just to give some insight.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/gloucestershire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8305000/8305240.stm
Bow, was that 'Sally' at about 0:27 in the second vid? Didn't realise he'd gone back if it is? Brian How's the grind holding up for you?? I sure couldn't do it again.
Also shows why Williams are not winning, ie: Last time I watched a race the cars were dirty by lap 10 and thus they should be testing a realistic and dirty car NOT a clean one as I'm pretty sure the races are about 70 laps long! Especially if it rains in a race the cars are filthy very quickly. Idiots! Pete
It's about repeatability and having the environment as constant as possible. All teams set up their cars on scales and set up pads, the cars never see anything as smooth and level as that. So they are all idiots according to you??
Possibly, as the goal is to win a real race on a real race track. I guess this just shows that we need to reinstate real testing so these theoretical "idiots" can get real again. Pete
I was hoping to see some acceleration testing results, but I guess that remains top secret or at least elusive, even decades after the season. I recall seeing a full road test of a turbo Benetton B186 F1 in Road & Track from '86 resulting in a 9.4 sec 1/4 mile @ 169 mph using race boost and all the other parameters like handing and braking were massive of course. I bet the fastest of the 3.0L V-10s could have chopped 1.5 seconds off that. Quali boost for the turbo could have probably done the same!
So you'd feel comfortable getting onboard a plane thrown together? They rarely fly in steady state air, shouldn't matter if the wings are a little off skew.... You need to call the teams, tell them you have a brilliant way to save them money! Heck, tell Roger Penske how he should have won every race instead of wasting time setting the car up and 'lucking' into the ones he did. You have NO clue.
Mate where are you coming from?. I never said that. All I said is that they should test real world conditions, ie. not a perfectly clean car. I never said the car should be unfit for racing ... confused? This testing reminds me of the Ford Cosworth v8 (the F1 engine) powered Le Mans car that never was as successful as it should have been. One of the reasons was because when they tested the aero on it they taped up all the doors gaps, etc. and also lowered the car to a height that could never have been used on a race track. So naturally it had potential that was never realised. Again you should test the car 100% as it actually races, but yes in perfect condition. But if a dirty car affects aero they should design the wings, etc. for being a little bit dirty if that is actually possible (and yes I don't know the answer here). But I do understand if they are looking for back to back comparisons they need to ensure everything is exactly the same ... just sounded silly saying that a dirty wing affected the aero and then they cleaned it ... nobody cleans them every lap in a race. Pete ps: Nobody should assume people are experts and beyond questioning no matter how good their job position. Some of the best ideas come from people not immersed in the field because they have a more open perspective. Heck I can back that up with my years as a mechanical designer and now IT field.
