A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Really, it is no big deal. Expensive yes, but every year, there are a number of crash test failures with all the teams
I couldn't understand the fuss about this crash-test fail. its not like its happened for the first time.
The important thing is 'how' it failed, which we are not being told. If it is simply outside the limit of deflection, not a problem, but if it involves 'curves not meeting the calculated strength' or similar, or shattering of some sort it could be very time expensive.
The two ends are probably a month apart in damage.
Have you or anybody following F1 ever been told how and why (details) a crash test had failed?.
I couldn't understand the fuss about this crash-test fail. its not like its happened for the first time.
The important thing is 'how' it failed, which we are not being told. If it is simply outside the limit of deflection, not a problem, but if it involves 'curves not meeting the calculated strength' or similar, or shattering of some sort it could be very time expensive.
The two ends are probably a month apart in damage.
Have you or anybody following F1 ever been told how and why (details) a crash test had failed?.
No, but it does not change the statement (Does it?)
Its always speculation
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
But rather pointless speculation ! why create suspicion etc when you have no actual information?
How is that creating suspicion?
I just remarked that the manner of the fail can mean little or a serious problem. I have not suggested that it is either.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I d say they failed with Merc style nose as Ferrari Guineapig.
That makes no sense. Ferrari has more than enough resources to "guineapig" themself and not push a smaller more limited team to do it.
Also, it says that the chassis test failed, not the nose crash test
Been out of F1 over Christmas, wanted a few weeks without F1 this winter.
As i see it, the chassis and nose passed all the tests, but one, the one that was added at the start of 2018 i think. That one is the chassis and nose being propelled to a surface that is at a 45 degree angle to the chassis and its pad it is on for testing. It has completely destroyed the chassis from the bulkhead to the cockpit entry. This will really hamper the team as chassis number 1 is gone, a €875,000 cost for the chassis and the nose at maybe €55,000 as a guess, this will be costly financially to the team as well as well as in lost development.
The guys there would need to be putting in work over the festive season when other teams may have a bit more time off. All this overtime will cost the team financially as well. The last chassis to fail pre season was the Lotus E21, it was an easy fix, an extra couple of layers of carbon fibre and it passed, with a weight penalty of 550 grammes from what i heard, an extra 550 grammes that somehow aided the E21s weight distribution and centre of gravity as well as it was a lower portion of the chassis.
If this is bad, id suggest the Alfa Romeo guys may have to start with last years cars. Sauber did do this before in 2015 in pre season testing as a stop gap.
It's bad, but not as bad as what it could be, you could pass all the tests and turn up with a power unit that's just utter garbage, like McLaren in 2015 and worse in 2017, or you could have a car not even turn up whatsoever for the first couple days of testing, like Williams last year. Ill even say it could be HRT bad, but ill not go there.
Been out of F1 over Christmas, wanted a few weeks without F1 this winter.
As i see it, the chassis and nose passed all the tests, but one, the one that was added at the start of 2018 i think. That one is the chassis and nose being propelled to a surface that is at a 45 degree angle to the chassis and its pad it is on for testing. It has completely destroyed the chassis from the bulkhead to the cockpit entry. This will really hamper the team as chassis number 1 is gone, a €875,000 cost for the chassis and the nose at maybe €55,000 as a guess, this will be costly financially to the team as well as well as in lost development.
The guys there would need to be putting in work over the festive season when other teams may have a bit more time off. All this overtime will cost the team financially as well. The last chassis to fail pre season was the Lotus E21, it was an easy fix, an extra couple of layers of carbon fibre and it passed, with a weight penalty of 550 grammes from what i heard, an extra 550 grammes that somehow aided the E21s weight distribution and centre of gravity as well as it was a lower portion of the chassis.
If this is bad, id suggest the Alfa Romeo guys may have to start with last years cars. Sauber did do this before in 2015 in pre season testing as a stop gap.
It's bad, but not as bad as what it could be, you could pass all the tests and turn up with a power unit that's just utter garbage, like McLaren in 2015 and worse in 2017, or you could have a car not even turn up whatsoever for the first couple days of testing, like Williams last year. Ill even say it could be HRT bad, but ill not go there.
which test from 2020 regulations you refer to? which paragraph?
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.
Been out of F1 over Christmas, wanted a few weeks without F1 this winter.
As i see it, the chassis and nose passed all the tests, but one, the one that was added at the start of 2018 i think. That one is the chassis and nose being propelled to a surface that is at a 45 degree angle to the chassis and its pad it is on for testing. It has completely destroyed the chassis from the bulkhead to the cockpit entry. This will really hamper the team as chassis number 1 is gone, a €875,000 cost for the chassis and the nose at maybe €55,000 as a guess, this will be costly financially to the team as well as well as in lost development.
The guys there would need to be putting in work over the festive season when other teams may have a bit more time off. All this overtime will cost the team financially as well. The last chassis to fail pre season was the Lotus E21, it was an easy fix, an extra couple of layers of carbon fibre and it passed, with a weight penalty of 550 grammes from what i heard, an extra 550 grammes that somehow aided the E21s weight distribution and centre of gravity as well as it was a lower portion of the chassis.
If this is bad, id suggest the Alfa Romeo guys may have to start with last years cars. Sauber did do this before in 2015 in pre season testing as a stop gap.
It's bad, but not as bad as what it could be, you could pass all the tests and turn up with a power unit that's just utter garbage, like McLaren in 2015 and worse in 2017, or you could have a car not even turn up whatsoever for the first couple days of testing, like Williams last year. Ill even say it could be HRT bad, but ill not go there.
which test from 2020 regulations you refer to? which paragraph?
The test they failed was the test where the chassis with nosecone attached, is fired at a static object that is lying at a 45 degree angle to the car. Not the one where the car is fired at a static object that is lying at a flat angle to the car. They past that one, just not the 45 degree angle one.
The company is still called Sauber as homage to Peter Sauber, the race team is Alfa Romeo... it's one of those quirks of F1 the company and team are often separate to protect bosses from repercussions.
It is not strictly an out-and-out factory operation, as Sauber's ownership and management remain unchanged and independent of Alfa.
The company is still called Sauber as homage to Peter Sauber, the race team is Alfa Romeo... it's one of those quirks of F1 the company and team are often separate to protect bosses from repercussions.
It is not strictly an out-and-out factory operation, as Sauber's ownership and management remain unchanged and independent of Alfa.
