They better start planning a new layout soon!
No redesign, their layout is like anyone else's, they just have to remove a few screws and take off those extra vanes.
j man wrote:
I see why the Caterham system was banned but does anyone know the grounds on which the Williams system was deemed illegal? I agree with Mike Coughlan's assertion that as the slot is there it is still just a single opening so there is nothing wrong with it. Reminds me a little of the debate from last year with the hole in the floor just ahead of the rear wheels.
Is there maybe a regulation on bodywork in front of the exhaust opening that they are breaking???
Per the Technical Directive quoted above; although these turning vanes may fall outside of the envelope specified in the rules, whether they're one piece or two, if their purpose is to re-ingest or redirect exhaust gases they are not allowed.
Going back to the original debate, when the engine is being used as a blower to produce downforce then it becomes a movable aero-influencing device. So if they're adding extra parts specifically to turn the engine into a diffuser blower, as both Williams and Caterham clearly have done, then it's maybe not the vanes themselves but the effect of the vanes that becomes illegal -- the vanes make the engine a moving aero device, so they can't have the vanes.
It's similar logic to why Lotus' anti-dive suspension was banned. It wasn't illegal in itself, but it would have allowed them to do other things for an aero benefit (run the car lower), therefore it was a movable device having an aero effect, = banned.
and that fits in with why the Tuned Mass Damper was banned.
Actually these FiA decisions begin to make sense, looking at them over enough years.
But where is the line drawn at determining what pieces of body work are redirecting exhaust gases?
Obviously with all of the coanda effect work being done over the last year it has effected the shape of the side pods, and was the reason for the channels aft of the exhaust ports. If the channels are allowed why not these vanes within them?
When I first saw the channels at McLarens reveal last year thought they would be gone by Oz, but they were allowed and were added and developed by all of the teams. This was probably the reason for the TD mentioned above but the channels remain. Why? Their purpose is to redirect the exhaust flow to the floor of the car, I would think that falls under the TD. Should they scrutinize the side pods to determine if the shape is designed to shunt exhaust into the diffuser?
I don't blame either Williams or Caterham from trying this out, and next year with the single exhaust as a result of going to the turbo engines it shouldn't be as big an issue, but don't bet against the creativity of F1 designers.