Double Diffusers to be banned

They should get Ross Brawn to word the ruling as he was the one to spot the ambiguity in the original ruling.
I don't believe the Diffuser had much effect on overtaking. They should use steel brakes to increase stopping distances.

 

So let's see...the FIA ruled dd's are legal in '09 forcing the teams that didn't have them to spend millions to adapt their cars to be competitive.

Now the FIA wants to ban them for '11 and force ALL the teams spend even more millions to re-design cars without them(again).

And all the while everybody screams that F1 is too costly and they must cut costs to be sustainable. Well WTF with rules changing so often like they do it's no wonder it's too costly. I don't want to hear all this F1 is too costly crap when the FIA continually force teams to spend huge sums to accommodate the continually changing rules.

There is no other sporting entity on the planet that changes its rules or scoring as often as F1. No surprise they lost 3 major players this year.

 

Of course it was significant!!

It gave Brawn an immense aerodynamic advantage at the start of the season and allowed Button to romp away from the field in the early races.

Once other team adopted it, Brawn's superiority dissappeared almost overnight.

 

Err, if you read the article you'd see it's not the FIA proposing this change but rather the teams themselves (via the FOTA TWG)..... Once they've agreed on the wording (I agree, let RB do it) *then* their proposal goes to the FIA for ratification and the rule change(s).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the FIA (although I have higher hopes with JT) but this approach sounds good to me - It's what the teams want (regardless of cost it seems) rather than the nonsense drivel we got from Mad Max.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

But the only way to actually cut the costs by any substantial amount is to ban aerodynamics (all of it: wings, diffusers, winglettes, barge boards, wheel caps, maybe even brake ducts...)

 

+1 Correct.

 

I suspect it has more to do with the turbulence the double-diffusors cause and thus, the lack of over-taking. It was easier to make the diffusors legal for the rest of '09 and '10 rather than have team protest the Brawn victories and most teams had begun work on the 2010 cars by then anyway (read: Ferrari)

 

That won't really do the trick. The main reason for the carbon brakes is weight savings.

 

+1

Tires are the limiting factor, not the brakes.

 

Just use the following rule.

The floor of the car must be flat from the center of the front axle to the end of the rear crash structure. No holes are allowed in the floor of the car and during inspection the front ride height must be the same as the rear ride height. No curvature and undulations allowed on the floor structure.

 

Still trying to apply logic to F1?

 

The 1 sec in the article was related to removing the diffuser effect completely.

 

I thought the article mentioned a completely flat bottom. Reading back, it seems there's still room for some sort of diffuser effect. I hope they'll word it correctly!

 

Surely the main reason for the carbon brakes being used is their resistance to fading during repeated high speed use. Whilst steel brakes can pretty much match the stopping power of carbon brakes these days, they still fall short in commparison when it comes to fade resistance. The weight saving is simply an added bonus.

Whilst this is true for ultimate stopping ability, if the brakes fade and are no longer on the verge of stopping the rotation of the wheel (where braking ability is at it's maximum), then the tyre grip on the track becomes almost irelevant as the wheel will keep rotating and the tyres resistance is reduced. Put it this way, if the brakes were to fade completely and there was no braking at all, how much would the tyre grip help slow the car?, it would be negligable.

As for the double diffuser being banned, I don't think it should have been declared legal in the first place. The original rule was for a single diffuser with a maximum height of 100mm. I'm sure the FIA only allowed it because they knew it would cause a massive mix up in the pecking order and generate interest in the sport.

 

There has always been a struggle between designers and rule makers. Every time the cars become "too fast" the rules are changed then the designers find ways to make them faster and the rule makers slow them down again ad infinitum. The particular rules and designs don't matter in the long run.

 

It's always amazing how quickly the designers manage to recoupe any performance lost due to new rules. Those guys really earn every penny they get paid.

 

What they should do is get rid of the flat bottom car altogether and allow ground effects. That way they can go back to normal sized wings, with less elements. Also ban those engine cover fins, barge boards, flip ups, etc. I hear that this was what the FIA was going to do at one time but instead we ended up with butt ugly F1 cars that still can't pass each other.

 

ground effects will make passing even harder! regardless of the change in other aero elements. ground effects add downforce essentially "for free", ie without a drag penalty. that will shorten braking distances.

 

If you've ever seen a GP2 race you'll notice that they have no trouble passing, and they are ground effects cars. Same for Indycars. The cars are more inherently stable. Easier to pass, not harder.

 

but generate much less downforce than an F1 car, and so they have longer braking zones.

 

Yes they do, which would also promote passing, don't you think?

 

absolutely ... in a GP2 car. put ground effects on an F1 car and you are going to go from parades to lapping demonstrations.