Richards: F1 aero excessive and irrelevant

[WhiteBlue]

It appears to me that the tin top debate is missing the point. There have always been motorsport series which were much closer to the every day road car than grand prix or formula race cars. I do not see that as relevant to the topic. The issue here is whether F1 is pursuing the right technical developments for competitive advantages in order to be prepared for the future.

[dumrick]

The issue here is whether F1 is pursuing the right technical developments for competitive advantages in order to be prepared for the future.

Are you a politic? 23 words put together and no meaning in the end? Competitive advantages over what? Isn't there a market for Formula One? Does it have to take other series' place? Instead of the uniqueness of it, must we make Formula One fulfill the roles of other disciplines? Why does "the future" of Formula One have anything to do with "road relevance"?

Furthermore, mixing "technical developments" with "Formula One" these days seems a bit contraditory: Formula One has only ever been roadcar relevant, as I've stated before, in terms of powertrain technology and trends - paddle shifting, fuel injection, turbocharging, etc. Now, the engine and transmission are regulated to avoid any new breakthroughs. Roadcar technology is now ahead of Formula One even in terms of powertrain technologies. Examples?

- Hybrid technology have been available to mass-production roadcars, even before the arrival (and departure...) of KERS;

- My modest car has a variable geometry turbo. Racing technology at its origin, sure, but not Formula One's;

- Fiat Puntos and Alfa Mitos now have something close to an infinitely-variable valve lift system providing claimed 25% reduction on CO2 emissions and 10% improvement in torque and power. This technology is forbidden in Formula One and other major racing series.

Fiat's Multiair system:


My concerns are that Formula One is no longer relevant in what it has always been relevant, because of excessive ruling on powertrain techniques and layout. Maybe we should get that back, instead of trying to make Formula One something something it has never qualified to be.

[WhiteBlue]

The issue here is whether F1 is pursuing the right technical developments for competitive advantages in order to be prepared for the future.

... 23 words put together and no meaning in the end? Competitive advantages over what? Isn't there a market for Formula One? Does it have to take other series' place?

This is all about the question of the direction the rules should take. Rules are foremost restrictions. They have a directive function. If you want the constructors to actively pursue competitive advantages in propulsion technology you do make different rules to a situation where you want the advantage to be found in aerodynamics. It is not so difficult to understand that I advocate rules that focus the engineering competition on propulsion technologies that are relevant to the automotive world.

All the teams together spend north of 2 billion $ for development of their cars in 2009. Probably half of that went into aero development and chassis mods for aero optimization. Probably not more than 10% went into fuel efficiency, energy storage and recovery developments. I simply would like to see these figures reversed. It has nothing to do with the amount of downforce or performance that an F1 car should have. It has also no relevance to the question of rally, endurance, saloon racing or dragster racing. It is simply a preference that I think will benefit F1 for the future.

[dumrick]

Probably not more than 10% went into fuel efficiency, energy storage and recovery developments. I simply would like to see these figures reversed.

There, we agree. The comparative little effort put in those areas is only due to FIA's decision that no powertrain should be significantly better than the others and that it should fit a "template". If competitive gains were to be found there (without the FIA castrating those gains afterwards), the focus would shift.

Concerning aerodynamics and chassis, they are fields where little or none carry-over was ever done to roadcars (active suspensions, ground effects, carbonfibre chassis?), and that always related more to other industries (aeronautical?), because people don't drive single-seaters with exposed wheels and wings all over. And if Formula One is to remain Formula One, these areas will never relate to roadcars. That's where the subject of other forms of motorsport comes from: there are other racing series for that.

[WhiteBlue]

Probably not more than 10% went into fuel efficiency, energy storage and recovery developments. I simply would like to see these figures reversed.

There, we agree. The comparative little effort put in those areas is only due to FIA's decision that no powertrain should be significantly better than the others and that it should fit a "template". If competitive gains were to be found there (without the FIA castrating those gains afterwards), the focus would shift.

The main point here is that the competitive advantage should not be ICU power. Competitive advantages should be total weight/power ratio including power from HERS and KERS and weight advantages generated by efficiency gains. If you allow the ICU power to increase very shortly you have to adjust something to curb excessive performance. Only by limiting the power of the ICU and gradually decreasing it with rising efficiency you create a stable formula which permanently pursues propulsion efficiency. This is what I mean by focussing competitive advantages on development fields that are relevant for automotive users.

