In Formula 1 there is a theory that any major change of concept has to be a failure. Developing an F1 car is mainly experimental, we try to be intelligent, we try to simulate to predict, but the reality is that most of the approach is pure experiment. You gradually develop your package and experimentally select directions and you create interactions. It’s not an explicit understanding of what happens, you just experiment and see what works. If you change concept you move away from this working window, and then you run the risk of damaging those interactions which you created experimentally but which are not fully under control. When you change concept of course you re-calculate everything you can, you try to predict it all, but we have only a small understanding of what actually happens.
It kinda confirms a vague notion I've had. When you see a comment about some detail change that "improves airflow around and onto the sidepods," I think it quite often means "we tried it on the model in the wind tunnel and it looked like it might somehow help more than it hurts."
Or is this about "The Toyota Way" and why their racing teams have typically underperformed so badly?
No comments:
Post a Comment