apparently Manor have just taken 2 weeks to complete a full car mapping in CFD with about 20 CFD/aero engineers. this is something that will take minutes, not weeks, with a wind tunnel!

apparently Manor have just taken 2 weeks to complete a full car mapping in CFD with about 20 CFD/aero engineers. this is something that will take minutes, not weeks, with a wind tunnel!

apparently Manor have just taken 2 weeks to complete a full car mapping in CFD with about 20 CFD/aero engineers. this is something that will take minutes, not weeks, with a wind tunnel!

Virgin Manor look set to sign Lucas di Grassi.

Motor racing-Virgin to announce F1 plans in a month
Mon Nov 2, 2009 12:33pm GMT


MILAN, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Richard Branson's Virgin Group will announce in a month whether it will sponsor Formula One world champions Brawn GP again next season or invest in a new team.

"In a month we'll let you know our plans," Branson told a news conference in Milan on Monday after returning from the season-ending grand prix in Abu Dhabi.

Virgin has been linked in the media with a sponsorship deal with new team Manor GP for next year. Branson said he was fully behind Formula One plans to further cut costs.

Manor looking to prosper after big names fall away
Yorkshire Post

Published Date:
05 November 2009
By Nick Westby
With the news of Toyota's demise in Formula 1, Nick Westby looks at the progress being made by Yorkshire's rookies Manor GP.


IF the multi-billion dollar world of Formula 1 is too expensive for one of the leading motor sport manufacturers in the world, what chance a modest outfit from a small corner of Yorkshire?

Toyota, the world's largest car maker, yesterday pulled the plug on their involvement in F1 after eight seasons, citing financial reasons.

The Japanese company has invested billions during its time in the sport - reportedly £300m a year - but never won a race, and became the third leading manufacturer in 11 months after Honda and BMW to quit Formula 1.

"Since the economic crisis last year, we have discussed within our company whether we should continue in F1 or not, and our F1 team worked on the cost cutting," read a Toyota statement. "We have worked on all kinds of things.

"After the final race finished we held an extraordinary board meeting and came to the conclusion we had to withdraw."

Toyota's absence will be obvious in what is set to be a much-changed grid in 2010, with just three car manufacturers now remaining - Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Renault, with the latter understood to be considering their own F1 future.

In place of established names will be four new teams next season, including Manor GP from an industrial estate in Dinnington, Rotherham.

Manor shocked the motor sport world in June when they were announced as one of three new teams to take to the grid next year alongside USF1 and Campos. Lotus have since rejoined the sport.

The door was opened to the Yorkshire team by the proposal of a £40m annual budget cap for F1 teams and the team's owner John Booth - who ran a competitive team in Formula Renault and Formula 3 Euroseries for two decades - wedged his foot in.

He has since attracted the financial muscle of Sir Richard Branson's Virgin empire with the two parties set to formally announce their partnership early next month, when Branson's ties with Brawn GP - who have just clinched the world title with Britain's Jenson Button and claimed the manufacturers' championship - expire.

Branson's millions will make the Manor/Virgin team competitive as they strive to make an impact on the sport and challenge the leading teams - Brawn, Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari.

Booth's name in motor sport is one that commands respect having helped nurture future world F1 champions Kimi Raikkonen and Lewis Hamilton in the support classes a decade ago.

But in the wake of Toyota driving off into the sunset, just how hard will the F1 challenge be for the local team?

The shrewd Booth had been planning his F1 debut four months before it was announced and had already put in place a three-year business plan which would make the company viable. As well as Branson, who will flesh out the top positions in the paddock with his own experienced men, the Manor team benefits from the technical genius Nick Wirth, the former owner of the shortlived Simtek Formula 1 team.

Wirth has his Simtek experience to fall back on, plus a stint as chief designer with Benetton, but has been working on a cost-effective way of producing a competitive F1 car.

He recently confirmed that Manor's car will be the first Grand Prix machine designed entirely using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) as opposed to wind tunnel technology which for so long has been the only way for teams to work on the aerodynamics of a car.

CFD uses computer programmes with mathematical equations to test how the air flows across the car.