Concerning aerodynamics and chassis, they are fields where little or none carry-over was ever done to roadcars (active suspensions, ground effects, carbonfibre chassis?), and that always related more to other industries (aeronautical?), because people don't drive single-seaters with exposed wheels and wings all over. And if Formula One is to remain Formula One, these areas will never relate to roadcars. That's where the subject of other forms of motorsport comes from: there are other racing series for that.

I'm not interested to push F1 into other series concepts like closed wheels or series homologation or endurance prototypes. I would never consider to shorten races like Ferrari propagate it. I want F1 to be as performant and entertaining as it is. That should never change. An F1 car should have a typical aero configuration which never changes and downforce should be limited to a suitable level.

[Ciro Pabón]

I xpect Ciro's wrath to come down on me like a ton of bricks any second now...

That's not my intention. I apologize if that's the impression I have left...

Dumrick has a point. Let's try to find the middle of the road here.

What if we call it "car engineering development" instead of "road relevance?

Altough most sports have little to do with engineering, racing is one of the few sports, perhaps the only one, where you have, besides athletes, engineers competing. Yeah, sure, other sports have engineers around, but few have engineers in the middle.

I think that's the reason why you can mention from memory at least a half a dozen gadgets, that have been developed in racing competitions, altough perhaps not invented, as dumrick explains. Any engineer is familiar with the difficulty of development, compared with invention.

So, even if the shape of F1 cars will never (who knows?) be used in regular cars, there is no doubt in my mind that aircrafts and F1 cars have made easier for engineers (heck, for everybody!) to analyze a car body.

I think that's the reason this site is a magnet for engineers, technicians and fans: it's fun to learn and racing is a way to do it.

So, if the aerodynamic regulations of today are excessive, from the point of view of justice in sports, the effort behind the analysis is good for us, drivers of the world.

In my particular case, again drifting out of thread, (sigh) I've learnt more about road design from Formula One race track designers than from all my teachers in the U (I might be exaggerating a little here). I guess there is a couple of aerodynamicists around the site that can say the same. I won't argue about particulars, Richards knows more than any of us.

[dumrick]

Great post, Ciro, as usual, although a bit on the sentimental side, perhaps, and yes, it's easy to find the middle of the road between us but, let's be honest, we aren't the focus group, also. We, in this forum, are the kind of people who'd always watch Formula One, even if it was raced on skateboards, with a lawn mower engine on the back.

Strictly on topic (I realize I've already drifted far away), what we are analysing here are the statements from a guy who, a month or so ago, was quite sure was going to buy a major stake in one of the biggest established teams -the "insider's reports that were twitted around that time gave accounts of someone being quite sure Richard's bid had been successful at Renault and, when you examine the sources, they seemed to be on the other side of the channel, from where I'm sitting.
I just don't see the guy making the same kind of comments if he had grabbed those shares - he would be unwise to devalue his investment that way. He would probably join the chorus on how Formula One is environmentally responsible (some major sponsors are no long sponsoring motorsports, to please to their green clientele) and how the racing is close, and everything is so thrilling and challenging and yadayadayada...

I don't believe a guy like Richards is unaware about how much of the motorsport industry is composed by little constructors, tyre makers, electronics suppliers, hose makers, fastening systems manufacturers, and so on, whose work has little or nothing to do with Formula One - and that many times do work that is important in terms of mass-car engineering. He can't be unaware, because surely his own company - Prodrive - is one of those.

I believe that, having much respect for Mr. Richards and what he has already accomplished for the sake of this industry we all love, this is not the right time to listen to what he has to say on this. Right now, his opinion can't be unbiased and sounds a bit like despise.

[Jersey Tom]

There is no need for F1 to be relevant to consumer cars. Zero. Never has been.

The consumer relevance and "green" racing thing are just BS marketing ploys.

Only thing F1 should be concerned with is making sure it's inviting enough for a variety of manufacturers to come to the table to have a good competitive field. Managing cost is key to that.

Developing brand new stuff like KERS is directly opposite the cost point...

[djos]

There is no need for F1 to be relevant to consumer cars. Zero. Never has been.

The consumer relevance and "green" racing thing are just BS marketing ploys.

Only thing F1 should be concerned with is making sure it's inviting enough for a variety of manufacturers to come to the table to have a good competitive field. Managing cost is key to that.

Developing brand new stuff like KERS is directly opposite the cost point...

