planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:57 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6724
Location: Mumbai, India
There's a lot of unrest in the paddock with a sudden improvement by Haas. Rivals Force India & McLaren claim that this year's Haas car is last year's Ferrari car as there are similarities between them. Haas & Ferrari share a close alliance prompting the 2 teams to get suspicious. Gunther Steiner has rebutted the claims saying the teams are putting the blame on Haas to cover their incompetency.

This is what Force India's Otmar Szafnauer said:
'"I don’t know how they do it, it’s magic. It’s never been done before in Formula 1. I just don’t know how it can be right that someone who’s been in the sport for a couple of years with no resource could produce a car like this…does it happen by magic? If it does, I want the wand.

“All the aerodynamic surfaces have to be your own. If they’re not, I don’t know how you can tell unless you start investigating. Scrutineering only tells you that it fits within the boxes of the regulations. Is it yours or somebody else’s? That’s the real question. And I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe it is their own, it’s just suspect – how can you gain that knowledge without history and the right tools and people?"

If Force India & McLaren wish they can file an official complaint with the FIA during the Bahrain Grand Prix weekend wanting a closer inspection of the Haas car. I won't be surprised if the team principals of these 3 teams would make up the press conference to make the arguments get steamier!

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6382
Location: Nebraska, USA
Let them file.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14198
Surely Otmar Szafnauer is joking? Suggesting a leap forward like this has never been taken before? unless the drivers are really poor, Haas have the 3rd/4th best car. We've seen midfield teams step up to that level on numerous occasions. Saying it just can't happen is ludicrous. I mean, FI finished 4th just last season.

If anyone thinks the Haas is illegal then they should report it to the stewards not the press.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6382
Location: Nebraska, USA
Unless they know full well that the Haas is legal, but are making excuses for not having their pace.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
I did hear DC joking say 'that Haas looks a lot like last years Ferrari' in commentary last weekend. But I just took it as a bit or a joke and nothing serious. And to be fair, what's wrong with that if it is?

It's not this years Ferrari and if a team wanted to copy another (which happens every year anyway during development), they have a lot of footage to go through from last season to draw up a model to work from. The onLy issue would be if Ferrari were found to have given them technical documents, nothing wrong with copying a car from studying footage.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14198
minchy wrote:
I did hear DC joking say 'that Haas looks a lot like last years Ferrari' in commentary last weekend. But I just took it as a bit or a joke and nothing serious. And to be fair, what's wrong with that if it is?

It's not this years Ferrari and if a team wanted to copy another (which happens every year anyway during development), they have a lot of footage to go through from last season to draw up a model to work from. The onLy issue would be if Ferrari were found to have given them technical documents, nothing wrong with copying a car from studying footage.


Yes, It does look like last years Ferrari. TBF the differences between all the cars this year are truly tiny. They all look quite similar. I think it's time for the rest of the grid to step up or shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
That Brawn car looked an awful lot like last year's Honda! Those cheaters!

_________________
Don't be quick to judge or the verdict might come back to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4515
Pathetic excuse by some top names for not preparing well for the season. Go HAAS!

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: England
There is a striking resemblance but it appears to be all above board.... smacks a bit of having a whine about it because they got a lot faster, didn't seem to mind the same deal last year. To be honest i'm surprised more of the lower teams don't do it, Force India especially.... they already are halfway there with the Mercedes Engine and Gearbox, why not go the whole hog and quite probably be faster while spending less money?

As for sharing the actual technical data, there are a million and ten ways to get around rules like that, though if the interior packaging of the car is actually identical last years Ferrari (and given the different wheelbases, I doubt it is), that'd be a fairly large smoking gun.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
First they cry the sport is too expensive now they say the HAAS is a Ferrari. No wonder F1 needs a complete overhaul. These crybaby teams will never be happy, and Red Bull should look in the mirror, crying about Party Mode....just terrible cry babies.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 261
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2913
Location: UK
I think they're right to at least ask the question. It has been said over the past few years how much Force India have punched above their weight with their relatively meagre budget. Well Haas have about half the number of employees that Force India do, as well as only two years in the sport, yet have produced a car that appears more competitive than anything Force India have ever produced. It is also a considerable step forward from last year while Force India's rise to 4th in the constructors' table was much more incremental.

