QUOTE (rmac923 @ Jan 18 2010, 15:34) 
it must be the angle but it looks like the driver is a lot more forward.
Full Version: Will USF1 make it to the 2010 grid? (merged)
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138
it must be the angle but it looks like the driver is a lot more forward.
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 18 2010, 17:09)
As far as I know Racecar Engineering is a very reliable and, as the name implies, a technically inclined magazine. Their opinion should be listened to I would say. Just to repeat myself again, this is not a guarantee that the team will make it to Bahrain (as it seems some people believe that is what I'm saying when I argue the "other view" on the information we have on USF1).
i agree with your point. the only thing that can stop USF1 being in Bahrain is time constraint of getting car ready for march.
QUOTE (IFRLIceman @ Jan 18 2010, 15:39)
New Picture of the USF1 Tub:
The boxes in the background are said to be a new shipment of carbon fiber on their facebook site. Anyone that might know, is that a lot of carbon fiber? Also Jonathan Summerton commented on this picture, maybe he's hoping to get at least a 3rd driver role this year?
QUOTE (BiH @ Jan 18 2010, 22:11)
it must be the angle but it looks like the driver is a lot more forward.
The wheelbase is longer in 2010 because of the larger fuel tanks. That might put the driver relatively more forward in relation to the center of the car longitudinally.
So your observation might be quite good actually.
bulky !
QUOTE (salamin @ Jan 18 2010, 22:25)
bulky !
Compared to what?
It's kind of hard to judge by the illustrations so I will reserve my judgement.
Racecar Engineering seems to like the design however:
QUOTE
Whilst details must be kept sparse for the moment, the author can confirm that the new car design is both striking and innovative, without a ‘Stars and Stripes' livery in sight.
Certain features of the design definitely buck the norm, allowing for some very tight packaging, and result in what can only be described as an ‘attractive' car. Rest assured the design will raise some eyebrows at its launch.
Certain features of the design definitely buck the norm, allowing for some very tight packaging, and result in what can only be described as an ‘attractive' car. Rest assured the design will raise some eyebrows at its launch.
Racecar Engineerings descriptions implies anything but bulky. Design is a subjective matter however so what one think is good looking, another one think is ugly.
Hmm didn't follow everything but positive developments isn't it?
BTW what happened to CompositeKen (and BMW_F1 for that matter) did they find out he was badmouthing the team?
BTW what happened to CompositeKen (and BMW_F1 for that matter) did they find out he was badmouthing the team?
The side pods looks to be longer and biger compare to the one of Ferrari's 2009,... ? More fuel meaning longer side pods? Makes me think of an Indy car.
QUOTE (One @ Jan 18 2010, 23:17)
The side pods looks to be longer and biger compare to the one of Ferrari's 2009,... ? More fuel meaning longer side pods? Makes me think of an Indy car.
Longer wheelbase, meaning longer sidepods I guess.
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2010/0/712.html
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2010/0/713.html
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2010/0/714.html
QUOTE
As a result of the ban on refuelling, 2010 cars will almost certainly have longer wheelbases as designers are forced to accommodate fuel tanks close to double the size of their predecessors'. One of the biggest engineering challenges will be to minimise this increase in wheelbase - and to minimise the impact of any increase. Moving the cockpit forward slightly and a shorter gearbox design are two possible options. A third could see teams harking back to a concept not seen on the grid in over a decade. In 1998 Stewart's Alan Jenkins and Arrows' John Barnard moved the oil tank from its then traditional position in the gearbox casing (left car, red arrow) to a new location immediately behind the cockpit (middle drawing, red arrow). This had the advantages of positioning the tank's weight near the car's centre of gravity, and reducing the car's overall weight thanks to the need for shorter piping. And that's where the oil tank has stayed, until now. Under the new rules, rather than housing the oil tank behind the newly-expanded fuel tank (which would mean increasing the wheelbase), we could see it once more shifted rearwards, where it can be housed with the gearbox without penalty.
QUOTE (IFRLIceman @ Jan 18 2010, 20:39)
New Picture of the USF1 Tub:
It has slightly raised sides on the nose, like the Red Bull from this year.
So what happens now, are the upper and lower halves bonded together?
And how are they going on chassis two and three?
It's normal for a team to take a spare tub to races in case they need to build up around it.
