Reading all of Macas/Hondas probs at post season test , why don't teams sort the basic instal/systems checks on a rolling road type set up prior to bringing to track ?
Systems and installation checks
#1
Posted 26 November 2014 - 17:51
#3
Posted 27 November 2014 - 10:48
my point was that it would replicate track data , set up as if at track but run the car on a set of rollers , thereby checking all systems/instal before going to the test day.
they spend months on the dyno but don't seem to do any hours running fully installed in the car
Is it a Regulation thing ?
#4
Posted 27 November 2014 - 19:41
It's not a regulation thing - at least one team did pretty much exactly what you describe in the early part of this year and set the pace thereafter ;-)
R.
#5
Posted 27 November 2014 - 22:27
Cannot believe some teams don't! Probably just run out of time before test day.
#6
Posted 27 November 2014 - 22:53
On what basis are we assuming that they didn't do any in-house shakedowns before going to the track?
#7
Posted 28 November 2014 - 01:41
Perhaps they did, but a couple of days on a rolloing road would have revealed much of this:
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/116941
They clearly had insufficient time for a thorough shakedown prior to the track days.
#8
Posted 30 November 2014 - 22:34
There is a thing called sods law. In my time in motor racing it never ceases to amaze me how this law comes into force in the most inopportune of moments. Test, test, test and the day it matters....................... sods law comes into play.
#9
Posted 01 December 2014 - 00:19
Also, there is just so much that you can test without having the actual driver in the car...
I was present at a short test that PEugeot sport did for journalists, to present their 208 R2 rally car. One thing that I noticed was the engineers constantly downloading data from the cars. Now, these weren't your "average" car hacks but not full time racers either.. When we asked the engineers why they need data from non pro's their answer was revealing: "Because our test drives are super professional and drive the cars in a way it was designed. However, not all our customers are like that "
As an exampe we saw a log of a coleague who missed a shift, sending the engine to 10K+ RPM... with no ill effects whatsoever..
Edited by kikiturbo2, 01 December 2014 - 00:20.
#10
Posted 01 December 2014 - 19:18
That's funny, Kiki. I've seen the exact same thing. A gentleman driver will have an issue and so then you get a pro in the car to replicate and diagnose the problem. He can't do it. Only when you can completely define what has to happen with their inputs (and it will be something they just don't do on their own), will you be able to get whatever to show itself.
That's the problem with making things fool-proof. The fools can be very, very clever.
#11
Posted 01 December 2014 - 20:50
That's funny, Kiki. I've seen the exact same thing. A gentleman driver will have an issue and so then you get a pro in the car to replicate and diagnose the problem. He can't do it. Only when you can completely define what has to happen with their inputs (and it will be something they just don't do on their own), will you be able to get whatever to show itself.
That's the problem with making things fool-proof. The fools can be very, very clever.
This is also by far, by far, by far the #1 problem in dealership service operations. The technician does not understand the customer's problem or cannot duplicate it. The technician cannot see through the consumer's eyes and vice versa. Leading cause of customer comebacks, lost labor hours, low customer satisfaction grades, etc etc etc.
Traditionally, this is also a leading problem on the manufacturing end. Unless you can get everyone in a circle, point to the problem, and say "here is the defect, and over there is what it is supposed to be," the message will not get across. Phone calls, memos, and photos do not get it done. This is also a good time to note (again) that email is the most horrible form of communication ever devised
#12
Posted 01 December 2014 - 23:26
While I agree with all this, we are talking about issues that arose because they tried to start and drive the car - not relevant to who was in the cockpit.
#13
Posted 02 December 2014 - 01:55
Any kind of failure can arise at any time. That's kind of the big problem with failures; you can't schedule them at times that are convenient for you. When both Jaguars blew up on the grid in Melbourne, did anybody really believe that they never bothered to do a grid start simulation test?