Their F-Vent may have been deemed legal, but apparently the diffuser is more suspect and has to go.

[paddocktalk.com]

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

Sorry!

If its not deemed good enough for Aus it shouldnt be on the car now....

Double DQ!!!!

---

Some reports saying that its not just McLaren who have been told to tame things down a little - its not unusual for relatively minor indisrections to be dealt with in this manner.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

I hope that doesn't include RBR!!

---

I agree with Chucky. Is the thing legal or not? If so, let them race it, if not disqualify them!

---

It's legal, they're issuing a clarification. You can't have a car pass scrutineering and then ban it from the race because you want to tweak the rules for the next one. Anyways, this is great. Anything that hurts McLaren!

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

This approach is commonly used to sort grey areas in the rules or something that is against the spirit of the rules but not illegal.

It currently is legal so they can race it, but won't be legal for the next race. Same principal was applied to Renaults mass damper and iirc the top wing on the Orange Arrows.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

Also the Ferrari floor.

Ok, good news though. They are already struggling with df and from what I saw in practice, bad tyre wear too.

---

And the same rule should of been used for double diffusers last year.

Why are they banning double diffusers next year again? What a joke.

At least we are well placed to benefit from the farce, running with a title challenger this last year, this year, and next year too (going back to single diffusers will be great for us).

so, to recap then. the diffuser is not illegal but it will be in australia? if that is so then presumably the regs will be changed to eliminate this exploitation of the diffuser rules. my point is simply this, doesn't any change have to have the agreement of all the FOTA teams before it can be introduced?

if not, then why wasn't the 'exploitation' banned in bahrein? am i just confusing the issue at hand?

It could be a change to the scrutineering process, as in they'll take the measurements slightly differently. Or they could force it through on safety grounds if they really wanted to mebbe?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

well loud i'm still confused. scrutineering is the process of confirmation vis-a-vis the rules and regs.

the problem, as i understand it, is that the 'hole' used to fit the starting engine/device has been manipulated to create a surface that extends downforce energy.

we are all aware of the controversy last year in the interpretation of what constitutes a 'hole'!!!

if as stated the 'hole' has been elongated into a shape that actually increases downforce then the R&R must change to specify what the shape must be or at least confrom to.

i guess that we will hear more about this in time prior to the melb race start.

More on this story here

[www.autosport.com]

Looks like MclAren, Mercedes, Renault, & Fifi have to make ammendements.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

All good =)

I hope it puts a thorn into Ferrari's B-spec car too =)

Quote:

K1
well loud i'm still confused. scrutineering is the process of confirmation vis-a-vis the rules and regs.

Yeah but they can get around things by changing the scrutineering processesesesesii. So like, a rule saying your wing can't flex is there, the scrutineers might hang 400kg weight off it and see if it moves. Without changing the rules, they can change the scrutineering procedure for the next race and hang 500kg off the same wing, suddenly the wing is illegal.

That's not what they've done in this case, but I'm reasonably sure they've done it in the passed to make changes to the cars without having to rewrite the rulebook.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

The rulebook gives them the ability to appraise items on weather they are against the 'spirit' of the rules.

As was done in this case.

please define, 'the spirit of the rules'. how do you measure spirit?

With a spirit level

ahha. Spirit level.

Well, you don't k1, not scientifically. It's more like going against a charter.

Quote:

With a spirit level

very very droll chaps...that was to be expected however in the true spirit of all things i am still at a loss to know against what set of sporting ethics the 'spirit rule' is measured!

Presumably the people who wrote the rules knew what they were intending when they made them, that's probably your spirit there

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

he's got a point..usual spirit of f1 is lieing cheating and all round dogginess and macca usually good at doing all three

Is there anything in the rules to say you have to obey the spirit of the rules?

In reality, it is pretty clear the teams in question are trying it on. Rules state you can have a hole just large enough to accomodate the starter. If teams which previously had 5 cm diameter starter suddenly turn up with a new starter with a 10 cm diameter with the difference made up of superfluous bits of carbon fibre that serve no purpose, then clearly it is against the spirit of the rules.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

We tried the "against the spirit of the rules" thing last year only to be shot down. (re ddd diffusers)

It's one of those things open to interpretation and as such the fia can do what they want.

the thing that is silly, and they must do it deliberatley but
why cant they have black and white rules?

you know this "must" be this
that "must" be that

They are a joke cause the only people who suffer is the fans

we all wanrt to know who actually raced well and have less speculation like......

lol, i think i am rambling.. i have a good reason

cause i am drunk!

:-)

I honestly couldn't tell.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

LMAO.

But, the more black and white the rules are, the more the cars would be the same.

Interpretation is where the genius lies.

---

yes duffer "no man" but your not getting wha i am saying

Have black and white rules, "to a drgree" main aspects of car yes

but leave the "enginees" to have different interpretations and so forth

but have black and white rules

i may be wrong but last years "rules" to the underbody and diffuser blah blah

a neice couyld have wrote them

you know what i am saying but as stated before

could you be a "no man"?

just out of curiosity

I am sure I am to you.

---

yes and open your mind a little duff,

say one thing and out the other ear hey :-)

Once the low budgets come into place all will be good.

They will be able to relax the rules a little to allow for more experimentation on different aero affects.

That way no one has to worry about teams out spending, it will just be about teams out performing.

I have heard that Red Bull was another team that have to modify the Diffuser because of this issue. will try and find the source.

here is the link



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/03/2010 23:00 by hmmm_ok.

Autosport > Pitass. Guess we'll see, from the pics I saw in Bahrain, our starter hole looked 'normal'.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

What i don't understand is last year the DDD was a loophole but the FIA did not close that loophole, but now they are closing this bigger hole in the DDD which is a loophole?

It is really hard to understand FIA logic sometimes?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/03/2010 00:13 by Whitey*~@.

Depends if you call it a loophole or a loopslot Whitey.

---

I think its technically a loopopening

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

Perhaps a looploop?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.