Formula None wrote:
...
Holy mother of optical illusions; that image gives the perception of the right drive shaft being bent, but it's just the reflection from the endplate.
Formula None wrote:
...
You see I think it could well be a significant step for them. Targeted use of the exhaust gases seems to be all the rage this year and look what effect is had on the McLaren! Obviously, each car is different, but I would say there should be particular benefits for the Williams design as the exhausts a) won't mess up the Gurney operation and b) do some "blowing" around the sides of the diffuser. The system is literally a 2 x win.raymondu999 wrote:It depends how well it works, on their implementation, and how much that actually affects their aero. RBR's rear end is very different from Williams' nonexistent rear end configuration. Also I don't think we can actually use tenths to quantify upgrades. Most teams do, but it's rubbish IMO. I mean, something that gains you 0.5s at Monza probably wouldn't gain you 0.5s in Suzuka. Considering different corners, different straight lengths, different lap lenghs etc
Ruh roh. Is their tiny gearbox causing problems?Neither FW33 finished the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. What caused the retirements of Rubens Barrichello and Pastor Maldonado?
We had transmission failures on both the cars this weekend. We had a failure on Pastor’s car early on in the race, with Rubens retiring on Lap 48. We are still currently investigating both problems.
Rubens had a gearbox oil leak during final practice on Saturday morning. Did this contribute to his retirement in the race?
No, it was unrelated. The issue we had on Saturday was with the rear gearbox oil seal that caused a leak.
horse wrote:You see I think it could well be a significant step for them. Targeted use of the exhaust gases seems to be all the rage this year and look what effect is had on the McLaren! Obviously, each car is different, but I would say there should be particular benefits for the Williams design as the exhausts a) won't mess up the Gurney operation and b) do some "blowing" around the sides of the diffuser. The system is literally a 2 x win.raymondu999 wrote:It depends how well it works, on their implementation, and how much that actually affects their aero. RBR's rear end is very different from Williams' nonexistent rear end configuration. Also I don't think we can actually use tenths to quantify upgrades. Most teams do, but it's rubbish IMO. I mean, something that gains you 0.5s at Monza probably wouldn't gain you 0.5s in Suzuka. Considering different corners, different straight lengths, different lap lenghs etc
I don't know, I could be wrong. McLaren didn't do a good job with the blown floor on first attempt last year, but to me this system seems more simple to implement with some fairly obvious gains.
"We started work on that system after Valencia. The first time we saw it was when Red Bull Racing ran it on the last day – and we've copied the idea.
Hmm, wonder why they didn't go with the renault idea? probably takes too long to implement.We tried out a Renault version and a Mercedes-Benz version, but it is the Red Bull Racing one we have committed to."
ringo wrote:Hmm, wonder why they didn't go with the renault idea? probably takes too long to implement..
I can imagine that if it is hard to make an RBR type exhaust due to the collector packaging then it must be very hard to make an FEE. I'm not sure the Renault system has yet shown enough advantage for it to be worth the effort, particularly if the sidepods need bloating. I reckon that would compromise the design advantage of the wee-box.Sam Michael wrote:We had the change the exhaust system quite a bit because of the way the collector is packaged. With us it is packaged backwards. If you had a forward collector and a U-bend, it would be easy to change it to the Red Bull idea.