toyota B spec

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Toyota baffle me...the largest car manufactuer in the world and they produce a car that uses a zero-keel set up whilst retaining the single keel....isnt that TOTALLY DEFYING THE PIONT of a zero keel?!?!?!

tbh I'm suprised it took so long to remove the keel with the TF106B...why did it have to wait until the B-Spec? It shouldn't have been there in the first place!

[zac510]

Because it had to repass FIA crash test when they removed the keel. It wasn't justified.

[scarbs]

Mike Gascoyne told me that the leftover keel had little aero effect (the reserse of what I thought), but the space inside the monocoque afforded by the keel was useful for packaging the suspension and pedals. If the keel was removed the whole front of the monocoque and the parts that attach to it would have to be changed. it was simpler to keep it for while.

Scarbs

[DaveKillens]

My impression is that Toyota is following an evolutionary path that allows them to back up if they run into a mistake. In the 105, they still had conventional single keel, then put in a new zero-keel suspension design. The 106 started out carrying a keel up front, even though it began it's life with the zero keel suspension. I guess Toyota was covering it's bases, making sure they could revert back to the single keel if the zero keel concept proved impossible. Only after many races, and the introduction of the 106B have they finally dropped the single keel option, and comitted to the zero keel suspension.
It's a very cautious approach, showing little faith in engineers with radical ideas. The engineers may introduce concepts, but if they prove unworkable, can be quickly changed back to the previous system. Maybe that's one reason Gascoyne is gone.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Mike Gascoyne told me that the leftover keel had little aero effect (the reserse of what I thought), but the space inside the monocoque afforded by the keel was useful for packaging the suspension and pedals. If the keel was removed the whole front of the monocoque and the parts that attach to it would have to be changed. it was simpler to keep it for while.

Scarbs

Because it had to repass FIA crash test when they removed the keel. It wasn't justified

Isn't that essentially a poor design then. If the keel left room to help packaging issues...why adopt the zero-keel design at all? And if removing it meant they had to re-take the FIA's crash test why not design the car without a keel in the first place.

I understand their "Constant Evolution" theory, but to me it seems that their constant evolution is constantly slow.

I know the keel isnt the be all and end all of car performance, but it just seems to me to be poor design, a compromise where it isnt nessecary if you like. And if they've done it with the keel, where else could this be done?

It all just seems....well...a little pointless.

BUT...they're the F1 designers, they know more than me (for now lol)

[janus]

jud done readin an interview whid ralf shumacher abou the tf106 b whid heavy critics of the driver to is new car and saynd that the prob is aerodyanmic...

the spend 6 races working on the tf106b the only thing they change is the supension geometry ...and now the prob is aerodynamic??!!! e think they dont now what the prob is ...and they have de largest budget on f1

6 races working on a car only changin the suspension and not change the aredynamis is stupid...i think toyota have give another gun sooht in the feet frist they fire mike gascoyne...than the 106b is the same thing then 106 ...nobody can be that stupid...

[RH1300S]

Toyota baffle me...the largest car manufactuer in the world and they produce a car that uses a zero-keel set up whilst retaining the single keel....isnt that TOTALLY DEFYING THE PIONT of a zero keel?!?!?!

tbh I'm suprised it took so long to remove the keel with the TF106B...why did it have to wait until the B-Spec? It shouldn't have been there in the first place!

What I have read about this (Autosport and I hope I get it right )

The keel remained because Bridgstone tyres were imposed on the race team at the last minute - a commercial decision, not a racing one. This did not leave enough time to re-develop the geometry of the front suspension and get a new chassis made in time for the first races. The front of the car has some serious knock-on right down the car, so rushing through this part was not an option. As a result of this, the suspension does not have the proper camber adjustment required by the Bridgestone tyres.

Something else interesting in Autosport (I think connected with the Bridgstone decision), they had to run last year's gearbox. This was shorter than they wanted as it accomodated the longer V10 engine. This means that the bodywork at the rear of the car wasn't optimised to suit the shorter engine.

Hopefully these things will have been addressed with the "B"

Autosport suggest that although the race team is mainly autonomous, there have been certain "hard point" decisions imposed by head office. Tyres being one of them - changing to Bridgestone may not have been a bad choice in itself; but doing it when this years car was geared to Michelins was.........

Also, suggestion that this interfering was one reason MG went; an example given was that he wanted to chase raw downforce to keep this early season car more or less on pace; head office said "no".

[Steven]

So basically Toyota's top management are imposing some things without having much confidence in their engineers and without taking into account the state of development of a project at that time.

No matter what amount of money is invested, they will never become a topteam if such decisions keep coming.

Briatore and Renault are exampls to look at for the team. Flavio is given full responsibility and fired/hired several people soon after being appointed head of the F1 team.

To me, this Kaizen stuff is just sold thin air that is popular in Japanese industry. They have been known for weird methods, but after all their economy collapsed too about 5 years ago. You don't hear Renault or McLaren talk about any special business strategy do you?

[NickT]

Also, suggestion that this interfering was one reason MG went; an example given was that he wanted to chase raw downforce to keep this early season car more or less on pace; head office said "no".

Bloody stupid employing a top designer and then putting artifical barriers in his path to success, but very Japanese and it explains why they are where they are on the grid despite one of the biggest budgets and one of the best engines

[tf1]

Actually, the design of the front end has a lot to do with lead times for different components as well as testing required by the FIA. As a result, it takes quite some time to effect a major change in that area.

As for Gascoyne, I think it was a good decision. The guy was fixated on aero. But at the same time, did he come up with anything groundbreaking? Absolutely not. Look at the stuff on the TF105B and Tf106. Those clearly had his influence. In the meantime, the chassis side languished. The problem is that unless you have a stable chassis, the aero doesn't give you a whole lot because the angles of attack are all over the place as the car pitches and rolls around turns. Unfortunately Gascoyne's influence will seep into the TF107 again because of the design lead times. Toyota management was not the problem, it was Gascoyne's pig headedness about aero development that he didn't even really end up doing much with (except adding a whole crapload of little winglets everywhere).

I believe Gascoyne was lucky to have good people who happened to work under him at other places. Unlike a true top designer like Newey, he just doesn't have a clue about how to really make a car faster. He may have some decent management ideas but they could have hired just about anyone who has worked at McKinsey and Co to restructure the team and "improve communication".

[m3_lover]

They had also employed talented designer Mike Gascoyne to oversee the development of the Toyota chassis. Toyota made a highly impressive start to the 2005 season. Trulli was able to show the car's pace by qualifying second for the Australian Grand Prix and finishing in second at the following two races. Results soon began to peter away as Toyota was unable to keep up with the pace of development. Nevertheless, the 2005 season has been Toyota's most successful Formula One season by far,as they scored points in all but the opening race,and ofcourse the controversial US Grand Prix.

When he came to Toyota, his influence was showing already, I tend to believe the switch to bridgestones was a big problem for the team, even there testing times before the season started were good.

[m3_lover]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_F1

click on the team principal link lol

[Tp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_F1

click on the team principal link lol

That could explain Toyota's poor performance, hiring him, who clearly has no experience in F1

[JimmyK]

click on the team principal link lol

how long's that gonna last then before it's corrected?
START THE TIMER!

[Tom]

Maybe thats where Ralfy gets his ideas from?