|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
7 Dec 2018, 20:55 (Ref:3868637) | #3351 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
I think the software and hardware is probably nearly commodity at this point. It is about how you use it. So CFD time itself is probably not costly (in the big picture). What the top teams will continue to be able to do is to hire the best people who are good at getting usable results. But... in the end, it also doesn't mean small teams can't figure it out. Which is why I think overall this is a good thing. It at least gives the smaller teams more of an opportunity to figure things out. I am also in no way saying small teams are populated by idiots. Its more about the good ones are more likely to eventually get poached by the bigger teams. For example... Adrian Newey didn't start at the top. He followed the money and/or teams that could allow him to put cars on the top of the podium. But he did help those he worked for on his upward climb. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Dec 2018, 21:04 (Ref:3868638) | #3352 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Watch slow motion video of cars and you see things like suspension movement, tire vibration, or even small fluttering of various body parts such as the wings or even engine covers (I know, there is no "movable aero"... yeah right!). You know this stuff likely matters. So you put all of that into a computer model. Or if the list of variables is infinite (you can't model everything, or at least it is hard to do so), then how to you figure out which ones have the largest impact and which you ignore. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Dec 2018, 21:08 (Ref:3868639) | #3353 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Does anyone know if the software used for CAD and CFD is off the shelf or bespoke?
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 Dec 2018, 21:35 (Ref:3868641) | #3354 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Dec 2018, 05:02 (Ref:3868686) | #3355 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
But no different to using wind tunnels 24/7. The best teams at doing whatever it takes to win will always be the best and given the right rule set that might not be the wealthiest team as has been seen in the past on the odd occasion.
|
|
|
8 Dec 2018, 05:13 (Ref:3868688) | #3356 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Aren't teams given limited run time, for both CFD and wind tunnel testing?
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
8 Dec 2018, 10:24 (Ref:3868714) | #3357 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Looks like the FIA has either found something that they don't want to have found regarding CFD, or they simply cannot police the usage. Guess Richard's supposition that they are using of the shelf CFD programs, how do you stop the use of the tools by engineers at home, in other facilities etc.? |
||
|
8 Dec 2018, 15:05 (Ref:3868764) | #3358 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Isn’t the CFD useage change related to research for the new regs?
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
8 Dec 2018, 23:56 (Ref:3868874) | #3359 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Who else has a specific branch of a multi-national company dedicated to CFD? |
||
|
9 Dec 2018, 07:56 (Ref:3868906) | #3360 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Ah, Mercedes, I see your issue. It’s dedicated to Research, but includes CFD. I suspect the F1 CFD is done in Brackley. Whatever the F1 team will have access to enough CFD you’re right. I’d worry about creep.
I only mentioned it as I hadn’t seen what was said about why it had been opened up in the thread. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...eaked-for-2019 Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
11 Jan 2019, 23:21 (Ref:3875619) | #3361 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Wolff on record that 2019 aero changes won't change an awful lot.
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/911863...wful-lot-wolff “The aim was to take away some of the aero and direct the airflow over the top of the car but they fight 2000 aerodynamicists in all the teams and I think we have found solutions to get the air around the car, so it’s not going to change an awful lot,” Wolff added. |
|
|
28 Jan 2019, 02:12 (Ref:3880092) | #3362 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...ding-arms-race
Liberty's latest agenda: Preventing a manufacturer's arms race. Limiting the cost of engines - good. Breaking the Ferrari Haas partnership at Mercedes behest - bad. "Mercedes has been as anxious to defend against Ferrari gaining an advantage from the arrangement as the independent teams have been to prevent Haas getting one up on them. Haas’s punching-above-its-weight performance last season has probably brought this to a head." |
|
|
28 Jan 2019, 16:09 (Ref:3880216) | #3363 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
1. If you put cost caps on teams, then part of this will be associated rules to try to prevent funding of development that happens outside of cost caps. One way to do this is to have two teams that are operating with roughly the same technical solution. So you would get 2x the budget to develop what is "roughly" the same car. 2. To potentially get the large teams to agree to cost caps, you have to close the obvious loop holes that others may already be exploiting. So Ferrari + Haas and maybe even more so in the near future RBR + Toro Rosso. Depending upon ownership, the slave teams may have little or no expectation to "perform" against the master team. But rather they act as sort of a on-track test team. Very much like TR was during 2018 for RBR. Granted, the master team doesn't want the slave team to trundle around at the rear, they want the concepts to do well and score points off the "second tier" teams. Related to this is the entire "customer car" idea which at it's core (I think) is to effectively abolish the "Appendix 6 Listed Parts" from the Sporting Regulations that defines the items that are exclusive to a given team. Currently that is... * Survival cell * Front impact structure * Roll structure * Most of the bodywork For the most part, that means the chassis (with bodywork) minus suspension, power-train and misc other bits. So for the current Ferrari/Haas scenario they are using the same suspension and this works as it is not on the list above. Mercedes wants to expand that list to include more items. I assume that includes at least the suspension. This goes backwards from the idea of a customer car. Maybe an alternate solution is to create an additional category of items. This category would say that a team can create their own, or use a third party solution, but if more than one team uses the solution the IP owner can't restrict access to the parts. So in this scenario, if Ferrari decides to provide it's suspension to Haas, it has to make it available to other teams. There would have to be language around reasonable costs, etc. Maybe that approach would be too complex. To be honest, what Mercedes proposes is a simple solution, but it does move further away from allowing customer cars. What needs to be found is a way to incentivize teams to rely upon off the shelf components for the basis stuff (provided by the larger community of third party providers) vs. develop and manufacture bespoke equivalents in-house. Those should be open to purchase by anyone and live outside of the cost caps. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
28 Jan 2019, 22:15 (Ref:3880291) | #3364 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
to be honest, im of a mind to think that if Merc dont like it im in favour of it.