QUOTE (potmotr @ Jan 18 2010, 23:45)
It has slightly raised sides on the nose, like the Red Bull from this year.
Apparently, according to an article in Autosport, that's the way all the teams are going. Bg aero gain somehow.
QUOTE (potmotr @ Jan 18 2010, 23:45)
So what happens now, are the upper and lower halves bonded together?
Yep always been done like that. Certainly the same way as the MP4/1 (apart from that tub not being the outer bodywork of the car also). There is an excellent picture of that tub in a book, however it does not seem to be on the interweb
(there is an article that use a complete car picture if the MP4/1 instead because, presumably, they only looked on the internet for pictures! 
)Although this article talks of more aggressive teams constructing their tubs of 3 or more sections, not necessary split lengthwise, in order to get the optimum design http://scarbsf1.com/chassisconstruction.html
I'm not sure that the tub does have the raised (Redbull) sides, I think it might just be the way the light was falling. Here's a photo that was publishes on the 21st Dec showing what was claimed to be the first tub.
If they have changed the design, that would mean a whole new round of crash tests (presuming that the first design has been tested!) on a tub that hasn't been finished and with 52 days left to go.
Next once the lower half has been manufactured. (That's not it in the photo, that's a mould.) it will be bonded together and fitted with bulkheads and fuel cell.
I don't know what number chassis that is, But I'd guess number 2 or 3. No1 will have been used for crash testing (we haven't heard that it has been done yet, but the Nose crash test video Suggests that it hadn't been done last week.) Then they will need the number 2 chassis fitted out to begin testing, and No. 3 and preferably 4 in time for Bahrain
If they have changed the design, that would mean a whole new round of crash tests (presuming that the first design has been tested!) on a tub that hasn't been finished and with 52 days left to go.
Next once the lower half has been manufactured. (That's not it in the photo, that's a mould.) it will be bonded together and fitted with bulkheads and fuel cell.
I don't know what number chassis that is, But I'd guess number 2 or 3. No1 will have been used for crash testing (we haven't heard that it has been done yet, but the Nose crash test video Suggests that it hadn't been done last week.) Then they will need the number 2 chassis fitted out to begin testing, and No. 3 and preferably 4 in time for Bahrain
QUOTE (One @ Jan 18 2010, 22:17)
The side pods looks to be longer and biger compare to the one of Ferrari's 2009,... ? More fuel meaning longer side pods? Makes me think of an Indy car.
They are fairly undercut
It is their first car, Ferrari spent $5bn to make their car so tightly packed and compact... USF1 are just trying to make the best contemporary F1 car they can.
QUOTE (V8 Fireworks @ Jan 19 2010, 00:22)
They are fairly undercut
It is their first car, Ferrari spent $5bn to make their car so tightly packed and compact... USF1 are just trying to make the best contemporary F1 car they can.
It is their first car, Ferrari spent $5bn to make their car so tightly packed and compact... USF1 are just trying to make the best contemporary F1 car they can.
No They didn't. Where on earth did you get that number?
QUOTE (listerine @ Jan 19 2010, 00:28)
No They didn't. Where on earth did you get that number?
1998 + 1999 + ... + 2009 + 2010...
Ferrari spent many years to develop their car ;)
If it was so easy they would have made it as good as possible, earlier........
Silly belligerent post deleted. not worth fighting over.
It's fair to say that USF1 (and Campos, Lotus etc) of course can copy the ideas of other teams and have many employees from other teams... shortcutting their process of catching up.
But still having built so many grand prix cars around the similar basis and with continual improvement (the aerodynamic rules change a little bit, but not so much the mechanicals apart from the minor KERS episode) it is not unreasonable to expect the Ferrari to be much more refined and polished in design, all the bugs gone, all the best processes in manufacture and QC etc.
But still having built so many grand prix cars around the similar basis and with continual improvement (the aerodynamic rules change a little bit, but not so much the mechanicals apart from the minor KERS episode) it is not unreasonable to expect the Ferrari to be much more refined and polished in design, all the bugs gone, all the best processes in manufacture and QC etc.
Turning up in Bahrain doesn't make USF1 credible. Their relative pace, the rate of their improvement over the season does.
