[shemadagaswer]

With recent row about points system there has been a lot of criticism towards FIA, but now another matter is emerging right before the start of the season. Jeez, didn't they find a better time to find a solution to this matter?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73816

Didn't FIA announce in Februrary that the diffusers of Toyota and Williams were legal?

Well, at worst case scenario stewards will declare the diffusers of BrawnGP, Toyota and Williams illegal at the Australian Grand Prix weekend. If that happened, it would be a total farce in F1. The seasons of three teams will be thrown into the bin with immediate effect. So far their diffusers have been considered to be "within the wording of the regulations" and now they don't have enough time to design a new one. But now there seems to exist some kind of uncertainty about that matter...

[flienianO]

I don't think they're going to do anything about it before the next race, maybe not even before the second. The worst case scenario would be the six cars being disqualified from the first few races at a court decision some time in May.

[Zzvukttz]

We'll see what the scrutineers say on Thursday.
Than we'll see if it's true that 2 teams have already submitted a complaint to the FIA.
Also we will see Saturday if those teams with "better developed" diffusers will be faster or not.

[uphokyhuP]

The diffusers comply with the wording of the law, what the teams that have not made optimised diffusers are bitching about is the fact that they claim they don't comply with the spirit of the law, but then you could use the same argument to get rid of the ugly fences on the front of the sidepods of the Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, Williams, Toyota, BMW, Red Bull, STR & Force India as end fences are allowed in the wording of the rules but go against the mandate of eliminating flip ups, bargeboards and turning vanes. The main problem for the teams that didnt take advantage of the diffuser regs to make an optimal design is that they can't just adapt thier cars to a copy cat design overnight as integral to this interpretation is the shaping of the rear crash structure, this would require a substantial re-design of the rear end to incorporate, so Williams, Toyota and Brawn have stolen the march on the rest of the teams in this area. I am hoping that the wording of the law is upheld and these diffusers are allowed the stay, it comes back to what Max was saying with his plans for budget caps - it should be about out-thinking, not out-spending!

[shemadagaswer]

I actually suspect that the diffuser-issue may well be Max's next card to try to break the unity of FOTA. Strange that for some time there was silence about the matter, but right after the scandal about points-system arose, Max has decided to turn his attention to the diffusers too, which will give a real test to the strength of FOTA.

[Michmant]

they'll be declared legal at the race, which will be appealed and then probably upheld, but the rules will be tightened up, OR, they'll be delacred illegal after the race, which will be appealed, and uphed and the rules tightened up.

[Justlovemy]

I actually suspect that the diffuser-issue may well be Max's next card to try to break the unity of FOTA. Strange that for some time there was silence about the matter, but right after the scandal about points-system arose, Max has decided to turn his attention to the diffusers too, which will give a real test to the strength of FOTA.

Nail hit , right on the head , Jens .
Late timing of the stupid "winner wins", developed out of the Olympic medals gambit has left the diffuser issue until the last moment .

The idea is all about headlines . Controversy breeds lines of text .

I suspect we'll have 4 races with the diffusers before the rules will be amended .
And , that we'll have 14 pages of debate about what they will do .

[Usendyduexy]

IMO they will be declared illegal for the European part of the season.

[HaseBeceDeemy]

I would not at all be surprised if the FIA moved the goalposts halfway through the season.

[kathy]

I would not at all be surprised if the FIA moved the goalposts halfway through the season.

So which teams are running with goalposts?

[gkruCRi1]

Has anyone seen a full explanation of what the problem is supposed to be with the Williams/Brawn/Toyota diffusers? According to that Autosport article the other teams think they are "unfairly using a bigger diffuser," while the FIA says they are "within the wording of the regulations." Obviously two different interpretations of the facts, but what are the facts?

[golfmenorca]

Didn't FIA announce in Februrary that the diffusers of Toyota and Williams were legal?

The rear diffusers of the Toyota and Williams teams have been cleared by Formula One's governing body, according to FIA president Max Mosley. February 5th 2009 - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

[Fruriourl]

February 5th 2009 - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

Its irrelevant if the FIA say they're legal or not, it'll be up the Stewards whether or not they're legal or not.

