pick any of thesebhallg2k wrote:I have a problem with it. Lotus screwed up, and now they're asking for a mulligan. (And to be fair, I don't like how the Mercedes scenario played out, either.)
Every other team showed up to Barcelona having done their homework, and their reward was a track full of other cars and prying eyes. Lotus did not do its homework, so why on Earth should they get a private test as a result?
And then what's to stop other teams from coming up with a bullshit excuse to leave a group test early just so they can have a private test later?
Yes, every team is given a testing limit:Public tests+50km shakedown+100km filming. If they want to do a 100 km filming day I;m fine with it, but they had every opportunity to be at this test. HRT or Marussia haven't asked for extra testing because they didn't finish their new cars in time, now it looks as though Lotus didn't "finish" it's car on time why should they have an opportunity other teams don't have.mith wrote:Well, I am also pretty sure, Ferrari did one of their last year tests on Fiorano instead of testing with other teams. So it looks, teams actually has quite some liberty in that field.
And to be honest, I can't agree with your reasoning. Until few years ago, all teams could have tested as much as they could afford and that was obviously giving a lot of advantage to reach teams. However now, every team has strict limit of how much it can test. So I see no reason for them not to use that limit even when something at times goes wrong, especially given that all those cars are prototypes. Oh, and competing is done in-season. Now every team should take their time to ensure their cars are not going to blow up killing drivers and spectators, and also that their designs are fast - but that is just second priority.
Lotus left after taking part in the first two days of testing this week…That leaves two days of non-participation. I think it would be benevolent of the rest of the field to give Lotus one extra day, but no more. What is the reasoning behind positively reinforcing negative behavior? Next thing you know they will insist that FOTA picks up Kimi's markers for his gelato habit.bhallg2k wrote:I have a problem with it. Lotus screwed up, and now they're asking for a mulligan. (And to be fair, I don't like how the Mercedes scenario played out, either.)
Every other team showed up to Barcelona having done their homework, and their reward was a track full of other cars and prying eyes. Lotus did not do its homework, so why on Earth should they get a private test as a result?
And then what's to stop other teams from coming up with a bullshit excuse to leave a group test early just so they can have a private test later?
I would say between 4 and 6 tubs would be average certainly no more than that most crash tests are done in-house using dummy sections before the real crash tests so they know they will pass, its about 5 weeks to just laminate a chassis let alone all the machining/bonding the two half together and the fitting work.kilcoo316 wrote:I can't give you the lead-times... but the basic process would be:Tyler wrote:I would really appreciate it if someone would explain the whole process of how the chassis gets built as well as how many and at what stage and how it fits in with the crash tests and just the general timeline of things.
Is it usual for a team to build 3 chassis'?
0. Discuss previous year's chassis with all departments to evaluate areas that were weak, what needs improving etc.
1a. Get an outer mould line from the aero-heads.
1b. Get suspension points, target torsional rigidities and wheelbase from the vehicle dynamics guys (who will also talk to aero-heads constantly during this).
1c. Get ancillary interfaces from the other design people (engines/systems etc)
2. Starting from your front suspension and rear-bulkhead, produce initial draft design from fore/aft to centre, using the likes of CATIA, Fibresim and Altair HyperWorks. CATIA and Fibresim will hold your geometric and laminate information (including the real drape angles of the plies), which is then simulated in the FEA using Hyperworks (or another package).
3. Iterate (2) until your reasonably happy you meet the requirements laid down in (1).
4. Report areas of dis-satisfaction to aero-heads/vehicle dynamics/systems etc to see if compromises can be made.
5. Iterate (3) varying the requirements given in (1) until all departments are happy with the tub. With an integrated engine, you can expect the engine pick-up points to move around to aid overall torsional rigidity/kg.
The overall objective is to maximise torsional rigidity while minimising tub weight. I'm not sure if the polar moment of inertia is considered such a sensitive variable anymore.
6. Build initial tub and crash tub.
7. Test initial tub in first track test.
8. Initial tub becomes 7-post rig chassis, 2nd tub becomes reserve race chassis. 3rd tub becomes 1st race chassis. 4th tub becomes 2nd race chassis.
The teams will build many more than just 3 tubs during the year.
anyone thinks chassis problem and front suspension have something with innovative reactive ride height system? maybe they found way how can make system legal, and that is the reason why they need work on chassisBlackout wrote:Old news.
Last rumours say the chassis problem is located around the front suspensions and that Lotus will run next Monday in Silverstone
If it were that, they wouldn't have pulled out of the test, would they?Neno wrote:anyone thinks chassis problem and front suspension have something with innovative reactive ride height system? maybe they found way how can make system legal, and that is the reason why they need work on chassisBlackout wrote:Old news.
Last rumours say the chassis problem is located around the front suspensions and that Lotus will run next Monday in Silverstone
maybe, because you can't at testing get that system into the car, they dont have equipment in Barcelona. usually needs such changes make in factory, in this case Enstone. they need to have big reason why drop 4 days of testing and go home...and this is maybe one of them. this is just speculations, but you need understand that Lotus made already that device and spend lot's of money on him. for me it will be stupid if that device just sitting somewhere at Enstone in dust. now when we have speculation about front suspension, you get wonder, right?!beelsebob wrote:If it were that, they wouldn't have pulled out of the test, would they?Neno wrote:anyone thinks chassis problem and front suspension have something with innovative reactive ride height system? maybe they found way how can make system legal, and that is the reason why they need work on chassisBlackout wrote:Old news.
Last rumours say the chassis problem is located around the front suspensions and that Lotus will run next Monday in Silverstone
i belive that Lotus have new front suspension, they said that will have i barcelona new stuff on the car. but maybe that front suspension have something with ride height suspension they worked, if it so, that can be logical reason why they need modife chassis. i realy dont belive that team who created ride-height system over winter, can't make good chassis, it this case two chassisbanibhusan wrote:Does it really make sense to abandon 3 days of testing for 1 day just to try out a single component. They could have continued with the current tests and in parallel could have developed a new chassis in the factory to incorporate the new suspension system.
Or may be they already had it installed and found some issues with it. All sorts of weird speculations going on.