95 - 02 F1 Tech
Discussion
With you working on different cars, do you see uniquely designed parts that appeared on one car (for example a Williams) that then appeared on a different team (eg Benneton)in a later iteration of their car?
Just wondering how much blatant copying goes off between teams? Obviously we all see Adrian Newey always walking up and down the grid at the start of race, but do things get picked up from such simple observations?
Just wondering how much blatant copying goes off between teams? Obviously we all see Adrian Newey always walking up and down the grid at the start of race, but do things get picked up from such simple observations?
Markytop said:
With you working on different cars, do you see uniquely designed parts that appeared on one car (for example a Williams) that then appeared on a different team (eg Benneton)in a later iteration of their car?
Just wondering how much blatant copying goes off between teams? Obviously we all see Adrian Newey always walking up and down the grid at the start of race, but do things get picked up from such simple observations?
Generally the pace of change was so fast that one component which provided an advantage on one chassis would be so out of date the following year it would be better to have designed from scratch. There are some components such as hydraulic pumps, control valves etc. etc. which are common across nearly all the cars and were produced by one manufacturer so you see common installations between cars quite often, especially if they ran common engines.Just wondering how much blatant copying goes off between teams? Obviously we all see Adrian Newey always walking up and down the grid at the start of race, but do things get picked up from such simple observations?
Mid season upgrades were for the most part aero related so this is what Newey and the rest of the bunch go spotting for, specifically who is changing what where to give an idea of any issues they may be attempting to resolve. Current F1 teams are essentially running different cars race on race with guys at the factory working flat out between (and during!) races to maximise performance.
To suggest that any blatant copying goes on is really doing a disservice to the hundreds of dedicated guys that are responsible for designing and developing these cars. Yes there has been the odd scandal but honestly the chaps would rather compete than copy!
Have you looked after two cars from the same team from the same year, and if so did you see any differences? For example, Vettel has been light years ahead of Webber for the last couple of years and there is the suspicion that Vettel's car might have extra/different bits on it (something that was muttered during Schumacher's early career). Are team mate cars always exactly the same in your experience?
Eidolon said:
Have you looked after two cars from the same team from the same year, and if so did you see any differences? For example, Vettel has been light years ahead of Webber for the last couple of years and there is the suspicion that Vettel's car might have extra/different bits on it (something that was muttered during Schumacher's early career). Are team mate cars always exactly the same in your experience?
Yes we run a 98 and 2000 two car team. The cars are for the most part identical but were originally built and run by two different teams of engineers, as such there are always little differences in working practices etc. that you spot. Some like to mark fasteners differently, some will cable tie etc. in a certain way, there are quite often differences in loom and hose runs due to the engineers personal preference. They are surprisingly personal things when you get into them and a lot of the personality of who was number 1 on it back in the day comes over.In competition it is not unusual for two cars to run different setups/aero etc. to suit driver preference or if you have a "B" seat to test a component/take a flyer on something. The cars do generally remain pretty similar though.
Great thread!
My question...
Have you worked on any cars which, at the time, were running far down the field, but in reality should have been doing a lot better? Or to put in another way, are there any cars that you have worked on and thought "This car looks ahead of the game compared to the others - why did it do so badly?"
My question...
Have you worked on any cars which, at the time, were running far down the field, but in reality should have been doing a lot better? Or to put in another way, are there any cars that you have worked on and thought "This car looks ahead of the game compared to the others - why did it do so badly?"
Vaud said:
Many thanks for this posting, great insights.
Are there many engines that use very exotic materials - I'm thinking of the increased use of things like beryllium/boralyn in the later 00's - but was there much in the 95-02 era? Anything you have to be really careful with?
Not from our point of view as our engines are still built and supported by the same guys/companies that did them back in the day so we keep away from the internals - you really do need specialised kit to look after them so there is no point taking a flyer on anything! BC valve seats etc. became necessary due to Ti valves requiring the "compliance" in the seat to avoid work hardening etc. but for the most part they're pretty normal materials wise. Cast ally blocks and heads, most covers and pump castings are magnesium or carbon. Fluid transfer is usual carbon on the engine and carbon or mandrel bent ally on the car side. Are there many engines that use very exotic materials - I'm thinking of the increased use of things like beryllium/boralyn in the later 00's - but was there much in the 95-02 era? Anything you have to be really careful with?
Generally when they're static they're nice easy things to get along with, it's only when they're running that they try to kill you
Our new coffee tables/power for 2014 arrived this morning:
phil1979 said:
Great thread!
My question...
Have you worked on any cars which, at the time, were running far down the field, but in reality should have been doing a lot better? Or to put in another way, are there any cars that you have worked on and thought "This car looks ahead of the game compared to the others - why did it do so badly?"
Some of the Minardis - okay I'm biased but the M01 and M02 were brilliant cars, excellent packaging and truly nice designs but hampered with old Cosworth power and very little wind tunnel testing (they had days to the other teams weeks). The M02 with more aero development and a current or works engine package would have been extremely competitive. Without a doubt the most impressive cars we work with are the Minardis because we know just how little budget they had compared to everyone else and to achieve what they did with that is seriously impressive. Many teams had budget and designed a "bad" car, Minardi never had budget yet consistently designed a "good" car. Plus GC is genuinely a lovely guy - and you can't say that about many other TO's/TP's!My question...
Have you worked on any cars which, at the time, were running far down the field, but in reality should have been doing a lot better? Or to put in another way, are there any cars that you have worked on and thought "This car looks ahead of the game compared to the others - why did it do so badly?"
The BARs do leave you occasionally thinking 'should have done better' because elements of them were very clever indeed. The Toyotas are an interesting thing as well because they had budget, all the budget the could ever want, yet because they shunned established F1 suppliers to produce as much in house as possible essentially went through an awful lot of money whilst still being months behind everyone else who phoned Brembo for some calipers and AP/Sachs for a clutch
It's admirable to try that but sometimes you do just need to call the British people in an industrial unit because you may have more budget but they have 200 years of combined experience making "widget A"Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff