On Friday, 9 February 2018 23:07:55 UTC+2, keefy wrote:
> On 08/02/18 13:39, ~misfit~ wrote:
> > Once upon a time on usenet News wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2018 6:43 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>> Here's some food for thought for those who're that way inclined;
> >>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-will-clamp-down-on-f1-engine-tricks-1002647/
> >>> That last bit about minimum inlet air temperature makes me wonder if
> >>> some teams have been carrying a small bottle of liquid nitrogen and
> >>> giving some sort of wick on the outside of their intercooler or
> >>> piping a quick squirt when exra power was needed. That's what I
> >>> might have done...
> >> As usual, FIA fighting last year's battles with a Whack-A-Mole
> >> approach.
> > Yep. Same with the other link I just posted.
> >> "The presence of any component that cannot be rationally associated
> >> with the defined functions of [...insert issue du jour here...] will
> >> be deemed unacceptable."
> >> "...tighter scrutiny on what teams are doing with engines should at
> >> least bring an end to a lot of suspicions and finger-pointing - until,
> >> of course, teams find another grey area to go away and chase."
> > .. which has really been the essence of F1 for quite a while now. Ross
> > Brawns double-decker diffuser being a stand-out example.
> But I understood RB forewarned FIA that the intended rule allowed that.
Not quite. Brawn had been out of F1 for a while and had not been involved in the drafting of the new rules. It's important to remember that in this case the teams had significant input into the aero rules, and they were all working from the same rule book.
When he saw the aero figures his team were getting, he realised that the aims of the rule changes were not being met. Remember that at this time he had no idea what anybody else was designing and what figures they were getting. So at a meeting he told the others not much more than "our simulations show that we will be very close to 2008 figures with our 2009 car, and that's not what these rules were meant to achieve." He didn't describe his design - why should he?
Adam Parr adds an interesting twist to this, noting that most people at that meeting didn't take Brawn very seriously, but Sam Michael did. Michael realised that one of the smartest, most successful operators in F1 had just described a situation with way more performance than Williams had. So he told his engineers to look twice, because there was something there that they could exploit.
When testing started and the Brawn car, which was late, started turning fast times, then the other teams took notice and eventually protested the diffuser designs on the Brawn, the Toyota and the Williams.
The protests were turned down, and now everybody else had to redesign their cars. Some with more success than others. The loophole actually stayed open for the next season as well - the teams were not enthusiastic about having designed their cars twice for 2009 and then having to do more development for revised rules in 2010.