Ask The Apex

[teabagyokel]

Needless to say, if Spa, Suzuka or Monaco were new circuits, they wouldn't be allowed!

You could probably add Interlagos to that list!

I think Interlagos is allowed today only because there is no other alternative in the entire continent!

 

[Boyle]

I think Interlagos is allowed today only because there is no other alternative in the entire continent!

Too true, sadly. I think sometimes we are a bit harsh on Tilke, though, given all the track specifications he has to adhere to and the featureless landscapes he has to design in. It's not that his tracks are bad (*cough,**Valencia,**cough*) but that his are the only tracks on offer. Had we somebody else in there who could provide a different view point then we would have more variety in the 'new' tracks. The fact that Bernie seems determined to take us to corners of the globe that have no interest in F1 whatsoever doesn't help!

 

[F1Yorkshire]

To be fair to Tilke he is trying to improve on the flat featureless tracks we have been used to seeing.

I'm not sure on the exact figures but a colossal amount of earth was moved to give the Korea track some sense of elevation on what would otherwise be yet another flat boring waterside track.

The new track at Austin will also have its ups and downs as well.

 

[ATL11]

To be fair to Tilke he is trying to improve on the flat featureless tracks we have been used to seeing.

I'm not sure on the exact figures but a colossal amount of earth was moved to give the Korea track some sense of elevation on what would otherwise be yet another flat boring waterside track.

The new track at Austin will also have its ups and downs as well.

Though I agree that tracks need up hill and down hill! Can I ask why does a good track need elevation within it?

 

[F1Yorkshire]

To be fair to Tilke he is trying to improve on the flat featureless tracks we have been used to seeing.

I'm not sure on the exact figures but a colossal amount of earth was moved to give the Korea track some sense of elevation on what would otherwise be yet another flat boring waterside track.

The new track at Austin will also have its ups and downs as well.

Though I agree that tracks need up hill and down hill! Can I ask why does a good track need elevation within it?

From a spectators point of view the cars look great when dipping through valleys,

From a technical point of view the G forces on the car will change so when a car comes over a rise it will make it feel lighter making it more twitchy as will going into a dip will put more downforce on a car enabling them to go faster. Possibly.

 

[tooncheese]

To be fair to Tilke he is trying to improve on the flat featureless tracks we have been used to seeing.

I'm not sure on the exact figures but a colossal amount of earth was moved to give the Korea track some sense of elevation on what would otherwise be yet another flat boring waterside track.

The new track at Austin will also have its ups and downs as well.

Though I agree that tracks need up hill and down hill! Can I ask why does a good track need elevation within it?

From a spectators point of view the cars look great when dipping through valleys,

From a technical point of view the G forces on the car will change so when a car comes over a rise it will make it feel lighter making it more twitchy as will going into a dip will put more downforce on a car enabling them to go faster. Possibly.

Monza is the flatest track on the calendar, and canada is probably near the top too. They frequently are very exciting races. Same with silverstone, yet interlagos is very hilly and very exciting. The common theme is that these tracks are older, and faster. In a list i saw somewhere, the ten fastest tracks only had turkey and china in 6th and 10th respectively. Personally I think that that is why tilkes tracks are rather bad, but elvation could be a factor.

Also ignore this im just trying somthing out.

Spoiler

No reason

 

[chreden]

OK, I have a question. Are there any rules and regulations regarding the amount or type of computer simulation work that a team can undertake? I have an idea that could be interesting and I was wondering if it would be legal under today's rules.

 

[Brogan]

Are there any rules and regulations regarding the amount or type of computer simulation work that a team can undertake?

As far as I know, no there isn't.
There is a limit on the amount of wind tunnel time but CFD and simulators can be used as much as they like.

 

[cider_and_toast]

While no system is 100% reliable I wonder what the difference in reliability between CFD and Wind Tunnel data is? I know that Virgin claim to have not used any wind tunnel data in the manufacture of their car claiming that they only used CFD.

Are we at the point now where there isn't really a need for bans on wind tunnel testing time becasue CFD is as good a substitute any way ??

 

[Brogan]

Well I know McLaren have one of the most advanced simulators on the planet and apparently the difference between it and reality is very small.

There was a video on it one weekend by the BBC but I can't find it now.

I expect there's not much in it these days really and most differences are probably due to wind direction on the circuit, small bumps, etc.

 

[FB]

CaT said:

I know that Virgin claim to have not used any wind tunnel data in the manufacture of their car claiming that they only used CFD.

