Red Bull RB5

[vasia]

Certainly looks interesting, but I would not call it beautiful. The rear end is very elegant, but the front is ugly. I predict though it will be another 'typical' Newey design; fast but fragile. I also predict Red Bull will struggle to develop the car quick enough to keep pace with the competition.

[kilcoo316]

What's your take on this 'grounds effect resurgence' from Flavio talk we're getting? As i understand it it makes no sense and it's more of a Briatore thing, but still interested in your opinion.
TIA

Where is the full quote... I haven't seen it.

[alelanza]

What's your take on this 'grounds effect resurgence' from Flavio talk we're getting? As i understand it it makes no sense and it's more of a Briatore thing, but still interested in your opinion.
TIA

Where is the full quote... I haven't seen it.

Here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74034

[noname]

Just imagine how many brilliant recent engineering grads that RBT could pick up for his salary.

diploma does not make you a good engineer, that comes with the experience.

young guns could be smart and have interesting ideas but having them is one thing and putting them into reality is another. designing is an art of compromises and requires a lot of patience, and due that you need someone older and experienced to tell you "stop for a moment, look at this, think again, have you checked if..." and so on.

[PlatinumZealot]

Certainly looks interesting, but I would not call it beautiful. The rear end is very elegant, but the front is ugly. I predict though it will be another 'typical' Newey design; fast but fragile. I also predict Red Bull will struggle to develop the car quick enough to keep pace with the competition.

Safety Factor = 1!

[kilcoo316]

Here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74034

Well, it is putting more emphasis on the floor, that is for sure.

Flavio is sort of right - this whole thing is a farce and should have been sorted out ages ago. The FIA should really have said no to Toyota, Williams & Brawn.


They should have simply stated there can be no vertical discontinuities in the diffuser surface. The wording would have been something like: "If a vertical line is taken downward from any part of the diffuser*, it cannot intersect with a second geometric surface".

*you would probably have to define it as a design box - i.e. behind the rear-wheel centre-line etc etc.

That leaves it impossible to include the transverse gaps (and the floor shadow plate) that the upper deck uses to extract air from under the floor.

[wesley123]

i dont think they should have said the diffuser was illegal, as in the rules it is completely legal. That they now have a gain with it is the designing of a new part, you will always have a gain with that.

That the others have been sleeping is their problem right now

[alelanza]

Here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74034

Well, it is putting more emphasis on the floor, that is for sure.

Flavio is sort of right - this whole thing is a farce and should have been sorted out ages ago. The FIA should really have said no to Toyota, Williams & Brawn.


They should have simply stated there can be no vertical discontinuities in the diffuser surface. The wording would have been something like: "If a vertical line is taken downward from any part of the diffuser*, it cannot intersect with a second geometric surface".

*you would probably have to define it as a design box - i.e. behind the rear-wheel centre-line etc etc.

That leaves it impossible to include the transverse gaps (and the floor shadow plate) that the upper deck uses to extract air from under the floor.

Thanks!

[kilcoo316]

i dont think they should have said the diffuser was illegal, as in the rules it is completely legal.

It wasn't intended for that hole to exist.


They should have closed it instantly* as soon as the teams first approached them for clarification.


*By informing the OWG of what was happening, and realising the affects this would have, they could instantly have devised a revised wording like I have indicated - but Max is playing politics. Blame him and the vertically challenged asshole for this farce.

[Conceptual]

Just imagine how many brilliant recent engineering grads that RBT could pick up for his salary.

diploma does not make you a good engineer, that comes with the experience.

young guns could be smart and have interesting ideas but having them is one thing and putting them into reality is another. designing is an art of compromises and requires a lot of patience, and due that you need someone older and experienced to tell you "stop for a moment, look at this, think again, have you checked if..." and so on.

I tell you what,

I'll give you Newey and 5 model monkeys, and I will take 5 top 1% engineering grads, and 5 model monkeys, and I bet that I would beat you.

In the end, it is about solutions. Newey's experience locks him inside a box that the unexperienced guys don't have. Sometimes, having a fresh approach from step 1 allows for more interesting direction choices, where Newey and his experience skips him to step 2, thus losing the possibilities of revolutionary design.

After that, it is project management, and numbers.

[kilcoo316]

In the end, it is about solutions. Newey's experience locks him inside a box that the unexperienced guys don't have. Sometimes, having a fresh approach from step 1 allows for more interesting direction choices, where Newey and his experience skips him to step 2, thus losing the possibilities of revolutionary design.

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

This might sound incredibly arrogant, but if you were an engineer, you would know exactly how stupid your statement is.

There simply is no substitute for experience.


Those 5 engineering grads wouldn't have a f**king clue about what boundary conditions to use in a tunnel for testing. They wouldn't have a notion about the interaction of suspension & tyres on the front wing, and further back on the diffuser.

Or the exhausts, or the radiator inlets, or the airbox, particularly under engine retardation when its venting.


It doesn't matter how good you are. An engineering grad will never have the depth of experience, that databank of life to fall back on and base their decisions on.


I'm not that long out of uni, and believe me, the guys around me know a lot more than me, even though I have "better" academic qualifications than anyone else in the room.