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
The other thing I wonder about is how much they're talking up basing themselves in Charlotte.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
The other thing I wonder about is how much they're talking up basing themselves in Charlotte.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
I love it! The argument is starting to turn. It started as "USF1 is a total farce. They do not have a team." Now it seems to be "USF1 is a failure because they are the slowest." I wonder if it will change again if they are the 5th (4th, 3rd, or 2nd for that matter) slowest car? Will the argument then be, "USF1 is a failure because they talked big, but they are just 'n'th from the bottom."?
As for the Jforce logic - if it was a good idea -> someone would have done it earlier. ????? The terms "progress" "innovation" "invention" come to mind. Or how about "idea"? I think that the "logic" is flawed. Your logic suggests (for example) that the best way to get from point A to point B is to walk. Some guy came along and thought it might be better to ride a donkey from A to B. Make sense?
So, I am not saying that USF1's Charlotte experiment is the best way to go, but I am certainly saying that your "logical argument" refuting it, is bunk.
As for the Jforce logic - if it was a good idea -> someone would have done it earlier. ????? The terms "progress" "innovation" "invention" come to mind. Or how about "idea"? I think that the "logic" is flawed. Your logic suggests (for example) that the best way to get from point A to point B is to walk. Some guy came along and thought it might be better to ride a donkey from A to B. Make sense?
So, I am not saying that USF1's Charlotte experiment is the best way to go, but I am certainly saying that your "logical argument" refuting it, is bunk.
Yes..this has been a quite revealing thread...
QUOTE (JForce @ Jan 19 2010, 07:12)
The other thing I wonder about is how much they're talking up basing themselves in Charlotte.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
Racecar Engineering:
QUOTE
With additional facilities like the Windshear wind tunnel just a few miles away and the vast quantity of motorsport engineering expertise in the Charlotte area, placing a team in North Carolina starts to look like a very sensible idea.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/ca...1-revealed.html
QUOTE (JForce @ Jan 19 2010, 07:12)
Turning up in Bahrain doesn't make USF1 credible. Their relative pace, the rate of their improvement over the season does.
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
Taking your argument further would also mean that you will question the credibility of any team that finishes last in the points standing?
Agree with previous posters that it's interesting to see how the critic towards the team seem to change from the team is rubbish, no team exists, factory is just an empty shell, employees are just people off the street posing for pictures etc. Now it has changed more towards that the team wont make it through the season or they will run last or their car will be a dog. Some of the most ardent critics where thrown a lifeline a week or so ago when the rumour about USF1 having asked to skip the first 4 races was circulated, and jumped on the bandwagon as if it was a confirmed fact. Too bad the team and FIA denied the story...
I suspect that if the team does a ok job in 2010, the critics will still argue that the team was a flop because it didn't finish in the points or win a race and the team hasn't proven itself until they have competed as many seasons as McLaren, Williams and Ferrari, combined
(Rant over )Anyway, no one of us know what's going to happen with testing, first race and the 2010 season for USF1. Maybe the doubters will be proven correct or maybe the team will surprise even the more hopeful of us.
QUOTE (Timstr11 @ Jan 18 2010, 19:27)
this line taken from the above link should worry all usf1 supporters
QUOTE
The author was even lucky enough to see the first tubs being laid up ready to be autoclaved
note it is the first tubs and they have not been even finished yet.
DVF i dont think you notice that some still have kept to the same problem with USF1 that is saying lots delivering little.
Those who are not out to just bash a new team but are concerned seam to have not changed their point or view as it is still as valid now as 3 months ago.
New blog post at www.usgpe.com by Scott Bennett one of the teams senior designers. Some interesting points made:
QUOTE
F1 cars are small, and we are fitting a lot of stuff into a very tight volume. And we're doing a few things quite differently than they have been done in recent years. I can't give specifics (yet), but we've looked at everything with a fresh perspective, and come up with some different answers. We'll know whether they were the right or wrong answers soon enough, but our car certainly won't be a clone of anything else out there. And did you know that we're the only one of the four new teams designing our own gearbox...?
.....................
And now here we are, only a handful of weeks away from having our car run its first race. In less than a year we've built a very capable shop, put together the smartest and most talented group of people I've ever had the privilege of working with, and designed what should be a fast, reliable, safe, drivable, and yes, beautiful car.
This team means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but for me it's literally a dream come true. When those lights go out at the start of our first race, it will be both the end of a long road, and the start of a new one. I can't wait.
.....................
