Roger the knife wrote:... lack of "real" progress seems more than a little bit strange.

How far along are they? Have you visited the shop, or are you just assuming because Bernie is skeptical? Why do people always seem to be fishing for a controversy around here? See the Lotus thread for example...

As regards to progress of the new teams, it is a HUUUUGE effort to get a racing team started, let alone F1, and not just from a design/build perspective but from the logistical side as well.

Mystery Steve wrote:Why do people always seem to be fishing for a controversy around here?

Probably because that odious little prick Windsor is running it...

kilcoo316 wrote:

Mystery Steve wrote:Why do people always seem to be fishing for a controversy around here?

Probably because that odious little prick Windsor is running it...

I do remember the classic episode in the 80's when Windsor was roughed up a little and dumped out of a Transit van on the Oxford bypass....

Roger the knife wrote:Maybe it is stretching it a bit, but both have dodgy track records in racing, and the lack of "real" progress seems more than a little bit strange.

Unless someone from within the USA can really shed some light on this?

Unrealistic expectations for a team that has only just started. I'd like to see anyone start a team in any sport in such a short amount of time with a limited budget in a place that has little to no interest in the sport they are entering. Get real. It's hard to do this with lots of time and money. You people want everything right now and if you don't get it right now you bitch and moan or say they are wasting time. Does it affect you personally that they won't be on the grid possibly? No? Then quit complaining.

Probably not the first time a team would be the means to speculating/trading in F1. Seemed to be the case when Jordan was bought up and flipped about between Midland, Spyker and finally stabilised with Force India.
Likewise, we don't often see an all-new team as they seem to emerge from the ashes of another - was it Tyrrell became BAR, became Honda, became Brawn.
Apologies if my history is a bit crooked, but it's not my strong point.
Neither is geography, art, politics, religion.
Spanner, hammer, screwdriver and I'm happy.
Back on topic, if they can turn out something close to a running car that would make some headway.

Have any of the USF1 doubters seen the steve matchett SPEEDTV piece inside the USF1 factory? It didnt seem like the car was ready for track testing but they did seem to be making progress, plus all the machinery was in place... dont need to buy manufertering machines if your plan is just to flip the grid spot for profit.

USF1 seems more on top of things than Spyker ever did, or Midland ever did. USF1 building their own car from scratch is a process that not all teams go through, and it will make them a better team for it. Even if your car is a dog, if you built it, you can figure out why it's a dog.

Anybody who puts their neck out to learn usually gets lambasted, then lauded when they pick it up.

Plus, ISLAMATRON, I saw the RPM segment, and they have a pretty nice manufertering shop.

@all you blokes, is a spanner just a wrench? Or a socket driver? Why is it called a spanner? Never heard the term until saw a Colin Chapman quote talking about how a factory with spanners everywhere is a bad sign.

ISLAMATRON wrote:Have any of the USF1 doubters seen the steve matchett SPEEDTV piece inside the USF1 factory? It didnt seem like the car was ready for track testing but they did seem to be making progress, plus all the machinery was in place... dont need to buy manufertering machines if your plan is just to flip the grid spot for profit.

Anyone got a link to this article please? It sounds interesting.

Thanks.

EDIT:
I think this is it on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbrHk0EmQP0

Giblet wrote:@all you blokes, is a spanner just a wrench? Or a socket driver? Why is it called a spanner? Never heard the term until saw a Colin Chapman quote talking about how a factory with spanners everywhere is a bad sign.

Interesting question... My understanding of a spanner is a special type of hooked wrench, commonly used for adjusting the preload nuts on coilovers:



However, according to wikipedia: Americans says "wrench" while Brits say "spanner". Do Brits have a term for what I know as a spanner wrench then?

Here is a spanner

It's just a British thing. All of the British magazines/sites use 'spanner'.

No biggie.

I would just like to respond to brawn's comments about crash testing. They were linked in the first post. He said that Brawn had been crash testing their 2010 chassis starting two months ago. This comment became a part of the "USF1 Not Ready" media response.

Well, I do not not if they are ready or not, but I have my own ideas about crash testing.

It is obvious that teams crash test their chassis before they apply for the official test. It is also obvious that they fail their initial tests. Why? Because they are trying to find the combination that barely passes the minimum requirement.

This requires significant funding. If I have funding, I build a tub that I think is close, but suspect. I crash it in a private test, analyze the data, and then build another tub.

The chassis must undergo several crash tests from different dirrections and with the force directed at specific components.

So I test the initial tub for structural integrety, fix that prob, and then move on to other tests. I always start with parts that are calculated to be at the brink of failure. I analyze the results and then modify the components.

When sure, I submit my chassis to FIA scrutineering for the "approval."

Now, if I have limited funding, I design and build a chassis (and all of the components that are subject to the test) well above the calculated requirements. I do not do progrssive testing, I cannot afford it.

My chassis passes the test but is heavier than those who progressively test. Those who progressivly test find "opportunities" to lighten the chassis but still reach the minimum standards required by the FIA.

USF1 is in the second category. With limited funding, they must overdesign the chassis and test it just once. Just once? Yes, for the FIA test. That is the only one that matters!

So, they would certainly be far behind any existing team in this regard, Surely Ross knows this.

tc9604 wrote:Here is a spanner

Ah... that's something I'd call an open-end wrench (as opposed to a box-end wrench). Thanks for clarifying & straightening that out for me.

I'd always thought this was a spanner (which is a crescent wrench, I know) but always thought that was call a spanner.



Back on topic, USGPE is definitely slow off the mark... well very slow off the mark, but I'm sure they'll be on the grid come Melbourne. Also, they've got some serious freakin' testing hours to do. Chop chop you guys.

The thing about crash testing. I don't think that crash testing implies crash testing entire chassis. I think you stress test parts first, and I think that this may be what Brawn may have been impying. But this is just a guess.

This is an adjustable spanner, vital in every tool box, just make sure you have two of them, one for metric and one for inch ..

sknguy

spanner is a reasonably recent word in english , has only been used since about 1600 , the most popular now seems to be with one open end and one ring end with the same size; originally I think it was used on firearms ; the word is actually adopted from old german

crescent must be a local brand wherever you live , adjustable spanner in english , english key in most latin languages