BlindCaveSalamander wrote:Don't worry, I'm sure your complaining on various topics, such as people who dislike Vettel, is a source of annoyance for other people too. That aside, I have to agree with you here - I'm not sure that random attack was entirely called for, especially considering that the article seemed pretty informative to me.

billy wrote:Just spotted this on Autosport:
Hah!
Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:billy wrote:Just spotted this on Autosport:
Hah!
Are they trying to say that prior to this their car couldn't turn a corner?





Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:
Peter wrote:I mean, they changed almost everything.
Ferrim wrote:Just before qualifying and they don't look any faster than Hispania. They said they would gain 2 secs a lap... did they mean 0.2 secs?
thehemogoblin wrote:Phoenix wrote:Showed this forum to a friend that actually cares about F1, hasn't registered so far despite saying he liked it. What have I done wrong?
We're weird.
watka wrote:Just my 2 cents. Expecting a hailstorm from a certain AndreaModa...
AndreaModa wrote:watka wrote:Just my 2 cents. Expecting a hailstorm from a certain AndreaModa...
Hehe don't worry I'm not DonTirri![]()
watka wrote:seriously, who aside from Gran Turismo players had heard of the C8 Laviotte before Spyker came into F1?
dinizintheoven wrote:watka wrote:seriously, who aside from Gran Turismo players had heard of the C8 Laviotte before Spyker came into F1?
I did. At least, I knew of Spyker because the C8 had been od Top Gear and in at least one automotive magazine I'd been reading. And my reaction to Spyker trying to run an F1 team was repeated a few years later when they took over Saab: "hang on... they're doing what?"
I don't remember ever playing Gran Turismo in my life.
This wrote:People who follewed the GT2 category in le mans used to know the increasingly competetive spyker C8's, until the F1 project, then the GT2 car started to fall behind again, was sold to some swiss team (with reject chiesa as a driver), and then to the russians
probably that being able to be competitive against porsche and ferrari give them the thought that they could do more. It failed obviously. Instead it think they just should have made a GT1 car back then, that would have been a better start, and than slowly climb up the ladder (lmp2, than lmp1, and when they got that right, it should be time for F1)
Jordan192 wrote:This wrote:People who follewed the GT2 category in le mans used to know the increasingly competetive spyker C8's, until the F1 project, then the GT2 car started to fall behind again, was sold to some swiss team (with reject chiesa as a driver), and then to the russians
probably that being able to be competitive against porsche and ferrari give them the thought that they could do more. It failed obviously. Instead it think they just should have made a GT1 car back then, that would have been a better start, and than slowly climb up the ladder (lmp2, than lmp1, and when they got that right, it should be time for F1)
Partly. I certainly knew Spyker from their GT programme, and as much as I loved the car I'm not sure i'd ever have attached the word 'competitive' to it. I'd certainly always considered them a reject-equivalent GT operation before going into F1, which made their decision to go into F1 so much more baffling.
AndreaModa wrote:Latest news from team leader Glock and true to form he's a little pessimistic!
Glock concerned about Virgin's form
Also interesting is the speculation that the technical side is about to be overhauled. That would make Virgin the second team to do so in 2011 after Williams, and I suppose it's hardly surprising. What will be interesting to see is where Nick Wirth is left in all of this. We know that Williams are shedding key personnel at the end of the year, perhaps some may move up the M40 to Banbury to work for Wirth and Virgin? Could anyone see Sam Michael in a prominent position, potentially even replacing Wirth as the main man on the technical side? Pat Symonds also is currently working as an advisor to the team and I think will be stepping up his involvement over the year as the time nears when his ban ends on working in the sport. There's plenty of potential there to put together a much stronger technical team than the one Virgin currently has, so maybe that's what the top brass have in mind?
Lots of questions, and as ever it's all only speculation, but I don't think the team can carry on the way they are with no changes to the team setup. I just hope that they get some decent dry running at Barcelona and get the upgrades dialled in.
Martin Brundle, at the 2005 San Marino GP wrote:You can sort of imagine in four or five years time talking about these guys we've got on the front two rows of the grid today, can't you? They're very much the future of Grand Prix Racing.
Wizzie wrote:Nick Wirth has gone home. One down, two to go for the hattrick
GroupLotusRenault wrote:Wizzie wrote:Nick Wirth has gone home. One down, two to go for the hattrick
Sounds like Simtek all over again....
Martin Brundle, at the 2005 San Marino GP wrote:You can sort of imagine in four or five years time talking about these guys we've got on the front two rows of the grid today, can't you? They're very much the future of Grand Prix Racing.
Ferrim wrote:I would include Bernie Ecclestone there as well. Let's go for the poker!
Martin Brundle, at the 2005 San Marino GP wrote:You can sort of imagine in four or five years time talking about these guys we've got on the front two rows of the grid today, can't you? They're very much the future of Grand Prix Racing.
Jordan192 wrote:Virgin parts company with Wirth
DanielPT wrote:So they drop Wirth and the much talked CFD-only model. The question is, were they ahead of their time?