And now here we are, only a handful of weeks away from having our car run its first race. In less than a year we've built a very capable shop, put together the smartest and most talented group of people I've ever had the privilege of working with, and designed what should be a fast, reliable, safe, drivable, and yes, beautiful car.
This team means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but for me it's literally a dream come true. When those lights go out at the start of our first race, it will be both the end of a long road, and the start of a new one. I can't wait.
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 19 2010, 08:21)
New blog post at www.usgpe.com by Scott Bennett one of the teams senior designers. Some interesting points made:
so just the build, test and refine parts to go now.
as far as the car is concerned that is
QUOTE (Demo. @ Jan 19 2010, 09:08)
this line taken from the above link should worry all usf1 supporters
note it is the first tubs and they have not been even finished yet.
DVF i dont think you notice that some still have kept to the same problem with USF1 that is saying lots delivering little.
Those who are not out to just bash a new team but are concerned seam to have not changed their point or view as it is still as valid now as 3 months ago.
note it is the first tubs and they have not been even finished yet.
DVF i dont think you notice that some still have kept to the same problem with USF1 that is saying lots delivering little.
Those who are not out to just bash a new team but are concerned seam to have not changed their point or view as it is still as valid now as 3 months ago.
The way I see it, no team have really delivered anything yet, apart from talk about next season (2010). Do we expect that USF1 should show us more of their car at this stage than any of the other teams?
(I know some will argue that, yes that's what Windsor said about video cameras in the factory and that might be correct as I don't recall exactly how he put it or if that was for the future or if their plans have changed - However, USF1 have actually produced a few videos.)
As I have said a few times, Racecar Engineering visited in December and that's when they saw the tubs being laid up for the autoclave (their website have had that information since December). We also saw pictures at their (Racecar Engineering) website of the first tub. So that is old news and they should have had a lot of assembly time. Windsor also mentioned in his blog on January 1st that the first car was being assembled.
So, while others might say the team has delivered little I can argue that the team certainly has delivered more than most of the other teams in terms of photos of their tub, information on their website, YouTube, Facebook and by granting Racecar Engineering access to their factory...
But I can also understand that if you expected live cameras at the factory at this stage and was expecting to see a car (more than just the tub and nose) as it was being put together, drivers and sponsors announced, then yes the team has not delivered to your expectations.
QUOTE (JForce @ Jan 19 2010, 06:12)
Turning up in Bahrain doesn't make USF1 credible. Their relative pace, the rate of their improvement over the season does.
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
The other thing I wonder about is how much they're talking up basing themselves in Charlotte.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
If they turn up in Bahrain, they are 50% of the way to being considered credible, and hopefully that alone will give them the momentum to gain the other 50% through relative improvement.
If they're running last all season, unable to close the gap, then that would certainly give rise to questions of their "credibility".
The other thing I wonder about is how much they're talking up basing themselves in Charlotte.
You see, with the exception of Ferrari, if an F1 team thought the cheapest and best place to base themselves in order to compete and win was Antartica, they'd do it. Windsor has stated that Charlotte is home to the most advanced racing industry companies in the world, and so they're able to access that easily and cheaply. Again though, I say "how come no one else has ever bothered to do that?". It could be that they simply never thought of it of course.
Logic suggests though that if it were better to do it that way, that the existing teams wouldn't do it all in-house or in other places. That takes time and money of course, so it will be interesting to see if, over time, USF1 bring more in-house, ala current teams, diminishing the advantages of being in Charlotte they've spoken about.
If they make it to the grid then they are a credible team.
QUOTE (listerine @ Jan 18 2010, 22:21)
Wow
Looks good for showboating.
If everything else fails, USF1 can try Americas Cup.
Can't wait to see the American Cucumber painted Stars&Stripes.
Peter Windsor just wants to prove he can make a winner F1 recipe skipping the WindTunnel and Sponsorship ingredients and be successful were Ferrari failed, working on two factories [Barnard's England and Italian bases].
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 19 2010, 09:21)
New blog post at www.usgpe.com by Scott Bennett one of the teams senior designers. Some interesting points made:
QUOTE
And did you know that we're the only one of the four new teams designing our own gearbox...?
A carbon/titanium (which I believe is the norm) seamless shift gearbox which will hold for 4 races designed from zero? With some 8-10 test days?
I don't think so ...
QUOTE (listerine @ Jan 19 2010, 01:21)
Next once the lower half has been manufactured. (That's not it in the photo, that's a mould.) it will be bonded together and fitted with bulkheads and fuel cell.