[Conceptual]

In the end, it is about solutions. Newey's experience locks him inside a box that the unexperienced guys don't have. Sometimes, having a fresh approach from step 1 allows for more interesting direction choices, where Newey and his experience skips him to step 2, thus losing the possibilities of revolutionary design.

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

This might sound incredibly arrogant, but if you were an engineer, you would know exactly how stupid your statement is.

There simply is no substitute for experience.


Those 5 engineering grads wouldn't have a f**king clue about what boundary conditions to use in a tunnel for testing. They wouldn't have a notion about the interaction of suspension & tyres on the front wing, and further back on the diffuser.

Or the exhausts, or the radiator inlets, or the airbox, particularly under engine retardation when its venting.


It doesn't matter how good you are. An engineering grad will never have the depth of experience, that databank of life to fall back on and base their decisions on.


I'm not that long out of uni, and believe me, the guys around me know a lot more than me, even though I have "better" academic qualifications than anyone else in the room.

I think that today's software removes the need for experience.

It isn't that hard to write auto-optimizing scripts for CATIA V5. Actually, I have a PM from a member here that was telling me about his Uni mate that had an optimizing script for a carburator inlet.

When todays computers can generate, model and compare THOUSANDS of iterations, you don't need experience to get to the solutions.

You need to know how to maximize what you have.

[Agerasia]

In the end, it is about solutions. Newey's experience locks him inside a box that the unexperienced guys don't have. Sometimes, having a fresh approach from step 1 allows for more interesting direction choices, where Newey and his experience skips him to step 2, thus losing the possibilities of revolutionary design.

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

This might sound incredibly arrogant, but if you were an engineer, you would know exactly how stupid your statement is.

There simply is no substitute for experience.


Those 5 engineering grads wouldn't have a f**king clue about what boundary conditions to use in a tunnel for testing. They wouldn't have a notion about the interaction of suspension & tyres on the front wing, and further back on the diffuser.

Or the exhausts, or the radiator inlets, or the airbox, particularly under engine retardation when its venting.


It doesn't matter how good you are. An engineering grad will never have the depth of experience, that databank of life to fall back on and base their decisions on.


I'm not that long out of uni, and believe me, the guys around me know a lot more than me, even though I have "better" academic qualifications than anyone else in the room.

As an engineer myself I couldn't say better what you have said. There is no and never will be any substitute for experience.
I've had people who are fresh from degree's and out qualify me ask me something that I have always assumed to be something easy.

[Conceptual]

In the end, it is about solutions. Newey's experience locks him inside a box that the unexperienced guys don't have. Sometimes, having a fresh approach from step 1 allows for more interesting direction choices, where Newey and his experience skips him to step 2, thus losing the possibilities of revolutionary design.

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

This might sound incredibly arrogant, but if you were an engineer, you would know exactly how stupid your statement is.

There simply is no substitute for experience.


Those 5 engineering grads wouldn't have a f**king clue about what boundary conditions to use in a tunnel for testing. They wouldn't have a notion about the interaction of suspension & tyres on the front wing, and further back on the diffuser.

Or the exhausts, or the radiator inlets, or the airbox, particularly under engine retardation when its venting.


It doesn't matter how good you are. An engineering grad will never have the depth of experience, that databank of life to fall back on and base their decisions on.


I'm not that long out of uni, and believe me, the guys around me know a lot more than me, even though I have "better" academic qualifications than anyone else in the room.

As an engineer myself I couldn't say better what you have said. There is no and never will be any substitute for experience.
I've had people who are fresh from degree's and out qualify me ask me something that I have always assumed to be something easy.

Sure, but that is a fault of their education, and those are probably NOT in the top 1% that I spoke of.

In the end, people with engineering degrees answer to people with my degree. I left the university after studying mech. engineering simply because I realized that I would never be in a position to actually be in charge. I would always be answering, and compromising to the MBA's that are in the position of highest perspective.

I may have been a bit arrogant in my original statement with the numbers that I posted, but I still stand by the knowledge that experience without guidance from above gives you the same as inexperience with guidance.

Management is not about things, it is about people, and that is MY specialty. Engineers are amazing in what they do, but are limited in scope where the highest perspective is the only one that truly matters in the end.

Does anyone have an idea about how we can arrange a competition to prove this point?

[noname]

I think that today's software removes the need for experience.

It isn't that hard to write auto-optimizing scripts for CATIA V5. Actually, I have a PM from a member here that was telling me about his Uni mate that had an optimizing script for a carburator inlet.

When todays computers can generate, model and compare THOUSANDS of iterations, you don't need experience to get to the solutions.

you are wrong. few months ago one of my guys (just graduated) told me he does not need knowledge because he has the computer and CAM/CAE software. I fired him, I had no choice.

computers indeed can do a lot of calculations but nothing more than that. it's up to engineer to define what and how to calculate (define the model and BCs) and "read" the results to made them useful.

the truth is that computers have not removed the need of knowledge and experience, they even require more of them from the engineer, as due their power you can include much more factors, variables and parameters into equations.