Ban wind tunnels
Discussion
Reading Mark Hughes piece in Autosport last week, he madea sweeping comment about banning wind tunnels in F1, partly due to the vast amounts of energy they need to run 24/7 and all in the race to shave 1/1000's of a lap time from all the silly little winglets that have appeared over the years on the cars.
With all these items being banned from 2008, is there such a need for teams to use wind tunnels anymore?
I'm sure computers could take over the role of wind tunnels in testing new parts and then give the teams a full day of testing on Friday at each race meeting to finally dial in the cars for the Sat/Sun
Would the teams agree to a ban? Not sure if Sauber BMW would like that having spent a small fortune on one
With all these items being banned from 2008, is there such a need for teams to use wind tunnels anymore?
I'm sure computers could take over the role of wind tunnels in testing new parts and then give the teams a full day of testing on Friday at each race meeting to finally dial in the cars for the Sat/Sun
Would the teams agree to a ban? Not sure if Sauber BMW would like that having spent a small fortune on one
I'd like the use of wind tunnels to be banned too - but there is no way the teams would ever support such a move.
Always the problem is - if something is banned in F1, will it be banned in other categories of motor racing? And, if the bans only applied to F1, would other "lesser" forms of motor racing start posting quicker lap times on GP circuits. That is something F1 wouldn't want as it would undermine F1's position as the "top" racing category.
That is exactly what happened when F1 ran to 1.5 litres between 1961 and 1965.
Always the problem is - if something is banned in F1, will it be banned in other categories of motor racing? And, if the bans only applied to F1, would other "lesser" forms of motor racing start posting quicker lap times on GP circuits. That is something F1 wouldn't want as it would undermine F1's position as the "top" racing category.
That is exactly what happened when F1 ran to 1.5 litres between 1961 and 1965.
I agree that tunnels should be banned (they add very little and cost a fortune in both money and energy), teams will invest heavily in CFD systems, so can't see a huge difference in net effect.
It's also something that they will oppose vehemently, especially those teams that have two tunnels or ones that are over half scale. Max may one day bring it up but it will be to bring something else in by stealth.
It's also something that they will oppose vehemently, especially those teams that have two tunnels or ones that are over half scale. Max may one day bring it up but it will be to bring something else in by stealth.
They add very little? I'm sure that aerodynamics are the most influential factor after tyres.
What's to stop Red Bull Technology using a wind tunnel then?
I don't think widespread banning of anything you think you don't like is a decent solution. In fact I don't think there is even anything wrong with F1. So far we've had a great season. What's to 'fix'?
If you want close racing with minimal aero, control tyres and no driver aids go watch A1GP, GP2, Champcar, British F3..
What's to stop Red Bull Technology using a wind tunnel then?
I don't think widespread banning of anything you think you don't like is a decent solution. In fact I don't think there is even anything wrong with F1. So far we've had a great season. What's to 'fix'?
If you want close racing with minimal aero, control tyres and no driver aids go watch A1GP, GP2, Champcar, British F3..
The point I was picking up from the article in Autsport is that in 2008, all these stupid aero winglets and stuff attached to the cars will be banned - and that is why teams are running wind tunnels 24/7.
The cars that roll up on the grid each round are never the same twice. Minor tweaks to the aero mean new body parts are being made all the time as new parts pass through the tunnels.
Without the push on these aero tweaks, these giant energy consumming tunnels will fast become redundant...
The cars that roll up on the grid each round are never the same twice. Minor tweaks to the aero mean new body parts are being made all the time as new parts pass through the tunnels.
Without the push on these aero tweaks, these giant energy consumming tunnels will fast become redundant...
The problem with aero being a heavily influential factor (and tyres have been eliminated from the equation by the banning of competition) is that it makes following another car closely very difficult.
It adds nothing in that everyone is in the same position and several hours need to be spent in the wind tunnel to gain half a tenth per lap. Seems a silly waste of money and an even bigger issue for a sport with a potential image problem in the near future. I still can't believe that the fuel-burning stage of qualifying continues, whether you like it or not the sport will one day come under fire. Just look at CH4's ill-informed comments at the Honda launch.
It adds nothing in that everyone is in the same position and several hours need to be spent in the wind tunnel to gain half a tenth per lap. Seems a silly waste of money and an even bigger issue for a sport with a potential image problem in the near future. I still can't believe that the fuel-burning stage of qualifying continues, whether you like it or not the sport will one day come under fire. Just look at CH4's ill-informed comments at the Honda launch.
Another stat from the same article said that the total amount of 'energy' (how they calculate it god only knows) used by the F1 circus for a whole season of racing is the same as that produced by 4 households in the UK over a whole year.
However, the same article says that the 'energy' to run their wind tunnels equates to 1000's of households.