Now it may well be that they've just done a brilliant job, in which case well done to them. But I see why the others are suspicious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 428
Location: Kansas
I am with most of the folks here who say that the whiners need to prove their complaints. What pieces and parts are borrowed or stolen design from Ferrari. What are the parts that can be bought or copied and what are not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 12:46 pm
Posts: 703
Location: McKinney, TX
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
First they cry the sport is too expensive now they say the HAAS is a Ferrari. No wonder F1 needs a complete overhaul. These crybaby teams will never be happy, and Red Bull should look in the mirror, crying about Party Mode....just terrible cry babies.


Agree one million percent.

_________________
I'd rather die than be overtaken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 975
They are so so bitter.
Fact is, Haas has build a good car. Thats it. Force India are no longer getting the attention and they hate it.
For me, what Haas done, getting the maximum allowed from Ferrari is the great way to go about it.
Remember the absolute joke teams from 2010 such as USF1- lol!!, HRT, Virgin and Team Lotus. All of them were miles off the pace, never got anywhere close and ultimately all died!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
The big teams such as Red Bull, Mercedes, and Ferrari attempt to keep the other teams down, and those lesser teams attempt to keep even lesser teams down. The state of politics in Formula One is shameful, with each team obviously in it just for themselves. Screw the interests of the sport if it means my team may suffer.

Haas got into this game with their eyes wide open. Haas also got into this sport with definite objectives and a game plan. And a big part of that plan was to lean heavily on Ferrari's expertise for the first few years. So Haas are using what is allowed to them by the regulations. They are not designing and building components if they can out-source them. And yes, Haas are definitely using a lot of stuff from Ferrari.

Although there are many regulations I despise and wish they never existed, I understand that motor racing, and especially Formula One, taking full advantage of the rules and "thinking outside of the box" is a big part of the game. And I appreciate and respect that. There is no such thing as "the spirit of the regulations" in Formula One. It is a dog-eat-dog world where you use every trick and advantage you can muster.

Trust me, competitors have gone to the FIA and made sure everything in the Haas car complies with the regulations. And since they have lost on that front, now they have gone into public whinging mode.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
To sum this up as eloquently as possible, I need just one word… Bulldookie!

This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car. And the irony in all of this is that both teams who've raised a brow to this are teams who've been doing this for an eternity, yet ALL THOSE YEARS of expertise and experience isn't serving them in any way to fight towards the front. According to their assessment of HAAS they should be fighting consistently for wins and championships.

I guess they miss the fact that HAAS tests in what is likely the best wind tunnel on the planet and Gene employs literally an army of engineers and he's not new to racing, just a recent entrant to F1. His past successes were no fluke and if people think back to many interviews, he's not been pleased with the disparity between teams which is proof positive they've not been getting the kind of "help" these accusations suggest.


Kev627 wrote:
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!

Wheel bases can be changes on any car in minutes. Just swap out the suspension arms and driveshafts and you can change to longer or shorter in no time.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: England
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
To sum this up as eloquently as possible, I need just one word… Bulldookie!

This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car. And the irony in all of this is that both teams who've raised a brow to this are teams who've been doing this for an eternity, yet ALL THOSE YEARS of expertise and experience isn't serving them in any way to fight towards the front. According to their assessment of HAAS they should be fighting consistently for wins and championships.

I guess they miss the fact that HAAS tests in what is likely the best wind tunnel on the planet and Gene employs literally an army of engineers and he's not new to racing, just a recent entrant to F1. His past successes were no fluke and if people think back to many interviews, he's not been pleased with the disparity between teams which is proof positive they've not been getting the kind of "help" these accusations suggest.


Kev627 wrote:
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!

Wheel bases can be changes on any car in minutes. Just swap out the suspension arms and driveshafts and you can change to longer or shorter in no time.



Changing the suspension arms alters the airflow so dramatically that it would be impossible to alter them enough to seriously affect the wheelbase without compromising pretty much everything that goes on behind it aero wise. Pretty sure the way that they direct the airflow around the front arms is the big differentiator in the entire aero concept for the big 2.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
Dramatically is a bit much. If anything, the difference suspension arms would make is at best marginal, if not negligible.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
To sum this up as eloquently as possible, I need just one word… Bulldookie!

This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car. And the irony in all of this is that both teams who've raised a brow to this are teams who've been doing this for an eternity, yet ALL THOSE YEARS of expertise and experience isn't serving them in any way to fight towards the front. According to their assessment of HAAS they should be fighting consistently for wins and championships.

I guess they miss the fact that HAAS tests in what is likely the best wind tunnel on the planet and Gene employs literally an army of engineers and he's not new to racing, just a recent entrant to F1. His past successes were no fluke and if people think back to many interviews, he's not been pleased with the disparity between teams which is proof positive they've not been getting the kind of "help" these accusations suggest.


Kev627 wrote:
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!

Wheel bases can be changes on any car in minutes. Just swap out the suspension arms and driveshafts and you can change to longer or shorter in no time.


Out of curiosity, why didn't Ferrari and Merc do this last year? They knew that some tracks favour long and some others short wheel bases. So why didn't they do this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2913
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Dramatically is a bit much. If anything, the difference suspension arms would make is at best marginal, if not negligible.


I fully agree. What is going on is that Haas are eating the elephant one bite at a time, instead of attempting to design an entire car in their first few years. Haas understand his team's limitations. He contracted a respected chassis maker to design and build his tubs. He also obtained Ferrari suspension arms because designing and building them is very difficult. The team are not attempting to do it all at once in their first years, they are leaning heavily on those they can obtain assistance. This gradual approach is designed to yield a constant climb in abilities and, more important, to minimize any setbacks in design. They are learning they are improving, and that has other teams concerned that they will soon be bumped a step down the pecking order because Haas are doing a good job.

This is a common practice, to contract some specialist company for certain components. Mahle make pistons, Brembo make brakes. And no team manufacture their own fuel and lubricants.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14198
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.


It depends how good you think the Haas is and what you consider recent times.

The problem being in recent times the powers that be have set the barrier to entry so high there have hardly been any teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
Siao7 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
To sum this up as eloquently as possible, I need just one word… Bulldookie!

This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car. And the irony in all of this is that both teams who've raised a brow to this are teams who've been doing this for an eternity, yet ALL THOSE YEARS of expertise and experience isn't serving them in any way to fight towards the front. According to their assessment of HAAS they should be fighting consistently for wins and championships.

I guess they miss the fact that HAAS tests in what is likely the best wind tunnel on the planet and Gene employs literally an army of engineers and he's not new to racing, just a recent entrant to F1. His past successes were no fluke and if people think back to many interviews, he's not been pleased with the disparity between teams which is proof positive they've not been getting the kind of "help" these accusations suggest.


Kev627 wrote:
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!

Wheel bases can be changes on any car in minutes. Just swap out the suspension arms and driveshafts and you can change to longer or shorter in no time.


Out of curiosity, why didn't Ferrari and Merc do this last year? They knew that some tracks favour long and some others short wheel bases. So why didn't they do this?

Who says they didn't? Many changes of this nature go unnoticed and if the manufacturers don't make mention of it, no one would ever know.
And if it's one thing F1 teams are notoriously famous for, it's holding their cards real close to their chest because they don't want any of the other teams know what they are up to in the event a change such as this unlocks a decent amount of speed. Otherwise opposing teams would quickly look to make the same adjustments, thus negating any advantage gained.

The thing is that what is most easily visible is the exterior which = Aero, so those changes are immediately scene by experts who then point them out, but suspension or other changes that are less obvious, fly completely under the radar.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.

How about Red Bull?

Literally a NOTHING team for a decade under all their previous manufacturer names and then Red Bull buys them and the cars become more competitive and when the 2009 changes came into effect, they were off the pace of the Brawn but were quick to figure out how to better develop and evolve the DD and by midway of 2009, they had the best car, but didn't get things figured out quite soon enough to overcome Brawn's early dominance. The fact they field 4 cars has never been much of an issue yet now that Ferrari have a sort of Jr. Team the pot has suddenly become less black. ;)

Another team post 2009 that made a good leap up the field was Sauber.

Under BMW they were a solid team with arguably the best engine, but struggled to remain front runners until they pulled out. Then Peter swooped in and bought the team back to ensure the team would continue and no one would lose their job, and the first year as BMW/Sauber/Ferrari the car was just wrong. Just looking at it it was apparent the car would struggle to fight in the midfield. The following year however, Sauber produced a much improved car and sustained it the following year before ultimately struggling to produce a solid car, a trend that has continued through the end of 2017. This new Alfa-Romeo looks to be a slight improvement over last year, but with only one race in thus far, there's not enough running to assess if they have begun to crawl back up the order.

Before the 2009 regulation changes, Super Aguri was doing amazingly well and if you consider they were running year old chassis, what they were doing has to be the most impressive of any team the last 20 years, maybe more. Just sucks that A-holes completely sabotaged the team and saw to their demise.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
To sum this up as eloquently as possible, I need just one word… Bulldookie!

