virgin need a new fuel tank

[Tomski]

Consdering how much bench testing is done on the engines, accurate consumption figures must be avaialbe to the team. The length of the races is known how could you possibly manage to get this so wrong that you need a "B" spec car? Nick wirth in my opinion has lost all of his professional reputation over this cock-up!!

[Dave B]

Consdering how much bench testing is done on the engines, accurate consumption figures must be avaialbe to the team.

To an extent. But if the finished car is more "draggy" than you expected, ie needs more energy to push it through the air, then bench testing means nothing. It's still a pretty fundamental cockup, mind.

[ioan]

To an extent. But if the finished car is more "draggy" than you expected, ie needs more energy to push it through the air, then bench testing means nothing. It's still a pretty fundamental cockup, mind.

They could still change the engine mapping in order to have a lower consumption and finish the races, that is if they don't brake down before the end.

Nevertheless these stupid rules about not being allowed to change the chassis are making F1 look like a joke.

[Malbec]

Nick wirth in my opinion has lost all of his professional reputation over this cock-up!!

Apparently the problem was with the supplier who made an error in the design of the tank. Its not about fuel consumption and having enough fuel, its about having a design that could ensure that whatever g-forces the car was going through the tank could still supply fuel at nearly empty levels.

Doesn't sound like it was a design error by the team to me. If a supplier claims their goods are up to spec then you simply have to believe them until they are delivered.

I'm a bit surprised by the number of people who think CFD is used to design the entire car, as the name implies its only used for aerodynamics. The fuel tank and chassis would still have been designed on computer but even if Virgin were to have made a schoolboy error (which they didn't) it would not be a reflection of how good CFD is. The only thing that will show whether CFD on its own works is performance on track.....

[ioan]

I thought they all use the same supplier for the fuel tanks.

[Malbec]

I thought they all use the same supplier for the fuel tanks.

I believe there are two or three main suppliers, but even so that does not stop a supplier from making an error on only one of its fuel tanks designed to fit into the shape and space Virgin asked for.

[Tomski]

Apparently the problem was with the supplier who made an error in the design of the tank. Its not about fuel consumption and having enough fuel, its about having a design that could ensure that whatever g-forces the car was going through the tank could still supply fuel at nearly empty levels.

Doesn't sound like it was a design error by the team to me. If a supplier claims their goods are up to spec then you simply have to believe them until they are delivered.

.....

How can an external supplier have got the design so wrong? I was under the impression that modern F1 cars were a fully intergrated "system" not merely a collection of parts, assembled to create the final car?

Whoevers at fault here, what away to have your reputation ruined.

[wedge]

How can an external supplier have got the design so wrong? I was under the impression that modern F1 cars were a fully intergrated "system" not merely a collection of parts, assembled to create the final car?

You want the parts bespoke as possible but that is never the case entirely and compromises are inevitable.

[Robinho]

the supplier thing contradicts what Nick Wirth said on the telly earlier.

he said they had to have their chassis calcs complete in June, and that of the 3 things they based the fuel tank size on, 2 had changed, and as it was always a bit marginal, so when they got on track it became apparent they didn't get it quite right.

the 3 things he said were the consumption figures from Cosworth (which he says didn't change), the specification of the fuel (they were expecting it to be a denser fuel, which got changed at the Brazilian GP, and something in the technical regs that also got changed at the end of last year (sorry i can't remember what, but it'll be on the iplayer in the interview in the pitlane before qually started. he mentioned something about not being able to top up on the grid too. all those things combined meant there already slightly marginal calcs were wrong.

[Robinho]

27 mins into the qually programme, NIck Wirth interview with Jake Humphrey, EJ and Coulthard - in June when they locked down the monocoque they were told they were getting a "high density fuel", which changed in October to what they are using now. tech changes included the requirement to do an impact test with a fuel tank of fuel which meant they had to slightly change the construction of the monocoque (to pass i assume). apparenlty that requirement was also introduced in Oct at Brazil.

That coupled with not being able to top up on the grid anymore, he said, meant that they were "too marginal to be comfortable" and "we pushed the boundaries and got it slightly wrong" although interestingly added that perhaps they weren't the only ones.

i think any reference to the supplier of the tanks is speculation thats very wide of the mark