Forbidding windtunnels in F1

[Just_a_fan]

I also think you are quite overreacting . a few hundred millions over a decade, I would have agreed with that, but billions? That's blowing things quite up.

No, not over reacting. To do CFD at the level that would allow no wind tunnels requires levels of supercomputer performance that are currently restricted to state-owned organisations. These machines are $200-300 million each. There are ten teams. That's $2-3 billion right there. And that's without them developing them.

A wind tunnel simulates, by actually making them, the turbulent structures that occur around the car. They're not as accurate as the real car on track, of course, because of the scale but they are there. Current RANS CFD basically doesn't do that. It gives very approximate results which are then tested against the wind tunnel - that's why the tunnel is so important. LES is better because it simulates the larger turbulence structures. DNS actually calculates all of the structures and gives as close to the real thing as you're going to get. DNS is therefore needed to replace a wind tunnel. DNS on a car-sized object is not yet feasible. It's not likely to be feasible for at least a decade, perhaps 20 years, and even then only for someone with access to what is likely to be the fastest computer in the world at the time. Again, we're talking about kit that is in the $hundreds of millions.

If you go down the route of removing all of the wind tunnels - equipment that is already paid for, don't forget, and replace it with CFD you'll just create a new arms race. The little teams won't be any better off - indeed they'll be worse off because the kit they already have/use will be outlawed and they'll have to spend a new fortune on CPUs instead.

F1 can't solve its problems by banning wind tunnels and going a different way. They'll just create a new set of financial hurdles at which the small teams will fall. If they want to get really serious about cost savings then they need to go down the route of FIA-standardised and non-changing aero components. Everyone gets the same front and rear wings and diffuser, for example. A pseudo-one-make series, in effect. So long as each team develops every component and has the money to do so, F1 will be a rich team's heaven.

[Just_a_fan]

Also, as some of you have already pointed out, they´re not real life experience, they use 1:2 scale models, they can´t simulate lateral wind, they can´t simulate kerbs, they can´t simulate front car slipstreams, they can´t simulate wings flex at bumps/kerbs.... they can´t simulate so many things they shouldn´t be considered foolproof.

There's no reason why these things can't be done in a tunnel. They already test for lateral flows (cross winds). Sauber's tunnel, for example, has a rolling road surface that yaws so the entire car and road are subjected to cross winds. Slipstreaming has been tested in research projects so could be done by the teams if they wanted to.

CFD eventually will be able to simulate anything you want, with a lot of development to do yet, but it´s a tool even the smallest team can use. At a different scale obviously, but even so there would be more parity than currently with some teams using huge windtunnels while others only can simulate on basic CFD

No, the richer teams will be able to buy in more processing power. That gives better results which translates to better performance on track. The smaller teams will always lose in any arms race because they're starting from a position of weakness. The only way you'd be able to create parity would be to have the rules state exactly what CFD system the teams are allowed. The smaller teams would still be at a disadvantage because the bigger teams already have more experience of this type of systems.

So cost control, more parity between teams, way easier for new teams to join F1, CFD would be road relevant as this develpment will be used on productions cars.... I can only see advantages, and not one single disadvantage. If you´re worried about perfomance just remove some restriction, for example active wings, and that will make F1 cars way faster at a fraction of the cost of windtunnels

Road relevance is irrelevant - the likes of Ford and Mercedes Benz already use state-of-the-art CFD and wind tunnels too in the development of road cars. F1 is small fry in comparison. Again, the disadvantage is cost - CFD is hugely expensive. It gets cheaper with time, of course, but if you're trying to stay at the bleeding edge then you have to pay bleeding edge prices. Again, a cost arms race that the small/new teams can't hope to compete in.

[turbof1]

That's not what you said the first time:

A decade? No way. And over that decade, how much money will be spent, how many computers built and replaced? The cost will be in the billions. Per team.

I agree with the cost of 200-300million a team over a decade. A multitude of that will be spend on wind tunnel over the same timespan. Remember: processing power becomes cheaper over time; windtunnels do not.

We will see; I'm not advocating a direct ban on wind tunnels either. I do believethe current approach should be progressively be expanded, where you can trade more amounts of cfd for less windtunnel time.