This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car. And the irony in all of this is that both teams who've raised a brow to this are teams who've been doing this for an eternity, yet ALL THOSE YEARS of expertise and experience isn't serving them in any way to fight towards the front. According to their assessment of HAAS they should be fighting consistently for wins and championships.

I guess they miss the fact that HAAS tests in what is likely the best wind tunnel on the planet and Gene employs literally an army of engineers and he's not new to racing, just a recent entrant to F1. His past successes were no fluke and if people think back to many interviews, he's not been pleased with the disparity between teams which is proof positive they've not been getting the kind of "help" these accusations suggest.


Kev627 wrote:
The Haas VF-18 and last years Ferrari have different wheelbases so can't be copies!

Wheel bases can be changes on any car in minutes. Just swap out the suspension arms and driveshafts and you can change to longer or shorter in no time.


Out of curiosity, why didn't Ferrari and Merc do this last year? They knew that some tracks favour long and some others short wheel bases. So why didn't they do this?

Who says they didn't? Many changes of this nature go unnoticed and if the manufacturers don't make mention of it, no one would ever know.
And if it's one thing F1 teams are notoriously famous for, it's holding their cards real close to their chest because they don't want any of the other teams know what they are up to in the event a change such as this unlocks a decent amount of speed. Otherwise opposing teams would quickly look to make the same adjustments, thus negating any advantage gained.

The thing is that what is most easily visible is the exterior which = Aero, so those changes are immediately scene by experts who then point them out, but suspension or other changes that are less obvious, fly completely under the radar.


I will not pretend to know a lot on this subject. But this will explain a lot:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/feat ... des-i.html

People cleverer and more knowledgeable than me explain why they don't change the wheelbase mid-season. From last year, but still relevant I guess.

So I was wondering what makes you think that you can change it in an F1 car as simple as that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.
There are all sorts of things connected throughout front to back, left to right and top to bottom. Then compare that to suspension arms and linkages…
There are about 800 less screws, nuts and bolts to worry about and not much else. If a highly complex engine can be swapped out completely for a new unit, changing suspensions out are a breeze. The entire brake assembly can be removed as a singular unit without dismantling it and that's the greatest concentration of complexity in the entire suspension system.

Enormously expensive is a grand reach. Suspension arms and components are among the least expensive to design and build. Hell, anyone of us could afford to buy the materials and make them. The thing to remember is that these corporations already own the autoclaves and all the equipment necessary to produce these components, yet they make it seem as though for every little thing they have to repurchase all new equipment and factor that into the cost to manufacture.

Same crap NONSENSE goes for front wings. As complex as they are in terms of controlling airflow, the production of them in and of itself should not exceed $5,000/ There's less than $3000 in materials yet each front wing costs an estimated $150,000. It really is gross overspending for no other reason that to waste money. However, as with any sport considered to be that of the wealthy elitists, somehow costs are just higher. It all goes back to what someone is willing to pay for something. Just as the watch thread we had going here a couple of years ago, Patek Philippe charges 11 arms and 17 legs for a time piece just because they decided that's what their $1200 worth of time and materials should sell for. Same applies here. At least with a watch you know it's going to be with you a long while. A front wing for an F1 car is literally a consumable with a limited life span. The notion that something that disposable costs that much is absurd.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Ok, so you are ignoring the key parts of the article I provided with the quotes of the teams members as to why they don't do it, the pros, cons, difficulties and the regs.

Are you seriously saying that Mercedes decided to sucrifice the slower GPs last year? Or Ferrari did the same in Spa or Japan? That they could have easily changed their wheelbase very cheaply, but they just mysteriously decided not to??? I am not following the reasoning I'm afraid


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Siao7 wrote:
Ok, so you are ignoring the key parts of the article I provided with the quotes of the teams members as to why they don't do it, the pros, cons, difficulties and the regs.

Are you seriously saying that Mercedes decided to sucrifice the slower GPs last year? Or Ferrari did the same in Spa or Japan? That they could have easily changed their wheelbase very cheaply, but they just mysteriously decided not to??? I am not following the reasoning I'm afraid

Yes I'd agree with you. When someone like Keys says:

“As an engineer, if you could afford to have wheelbase as a set-up change, you’d use it!” says Key. “You can’t – it would be enormously expensive and incredibly complicated – but there would be a small gain and at the moment in the midfield, half a tenth is making a difference in qualifying.