I don't know what number chassis that is, But I'd guess number 2 or 3.
In most 'hasty and busy' environment there is no time at all to take such promotion pictures, as the work around the tub goes on like mad to assemble anything that has to be mounted. In one way or the other the team is taking time to take this PR shots, spending a lot of time around this empty tub...
I wonder if they ARE working like mad to mount everything...
QUOTE (peroa @ Jan 19 2010, 08:59)
A carbon/titanium (which I believe is the norm) seamless shift gearbox which will hold for 4 races designed from zero? With some 8-10 test days?
I don't think so ...
I don't think so ...
I thought they'd outsourced the gearbox design and assembly?
QUOTE (peroa @ Jan 19 2010, 08:59)
A carbon/titanium (which I believe is the norm) seamless shift gearbox which will hold for 4 races designed from zero? With some 8-10 test days?
I don't think so ...
I don't think so ...
It's certainly baffling
, I though the Xtrac (?) gearbox was compulsory with the Cosworth!?(reasonable price too)
QUOTE (wj_gibson @ Jan 19 2010, 10:11)
I thought they'd outsourced the gearbox design and assembly?
They have outsourced it to/developing together with: http://www.emcogears.com/
That has me kind of baffled/worried as well. I sure hope EMCO knows their stuff...
QUOTE (peroa @ Jan 19 2010, 08:59)
A carbon/titanium (which I believe is the norm) seamless shift gearbox which will hold for 4 races designed from zero? With some 8-10 test days?
I don't think so ...
I don't think so ...
Well, In theory you can test the gearbox on a dyno. Just as long as you have something fast and powerful enough to spin it up. Here's what Emco say about their dyno.
QUOTE
EMCO's Transmission Dynamometer (Dyno) is powered by a 502 cu. in. big block Chevy engine that produces 440 HP and 515 ft-lb of torque. The test stand is adjustable, the water brakes can be positioned up, down, rearward and forward, allowing testing on numerous types of transmissions and transaxles . The dyno allows for differential testing by varying the load on each axle because the two water brakes can be individually controlled. We are able to apply as much as 400 ft-lb of torque to each axle. The EMCO "step-up" gearbox enables input test speeds up to 15000 RPM. Inputs and outputs are monitored by a fully equiped computer-controlled data acquisition system.
and of course it also takes time, here's what Emco say about the contract dates.
QUOTE
Posted (11/02/2009) - EMCO Gears was selected this week as the gearbox supplier to the newest Formula 1 competitor ... Team US F1.
http://www.emcogears.com/
Could someone help?
USF1's DO list after tub...
pass FIA crush test on side impact,
fit tank
glue pods
mount hydraulic system
mount electronic system
mount engine
mount gearbox
Pass FIA rear impact test
mount ancillaries
mount suspension
fix steering
mount sensors
mount the rest...
how many days do one need?
USF1's DO list after tub...
pass FIA crush test on side impact,
fit tank
glue pods
mount hydraulic system
mount electronic system
mount engine
mount gearbox
Pass FIA rear impact test
mount ancillaries
mount suspension
fix steering
mount sensors
mount the rest...
how many days do one need?
QUOTE (One @ Jan 19 2010, 10:06)
In most 'hasty and busy' environment there is no time at all to take such promotion pictures, as the work around the tub goes on like mad to assemble anything that has to be mounted. In one way or the other the team is taking time to take this PR shots, spending a lot of time around this empty tub...
I wonder if they ARE working like mad to mount everything...
I wonder if they ARE working like mad to mount everything...
You ARE joking, right?
First of all, do you really mean to say that there is not even 5 minutes during the 24 hours of a day that the tub is not being worked on at a F1 factory...???
And, how long did it take to take that photo? The cameraguy did his set up of the camera while they where assembling the car, when he is ready the crew gets out of the picture, Ken Anderson sits alongside the tub, click, click, back to work. If it's as busy as you say that photo maybe took between 3-5min maximum out of their assembly time...
My argument hasn't turned at all. You are all so quick to jump on anyone who asks any questions and brand them a "hater", when the reality is that there are some very real concerns about the ability of this team to get to the grid.