The FIA can only simply give its opinion.

Article today on Max, where he is quoted as saying it could go either way.

If Ferrari are one to lodge a protest, it'll highlight huge hypocrisy on their behalf after their floor boards they brought to Australia in 2007.

[HQTheodore]

It seems bonkers that the FIA can say something is legal and the Stewards something different.

Still, not like it's not happened before

Yet more controvacy brewing to further mire what should have been a great season.

[Fruriourl]

It seems bonkers that the FIA can say something is legal and the Stewards something different.

It is pretty shocking and just highlights how subjective the Formula 1 rules are, theres no clear right or wrong.

Who would have the final say in this? Max says its up the the Stewards? But I remember in 2006 with the mass dampers, Renault were told by the FIA (Ferrari International Assistance ??) that it was illegal, and the Stewards said it was legal.

That would suggest that it only goes to the FIA to decide if the Steward decision is appealed?

[Zzvukttz]

If Ferrari are one to lodge a protest, it'll highlight huge hypocrisy on their behalf after their floor boards they brought to Australia in 2007.

Calm down.
When did Ferrari lodge a protest against any team in the last 10 years for example (2007 move against McLaren doesn't qualify for this)?!

As far as I can remember most protest in f1 in the last few years have been lodged by McLaren (who always seek clarification of rules in order to get others ideas banned).

[Zzvukttz]

This leaves the door wide open:

"The current FIA view is that Williams and Toyota have been clever and have exploited the wording of the rules in a clever way. But somebody may challenge it and the stewards may take a different view - it could happen. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73140

Notice the use of "current view", also "the stewards may take a different view", and "it could happen"?!

[medprof]

The thing that puzzles me is that if it's a "grey area", surely it has to be legal? If it isn't specifically banned then it's fair game I would have thought.

It's the FIA's fault for not making the regulations clear enough, three teams have found an intelligent way of "interpreting" the regulations and therefore in my view have done nothing wrong. It's stupid to have a system where the FIA can say one thing and the stewards another, but what else did we expect??

[SingleMan]

The thing that puzzles me is that if it's a "grey area", surely it has to be legal? If it isn't specifically banned then it's fair game I would have thought.

It's the FIA's fault for not making the regulations clear enough, three teams have found an intelligent way of "interpreting" the regulations and therefore in my view have done nothing wrong. It's stupid to have a system where the FIA can say one thing and the stewards another, but what else did we expect??

SD seems to agree to at least part of your comments:

"In Italy, Stefano Domenicali, the Ferrari team principal, has urged the FIA to clarify the legality of the diffusers at the rear of the Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams cars. Domenicali is convinced that the cars are illegal and he wants a ruling on the matter before protests from his and other teams are issued in Melbourne."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5962563.ece

[nerohedfrs]

Has anyone seen a full explanation of what the problem is supposed to be with the Williams/Brawn/Toyota diffusers? According to that Autosport article the other teams think they are "unfairly using a bigger diffuser," while the FIA says they are "within the wording of the regulations." Obviously two different interpretations of the facts, but what are the facts?

Autosport tried to explain this a while back. I can't find the article, but from what I remember there is a maximin height for the diffuser as measured from the ground, but the top of the diffuser also has to connect to the floorpan/undertray at the rear of the car. What Williams and the rest have done is basically raise the floor in that area, and then use struts to connect the diffuser to the floorpan, in effect using the floorpan to create a 'double-deck' diffuser.
Personally I can't see what the problem is. If the main body of the diffuser is within the height requirement, and there is nothing to state that the floorpan actually has to be in contact with the diffuser along its entire length, then it's legal. And after all, for the last few years a large part of the millions that teams spend in F1 has been devoted to finding 'grey areas' in the rule book. I'm not Ferrari bashing here but does anyone remember the issue over their barge-boards a couple of seasons back? Or Honda retiring both their cars so that they could fit new engines for the next race without being penalised?
Of course what is going to govern all of this will be the performance of the cars at Melbourne. If they wipe the floor with everyone else then expect protest galore. If they don't, expect the issue to quietly go away.