Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2014

[Cam]

Some folks just have 0 imagination!

And 0 balls to admit it, when they're wrong. Too many times on here we see pages of back and forth, only for a definitive answer to emerge and then a big fat zero acknowledgement by the handful of members who vehemently opposed said post.

That's fine normally, but when voting is attributed, that raises questions.

It seems to be certain members only rate stock image posts and copy/pasta text from another sites. Any attempt to provide original content or an alternative view, is rarely thoroughly considered and often down voted into oblivion. Certainly the first reaction is to attack.

This is where my exasperation of the short sightedness of a technical forum stems. A place to learn, that generally punishes anything other than reading from the gospel.

[djos]

EDIT: all sorted.

[Tim.Wright]

Cam,

This whole argument has blown up because of a misunderstanding. When you said:

"There's no reason the formula could not mandate some form of 3D printing"

and then

"I can certainly see teams printing new wings in between practice sessions"

You were not talking about the future. You added that caveat AFTER it was pointed out to you that what you propose is unrealistic. At which point you exploded into argument and shot an abusive private message my way (nice form). In fact I was surprised at how badly you reacted to it.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that in the distant future parts could concievably be made at the track in minutes whether via RP technology or something else yet to be discovered. But we are not talking of the near future here. The possibility to press a button and produce a wing assy from scratch at a test track within a couple of hours is still many years away.

So when people point this out to you, it is not short sightedness or zero imagination. It is a realistic evaluation that in the short to medium term what you originally proposed is not possible. And it seems that even you agree with this.

In the distant future? Sure, its possible. Anything's possible. And I also agree with you there. Is that what you wanted to hear?

[Cam]

Cam,

This whole argument has blown up because of a misunderstanding. When you said:

"There's no reason the formula could not mandate some form of 3D printing"

and then

"I can certainly see teams printing new wings in between practice sessions"

You were not talking about the future. You added that caveat AFTER it was pointed out to you that what you propose is unrealistic. At which point you exploded into argument and shot an abusive private message my way (nice form). In fact I was surprised at how badly you reacted to it.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that in the distant future parts could concievably be made at the track in minutes whether via RP technology or something else yet to be discovered. But we are not talking of the near future here. The possibility to press a button and produce a wing assy from scratch at a test track within a couple of hours is still many years away.

So when people point this out to you, it is not short sightedness or zero imagination. It is a realistic evaluation that in the short to medium term what you originally proposed is not possible. And it seems that even you agree with this.

In the distant future? Sure, its possible. Anything's possible. And I also agree with you there. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Let's look at the oringal post in it's entirety shall we?

F1 is a competition based on a 'formula'. A set of rules. They can be serious, such as ensuring survival cells for drivers, or ridiculous, such as homogleration of engines. There's no reason why the formula could not mandate some form of 3D printing. It truly is the future. People are making weapons out of it. Within a few years household printers will be making furniture. So it's not that far fetched to forward think to solutions of high performance chassis, aero, rims etc.

Sometimes, mandating can be a good thing. I ca certainly see teams printing new wings in between Practice sessions.

What part of that context was 'in the now'? At what point did I say any of the words "today, now, immediately, next race, at this minute" etc? The whole post was a theoretical concept.

You and your mate cold fussion, could have said "demonstrate how that is possible at a current race". Instead, you both called my mentality in to question and went straight for the negative rebuke with the context "how dare you suggest such things".

Tim, you a few others, have this position where any opinion not pulled directly from a manual, is wrong. It's not that you question it, it's how you question it. Then, when shown you may have been mistaken, you pull stumps and bug out.

Don't throw this back to me. I'm happy to proven wrong and have gone on the recored here many times correcting my own posts. All I ask is the respect to be returned, otherwise.... bugger it eh?

[Cam]

Finally, as I'm moving on, while I realise there are some really smart and knowledgeable people on here - those people have a responsibility in this situation. Imagine a 13 year kid popping up as a new member and asking a silly question, only to be told from a long term and/or high rated member "you're delusional" or words to that effect.

Not everyone is as smart as you. If you really want people to learn, to improve, to participate, we all should find a way to communicate that in a way that achieves this.

