The Official 2009 Malaysian GP Thread *spoilers*

"If you look at the Brawn car from underneath, you can see the suspension." From Byrne himself.

And as I said, it is impossible for Byrne to actually know that. Unless he puts the BrawnGP car onto the FIA rig and look at it from the angle, he cannot possibly know. He has the same information we have - photos.

As posted by a qualified motorsport engineer elsewhere:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the regulation which actually (should) define the diffuser:

3.12.7: No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.

The referred device is the engine starter.

However nowhere in the entire set of regulations is the diffuser specifically named, nothing actually is.. everything's "bodywork". And more specifically article 3.12 is "bodywork facing the ground". Now it seems that Brawn, Toyota and Williams have added a secondary "diffuser" section above the regulated one which falls under a different regulation as it's not facing the ground (below). The funkiness in the middle of Brawn's diffuser is presumably just an exit channel, and that part in isolation there can be no debate over. Even if that is one of the main visible differences.

Article 3.5.1: The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and less than 200mm above the reference plane must not exceed 1000mm.

Article 3.5.2: The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and more than 200mm above the reference plane must not exceed 750mm.

3.5.1 is supposed to define the diffuser, and 3.5.2 the width of the rear wing, effectively. With the diffuser's maximum height being later defined as 175mm, but only if it can be viewed from underneath the car, there's clearly a 25mm gap to be exploited.

Someone @#$%& writing that up, the 25mm discrepancy is the key, as is the over-specific "viewed from beneath the car" term - that can only mean one thing. For me, the diffusers are perfectly legal, and it's quite a glaring couple of loopholes. There might be more.. I've only looked at the relevant articles

Byrne's retired isn't he? I don't think he's privy to the inner workings at any team any more.. let alone a closed hearing. My understanding of the diffusers is that you could see the suspension from underneath the car, but only when looking through the slots at an angle, not from directly below as per the regulatory requirement. I doubt Brawn would make such a fundamental mistake anyway, Toyota certainly didn't and they have at least separate slots on each side of the diffuser.

I'm still 100% certain that the diffusers are legal as per the regulations - it just depends whether the FIA decide to effectively retcon the regs and make the diffusers retrospectively illegal. Which would pretty much screw everyone who's been a bit clever over, not to mention be a huge PR disaster.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 03:55PM by DaveEllis.

Byrne is a consultant I believe, if not more. I know his influence for the last two cars has been very limited. In the autosport article, in the last paragraph he states, "And I work for Ferrari." So I assume he some sort of consultancy role for design.

Its interesting you mention the name issue. Over, well for a long time I can imagine naming things has been abit akward with regulations, and that is what was done very well for this year. The introduction of the min radius rule is what has effectivley got rid of the winglets, louvers, flipups etc.

You would have thought some sort of regulation along the same lines would have been applied to such what now seems an obvious area.

is this 25mmm area the bit ive coloured in green then?



After reading that I now have to wonder whether the other teams simply missed it or decided against it. If they missed it I would very supprised and actually quite shocked at missing what apparently is an are which is the cause of a massive performance differentiator!!

Legal I agree, and the posts ive read about the internet, about 80% would say they're legal.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

The other teams knew about the exploit. Brawn and Toyota both alerted the OWG to the issue. But it wasn't addressed.

And the green area you highlighted is the bit in question i think yeah - which is still legal anyway, lol.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 04:39PM by DaveEllis.

hmm, interesting, now that I look from another angle, personally notice these DD diffusers should be really an advantage in the hands of understeer style drivers, as soon as this spread to the whole grid we should be able to observe better this; let's see how this turns.

Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Wow, what a race! I have to say I sort of expected
> it from Piquet though. The Red Bull is quick but
> sure is unreliable... and that Renault is a dog!
> Great run by Kimi and Felipe, and the Brawn is
> quite strong but in some tracks like this we can
> see how KERS can help... still, was great to see
> Rubens drive like that again, podium! :D
>
> And shame about Nico


You could say I wasn't as good as Melbourne this time around :P.