planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:33 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 2278
Location: Mumbai, India
A big blow for Williams & Caterham as FIA has deemed their exhaust layouts as illegal:-

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/039-caterham-and-williams-exhausts-illegal-039-67452

They better start planning a new layout soon!

_________________
Unlike Uday
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2013 WINNER
Recipient of Sebastian Vettel Trophy
Best Results:1st with highest ever score of 225(India 2012),2nd (Silverstone 2012, Australia 2014),3rd (Suzuka & Abu Dhabi 2013)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:13 pm
Posts: 35
Quote:
A big blow for Williams & Caterham as FIA has deemed their exhaust layouts as illegal:-


No pun intended?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 272
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big blow for Williams & Caterham as FIA has deemed their exhaust layouts as illegal:-

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/039-caterham-and-williams-exhausts-illegal-039-67452

They better start planning a new layout soon!


A new layout?

All Caterham have to do is remove the winglet.

Image

All Williams have to do is unbolt the bits of plastic at the top of the exhaust.

Image

Do you really think they would need 'a new layout'? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Last edited by Dalemac on Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 2278
Location: Mumbai, India
Michaelmad wrote:
Quote:
A big blow for Williams & Caterham as FIA has deemed their exhaust layouts as illegal:-


No pun intended?


Pun unintended!

Well not a new setup overall but every small detail helps in the overall performance. If those winglets were there then they were there for a reason.

_________________
Unlike Uday
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2013 WINNER
Recipient of Sebastian Vettel Trophy
Best Results:1st with highest ever score of 225(India 2012),2nd (Silverstone 2012, Australia 2014),3rd (Suzuka & Abu Dhabi 2013)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 805
I find this slightly bizarre - if you were in any way unsure that your design would conform to the regs, wouldn't it make sense to consult the FIA (in confidence) in the design phase? We all know by now that you can't hide things and get away with it (Unless your name is Adrian Newey :twisted: ) so they must have produced it with >95% confidence that it was within the rules otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time and resources.

So this either says that:
1) Caterham and Williams design teams are naive/stupid and thought they could get away with it.
2) They knew it was bending the rules and removing it from the car won't affect them much performance wise - but it was worth a try.
3) FIA regs are unclear and Williams/Caterham found a loophole that the FIA now want to close before bigger teams get involved.

I'd like to think it was option 2, but I'm more inclined to think it was 3

EDIT: Having seen the photos it looks fairly simple to resolve, so it is more likely number 2

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place - Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball
2014 - 9th Place - Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Last edited by coulthards chin on Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1416
they probably knew it is illegal and were just data gathering for some system


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 2278
Location: Mumbai, India
Dalemac wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big blow for Williams & Caterham as FIA has deemed their exhaust layouts as illegal:-

http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/039-caterham-and-williams-exhausts-illegal-039-67452

They better start planning a new layout soon!


A new layout?

All Caterham have to do is remove the winglet.

Image

All Williams have to do is unbolt the bits of plastic at the top of the exhaust.

Image

Do you really think they would need 'a new layout'? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Did not mean a layout as in a layout!

A whole new layout would be too ironical because the 2 teams wouldn't get things so wrong

_________________
Unlike Uday
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2013 WINNER
Recipient of Sebastian Vettel Trophy
Best Results:1st with highest ever score of 225(India 2012),2nd (Silverstone 2012, Australia 2014),3rd (Suzuka & Abu Dhabi 2013)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
coulthards chin wrote:
I find this slightly bizarre - if you were in any way unsure that your design would conform to the regs, wouldn't it make sense to consult the FIA (in confidence) in the design phase? We all know by now that you can't hide things and get away with it (Unless your name is Adrian Newey :twisted: ) so they must have produced it with >95% confidence that it was within the rules otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time and resources.

