Red Bull RB5

[kilcoo316]

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

I KNOW that simply isn't the case... and I've a fair few years using much of said software.


Right now, I've moved from aerodynamics (CFD) to composites (FE), and if I didn't know my ---* I wouldn't have picked up on literally dozens of failures of the software. The failures aren't broadcast, infact, the software doesn't even know its going wrong - if you don't test, validate and get yourself an idea of what to expect later on, then you can go down some deep dark alleys that are absolute blind.


*Still scratching the surface of how much is out there... but already knowing a lot more than any grad student will.


The adage garbage in = garbage out is never more true. A pretty picture with fancy colours does not mean a correct simulation.

[kilcoo316]

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

Sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

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.

Non-technical managers don't have a clue.


The engineers do their own thing to solve the problem. Often the job gets done despite of the manager, not because of.

Technical project managers are different. But they are not non-technical.

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.

That is soooooooo wrong.

If you were an engineer, you'd understand.

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.

Ahhh, now it starts to make sense.

Your a non-technical manager desperately trying to justify your viewpoint on things.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

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

Right... Your investigating turbulence in the wake of an F1 car using the k-E turbulence model.

But your results do not show much correlate to experimental databases - particularly with regards the intensity of turbulence as you move downstream.

Why?

What do you do to try and solve it?


A nice simple problem. Anyone with a good amount of experience with CFD will know the biggest source of error.

It is very unlikely any grad student will.



There is an example of one of your CAE codes going wrong... now can the manager sort it?

[alelanza]

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

Wow.....
If anything, the more powerful the tool the more dangerous it is in the hands of an inexperienced person

[noname]

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

let assume you are right. that means we do not need managers and MBAs as we can just write the script which will create ideal, highly optimized schedule/budget/strategy etc. from then on all you have to do is follow the plan.

designing is not about playing with computers. designing is asking the "what" and "how" questions and finding the answers. if you can not ask the right question you will not find the right answer.

[Conceptual]

OK,

I guess you guys are right. I have managed people in everything from Marines, to construction, to production, to machinists, to retail sales as well as automotive service.

In my experience as a manager, I did not necessarily need to know "why" or even "how" but I did need to know "when".

I have had some incredible people that were very knowledgable and solved complex issues with such casual competence that they were well worth their salaries. I have found, however, that many of these exact people couldn't think beyond their set way of doing things, and that was my point. Experience is just as much a cage as it is a solution. That is specifically why my handle is Conceptual, since these same people dubbed me with that name because of my ability to see new, efficient ways to solve old, tedious problems that they never thought of.

So, experience is a value, and software cannot solve everything. I will agree with that. But I do not agree that experience alone makes one better than the inexperience that leads to methods beyond convention.

After this discussion, I now believe that it is a balance of both that is necessary.

Can we agree on that?

[Conceptual]

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

let assume you are right. that means we do not need managers and MBAs as we can just write the script which will create ideal, highly optimized schedule/budget/strategy etc. from then on all you have to do is follow the plan.

designing is not about playing with computers. designing is asking the "what" and "how" questions and finding the answers. if you can not ask the right question you will not find the right answer.

It is hard to write a computer program to lead people. Empathy as well as loyalty are very difficult to make computers understand.

You do not manage things, you manage people.

PS: I have actually dealt with a program called Workforce Management (my old company spent $10M USD on it! ) and I must say that it was a horrid system to try and manage a business!

[kilcoo316]

Can we agree on that?

Your assuming that the technically minded don't know what needs changed.

For instance, at my place we know (MSc) Patran is a pile of ---.

Most of us hate it... yet many are loath to learn an alternative.

[Shaddock]

I'd like to add that Newey didn't design every nut and bolt of that car, but he led a team of designers in its construction. People like Geoff Willis as head of technical know how to build fast cars as well. You can imagine the senior team at RB sitting round boucing idea's of each other when the regs for this year were announced.

[Agerasia]

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

Software is only as good as the people who design it and those that use it.

[SoliRossi]

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..