“You’d take a long-wheelbase car to places like Spa and Silverstone to get a couple of benefits for braking and maybe high-speed corners. The shorter cars have slightly more manoeuvrability in low speed and so in places like Singapore, Hungary and, of course, Monaco, you’d want a shorter one.”


then I don't see any grounds to contradict him on that. Clearly if it was simple and straightforward the teams would do it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.

So James Key specifically saying it's too complicated to do it isn't relevant?

It's 'easy' to swap out parts and re-use the same mounting points. But moving those mounting points around would require a whole new front end, which hasn't passed the safety tests. Remember the survival cell has to be homologated pre-season and cannot normally be changed, and always has to go through the FIA's tests again which is expensive and time-consuming. Take a piece of furniture you have at home, maybe a table. How easy is it to just bolt the legs on in a different place on Tuesday, then move them to a third location on Friday? The fixtures simply aren't there for that, and it wasn't designed with those modifications in mind. Now add the complications that the legs should have springs and shock absorbers which need recalibrating because the angles have changed. The steering column needs ripping out and replacing. The front wing angle, in part designed to wash air over the tyres rather than square into them, needs changing which will mess up the aero balance no end. Changing the wheelbase every weekend just isn't possible.

_________________
Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2913
Location: UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.

How about Red Bull?

Literally a NOTHING team for a decade under all their previous manufacturer names and then Red Bull buys them and the cars become more competitive and when the 2009 changes came into effect, they were off the pace of the Brawn but were quick to figure out how to better develop and evolve the DD and by midway of 2009, they had the best car, but didn't get things figured out quite soon enough to overcome Brawn's early dominance. The fact they field 4 cars has never been much of an issue yet now that Ferrari have a sort of Jr. Team the pot has suddenly become less black. ;)

Another team post 2009 that made a good leap up the field was Sauber.

Under BMW they were a solid team with arguably the best engine, but struggled to remain front runners until they pulled out. Then Peter swooped in and bought the team back to ensure the team would continue and no one would lose their job, and the first year as BMW/Sauber/Ferrari the car was just wrong. Just looking at it it was apparent the car would struggle to fight in the midfield. The following year however, Sauber produced a much improved car and sustained it the following year before ultimately struggling to produce a solid car, a trend that has continued through the end of 2017. This new Alfa-Romeo looks to be a slight improvement over last year, but with only one race in thus far, there's not enough running to assess if they have begun to crawl back up the order.

Before the 2009 regulation changes, Super Aguri was doing amazingly well and if you consider they were running year old chassis, what they were doing has to be the most impressive of any team the last 20 years, maybe more. Just sucks that A-holes completely sabotaged the team and saw to their demise.

Red Bull had a considerable amount of investment from their parent company. We're talking about 'fledgling teams' here but really I think it's more a question of how competitive any independent teams have managed to be in recent years, regardless of how long they've been around. I agree about Toro Rosso though and I've never been comfortable with Red Bull having a junior team; a friend of a friend works for Toro Rosso and I'm told they go to work in Milton Keynes.

Sauber finished 6th, 6th and 7th in the constructors' table over the period you mentioned, deposit the occasional podium in the tyre-lottery 2012 season they were hardly competitive with the top teams over the season.

Super Aguri did OK on a shoestring budget but they did have a complete customer car from Honda, all they had to do was set it up. As a small team punching above their weight I don't think it even begins to compare to what Force India have been doing recently. while designing the entire car themselves. But even they have twice the number of engineers that Haas have.


Anything there is no evidence of any wrongdoing from Haas. Their sudden jump up the field does look suspicious to me but maybe it is just a genuine case of them attaining an unprecedented level of performance relative to their budget in the current era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14198
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.

How about Red Bull?

Literally a NOTHING team for a decade under all their previous manufacturer names and then Red Bull buys them and the cars become more competitive and when the 2009 changes came into effect, they were off the pace of the Brawn but were quick to figure out how to better develop and evolve the DD and by midway of 2009, they had the best car, but didn't get things figured out quite soon enough to overcome Brawn's early dominance. The fact they field 4 cars has never been much of an issue yet now that Ferrari have a sort of Jr. Team the pot has suddenly become less black. ;)

Another team post 2009 that made a good leap up the field was Sauber.