I have never stated (as far as I remember) that I didn't think they'd make it; I simply don't know. I have followed F1 for many, many years. I've followed every pre-season closely, and that includes new teams coming in to F1. Some make bold claims and never show up. Some make bold claims, show up, and then make a fool of themselves. Some turn up, and compete. Certain trends have developed over these years, trends involving key sponsorship deals, "innovative, never tried before" methods, and "doing it our way" statements. Trends involving statements that don't match the evidence, or lack of evidence, of an actual car.
So just because I have reason to question USF1, doesn't mean I want them to fail. But I've seen it all before. We all have. It's the reason we see what we see, or what we aren't seeing, and equate it will the many failed F1 attempts of the past.
And that's before I get to discussions about credibility. I guess that comes down to your own definition of credible, but I don't consider a team that turns up to be credible. I consider a team that turns up, is competitive with its peers (and I mean budget-wise....I don't expect Force India to beat McLaren, although when they do that's great, but I expect them to be on the pace of similiar-sized teams).
If USF1 merely turn up but are seconds behind their direct rivals (the new teams) then no, I don't consider them credible. At least not at that stage.
But that goes for ALL the new teams. If Lotus turn up and are 2 seconds a lap slower than USF1, then I'll go to town on how they're not a credible outfit. A new team that's slower than it's competitors, simply won't last....they'll pull the plug.
USF1 have set the bar high with promises, and have yet to deliver. Having said that, they don't have to deliver a damn thing till the racing starts. Anything else is gravy to quell speculation, but we don't know anything till they either turn up and are fine, turn up and are awful, turn up and are winning, or don't turn up at all.
Of course is USF1 turn up and are mid-field I'm going to congratulate them and be impressed. It's not about hating on them, or changing arguments along the way, it's about asking real questions. So stop overreacting everytime someone voices their opinion, it doesn't mean they're desperate to see USF1 fail, it could just mean that what they've seen at this stage doesn't resemble anything that's subsequently gone on to be a real force in F1.
I have never stated (as far as I remember) that I didn't think they'd make it; I simply don't know. I have followed F1 for many, many years. I've followed every pre-season closely, and that includes new teams coming in to F1. Some make bold claims and never show up. Some make bold claims, show up, and then make a fool of themselves. Some turn up, and compete. Certain trends have developed over these years, trends involving key sponsorship deals, "innovative, never tried before" methods, and "doing it our way" statements. Trends involving statements that don't match the evidence, or lack of evidence, of an actual car.
So just because I have reason to question USF1, doesn't mean I want them to fail. But I've seen it all before. We all have. It's the reason we see what we see, or what we aren't seeing, and equate it will the many failed F1 attempts of the past.
And that's before I get to discussions about credibility. I guess that comes down to your own definition of credible, but I don't consider a team that turns up to be credible. I consider a team that turns up, is competitive with its peers (and I mean budget-wise....I don't expect Force India to beat McLaren, although when they do that's great, but I expect them to be on the pace of similiar-sized teams).
If USF1 merely turn up but are seconds behind their direct rivals (the new teams) then no, I don't consider them credible. At least not at that stage.
But that goes for ALL the new teams. If Lotus turn up and are 2 seconds a lap slower than USF1, then I'll go to town on how they're not a credible outfit. A new team that's slower than it's competitors, simply won't last....they'll pull the plug.
USF1 have set the bar high with promises, and have yet to deliver. Having said that, they don't have to deliver a damn thing till the racing starts. Anything else is gravy to quell speculation, but we don't know anything till they either turn up and are fine, turn up and are awful, turn up and are winning, or don't turn up at all.
Of course is USF1 turn up and are mid-field I'm going to congratulate them and be impressed. It's not about hating on them, or changing arguments along the way, it's about asking real questions. So stop overreacting everytime someone voices their opinion, it doesn't mean they're desperate to see USF1 fail, it could just mean that what they've seen at this stage doesn't resemble anything that's subsequently gone on to be a real force in F1.
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 19 2010, 10:30)
You ARE joking, right?
I know I know... I kinda think that they are different, that is all.
First I thought that they have troubles other than money, staffs and other expert knowledge related issues.
Then I kinda follow guys being skeptical about funding.
And naturally the time... Theyhave no drivers...
I am hoping that they will make it!
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 19 2010, 09:24)
They have outsourced it to/developing together with: http://www.emcogears.com/
That has me kind of baffled/worried as well. I sure hope EMCO knows their stuff...
