Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

I think that the ICA hearing was directed at exactly how the loophole was navigated, IE: exactly how they made the legal "holes", where they were placed, and the references used to locate them.

Are you guys saying that there was NO drawings, models, pictures or concepts disclosed in the ICA hearing? It is one thing to see the BGP cars from behind, but I am sure that it is a whole other story to see close-up pics of the bottom (where the trackside camera's cannot see).

I think that it was done to expose these things in court through the presentation of evidence in defense, because there was no other way to see the bottom of these cars, and exactly how the floors were constructed to allow this loophole to be compliant with the tech regs.

It is interesting that Renault had a true DDD solution 2 days later, but that doesn't mean that they didn't start the day after the Williams and Toyota's hit the track in January.

Does anyone know for FACT when Renault started development on the DDD/Floor solution? I doubt very seriously that they designed, tested, manufactured and installed it all in 2 days time.

Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:
xpensive wrote: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. :D

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

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Conceptual wrote:Jealousy.
Yeah.
Ciro

RacingManiac
9
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 02:29

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Conceptual wrote: It is interesting that Renault had a true DDD solution 2 days later, but that doesn't mean that they didn't start the day after the Williams and Toyota's hit the track in January.

Does anyone know for FACT when Renault started development on the DDD/Floor solution? I doubt very seriously that they designed, tested, manufactured and installed it all in 2 days time.
I think EVERY team started working on a DDD the day after they saw that at the first test on a Williams and Toyota. But it was more likely it never moved further from maybe computer modeling. After BGP's test they probably put more effort into that because how much faster the car was and protest plan were probably being prepared at that point, but unlikely anything got into components stage because a)the amount the redesign needed, and b)they still need to work on the R&D of the existing car, plus the whole KERS business(they probably are also hedging their bet on the protest). The issue is how easy it was to integrate. We know from Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and RBR's case that they cannot make one on their car until they made major revision to the rear of the car. We also know that there were claims from Renault that they have had a proposal with a DDD-like design with FIA that was rejected. Considering the timing of things that Renault said it was late last year that they ask FIA about this, it was more than likely in my mind(and from my experience involving with engineering projects in general) that a lot of the major components and packaging were designed, or even possibly made at that point. Since their design was rejected by FIA, they basically have to make a car with some or all of the original parts to work with what they thought to be the rule compliant aero. Renault(the company, with Carlos Ghosn at the helm) being cost concious, probably wouldn't allow them for open cheque book redesign of everything at that stage of the game. Its not impossible that their Non-DDD design still has DDD-compatible feature to it, and that once FIA's court decided that it is ok to run DDD, they just took the previous design and made it. Mind you, without the testing and R&D it wasprobably not nearly as optimized as the "Diffuser Gang" cars, but they did have a head start from the rest.

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Incidentally, you are right about the jealousy part Ciro, every engineer has his share of that, when he (that's right, there are no she-engineers) rarely makes it to the spotlight.
Unless you are a computer-geek of sorts, but they are typically so darn ugly they deserve it.

That's why some of us, as compensation, drive Porsches and bang our bosses' women whenever we get the chance.
And the good looking of us do, more often than not. =P~
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

timbo
111
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 10:14

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Conceptual wrote:I think that it was done to expose these things in court through the presentation of evidence in defense, because there was no other way to see the bottom of these cars, and exactly how the floors were constructed to allow this loophole to be compliant with the tech regs.
Conceptual wrote:Does anyone know for FACT when Renault started development on the DDD/Floor solution? I doubt very seriously that they designed, tested, manufactured and installed it all in 2 days time.
Am I dumb or these two quotes contradict themselves?

User avatar
Metar
0
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 11:35

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

I understand your point about truth versus opinion, Conceptual - opinions are always better when supported by facts, but statements need to be supported by facts. However, this:
Conceptual wrote: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.
Is quite obviously an opinion that borders on a conspiracy theory. By following this logic, every banned technology in F1 should simply have been adopted by the competitors, since it brings an advantage. The non-DDD teams could've asked for the ban simply because they saw what's coming - uber-complex new diffuser wars (with the associated increases in downforce) and massive spending on those - and didn't want that. Just like the FIA (or whoever set the rules in those days) saw the massive power of the turbos and decided to ban those, or the dangers of ground-effects.

And in an imaginary scenario where the DDD appeal was accepted, don't you think Toyota, Williams and Brawn would've been sent to the back of the grid for a race or two until they could adapt? That'd leave Renault as 3rd-best team, behind Ferrari and Red Bull (and possibly McMerc - who knows how their development would've gone with a banned DDD), which is better than where the DDD got them.

I don't like to call up on that principle, but Occam's razor seems fitting: What about the possibility that everything is as it seems? Renault didn't like the diffuser, protested it. Realized halfway through that the appeal will be rejected (as are almost all ICA hearings), and started development on that diffuser. Fitted it on their car, and found extra benefits they didn't expect. Plausible?

noname
10
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 11:55
Location: EU

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Conceptual wrote: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?
My guess is Kilcoo knows it (btw, he did not provide any specifics, just few general thoughts) from school, it's quite basic aerodynamics (no doubts Kilcoo can deal with much more sophisticated issues). There is a lot of books around so it's not that difficult to check if the guessing was right. Once you'll go trough basics I suggest "race car aerodynamics, designing for speed". A little bit aged but still interesting.

