|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 Mar 2019, 14:44 (Ref:3888418) | #226 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,213
|
Interesting to see that Ferari are to drop the Mission Winnow branding from the car, I wonder how long McLaren will be able to cling on to their BAT branding?
https://www.grandprix.com/news/ferra...-branding.html |
|
|
5 Mar 2019, 14:51 (Ref:3888420) | #227 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,783
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
5 Mar 2019, 15:26 (Ref:3888424) | #228 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
frankly im surprised they got away with as long as they did...but they got their publicity shots which they will no doubt continue to run in markets still open to cig advertising.
anyways im off to the Ferrari store to buy some illegal but highly collectible and soon to be rare team merch! |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
6 Mar 2019, 02:39 (Ref:3888540) | #229 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,530
|
I read that as being for Australia only.
|
||
|
6 Mar 2019, 05:56 (Ref:3888551) | #230 | |||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
6 Mar 2019, 07:46 (Ref:3888565) | #231 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,213
|
I believe Ferrari are still deliberating on that. McLaren are probably more at threat as the new BAT sponsorship is around promoting smoking 'alternatives ', including tobacco heating products, which are allegedly under scrutiny in some countries.
The FIA should have banned smoking and any derivatives of or alternatives to, to make it clearer. Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk |
|
|
7 Mar 2019, 18:17 (Ref:3888952) | #232 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,123
|
Quote:
As I understand, you agree that they start with a fairly good baseline on their own car and are quite close to its potential already, but they may not be able to easily adapt new concepts or at least easily understand them (imagine Mercedes with all their knowledge and probably excellent computer programs - for all of that, they have said a redesign of the front wing to match Ferrari's approach would involve a lot of fundamental redesigning of other parts of the car that would have a lead time of several months. |
||
|
7 Mar 2019, 19:59 (Ref:3888972) | #233 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,160
|
Quote:
I would say most of my comment was in response with this small bit of your post... Quote:
But in the end, there remains someone who is consistent at the front and someone who is consistently at the rear. Regardless of how someone gets to the front (throwing money at the solution, natural inspiration, a combo of both), those at the front not only "have" a new secret sauce, but they also understand much better "why" it works. So they are both (1) able to expand the range of scenarios in which it works (2) better to utilize it when regulations are re-written (usually in an attempt to change the characteristics of how the cars work). Here is maybe a bad example of what I am trying to say regarding trying to replicate known good solution, but without having understanding... The US developed and used the B-29 bomber toward the end of WW2. It was the most sophisticated and modern design at that moment. The Soviet Union reverse engineered an example that made an emergency landing in Soviet territory. The resulting Tu-4 copy was pretty much as identical as the Soviets could make it. Both the B-29 and the Tu-4 were excellent bombers. I have no doubt that while the Soviets learned quite a bit during the process of reverse engineering, the American's would have had all of the research data (what worked, what didn't work) that lead up to the design of the B-29 and would have had a much better understanding of "why" it worked. So when it's replacement was to be created, the Americans would have been in a better position from a knowledge perspective. Back to F1... Given the cars are viewable it is hard to hide aero details. Everyone is reverse engineering the other guys solutions. Some may copy the solution very well, get great performance, but not be able to replicate it again on a slightly different scenario (i.e. next years car, or this years car with mid season aero tweaks). Or they may replicate it and even convince themselves that they do understand how it works (CFD analysis all looks good!), but then it doesn't perform as expected on track. Some detail (knowledge) remains hidden from them. In the end, I suspect that understanding what the new "secret sauce" that exists today is not binary. There is a spectrum of understanding. So teams like Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull likely understand "why" the cars work or don't well enough that they can come out of the gates with new designs with a much lower level of risk that the basic design will be a lemon. I think some other teams like Racing Point might be in that same category, but are held back by other things (funding, etc.) I think teams such as Williams might very well be in the dark. Trying a mixture of replicating other teams solutions, trying their own unique solutions and as it seems, in the end finding