Technical McLaren MP4-27 exhaust vents - legal or illegal?

Air coming off the sidepod will be deemed to be diverting the exhausts then? They'll have to ban sidpods then.

Oh hang on a minute, they'll have to ban every part of the car that changes the direction of air towards the exhaust gases then. I.e. virtually the entire car.
 
Interesting - since the air will be diverting the exhaust gases you have to say that it falls outside that rule. That's if McLarenhave positioned the exhaust to take advantage of the existing airflow - we once again have the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.

Be interesting to see if this one develops.
 
If that's what they've done then it's truly inspired and certinally no worse that what Red Bull did with the EBD and flexi-wing last year. Frankly the 'spirit' of the rule can do one.
 
The FIA was referring to any device within the exhaust housing that would divert the exhaust gases to another part of the car for aero benefit. Even the FIA will realize that the airflow around the car will affect the course of exhaust gases. They've regulated the position of the exhausts and everyone has designed there cars accordingly. The FIA have been very clear on their ruling. Exhausts are only to be used for their intended function, to allow exhaust gases to leave the engine, not to be redirected to aid aerodynamics. The airflow over the car forward of the exhaust outlets can't be deemed to be an aerodynamic device. I can't imagine anyone even considering it to be a breach of the spirit of the law.
 
I don't think this has been posted here yet but this came from McLaren's Paddy Lowe:

"I see this as being very similar to the situation with wings: in theory any wing which deflects in the slightest is illegal but we all know that real wings must bend, so to solve this the FIA set practical limits using specific stiffness tests. Actually, both examples are based on the interpretation of the same technical regulation: Article 3.15. What F1 always needs is clarity over what is OK and what is not OK, and I think the FIA have achieved that: Charlie has done a great job."

A clever way of staving off any double standards that might creep in over their exhaust system.
 
As a software engineer, you and your colleagues are trying to make the most functional, sound and bug-free product possible to sell to customers. The F1 management is trying to induce a bunch of competing engineering teams to build cars that when raced together on a circuit produce entertaining racing that draws a crowd and TV audience - they aren't trying to sell the cars to anyone. Given this substantial difference, I don't believe that the formal specifications written by a software engineer and those written by the F1 management should be optimised in the same way.

If the regulations were too precise F1 would become a spec series, since modern technology would allow most of the teams to converge upon more or less a single optimal solution given well-defined and simple geometric constraints on the car design. As things stand this is almost the case, with the cars being generally very similar and the most significant differences being primarily due to rule-bending innovations like the double diffuser, flexi-wing, F-duct, blown diffuser, mass damper et al.

In other words, if the rules were more precisely defined then there would be even less diversity and originality on display in the cars than there is at the moment. The F1 specifications are really a game played by the management and the teams in which the designers try to bend the somewhat vaguely defined and enforced rules and the management allows for a little of this, but not so much that the top teams are able to obtain a huge performance advantage or such that the cars in general regain too much downforce or become unsafe. The F1 management has no reason to clamp down on every rule-bending innovation in draconian fashion, nor should they (at least not unless they change a lot of other things about the formula, for example by switching to "divergent governance" with parameter-based specifications if that be feasible).

Adrian Newey is playing the same game that all of the teams play in complicity with the F1 management, and of course it's in his interests to encourage the F1 management to regard his own rule-bending innovations as just permissible and the other teams' best ideas as being over the line. F1 is a sport and therefore not an entirely serious endeavour, so a little competitive fibbing and misdirection by the teams about their designs harms no-one and is part of the fun (although for reasons of sportsmanship one prefers the drivers and teams not to lie regarding their conduct during races, which is a different matter).

I applaud what you say and basically agree with everything you say, however, I think you have misunderstood where I am coming from. I have no problem with a rule that can be interpreted in different ways or allows for many different potential solutions - this is exactly what Formula 1 is all about, as you say. All I was getting at is that it annoys me when they specify a rule such as the new exhaust rule, which specifies that the exhaust outlet should be in a certain dimensional area, and at the end must be no more than a certain length and can only be angled vertically and horizontally by certain parameters. This still leaves a huge scope for design and innovation as we are already seeing with pretty much every team having a different solution. I am annoyed that only a few weeks ago, there has been a technical directive written to the teams, which is completely outside of the aforementioned rule, which now says the exhaust should not have primary aerodynamic influence. This leaves teams in the position where they may have designed their car around a solution that meets the original rule they got given and completely legitimately conforms to that rule, but will now have their solution declared illegal. If this technical directive was given to the teams several months ago and they had it explained to them (because no one knows where the line is of what you can do and what you cannot) then you'd never have this issue. It's a typical FIA cock-up.

I think you will find the teams that may end up getting hurt by this are those that have been most ambitious and innovative with their exhaust designs (whilst still conforming to the rules set) and so I am actually sticking up for design and innovation. I just don't like the FIA coming in and saying one teams solution is illegal and anothers is not when they both comply to the rules and the grounds on which they are making their decision is very vague and 1 persons decision could differ or be argued completely differently to anothers.

Very quick example - lets say they banned Ferraris and McLarens current solutions but allowed all others. It could actually turn out that there are other solutions that are more beneficial to aerodynamic performance, but the FIA would not necessarily know or appreciate this. On top of that - it could be argued that every exhaust solution has aerodynamic benefit and other than blowing exhausts out of the car (which they have to and obviously do inherently) the only benefit is aerodynamic. By taking that stance you could argue that everyones exhaust positioning is primarily for an aerodynamic reason - it's not as if positioning an exhaust in 1 place or another stops the exhaust from allowing fumes to exit. So the decision of where the definitive line is, that the FIA would have to make would be completely "fuzzy". I don't know if you know of "fuzzy logic", but it's to do with things like "what makes someone tall", "what makes something hot" - I may class someone as being tall and someone else may have a complete different opinion. Fuzzy logic involves measuring these vague areas by giving them a "degree". So one person is tall by "degree 0.6" another by "degree 0.8". Now enough of that nonsense - you cannot use fuzzy logic to make a decision on where does the line come as to when an exhaust has primary aerodynamic influence and what does not because there are hundreds of factors involved on such a complex F1 car. In other words - why doesn't the FIA actually just stick to the rule they defined in the first place, which leaves open plenty of scope for development, but also at least stops teams blowing excessively. Teams that come up with innovative solutions should be applauded not punished.

The main reason the FIA did not like exhaust blowing was because it was seen that teams were burning extra fuel for aerodynamic gain with the off-throttle engine maps. The only thing they needed to do to stop this is ban these maps, which they've now done. They also decided to change the regs so development was not so focused on exhausts. But they've done enough now - let the teams have some fun!
 
All I was getting at is that it annoys me when they specify a rule such as the new exhaust rule, which specifies that the exhaust outlet should be in a certain dimensional area, and at the end must be no more than a certain length and can only be angled vertically and horizontally by certain parameters. This still leaves a huge scope for design and innovation as we are already seeing with pretty much every team having a different solution. I am annoyed that only a few weeks ago, there has been a technical directive written to the teams, which is completely outside of the aforementioned rule, which now says the exhaust should not have primary aerodynamic influence. This leaves teams in the position where they may have designed their car around a solution that meets the original rule they got given and completely legitimately conforms to that rule, but will now have their solution declared illegal. If this technical directive was given to the teams several months ago and they had it explained to them (because no one knows where the line is of what you can do and what you cannot) then you'd never have this issue. It's a typical FIA cock-up.

Yep, I agree with all of this. Wording the regulations vaguely and permitting moderate rule-bending is one thing, but actually changing the rulebook unexpectedly after the teams have designed their cars in perfect compliance with the existing rules is incompetent, unfair and as you say discourages innovation.
 
In their current guise, I think the exhausts are illegal because they do not have round exits

"Then the tailpipe section is tightly defined, the last 100mm must be a round thinwall circular section, of 75mm internal diameter with no obstructions. So oval tailpipes, or pipes with internal vanes and\or slash cut exits are barred."

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/2012-exhaust-position-and-blown-effects/

But, in their current guise they are for testing purposes, allowing the team to easily change where the gasses are directed. Once they know where is best, they will put a nice clean pipe out there.

I am a bit surprised that people still think that the genie can be put back in the bottle. Now that we know there is no much to gain from these gasses, whereever they are directed, they are going to be used for something. There really is no "within the letter but not the spirit of the regulations"clause!
 
But we all know Charlie Whiting doesn't have the last say. How many times have the teams "asked Charlie" only for his decision to be overruled?
 
From Sky.
Ferrai exhausts get the all clear from Charlie

Screen Shot 2012-02-10 at 08.54.06.png
 
Jez... As far as I can tell Whiting has declared the exhausts legal. Surely there's no 'under testing' caveat?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/whiting-says-2012-exhaust-layouts-legal/
From the pictures you posted the links to, it didn't look like an unobstructed exit to me! It looked much more like a bolt on piece that can be used to direct the air in a particular way without having to remodel the pipes for each test. I think this is necessary because as I understand it the metals used are so hard and heat resistant that building the pipe it a non trivial task (see this months Pat Simmons piece in f1 racing)

I don't think there is any issue with using illegal parts for testing. Just look at some of the aero rakes that were being used in abu dhabi last year. A car isn't fully legal until Thursday scrutineering and similarly nothing is illegal until then either. :)
 
Jez, I also put forward the idea earlier that they may be interchangeable for the ease of testing but there's no word on it apart from Whiting saying the exhausts are legal. :givemestrength:

We will see the final solution at the first race I guess!
 
Reading the sky feed there was an interesting point raised by a cameraman who mentioned (and I paraphrase) "The heat haze off the McLaren exhaust is completely different to everyone else"
 
Thread closed ;)

Ted Kravitz: “I’ve got some developing news on the exhaust story. I understand from sources in the pitlane that FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting has told the teams that he considers Ferrari and McLaren exhaust designs as legal. Even though the way those two teams have packaged their exhaust outlets, with channels leading exhaust gases out to specific areas of the car and therefore appearing to have a beneficial aero effect, which is against new exhaust regulations, it seems Whiting believes that they comply sufficiently with both the letter and the intention of the law.

This has been accepted by the other teams, who launched with less aggressive exhaust concepts and it means that they will now effectively green light their own, shall we say more exotic, exhaust designs. We can expect to see these in time for the third test in Barcelona, if not before.”
 
Funny how the new Ferrari has a similar exhaust concept as the McLaren (or indeed vice versa) and none of the other teams has anything similar, YET.

Oh hang on a minute...Didn't a certain Pat Fry change teams recently? :whistle:
 
Back
Top Bottom