Why Can't the FIA Diffuse this?

Well what a surprise! Here we are two races into the new Formula 1 season and lo' some of the teams disagree with others over the interpetation of the regs surrounding diffusers. Interestingly this is all the late Colin Chapman's fault. I kid you not. Back in 1977 the late great engineer, designed a Formula 1 car that aerodynamically surpassed anything that went before. Whilst Patrick Head at Williams was designing possibly the prettiest conventional "flat bottomed" Formula 1 car (the FW06) for the 1978 season, Colin had been studying aircraft design and came up with ground effect. It wasn't new by any means but making it fit with the Formula 1 regulations of the time made his solution innovative.

In essence Colin was using inverted wings on the side of his car to generate downforce as opposed to the normal "lift" seen on an aircraft. This downforce enabled the car to drive through corners much more quickly than traditional flat bottomed cars because the faster it went the more it was stuck to the ground. In the face of this leap of engineering innovation, what did the other teams do? Well, the teams got on with life and went racing. That year Lotus did pretty well and came second, but it was Ferrari who triumphed.

So what has this history lesson to do with the current shenanigans in Paris? Well, it seems that even though he warned them, the technical working group that defined the regulations for this season, ignored Ross Brawn and missed an important trick which has unsurprisingly been leapt upon by Brawn, Williams and Toyota. They have used a loophole in the regulations to produce a diffuser that creates much more downforce (thank you Colin) than the opposition, which includes Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull, BMW and Force India. It seems that rather than get on with life and go racing, these teams are now using the FIA to resolve their disagreements. Surely if the components have been deemed legal in two races by two sets of stewards, then there can't be any case to answer?

Of course the foregoing logic reckons without Ferrari, who are proclaimed in interviews given by the FIA Presdient, as being the most important team in Formula 1. Of course then if Ferrari shouts, the FIA must jump and jump they have.

As I write there is no verdict but we now face the prospect of the winners of the first two races and leaders of the championship being excluded together with those two other teams. About the only consolation, in the event that the teams ore disqualified, is that Ferrari won't actually benefit because they've been so laughably poor they've failed to score a point yet. Indeed their lawyer a Mr. Tozzi has accussed Ross Brawn, who in a previous life was the driving force behind Ferrari's success, of being "supremely arrogant". A trait, I suggest, not totally unfamiliar to the entire Ferrari organisation.

Going back to 1977, what have we lost? Sportsmanship. What have we gained? Manipulation and backbiting.

Sad isn't it?