Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
I have no doubt that while the Soviets learned quite a bit during the process of reverse engineering, the American's would have had all of the research data (what worked, what didn't work) that lead up to the design of the B-29 and would have had a much better understanding of "why" it worked. So when it's replacement was to be created, the Americans would have been in a better position from a knowledge perspective.
Back to F1...
Given the cars are viewable it is hard to hide aero details. Everyone is reverse engineering the other guys solutions. Some may copy the solution very well, get great performance, but not be able to replicate it again on a slightly different scenario (i.e. next years car, or this years car with mid season aero tweaks). Or they may replicate it and even convince themselves that they do understand how it works (CFD analysis all looks good!), but then it doesn't perform as expected on track. Some detail (knowledge) remains hidden from them.
|
Fascinating stuff, Richard. Yes, I can see that if there is an apparent must-have feature, such as a mass damper or a double diffuser (some releatively recent examples that spring to mind), many copy, but that doesn't mean the performance will carry through into next year's design or even this year's, because if they also lack detailed understanding of how it works in harmony with the rest of the design, it may not have the performance benefit of those teams that have been successful witrh it.
In a way, the traditionalist in me finds it great that sometimes, to quote you here in the first instance, 'CFD analysis all looks good!', and then 'it didn't have the results we expected on the track'. It's as though computing power will only get you so far and many other minds will help. Which brings me to..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
Lastly, the entirety of the knowledge required to make a top notch F1 car is so immense that it no longer can be driven by a single "genius". I expect most who work on the design are very much domain experts in their given area. So for this reason alone, I am doubtful of a single player moving to a team and turning things around. The one exception to that is if the problem is management. One person who is both empowered and has the resources to make change can have a large impact.
|
This is a difference from the days of a Colin Chapman, a Gordon Murray or even an Adrian Newey (I say 'even', because I hypothesise if aerodynamics still a sufficiently mysterious process that a great aerodynamicist can make the difference?) in that you have this amalgamation of so many talents and it makes it difficult for us to identify the biggest architects of that success. In this way, one of the many Mercedes world champions of last year was a little-known guy at a laptop back at base in Brackley.
The management issue is one reason I am in two minds about Williams and whether Paddy Lowe is/was the issue or if Williams have been lacking this sauce for many years now and have been going round and round without much of a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl
|
I had a dream last night that there were many passes in the Spanish Grand Prix, including one for the lead, so here's hoping.