So if F1 wants to be seen as being green with the introduction of cleaner fuels, energy saving devices and increased fuel efficiency, then the tunnels will have to go otherwise their green image will simply not hold up.
However, the same article says that the 'energy' to run their wind tunnels equates to 1000's of households.
So if F1 wants to be seen as being green with the introduction of cleaner fuels, energy saving devices and increased fuel efficiency, then the tunnels will have to go otherwise their green image will simply not hold up.
I can see your point from a green perspective and that is a very strong argument, but I will assure you that banning the winglets will not suddenly mean that the teams do not need to run wind tunnels. They still need to improve drag and the lift:drag ratio and will continue to pursue that.
The top teams have been testing 24 hours a day for at least 4-5 years now so their wind tunnel usage has not suddenly increased since they found an advantage in winglets.
I don't necessarily agree with James Allen's comments that these winglets are causing the cars to be difficult to follow. To blame the cars behaviour purely on these winglets is extremely naive. I'm not privvy to how frequently teams windtunnel test models in proximity to each other (I imagine there are all sorts of extra difficulties with scaling involved in this) but I do know they often test the cars in yaw. I'd love to hear some first hand information but it is hard to find these people if you're not in the loop.
Recently the cars have all finished in remarkably close proximity (14.5 seconds at Bahrain 1st-5th) and laps within tenths of a second in racing and qualifying mean that the cars are very very evenly matched. Think about it - if a car is not faster than another then it cannot overtake. I understand that there were some situations in recent races where tyres caused some cars to be slower than others but to say that X was 2 sec/lap faster than Y is mostly speculation.
The top teams have been testing 24 hours a day for at least 4-5 years now so their wind tunnel usage has not suddenly increased since they found an advantage in winglets.
I don't necessarily agree with James Allen's comments that these winglets are causing the cars to be difficult to follow. To blame the cars behaviour purely on these winglets is extremely naive. I'm not privvy to how frequently teams windtunnel test models in proximity to each other (I imagine there are all sorts of extra difficulties with scaling involved in this) but I do know they often test the cars in yaw. I'd love to hear some first hand information but it is hard to find these people if you're not in the loop.
Recently the cars have all finished in remarkably close proximity (14.5 seconds at Bahrain 1st-5th) and laps within tenths of a second in racing and qualifying mean that the cars are very very evenly matched. Think about it - if a car is not faster than another then it cannot overtake. I understand that there were some situations in recent races where tyres caused some cars to be slower than others but to say that X was 2 sec/lap faster than Y is mostly speculation.
kevin ritson said:
I agree that tunnels should be banned (they add very little and cost a fortune in both money and energy), teams will invest heavily in CFD systems, so can't see a huge difference in net effect.
It's also something that they will oppose vehemently, especially those teams that have two tunnels or ones that are over half scale. Max may one day bring it up but it will be to bring something else in by stealth.
It's also something that they will oppose vehemently, especially those teams that have two tunnels or ones that are over half scale. Max may one day bring it up but it will be to bring something else in by stealth.
Thats exactly right, CFD offers very similar results to a wind tunnel, so I imagine over time, CFD will be the primary method. I think one of the F1 teams has already invested heavily in it, I think it might have been BMW Sauber??
Was having a think about this - hate to think how much computing power is needed for all the variables - chassis material stiffness, wind behaviour, temperature etc etc. CFD became an F1 buzzword around 10 years ago so it's been out there a while.
But, an accurate simulation would be able to do things that windtunnels can't - eg: aero in corners or even look at cars following closely - something the FIA could mandate? But then how much computing power and therefore how much energy consumption?...
But, an accurate simulation would be able to do things that windtunnels can't - eg: aero in corners or even look at cars following closely - something the FIA could mandate? But then how much computing power and therefore how much energy consumption?...
Greater use of CFD is inevitable, regardless of whether wind tunnels are restricted or banned. The natural conclusion is that you need far more CFD analysts than the other guys.
But CFD alone won't make a fast car - the (abridged) process goes
Concept ---> CAD model ---> CFD analysis ---> wind tunnel verification ---> testing on car
Without wind tunnel verification of the CFD results, it's very very hard to be sure the parts on the car will have the effect they're intended to.
It's an iterative process, mainly looping from CFD to tunnel to CFD to tunnel, many times over, to correlate the computer predictions to results in the tunnel.
With a new design those iterations are crucial. I don't believe there's a CFD system and operator yet who can generate a wholly representative model straight off the bat without requiring many iterations to fine-tune and validate it.
Back to the process. After a good predictable wind tunnel design is derived, on-car testing is relatively limited in its scope simply because you can't observe airflow patterns in an uncontrolled environment when the car is travelling at 190mph.
