Kubica is probably not far off his old level which most felt was very highbill shoe wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 18:44I hope they keep Sirotkin to partner Russell, because Sirotkin is at least a decent qualifier (usually outqualifies Stroll despite Stroll having an extra season in F1 plus massive private testing under his belt) and is a known quantity.
Russell could prove his F1 credentials by outqualifying Sirotkin in all but a couple races, with an average advantage of maybe 3 to 5 tenths.
But what does Russell need to do against Kubica? Who knows how fast Kubica is over a season of qualifying, so who knows what Russell needs to do?
I know it is far from straightforward, but I can not understand how a calibration run would not have been done using a model of known performance. Last years car.bill shoe wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 23:54In the "Evolution of Aerodynamic Testing in F1" thread, jjn9128 explains how wind tunnels can go wrong and how it may have gone wrong for Williams-Dipesh1995 wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 20:11According to Mark Hughes, a change of the wind tunnel belt texture caused their correlation issues.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... e-williamsWind tunnel correlation to the reality of track was particularly poor – and this was puzzling because simulation had previously been a Williams strength even when there were other limitations...Had anything significant been changed? Only the wind tunnel belt. Therein lay a story. It was of a new specification, supposedly more advanced in that it simulated the texture of the track surface. It seems to have been here that a major part of the problem arose.So correlating data between an FIA-compliant wind tunnel (60% scale at 60 m/s) and real on-track behavior involves tricky issues with compressible flow under the car. Is it possible that these tricky issues mean you actually want a smooth belt rather than a "more advanced" rougher belt that simulates the track surface?jjn9128 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2018, 10:49At 60m/s in the wind tunnel that air is travelling at 120-150m/s or Mach 0.35-0.43 so the air is going to be compressible. But at the dynamically similar speed (36m/s) on the track the air under the car is only at Mach 0.2-0.26... so the air in the tunnel is compressible but with dynamic similarity on track (at the same Reynolds number) it isn't.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27353&start=30#p774604
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00328There was a note saying that Claire Williams is still looking for money to try to get Esteban Ocon to drive the second Williams in 2019.
haven't they both tested the Mercedes ...netoperek wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 02:04Even with my possible pro-Kubica bias put aside, I think Russel-Ocon would not be a good pairing, simply because they're both very young and haven't experienced many different bleeding edge cars before. I find them both very talented, but it's hard to tell how well and fast will they adapt to changes and be able to pinpoint weaknesses of a car. I have a feeling that next year's Williams will have quite a few of them. I imagine it is easier to adapt with a vastly experienced driver alongside You, explaining the basis of some odd car reactions. I'd like to see Ocon in F1 as much as everyone else. I'd be happy if he took Russels place to be honest. I just think that they could really do with someone like Alonso, Hulk, Kimi (or Kubica) to partner him and balance youth with some routine.
And how would that fact help them manage and develop a designed from scratch 2019 spec Williams, in a meaningful way? With reg changes for 2019, this will probably be a noticeably different experience.
They know what quick car feels like more so than stroll or sirgi do at the moment