Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 253 posts

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#201

Post by invaliddata »

cromulent wrote: post #163
Arjuna wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it" This is spot-on. One of the best examples in recent memory was the so-called "F Duct" that was featured on McLaren Racing's MP4-25 car in 2010. For those that are not aware, FIA sporting regulations strictly prohibit the driver from controlling the aerodynamic characteristics of the machine, for example, via electronic controls o…

The F-Duct, and also the double diffuser in 2009. Ross Brawn even warned the other teams late in 2008 that the 2009 rules were open to interpretation, and then wiped the floor with everyone in the first half of the season. By then everyone had a DD of course. EDIT: Also the hot-blown diffuser, where the engine management programme pushed fuel through the engine off-throttle with retarded ignition, which didn't put po…

The F-duct was a clever work around of the old F1 rule of no moveable aerodynamic devices (which dates from the 70's) and was motivated, intially by the practice of mounting the rear wing directly to unsprung parts of the suspension. A more applicable example of the rule was the late 70s brabham fan car which used a large fan at the rear (ostensibly for engine cooling purposes) to suck out air from the underside of the car to add downforce. Think of the hyperloop design, in reverse.

By making the only physical moving part in the f-duct design the driver (who obviously has to be allowed to move), the devices cleverly adhered to the letter of the law. The driver would close a hole in the cockpit which allowed some air to pass or not to a fluidic switch (think of a transistor), which would influence the flow of a larger stream of air to the rear wing).

One issue with banning the engine mapping that blew the diffuser off throttle was that this was already being done by many engine manufacturers for engine cooling purposes, and thus could not be easily regulated. Even their year end attempt at a fix by specifying the location, pointing direction, etc of the exhaust outlets didn't work (see coanda effect / downwash exhausts of 2012). They have finally addressed the solution in 2014 regulations by specifying that the exhaust outlet has to be behind all bodywork.

It's also worth pointing out that exhaust blown diffusers are more than a decade old, but in the past suffered from the problem of changing the balance of the car drastically mid throttle (when the driver gets on the throttle) due to 1) less advanced engine mapping), and 2) directly feeding into the diffuser venturis. In fact, for a long time, the standard solution (periscope exhausts pioneered by ferrari), sought to remove as much influence of exhaust air on the aerodynamics as possible to make the car's balance unaffected by engine exhaust volume, so given that environment, no one was worried about anyone using the exhaust for aerodynamic benefit. The modern (Red bull design) blown diffusers only channel a relatively small portion of exhaust air directly into the diffuser channel, and instead use a large portion of exhaust to blow over the top of the diffuser itself (enhancing the diffuser effect), and on the side of the diffuser (to provide a air skirt that prevents squirt air from the rear tires bleeding into the diffuser from the side which decreases efficiency), particularly on cars like the Red bull which run a high level of rake (which enhances aerodynamic downforce separately by placing the front wing closer to the ground but makes the diffuser more vulnerable to tire squirt and other effects).

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#202

Post by MrFoof »

specialist wrote: post #161
simias wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a good thing honestly, instead of being only an arms race for the team that will make the most expensive car they have to be very clever in finding ways to shave a few milliseconds in each lap. I see that like code golf or the IOCCC, the constraints are what makes it interesting and challenging. In the case of F1 I think it's also about keeping the human factor, without regulations I'm sure by now we'd…

I favor having an unlimited tier for all sports. Anything (safe) goes. I think it would reduce cheating. Then I wouldn't care if the pros are using robots, steroids, time travel, whatever. And there's still plenty of competition for amateurs all the way up. I grew up watching hydroplane racing. The local races were super fun. Much like going to local drag races. But watching H1 Unlimited Racing was ecstasy. http://en…

The reason why F1 now has so many rules governing it is because it was impossible for new teams to be founded, and many teams were pulling out, because the costs were insane.

The budgets of F1 teams, in USD, was approaching astronomical levels to where only a handful of teams could ever justify existing. It would be impossible to fill even a third of the starting grid. If were allowed to continue, you'd have teams burning $1B+ per year.