[alexx_88]

@Moxie: I think the idea that's being pushed around is to make gaining that 0.01s more and more expensive. So yes, the big teams will spend more, but instead of having a 1s advantage over the rest, everyone will be grouped within a few tenths, thus giving a fighting chance to the smaller teams as well. It's not a bad idea in itself, as it puts more emphasis on the drivers and will most likely generate closer racing.

I don't think it's right to say at this point that banning windtunnels will bring only good things. Aero development rate will decrease drastically, as the teams will have to wait for the CFD industry to catch up. I'm all up for bringing the teams closer together. I think the entertainment aspect will improve significantly, just imagine having 3-4 teams fighting for the wins each race.

Right now, regulations are halted in between. We don't see mesmerizing technical developments that would make some cars fly around the track and we don't have close-racing all around because the teams are somewhat too spread apart. I'd much rather have the latter.

[Jersey Tom]

Windtunnel is just a simulation like cfd is.

That's an interesting comment, and I'd say is debatable of whether it's just semantics. I'm not sure I'd say a wind tunnel is a simulation. To me it's a physical test bench where you characterize aerodynamic properties. Whether you know how those physical properties translate to speed at the race track is a separate story.

Let's think about a couple analogous examples.

A damper dyno.. is this a simulation?


You're testing a physical component to extract some characteristics under controlled conditions. Those characteristics might go into a full vehicle simulation, and likewise you might create a virtual shock dyno to see how well you match the physical component or have a play at some different settings.

How about a kinematics and compliance rig? Is that a simulation?


Again I don't think I would say it is. The intent is to take out all the dynamics and what not from a car bouncing around on track and extract precise measurements under slow, controlled conditions. And again these measurements could go into a simulation, or you could model a virtual K&C rig to emulate that test bench. And even though there are some very well developed MBD and FE packages available, the physical test bench is still crucial. Personally I think it would be silly to try to do a full FE model of a car like that when it's quicker, easier, cheaper, and more accurate to go on the rig.

In my mind a wind tunnel is a physical test bench just like the above two. CFD is the simulation of the true, physical test bench. Either way you're studying and extracting characteristics.

I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread.. something about future CFD and cars going over kerbs and things like that, maybe even in slip stream. I dunno about that. Combining full vehicle MBD plus short wavelength tire behavior plus full vehicle turbulent CFD? I can't imagine that remotely on anyone's radar for decades.

But that's just my 2 cents.

[turbof1]

As you said, it's debatable. I personally believe all of that are simply physical simulations to the end purpose. I do agree that The rig is a more accurate representation of the real life situation. For now; there will be a point in time cfd/cae will be able to replace it.

The only thing I would not consider a simulation would be on track testing, although you can of course reason it's a simulation too.

I can certainly understand your point of view. It's however nice to have this debate in the first place, since I don't believe windtunnels will be banned. If it comes to a vote, red bull will probably vote against.

[Just_a_fan]

Take away the windtunnel and there will be a competitive incentive, and it will stop being just a drop in a bucket.

In 2014, the total budget for the teams on the grid was about $2billion (https://infogr.am/team-f1-2014-budget-and-employees). The world's automotive industry spent $102billion on R&D in 2013 (http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-innova ... nvestments). That's just on R&D. The total team budget of F1 is 2% of what the world's car makers spend on R&D alone. So yes, the money F1 would spend on CFD development would be a drop in a bucket.

As for the incentive to improve CFD, the easiest way for a team to get better results quickly would be to buy more computing horsepower. So we'd still have the rich teams having the advantage. You can't just be a bit clever and say "hey, I've figured out how to solve the Navier-Stokes equations on a desktop PC so we're going to save money!". It's not going to happen. The only way to get finer detail in the results is by buying more CPU-horsepower. The result is an arms race and the guy with the deepest pockets wins. At present that's RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes.

[Moose]

Take away the windtunnel and there will be a competitive incentive, and it will stop being just a drop in a bucket.

In 2014, the total budget for the teams on the grid was about $2billion (https://infogr.am/team-f1-2014-budget-and-employees). The world's automotive industry spent $102billion on R&D in 2013 (http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-innova ... nvestments). That's just on R&D. The total team budget of F1 is 2% of what the world's car makers spend on R&D alone. So yes, the money F1 would spend on CFD development would be a drop in a bucket.

2% of the entire world's car R&D budget is not a drop in the bucket.

