Forbidding windtunnels in F1

[turbof1]

During the team press conference in Malaysia, there was another inquiry to removing windtunnel programs out of F1 as a cost saving measure. Surprisingly, it received complete support from all team principals present (principals from lotus, red bull, force india and toro rosso). Fernley (Force India) even made several very good arguments for the case:

-It would remove a very huge boundary for new teams entering the sport.
-Environmental it would sense make since wind tunnels consume huge amounts of electricity.
-He called the wind tunnel "dinosaur technnology", claiming that if F1 wants to continue to push the boundaries, it should do so in the field of CFD.

What do you guys think? IMO, removing the wind tunnel from the picture makes quite a bit of sense. It's outdated technology and with it gone there would be a huge incentive to make cfd much more accurate to real life conditions.

[mcdenife]

Ok, first question; if it is dinosaur technology, why do teams continue to use and invest in wind-tunnels rather that switching completely to CFD? I take on board everything Mr Fernley said in terms of costs and energy (and hence environmental) but at the end of the day this is simply a tool, expensive yes, but a tool nonetheless and one of many used to design, build, test the cars. Its quite possible that in time and with increased/advanced use/research into CFD, we may see CFD costs rivaling or exceeding tunnel costs. Will these then be banned as well? Should it be mandated what tools can or cannot be used and if so, where do you draw the line? One of the things to also implied in the press conference was that the key factors in the prohibitive costs involved in competing was due to regulation and why,with the same colour schemes, all the cars would look identical. Effectively its not worth the while of teams lower down the grid to explore alternative means of achieving success with ideas or technology which might be cheaper. Ban wind-tunnels and sooner rather than later CFD may well rival it in terms of spending and costs. What do they do then, revert back and ban CFD?

[turbof1]

Ok, first question; if it is dinosaur technology, why do teams continue to use and invest in windtunnels rather that switching completely to CFD? I take on board everything mr Fernley said in terms of costs and energy (and hence environmental) but at the end of the day this is simply a tool, expensive yes, but a tool nonetheless and one of many used to design, build, test the cars. Its quite possible that in time and with increased/advanced use/research into CFD, we may see CFD costs rivaling or exceeding tunnel costs. Will these then be banned as well? Should it be mandated what tools can or cannot be used and if so, where do you draw the line?

Because obviously running a windtunnel gives massive advantages. It's effectively a step between cfd and track running. CFD in its current form is not yet able to fully simulate real life conditions. Specifically, it's too static.

As long as windtunnel is sufficiently allowed to be used (we already see the rules trying to shift more useage and development to cfd), the incentive will be to keep investing in a windtunnel program instead of accelerated investment in CFD.

CFD will anyhow at one point in the future completely replace windtunnel technology. It's just that on the short and middle term windtunnel development bring more benefits. Scrapping the windtunnel programs will automatically accelerate cfd development.

CFD costs will never get close to windtunnel costs. Windtunnel requires cfd in the first place, requires physical parts to be produced, and requires a huge amount of electricity. Investing in windtunnel development is much more expensive then investing in cfd. windtunnels however bring better results for now, which is why the switch has not been made yet.

[Kiril Varbanov]

Wind tunnels make a lot of sense in terms of getting accurate data instantly, provided you have precise machinery.
I can't really tell to what extent CFD may be a replacement or a complimentary tool (as it is now), but I vote for more track testing. Ban wind tunnels, allow track testing. Real traffic, real issues, drivers building expertise. Again, provided, this doesn't cost much more than maintaining a wind tunnel.

[turbof1]

Wind tunnels make a lot of sense in terms of getting accurate data instantly, provided you have precise machinery.
I can't really tell to what extent CFD may be a replacement or a complimentary tool (as it is now), but I vote for more track testing. Ban wind tunnels, allow track testing. Real traffic, real issues, drivers building expertise. Again, provided, this doesn't cost much more than maintaining a wind tunnel.

Yes, very sensible. I think we all agree that the limitless testing of the 2000's were over the top, but if you organise a few more tests right after certain Grand Prix', you'd can considerably cut a bulk of the normal costs away.

[Harsha]

Limit Maximum Km of running like 30K km (2007 i think) and allow Current year car / Previous Year car you will have more running data and more or less expenditure as CFD.

[PlatinumZealot]

Banning wind tunnels would hurt the knowledge transfer of wind tunnel use in F1 so I would simply limit the use to once or twice a year if it had to be done.

[Just_a_fan]

This idea was mooted by Horner - the guy who just happens to have a human CFD machine on his team in the form of Newey. Of course he wants to limit it as he thinks he has an advantage.

Environmental considerations are a red herring - if these people are really worried about the environment then they should scrap F1 (and all motor racing) as it's hugely resource hungry in any form. All of those engines burning fuel and then all of the jet engines and lorry engines burning hugely more fuel to get them to the races.

How much energy does it take to run a supercomputer to run CFD? How much more will be required to run CFD at wind tunnel levels of accuracy? Hint: you need to be able to run CFD in DNS to do that and no one in the world has done a car-scale DNS run because it's insanely computer intensive.

The whole thing is another one of the silly political games being played in F1 by those who were winning a year ago and don't like the fact that someone else is doing it today.