The other limits have mostly been due to encountering the laws of physics and how it applies to humans. G-forces are limited as a part of car design to ensure the drivers don't black out in the corners from the extreme lateral loads. Pressure suits like fighter jets don't help you, because at least in a fighter jet the G-forces are top-down. Humans have been a weak link on Formula 1 since the mid-to-late 90s.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#203

Post by SeanLuke »

BashiBazouk wrote: post #151
ronaldx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx. Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions" Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts…

Set aside recumbents. How about small-wheeled uprights? The world upright speed record was set, and has held for 20 years, on a 17 inch steel bicycle with full suspension (a Moulton AM). There are strong arguments to be made that smaller-wheeled bikes allow for much faster and better designs: yet because the UCI banned them in the 1960s for being too fast, the industry was ruined and the only ones you can get nowadays are either folders (Brompton, Bike Friday Tikit) or bespoke Moultons.

BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#204

Post by wtvanhest »

eftpotrm wrote: post #198
ams6110 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASCAR is trying to eliminate technical advantage so that the competition is entirely about which driver and crew is best. I don't see anything wrong with that.

And if that were really the case then you wouldn't see the big teams like Hendrick and Penske dominating. Heck, even Chip Ganassi has problems competing in NASCAR and he's hardly a small player. Not that I'm necessarily anti the NASCAR approach (though I do think the organisation itself can be somewhat capricious), but it's certainly not a form of motor sport without team-based technical advantage.

Its pretty obvious that the best drivers would go to the biggest teams with the most money to pay.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#205

Post by invaliddata »

invaliddata wrote: post #201
cromulent wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-Duct, and also the double diffuser in 2009. Ross Brawn even warned the other teams late in 2008 that the 2009 rules were open to interpretation, and then wiped the floor with everyone in the first half of the season. By then everyone had a DD of course. EDIT: Also the hot-blown diffuser, where the engine management programme pushed fuel through the engine off-throttle with retarded ignition, which didn't put po…

The F-duct was a clever work around of the old F1 rule of no moveable aerodynamic devices (which dates from the 70's) and was motivated, intially by the practice of mounting the rear wing directly to unsprung parts of the suspension. A more applicable example of the rule was the late 70s brabham fan car which used a large fan at the rear (ostensibly for engine cooling purposes) to suck out air from the underside of t…

I'll add that the no moveable aerodynamic devices ruling has been applied very widely, and in sometimes surprising ways. The prime example is the ban on Renault's tuned mass damper from the 2005 time frame. It was a mass damper inside the nosecone, which meant that the moving masses were never exposed to the air outside the car. It was ruled that by influencing the movement of the front wing (maintaining it at a more optimal height), it was therefore a moveable aerodynamic device. The sad part of this story is that the regulators didn't actually understand what benefit the device was supposed to provide, which was to allow for a more compliant suspension (a non aerodynamic advantage), and in fact Mclaren had a suspension element, the interter, which did effectively the same thing, but was not banned.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#206

Post by MichaelGG »

ars wrote: post #181
simias wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can end up killing the competition (and the sport). See the criticism of the America's Cup for instance, where even competing teams said it was getting way too expensive to participate. People want actual competition, underdogs, suspense. Not having the guy with the biggest bank account win invariably and predictably. They want to root for a human, not an operating system. And nothing stops you from creating a n…

So limit how much money a team is allowed to spend, rather than limit the technology.

Easier said than done? E.g. what's to stop a team from buying a part from "some company" that only had one item in stock? Or what if all the engineers on one team decided to work for $1/year because they all got rich from something else?

It seems like you'd need a huge amount of regulation on the teams R&D process to prevent extra money from somehow being spent.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#207

Post by Theriac25 »

ronaldx wrote: post #32
brey wrote: post #7

In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it is naturally where the bleeding edge of F1 design is going to lie.

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx. Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions.

I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#208

Post by incision »

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #89

As a fan of the sport, I've so far only read about this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on forums and low-end blogs. Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker. I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.

Well then, as a fan of the sport who apparently already knows everything a mainstream magazine has to offer and then some - can you offer some insight, a link or anything at all for the rest of us beyond self-satisfied bitching?

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#209

Post by ars »

MichaelGG wrote: post #206
ars wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So limit how much money a team is allowed to spend, rather than limit the technology.

Easier said than done? E.g. what's to stop a team from buying a part from "some company" that only had one item in stock? Or what if all the engineers on one team decided to work for $1/year because they all got rich from something else? It seems like you'd need a huge amount of regulation on the teams R&D process to prevent extra money from somehow being spent.

Aren't they spending a tremendous amount of effort regulating the tech as it is?

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#210

Post by nicholassmith »

ronaldx wrote: post #32
brey wrote: post #7

In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it is naturally where the bleeding edge of F1 design is going to lie.

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx. Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro.

Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.

Post reply on HN