Comments on: Williams makes point with protest

By: Zej

Zej — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:29:17 +0000

Has anyone actually seen the offending diffuser?

Everyone is talking about it, but there have been no actual pictures of graphics of the offending diffuser.

Has anyone seen it?

By: Sasquatsch

Sasquatsch — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:31:32 +0000

Everybody seems to be forgetting that Williams diffuser was declared legal by the FIA more than a year ago, according to Sam Michaels.

And if that is the case it would seem strange that the FIA would now declare the diffuser illegal, just because some teams think that it is against the spirit of the rules. If that was the case the FIA would not have allowed the diffuser a year ago, I would think.

Or am I a bit naive in my thinking here?

By: DGR-F1

DGR-F1 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:40:59 +0000

So I take it that in the interests of ‘the show’ and entertainment value (ie dollars), Max and the FIA would prefer to see cars on slick tyres and less downforce, therefore less drivable and more unstable, as both the Ferraris and McLarens were this weekend, than cars which are stable and have more downforce as the Brawns, Toyotas and Williams were.
This is crazy. Even from a safety aspect a stabler car is better than an undrivable one!

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:29:16 +0000

Flavio has more faces than an 8 sided clock

Nicely put!

By: Achilles

Achilles — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:22:41 +0000

Flavio has more faces than an 8 sided clock, he is just mad that his guys did’nt come up with the same ideas, if(or when) Renault pull out of F1 the only way he will go up in my estimation is if he dips in his pockets and OWNS a team rather than running one, then we’ll see if he has the kind of cojones that Braun has shown….

By: MacademiaNut

MacademiaNut — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:26:42 +0000

It is ridiculous of Flavio to say that they wanted slower cars. Why would you force yourself to have slower cars?

I think the right way to look at is add additional constraints and challenge the teams to race as fast as they can within those constraints. Given more constraints, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the car must be slower than last year’s.

If what Flavio were to say is true, then why give the teams KERS? Doesn’t that allow the teams to go faster than if KERS was not there?

By: MacademiaNut

MacademiaNut — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:21:24 +0000

I agree. I would like to have one year of Racing where the stewards or the court doesn’t decide the winner. Let’s decide the WDC & WCC on the track pls!

By: MacademiaNut

MacademiaNut — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:18:24 +0000

The three teams were not represented in *some* meeting when the rules were discussed (read it somewhere, will try to dig up the link) — Toyota, Honda (Brawn), and Williams.

So, Flavio could be correct that the intent of the rule is to reduce the downforce. But, the problem is that the rule does not say “the downforce should be lower than last year”, it says that this is how the structure should be (which we are sure will lead to a lower downforce). But, it turns out that’s not the case.

Ferrari, of all teams, should not be complaining about these “interpretations”. When clearly all movable parts were not allowed, their side pods were moving say to much last year. This year, the side mirrors have the same issue.

I think Williams made a great point here.

By: sumedh

sumedh — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:29:40 +0000

Deem the double decker diffuser as legal.

And add an extra testing window of 3-4 days sometime before the European leg starts. Everybody will copy it; and the play field will be even.

Its a simple solution. Please don’t change the results of the Australian GP 3 weeks after it is over.

By: Paige

Paige — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:24:56 +0000

Briatore should croak. If he had his way, F1 would be a fashion show.