I'm not worried about new members. This forum is not shy at all when it comes to quickly pointing out mistakes. Newbies will just have to read along and draw their own conclusions like we all did back in the old days (when we had to walk to and from school, uphill both ways, with no shoes, and through 3' of snow in 100°F heat).

It's this kind of thing that really epitomises arrogance in an open forum situation. Did your teachers have that same view when they passed their knowledge to you? How nice is must be up there.

To all the fellow people out there looking to further your knowledge - GFY. That seems to be the motto.

[Wayne DR]

Guys, this is all way off topic and not really constructive.

All teams currently use 5 axis machines to produce moulds for their carbon fibre manufacture, and 3D printers to print 60% scale model plastic components for trial in their wind tunnels.

Yes, 3D printing of metals is cutting edge, and whist F1 teams spend significant amounts on research and development, they spend it in a way that they know will produce a returns (based on past experience).

For one of them to stop foundry works, and start 3D printing components is a massive financial and resource investment that will not reduce lap times, which is their goal.


My definition of an F1 Car is: The current version of components strewn around the garage floor that, when assembled, create a race car that conforms to that specific Team's Head Designer's interpretation of the current FIA Technical and Sporting Regulations, with the specific purpose of winning the Formula 1 World Championship for that year.

The cars are changing that much now, due to track specific aero packages and mid-season developments that the cars can look completely different from one weekend to the next. Red Bull admitted on one of their Youtube videos last year that they make 1,000 design changes to the car per week on average (30,000 per season!). 3D printing metallic components will make this far worse, as it will further reduce the design-manufacture timeframe!


I do see 3D printing as the future, but would like to see some sensible constraints around its use, or at least limits on R&D.

[Cam]

Agree it's years off, but that's all, not decades.

The great thing that F1 can do for the planet, is to promote advancements in technology - the cutting edge. Let's look at Carbon Fibre:

We pioneered the use of carbon fibre in Formula 1™ and in production road cars. Our knowledge and experience of carbon fibre is unrivalled and our success with it is unmatched. For over 30 years, every car we have made has had carbon fibre at its core.

It took 4,000 hours to make each carbon fibre chassis on the McLaren F1. Twenty years of innovation later, it takes just 4 hours to produce the MonoCell at the heart of the 12C.

Cool. There's a direct link between a technology that was slow and difficult to use in real world racing situations, yet was developed by F1 into what we have now. Plus, that translated into road production. I can even buy a carbon fibre push bike now! Awesome.

We have to start somewhere and F1 'should' be the perfect platform to introduce new building techniques - I mean, it is a 'constructors' championship, isn't it?

Curiously:

(Ian Prince, Rapid Prototyping Manager for Caterham) Other F1 teams, including Infiniti Red Bull, are also using 3D printing technology to manufacture metal parts on racing cars in the ongoing scrum to take the checkered flag.

"Give it another five years and it will take off massively," Prince said. "We're using 3D printing on our full-scale car already. There will be no boundaries on what you can make out of 3D printed metal."

[Juzh]

Vettel's retirement was supposedly a caused by an FIA related software issue according to renault. Equipment forced upon you by the regulating body causing dnfs is simply unacceptable.

source: tj13

Renault further reiterates Austria issues were not their problems:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 41017.html

So, we're back to the fia again.

[Cam]

yep, it's farcical, but it does illustrate how there's a way around everything and a change of regs wouldn't prevent it - without also preventing or hindering new engine manufactures coming on-board. You could sell the IP every 3 months if you wanted. Red Bull don't sell engines, so what would it matter what their engine is called. You could have the "Marko Big Block", followed by the "Honer Special", followed by the "Newey Bluey" all within 3 months of each other - all legal under the regs and all of it helping the Red Bull brand. It's actually really smart.

It appears it's not so straight forward to simply buy an engine manufacturer, re-badge the block and bypass the regs, so I stand corrected.

And he said Red Bull taking over Renault would not allow the reigning world champions to simply re-badge the current power unit and dodge the restrictive homologation - or development 'freeze' - that is holding back progress.

