Formula 1 simulators are a joke

[DaveW]

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111960

A slight exaggeration, perhaps, but its time that somebody in F1 admitted the limitations of simulators.

[shelly]

I do not like this type of statements that make a lot of confusio between different things, putting wind tunnel, cfd and simulators in the same basket.
Even if unlimited testing was allowed, teams would still need wt, cfd and simulators - iirc ferrari began to develop its own simulator back in 2005.

Personally I like the fact that the rules limit on track testing and force teams to rely more on design and simulation tools; I do not like the extreme "trial and error" approach.

[xxChrisxx]

Like all computer electrickery, it has it's uses for testing. It's a poor substitute for the real thing though.

The key is balance, you can change parameters quickly on a simulstor and do a wide range of testing. Where as you may only have one new part in time for track testing.

Simulation and testing should have a synergistic relationship.

[Tim.Wright]

I think the distinction has to be made here between driver in the loop "simulators" and vehicle model "simulations". The simulators being the massive structures that the driver sits in (driver in the loop) and gets feedback from a vehicle model in the form of platform movement, steering torque and a visual display. Vehicle model simulations on the other hand are only the mathematical model and can run on a single PC.

Some form of simulation will always be used. Until you actually have a car to test, simulations are required to help orient the development in the correct direction.

I think the objection at the moment is that the driver in the loop simulators are massively expensive (though arguably still cheaper than running a test team) while at the same time the race car sits in the factory doing nothing often only a few km away from the forbidden test tracks.

Personally I like the fact that the rules limit on track testing and force teams to rely more on design and simulation tools; I do not like the extreme "trial and error" approach.

The reality is that every engineering industry relies heavily on testing. Its not just a "nice to have" its an absolute necessity - hence why some testing is still allowed in F1. In fact, vehicle simulations, cfd and wind tunnels models require full scale test data to get them going in the first place.

In the automotive industry everyone still produce physical protoypes, run them on durability tracks, handling tracks and ISO/SAE maneuvers. A car is simply too complicated, given the current level of technology, to rely completely on simulation or constrained testing (i.e. a wind tunnel model).

[ecapox]

From 2014 Serie A football teams will only be allowed to practice using the current year FIFA 20xx PS4 game. No real practices because practice fields and practice facilities cost millions of Euro. Not to mention all the employees neded to maintain and manage the field and facilities.

See how silly that sounds? Spend some $$ and build a test track or locate your facility next to a track and test the damn car. You might spend less than building a state of the art wind tunnel and running it for 20 hours a day.

[lebesset]

I think the distinction has to be made here between driver in the loop "simulators" and vehicle model "simulations". The simulators being the massive structures that the driver sits in (driver in the loop) and gets feedback from a vehicle model in the form of platform movement, steering torque and a visual display. Vehicle model simulations on the other hand are only the mathematical model and can run on a single PC.

Some form of simulation will always be used. Until you actually have a car to test, simulations are required to help orient the development in the correct direction.

I think the objection at the moment is that the driver in the loop simulators are massively expensive (though arguably still cheaper than running a test team) while at the same time the race car sits in the factory doing nothing often only a few km away from the forbidden test tracks.

Personally I like the fact that the rules limit on track testing and force teams to rely more on design and simulation tools; I do not like the extreme "trial and error" approach.

The reality is that every engineering industry relies heavily on testing. Its not just a "nice to have" its an absolute necessity - hence why some testing is still allowed in F1. In fact, vehicle simulations, cfd and wind tunnels models require full scale test data to get them going in the first place.

In the automotive industry everyone still produce physical protoypes, run them on durability tracks, handling tracks and ISO/SAE maneuvers. A car is simply too complicated, given the current level of technology, to rely completely on simulation or constrained testing (i.e. a wind tunnel model).

quite so , and not just vehicles but individual components ; would you like brakes on your car that have only been tested on a test bench in a laboratory ? I am certain you wouldn't !
can't imagine how the FIA didn't have rules which forced the teams to conduct proper tyre testing being that they are the only ones with the vehicles !

[Tim.Wright]

...Spend some $$ and build a test track or locate your facility next to a track and test the damn car. You might spend less than building a state of the art wind tunnel and running it for 20 hours a day.

The truth is you can't compare football training with F1 testing. Their "practice facilities" as you put it are stadiums which generate millions in revenue from games which are played there.

Test tracks are a money hole (for the teams), but a necessary money hole if you want to develop somethin safely and properly. Test tracks, also, do not negate the need for a wind tunnel of super computers for CFD. Both of these things were used extensivley while testing was allowed. Hence the astronomical costs.

Recall also, the teams (voluntarily at first) agreed to the testing ban in the first place because the were bleeding cash unsustainably. They even't agreed against ending the testing ban earlier this year (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/05/f ... f-testing/).

The problem are basically the expenses of:

• Test teams which are required in an unrestricted testing environment. Basically this means starting another race team with personel and equipment just for testing
• Test days, not being a part of the world championship means the teams aren't paid for their running. So they are massive expenses with no financial benefit.

[Jersey Tom]

Step 1 - We read the article rather than just the headline.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has slammed Formula 1's reliance on simulators as a 'joke'.

"We have been forced to invest a huge amount of money in these terrible machines, artificial, instead of testing here and Mugello. [...] But I also want to give more opportunities to the public because from one race weekend to another it is silent in F1. There is nothing, nothing."

I'd say his whole spiel is more fundamental, that the sport should involve real, tangible, accessible testing rather than computer work - regardless of quality of predictive tools.

I think the only people who blow F1 DIL simulators out of proportion are the general fans not knowing any better, because of the visual wow factor. I don't think there's any big secret that any computer simulation is just a tool, good at some things and not good at others.

Now with all that said - I do agree with Luca to some extent that yes, there should be a balance between rig testing vs track testing vs simulation work. But at the same time, even if you opened up more track testing... you're just dumping money in an alternative method, and track testing has its own significant shortcomings. Ferrari having their own circuits certainly is convenient though, track rental itself isn't cheap!

[Tim.Wright]

Step 1 - We read the article rather than just the headline.

woah woah woh, back up there mate, read the what now?

[donskar]

Step 1 - We read the article rather than just the headline.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has slammed Formula 1's reliance on simulators as a 'joke'.

"We have been forced to invest a huge amount of money in these terrible machines, artificial, instead of testing here and Mugello. [...] But I also want to give more opportunities to the public because from one race weekend to another it is silent in F1. There is nothing, nothing."

I'd say his whole spiel is more fundamental, that the sport should involve real, tangible, accessible testing rather than computer work - regardless of quality of predictive tools.

I think the only people who blow F1 DIL simulators out of proportion are the general fans not knowing any better, because of the visual wow factor. I don't think there's any big secret that any computer simulation is just a tool, good at some things and not good at others.

Now with all that said - I do agree with Luca to some extent that yes, there should be a balance between rig testing vs track testing vs simulation work. But at the same time, even if you opened up more track testing... you're just dumping money in an alternative method, and track testing has its own significant shortcomings. Ferrari having their own circuits certainly is convenient though, track rental itself isn't cheap!

Well said, JT. I agree with Luca dM and you as well. A few points overlooked so far:
I agree with Luca dM that testing would keep F1 in the public eye between races. As it is now, nothing is seen between races, often for weeks at a time.
Testing would also help develop young talent.
It is clear from Ferrari's fiasco last year that real world testing of new aero components has the potential to save a lot of money. Just think back to all the time and money they spent on "upgrade" packages that were proven to be failures only at the actual race. Track testing could have prevented that expensive development loop.
Finally, for now, how do we correlate "reducing expenses" while Ferrari spends millions on simulations and simulators while two fine test tracks it owns and maintains are unused by its F1 cars?

[FrukostScones]

political BS by someone who kicks in his TV when he loses big time.

[wesley123]

political BS by someone who kicks in his TV when he loses big time.

This.

As far as the discussion is great the only thing in this article is "other teams have a better simulator than ours so it is a useless device to have. We have a personal test track next door which we can use any time and other teams can't so we wish to bring back testing so we can get an unfair advantage, which i just called a joke, to our hand.". Really, that's all the guy ever says.

As much as i love to read such interviews from time to time, all Luca di Montezemolo ever says is a lot of whining about how something is unfair because his team lost the championship.

I can't wait for the day that he quits.

-End of Rant-

[Pierce89]

political BS by someone who kicks in his TV when he loses big time.

This.

As far as the discussion is great the only thing in this article is "other teams have a better simulator than ours so it is a useless device to have. We have a personal test track next door which we can use any time and other teams can't so we wish to bring back testing so we can get an unfair advantage, which i just called a joke, to our hand.". Really, that's all the guy ever says.

As much as i love to read such interviews from time to time, all Luca di Montezemolo ever says is a lot of whining about how something is unfair because his team lost the championship.

I can't wait for the day that he quits.

-End of Rant-

Why should they spend huge money on a DIL simulator when they can test the car and real data instead of a close approximation?

[Jersey Tom]

To be fair, can't really blame him. They're there to win, would be silly not to try to play to your strengths. Everyone's doing that to some extent.

Why should they spend huge money on a DIL simulator when they can test the car and real data instead of a close approximation?

"Real" data from track testing has its own shortcomings.

[wesley123]

Why should they spend huge money on a DIL simulator when they can test the car and real data instead of a close approximation?

Teams spend a huge amount of money on simulators because they can. In reality, the costs of such a simulator would be much lower than to test 24/7

A simulator does not require parts to be built, does not require the fuel and resources wasted(although it uses electricity), it doesn't require a full test team to be employed. It also allows many configurations to be tested in a short period of time.

Even if testing was opened up again, I don't think many teams would choose to test a lot. With the money spent on it, simulators have improved quite a lot and are getting ever closer to the real thing. You dont need to send a large group of people away for a week to test a few new parts anymore. No, you can do that at home and test those parts in a few hours.

Teams would only test in real life to confirm the simulator, but that's it. Timewise it is much more efficient to use the simulator, and with all the data gathered the simulator will become closer and closer to real life, making real life testing less and less important.

But to get back to the article for a few words; Luca uses some of the worst arguments to get his point across i have ever seen and it only shows that all there is to the article is him whining because his team lost the championship again. That's all the guy ever says, whine how stuff isn't fair or too expensive, and give substitutions that are just as unfair and expensive, but that's alright because then the advantage will be on their side.