It'd still be possible to derive a design without a wind tunnel - but without a robust CFD analysis that very closely predicts the real world effect, you're going to be a bit at sea.
One thing F1 couldn't afford is something like a Merc CLK flip as at Le Mans in late 90's. That's unlikely but still a possible outcome if you go straight from computer to real parts on a car at high speed.
I don't think there's a simple alternative to spending lots of money. It'll be spent somewhere if it possibly can be!
But CFD alone won't make a fast car - the (abridged) process goes
Concept ---> CAD model ---> CFD analysis ---> wind tunnel verification ---> testing on car
Without wind tunnel verification of the CFD results, it's very very hard to be sure the parts on the car will have the effect they're intended to.
It's an iterative process, mainly looping from CFD to tunnel to CFD to tunnel, many times over, to correlate the computer predictions to results in the tunnel.
With a new design those iterations are crucial. I don't believe there's a CFD system and operator yet who can generate a wholly representative model straight off the bat without requiring many iterations to fine-tune and validate it.
Back to the process. After a good predictable wind tunnel design is derived, on-car testing is relatively limited in its scope simply because you can't observe airflow patterns in an uncontrolled environment when the car is travelling at 190mph.
It'd still be possible to derive a design without a wind tunnel - but without a robust CFD analysis that very closely predicts the real world effect, you're going to be a bit at sea.
One thing F1 couldn't afford is something like a Merc CLK flip as at Le Mans in late 90's. That's unlikely but still a possible outcome if you go straight from computer to real parts on a car at high speed.
I don't think there's a simple alternative to spending lots of money. It'll be spent somewhere if it possibly can be!
Edited by FNG on Wednesday 18th April 17:33
I don't see how you can ban wind tunnels because how would the FIA police it? They can set rules that govern the cars at races because its a controlled environment where you can check cars before and after the race, but you can't watch over every team 24/7 365 days a year to make sure they don't use a wind tunnel, even if they were forced to shut down their own then then you can bet at least some teams would subcontract out covert testing to various other wind tunnels around the world.
Just ridiculous. Daft, pointless and ridiculous. How can you strive for technical advancement by nutering development? Complete hogwash. Either we embrace technology, or we abandon it. You could make Caterhams go as fast as F1s for a fraction of the budgets and simply have the FIA flog the cars to them. F1 is little more than a psuedo spec series as it is, without wind tunnels, one of the few beneficial areas of development will be lost, dealing Computational Fluid Dynamics as well as Engineering in general a huge body blow. The sooner people realise that you can't legislate competition the sooner human kind can stop pissing about and gaet back to making leaps and bounds.
Greatest Championship the world has ever seen.
I can cope with banning traction control with the use of a centrally developed EMS and maintaing the bans on aided steering and automatic/CVT 'boxes, whose developments are long since completed and the mainainence of outer bodywork restrictions around the wheels, maximum heights for the wings and the continuance of the ever-continuing march though stricter and stricter safety regulations - but beyond that it should be simply the question for the engineers to do the best that they can.
I can cope with banning traction control with the use of a centrally developed EMS and maintaing the bans on aided steering and automatic/CVT 'boxes, whose developments are long since completed and the mainainence of outer bodywork restrictions around the wheels, maximum heights for the wings and the continuance of the ever-continuing march though stricter and stricter safety regulations - but beyond that it should be simply the question for the engineers to do the best that they can.
You're all missing the key point - the amount of investment already spent on tunnels and CFD systems - no F1 team is going to agree to give up facilities that have cost a fortune and for which there is no financial return as they would be obsolete and not able to be passed on to other users as they are so specifically designed . These are longterm investments not covered by sponsorship deals as they have to be written off over many years. That's a straightforward business decision - same as asking turkeys to vote for Xmas!
kenthardy said:
You're all missing the key point - the amount of investment already spent on tunnels and CFD systems - no F1 team is going to agree to give up facilities that have cost a fortune and for which there is no financial return as they would be obsolete and not able to be passed on to other users as they are so specifically designed . These are longterm investments not covered by sponsorship deals as they have to be written off over many years. That's a straightforward business decision - same as asking turkeys to vote for Xmas!
You've not read my post, have you?
The real problem with F1 today is that the technical knowledge available to the designers is WAY ahead of the ability of tracks or drivers to cope with it. If we had a totally unfettered set of regulations - as Can Am was 40 years ago, we'd have cars that no race track in the world could contain.
The regulations today are there to PREVENT the cars from going too fast, not to ENABLE them to go fast. That means that the regulations have to PREVENT the designers from being too clever.
We now live in 2007, not 1967, and the world has moved on.
The regulations today are there to PREVENT the cars from going too fast, not to ENABLE them to go fast. That means that the regulations have to PREVENT the designers from being too clever.
We now live in 2007, not 1967, and the world has moved on.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff