07-02-2012, 09:52
yo de éste no me creo nada. Y más después de leer la entrevista que le hicieron ayer a un responsable de Lotus donde habla de zonas grises en la normativa respecto a los difusores soplados. Creo que gracias a esas zonas grises seguirán usandolo.
Cuando salió la normativa ya dije que había un hueco muy grande en cierta parte. Recuerdo alguna conversación con ElAbuelo sobre eso (¿sabeis cómo se puede recuperar para verlo otra vez?). Ahora en una entrevista a un integrante de Lotus también él lo resalta. Me parece que tendremos problemas otra vez con la FIA. Veremos en qué queda todo. Os paso parte de la entrevista (felicidades a los que sabeis inglés, el traductr de google deja cosas no demasiado claras)
James Allison (Lotus), entrevistado por Jonathan Noble en Autosport:
Q: Were there aspects of last year's car that were actually quite good, but got disguised by the issues you had with the forward-facing exhausts? And were lessons learned from the work you did on the rearward-facing version?
JA: This year's exhaust really does not lend itself to have any of last year's detailed ideas carry over. I think last year's experiments for everyone reveal where you would want to get energy to, if you had a free hand. But you don't have a free hand, and I guess what is particularly interesting this year is that there is both a black-and-white regulation on exhaust, and a Technical Directive on exhaust. And the Technical Directive is much more restrictive than the black and white regulation, but nevertheless difficult to interpret because it has a degree of interpretation in it, where we will have to see exactly where the line is?
Q: Is that in terms of angles, geometry, what an exhaust pipe is, where it is blowing?
JA: I think the wording of the Technical Directive says something along the lines that any designs that reingest or redirect exhaust flow for principally aerodynamic reasons will not be permitted.
Q: So if you fire it to a brake duct area then that could be illegal?
JA: The rule itself just determines how big the exhaust has to be, where it connects it, what angles it connects it from. But then the directive says you can satisfy the rule, but if we regard the concept of what you have done as satisfying the rule, but nevertheless done principally for downforce generation, then we might have to take a view on that. I think there will be a degree of jostling to work out where the line of acceptable geometries are.
Q: Is that an area where teams are going to be taking things to the limit?
JA: Absolutely certainly! Why wouldn't you?
Q: But surely exhausts pump gases, so by their very nature will be influencing parts of the car wherever they are aimed?
JA: There is the rub! As you probably know, there was something of a spat last year where many teams felt that what we should do was define a black-and-white rule, and then put into the rule a rule that said if you do it to this geometry, then any aero effect will be considered incidental from the point of view of Article 3.15. So, that was an approach. But that was felt by other teams to perhaps open the door to too many unwanted avenues of development. So what we have is a black-and-white rule and a yet-to-be-determined area where the line lies.
Q: Charlie Whiting is supposed to be coming here to this test. Is it important that teams get an answer this week?
JA: I think the answer will evolve through the year as people nibble away at what is doable and what is not doable
PD gracias a Khan
Cuando salió la normativa ya dije que había un hueco muy grande en cierta parte. Recuerdo alguna conversación con ElAbuelo sobre eso (¿sabeis cómo se puede recuperar para verlo otra vez?). Ahora en una entrevista a un integrante de Lotus también él lo resalta. Me parece que tendremos problemas otra vez con la FIA. Veremos en qué queda todo. Os paso parte de la entrevista (felicidades a los que sabeis inglés, el traductr de google deja cosas no demasiado claras)
James Allison (Lotus), entrevistado por Jonathan Noble en Autosport:
Q: Were there aspects of last year's car that were actually quite good, but got disguised by the issues you had with the forward-facing exhausts? And were lessons learned from the work you did on the rearward-facing version?
JA: This year's exhaust really does not lend itself to have any of last year's detailed ideas carry over. I think last year's experiments for everyone reveal where you would want to get energy to, if you had a free hand. But you don't have a free hand, and I guess what is particularly interesting this year is that there is both a black-and-white regulation on exhaust, and a Technical Directive on exhaust. And the Technical Directive is much more restrictive than the black and white regulation, but nevertheless difficult to interpret because it has a degree of interpretation in it, where we will have to see exactly where the line is?
Q: Is that in terms of angles, geometry, what an exhaust pipe is, where it is blowing?
JA: I think the wording of the Technical Directive says something along the lines that any designs that reingest or redirect exhaust flow for principally aerodynamic reasons will not be permitted.
Q: So if you fire it to a brake duct area then that could be illegal?
JA: The rule itself just determines how big the exhaust has to be, where it connects it, what angles it connects it from. But then the directive says you can satisfy the rule, but if we regard the concept of what you have done as satisfying the rule, but nevertheless done principally for downforce generation, then we might have to take a view on that. I think there will be a degree of jostling to work out where the line of acceptable geometries are.
Q: Is that an area where teams are going to be taking things to the limit?
JA: Absolutely certainly! Why wouldn't you?
Q: But surely exhausts pump gases, so by their very nature will be influencing parts of the car wherever they are aimed?
JA: There is the rub! As you probably know, there was something of a spat last year where many teams felt that what we should do was define a black-and-white rule, and then put into the rule a rule that said if you do it to this geometry, then any aero effect will be considered incidental from the point of view of Article 3.15. So, that was an approach. But that was felt by other teams to perhaps open the door to too many unwanted avenues of development. So what we have is a black-and-white rule and a yet-to-be-determined area where the line lies.
Q: Charlie Whiting is supposed to be coming here to this test. Is it important that teams get an answer this week?
JA: I think the answer will evolve through the year as people nibble away at what is doable and what is not doable
PD gracias a Khan
ALONSO ES LA DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PILOTO PERFECTO.
Allí dónde el amor venza al miedo, solo allí nos encontraremos.
Allí dónde el amor venza al miedo, solo allí nos encontraremos.