Rory Byrne says the diffusers are illegal.

Ferrari design consultant Rory Byrne believes the 'diffuser gang' of Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams have broken with a 15-year protocol in the way they have interpreted Formula 1's technical regulations this year.

With the FIA's International Court of Appeal due to convene on Tuesday to rule on whether double-decker diffusers used by the three teams are legal, Byrne has added his weight to arguments that they are not within the rules.

In particular, he believes that the teams' insistence that holes in the floor of the car designed to improve airflow through the diffusers should be regarded as 'slots' goes against what everybody accepted as correct for many years.

Article 3.12.5 of F1's technical regulations states: "Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below."

The three teams at the centre of the dispute claim that breaks in the floor of their car are not holes, but gaps between the step and reference planes of the car - so exempt from the requirement that no part of the car be visible through them.

Byrne has told Gazzetta dello Sport that he is sceptical about such a suggestion, however, saying teams had never thought like that before.

"It's a rule set at least 14-15 years ago, and that for many years everyone interpreted in the same way," said Byrne, who won many world titles for Ferrari working alongside Ross Brawn. "If you look at the Brawn car from underneath, you can see the suspension."

Speaking about his feelings on the situation, especially going against one of his former close colleagues, Byrne said: "Ross Brawn and I remain good friends, but one thing is personal relationships, another thing is the professional aspect. And I work for Ferrari."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74409


I think Rory Byrne knows a thing or two about diffusers and he wouldn't be putting out his reputation by saying they are illegal. We will have to see.

 

With all due respect this is not a totally unbiased opinion and comes just before the FIA meets.

 

hmmm, what a coincidence.....he makes this statement just before the hearing. Don't suppose Luca had a word in his ear do you...? I seem to recall that Ross Brawn had 3 rulings that his design was legal. Rory, you may remain 'friends'...but I would think you would have a vacancy in your 'roster of friends' if Ross has his points taken away.....!

 

My guess is that even if the diffusers are deemed illegal, the teams will be allowed to keep their points and be given a bit of time -- perhaps until the start of the European season -- to come up with a new design.

 

The fact that three teams, not just BrawnGP, picked up on the diffuser interpretation says more about its legitimacy than not ..

Plus the fact that Ross Brawn had asked a year ago to clarify the issue .. well, I guess the other teams have to answer to their sponsors, and whining helps

 

Just remember who is NOT among the three teams before throwing out the significance of this article. Unfortunately, it appears Rory's argument centers not on the diffuser itself but the underbody aero features that assist its optimized downforce. It'll be interesting, but I unfortunately believe that the FIA will find a way to screw the pooch and side with the other 7 teams on the grid.

Just my $.02

 

The FIA knows that keeping its top teams especially Ferrari and McLaren is vital to the sport. You piss off Ferrari and a breakaway series is almost inevitable.

 

No, they don't assist the diffusor, they are a vital part of it. Close the holes, and the diffusor is worthless.

 

Agree about keeping the points, but not so sure about being allowed time to change; the other teams won't be happy with that, and how will they pass scruteneering with parts that have been ruled illegal?

On the flip side; seven other teams have interpretted it the other way, which may also say something about it's legitimacy.

 

Correct. It seems that some on here believe everything Ross Brawn says but when it's somebody from Ferrari it's suspect? Okay....

 

Possibly, but that implies they had the idea and dismissed it because they thought it broke the rules. Maybe they just didn't come up with the idea.

 

All games aside. Mernie said earlier this year that the 3 teams running that gear are legal. That word stands 100% or the whole lot can ***k off, really. Manufactured drama doesn't really work on TV on crappy shows long term, and it doesn't work at all in F1 in any term; long or short. Look at how many fans went away from the last season with a really bad taste in their mouths...not because Lewis or Mclaren fked up or Ferrari and Massa fked up, but because the latter half of the season was manufactured drama on the part of the FIA.

FIA can manufacture drama all they want, and their next biggest hurdle is to manufacture people that care. Mernie are masters at this, and they've got a legion of Tilke Tracks and pointless, vapid rules that does nothing for either end of the sport. Racing teams and fans are shafted. What's left is a dull, baseless slew of boring races held at pointless tracks with no history with the most important data point being the cost of admission and bend-over submission.

Feels like CART and Indy all over again.

 

Not at all, why do think we have this dispute, all I have read from from day one it's ok but it may not be ok, so where or who does the buck lie with, seems to me they like it this way... IMO you can rest assured if it was Mclaren running away with it, it would be deemed illegal

 

Truer words have never been posted.

And, even more amazing, they are not copyright protected content cut & pasted directly from Autosport!

RM

 

Not a highly reliable source, but the Speed TV crew mentioned that the three teams that took the alternate interpretation were the teams that were *not* in the meeting on "improving passing".

Hence the original claim, that the diffusers are in accordance with the written specifications, but in violation of their intent.

So far, I've gotten the impression that the effort to "improve passing" resulted in building a machine that's nearly undriveable -- snow plow front wing, almost no rear downforce. Increase reliance on mechanical grip --- and then mandate that the prime and option tires won't be similar, instead being two sets of unsuitable tires for the track --- destroying mechanical grip.

The reason that the diffusers make such a big difference would seem to be because this year's cars are so desperately in need of any aero help at the rear.

I think the intent was to improve "the show", rather than to assist in overtaking. They're creating an "incident" prone series. To me, this isn't racing, it's a dumbolition derby. While the races have been "eventful", we've seen little actual overtaking *skills* in play.

But if the intent was to make a fiasco, then the diffusers certainly are in violation of the intent -- they were made to make the cars more stable.

So, does FIA declare the diffusers illegal, and continue with the gratuitous "action", or force the other teams to adapt, and return to the complaints about "not enough passing"?

 

Yes a good analogy, along with increasing on track incident's to which end it enables the abliity to race fix. More power to the dictator, I hate this unclear ruling it is the root cause of all the conflicts.

 

Well. OF COURSE he says that. To say otherwise is to acknowledge that Ferrari pissed away their money on him this year.

 

Ferrari sucked all thru the 80's and deep into the 90's, and they are still there... (in F1)

I would say Tyrrell, Lotus, Ligier, Brabham were all important to the roots of F1, but by the same token, so was Cooper and Surtees, BRM, Matra, Alfa, all gone.

Yes, I know none of them have the stature of Ferrari, but by the same token, if Ferrari said to F1 'we must have a race in America', would F1 come ?

 

Ferrari and Mclaren are crappy this year diffuser or not, teams are giving them trouble that aren't using the better diffusers.

 

Red Bull for one.

 

If Brawn approached said disgruntled teams before the cars were designed to remove ambiguity from the rules, and they refused, how could any of them possibly lodge protests of any validity?

 

See here: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239349

 

I missed that, thanks for the link. Certainly complicates the issue doesn't it.