Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Rob Marshall (CD), Peter Prodromou (HA), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Daniel Ricciardo (3), Sébastian Buemi (Reserve), António Félix Da Costa (Reserve)
Team name: Infiniti Red Bull Racing
So far a clear no, without (obviously) ruling out future findings as lots of (other) checks have to be ticked off. This leads me to the question how AMUS, generally one of most reliable ones, came up with such an article? They clearly implied that Vettel said the bit about the chassis by the way the parts were set. We will see how things go on from there, but so far it doesn't reflect well on AMUS...The 'old' chassis has not been found to be distorted," chief engineer Paul Monaghan said in response to a query.
"The investigation is ongoing as the extent of the checks is vast in order to be thorough. No one error can be considered an entire explanation and requires further work to that completed prior to and within the Spanish GP.
"Changes to some ancillary equipment and preparation procedures has resulted from the checks made thus far," Monaghan added.
"Once all the information is available, Red Bull will address the points found in order to implement a complete solution."
You should not miss the different meanings of "chassis" when you judge hard.H2H wrote:So that it everybody can easily see and find the relevant part I link directly to the Reuters UK article, which has the following answer by Paul Monaghan.
So far a clear no, without (obviously) ruling out future findings as lots of (other) checks have to be ticked off. This leads me to the question how AMUS, generally one of most reliable ones, came up with such an article? They clearly implied that Vettel said the bit about the chassis by the way the parts were set. We will see how things go on from there, but so far it doesn't reflect well on AMUS...The 'old' chassis has not been found to be distorted," chief engineer Paul Monaghan said in response to a query.
"The investigation is ongoing as the extent of the checks is vast in order to be thorough. No one error can be considered an entire explanation and requires further work to that completed prior to and within the Spanish GP.
"Changes to some ancillary equipment and preparation procedures has resulted from the checks made thus far," Monaghan added.
"Once all the information is available, Red Bull will address the points found in order to implement a complete solution."
Trust is hard to gain and easy to lose, they should know it...
True as it may be, it would not explain RB's quality control and/or operations control at actual racing weekend.You should not miss the different meanings of "chassis" when you judge hard.
Paul Monaghan is possibly talking about the pure survival cell as the "chassis". Whereas the first measurements were possibly done on the whole "chassis" at the wheelhubs. This would give the answer why they could not find the problem before: At the track the aligning is not done under load, whereas in the factory they have tools to measure the whole car under load.
Maybe even the change of the gearbox helped the rear axle more than the change of the survival cell. This would be even a better reason for not matching rear axle settings as the survival cell ends in front of the engine.
Here you can see which tools are used for wheel alignment at the track:XRayF1 wrote:True as it may be, it would not explain RB's quality control and/or operations control at actual racing weekend.You should not miss the different meanings of "chassis" when you judge hard.
Paul Monaghan is possibly talking about the pure survival cell as the "chassis". Whereas the first measurements were possibly done on the whole "chassis" at the wheelhubs. This would give the answer why they could not find the problem before: At the track the aligning is not done under load, whereas in the factory they have tools to measure the whole car under load.
Maybe even the change of the gearbox helped the rear axle more than the change of the survival cell. This would be even a better reason for not matching rear axle settings as the survival cell ends in front of the engine.
While I may accept that a thorough investigation about a 'chassis distortion' may not have happened during the first few races, I would think that RB has to take measurements (at wheelbase, at the joints, etc.) each time the car is unloaded from the trailer.
I mean, a trailer and a plane is not a stable environment, a lot of vabriations for sure, and RB would have to check this again and again, if VET kept complaining about the behaviour of the car.
You can believe what you want to believe. Feel free.XRayF1 wrote: To me it sounds more as a convenient excuse for VET's reputation.
On the other hand, he may have to prove now that it was indeed the car and not him.
RedBull use a piece of string. I will try to find some pictures when I get to the computer.djos wrote:What rubbish, most of the teams have been using laser alignment at the track for years!
All the laser alignment in the world will not detect a chassis defect because the ride height, camber, caster and toe adjustments will hide any problems exactly as they are designed to do.djos wrote:What rubbish, most of the teams have been using laser alignment at the track for years!