[turbof1]

This idea was mooted by Horner - the guy who just happens to have a human CFD machine on his team in the form of Newey. Of course he wants to limit it as he thinks he has an advantage.

Environmental considerations are a red herring - if these people are really worried about the environment then they should scrap F1 (and all motor racing) as it's hugely resource hungry in any form. All of those engines burning fuel and then all of the jet engines and lorry engines burning hugely more fuel to get them to the races.

How much energy does it take to run a supercomputer to run CFD? How much more will be required to run CFD at wind tunnel levels of accuracy? Hint: you need to be able to run CFD in DNS to do that and no one in the world has done a car-scale DNS run because it's insanely computer intensive.

The whole thing is another one of the silly political games being played in F1 by those who were winning a year ago and don't like the fact that someone else is doing it today.

It's not about being green, it's about branding the product green. In that aspect banning windtunnels would be simply great marketing.

Horner probably wants to get his advantages out of it. However, the sister team and 2 other completely independent teams agreed with it.

I also readed somewhere figures that a windtunnel costed multiple times the electricity all the servers and computers would.

Again the fact that the 2 independent teams present agreed with it, certainly indicates the financial benefits. If red bull was the only one agreeing on this I'd say you are right, but fact of the matter is they are not the only one bringing it forward, nor are they the first ones to do it.

[ME4ME]

Wondering what Ferrari thinks of this. Their main development method was track testing, which got banned/limited. They then lacked a decent wind tunnel for years. After investing heavily, imagine how they'd feel if that got banned too.

But more in general, I personally don't think many of the teams care about the "being green" argument; it's all about costs. And that's fair enough. But then what about the top teams buying/building dynamic test benches on which to test complete chassis+engine? It's a hugely expensive tool (€€40M apparently in Ferrari's case), but offers huge advantages which other smaller teams cannot afford. Should that be banned too then?

My personal view is that it's too early to completely ban wind tunnels, and that it may hurt F1 in performance terms being the pinnacle of motorsport etc. But I agree with Turbof1 that it would be good to slowly reduce wind tunnel usage, and increase on-track testing after some GP's.

[Just_a_fan]

Would they ban wind tunnels totally? If not, would they ban them during the season? If they ban them during the season then anyone who makes a "discovery" during the off season wind tunnel period would be all but impossible to out-develop during the season e.g. think double diffusers and how they developed during the year.

Track testing is a limited tool when it comes to developing aero packages. CFD is also limited in accuracy.

Remember that F1 is an aero formula. An F1 car's laptime comes from downforce. It's ability to brake and turn better than just about any other car comes from that. If they lose that ability then they're just another open wheeled series in a world full of open wheeled series.

I would, however, welcome a return to some testing - on the Monday following a race. That could be a bit of a problem for those teams who have a bad weekend though - imagine both cars damaged during the race on Sunday meaning no testing on the Monday. They'd effectively get a double penalty for their troubles.

[SectorOne]

But more in general, I personally don't think many of the teams care about the "being green" argument; it's all about costs. And that's fair enough. But then what about the top teams buying/building dynamic test benches on which to test complete chassis+engine? It's a hugely expensive tool (€€40M apparently in Ferrari's case), but offers huge advantages which other smaller teams cannot afford. Should that be banned too then?

I think the main thing these teams are talking about is running costs.
CFD or advanced test benches is a fart in space compared to running a wind tunnel.

I´m neither for or against a wind tunnel ban, i think they put forth valid points for getting rid of the wind tunnel.
However i think you need to increase the testing now in the beginning at least until CFD is considered somewhat waterproof before you actually go racing with the machine.

[Andres125sx]

Wondering what Ferrari thinks of this. Their main development method was track testing, which got banned/limited. They then lacked a decent wind tunnel for years. After investing heavily, imagine how they'd feel if that got banned too

First thing came to my mind after reading thead title

My personal view is that it's too early to completely ban wind tunnels, and that it may hurt F1 in performance terms being the pinnacle of motorsports

I dont think perfomance should be used as an argument, there are too many things to allow first that would improve perfomance. Active wings, active suspension, ground effects, decent tires... any of these would improve perfomance at a much lower cost than wind tunnels

[Manoah2u]

so, that wouldn't be much enjoyed by Haas i'd presume

i can't see windtunnels being completely and effectively banned. it makes no sense. All the CFD data in the world cannot compare to a single hour in a windtunnel. Yes, the windtunnel is $$ like F,$K but it gives real life data. You can only be sure the computer data is real if it works in real life.

The only 'meet in the middle' solution i can think of, is license a FIA-approved windtunnel which a team can 'rent' and use throughout the year on appointment base, and it costing a certain amount of tokens [1, 2, whatever].
Give the teams for example 1200 laps of free testing a year with free choice of location, except it cannot be at a racetrack which the teams will visit that season to avoid gaining an 'advantage'.

use tokens for windtunnel data, get back free testing to see real life data from cfd, done.

[SectorOne]

i can't see windtunnels being completely and effectively banned. it makes no sense. All the CFD data in the world cannot compare to a single hour in a windtunnel.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." – Albert Einstein, 1932

Mr. Einstein even used the word "ever" unlike you. So i think it´s safe to say CFD given time and money will be utterly superior to a wind tunnel in just about ever single possible way you can imagine.