Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

[Conceptual]

The point is that for all of Briatore's running at the mouth, he was proven absolutely wrong on the legality of the DDD, and now his team is HAPPY that he was wrong, because their car was utter crap, and now the "illegal" part that Flavio said was the worst is now the ONLY thing that is making their car any better.

You may want to recheck what the double diffuser saga was about. That or you are too passionate about Flavio.

The "saga" was about exposing deficiencies that caused uncompetitiveness in certain teams, and the R&D expense required to make them up. The ICA hearing, in my opinion, was more to expose the technology to the defficient teams so they did not have to start from scratch much more than it was about anything else.

And I am not too passionate about Flavio, he was the most vocal about their "obvious illegality", so he made himself the focus of this post. I wasn't the one running my mouth to the press about it.

[kilcoo316]

btw, I am sure its not the fairing itself that adds downforce, more to the effect of it conditions the flow that adds downforce on the other appendages on the car...

Really? Can I get a link to the objective evidence that you learned this from? Or is it another opinion stated as fact?

They reduce the effect of the wheel turbulence in the wake, improving the recirculation (bound) vortex of the wing - increasing downforce. (On the inside of the front wheel)


RacingManiac's point is entirely logical from aerodynamic theory.


As you (should) well know, the wheel sheilds are vertical surfaces. Pressure acts normal to a surface, therefore you need a surface with a horizontal component to directly create downforce (or lift).

[kilcoo316]

I comprehend what you are saying, but I fail to understand how the outside of the front wheel would influence the much narrower rear wing.

The four possible locations for rim shields, their direct effects and related effects are:

Inside front wheel = Front wing wake (more downforce from front wing)

Outside front wheel = Front wheel wake (less drag from front wheel and more downforce from diffuser - as the floor can be sealed better using the front of the sidepod and the front wing endplate is more effective at (i)additional effects that seal the floor (ii)channel air toward the diffuser)

Inside rear wheel = Turbulence around diffuser (more diffuser downforce - more control over lateral flows above the diffuser leading to more refined control over leakage)

Outside rear wheel = Rear wheel wake (drag)


All will have effects on brake cooling efficiency.

[kilcoo316]

A boring technical topic with tedious numbers and quantifications gets zip for response

'cos too many on here can't handle numbers


Bit like society in general.

[Metar]

I comprehend what you are saying

Good, because that was exactly my point, too. We don't know if it specifically, on it's own, creates downforce. As for bigotry and wild assumptions, you yourself then followed that up by rejecting the idea of it as a flow-conditioner because "you can't see how that affects the rear wing".

"I'm sure" is often used to describe opinions. "I'm sure you'd like that" could mean certainty, or having a small doubt. I'm sure you'll understand.


As for the thread's lack of point in the opening post... Others too commented on it. Why is it hypocritical for Briatore to defend his team, and then, why is it hypocritical of him and Symmonds to buckle up and adapt for the ruling in the regs? Nobody disputed the double-decker advantage, so why be surprised that Symmonds calls it an improvement?

[RacingManiac]

btw, could he have meant by inboard side brake fairing?
There are actual wing lets on those, and thinking from the rule change this year, with the narrower rear wing and all, they've grown quite a lot more complicated...
Renault:


Compare to Brawn(which has even more winglets):


Those I have no trouble believing actually be generating downforce on its own....which back in last year would've been more disruptive I think to rear wing...

[RacingManiac]

For reference...

[Conceptual]

btw, I am sure its not the fairing itself that adds downforce, more to the effect of it conditions the flow that adds downforce on the other appendages on the car...

Really? Can I get a link to the objective evidence that you learned this from? Or is it another opinion stated as fact?

They reduce the effect of the wheel turbulence in the wake, improving the recirculation (bound) vortex of the wing - increasing downforce. (On the inside of the front wheel)


RacingManiac's point is entirely logical from aerodynamic theory.


As you (should) well know, the wheel sheilds are vertical surfaces. Pressure acts normal to a surface, therefore you need a surface with a horizontal component to directly create downforce (or lift).

The front shields are not vertical surfaces, they have curvature. The rear shields, from what I have seen are more of a flat, vertical piece.