Under BMW they were a solid team with arguably the best engine, but struggled to remain front runners until they pulled out. Then Peter swooped in and bought the team back to ensure the team would continue and no one would lose their job, and the first year as BMW/Sauber/Ferrari the car was just wrong. Just looking at it it was apparent the car would struggle to fight in the midfield. The following year however, Sauber produced a much improved car and sustained it the following year before ultimately struggling to produce a solid car, a trend that has continued through the end of 2017. This new Alfa-Romeo looks to be a slight improvement over last year, but with only one race in thus far, there's not enough running to assess if they have begun to crawl back up the order.

Before the 2009 regulation changes, Super Aguri was doing amazingly well and if you consider they were running year old chassis, what they were doing has to be the most impressive of any team the last 20 years, maybe more. Just sucks that A-holes completely sabotaged the team and saw to their demise.

Red Bull had a considerable amount of investment from their parent company. We're talking about 'fledgling teams' here but really I think it's more a question of how competitive any independent teams have managed to be in recent years, regardless of how long they've been around. I agree about Toro Rosso though and I've never been comfortable with Red Bull having a junior team; a friend of a friend works for Toro Rosso and I'm told they go to work in Milton Keynes.

Sauber finished 6th, 6th and 7th in the constructors' table over the period you mentioned, deposit the occasional podium in the tyre-lottery 2012 season they were hardly competitive with the top teams over the season.

Super Aguri did OK on a shoestring budget but they did have a complete customer car from Honda, all they had to do was set it up. As a small team punching above their weight I don't think it even begins to compare to what Force India have been doing recently. while designing the entire car themselves. But even they have twice the number of engineers that Haas have.


Anything there is no evidence of any wrongdoing from Haas. Their sudden jump up the field does look suspicious to me but maybe it is just a genuine case of them attaining an unprecedented level of performance relative to their budget in the current era.


Stewart was the one I was thinking of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2913
Location: UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
j man wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
This is not the first time a fledgling team develop a strong car.

Care to name any examples from recent years? I'm struggling to.

I wouldn't count Toyota given the budget they had available, they are not comparable to Haas at all.

How about Red Bull?

Literally a NOTHING team for a decade under all their previous manufacturer names and then Red Bull buys them and the cars become more competitive and when the 2009 changes came into effect, they were off the pace of the Brawn but were quick to figure out how to better develop and evolve the DD and by midway of 2009, they had the best car, but didn't get things figured out quite soon enough to overcome Brawn's early dominance. The fact they field 4 cars has never been much of an issue yet now that Ferrari have a sort of Jr. Team the pot has suddenly become less black. ;)

Another team post 2009 that made a good leap up the field was Sauber.

Under BMW they were a solid team with arguably the best engine, but struggled to remain front runners until they pulled out. Then Peter swooped in and bought the team back to ensure the team would continue and no one would lose their job, and the first year as BMW/Sauber/Ferrari the car was just wrong. Just looking at it it was apparent the car would struggle to fight in the midfield. The following year however, Sauber produced a much improved car and sustained it the following year before ultimately struggling to produce a solid car, a trend that has continued through the end of 2017. This new Alfa-Romeo looks to be a slight improvement over last year, but with only one race in thus far, there's not enough running to assess if they have begun to crawl back up the order.

Before the 2009 regulation changes, Super Aguri was doing amazingly well and if you consider they were running year old chassis, what they were doing has to be the most impressive of any team the last 20 years, maybe more. Just sucks that A-holes completely sabotaged the team and saw to their demise.

Red Bull had a considerable amount of investment from their parent company. We're talking about 'fledgling teams' here but really I think it's more a question of how competitive any independent teams have managed to be in recent years, regardless of how long they've been around. I agree about Toro Rosso though and I've never been comfortable with Red Bull having a junior team; a friend of a friend works for Toro Rosso and I'm told they go to work in Milton Keynes.

Sauber finished 6th, 6th and 7th in the constructors' table over the period you mentioned, deposit the occasional podium in the tyre-lottery 2012 season they were hardly competitive with the top teams over the season.

Super Aguri did OK on a shoestring budget but they did have a complete customer car from Honda, all they had to do was set it up. As a small team punching above their weight I don't think it even begins to compare to what Force India have been doing recently. while designing the entire car themselves. But even they have twice the number of engineers that Haas have.


Anything there is no evidence of any wrongdoing from Haas. Their sudden jump up the field does look suspicious to me but maybe it is just a genuine case of them attaining an unprecedented level of performance relative to their budget in the current era.