So this either says that:
1) Caterham and Williams design teams are naive/stupid and thought they could get away with it.
2) They knew it was bending the rules and removing it from the car won't affect them much performance wise - but it was worth a try.
3) FIA regs are unclear and Williams/Caterham found a loophole that the FIA now want to close before bigger teams get involved.

I'd like to think it was option 2, but I'm more inclined to think it was 3

EDIT: Having seen the photos it looks fairly simple to resolve, so it is more likely number 2


You can't do it with the FIA in confidence. If someone asks the FIA for clarification all the teams get a memo on the decision. For that reason sometimes the clarification misses out important details of the design or idea. Basically the teams give as little as possible to the FIA so the other teams get as little as possible or give details that on the face of it look like no benefit . Which is why the goal posts seem to move after an idea has been given the okay.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 272
UnlikeUday wrote:
They better start planning a new layout soon!


UnlikeUday wrote:
Did not mean a layout as in a layout!

A whole new layout would be too ironical because the 2 teams wouldn't get things so wrong


So what did you mean? :?: :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 1576
Location: UK
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???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 2530
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 857
UnlikeUday wrote:
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.

RaggedMan wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 2530
flyer wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
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.

RaggedMan wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 857
Yeah it's weird, if it was up to me I'd ban the channels too, but those aren't exactly "parts" are they? How would you ban that, in regulations, unless you just required exhaust pipes all the way to the back, straight? like it will be next year. but that would be a pretty big change, to the exhaust tuning of the current engines, I think. You can't just slap on a big long pipe without having it affect the engine.

Maybe it's the fact these vanes are specific additional parts for the purpose of making the engine produce downforce. You can see where they're screwed on, i.e. the Williams, it's like the bodywork was there and then someone said "Oh, let's screw on some vanes to redirect the exhaust" -- it's easy to isolate these parts, unlike the channels which can't just be unscrewed and thrown away.

The channels, basically they're an exploit of regulations that were intended to get rid of the exhaust effect, but they're always going to come up with a little bit of exploitation that's hard to isolate and ban.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:33 am 
coulthards chin wrote:
I find this slightly bizarre - if you were in any way unsure that your design would conform to the regs, wouldn't it make sense to consult the FIA (in confidence) in the design phase? We all know by now that you can't hide things and get away with it (Unless your name is Adrian Newey :twisted: ) so they must have produced it with >95% confidence that it was within the rules otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time and resources.

So this either says that:
1) Caterham and Williams design teams are naive/stupid and thought they could get away with it.
2) They knew it was bending the rules and removing it from the car won't affect them much performance wise - but it was worth a try.
3) FIA regs are unclear and Williams/Caterham found a loophole that the FIA now want to close before bigger teams get involved.

I'd like to think it was option 2, but I'm more inclined to think it was 3

EDIT: Having seen the photos it looks fairly simple to resolve, so it is more likely number 2


There are many other options. One is that the devices are easily removed or modified, and they were there just to allow easy modification to determine where they wanted the exhaust path to wind up. Once that was determined, then design and construct bodywork to have that proper effect. It's much simpler and cheaper than trying different bodywork panels.

Another theory is publicity. Did anyone notice the Caterham has lots of unused real estate that should be covered by advertising logos? But if you get a picture of your car splashed in pictures around the world, it may attract money? One thing for sure, EQ8 just got their money's worth in just one day.
Image


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 857
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Another theory is publicity. Did anyone notice the Caterham has lots of unused real estate that should be covered by advertising logos? But if you get a picture of your car splashed in pictures around the world, it may attract money? One thing for sure, EQ8 just got their money's worth in just one day.
Image


:D Machiavellian Marketing

Noticed there are some ads right under that attention-getting part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:23 pm
Posts: 18
you may have a point on the advertiseing bit plus a gamble on getting away with it.
why put what looks like 3 sponsers in such a weid place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:29 am
Posts: 380
Location: 127.0.0.1
Not Illegal yet according to the following report : S

http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/sto ... MP=OTC-RSS


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FormulaFun and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group