|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Jan 2024, 14:46 (Ref:4190673) | #451 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11,171
|
Is this accurate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw56mgPK43s
Seems that Alpine didn't go well through the same crash test. |
||
|
3 Jan 2024, 15:10 (Ref:4190678) | #452 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,756
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Jan 2024, 15:23 (Ref:4190681) | #453 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
|||
|
3 Jan 2024, 15:37 (Ref:4190684) | #454 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,962
|
how much of this would be down to their comparatively limited use of their wind tunnel and CFD hours given their finishing position and cap violation from a couple of seasons back? or more specifically, how will this this hinder their recovery?
fingers crossed that any set back RBR suffers offers the other teams more of a chance to catch up...with the hope of delivering a more competitive 2024 season! |
||
__________________
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 |
3 Jan 2024, 15:46 (Ref:4190686) | #455 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,756
|
Quote:
This article from RacingNews365, about the RB18 crash test failure, was published on 29 January 2022. https://racingnews365.com/no-concern...rumours-emerge Wasn't the test for the RB20 before Christmas? |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Jan 2024, 15:58 (Ref:4190687) | #456 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
Quote:
It was 'thejudge' that reported: "Whilst not a disaster, this is a setback for the world champions who suffered a similar fate with their 2022 car. That test was much earlier in the car’s development cycle so there will be concerns amongst the technical team in Milton Keynes." |
|||
|
3 Jan 2024, 17:12 (Ref:4190693) | #457 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,756
|
Quote:
According to Total Motorsport the failure of frontal crash test in 2022 happened a month before pre-season testing. https://www.total-motorsport.com/f1-...ar-fails-test/ The crash test for 2024 took place prior to Christmas Day. Pre-season testing for this year is from February 21-23, that gives RBR the best part of two months to rectify things. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Jan 2024, 17:39 (Ref:4190695) | #458 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
I think simulated crash test has been done for probably close to a decade for production cars (in the design phase). But the correlation between simulation and reality would have be very close and repeatable to trust the virtual results. This would require extremely accurate model of your test subject (including properties of construction process) and a correct simulation. For example if your carbon construction process has a flaw that is not represented in your model, or there is a unknown flaw in how the simulation is run, the simulation might pass, but the real test may fail. I was just slagging that site in the Audi thread. They posted their article on Jan 3rd, but I think maybe the first (that I can find) article is from Dec 28th by the Italian Motorsport.com site. I think TheJudge13 is just parroting other sources for advertisement revenue purposes. https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...rb20/10561063/ The basics of the English translation of the article is that the nose failed and caused damage to the chassis. And it was all about weight reduction. That the real issue is that the factory was closed during the holiday and that they can't really address the issue until everyone is back (now). That the answer is likely to just add some additional reinforcement and retest. And if this will delay their launch in February or not. I can't imagine this is going to be a critical stumble for RBR. Quote:
Assuming this is all true, it is likely nothing more than they are trying to make the crash structure as light as possible and it may have not passed the test. No doubt they can fix it, but will it meet their weight target? Will the distraction delay something else? How tight is their timeline for 2024? Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
3 Jan 2024, 19:19 (Ref:4190705) | #459 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Top teams always fail the frontal test. You add carbon one layer at a time until it passes. Minimum weight.
|
|
|
3 Jan 2024, 19:45 (Ref:4190707) | #460 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,962
|
that makes sense of course. start from an extreme and then work it back.
