[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

depends on how you look at it.

on one hand, monitoring the amount of hours a wind tunnel is operational for is a far easier then monitoring budgets (if memory serves the teams have to inform their local power utility when and for how long they will run their wind tunnels for so in a way the information is public and potentially more readily accessible by the FIA). so the less they run for the less staff they need etc etc so their are cost savings to be had here.

but on the other hand, this is F1 and if they save over here they will spend over there so ultimately we are talking about the same amount of money being spent as opposed to reducing spending in any meaningful way.

resource restrictions were of course all the rage several years ago but then RB allegedly kept on breaking the (i guess gentleman's) agreement so its a bit weird to now hear Newey talking about it again.

but as Old Man hinted at in the finance thread, maybe RB see an opportunity here in that they have collected enough wind tunnel data so they can move more easily over to CFD then the other teams can.

perhaps this is more about crystallizing an advantage as opposed to cost saving measures or health of the sport.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's interesting though that Newey says he would support a windtunnel ban. Not sure how much effect that would do though

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but as Old Man hinted at in the finance thread, maybe RB see an opportunity here in that they have collected enough wind tunnel data so they can move more easily over to CFD then the other teams can.

My guess RBR/Newey is confident in their CFD solution?

Richard

[JABWOA]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My guess RBR/Newey is confident in their CFD solution?

Richard

I hope someone is. The last team to go CFD only failed as their computer gave different results to the tunnel test results (which team was this again, one of the new start up IIRC.)

Plus there is the Toyota debacle where their wind tunnel was calibrated wrong for the first couple of years, but I digress.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by JABWOA

I hope someone is. The last team to go CFD only failed as their computer gave different results to the tunnel test results (which team was this again, one of the new start up IIRC.)

Plus there is the Toyota debacle where their wind tunnel was calibrated wrong for the first couple of years, but I digress.

The team that committed to CFD over practical wind tunnel testing was Virgin/Marussia/Manor.

And Toyota had a wind tunnel calibration issue? Never heard of that, only the Ferrari debacle.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JABWOA

I hope someone is. The last team to go CFD only failed as their computer gave different results to the tunnel test results (which team was this again, one of the new start up IIRC.)

Plus there is the Toyota debacle where their wind tunnel was calibrated wrong for the first couple of years, but I digress.

This may be slightly off topic (or not) and is a bit rambling. Sorry in advance...

Anyhow, it seems the secret is just getting your CFD modeling solution right. In short, that what you see in CFD correlates to what you see in a tunnel or on track. I am no aerodynamicist, but I suspect the path in the past has been to do CFD to iterate through many potential solutions, and then to pick a few top candidates and then fabricate and test in a tunnel or on track. And that as part of the real world testing you also see if your expected CFD performance is matching real world performance.

In the above example it is all about testing real solutions. How might you validate in a scenario with a tunnel ban outside of testing new parts on Friday at an event? This gets to the point people frequently bring up around how to do budget caps in that work "outside the team" can benefit the team. My point here is that what if you find you are having problems with your CFD or you are making enhancements to your CFD solution. Who says that you actually need to test a particular car part to validate the CFD calculations. For example you could create a complex shape that has no "direct" application on your car, but then test a full sized version in a tunnel and say "this is not tunnel time". You are validating your CFD "solution" (software and modeling techniques) by modeling something that is not for your car. I expect that solution may not fly with the regulations.

So what if you do the reverse. Test (pre tunnel ban) and then model.

In 3d rendering there are a few common models that are used because people can easily relate to them. This is a way to quickly "validate" the quality of your rendering. Examples of this in the 3D modeling/rendering world are the Utah Teapot and the Stanford Bunny.

Utah Teapot...


Stanford Bunny...


The point is that a CFD version could be made. Not of a teapot or a bunny, but of a complex aero object. Create a physical version and then extensively test it so that you fully understand the physical aero qualities and then use that empirical knowledge to perform future CFD model and process validation. It likely would be a series of complex objects. That could be a way to validate your CFD solution in a world without being able to check in a tunnel. For all I know this is how they do it today!

Richard

[old man]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

You putting me on the spot!

I do not have a solution but what I meant is that they are milking the green initiative when the only progress they have made is on the surface and superficial. In the background it is all just as polluting as it always has been. My idea is if you want to go green, you should do it through all your processes and not just the ones that get the most attention and media.

Well it can be pointed out that in a GP or at Le Mans the cars consume about half the fuel used, say, 20 years ago. One can argue about the cost of that achievement. Formula E uses no hydrocarbon fuel in the race cars but green lobbies will argue that the use is further back in the process.

My point is we can only make marginal gains in this process if we want to have auto racing at all

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

You putting me on the spot!

I do not have a solution but what I meant is that they are milking the green initiative when the only progress they have made is on the surface and superficial. In the background it is all just as polluting as it always has been. My idea is if you want to go green, you should do it through all your processes and not just the ones that get the most attention and media.

so this is a weird one in that i dont think F1 actually knows how to grab good headlines when it comes to its so called 'green initiatives' because what they are doing with their engines may ultimately prove, if the tech can move quickly to road cars, to be both a more immediate solution to conservation/emission issues while offering a more practical solution for countries like India and China (and the US which still uses a lot of coal for electricity generation) which are having a hard enough time producing enough electricity as it is without the challenge of every car and house/building going full electric.

i also dont have the answers but this is an interesting article with some quotes from Paddy Lowe discussing this issue.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/...ectric-vehicle

[old man]

Thanks Chilli for that link to an excellent article. It confirms my point about Formula E quite nicely and the author is quite correct, F1 and FOM should say a lot more about the achievement, as should the sports/GT guys.