Stewart was the one I was thinking of.

:thumbup:

They came to mind for me as well, by their 3rd year in 1999 they looked quite respectable and finished 4th in the constructors' table, although they would have been 5th were it for the freak result in that crazy Nurburgring race. But looking back now it was quite a different era then, with effectively only 2 'manufacturer' teams receiving large investment from parent companies in Ferrari and McLaren (who were effectively the Mercedes works team at that time), so I don't think Stewart had that small a budget relative to the teams around them. I'm not sure it's comparable to what Haas have to compete against today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14198
No, I agree, it's not an exact replica. Trouble is since then there's barely been any proper new teams to compare it to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2913
Location: UK
Toro Rosso STR13 = 2017 Red Bull car? ;)

Anyway Haas did not look as competitive in Bahrain. My fears are allayed on this matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Tufty wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.

So James Key specifically saying it's too complicated to do it isn't relevant?

It's 'easy' to swap out parts and re-use the same mounting points. But moving those mounting points around would require a whole new front end, which hasn't passed the safety tests. Remember the survival cell has to be homologated pre-season and cannot normally be changed, and always has to go through the FIA's tests again which is expensive and time-consuming. Take a piece of furniture you have at home, maybe a table. How easy is it to just bolt the legs on in a different place on Tuesday, then move them to a third location on Friday? The fixtures simply aren't there for that, and it wasn't designed with those modifications in mind. Now add the complications that the legs should have springs and shock absorbers which need recalibrating because the angles have changed. The steering column needs ripping out and replacing. The front wing angle, in part designed to wash air over the tyres rather than square into them, needs changing which will mess up the aero balance no end. Changing the wheelbase every weekend just isn't possible.


All good points Tufty


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Miami, Florida
Tufty wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.

So James Key specifically saying it's too complicated to do it isn't relevant?

It's 'easy' to swap out parts and re-use the same mounting points. But moving those mounting points around would require a whole new front end, which hasn't passed the safety tests. Remember the survival cell has to be homologated pre-season and cannot normally be changed, and always has to go through the FIA's tests again which is expensive and time-consuming. Take a piece of furniture you have at home, maybe a table. How easy is it to just bolt the legs on in a different place on Tuesday, then move them to a third location on Friday? The fixtures simply aren't there for that, and it wasn't designed with those modifications in mind. Now add the complications that the legs should have springs and shock absorbers which need recalibrating because the angles have changed. The steering column needs ripping out and replacing. The front wing angle, in part designed to wash air over the tyres rather than square into them, needs changing which will mess up the aero balance no end. Changing the wheelbase every weekend just isn't possible.

WHY would you need to change mounting points? You can easily manufacture the arms with appropriate angles to change the wheelbase. Trust me, it really is that simple. You are overthinking the situation and Key is just speaking engineer dramatics 101. It's the same in my line of work. Can you change the eye color to blue instead of hazel and can you make the powder blue shirt orange? And people automatically explain why it's difficult and complex to do, but those of us who've been doing this for decades laugh at that notion and can do it in minutes. I'm not saying it takes minutes to swap out suspension components, but hey are EASILY accessible and don't have very many mounting points so it wouldn't take very long at all. I think the main hurdle teams and engineers have is the lack of testing. What works amazingly well on their scale models doesn't necessarily transfer over to the real thing, which is why teams trial so many parts on practice days that never see the light of day in most FP3's and never feature in actual races.

But suspension arms being specifically engineered to be aero neutral means that shifting their geometry to make the wheelbase longer or shorter shouldn't influence much if any performance of the cars.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 509
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Tufty wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.

So James Key specifically saying it's too complicated to do it isn't relevant?

It's 'easy' to swap out parts and re-use the same mounting points. But moving those mounting points around would require a whole new front end, which hasn't passed the safety tests. Remember the survival cell has to be homologated pre-season and cannot normally be changed, and always has to go through the FIA's tests again which is expensive and time-consuming. Take a piece of furniture you have at home, maybe a table. How easy is it to just bolt the legs on in a different place on Tuesday, then move them to a third location on Friday? The fixtures simply aren't there for that, and it wasn't designed with those modifications in mind. Now add the complications that the legs should have springs and shock absorbers which need recalibrating because the angles have changed. The steering column needs ripping out and replacing. The front wing angle, in part designed to wash air over the tyres rather than square into them, needs changing which will mess up the aero balance no end. Changing the wheelbase every weekend just isn't possible.