+1

[WhiteBlue]

Only thing F1 should be concerned with is making sure it's inviting enough for a variety of manufacturers to come to the table to have a good competitive field. Managing cost is key to that. Developing brand new stuff like KERS is directly opposite the cost point...

Managing cost is important for private and manufacturer teams. Private teams die constantly when costs are too high. manufacturer teams die in waves when the economic cycle makes them pull out. The key to lower cost is keeping engine cost low and limiting team head count. Hopefully F1 has learned that.

Managing engine cost is mainly done by limiting the number of engines per season. Unfortunately there is also a cost factor in engine standardization and homologation. The tricky thing will be freeing up the standardization and homologation rules while avoiding a cost spiral.

Those who represent manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Aston Martin and VW have all come out in support of KERS for a new 2012 engine formula. The automotive manufacturers need to show that their key competence benefits the F1 car performance. If that is achieved it is irrelevant that F1 cars and road cars look different. Mercedes achieved that in 2009 by fielding the best engine/KERS combination.

[Shrek]

I was thinking one way to lower the cost a little bit is to have 6 pit crew members over the wall The 2 fuel guys 1 tire changer, 1 tire carrier, and the 2 jackman

[WhiteBlue]

I was thinking one way to lower the cost a little bit is to have 6 pit crew members over the wall The 2 fuel guys 1 tire changer, 1 tire carrier, and the 2 jackman

1. There will be no refueling in F1 2010.
2. There is no wall between garages and car service positions in the F1 pit lane.
3. The resource agreement limits the personal to 45 heads per team at race weekends in 2010

[bjpower]

Only thing F1 should be concerned with is making sure it's inviting enough for a variety of manufacturers to come to the table to have a good competitive field. Managing cost is key to that. Developing brand new stuff like KERS is directly opposite the cost point...

Managing cost is important for private and manufacturer teams. Private teams die constantly when costs are too high. manufacturer teams die in waves when the economic cycle makes them pull out. The key to lower cost is keeping engine cost low and limiting team head count. Hopefully F1 has learned that.

Managing engine cost is mainly done by limiting the number of engines per season. Unfortunately there is also a cost factor in engine standardization and homologation. The tricky thing will be freeing up the standardization and homologation rules while avoiding a cost spiral.

Those who represent manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Aston Martin and VW have all come out in support of KERS for a new 2012 engine formula. The automotive manufacturers need to show that their key competence benefits the F1 car performance. If that is achieved it is irrelevant that F1 cars and road cars look different. Mercedes achieved that in 2009 by fielding the best engine/KERS combination.

Mercedes achieved what exactly? ask anyone about hybrid cars and they will say " oh you mean the prius"

you plan for cost cutting is to introduce a technology that will cost millions to develop and will have no relevance to road cars anyway.
Its just this crap of being seen to be doing something.
i would point out that the f1 kers system works completely different to that of a road car its purpose is completely different.

how many road cars are using the traction control systems designed by f1 teams
answer: none.
because the only thing you can possibly take away from F1 is concepts.

how are private teams meant to fund this during a ression?

I think introducing new technology just to make headlines is crap and will destroy the sport.

and of course merc and fearri want kers it gives them a spot they can out spend the private teams and ensure dominance.

introduce technology's that make the sport interesting. aero is something we can see and discuss.

[noname]

The key to lower cost is (...) limiting team head count.

will it solve one of the biggest problems of today's economy - rising unemployment ?

who will buy cars stuffed with green technology developed by F1 if we will be firing people everywhere ?

[WhiteBlue]

The key to lower cost is (...) limiting team head count.

will it solve one of the biggest problems of today's economy - rising unemployment ?

The agreed Resource Restrictions for 2010 and 2011 will lower the cost of designing, building and racing F1 cars to a point where 13 teams are viable instead of 7 or 8 which we probably would have without restrictions. So in net effect employment will not significantly drop compared to what would be sustainable. It will drop to some extend due to the dissappearance of over inflated budgets like Honda's and Toyota's.

who will buy cars stuffed with green technology developed by F1 is we will be firing people everywhere?

Those two things have nothing to do with each other. People will buy the McLaren MP4-12C which will be the greenest super car in 2011 with lots of F1 technology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... ercar.html

Ron Dennis is betting his company on that. At the same time McLaren will have substantially reduced their F1 team in line with the resource restrictions. Figure out for yourself who will buy a McLaren. The same people who are nuts about cars anyway.

http://paultan.org/2009/12/22/jay-leno- ... n-mp4-12c/