It would be a good line for the manufacturers to take in their PR

[chillibowl]

it would be a good line for the manus to pursue but, if i was to guess, that message is at cross purposes to the electric car message that their parent corporations' boards and marketing departments currently see as the priority and/or their best path to maintain sales and profitability in the future.

and thats what i find so frustrating about the current plight of F1.

if they dont see hybrids/more efficient IC turbo/smaller capacity engines as part of their future, if they cant figure out a way to bring this F1 tech to their road cars in a timely and affordable manner, then i cant for the life of me understand why they are willing to spend so much money on their F1 programs.

and that bring us back to budget caps!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if they dont see hybrids/more efficient IC turbo/smaller capacity engines as part of their future, if they cant figure out a way to bring this F1 tech to their road cars in a timely and affordable manner, then i cant for the life of me understand why they are willing to spend so much money on their F1 programs.

But there is crossover, and it has been proven.

Mercedes has made no secret of the fact that one of the major, if not the most important, reason that they came out of the box so successfully with this latest generation of power-units was because of the input from engineers on their road vehicle divisions. They incorporated them into the racing team at a very early stage, because of the knowledge that they brought to the party.

And it should also be remembered that the green light for funding on the F1 project has only been given by the main board of Daimler Benz because the racing team were able to demonstrate the huge (25 to 35%) fuel savings over the previous power-units.

[chillibowl]

no doubt there was crossover but do you think that if they were asked that same question today they would still green light an F1 project?

between a rapidly changing consumer market, several new electric car and truck lines planned for market within the next several years, and next to zero promotion of the fuel savings gained through its F1 program, it seems to me they are going in a different direction now.

as always though, time will tell.

[S griffin]

Having seen the feature on Autosport of the new technical regulations, I have to say that those in F1 have got their priorities wrong. Putting in more downforce may make the cars more challenging, but we should be making sure they can produce good racing, without the need of DRS. I love the fact we've gone to wider tyres, it's just a shame they've done an overreaction with the aero

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Having seen the feature on Autosport of the new technical regulations, I have to say that those in F1 have got their priorities wrong. Putting in more downforce may make the cars more challenging, but we should be making sure they can produce good racing, without the need of DRS. I love the fact we've gone to wider tyres, it's just a shame they've done an overreaction with the aero

And its all because a man of small stature wanted faster cars.

[Adam43]

I'm afraid it's a reaction to the whinging that the cars were slower than they used to be and were too easy. It's all because the rule makers listen to what people whinge about. The whinging, if you listen to all, is poorly expressed, often just whinging, and inconsistent. Now we have poorly chosen, reactionary and inconsistent rule changes.

What we actually need is one man, with one consistent vision, to drive the sport. The little one doesn't have that.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What we actually need is one man, with one consistent vision, to drive the sport. The little one doesn't have that.

Hello Ross Brawn

[Adam43]

Why not. Although I am afraid he's got more to him to want to do this!

[chunterer]

I strongly suspect that if these wider wings prove to be racing preventative they will be 'cilpped' in time for the start of 2018

[Adam43]

Then we can whinge that the cars are barely quicker than GP2. Phew!

[Sodemo]

If they simply increased the wheel track (width) and made the nessesary changes with the tyres the cars would have been fast enough. There was no real need to increase the aero, actually i'd have gone the other way and reduced it. The cars are already fast in fast corners, its the slow / medium corners where the cars are much slower then previous. Increasing mechanical grip would have helped that and would have been "enough" in my view.

[old man]

Some interesting comments from Jaques Villeneuve at the Autosport show, he feels listening to fans has caused problems and created artificial racing if I understand him correctly.

Likens modern F1 to a video game, we may see more of that

[S griffin]

Yeah I saw that story as well. He's right, DRS is an overreaction to fans wanting more overtaking. Drivers shouldn't just push a button, they should work to overtake

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by old man

Some interesting comments from Jaques Villeneuve at the Autosport show, he feels listening to fans has caused problems and created artificial racing if I understand him correctly.

Likens modern F1 to a video game, we may see more of that

You do have to listen to the fans, but it takes a person or group with a keen understanding of motorsport to then translate those wishes (and those of other stakeholders) into rules that actually improve the sport. There has been a very clear lack of vision in that department over the last couple of years.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If they simply increased the wheel track (width) and made the nessesary changes with the tyres the cars would have been fast enough. There was no real need to increase the aero, actually i'd have gone the other way and reduced it. The cars are already fast in fast corners, its the slow / medium corners where the cars are much slower then previous. Increasing mechanical grip would have helped that and would have been "enough" in my view.

I feel the same. The new tire widths almost look cartoon like to me, as if they artificially wanted them to look like the 80's. Just altering the wheel track and the characteristic of the tires (and okay perhaps 2cm or so wider tyres), with cutting fuel flow 2% each year from 2018 to reduce lift and coast, would have gone a long way to bridge the time to really sort out a proper set of requirements and implementation for the new rules to take F1 successfully into the next decade from 2020.

Again too much easy shots at "spicing up the show" and helping RB a bit against Mercedes in stead of a real long term plan like Ross Brawn has suggested.

[JABWOA]

Originally Posted by old man

Some interesting comments from Jaques Villeneuve at the Autosport show, he feels listening to fans has caused problems and created artificial racing if I understand him correctly.

Likens modern F1 to a video game, we may see more of that

Occasionally, JV can be right. Fans wanted overtaking, lots of it, all the time, constant. So, bam, instant passing with the DRS. Would have been better to actually fix the real problem with aero but that's too hard (and still too hard.... Grr....)


But then he says that current drives lack respect, from the no. 1 finger giver.

[S griffin]

When he said lack of respect, he meant on track