|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Dec 2018, 15:08 (Ref:3868948) | #851 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,299
|
Yes I meant without the simulators and cfd expenditure the results based on testing would be less sophistocat3d and thus more crude. Ergo the knowledge may be gained but to a lesser level.
I'm sure the costs would be similar but the result for the sport would be IMO positive. Whilst we can't unlearn things we can refrain from using those things. |
||
|
9 Dec 2018, 19:24 (Ref:3868988) | #852 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
A return to large scale testing would probably not a terrible idea. But NOT at the expense of having less races, as some people want. Better to have 26 races and no testing, than 16 races and 10 test sessions IMO! Either way you will need to have a second crew of mechanics. Better the second crew be for every second race rather than for testing! There are a lot of race series that have little to no testing allowed, and which require the teams to strategically sacrifice race meetings by testing during the race meetings. It's not a huge problem IMO. Of course not great news for the "wingman" drivers who become the designated test lackey! Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 9 Dec 2018 at 19:38. |
||
|
9 Dec 2018, 19:28 (Ref:3868990) | #853 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
Of course a simulator, is a simulation of reality and not reality. It has simplifications to made it computationally tractable. Likewise CFD is a simulation of reality and not reality. The CFD has simplifications to made it computationally tractable, mainly in the area of simplified models of turbulence as calculating the full physics of the turbulence (even though the governing physical equations are known) at the Reynolds number of an F1 car would take thousands of years even with a supercomputer! The wind tunnel, of course, is reality with real air moving over the car obeying the real physics of air. But of course it is scaled and not completely identical to the real car (e.g., 50% the size of the real car, wind tunnel model tyres instead of real tyres, a rolling belt instead of an actual road, no actual running engine inside, usually steady state yaw only and not able to replicate transient cornering), and that creates it's own problems. Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 9 Dec 2018 at 19:34. |
||
|
11 Dec 2018, 10:22 (Ref:3869370) | #854 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
||
|
11 Dec 2018, 10:26 (Ref:3869371) | #855 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I bet they get more out of a sim than real testing. They can test at every circuit they want and is another data gathering exercise which can be run as many times as they want. One of the big issues with going back to physical testing is what they would do about tyres because one of the big things it was used for was to sort out tyre compounds and that is not going to happen under the present rules.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2018, 11:00 (Ref:3869376) | #856 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,559
|
I must admit that I know absolutely nothing about F1 teams current simulators, however I do believe that they may not be as simple as many think. The BBC recently interviewed Caroline Hargrove who for a number of years was in charge of McLaren's simulator before moving over to their Applied Technologies division, and it was interesting how different drivers viewed the use of the simulators.
My thoughts on simulators is that if every airline can now teach student pilots how to fly aircraft right up to Airbus 380 in a simulator, then it is not beyond the wit of engineers and technicians to have created a similar apparatus that is able to mimic fairly closely realistic simulation for drivers. The problem is that the teams do not make public, as far as I am aware, the sophistication of their simulators. |
||
|
11 Dec 2018, 11:07 (Ref:3869379) | #857 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,090
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's unfortunate, because some of the technology they use is breathtaking (albeit it's been handed down from the aerospace industry, largely). |
|||
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
11 Dec 2018, 11:39 (Ref:3869383) | #858 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,559
|
Quote:
I would imagine that the simulators that the top teams use are fully capable of simulating uneven track surfaces, and also have the capability of simulating tyre wear and the like. |
|||
|
11 Dec 2018, 11:57 (Ref:3869389) | #859 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,222
|
I've been looking at the rFactor pro website and with regards to motorsport they say:
"Although predominantly a tool for engineering development, set-up calibration and testing, some of our motorsport customers also make use of rFpro for driver training, particularly for complex steering-wheel controlled on-car systems." Their website is definitely worth looking at. http://www.rfpro.com/ |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
11 Dec 2018, 12:21 (Ref:3869395) | #860 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,651
|
In the Channel 4 programme where Guy Martin (eventually) drove the Williams F1 car they showed some of the simulator work that he did to help him aclimatise to the car. Obviously this wasn't hugely detailed but it certainly looked far more complicated than a Play Station!
|
||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
11 Dec 2018, 12:35 (Ref:3869397) | #861 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,857
|
If you Google around, you can find this is a well worn topic by F1 fans. It seems that many teams use rFactor Pro, but they are probably using it primarily for rendering (graphics) and have stuffed in their own physics engine (maybe bespoke, maybe a modification of an off the shelf solution). I can imagine teams without a large budget may use more of the stock rFactor code and less custom solutions. Teams are likely not doing their own laser scanning of tracks. So that data may be coming from someone like rFactor or another third party. It makes no sense (cost wise) for teams to replicate this work.