that none of it really works. They are knowledgeable and can make a fast car, but it pales in comparison to their competition. Whatever details that allows the others to stand out is hidden from them. F1 today is about fighting for those last fractions of percent in optimizations. Lastly, the entirety of the knowledge required to make a top notch F1 car is so immense that it no longer can be driven by a single "genius". I expect most who work on the design are very much domain experts in their given area. So for this reason alone, I am doubtful of a single player moving to a team and turning things around. The one exception to that is if the problem is management. One person who is both empowered and has the resources to make change can have a large impact. Sorry for the long winded explanation of my thoughts. I hope that answers your question. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 7 Mar 2019 at 20:05. |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Mar 2019, 14:27 (Ref:3889166) | #234 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,215
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 Mar 2019, 15:54 (Ref:3889180) | #235 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
Quote:
that or falling asleep....as you say, we wont really know how good the season will be until after the lights go out! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
9 Mar 2019, 06:18 (Ref:3889285) | #236 | ||||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,123
|
Quote:
In a way, the traditionalist in me finds it great that sometimes, to quote you here in the first instance, 'CFD analysis all looks good!', and then 'it didn't have the results we expected on the track'. It's as though computing power will only get you so far and many other minds will help. Which brings me to.. Quote:
The management issue is one reason I am in two minds about Williams and whether Paddy Lowe is/was the issue or if Williams have been lacking this sauce for many years now and have been going round and round without much of a clue. Quote:
|
||||
|
11 Mar 2019, 13:07 (Ref:3889641) | #237 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,257
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
11 Mar 2019, 13:45 (Ref:3889652) | #238 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,160
|
Quote:
But, I suspect that in 20-40 years, the sport will have progressed to the point that even aero will be more akin to commodity engineering than art. And that innovation will be incremental, a team effort and not driven via Newey style geniuses. We are probably close to the inflection point even today. Newey may be the last of his breed. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Mar 2019, 14:50 (Ref:3889664) | #239 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,123
|
Quote:
Also, how are we defining 'art' here? 'Mysterious and creative ideas'? |
||
|
11 Mar 2019, 15:44 (Ref:3889677) | #240 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,160
|
Quote:
* The technology is emergent or still not fully understood within the domain. * Mathematical modeling of behavior is computationally expensive (i.e. not within the reach of those doing the analysis). * Innovation continues to be driven by intuitive insight vs. pure theory or understanding. Actually the last item is more the effect than the cause. So take suspension dynamics as an example. I expect that is so well understood today and relatively simple, that it can be fully modeled and calculated via brute force for not much money. Not that there is not room for innovation, but "how" it works is pretty well known. So I would not say it is "art" for the professionals. Aero on the other hand, while the formulas are known, it is still difficult. Static conditions can likely be relatively easily modeled (car running in straight line in clean air). But to model dynamic behavior (how do the air flow as the car turns in as the car rides the curbs, impact of the car moving in multiple axis in relation to the track, etc.) are harder as the number of variables goes up. It's becomes difficult to take all of those variables into account. Static analysis has fewer variables, so it's easier to perform. This leaves room for that magical intuitive insights that can occur within the human brain and define genius. This makes up for the fact that teams can't model everything due to restrictions of either funding or the rules (such as CFD and tunnel limits). Given enough time and money the cars could be accurately modeled via CFD as the fluid dynamic equations are understood. Another example of this is simulation of the combustion process. It's my understanding that it is very complex. Such as optimizing the design of the fuel as they have to understand exactly how chemical reactions are working in highly dynamic situations. Modeling what is going on at nearly atomic levels and with small time scales. Very lean burning engines that utilize all types of tricks to extract as much power from a given amount of fuel as used in F1 fits this bill. A good example of this outside of the motorsports world would have been nuclear arms. For emergent powers such as North Korea, they likely are still relying upon intuitive (but informed and sometimes