[Just_a_fan]

It's however nice to have this debate in the first place, since I don't believe windtunnels will be banned. If it comes to a vote, red bull will probably vote against.

Agreed. Nice to have an informed debate without any fanboyism

I agree that RedBull (and probably Mercedes) would vote against it. I could see Ferrari voting for it if they could go back to track testing as they did in the Schuie days - whack something new on the car and roll it on to the track by the factory. Repeat until the result is what you want.

[Just_a_fan]

2% of the entire world's car R&D budget is not a drop in the bucket.

That 2% is the total budget for F1, don't forget. The factories, the staff, the drivers, the cars and all of the development they currently do. That makes the R&D spend by F1 a tiny amount of that spent by the real world because it will be significantly less than the 2% figure mentioned above, probably only 0.2%. So yes, it is a drop in the bucket.

[SectorOne]

No, the richer teams will be able to buy in more processing power. That gives better results which translates to better performance on track. The smaller teams will always lose in any arms race because they're starting from a position of weakness. The only way you'd be able to create parity would be to have the rules state exactly what CFD system the teams are allowed. The smaller teams would still be at a disadvantage because the bigger teams already have more experience of this type of systems.

This was Horner´s idea,

‘Give everybody the same microchip for the CFD cluster and make it down to the brain power within the team as opposed to computer or wind tunnel power.

http://formulaspy.com/formula-1/formula ... -ban-11598

[turbof1]

2% of the entire world's car R&D budget is not a drop in the bucket.

That 2% is the total budget for F1, don't forget. The factories, the staff, the drivers, the cars and all of the development they currently do. That makes the R&D spend by F1 a tiny amount of that spent by the real world because it will be significantly less than the 2% figure mentioned above, probably only 0.2%. So yes, it is a drop in the bucket.

We are speaking in relative terms of course, but CFD in Formula 1 is a niche market. The CFD tools therefore are very much specified and specialised for said market. Compare it to a much smaller bucket inside the main bucket. In this smaller bucket our drop of F1 is positioned, which means 0.2% can still have a significant effect on the smaller bucket.

I however do get that everything will eventually come down on processing power that is either not available, or affordable at this point in time. I think the main concern right now is processing power, CFD programming complexity and accuracy will have to follow after that.

[CBeck113]

What will happen when the team are no longer allowed to use these very expensive wind tunnels? They'll let the cfd development companies use them to validate their simulation results. And we know how, so what's the use of forbidding them? Should they also be restricted? Don't forget - the car companies use real cars in their wind tunnels, so these 60% models won't be much use for anything else. Maybe they should have thought a bit more before making the current rules.
If it is necessary to cut wind tunnel time, then let them back on the track - expand Fridays to a full day of testing, just like in the winter tests, but with two cars. Allow Friday engines, and allocate tire sets to insure that they drive throughout the day. That would mean two additional engines to transport, and a better reason to get fans on the track on Friday.

[andylaurence]

The post rig and the damper dyno both test the full size component. They are validating that the vehicle and damper respond to specified inputs as expected. The wind tunnel and CFD both test replica parts, be they physical or virtual and I'd say that makes them simulations as neither the part nor the environment are "real." Both simulations have their positives and negatives and a combination of both is complementary.

CFD and tunnel time are both regulated. With CFD, that means the teams are sinking money into developers trying to optimise code so that it completes more quickly in the processing power allowed. With tunnels, that means the teams are sinking money into complex wind tunnel upgrades that allow more testing to be carried out in a short space of time.

When considering the cost of wind tunnels, don't just consider the cost of building/upgrading and the electricity to power them. When running a test in a tunnel, someone has to take the virtual model and design a part that replicates it. The part then has to be printed and finished by hand. The model is then built and transported to the tunnel, assembled and tested. Afterwards, those parts have to be disassembled, transported back to the factory, archived in a manner that they can find them again and destroyed securely when no longer needed. These models take up a lot of space; Marussia used around 250 standard archive boxes to store their models in 2014.

[Facts Only]

The post rig and the damper dyno both test the full size component. The wind tunnel and CFD both test replica parts.

I was going to make the same exact point, the model in the wind tunnel is simulating the car so I would say that the tunnel is a simulation, the damper dyno on the other hand is a test rig.