That has me kind of baffled/worried as well. I sure hope EMCO knows their stuff...
From their website it seems you need to be driving a Chevy to use one. Not much of a pedigree really. Their boxes all seem to be designed without much concern for the amount of space taken which is a situation that certainlt does not apply in F1
QUOTE (peroa @ Jan 19 2010, 08:59)
A carbon/titanium (which I believe is the norm) seamless shift gearbox which will hold for 4 races designed from zero? With some 8-10 test days?
I don't think so ...
I don't think so ...
I can't see that either.
QUOTE (V8 Fireworks @ Jan 19 2010, 09:14)
It's certainly baffling , I though the Xtrac (?) gearbox was compulsory with the Cosworth!?
(reasonable price too)
, I though the Xtrac (?) gearbox was compulsory with the Cosworth!?(reasonable price too)
Williams have their own gearbox, dont they? Xtrac might be the favoured supplier, but can't say I've seen anything to say it's compulsory.
QUOTE (BullHead @ Jan 18 2010, 23:48)
Apparently, according to an article in Autosport, that's the way all the teams are going. Bg aero gain somehow.
I've heard that they are going to be far more pronounced this year also.
QUOTE (JForce @ Jan 19 2010, 10:36)
My argument hasn't turned at all. You are all so quick to jump on anyone who asks any questions and brand them a "hater", when the reality is that there are some very real concerns about the ability of this team to get to the grid.
I have never stated (as far as I remember) that I didn't think they'd make it; I simply don't know. I have followed F1 for many, many years. I've followed every pre-season closely, and that includes new teams coming in to F1. Some make bold claims and never show up. Some make bold claims, show up, and then make a fool of themselves. Some turn up, and compete. Certain trends have developed over these years, trends involving key sponsorship deals, "innovative, never tried before" methods, and "doing it our way" statements. Trends involving statements that don't match the evidence, or lack of evidence, of an actual car.
So just because I have reason to question USF1, doesn't mean I want them to fail. But I've seen it all before. We all have. It's the reason we see what we see, or what we aren't seeing, and equate it will the many failed F1 attempts of the past.
And that's before I get to discussions about credibility. I guess that comes down to your own definition of credible, but I don't consider a team that turns up to be credible. I consider a team that turns up, is competitive with its peers (and I mean budget-wise....I don't expect Force India to beat McLaren, although when they do that's great, but I expect them to be on the pace of similiar-sized teams).
If USF1 merely turn up but are seconds behind their direct rivals (the new teams) then no, I don't consider them credible. At least not at that stage.
But that goes for ALL the new teams. If Lotus turn up and are 2 seconds a lap slower than USF1, then I'll go to town on how they're not a credible outfit. A new team that's slower than it's competitors, simply won't last....they'll pull the plug.
USF1 have set the bar high with promises, and have yet to deliver. Having said that, they don't have to deliver a damn thing till the racing starts. Anything else is gravy to quell speculation, but we don't know anything till they either turn up and are fine, turn up and are awful, turn up and are winning, or don't turn up at all.
Of course is USF1 turn up and are mid-field I'm going to congratulate them and be impressed. It's not about hating on them, or changing arguments along the way, it's about asking real questions. So stop overreacting everytime someone voices their opinion, it doesn't mean they're desperate to see USF1 fail, it could just mean that what they've seen at this stage doesn't resemble anything that's subsequently gone on to be a real force in F1.
I have never stated (as far as I remember) that I didn't think they'd make it; I simply don't know. I have followed F1 for many, many years. I've followed every pre-season closely, and that includes new teams coming in to F1. Some make bold claims and never show up. Some make bold claims, show up, and then make a fool of themselves. Some turn up, and compete. Certain trends have developed over these years, trends involving key sponsorship deals, "innovative, never tried before" methods, and "doing it our way" statements. Trends involving statements that don't match the evidence, or lack of evidence, of an actual car.
So just because I have reason to question USF1, doesn't mean I want them to fail. But I've seen it all before. We all have. It's the reason we see what we see, or what we aren't seeing, and equate it will the many failed F1 attempts of the past.
And that's before I get to discussions about credibility. I guess that comes down to your own definition of credible, but I don't consider a team that turns up to be credible. I consider a team that turns up, is competitive with its peers (and I mean budget-wise....I don't expect Force India to beat McLaren, although when they do that's great, but I expect them to be on the pace of similiar-sized teams).
