upper surface of the diffuser and the diversion plane of the rear crash structure really isn't a diffuser at all. It is simply a port from which air is accelerated from the corners where the [visible] side bodywork meets the upper surface of the diffuser (also visible). The accelerated air moving in between the low pressure air escaping the diffuser creates a horizontal vortex which not only increases the efficiency of the diffuser, but also counterbalances the opposing vortex coming off the inside edge of the rear wheels effectively decreasing drag.

It's important to remember that the central channel does not create downforce. If it did, it would be considered a wing and would be deemed illegal. Furthermore, the central channel reduces the cars wake, which serves the purpose for which these regulations were enacted in the first place.

[csrracer]

Taken from : http://www.forumula1.com/2009/f1/f1-new ... -find-out/

"Ferrari design consultant Rory Byrne has said that he believes the three ”double-deck” diffusers, run by Brawn, Williams and Toyota, are illegal. The widely respected South African, one of the architects of Ferrari’s early 2000s period of dominance of the sport, believes that the three teams have broken the spirit of the rules and an interpretation of the rules set many years ago.

Byrne told Gazzetta dello Sport that for more than a decade, no-one interpreted rules as the three teams have done in this situation."

The diffuser's aren't illegal "Technically" if they were they wouldn't have been able to use them at all. The question is wether they are keeping within the spirit of the rules. I think this is ironic since Ferrari seems to be leading the charge against them, considering their new Mirror supports look a lot like barge boards to me.

[f1ea]

The accelerated air moving in between the low pressure air escaping the diffuser creates a horizontal vortex which not only increases the efficiency of the diffuser, but also counterbalances the opposing vortex coming off the inside edge of the rear wheels effectively decreasing drag.

Furthermore, the central channel reduces the cars wake, which serves the purpose for which these regulations were enacted in the first place.

If the 'spirit' of the rules are kept with the interepretation that the 3 teams have used separately, then this will probably be the main argument for defending each diffuser design. But i'm not sure and i doubt the accelerated air exciting the central diffuser channel effectively reduces wake.