stolen) logic on how to move forward. So they require testing to ensure things still work as expected (just like F1 teams need to test to ensure things work as expect). But the US likely decided it was OK to stop physical testing once they were in the position to test reliably in a virtual way. This is done via large scale super computers they are able to accurately fully simulate weapon designs. China, Russia and other first world powers are likely in the same position. Those same resources applied to F1 would likely create superior aero solutions for all expected dynamic conditions. But at large cost. Another example was radar cross section calculations for aircraft. The initial US stealth fighter (F117) was very angular because that was the best they could do with respect to computer modeling at that time. Newer aircraft such as the B2, F22, F35 have smoother surfaces because the increase in computational power allows for more granular modeling of how radar interacts with the body of the aircraft. So the F117 was probably the inflection point of radar cross sectional modeling. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 11 Mar 2019 at 15:50. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
12 Mar 2019, 17:11 (Ref:3889935) | #241 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,783
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
12 Mar 2019, 20:45 (Ref:3889982) | #242 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,749
|
Well it makes no difference. Sponsorship or not it’s still red
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
12 Mar 2019, 21:01 (Ref:3889999) | #243 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,981
|
i have to say i really really like the matte red they are using this year!
|
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
13 Mar 2019, 00:07 (Ref:3890024) | #244 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
I miss the tic tac logos.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
13 Mar 2019, 00:17 (Ref:3890025) | #245 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,783
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
13 Mar 2019, 19:32 (Ref:3890208) | #246 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,123
|
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Mar 2019, 21:54 (Ref:3890237) | #247 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,160
|
Quote:
I expect with the heavy restrictions of on track testing, that it has improved the CFD capabilities of teams as they had really no other options than to improve that skill. I have no doubt that over the past handful of years those doing CFD continue to get better at it. I think they recently increased the quantity (regulation change) of CFD compute capabilities, so that should help even the lowly teams. Overall, I think if they allowed more on track testing, it would increase the bandwidth of that feedback loop, or better yet allow for more iterative loops. You see teams today running all types of systems to measure aero during testing and potentially even during free practice at races. On the surface, you would think they are testing new parts to see if they perform as expected. Quantitative measure such as reduced lap time or downforce levels. And they do. They always have the clock to look at lap time performance or load cells to measure downforce. But I suspect a great deal is to see how close reality is to the CFD predictions. Is the Flow-Vis paint showing the air moving as predicted. The aero rake structures are measuring a sampled grid of pressures in a specific plane (such as just before or after an aero device) to see if the air is moving as predicted. Basically compare the data points to what the computer says it "thinks" it should be. The more iterations you can do, the more you can refine whatever is going on with your model. Right now they are limited as to how many iterative loops they can do. So during the season they end up bringing stuff to the track in which their level of confidence may not be great. Bolt it on and cross your fingers. That is why you see ideas tried in free practice that never gets raced. Or one car running new aero and the other not. Or sometimes even large updates that are reworked after a failed weekend. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Mar 2019, 01:18 (Ref:3890278) | #248 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
Quote:
Obviously I know nothin' so this is essentially baseless speculation, but it makes sense to me. |
|||
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion." - Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer. |
16 Mar 2019, 11:11 (Ref:3890970) | #249 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,215
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2019 VASC Silly Season (WITH POLL) | peckstar | Australasian Touring Cars. | 1801 | 9 Jan 2020 05:08 |
[WEC] 2018-2019 WEC Super Season | hondafan37 | ACO Regulated Series | 2143 | 11 Jun 2019 19:03 |
[Driver] 2019 F1 Silly Season | Skam85 | Formula One | 754 | 23 Jan 2019 10:33 |
2018 Season Launch and Testing Thread | F1Guy | Formula One | 539 | 22 Mar 2018 21:45 |
Ferrari F2008 launch tomorrow. Launch season begins! | Knowlesy | Formula One | 110 | 7 Feb 2008 14:13 |