WHY would you need to change mounting points? You can easily manufacture the arms with appropriate angles to change the wheelbase. Trust me, it really is that simple. You are overthinking the situation and Key is just speaking engineer dramatics 101. It's the same in my line of work. Can you change the eye color to blue instead of hazel and can you make the powder blue shirt orange? And people automatically explain why it's difficult and complex to do, but those of us who've been doing this for decades laugh at that notion and can do it in minutes. I'm not saying it takes minutes to swap out suspension components, but hey are EASILY accessible and don't have very many mounting points so it wouldn't take very long at all. I think the main hurdle teams and engineers have is the lack of testing. What works amazingly well on their scale models doesn't necessarily transfer over to the real thing, which is why teams trial so many parts on practice days that never see the light of day in most FP3's and never feature in actual races.

But suspension arms being specifically engineered to be aero neutral means that shifting their geometry to make the wheelbase longer or shorter shouldn't influence much if any performance of the cars.

But shifting the wheelbase changes the aero flow past them, which in turn means the aero needs redoing to work with these new parameters, this is most likely to be the front wheels move (imo) which means the front wing would need adjusting to work with the new set up and this in turn affects aero the length of the car...

Simple to change the wheelbase, not to make it work well with the package


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
dompclarke wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Tufty wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Because they are bolt on pieces. Let's think about HOW MUCH is involved in replacing an entire drive train on an F1 car.

So James Key specifically saying it's too complicated to do it isn't relevant?

It's 'easy' to swap out parts and re-use the same mounting points. But moving those mounting points around would require a whole new front end, which hasn't passed the safety tests. Remember the survival cell has to be homologated pre-season and cannot normally be changed, and always has to go through the FIA's tests again which is expensive and time-consuming. Take a piece of furniture you have at home, maybe a table. How easy is it to just bolt the legs on in a different place on Tuesday, then move them to a third location on Friday? The fixtures simply aren't there for that, and it wasn't designed with those modifications in mind. Now add the complications that the legs should have springs and shock absorbers which need recalibrating because the angles have changed. The steering column needs ripping out and replacing. The front wing angle, in part designed to wash air over the tyres rather than square into them, needs changing which will mess up the aero balance no end. Changing the wheelbase every weekend just isn't possible.

WHY would you need to change mounting points? You can easily manufacture the arms with appropriate angles to change the wheelbase. Trust me, it really is that simple. You are overthinking the situation and Key is just speaking engineer dramatics 101. It's the same in my line of work. Can you change the eye color to blue instead of hazel and can you make the powder blue shirt orange? And people automatically explain why it's difficult and complex to do, but those of us who've been doing this for decades laugh at that notion and can do it in minutes. I'm not saying it takes minutes to swap out suspension components, but hey are EASILY accessible and don't have very many mounting points so it wouldn't take very long at all. I think the main hurdle teams and engineers have is the lack of testing. What works amazingly well on their scale models doesn't necessarily transfer over to the real thing, which is why teams trial so many parts on practice days that never see the light of day in most FP3's and never feature in actual races.

But suspension arms being specifically engineered to be aero neutral means that shifting their geometry to make the wheelbase longer or shorter shouldn't influence much if any performance of the cars.

But shifting the wheelbase changes the aero flow past them, which in turn means the aero needs redoing to work with these new parameters, this is most likely to be the front wheels move (imo) which means the front wing would need adjusting to work with the new set up and this in turn affects aero the length of the car...

Simple to change the wheelbase, not to make it work well with the package

It is not only Keys in that article, Lowe is lending his opinion as well. Plus, the article it mentions that there are strict weight distributions they have to adhere to. In the end of the day, if it was so simple, they wold have done it by now.

So, again, please explain why would they chose to compromise a race and risk losing easy points by not bolting on 2 pieces of suspension?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
Are you sure you're not talking about the wheel track? That could be changed more easily than wheel base with just a change of a few parts but would still affect more than just where the tires are relative to the chassis.

You're not going to change wheelbase by any significant amount simply by changing the A-arms front and/or rear. The mounting points for the front are fixed in the tub so by making the A-arms slanted either forward or aft will change the whole geometry of the suspension as well as the angle the steering arm attaches. The same goes for the rear but instead affecting the steering arms it's the half-shaft angle that'll be impacted. The whole thing would be even more of a compromise than running with a fixed wheelbase and therefore meaningless.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: F1_Ernie, sandman1347 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group