"It is not possible to stick another name on the cylinder head and start from scratch. Even Honda can't do exactly as they want," White explained.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/no-in ... renault-2/

There was no elaboration on exactly why that wouldn't work. I might have to delve into the regs more to find out why.

[gandharva]

So Renault Sport F1 director Jean-Michel Jalinier gets replaced by Cyril Abiteboul (ex. Caterham). Official statement is expected for tomorrow. Abiteboul has a very close relationship to Horner. There are rumors that Mario Illien and AVL ar going to help designing the 2015 Renault powertrain under supervision of Adrian Newey as boss of the RBR technology centre.

So no new Infinity engine but a Renault engine designed by RBR and it's partners.

[hattrick]

-from "2014 British GP - Silverstone"

Isn't it about time for people to admit that Vettel just isn't as good as his 4 consecutive WDCs would suggest?

I don't buy into this whole notion that he STILL has to be given more time to adjust to the current formula to really judge. I mean how long is reasonable to give someone who is supposed to be one of the very best drivers in the world to adapt to a car? I might be being a bit harsh but I'd say 4-5 laps, maybe stretch that to 40-50 laps if we're talking about extracting the maximum out of the car. He's had thousands of km with the car now, done hundreds of laps. I'm sorry but if I'm running a racing team and it takes you the best part of a season to get used to a car then I'd be looking at other drivers.

I'm starting to think along these lines as well.

Seb had 16 laps more in FP2, and despite Daniel saying he couldn't get heat into the front tyres he's still ahead by a tenth.
The excuse that he still needs time to adapt is a little tired now.

One thing I've heard mentioned time and time again is that Sebastian would often struggle to set the car up, so would steal, (for want of a better word), Webber's.
If that is true, is it possible that Daniel's preferred set up just doesn't suit Vettel ?
Could this be contributing to his struggles, or too far fetched ?

Daniel has a lot more miles on the RB10 in contrast to Vettel, which is certainly one of the factors of its better adaptability and success with this chassis.
It also has a certain momentum against colleagues for the same reasons, while Vettel at that time has a very frequent problems with his bolide, it is certainly demotivating and bad for establishing Vettel's pace of competition. But regardless of all he should not just written off, regardless of these differences. When he stacked all the cards I'm sure they will show their aggressiveness, although his need for that on the this season is minimal.

gossip:
Perhaps the reason these Vettel "accidents" is a Helmut RB Junior plan to bring in RB promising team opportunity D. Kvyat.
There is also the possibility that in the RB overheard some kind of agreement between Vettel and Lauda about moving to Mercedes, and the whole focus fell on Ricciardo.

[Kingshark]

Red Bull were 1 second/lap slower than Mercedes in Spain and the clear 2nd best car.
Come to Silverstone they are 1.6 seconds/lap slower than Mercedes and the 3rd best car (behind Williams).

Not something I'd expect from the best development team in F1, they are actually going backwards relative to the competition.

[beelsebob]

Not that surprising really. Now is the time that teams will benefit from all the testing they did at the beginning of the year - they've had time to analyse all the results, figure out what extra experiments to do, and test some more bits on the car at races. If they didn't get any time to understand how air was flowing around the car at testing, then they have nothing much to work on to improve the car.

[Cold Fussion]

Red Bull were 1 second/lap slower than Mercedes in Spain and the clear 2nd best car.
Come to Silverstone they are 1.6 seconds/lap slower than Mercedes and the 3rd best car (behind Williams).

Not something I'd expect from the best development team in F1, they are actually going backwards relative to the competition.

Vettels fastest lap was 3 tenths off Hamiltons which he set on the final lap, after spending 15+ laps battling with Alonso. Vettel would have at least been fighting with Botas had he not had a poor start compromising his strategy.

[beelsebob]

"There's no reason the formula could not mandate some form of 3D printing"

and then

"I can certainly see teams printing new wings in between practice sessions"

You were not talking about the future. You added that caveat AFTER it was pointed out to you that what you propose is unrealistic.

There's nothing at all unrealistic about it. RedBull have already been doing exactly this.