On the night from Friday to Saturday, burglars have stolen a large number of F1 trophies from Red Bull Racing. The break in caused significant damage as offenders drove a vehicle through the building's front entrance.
Look mate, I'm all up for a technical discussion but if all you're only interested in picking a fight then bugger it.Cam wrote:So it's inconceivable to bring 100 versions of a 3d model and print the 'best option' based on test data?
Again. The lack of foresight is astonishing.
Cam is right, manufacturing replacement parts at the track would make a lot of sense once the tech gets to the right level.Tim.Wright wrote:The technology is only half the story. You're neglecting my second point. Even if the machines made perfect parts in seconds you still need to give it a part to produce.
Designing a part for manufacture is not the work of an hour. Every part you see on a car now would have been months in development. You can't compress that whole process down so it fits in between FP1 and FP2.
Speaking in platitude's isn't very technical.Cam wrote:Wow. For a technical forum to have zero foresight is truly appalling. Who said it has to happen tomorrow? Big up vote.
And why would you do that? The only logical reason to 3D print yourself a new part between sessions is because you've re-designed the part in that time, if you already have the design, then why not print them before hand? I also don't see how this point applies during a test session, because this 'test data' you speak of would be obtained from wind tunnel and CFD analysis, so if you already have this data, why are you waiting to manufacture the part between sessions. You keep preaching about our lack of foresight, yet you have yet to provide a credible and logical usage of 3D printing during a race weekend, all the while wrapping your posts in self righteous pseudo-intellectualism.Cam wrote:So it's inconceivable to bring 100 versions of a 3d model and print the 'best option' based on test data?
Again. The lack of foresight is astonishing.
But why would you print them at the track and not back at the factory?Cam wrote:Maybe the CFD and wind tunnel don't correlate? So you bring different versions? That never happens does it?
Why carry around spare parts when you can print them quickly?Cold Fussion wrote:But why would you print them at the track and not back at the factory?Cam wrote:Maybe the CFD and wind tunnel don't correlate? So you bring different versions? That never happens does it?
It's ok djos. I tried to point people back to my original post, but people read what they want. I've given up trying to illustrate that. It was never a factual statement of current 3d technologies, but a theoretical concept for the future. People either skipped it or failed to fully consider it or have a crystal ball, either way, big thumbs up for them eh?Cam wrote: So it's not that far fetched to forward think to solutions....
You still need to have them tested an validated before you bolt them onto the car. You only have a couple hours of testing, you can't keep randomly trying designs in the hope that they work, I don't see why you cannot understand this.Cam wrote:How many times have we seen teams turn up with parts that didn't do as expected? A lot. So, wouldn't it be great to have multiple variations of those parts on file that you could quickly print out? Bolt them on and head off to do some laps.
While this is a pipe dream, for the moment, I will bet good money teams would love that ability.
Would you agree?
People have considered your thoughts and have concluded they are unreasonable because they violate good engineering practice. I don't doubt that in the future you will be able to 3D something like a wing in the space of 4 hours, however, I find it infeasible that any design process that can be completed in the space of 4 hours could not have converged to a more optimum solution in a period of months back at the factory.Cam wrote:It's ok djos. I tried to point people back to my original post, but people read what they want. I've given up trying to illustrate that. It was never a factual statement of current 3d technologies, but a theoretical concept for the future. People either skipped it or failed to fully consider it or have a crystal ball, either way, big thumbs up for them eh?Cam wrote: So it's not that far fetched to forward think to solutions....
Because 'they can' is not valid reasoning.Cam wrote:Ultimately, it doesn't matter why they would want to, it's 'because they can'. It could be for any reason, even some we can't think of right now. Anyway, you don't agree that a technology like that could be an assets to a team. Is ok. I don't think you're delusional for it.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
) would be capable of actually making changes to an existing design in an emergency Situation (i.e. nothing works right), but even he would want to simulate first. Some folks just have 0 imagination!Cam wrote:It's ok djos. I tried to point people back to my original post, but people read what they want. I've given up trying to illustrate that. It was never a factual statement of current 3d technologies, but a theoretical concept for the future. People either skipped it or failed to fully consider it or have a crystal ball, either way, big thumbs up for them eh?Cam wrote: So it's not that far fetched to forward think to solutions....