And kilcoo, please, show me where you found the specifics of how these parts interact? Or is this another 2D picture analysis that may or may not be correct?

[Conceptual]

I comprehend what you are saying

Good, because that was exactly my point, too. We don't know if it specifically, on it's own, creates downforce. As for bigotry and wild assumptions, you yourself then followed that up by rejecting the idea of it as a flow-conditioner because "you can't see how that affects the rear wing".

"I'm sure" is often used to describe opinions. "I'm sure you'd like that" could mean certainty, or having a small doubt. I'm sure you'll understand.


As for the thread's lack of point in the opening post... Others too commented on it. Why is it hypocritical for Briatore to defend his team, and then, why is it hypocritical of him and Symmonds to buckle up and adapt for the ruling in the regs? Nobody disputed the double-decker advantage, so why be surprised that Symmonds calls it an improvement?

Just because I comprehend does not mean that I agree. Also, I am sure that your entire problem with this post stems more from what you consider badmouthing of your favorite team than any rational understanding.

[alelanza]

The point is that for all of Briatore's running at the mouth, he was proven absolutely wrong on the legality of the DDD, and now his team is HAPPY that he was wrong, because their car was utter crap, and now the "illegal" part that Flavio said was the worst is now the ONLY thing that is making their car any better.

You may want to recheck what the double diffuser saga was about. That or you are too passionate about Flavio.

The "saga" was about exposing deficiencies that caused uncompetitiveness in certain teams, and the R&D expense required to make them up. The ICA hearing, in my opinion, was more to expose the technology to the defficient teams so they did not have to start from scratch much more than it was about anything else.

This point is different from your initial posting, and of course everyone is free to especulate in the way you do. Anyways, enjoy the F1 weekend!

[Metar]

Just because I comprehend does not mean that I agree. Also, I am sure that your entire problem with this post stems more from what you consider badmouthing of your favorite team than any rational understanding.

No, it stems from the fact that you consistently call everyone's arm-chair aerodynamics, supported by theories or not, as bollocks - but insist that your own arm-chair analysis is correct, without posting any proof or theories behind them yourself. That, and your nit-picking and consequent attacks over the word "I'm sure".

Renault are my favourite team, but that has nothing to do with that. I've always been critical of the way Flavio handles his team, and I'm aware that they often make the wrong decisions - on strategy, design or whatever. I just don't see how adapting to the new regulations, and accepting the advantage it gives you, is hypocritical. Do you suggest that because they didn't think of it themselves, or because they protested it, Renault shouldn't use a double-decker at all? If not, why not accept, like Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, BMW and Red Bull have, that these diffusers are legal and advantageous, and thus should be integrated into the design?

[Conceptual]

Just because I comprehend does not mean that I agree. Also, I am sure that your entire problem with this post stems more from what you consider badmouthing of your favorite team than any rational understanding.

No, it stems from the fact that you consistently call everyone's arm-chair aerodynamics, supported by theories or not, as bollocks - but insist that your own arm-chair analysis is correct, without posting any proof or theories behind them yourself. That, and your nit-picking and consequent attacks over the word "I'm sure".

Renault are my favourite team, but that has nothing to do with that. I've always been critical of the way Flavio handles his team, and I'm aware that they often make the wrong decisions - on strategy, design or whatever. I just don't see how adapting to the new regulations, and accepting the advantage it gives you, is hypocritical. Do you suggest that because they didn't think of it themselves, or because they protested it, Renault shouldn't use a double-decker at all? If not, why not accept, like Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, BMW and Red Bull have, that these diffusers are legal and advantageous, and thus should be integrated into the design?

First, my signature says it all. If subjecive belief is accepted as truth (mysticism), then you can never reach success. It is not a bad thing to expect others to explain the difference when they post. It is the duty of the speaker to ensure understanding in the listener, the listener should not have to seperate the fact from the fiction.

And my point was originally about the DDD. Every non-DDD car (except maybe RBR, who just has a "different" trick to their diffusor) benefitted by the rule clarification. Almost every team started working on the design before the ICA hearing to be prepared. The racing is now going to be even closer than ever (that I have seen since 2004). The DDD made the teams happier, because it improved their car.

