[Team] Red Bull: Unbullievable

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Pretty much. They’re the same basic design just not finished off.

Or they’ll take more than one thickness to test at the same time. It’s really not a big deal or cost.

Understood. I wrongly thought that curing a carbon part took about 6hrs.

It does sound like a wasteful process to have multiple noses built with increasing thickness if they might not be required.

I'm also unclear how the cracked chassis affected this process.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

He must have a big car!!



"The nose section reportedly did not adequately absorb the impact energy, resulting in damage to the chassis as well."

For reference, this is a Lotus 59 Formula 2 car from the 1960's:



You can see why crash testing regulations are so important given the constructors only care about performance and would prefer to "simplify and add lightness" to the extremes of using the engine as the structure of the car (still the case to this day etc).

Pay particular note to the "robust" front impact structure!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It does sound like a wasteful process to have multiple noses built with increasing thickness if they might not be required.

Going fast in spite of pesky regulations is also important!

If you take safety regulations literally you end up with these.


Instead of the performance interpretation:


Note those nice Adrian Newey fins that meet the letter, but not the spirit of the head restraint regulation.

The halo and side impact structures are controlled parts precisely because the constructors cannot be trusted. Ironically, Red Bull Technologies is the supplier of all side impact structures!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard C

In the end, expecting to fail your first test and then slapping on some extra carbon fiber for your next test sounds a bit "bush league" (sorry for the American slang, but I couldn't think of a more global version).

First, I want to say that I think my comment above has been misunderstood. I am not saying "F1 IS bush league" but rather that how peebee2 describes the process would be "bush league" IMHO. My point being that it is extremely unlikely it works as he says. Hence, IMHO F1 is NOT bush league.

Originally Posted by peebee2

Top teams always fail the frontal test. You add carbon one layer at a time until it passes. Minimum weight.

My entire comments hinge upon the above statement. Which effectively says that teams bring a solution that they know it is less than sufficient and then build it stronger until it passes. I will not repeat my arguments as to why that approach makes little sense.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I don't think it is possible to predict the failure that accurately in simulation.

If it wasn't a racing car chasing maximum performance, you'd have a higher safety factor like 1.5x or 2.0x the minimum requirement instead of 1.0x the requirement, so a 5% error bar in your simulation wouldn't matter. But it is and therefore it does matter.

I 100% agree. And maybe I was explaining my position badly. As I mentioned, the simulations can get you close, but are likely to not fully match reality. So if you are looking to get right to that 1.0x safety factor you must do testing.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I can't speak for all of the teams, but that is certainly the historical Team Lotus approach and the approach of Red Bull Racing who are trying to win.

Fair point in response to my comment about teams sacrificing safety. Bad argument on my part. I don't think they are heartless, but they are going to provide the minimal required. Anything above and beyond minimal would only happen if it doesn't degrade performance.

Originally Posted by peebee2

It is literally an engineer chucking noses in the boot of his car and driving to Cranfield etc.

I am sorry, it can't be that simple. But lets say it is. Sure, why not. I mean, why not strap a nose to his back and drive it over on a motorbike? I am not talking about transport of test items as being the hard part. I am talking about all of the rest. The building of the new test article, the scheduling of test time, the test prep on site, post test analysis, etc. You talk as if you just load up an item and show up and it's done within minutes or hours. What happens when you show up and they are busy testing someone else's items? Does the facility not have a schedule they work against? You might say.. "Of course they do" well then... factor that into your "it's just this simple" explanations that you casually toss out. Pop out a new nose, toss it in the boot and show up in 15 minutes!

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The people at Cranfield who do the tests say that exactly the opposite happens, and explain why the 'failures' are not really newsworthy. (Except in this case where it seems RBR may have pushed it too far and damaged a chassis?)

https://youtu.be/Yw56mgPK43s?si=fCzOCPrMfHfnnmQA

From 2:08....