I don’t know the age of this article, but it talks about some of this... http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...tors-revealed/ Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Dec 2018, 14:48 (Ref:3869430) | #862 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
Quote:
How old is that article? |
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
11 Dec 2018, 14:59 (Ref:3869435) | #863 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,347
|
|||
|
11 Dec 2018, 15:53 (Ref:3869448) | #864 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,744
|
Quote:
budget numbers would be helpful here but teams lack that sort of transparency. or maybe its for the best we dont know how much the sausage cost to make though. but logically it should be cheaper for the reasons you mention (rent/travel/transport etc) but even that i would suggest could have been a function of the teams increasing desire to bring more people and more equipment which drove up test costs in the first place. nor does it take into account the capital improvements required to build up ones virtual and computing capabilities. cost which will also no doubt increase over time. different investment schedules for each team but a new supercomputer, more electricity demand, data storage and management, additional staff (or a duplication of staff because now the track staff cant do the sim work and vice versa), new or rebuilt wind tunnels, corroboration with other facilities etc...these are all now future costs a team must invest in or be prepared to invest in. rather, over time the cost savings may not materialize. now, if tests were restricted to one car, a small number of staff, coordinated test days, and a correspondingly low amount of parts and equipment (if simulators are cheaper then i would imagine tools for data collection have also become cheaper), then would real tests still be the massive cost they once were? without numbers it hard to say. all things being equal sims are probably still the cheaper option but from an entertainment point of view, if sims/computing power are eroding the live experience (top teams too dialed in before getting to the race) then its possible that the costs saving are also eroding the profit margin of the sport so while costs are being lowered so to is the amount of payments the teams are receiving. so we are left with this reasoning...we know budgets are going up despite costs (for some things) going down and meanwhile the teams collectively are facing a shrinking prize fund because the spectacle is becoming less of a spectacle. theres a paradox here. |
|||
__________________
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 |
11 Dec 2018, 16:01 (Ref:3869453) | #865 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,744
|
i should add that, and i could be wrong about this, but developing a sim for an Airbus 320 (or another mode of transportation that will be used for 20-30) is probably an inherently different animal then developing a sim for a race car that will only be used for a year.
|
||
__________________
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 |
11 Dec 2018, 16:44 (Ref:3869466) | #866 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,559
|
Quote:
I would imagine that simulators for both aircraft and cars are capable of being updated to a certain degree. Thus, when Boeing, for example, introduce a new version of, say the 737, they are able to recreate those differences on the existing simulators. Likewise, I would have thought, for cars going from one season to another. However, technology doesn't stand still. So when improved technology emerges, there is no doubt that both the airlines and those teams that can afford it will replace older simulators with the latest versions. Going back to Caroline Hargrove and whilst she was in charge of the simulator/s at Mclaren, she made mention that Jenson Button, I think it was, who was absolutely blown away by the sophistication of the McLaren simulator when he joined the team in 2010. He is said to have commented that it was vastly superior to any other simulator he had used prior to then. |
|||
|
11 Dec 2018, 19:12 (Ref:3869493) | #867 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,857
|
Sadly they don't list a publication date, or at least I couldn't find it when I looked. If that is pre-2011, that is unfortunate, but I don't see why the core info would be radically different today.
Quote:
It's off topic, but I wonder if the aircraft simulators are rebuilt to support new aircraft or are just retired. For example I think globally the Boeing 767 is being retired. What happens to those simulators? Re-purposed or depreciated and sold for scrap? Anyhow, back on topic. Have we gotten this out of our system yet? I had to go back three pages to remember why we were talking about simulators in the first place! Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Dec 2018, 19:14 (Ref:3869494) | #868 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Why not make F1 completely virtual,that would solve all problems.
|
||
|
11 Dec 2018, 19:25 (Ref:3869497) | #869 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 270
|
||
|
11 Dec 2018, 20:12 (Ref:3869514) | #870 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,559
|
Quote:
A number, maybe many, simulators (probably ex-airline models) are bought by "Experience" operators offering the chance for the public to experience what it's like to fly a modern commercial aeroplane. Of course that comes at a premium price! It is becoming increasingly popular in the UK, but possibly not quite so in the States after 9/11. |
|||
|
11 Dec 2018, 20:17 (Ref:3869516) | #871 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,932
|
rF Pro was now used by all teams. The only team that wasn't recently was Ferrari but I think they now are too. The teams do not scan the tracks, that's done by contractors and rF Pro staff. The teams do all get the same model though. Physics sets can be stock rFactor, or provided by the teams (so at F1 level, it's easy to guess they're all using their own).
Everyone else uses this too. IndyCar, NASCAR, Formula E etc. They all use rF Pro as the simulator. Products like Base Performance Simulators are fine, but it isn't to the same level as rF Pro. |
|
|
11 Dec 2018, 20:29 (Ref:3869520) | #872 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,222
|
Quote:
“The trial of rFpro was so promising that we immediately put it to use in production-intent applications” Giacomo Tortora, Head of Simulation, Ferrari http://www.rfpro.com/about/customers/ |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
11 Dec 2018, 22:33 (Ref:3869552) | #873 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
Mr Newey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fcks_MVUkY Mr Horner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IyiTCPhSOo |
||
|
13 Dec 2018, 20:20 (Ref:3870046) | #874 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 78
|
Simple get rid of pirelli and their shite tires
|
||
|
13 Dec 2018, 20:55 (Ref:3870053) | #875 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,585
|
Hello Plato. Welcome to tentenths. Please take the time to read our FAQ.
This is a family forum and one for civilised debate. It is not a place for bad language and calling drivers names and insulting people. These things have littered your first few posts across several threads. Reasoned criticism is fine, as is anyone reasoned reply, but that is not what your posting. Please adjust your posting style. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DP's Fix | gttouring | Sportscar & GT Racing | 31 | 31 Mar 2003 13:52 |
Is this a fix? | Peter S | Formula One | 28 | 25 Mar 2003 14:17 |
Williams trying to "fix car" 2 weeks before Melbourne? | Sodemo | Formula One | 8 | 28 Feb 2003 10:12 |
If you want to fix it | mtpanorama | Road Car Forum | 3 | 17 May 2001 02:09 |
How to fix F1 | Crash Test | Formula One | 2 | 24 Jun 2000 23:23 |