Its not just the green credentials, it's the driver controlled aero device that have been outlawed. Wing stalling fell under that, and was the reason for the rule. Charley Whiting has expressed concerns that using the throttle to keep exhaust gases up also comes under this ruling.
The wet fart sound isn't really the issue, but as I edited in earlier, the sound is reminiscent of a pulse jet. The ignition is so far retarded that the engine doesn't generate any torque, but instead acts as a pump to feed a nice fuel/air mixture into the exhaust. I can't remember who tried it a couple of weeks ago, but the exhaust cracked probably due to the high resonant forces generated so it was abandoned. McLaren sounds like its only on overrun, and possibly explains Whitmarsh's confident remarks.
Put in this context it sounds somewhat logical, but I can't but laugh at the argumentation they use to justify the ban. Why have they suddenly began to care how "green" F1 is? I bet the amount of extra exhalations the "maximized airflow engine mode" releases is pretty much negligible compared to the overall environmental stress F1 causes. For example the Pirelli tyres that won't last more than 15 laps on certain tracks which forces teams to use up to 4 sets of tyres? That is what I a waste. Or the KERS? I imagine the batteries contain a lot of toxic chemical compounds and at least the electrolyte is probably changed every race weekend.
Hell, if they really want to do something for the environment, perhaps they should increase the KERS capacity and demand at least 50% of the race be driven using the KERS power, turning F1 monoposts into true hybrid cars.
Seriously, is F1 in that big a crisis that it has to care about being "green"?
Very true. Trying to save the fuel burnt on track is totally worthless also, it will never make up allthe energy wasted by spectators, teams and cars to attend to the event.
Certainly you could argue the ban is another PR gimmick, aswell as KERS, which is what I belive was psychoman's theory. But personally I do not think. Just because, the average fan don't know what a blown diffuser is, since the topic will never get raised by mass medias. Even if he knows it by a mention on a livestream or something, he(in most cases) won't try to figure how it works and therefore will never realise it wastes fuel overall.
The few real F1 fans who knows about it will generally know that the FIA is generally being a bunch of hypocrite on everything environment based and therefore won't take it to the first degree - though I belive anyway most of them would have enough brains to realise that the logic behind the ban is totally flawed.
Because of this, the PR move wouldn't be worth and efficient enough to get in bad terms with several well established teams.
Personally I only see it as a way to make the field closer, and maybe prevent Vettel from flying to the title too early in the season.
Basically an anti-lag system without the turbo involved. Wouldn't this result in separate pulses passing over the diffuser in waves (although maybe quick ones), rather than an uninterrupted, smooth flow. (hence the pulse jet) achieved by having (either driver keeping foot on throttle or throttle plates held open by the engine management system) throttle open on overrun, yet no fuel squirted or an ignition event happening? Then it would just be the engine pumping air through the exhaust and over the diffuser.
If I'm completely off here, please disregard/correct. It's almost 2:30 in the morning and maybe I'm not thinking clearly
Oh, and ROFL at making F1 'greener'. Then reduce the amount of equipment having to be hauled all over the world for 20+ weekends a year. Or the amount of tires used. Or start using bio-fuels. I'm rambling now, good night.
If they really wanted to be green they would Ban racing in general, since that won't happen whats the point of Gimmics like KERS which don't do anything, if anything it would increase fuel consumption as it would give higher revs on the final ratio.
As F1 engines have computer controlled pnumatic valves the can set the computer to leave them open, so the engine does turn into a pump. So the options available to the person writing the maps are incredible.
They do. They have been using bio fuels for some years. One of the other big "green" moves was when bridge stone changed from marking the option with white paint to green paint, but although the manufacturing involved cancels it out, Pirreli's tyres are a synthetic rubber which gives them the characteristics we've grown to love or hate and are designed to bio-degrade quickly too for that extra greenness.
I believe at the second race during FP they worked out that the spectators turning up to the Silverstone weekend makes as much CO2 as the whole of the racing for a season.
Care to explain why Hamilton should be 10th? Hamilton was faster than Perez in Q2 which makes Hamilton 9th and Perez 10th in the grid. Therefore 10th place will be empty not 9th.
I'm pretty sure 9th will be empty, as Hamilton got his only time deleted for jumping the chicane. Perez did manage to get a time in before his crash, which puts him ahead of Hamilton.
I don't know where it says Perez got a time since every sports site I go to clearly says that Perez does not have a lap time in Q3. In here for example is the grid before Hamilton's penalty:
Ah, OK. I might be wrong then. I was looking at the BBC web site which shows him with a time of 1:15.482, although there is no indication of how that time was determined.
The times bbc shows for Perez and Hamilton are their times in Q2.
quote from bbc.com:
8 venezuela P Maldonado 1:16.528
9 mexico S Perez 1:15.482
10 great britain L Hamilton 1:14.275
Maldonado had time in q3 which makes him 8th. Perez's and Hamilton's time are from Q2 so it's probably just a mistake Hamilton is 10th. Everywhere else Hamilton is ahead of Perez because his Q2 is faster than Perez's.