Thank you. This actually fully supports my comments. As they say at about 2:18...

they'll create a design and reinforce it with more carbon fiber than they usually would resulting in it being heavier but could say with confidence that it will actually pass the tests they'll then work back reducing the amount of material to save on weight until either the part isn't safe or beneficial to the car's performance which is what we see being reported when teams fail in pre-season now teams can crash tests as much as they like until they feel confident enough that the part can be fully homologated

This is completely the opposite of what peebee2 said. They are starting with a test article that they feel WILL work. And they working backwards. You get much more data from an article that does work vs. one that you know will not work and is completely destroyed. One that does work, you can see it's full capability. One that is destroyed during the test, it should be much harder to know what it's actual limit is.

As to frequency of testing and the ability to "teams can crash test as much as they want". What is unsaid is they also want to crash test as little as possible. Maybe three might be optimal? Three designs that are nearly the same and all expected to be right at the 1.0x safety margin. Each tested in order of progressively weaker designs. The first passes, the second passes, the third fails. You go with the second design. Any additional refinement might be diminishing returns in a cost cap F1 world.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So you are saying that they have a bunch of noses already built, and someone drives back and forth between MK and Cranfield until they find one that passes?

I can imagine that they might bring a few test structures (such as multiple noses) to a test (see my "three item" example above), but agree at some point it is wasteful to have a bunch that they expect to eventually find one that eventually doesn't pass so they use the prior version for final homologation.

As to failing the FIA homologation test (which might be what is occasionally reported in the news) might be something like the output of the "three item" test I hypothesize above. Let say they picked item #2 as it passed earlier testing. They use the exact same design for the FIA test. But it fails. Maybe it was really right on the edge of the 1.0x safety margin. So it passes sometimes and sometimes not.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Understood. I wrongly thought that curing a carbon part took about 6hrs.

I think you are on the right path. What is the entire lay up time, and curing plus test time? What other layup and curing work might be happening at the factory that might cause internal scheduling challenges? Probably enough that you don't test in the morning, build a revised item mid-day and then retest in the afternoon after they cart the item over in someone's car. But who knows maybe I am wrong.

Originally Posted by peebee2

Or they’ll take more than one thickness to test at the same time. It’s really not a big deal or cost.

I am sorry, this is where I just call BS on how you explain stuff here. It would be lovely if you just raised your hand and said you got it wrong the first time. Because you started out with them starting with a weak test article and then building up, now you have fully embraced that they start with a strong article and reduce it. I love how you just go with the flow, change your position and you are never wrong. You know it's OK to admit when you got it wrong. Maybe you just made a mistake and got it backwards initially. It happens. That they start weak and build strong vs. the opposite. If so, then just say... "I got that wrong".

As is with many things you post, you speak with absolute authority, but at the same time lots of details just don't pass the smell test. I have no doubt you work inside the sport and know things. But you probably know a bit about a number of things and speak beyond your knowledge at times. It also doesn't help when things such as that YouTube video which interviews those in question show it works the opposite as you say.

Me? I am not in the sport. But I have an engineering background and much of how you describe things (from a process flow and many times an engineering perspective) just doesn't make sense. Not that F1 might have their own way of doing things, but they still would operate logically.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

In other fields that I do have experience of, the build strong and work back method makes more sense.

The testing works as follows:

A model is built that is estimated to be 1.5x the required strength. A second is built that is estimated as being 1.1x the required strength.

Both are put through the test, and then (if they pass) they are pit through a NDT process (non destructive testing).
This will now give the team two things:

A - a good indication of how accurate their modelling was in terms of strength.
B - a homologated part (ideally 2) that they know they can race with if necessary and can use for other testing purposes.

Ideally, the 1.1x model passed and the team know that the final part will be very close to this specification.

Then, a further reduced part (or two) is prepared, at 0.99x and 1.01x the estimated strength. These are then put through the test and if either pass, the team has a lighter part homologated to race with. If they both fail, the team will have to use one of the previous models until they can get a lighter model homologated (if possible).

This fits the process explained by Cranfield, fits the timeline for preseason testing and homologation, and fits more traditional R&D methodology.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In other fields that I do have experience of, the build strong and work back method makes more sense.

The testing works as follows:

A model is built that is estimated to be 1.5x the required strength. A second is built that is estimated as being 1.1x the required strength.