If USF1 merely turn up but are seconds behind their direct rivals (the new teams) then no, I don't consider them credible. At least not at that stage.
But that goes for ALL the new teams. If Lotus turn up and are 2 seconds a lap slower than USF1, then I'll go to town on how they're not a credible outfit. A new team that's slower than it's competitors, simply won't last....they'll pull the plug.
USF1 have set the bar high with promises, and have yet to deliver. Having said that, they don't have to deliver a damn thing till the racing starts. Anything else is gravy to quell speculation, but we don't know anything till they either turn up and are fine, turn up and are awful, turn up and are winning, or don't turn up at all.
Of course is USF1 turn up and are mid-field I'm going to congratulate them and be impressed. It's not about hating on them, or changing arguments along the way, it's about asking real questions. So stop overreacting everytime someone voices their opinion, it doesn't mean they're desperate to see USF1 fail, it could just mean that what they've seen at this stage doesn't resemble anything that's subsequently gone on to be a real force in F1.
And my argument is not against anyone who have real concerns and can make a valid argument about their concerns (as you do). My argument is against posts like this:
QUOTE (WebBerK @ Jan 19 2010, 09:57)
Wow
Looks good for showboating.;)
If everything else fails, USF1 can try Americas Cup.
Can't wait to see the American Cucumber painted Stars&Stripes.
Peter Windsor just wants to prove he can make a winner F1 recipe skipping the WindTunnel and Sponsorship ingredients and be successful were Ferrari failed, working on two factories [Barnard's England and Italian bases].
Looks good for showboating.;)
If everything else fails, USF1 can try Americas Cup.
Can't wait to see the American Cucumber painted Stars&Stripes.
Peter Windsor just wants to prove he can make a winner F1 recipe skipping the WindTunnel and Sponsorship ingredients and be successful were Ferrari failed, working on two factories [Barnard's England and Italian bases].
There really is no substance to what he is stating here is there? So how would you classify a post like this? Real concerns or wanting them to fail???
QUOTE (Clatter @ Jan 19 2010, 09:46)
Williams have their own gearbox, dont they? Xtrac might be the favoured supplier, but can't say I've seen anything to say it's compulsory.
I thought Xtrac made the internals. The gears themselves. The casing is built by the teams isn't it?
QUOTE (DFV @ Jan 19 2010, 10:28)
And my argument is not against anyone who have real concerns and can make a valid argument about their concerns (as you do).
Agreed. But I think were making a bit much now of the few who appear to just want them to fail. Most people (me included) who are merely concerned, are forming a picture on the strength of the available information. That picture is constantly updatable with the benefit of new information!
QUOTE (potmotr @ Jan 19 2010, 11:28)
I thought Xtrac made the internals. The gears themselves. The casing is built by the teams isn't it?
You could be right. Williams website suggests it's their own, but the components could be bought in.
QUOTE
Transmission
Williams F1 seven speed seamless sequential semi-automatic shift plus reverse gear in a aluminium maincase, gear selection electro-hydraulically actuated
Williams F1 seven speed seamless sequential semi-automatic shift plus reverse gear in a aluminium maincase, gear selection electro-hydraulically actuated
Scott Bennett:
"And we're doing a few things quite differently than they have been done in recent years. I can't give specifics (yet), but we've looked at everything with a fresh perspective, and come up with some different answers.
We'll know whether they were the right or wrong answers soon enough, but our car certainly won't be a clone of anything else out there."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80962
"And we're doing a few things quite differently than they have been done in recent years. I can't give specifics (yet), but we've looked at everything with a fresh perspective, and come up with some different answers.
We'll know whether they were the right or wrong answers soon enough, but our car certainly won't be a clone of anything else out there."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80962
QUOTE (Rinehart @ Jan 19 2010, 11:31)
Agreed. But I think were making a bit much now of the few who appear to just want them to fail. Most people (me included) who are merely concerned, are forming a picture on the strength of the available information. That picture is constantly updatable with the benefit of new information!
Exactly.
What we've seen this winter hasn't exactly inspired confidence, even with the production of tubs etc.
We'll see.
And anyway, a discussion isn't something one person should win.
It's a discussion.
I reckon they will definately have one car ready by the end of the month.
That gives them a whole month to build the second and maybe even a third.
That gives them a whole month to build the second and maybe even a third.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.