Virgin now searches for a technology partner (McLaren looking likely) and a new technical base which is said to be the one in Leafield that was used by Arrows and SUPA AGURI. I like this. There is plenty of potential over there.
mario wrote:Jordan192 wrote:Virgin parts company with WirthDanielPT wrote:So they drop Wirth and the much talked CFD-only model. The question is, were they ahead of their time?
Virgin now searches for a technology partner (McLaren looking likely) and a new technical base which is said to be the one in Leafield that was used by Arrows and SUPA AGURI. I like this. There is plenty of potential over there.
Perhaps - CFD is very powerful when used well, and can model situations that a wind tunnel cannot easily, or simply cannot, do (such as exhaust gas flow, transient flows and so on), and as many teams have shown us over the past five or so years (Honda, Renault, Williams and now Ferrari), wind tunnels themselves can produced flawed data if your calibration is incorrect. However, the age old question is going to be validation of your CFD model - in other words, having a way of checking that the behaviour of your virtual model ties up closely with real world results.
There, I think that Virgin Racing have fallen down - without a wind tunnel, and lacking the sophisticated test equipment that the major outfits like McLaren have (remember all those flow measuring devices we saw in the pre-season testing), how are you going to validate your models?
GroupLotusRenault wrote:mario wrote:Jordan192 wrote:Virgin parts company with WirthDanielPT wrote:So they drop Wirth and the much talked CFD-only model. The question is, were they ahead of their time?
Virgin now searches for a technology partner (McLaren looking likely) and a new technical base which is said to be the one in Leafield that was used by Arrows and SUPA AGURI. I like this. There is plenty of potential over there.
Perhaps - CFD is very powerful when used well, and can model situations that a wind tunnel cannot easily, or simply cannot, do (such as exhaust gas flow, transient flows and so on), and as many teams have shown us over the past five or so years (Honda, Renault, Williams and now Ferrari), wind tunnels themselves can produced flawed data if your calibration is incorrect. However, the age old question is going to be validation of your CFD model - in other words, having a way of checking that the behaviour of your virtual model ties up closely with real world results.
There, I think that Virgin Racing have fallen down - without a wind tunnel, and lacking the sophisticated test equipment that the major outfits like McLaren have (remember all those flow measuring devices we saw in the pre-season testing), how are you going to validate your models?
CFD is a future of a kind system which will take over windtunnels soon as its much cheaper to run and use. However I am not sure if a small outfit like Virgin are capabile of running it 100% unless a big team like Mclaren (very unlikey this) dont use a windtunnel and just use CFD.
mario wrote:GroupLotusRenault wrote:mario wrote:Perhaps - CFD is very powerful when used well, and can model situations that a wind tunnel cannot easily, or simply cannot, do (such as exhaust gas flow, transient flows and so on), and as many teams have shown us over the past five or so years (Honda, Renault, Williams and now Ferrari), wind tunnels themselves can produced flawed data if your calibration is incorrect. However, the age old question is going to be validation of your CFD model - in other words, having a way of checking that the behaviour of your virtual model ties up closely with real world results.
There, I think that Virgin Racing have fallen down - without a wind tunnel, and lacking the sophisticated test equipment that the major outfits like McLaren have (remember all those flow measuring devices we saw in the pre-season testing), how are you going to validate your models?
CFD is a future of a kind system which will take over windtunnels soon as its much cheaper to run and use. However I am not sure if a small outfit like Virgin are capabile of running it 100% unless a big team like Mclaren (very unlikey this) dont use a windtunnel and just use CFD.
Whilst I do not rule out CFD becoming the primary testing method in the longer term, due to ever tighter resource restrictions, I'm not sure if wind tunnels will be totally phased out for some time yet - probably in part because some teams will think "better the devil you know". I think that there would be some disquiet, especially from the older engineers who may be more used to wind tunnel testing, about placing such a heavy emphasis on what is ultimately a "black box" system (i.e. you cannot see how the software comes up with those results, only the data inputs and the final results) without a means of verifying those results. Wind tunnels have the psychologically important factor that you can visualise the flow, and see what is happening - it may not be producing the right results, but at least it looks like it is producing the right results.
As I've said before, CFD does have major advantages in some areas compared to wind tunnel testing, and it is true that in some instances CFD does produce good results - take, for example, BMW-Sauber. The F1.07 and F1.08 were relatively competitive cars, both of which took advantage of the significantly increased CFD capabilities that BMW-Sauber had, once BMW upgraded Sauber's computer facilities - and it's partially down to their intensive CFD program that the F1.08 featured a particularly distinctive triple element front wing design.
That said, to begin with that front wing design did prove to be troublesome on track - it was rumoured to suffer from flow separation problems at medium speed, causing sudden changes in front end grip and aero balance, requiring a lot of on track testing before finally getting the front wing design to work properly.
Return to The Paul Stoddart Memorial Forum
Users browsing this forum: CarlosFerreira, CoopsII, Google [Bot] and 4 guests