I'm from Brazil and I was listening an interview with Bruno Senna today on the radio.

He said Campos F1 car has already passed in side and front crash tests.

Roger the knife wrote:I was wondering of this is really just smoke n' mirrors project, and the real intention of Peter and Kenny was to get the licence, and then sell it on to someone desperate to get in to next years championship ie. Sauber, and now with the demise of Toyota, their plans may come unravelled. What happens to their licence if they don't appear at the first race, does it revert back to the FIA, or do USF1 still retain it to sell on ebay

Unless Concorde has been radically altered, you can't just sell the licence - Phoenix Finance supposedly bought Prost's entry but you can't. You have to buy the whole team.

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, Steve didn't see everything they had there. I've seen just as much of the Red Bull factory in his RPM spots as was showed in the USF1 spot.

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

No biggie.

Well I can tell you for sure its not a Canadian thing, or an American thing. I managed to own many wrench sets before eve hearing the word spanner.

@MX Of course it's not a biggie , but it is a confusing term that has little if no relevance to what the tool actually does, as opposed to wrench, which makes perfect sense. Amazing how a simple question can annoy certain old forum dogs.

Thanks for the answer all. It is called a spanner, because that is what the English call it? There is nothing special about the name, and it has no origin apparently.

you wrench nuts , do you ? wrench is defined as to force by violence , not the way I was taught to do things ..... so makes no sense at all to me

on the other hand spanner , from the verb to span [ hundreds of years of use ] , meaning to wind up , makes perfect sense to me

I've been turning wrenches on my car all week and funny you should mention it, I am feeling a little violent.

USF1...signing a contract to lease a base in Spain one day, voting against selling your grid spot the next. Who knows if they'll turn up?

After seeing that piece by Steve Matchett on Speed TV, I'm beginning to doubt it myself.

Giblet wrote:

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

No biggie.

Well I can tell you for sure its not a Canadian thing, or an American thing. I managed to own many wrench sets before eve hearing the word spanner.

@MX Of course it's not a biggie , but it is a confusing term that has little if no relevance to what the tool actually does, as opposed to wrench, which makes perfect sense. Amazing how a simple question can annoy certain old forum dogs.

You apparently mistook my post and thought the rolling eyes were directed at you, but they were actually for the Brits . Although I now understand how one word might make sense to them but not to us, and vice versa.

I have nothing against your question to be honest. The 'no biggie' comment wasn't meant in a sarcastic or negative tone either. And now I have more understanding about this word, therefore in a way I'm glad you brought it up.

Professor wrote: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!

Crash structures are either bolted (front & rear) or bonded (side) to the chassis. Teams tend to carry out "internal crash-testing" by mounting only the crash structure on the rig. Once they are happy, they do official crash test on an actual monocoque in front of the FIA guy.

One problem of the crash test is that try-and-error is required. The team need some pre-tests before they can perform the FIA test.

Also, you need to have some idea whether the shapes of your nose cone and rear crash structure are in fact feasible to pass the test before commiting yourself to that aero package.

If you start from the scratch, have nothing to copy from, had enough time to prepare (unlike Lotus), then some test should have been done long ago.

the tub only has a flex test if it fails we add more carbon and try again the nosebox,rear crash structure and side impacts are destruction tested and I can tell you now that McLaren havnt tested anything yet and even worse we are having to scrap the tub moulds

goony

goony wrote:the tub only has a flex test if it fails we add more carbon and try again the nosebox,rear crash structure and side impacts are destruction tested and I can tell you now that McLaren havnt tested anything yet and even worse we are having to scrap the tub moulds

goony

It looks like McLaren used the 2009 season to actively develop their existing car. It is still astounding that there is such a discrepancy between the reported test schedule at Brawn and McLaren. If McLaren scrapped their molds they may have decided to switch to a different design of the front suspension or the nose concept ext year. Red Bull type of top rails?

Due to the design principles it makes sense that a lack of stiffness is much more likely to occur in a tub than a lack of mechanical strenght.

It is also plausible that a rookie team will not have as much ballast as a top team - if at all - due to a lack of hundreds of iterations that top teams have done on all components. Crash testing the safety components early is therefore much more important. You cannot simply add more carbon if you fail the test and you are on the weight limit.

Since I am designing a race car right now just as something to occupy my time, I had to design a crash structure. You are very much right with trial and error, It took me days to realise what I had to do to make it work.
But when it came down to it, it was very simple. You just need to select a material that can either shatter, crumple or fold over it self in a timely manner. Sometimes adding or subtracting the weight of the "car" can make a good crash structure not work anymore.
You also have to observe the way it folds/shatters in slow motion to check that the crash structure does not "bottom out" on it self. And that the rig stays under the maximum deceleration for the a certain range of deformation. I also found that an elongated square/hex pyramid shape works very well.

However these F1 engineers are so experienced and so well equipped, they probably just arrive at a safe design on the first try!

n smikle wrote:Since I am designing a race car right now just as something to occupy my time, I had to design a crash structure. You are very much right with trial and error, It took me days to realise what I had to do to make it work.
But when it came down to it, it was very simple. You just need to select a material that can either shatter, crumple or fold over it self in a timely manner. Sometimes adding or subtracting the weight of the "car" can make a good crash structure not work anymore.
You also have to observe the way it folds/shatters in slow motion to check that the crash structure does not "bottom out" on it self. And that the rig stays under the maximum deceleration for the a certain range of deformation. I also found that an elongated square/hex pyramid shape works very well.

However these F1 engineers are so experienced and so well equipped, they probably just arrive at a safe design on the first try!

Or have an iteration script running in CATIA that just optimizes the structure for them...

I am by no means a CATIA master, but even I can do the script for that!

(It looks like McLaren used the 2009 season to actively develop their existing car. It is still astounding that there is such a discrepancy between the reported test schedule at Brawn and McLaren. If McLaren scrapped their molds they may have decided to switch to a different design of the front suspension or the nose concept ext year. Red Bull type of top rails?)

No the problem is that we have a schedule to work too and it cant be broken
so to get the molds in time they cut the cure time by 10 hours
and when they post cured it it sagged and warped

their has always been a strange philosophy in composites, we never have enough time to do the job properly but always have enough time to do the job twice

so by saving 10 hrs its cost us 2 weeks

goony

goony wrote:the tub only has a flex test if it fails we add more carbon and try again the nosebox,rear crash structure and side impacts are destruction tested and I can tell you now that McLaren havnt tested anything yet and even worse we are having to scrap the tub moulds
goony

Xcuse me goony, I haven't had the chance to follow you posts, but are you saying that you work with composites at McLaren?