genuine question tho...why dont all the teams approach the first test the same way then? surely there are both pros and cons for such an incremental process so just curious what those would be. |
||
__________________
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 |
3 Jan 2024, 20:24 (Ref:4190712) | #461 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Jan 2024, 16:21 (Ref:4190774) | #462 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,962
|
|||
__________________
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 |
4 Jan 2024, 19:41 (Ref:4190794) | #463 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
||
|
4 Jan 2024, 20:27 (Ref:4190795) | #464 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
* Scheduling and impacts to timeline. I don't know if there are multiple labs that are certified by FIA to do these tests or if it is just one location that all teams must use. If there is one (or limited) then if everyone is failing tests as they creep up toward passing, I can imagine this might create scheduling problems. I can image it might take at least a day to setup, perform and certify (or fail) each test. * As to the first test... I see little benefit of bringing an article to test that you know will fail. I mean if the nose structure is destroyed and fails, you can look at the deceleration data to see how close it came to fully passing, but I think it still is mostly a wasted test and probably something you could have already validated inhouse. So I think teams will bring something they think will work, but might be on the edge of failing. And inline with that, your design is something that meets a specific weight goal. So if it fails, you can reinforce it, but that is a patch or "fix" for a failed design. It may be a less optimal solution than one that does pass and doesn't need to be "fixed". * The cost of doing multiple tests would have to add up. Not just in performing the test, but also the revisions of your design and construction of each item. While we know teams must pass the crash tests, and I expect the results (of passed or failed tests) are between the lab and the team and not public, is each of the top teams (Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.) really failing on the first of each crash test? I think testing involves the nose, rear and sides? And I think each involve a representative monocoque from the team and not a generic one. In that they are also not making "borderline safe" monocoques or other crash structures that may or may not fail during the tests or are they? While getting the weight down is important, are teams really trying to provide bare minimum safety? 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). Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
6 Jan 2024, 22:37 (Ref:4190980) | #465 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,015
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Winning >> more safety than necessary. It is alleged that Colin Chapman once provided a "firewall" made of cardboard painted silver and insisted to the scrutineers that it was fire-proof as required... Besides, given the choice of halo or no halo, I suspect no team would run it. That's why safety stuff has rules! While only tangentially related to safety, recall that Adrian Newey designed the Leyton House CG901, a car so cramped the drivers could barely move their arms. (That's why there are minimum cockpit dimensions now...) Maybe a team that isn't trying to win wouldn't push everything to the limit (or beyond), but that would explain why they don't win anything... Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 6 Jan 2024 at 22:50. |
|||
|
6 Jan 2024, 23:17 (Ref:4190983) | #466 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, they're maximising performance while meeting the stringent safety standards. |
|||
|
6 Jan 2024, 23:32 (Ref:4190984) | #467 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
|||
|
6 Jan 2024, 23:50 (Ref:4190985) | #468 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
You could argue that, in the days of cost cap, being able to pass first time helps maximize performance as it allows resources to be spent on other performance elements. Or a nice lunch for everyone. Efficiency in everything you do is really important.
Still Red Bull will be OK. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
6 Jan 2024, 23:51 (Ref:4190986) | #469 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
Quote:
https://youtu.be/Yw56mgPK43s?si=fCzOCPrMfHfnnmQA From 2:08.... |
|||
|
6 Jan 2024, 23:51 (Ref:4190987) | #470 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
|||
|
7 Jan 2024, 00:38 (Ref:4190988) | #471 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
Shout out to Cranfield. It’s a great place. Good facilities like this, a University, a manufacturer research center, and lots of lovely little tech places. Some directly linked, some not, but a great little community.
Only a few miles from Millbrook proving ground too. Nice little airport that occasionally does air shows too. OT. Three pubs, they’ve all gone through phases over the years, but one of them is normally decent. Edit: down to two pubs |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
7 Jan 2024, 06:40 (Ref:4190996) | #472 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,598
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
7 Jan 2024, 08:47 (Ref:4191000) | #473 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
Or are you showing lack of knowledge making assumptions about the chassis it’s bolted to? |
||
|
7 Jan 2024, 08:55 (Ref:4191001) | #474 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,511
|
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?
|
||
|
7 Jan 2024, 09:05 (Ref:4191002) | #475 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
Or they’ll take more than one thickness to test at the same time. It’s really not a big deal or cost. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Red Bull - No Bull | Glen | Formula One | 48 | 11 Mar 2005 10:59 |
No bull? Red Bull Jordan! | slicktoast | Formula One | 38 | 23 Dec 2002 19:08 |
Red Bull Arrows Saab ? | Don K | Formula One | 17 | 18 Jun 2001 19:26 |
Pop Quiz: Red Bull sponsorship | MichaelC | Formula One | 6 | 29 Mar 2001 17:21 |