I really need a day off. But I have to take issue with Dr Mario Theissen over his statements regarding the double diffuser and BMW's protest against it in Malaysia.
Nick Heidfeld battling with Lewis Hamilton in the rain
Dr Mario is usually one of the most sensible people in F1 but I think his objection to the trick diffuser is based on erroneous reasoning and annoyance that he did not think of it first. Here is what he said:
Once again, the dominance of the teams using the two-level diffuser was there for all to see in Malaysia. As early as qualifying it was difficult to break this trio's stranglehold.
The FIA must take urgent action to clarify the situation, to rule out different interpretations of the regulations. This kind of thing is not good for the sport. Sport is only interesting if everyone plays to the same rules. The diffuser issue is the equivalent of a 100m race, in which some runners start 10m in front of the rest of the field. The result would be ludicrous.
With this in mind, we lodged a protest after qualifying in Malaysia. It is purely a formal matter. It is intended to ensure that the result in Malaysia is also taken into consideration in the judge's decision in the appeal proceedings on 14th April.
We have, of course, been forced to start developing a similar solution. The teams without the so-called double diffuser must retrofit their cars in order to be competitive, and this cannot be done in one fell swoop. The trio already racing with this solution will also continue to develop. We must assume that there is still potential for plenty of improvements in this sensitive area.
It goes without saying that this torpedoes the cost reductions we were striving towards. Another aspect is safety. The aim of the new aerodynamic regulations was to reduce cornering speeds. The double diffuser means that these speeds are even higher than they were last year.
For a start, Dr Mario is incorrect when he says that different interpretations of the rules should not be allowed. Max Mosley, Charlie Whiting and the stewards have already said that the diffusers do not contravene the letter of the law. That means that they are legal and all appeals to the "spirit" of the law are irrelevant. If Dr Mario did not heed Ross Brawn's warning a year ago that the loopholes existed, then he has only himself to blame for BMW's failure to agree to a tightening of the rules or to develop a double diffuser himself.
The fact is that everyone is playing by the same rules - some missed a trick in their understanding of them, that is all. Far from "not being good for the sport", this is the very essence of the engineering competition that is F1. Every major advance in the design of the cars has been made by an engineer who saw what was possible within the law, while others remained stuck in the accepted status quo. If Dr Mario's statements were correct, John Cooper would have been stopped when he put the engine in the back and F1 cars would still be front-engined, Lotus would not have been allowed to introduce the monocoque chassis, Chapman would have been told he could not utilize ground effect, Renault's introduction of the turbo would have been banned immediately - the list is endless.
I know Dr Mario understands this; it was not that long ago that he designed a BMW rear wing that flexed at high speed. That was actually beyond the letter of the law and was rightly outlawed, but it shows that the good doctor understands the principle of being cleverer than the others.
The really sad fact is that the protesting teams are claiming the performance advantage of the trick diffuser teams as a reason for banning the device. In wanting to include the Malaysia results in his protest, Dr Mario shows that he agrees that this is a good reason to have the diffusers outlawed. Are we then to assume that any team that gains an advantage over the rest is doing something wrong?
Performance advantage is what engineering is all about - there would be no point in designing a car if you did not intend it to be better than the rest. And, in all the examples of new interpretations of the rules that I have mentioned, the innovation gave the team introducing it a decisive advantage over the rest. That was the idea, after all.
The matter of safety and cornering speeds is a canard. What has made the big difference in speeds this year is the return of the slick tire and the diffusers have made very little difference in that area. Take a look at Red Bull lap times and this becomes obvious.
My readers will know that I am a fan of both Dr Theissen and his team. It was a disappointment for me to read of BMW's protest, therefore, and I do not enjoy having to point out the doctor's muddled thinking on the issue. I realize that it must be very frustrating to have his plans for BMW's success this year thwarted by other engineers who out-thought him, but the correct reaction is to accept that he lost this battle and then knuckle down to the work of designing a double diffuser for his own cars. At least he has had the sense to have begun that work.
And, if it's the money that is worrying him, I suggest that he throw the silly KERS device away now, before it wastes any more cash and potential points.