but seriously i would like to see more cooperation between a manufacturer and their customer? Ferrari should help Sauber and Haas more, RBR should help STR, Renault and Mclaren...actually these two well established and financed teams could really change the entire game if they could somehow came up with 4 world beating cars at the same time. and frankly Merc should be doing more with Williams and FI/RP. have seen the version of F1 where its a manu vs manu arms race, cost spiraling, and privateers failing to keep up...maybe its time to try another way. lets see what happens when they try cooperation instead of divide and conquer. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
28 Jan 2019, 23:14 (Ref:3880300) | #3365 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
29 Jan 2019, 03:37 (Ref:3880336) | #3366 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
The only thing that this would seem to change would be to force Mercedes closer to the teams they supply in order to cover off the Ferrari threat. P.S. Richard, I just ignored the cost cap commentary as I believe it to be unrealistic and unenforceable fantasy! Last edited by wnut; 29 Jan 2019 at 03:46. |
||
|
29 Jan 2019, 17:06 (Ref:3880468) | #3367 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
agree with wnut..this is pretty much what we have now.
also no post from me would be complete without me saying the probelm isnt supply deals but really about relative budget sizes so here goes! Quote:
RBR's advantage was partially ingenuity but beyond that they had lots and lots of money and when they were winning titles they were outspending their supplier as well as the rest of their competition. obviously with me, the main differentiator is budget size so yes, i think a customer team with a sufficient budget can beat its suppler. failing that though, why not make things easier for the 2nd tier? allowing them to spend less money and stay financially healthy while they fill out positions 4-10 on the table seems like a good start particularity when there is no viable plan to control budgets. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
29 Jan 2019, 18:29 (Ref:3880482) | #3368 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
29 Jan 2019, 18:31 (Ref:3880483) | #3369 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
29 Jan 2019, 19:19 (Ref:3880493) | #3370 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
Quote:
who can hope to match the funding of Merc and Ferrari and if Ferrari lose their special payments then arguably its just Merc no? will have to see if RBR-Honda are up to spend as much as Merc and Ferrari. Renault, while spending more year on year, dont seem as keen to hit Merc's budget. anyways, if we genuinely had 4 teams capable of winning a title...rather if we had 4 teams at the top with similar budgets, we (well myself anyways) would probably not care as much about budgets or the financial health of the smaller teams. there would be more than enough competition at the sharp end. but its not that so yeah they need to worry about creating the illusion of competition and you cant do that when all but 6 cars are getting lapped by the first round of pit stops. an exaggeration of course but not far from the truth given how many cars fail to finish a race on the lead lap. so indeed, how can one be expected to compete against mature teams that have years if not decades of making capital improvements to their facilities and the annual budget to make use of those facilities? the fact that a well funded independent (outside of the RBs of course) are becoming unicorns surely just highlights the need for more favorable commercial deals..whether that be prize money, price caps on engines, greater use of parts designed by a patron team. it certainly doesnt detract from the idea. to each their own of course but i dont think it cheapens the sport at all. Haas' and Sauber's success this year, FI over the last few years...for me these have been the highlights of recent seasons and all of it aided by more favorable supply deals from a 'master' team. these have arguably been F1's most successful story lines. encouraging this is not grasping at straws imo. plus its better for the drivers in those small teams! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
29 Jan 2019, 20:20 (Ref:3880506) | #3371 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
As to Mercedes opposition, maybe I think Mercedes realizes that they may eventually have to outright buy a secondary team if things continue down this path. Buying to ensure they can pull the strings correctly and are trying to avoid having to do that. Probably as their budget is large enough as it is, let alone having another large mouth to feed. I apologize as this all seems very "doom and gloom" from me. I just think there is more smoke and mirrors going on than people realize. I do find ways to be excited about F1. I can join in on the self delusion and enjoy like most fans. There remains bits and pieces that truly are authentic. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
29 Jan 2019, 21:26 (Ref:3880512) | #3372 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
I think it’s always helped that Ferrari, Merc and Renault are happy to supply other teams, so it helps out there situation enormously
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
29 Jan 2019, 23:14 (Ref:3880531) | #3373 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
Quote:
i do think they should have accepted more from Merc as they always could have gone back to building their own gearbox down the road...i guess we will see where they are next year (cant come soon enough right?) for the record i do hope that they do find a way back and if its on their own terms then so much the better but given how many times they have put their hands into a drivers pocket im not so sure they can say that they go at this thing alone. anyways didnt think your posts were doom and gloom...as per usual i thought they were very much on point! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
30 Jan 2019, 10:32 (Ref:3880630) | #3374 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
I just can't see a manufacturer agreeing to have auditors paw through their accounts at the behest of the marketing department complying with a Liberty edict. There would also be so many loopholes that the whole exercise would be a pointless waste of time. Far easier to restrict the technical aspects of F1, control tyres, control ECUs, limitations of allowed alloys etc. |
||
|
30 Jan 2019, 10:48 (Ref:3880635) | #3375 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
I believe Merc are just sandbagging and riding a massive technological advantage, we saw their advantage in the 2017 Brazilian GP where Brundle was moved to say: Lewis Hamilton's new engine and maximum attack pace at least gave Ferrari, Renault and Honda a clue as to how much power and efficiency they need to find this winter. And I doubt the GPS and sound analysis will make for happy reading, unless you're in Brixworth. https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24...rack-in-brazil I really don't think anything has changed, there is literally one car in the field driven by one driver, Lewis, capable of winning! Merc have already been allowed to outspend everybody where it counts and will have an unfair advantage for as long as the current engine formula remains. Nailed by you above: to be honest, im of a mind to think that if Merc dont like it im in favour of it. Chillibowl |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |