How to fix F1?

[Peter Mallett]

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.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes I understand that point too, but coupled with the CFD and other technology, the entire exercise becomes searingly expensive. The original idea of banning testing was because it was deemed too expensive. So they developed SIMs to do the job. The teams now employ a large number of technicians to operate and interpret the result from the SIMs. Kind of self defeating really.

F1 teams will spend all the money they have access to regardless of the regulations say they can spent it on it! It is neither, here nor there. Cost saving is a farce.

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!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So again, a game like rfactor is hardly comparable to an F1 race car simulator.

Some of the F1 simulators use rfactor pro, while it is more sophisticated than regular rfactor, it is IMO not "uncomparable".

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.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

[Mod] Yes, click on the troublesome poster's name and then when you get to its profile, click on lists. You have an option to add to ignore list. Hope this helps. [/mod]

Thanks Peter, I have never had to do that to anyone before.

[Casper]

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.

[Mike Harte]

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.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

My wife is an psychologist & ergonomist with a background in air and rail. Simulators are used for pilots and train drivers, also for training air traffic controllers and rail signallers/controllers. The latter groups are put through entire shift workloads in sims, in teams and on their own, to both train them and to work out bugs in the systems.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The problem is that the teams do not make public, as far as I am aware, the sophistication of their simulators.

Aircraft sims are big and spectacular and have a clear route in the public imagination to passenger comfort and safety. Racing car sims are somewhat smaller and rather more niche, so it's probably an order of magnitude more difficult to make them not be perceived as over-combobulated racing games.

It's unfortunate, because some of the technology they use is breathtaking (albeit it's been handed down from the aerospace industry, largely).

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Greem

It's unfortunate, because some of the technology they use is breathtaking (albeit it's been handed down from the aerospace industry, largely).

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

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/

[VIVA GT]

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!

[Richard C]

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

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

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

How old is that article?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

How old is that article?

It's pre-2011 season.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

But the whole point in the sims is it's cheaper to run than the physical car. They aren't cheap, but they don't require a full team of engineers and mechanics to fly out to a circuit, hire the circuit, and provide food/accommodation for everybody. And then the running costs of tyres, fuel, and general wear and tear, not only on the cars, but all of the equipment too. None of that exists with a simulator. And then you can test things which you haven't developed, to know if it's a route to go down as well.

Simulators aren't cheap, but it's cheaper than sending teams of people around the world to test.

indeed simulators (at this advanced level) are no doubt cheap but as these systems become more developed and costs go up, how do we actually know they are still, or will still be cheaper in the future, then running track tests?

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.

[chillibowl]

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.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

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.

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.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

How old is that article?

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

I agree. One issue is that aircraft simulators have a lot more to replicate as far as a physical cockpit than an F1 car. So they are more complex from that perspective.

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

[Armco Bender]

Why not make F1 completely virtual,that would solve all problems.

[loon]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Why not make F1 completely virtual,that would solve all problems.

fantastic idea !! get rid of all those pointless cars and spoilt brat drivers

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard /Casto

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?

Richard

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.

[Akrapovic]

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

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.

Ferrari are a customer.
“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/

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The problem is that the teams do not make public, as far as I am aware, the sophistication of their simulators.

The Red Bull simulator doesn't even have a 8th gear!!

Mr Newey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fcks_MVUkY
Mr Horner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IyiTCPhSOo

[Plato]

Simple get rid of pirelli and their shite tires

[Adam43]

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.