So, the point was that Flavio should have just jumped the bandwagon and got the DDD into production after Australia because his team needed more downforce, and this was a 5% gain. The drama that he spewed all over the media was nothing more than a way to get more technical information about the other teams solutions, so his team benefitted by starting ahead, instead of from scratch. For all of his whining about the cost of developing the DDD, he knew that they would have spent much more trying to find that 5% elsewhere.

That is what I was saying about Flavio's trash becoming Symonds' treasure. Flavio dug it up with the "protest" shovel, and Symonds picked the lock in the Simulator/Windtunnel. It was a very well executed political hypocricy, and I wanted to let everyone else in on my point of view, and hopefully either prove or disprove it with objective facts and evidence.

Unfortunately, several members decided to make up their own truth, and tried to muddy the waters with personal beliefs. I was just trying to get some objective fact, so myself and others could make an objective decision as to what we discern as the truth.

You are free to post your opinion, and that was even hoped for by me.

I just had hoped that the opinions would have waited for the facts to show up first!

I'm sorry that you missed it.

[timbo]

So, the point was that Flavio should have just jumped the bandwagon and got the DDD into production after Australia because his team needed more downforce, and this was a 5% gain. The drama that he spewed all over the media was nothing more than a way to get more technical information about the other teams solutions, so his team benefitted by starting ahead, instead of from scratch.

Oh yeah...
What precious technical info do you think Pat got FROM that drama that he couldn't get from watching other cars during tests? Don't you think they must know the idea of DDD BEFORE lodging a protest? It can't be like "oh, we don't know what this thing do so ban it", obviously.

And BTW Renault introduced their DDD two days (!) after they were ruled legal. So it is apparent they started well ahead of the hearing, and may hint as well that what they said about CW rejecting their interpretation is true.

[RacingManiac]

And BTW Renault introduced their DDD two days (!) after they were ruled legal. So it is apparent they started well ahead of the hearing, and may hint as well that what they said about CW rejecting their interpretation is true.

That is my belief as well, consider the fact that unlike other teams who may have interim design before going into a full DDD, they got a true double decker immediately...

[Ciro Pabón]

Dear Ciro, where do I get it wrong on F1T? A boring technical topic with tedious numbers and quantifications gets zip for response, but exciting speculations on high-profile individuals, spiced up with personal remarks and funny xpressions, can go on forever?

Sorry, xpensive, I have my hands full right now, so I don't have the time to answer your requests for posts at the topic with zip responses you mention. I've read it, if that serves for something, and I've learned a couple of things I didn't know, including the "toblerone" rule. Just in case, for every response there are like 10 readers... do not despair. As Wittgestein said: "Of what you cannot talk, is better to shut up", or something like that, and I'm not an aerodynamicist. God knows many members, through the years, have asked when will be available a good CFD package for Windows: that'll be the day when this kind of topics will get a thousand answers. Meanwhile is hard to go beyond what you posted.

About what you get wrong, I don't know, but if I can speak for myself, patience is a virtue and perseverance is another.

Besides, gossip is wonderfully entertaining. I love "Pop. 1280" by Jim Thompson: if you have the chance to read it, read about the mayor election in that book. "Our hero", Nick Corey, worthless sheriff of Pottsville ("47th largest county in the state"), knows that he has a very good opponent in the coming election. He only has to say to a friend, who has a very gossipy wife: "I cannot say anything bad about XXX even if I wished" (XXX being his opponent in the election) and, then, refuse to comment anything else when his friend, anxiously, asks for "details" about what it is that he cannot comment.

In less than a week the entire town is gossiping how the guy (XXX), who is a good man and has not "killed a fly" in his life, has raped a 5 years old girl and has disinterred his own mother to collect the gold of her teeth...

That epitomize the power of gossip to me. Of course, Mr. Corey wins the election when, during the following town meeting, people starts to ask to XXX how is possible that everybody is saying such horrible things about him. Of course, he has no response (who would?). Against that powerful human tendency, some figures on intake losses are impotent, my friend.

I only hope Max Mosley doesn't read that book...