Is that supposed to be a recommendation? From what I have read CFD is okay but doesn't beat work in a wind tunnel which, in turn, is no substitute for running a car on a track. In my job we run FEA work on load characteristics for some of the stuff we make. It gives you an indication of how things will perform but the only real way to find out is to physically test it.

 

[Galahad]

We don't know what the Resource Restriction Agreement says. I think there is certainly a limit to windtunnel time but I'm not sure about restrictions on CFD. One imagines it would be extremely hard to police.

If McLaren built a car solely using CFD, as Virgin have done, it would surely be quicker than the Virgin is. Would it be quicker than the current McLaren car though? Certainly not; otherwise that's what they would be doing! Even the rich teams don't spend money for fun, and if they are continuing to use windtunnel modelling alongside CFD it must be because it has an important part to play as a simulation tool.

Furthermore, the running costs for windtunnels must be very much higher than CFD (though CFD requires a lot of up-front expenditure for computing power). Windtunnels use, and waste, a lot of energy, they require maintenance, you need to employ model makers and a set of related activities to create the prototypes.

I have a lot of respect for what Wirth are trying to do with Virgin and actually my feeling is they've done a pretty reasonable job with the aero side of the car. But I think we have to accept that whatever they might say in public, the decision to use CFD only must have been made with budgetary considerations very much to the forefront.

 

[ATL11]

Pit stops, would they be made more interesting and bring the team more into the race result (good/bad), if there were a limited number of staff allowed to be involved, i.e. NASCAR/Indy Car.

Okay I know pit stop State side Pit Stops do sometime look like "It's a Knockout" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Knockout) but any objections to 1 or 2 blokes only allowed to change they wheels? Just you may find F1 teams taking strategic options were cars only take on 2 wheels, etc.

 

[Brogan]

I've split off the side discussion on Tilke to here: http://cliptheapex.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2270

 

[tooncheese]

Does anyone know of inter team agreements that exist but arent published for the world. For example the brabham fan car could be brought back and give a team 4 seconds a lap, as it was never properly outlawed. They claimed its main purpose was cooling.

 

[Galahad]

The fan car may not have been properly outlawed at the time, but it couldn't come back now - the rules on movable aerodynamic devices are too strict for that (though apparently not strict enough, for some tastes...)

The lack of KERS this year is because of a gentlemen's agreement, as is (I think?) the removal of the double-diffusers for 2011. I don't think the underfloor regulations are actually going to be amended (though I could be wrong).

There are also a raft of agreements to limit spending under the umbrella of FOTA's "resource restriction agreement", which isn't published anywhere as far as I know.

 

[ATL11]

To be fair to Tilke he is trying to improve on the flat featureless tracks we have been used to seeing.

I'm not sure on the exact figures but a colossal amount of earth was moved to give the Korea track some sense of elevation on what would otherwise be yet another flat boring waterside track.

The new track at Austin will also have its ups and downs as well.

Though I agree that tracks need up hill and down hill! Can I ask why does a good track need elevation within it?

From second practice on BBC, Anthony Davidson said that the designers are no longer allow to add elevation into new circuits, so the way they deal with featureless tracks, is by putting in corners with adverse camber. Interesting thing to know and may be the reason that Tinkle bloke gets a lot of flake...

 

[FB]

At the end of last season the suggestion was that, as well as the ban on refuelling, tyre warmers would also be outlawed. Anyone know why the FIA back tracked on this? Personally, I'd like to see it introduced, make the drivers think a bit more about what they have to do after a pit-stop.

 

[Brogan]

I suspect it was safety related.

Going out on completely cold tyres would mean the pressures would be all wrong for the first few laps which would make the car bottom out and potentially cause accidents, spins, etc.

Alternatively, sending them out with higher pressures when cold would mean the pressures would rise when the tyres heat up, which would result in premature tyre wear.

 

[Muddytalker]

I suspect it was safety related.

Going out on completely cold tyres would mean the pressures would be all wrong for the first few laps which would make the car bottom out and potentially cause accidents, spins, etc.

Alternatively, sending them out with higher pressures when cold would mean the pressures would rise when the tyres heat up, which would result in premature tyre wear.

So raise the ride height. To a level like wot they used to. Alternatively, (and I know this could be a little controversial for some), drive to the car's limits. You know, the same way they brake for a tight corner, rather than take it flat in 6th.