Both are put through the test, and then (if they pass) they are pit through a NDT process (non destructive testing).
This will now give the team two things:

A - a good indication of how accurate their modelling was in terms of strength.
B - a homologated part (ideally 2) that they know they can race with if necessary and can use for other testing purposes.

Ideally, the 1.1x model passed and the team know that the final part will be very close to this specification.

Then, a further reduced part (or two) is prepared, at 0.99x and 1.01x the estimated strength. These are then put through the test and if either pass, the team has a lighter part homologated to race with. If they both fail, the team will have to use one of the previous models until they can get a lighter model homologated (if possible).

This fits the process explained by Cranfield, fits the timeline for preseason testing and homologation, and fits more traditional R&D methodology.

Makes sense.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Is the other one now known as "The Bowl", a Caffiene and Machine location.

I know that place, although it hasn’t been a Caffeine and Machine since I lived around there. It was called Chequers. Although every other pub seemed to be called Chequers in that part of the world.

I’ve never been to a Caffeine and Machines, seems a relatively new thing. I like their ethos.

FWIW I was just talking about the local pubs in Cranfield town which backs on to the main campus. They are more simple local affairs.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It was called Chequers. Although every other pub seemed to be called Chequers in that part of the world.

I did get a little surprised when I was visiting that part of the world for work, and was told that we were going to Chequers for an evening meal (I didn't have suitable attire). It was not inconceivable that the person inviting would have a connection to 'the' Chequers - but it turned out to be a gastro-pub.

Back to RBR - Pierre Wache has raised concerns that the 2026 engines will be underpowered, and that the emphasis should be on drag reduction.

Is this a genuine comment - or are RBR trying to impose a greater 'freeze' on PU development and give themselves an edge in the aero for 2026? I suspect the latter.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Back to RBR - Pierre Wache has raised concerns that the 2026 engines will be underpowered, and that the emphasis should be on drag reduction.

Is this a genuine comment - or are RBR trying to impose a greater 'freeze' on PU development and give themselves an edge in the aero for 2026? I suspect the latter.

The power issue for the 2026 engines and that reduced drag is what will address that is a known issue and is driving the regulations for the cars. But I can imagine RBPT might be nervous with respect to how their engine fits within the pecking order of the other power unit manufactures. And that a focus on more aero allowances fit within their strengths (Newey).

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

First, I want to say that I think my comment above has been misunderstood. I am not saying "F1 IS bush league" but rather that how peebee2 describes the process would be "bush league" IMHO. My point being that it is extremely unlikely it works as he says. Hence, IMHO F1 is NOT bush league.


My entire comments hinge upon the above statement. Which effectively says that teams bring a solution that they know it is less than sufficient and then build it stronger until it passes. I will not repeat my arguments as to why that approach makes little sense.


I 100% agree. And maybe I was explaining my position badly. As I mentioned, the simulations can get you close, but are likely to not fully match reality. So if you are looking to get right to that 1.0x safety factor you must do testing.


Fair point in response to my comment about teams sacrificing safety. Bad argument on my part. I don't think they are heartless, but they are going to provide the minimal required. Anything above and beyond minimal would only happen if it doesn't degrade performance.


I am sorry, it can't be that simple. But lets say it is. Sure, why not. I mean, why not strap a nose to his back and drive it over on a motorbike? I am not talking about transport of test items as being the hard part. I am talking about all of the rest. The building of the new test article, the scheduling of test time, the test prep on site, post test analysis, etc. You talk as if you just load up an item and show up and it's done within minutes or hours. What happens when you show up and they are busy testing someone else's items? Does the facility not have a schedule they work against? You might say.. "Of course they do" well then... factor that into your "it's just this simple" explanations that you casually toss out. Pop out a new nose, toss it in the boot and show up in 15 minutes!


Thank you. This actually fully supports my comments. As they say at about 2:18...


This is completely the opposite of what peebee2 said. They are starting with a test article that they feel WILL work. And they working backwards. You get much more data from an article that does work vs. one that you know will not work and is completely destroyed. One that does work, you can see it's full capability. One that is destroyed during the test, it should be much harder to know what it's actual limit is.

As to frequency of testing and the ability to "teams can crash test as much as they want". What is unsaid is they also want to crash test as little as possible. Maybe three might be optimal? Three designs that are nearly the same and all expected to be right at the 1.0x safety margin. Each tested in order of progressively weaker designs. The first passes, the second passes, the third fails. You go with the second design. Any additional refinement might be diminishing returns in a cost cap F1 world.


I can imagine that they might bring a few test structures (such as multiple noses) to a test (see my "three item" example above), but agree at some point it is wasteful to have a bunch that they expect to eventually find one that eventually doesn't pass so they use the prior version for final homologation.

As to failing the FIA homologation test (which might be what is occasionally reported in the news) might be something like the output of the "three item" test I hypothesize above. Let say they picked item #2 as it passed earlier testing. They use the exact same design for the FIA test. But it fails. Maybe it was really right on the edge of the 1.0x safety margin. So it passes sometimes and sometimes not.

I think you are on the right path. What is the entire lay up time, and curing plus test time? What other layup and curing work might be happening at the factory that might cause internal scheduling challenges? Probably enough that you don't test in the morning, build a revised item mid-day and then retest in the afternoon after they cart the item over in someone's car. But who knows maybe I am wrong.

I am sorry, this is where I just call BS on how you explain stuff here. It would be lovely if you just raised your hand and said you got it wrong the first time. Because you started out with them starting with a weak test article and then building up, now you have fully embraced that they start with a strong article and reduce it. I love how you just go with the flow, change your position and you are never wrong. You know it's OK to admit when you got it wrong. Maybe you just made a mistake and got it backwards initially. It happens. That they start weak and build strong vs. the opposite. If so, then just say... "I got that wrong".

As is with many things you post, you speak with absolute authority, but at the same time lots of details just don't pass the smell test. I have no doubt you work inside the sport and know things. But you probably know a bit about a number of things and speak beyond your knowledge at times. It also doesn't help when things such as that YouTube video which interviews those in question show it works the opposite as you say.

Me? I am not in the sport. But I have an engineering background and much of how you describe things (from a process flow and many times an engineering perspective) just doesn't make sense. Not that F1 might have their own way of doing things, but they still would operate logically.

Richard

LOL, feel free to exercise your overthinking and active imagination irrespective of somebody who's been there telling you what actually happens.

Sometimes (maybe even often) things in F1 are far, far simpler than outsiders think.

And you call BS on how I post my experience? Ridiculous of you.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

LOL, feel free to exercise your overthinking and active imagination irrespective of somebody who's been there telling you what actually happens.

You know LOL is over used in social media. But this actually did make me laugh. Rock on man. Keep it coming. Double and triple down on it all. It is entertaining.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

And you call BS on how I post my experience? Ridiculous of you.

I really don't want to post any more on this. But one last comment. As I say, I have no doubt "you are there". But where and what "there" is... pretty much undefined and without any proof. And nobody does or knows it all. The real issue is that because you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that you likely have limitations in your knowledge it is hard for people like me to know what is real and what is real only in your head. I would have much more respect for your comments if it was clear as to where reality ends and fantasy begins. I am going to stop here as I don't want to get into "attacks on the poster vs. his posts" territory.

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I really don't want to post any more on this. But one last comment. As I say, I have no doubt "you are there". But where and what "there" is... pretty much undefined and without any proof. And nobody does or knows it all. The real issue is that because you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that you likely have limitations in your knowledge it is hard for people like me to know what is real and what is real only in your head. I would have much more respect for your comments if it was clear as to where reality ends and fantasy begins.

Richard

Simple, there's no fantasy. And no hearsay. I post what I've seen and experienced personally. Is every nose test at Cranfield for every team the same? Probably not. But I've seen the MK team testing noses and know the person from the team at the test, who brought noses in his car nearly every day for two weeks. (Note I didn't say this was this year.)

I know there's posters here who absolutely love to try and find any slight inconsistency, including in grammar, or who won't believe anything that hasn't been in a press release, or who are just home keyboard jockeys trying to persaude others how their dream and fantasies are true - but there are also other posters who might just know what they are talking about.

[Richard C]

Anyhow... back to Red Bull. Apparently Helmut Marko is not going anywhere anytime soon. He seems to have weathered his most recent PR gaffs.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/25527...-contract.html

Richard

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Simple, there's no fantasy. And no hearsay. I post what I've seen and experienced personally. Is every nose test at Cranfield for every team the same? Probably not. But I've seen the MK team testing noses and know the person from the team at the test, who brought noses in his car nearly every day for two weeks. (Note I didn't say this was this year.)

I know there's posters here who absolutely love to try and find any slight inconsistency, including in grammar, or who won't believe anything that hasn't been in a press release, or who are just home keyboard jockeys trying to persaude others how their dream and fantasies are true - but there are also other posters who might just know what they are talking about.

I'd be a snowflake if your posting offended me but while you can be perceived as abrasive - who cares, it's the internet.

The paddock insider stuff is cool, whether it's true or not - again, I don't care, it's the internet. Anyone can believe or not believe what they want. Keep it going I say. The back and forth between all the posters can be an entertaining read at times as well.

At the end of the day we're all here because we love F1.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Anyhow... back to Red Bull. Apparently Helmut Marko is not going anywhere anytime soon. He seems to have weathered his most recent PR gaffs.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/25527...-contract.html

Richard

That article doesn't say much at all really, good clickbait from a notoriously clickbaity site.
He's with the Red Bull parent company for 'multi year' (call me a discombobulated supermarket shopper but where's the sauce!) - but there's nothing that says which part.
Maybe he'll be in activewear selling fruity new RB flavours at F1 races.
Maybe (hopefully) it's an extension based on a succession plan.

Ultimately, Vettel has to be the long term successor for Marko. If he wants it.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Richard C

You know LOL is over used in social media. But this actually did make me laugh. Rock on man. Keep it coming. Double and triple down on it all. It is entertaining.

Richard

Originally Posted by Richard C

I really don't want to post any more on this. But one last comment. As I say, I have no doubt "you are there". But where and what "there" is... pretty much undefined and without any proof. And nobody does or knows it all. The real issue is that because you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that you likely have limitations in your knowledge it is hard for people like me to know what is real and what is real only in your head. I would have much more respect for your comments if it was clear as to where reality ends and fantasy begins. I am going to stop here as I don't want to get into "attacks on the poster vs. his posts" territory.

Richard

Classy Richard, very classy

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I really don't want to post any more on this. But one last comment. As I say, I have no doubt "you are there". But where and what "there" is... pretty much undefined and without any proof. And nobody does or knows it all. The real issue is that because you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that you likely have limitations in your knowledge it is hard for people like me to know what is real and what is real only in your head. I would have much more respect for your comments if it was clear as to where reality ends and fantasy begins. I am going to stop here as I don't want to get into "attacks on the poster vs. his posts" territory.

Richard

In a nutshell.

[peebee2]

Cheers to all

And a Happy New Year to all too. Let's hope we all have a great and enjoyable 2024.

[Greem]

Oof.

Dutch newspaper 'De Telegraaf' reporting that Christian Horner is being investigated for inappropriate behaviour within RBR.

This is being strenuously denied.

More to come on this one, no doubt.

[steve_r]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68205305

For the non-Dutch speakers. Not that it actually says much about what this is actually about.

[Plantagenet]

I actually like Christian and consider him super-capable and who knows, in an era where you didn't get 24hr coverage of the teams, I suspect he might not be quite so polarising.

This said, he does slightly have form here for bad behaviour in the manner in which he treated his former (pregnant) partner.

Let's see. Awful timing for RBR in the run-up to the car launch.

[Richard C]

Helmut Marko's plan to become Red Bull Team Principle is working to plan! (Insert evil laugh and rubbing of hands together)

Being a bit more serious. Wasn't it rumored that Horner was working behind the scenes to push Marko out and it didn't work? Maybe a reverse Uno card was played?

In all seriousness, I hope there is nothing to this as F1 has enough drama right now. But if true, it could be a big deal. Kind of flying without details at the moment.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Maybe a reverse Uno card was played?

lol

hopefully he play his free get out of jail guard card!

[Aysedasi]

I fully expect him to pass go and collect his £200......