Whilst all of this talk of CFD and engineering v management is very interesting I would like to shed my uneducated opinion on things.

Whilst, as iv told you conceptual, your a champ, i do think the above statment kind of contradicts itself, you state that Newey's experiance limits him and prevents him coming up with a revolutionary design, well i was under the impression that the RB5 was the most revolutionary and outside the box design of 09. Whilst the RBR does not run the double decker difusser, its the most unique and different car out there. Where it seems all other technical departments have gone down one path, he has gone down one all on his own....and difussers aside, its seems to be the quickest design too.

Getting back to the later discussion, it all comes down to balance. Everything in life does. Performance is nothing without reliability, genius is nothing without communication, concepts are nothing without systems.

The best net result will always come from a team that is balanced and systematic. RBR must feel that whilst Newey is vastly experianced etc... he is also maluable enough to take guidance where required and listen to his underlings as well. You need a blend of battle hardened experiance and youthful exuberance...yoiu need flamboyant designers with little regard to reliability and you need tech heads studying tolernaces to say hey you cant do that.....and then you need a leader that helps them to getl and communicate. This is where i fear RBR fall down. I dont think Horner is quiet up to that task.

But time will tell.

[noname]

It is hard to write a computer program to lead people. Empathy as well as loyalty are very difficult to make computers understand.

"hard" and "very difficult" are not the same as "impossible", right ?
maybe it's just a question of adding more IF...THEN statements to the script ?

but seriously, I think you agree experience is "must have" for manager. you may read tons of books and take tons of trainings but w/out experience you will not succeed. believe me or not but the same applies to designing.

your experience does not hove to limit you. it can even help you because thanks to it you can do something what was impossible in the past - experience could tell you why your predecessors did not succeed.

we are talking a lot about Newey's design but do we really know which ideas included into RB5 were born inside his head ? as it was mentioned his job is not to design every single bolt of the car. he is responsible for the team of very talented (no doubt about that) people and for blending their concepts into sound design.

[xpensive]

I have always seen things from the perspective that experience is something a person can gain over time, for good or for bad, while a brilliant mind or the talent for creativity is not as easily develped.

I believe that John Barnard's CF-monocoque, canard-wings, flextures and semi-automatic gearbox, were very good examples of the combination of all of the above.

But then again, without the ability to recruit competent staff to his design-team, he would have been nowhere.

The way I see it, Newey is a different animal altogether. An over-the-top perfectionist, a geek if you wish.

[Nebhotep]

Has anybody else noticed the front wing flexing on the RedBull of Sebastian Vettel in Malaysia?Can't seem to find a video just now but it appeared as if the front wing was getting lower as the speed increased and back up on the braking zones.

[timbo]

Has anybody else noticed the front wing flexing on the RedBull of Sebastian Vettel in Malaysia?Can't seem to find a video just now but it appeared as if the front wing was getting lower as the speed increased and back up on the braking zones.

Yep I've seen this. Well, rules only state that it has to withstand testing procedure and it is clear that it can.

[djos]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74483

Red Bull Racing technical director Adrian Newey will not travel to this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix and will instead focus on re-designing the diffuser of the RB5.

"We are working flat-out on a new solution already," said Red Bull's motorsport advisor Helmut Marko. "As the verdict became official, Adrian [Newey] immediately cancelled his flight to Shanghai and will stay in the factory. If everything goes according to plan, we will have the 'new' car ready for Monaco."

Marko says Red Bull was angered by the decision to approve the three double-decker diffusers because it had already submitted a similar design for approval and had it rejected.

"What angers us is the fact that we had approached [Charlie] Whiting for a clarification on a diffuser solution like the one in question and we were told it was illegal, therefore we did not pursue it any further though our design team had similar ideas," said Marko.

"I wonder what impact this will have on cornering speeds. I assume there will be problems soon when cars are going too fast, and the airflow the double diffuser creates for sure will make overtaking more difficult again. Thus it is against the spirit of the rules agreed in the working groups."