If you are interested in the details of the solutions we are talking about, I think you should ask people who designed them directly.

As for the shields being, or not, vertical - they are vertical in the same way as wings are horizontal.

Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

timbo wrote:
Conceptual wrote:I think that it was done to expose these things in court through the presentation of evidence in defense, because there was no other way to see the bottom of these cars, and exactly how the floors were constructed to allow this loophole to be compliant with the tech regs.
Conceptual wrote:Does anyone know for FACT when Renault started development on the DDD/Floor solution? I doubt very seriously that they designed, tested, manufactured and installed it all in 2 days time.
Am I dumb or these two quotes contradict themselves?
I wont answer your question, but can sort out what I said for you.

One: I think Renault wanted every trick to to keeping the DDD legal without having to work it out themselves.

Two: I asked if anyone knew for sure when Renault started the DDD development, because 2 days is not very long to accomplish what they did.

So, one is a tech exposing issue, and the other is a question as to the development start.

They are not contradicting, but as this thread has shown, you seem to enjoy making statements with the intent of making me look like an idiot.

Don't you have anything else worthy of your time to say? If not, then please carry on. There is nothing that you have posted that has bothered me yet, so I'm not very worried about anything else you might come up with.

Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Metar wrote:I understand your point about truth versus opinion, Conceptual - opinions are always better when supported by facts, but statements need to be supported by facts. However, this:
Conceptual wrote: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.
Is quite obviously an opinion that borders on a conspiracy theory. By following this logic, every banned technology in F1 should simply have been adopted by the competitors, since it brings an advantage. The non-DDD teams could've asked for the ban simply because they saw what's coming - uber-complex new diffuser wars (with the associated increases in downforce) and massive spending on those - and didn't want that. Just like the FIA (or whoever set the rules in those days) saw the massive power of the turbos and decided to ban those, or the dangers of ground-effects.

And in an imaginary scenario where the DDD appeal was accepted, don't you think Toyota, Williams and Brawn would've been sent to the back of the grid for a race or two until they could adapt? That'd leave Renault as 3rd-best team, behind Ferrari and Red Bull (and possibly McMerc - who knows how their development would've gone with a banned DDD), which is better than where the DDD got them.

I don't like to call up on that principle, but Occam's razor seems fitting: What about the possibility that everything is as it seems? Renault didn't like the diffuser, protested it. Realized halfway through that the appeal will be rejected (as are almost all ICA hearings), and started development on that diffuser. Fitted it on their car, and found extra benefits they didn't expect. Plausible?
Anything you say man. Anything you say...

Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

noname wrote:
Conceptual wrote: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?
My guess is Kilcoo knows it (btw, he did not provide any specifics, just few general thoughts) from school, it's quite basic aerodynamics (no doubts Kilcoo can deal with much more sophisticated issues). There is a lot of books around so it's not that difficult to check if the guessing was right. Once you'll go trough basics I suggest "race car aerodynamics, designing for speed". A little bit aged but still interesting.

If you are interested in the details of the solutions we are talking about, I think you should ask people who designed them directly.

As for the shields being, or not, vertical - they are vertical in the same way as wings are horizontal.
I own Competition Car Aerodynamics, and have read it very thoroughly. By no means does that make me even an amateur aerodynamicist, so I wont pretend to know it all.

The front shields are vertical, but as kilcoo described is not correct. His statement was as if these are flat and vertical, where I stated they had curvature, and the only vertical was where it met the rim itself. His description of how pressure increases as air travels in the normal direction to the shield was correct, but by his description of a rimshield, that would mean the air is hitting it from the side, I am saying that the air is hitting head on, but still normal to the direction of curvature of the shield.

I know that it is slitting hairs a bit, but I think that the specifics are a world apart from the generics that were presented.

timbo
111
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 10:14

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Conceptual wrote:One: I think Renault wanted every trick to to keeping the DDD legal without having to work it out themselves.

Two: I asked if anyone knew for sure when Renault started the DDD development, because 2 days is not very long to accomplish what they did.

So, one is a tech exposing issue, and the other is a question as to the development start.
Let me ask you again the same questions I asked before. It seems that we both agree that 2 days is too short time to create a new floor. Carbon fiber processing alone takes similar time. So, don't you think that Pat and Bob had enough knowledge about DDD WITHOUT hearing or otherwise it would take a lot more time to create a new floor?
Another question - don't you think that to protest something you must have pretty good understanding of how things in question work?
There is nothing that you have posted that has bothered me yet, so I'm not very worried about anything else you might come up with.
LOL this IS forum and not your blog so do I have to be bothered with you being bothered or not?

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Well, in the end, timbo, Conceptual, everything is what you left behind in your trail.
Ciro

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Briatore's trash becomes Symonds' treasure!

Post

Indeed Ciro, why you perhaps should find this entire thread under "examples of not-the-most-needful topics"?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"