With the finances in place and the car nearing completion, the last big issue is which two drivers will race for the team.

Manor have been linked with German driver Timo Glock, who was yesterday made redundant by Toyota's demise.

The 27-year-old, who had two podium finishes in 2009, is also being courted by Renault, but did little to diffuse rumours of joining Manor in a recent interview.

"There may be a surprise in the next one or two weeks, where nobody has been thinking in that direction. We will see. The possibilities are there and we just have to sort it out now," he said.

"Everybody says that the new teams are not interesting, but next year everything is possible."

Booth has also spoken of his admiration of, and held discussions with, former Super Aguri driver turned BBC radio pundit Anthony Davidson, ex-Red Bull driver Christian Klien and reigning A1GP world champion Adam Carroll.

Talks were also held with Bruno Senna, the son of three-time world champion Ayrton, but he has joined fellow rookies Campos.

Despite that, and with work at an advanced stage on a second building at Dinnington to house their expanded operation, the Manor GP story is developing handsomely and defiantly in a world where a global name like Toyota can no longer compete.

These guys seem to have formed an unholy alliance with the FIA. I will watch their progress with great interest.

I actually know one of the major sponsors for the Manor team. Remember Bransons comments about wanting F1 to go green, expect him to make a very big green statement with this team. Can't say anymore than this. I should be getting full access at the races this year including grid walk passess just before the race. I'll try to keep out of Brundles way as he rushes through the people.

So are you saying that Manor have come up with something that would interest the FIA where they would probably implement it if it works?

My guess is that it is all about Virgin's Green Fund.

Edit: to add links.

http://www.virgingreenfund.com/index.php?o...&Itemid=213

http://www.virgingreenfund.com/images/gevo...0biobutanol.pdf

I actually know one of the major sponsors for the Manor team. Remember Bransons comments about wanting F1 to go green, expect him to make a very big green statement with this team. Can't say anymore than this. I should be getting full access at the races this year including grid walk passess just before the race. I'll try to keep out of Brundles way as he rushes through the people.

Oh god Manor is going to be an absolute trainwreck.

I just don't fathom how they could possibly even expect to be competitive next year. Designing a modern F1 car in CFD only is suicidal.

It just doesn't matter how the PR department spin it - CFD just isn't good enough yet with current computer hardware (especially under the new FOTA limits, though seeing as Manor don't have a tunnel they aren't exactly limited by them) to accurately model the flow over an F1 car with the degree of precision necessary to develop individual components.

....

Oh god Manor is going to be an absolute trainwreck.

I just don't fathom how they could possibly even expect to be competitive next year. Designing a modern F1 car in CFD only is suicidal.

It just doesn't matter how the PR department spin it - CFD just isn't good enough yet with current computer hardware (especially under the new FOTA limits, though seeing as Manor don't have a tunnel they aren't exactly limited by them) to accurately model the flow over an F1 car with the degree of precision necessary to develop individual components.

Speaking very generally, you might expect a fully mature Reynold's averaged CFD model simulating a commercial aircraft to produce a result (lift/drag values) to within plus/minus 2%. Let's stick our heads in the sand and assume the same for applies for a model of an F1 car - and let's say an F1 car has a CL of 3.000 - the error associated with just the numerical calculation involved in the model is therefore plus/minus a CL of 0.060. That in itself is a massive step in terms of F1 aero development and doesn't give enough resolution to be able to develop components on an F1 car which provide, for the most part, steps much less than that numerical error.

Now let's just consider the difference between a commercial aircraft and an F1 car. An aircraft is all nice and smooth with large junction radii and streamlined shapes - perfect for wall functions and turbulence modelling. An F1 car may very well have lots of nice smooth streamlined surfaces - but it's also got four massive wheels - rotating and vibrating and violently changing shape all the time. The turbulent wakes of these wheels are basically the definition of inappropriate application of CFD - it just can't be done properly.

But anyway, let's assume they manage to set up a decent CFD model that converges and looks to be giving sensible numbers and flow structures. They then face a large problem - how are they going to validate their results? Frankly, CFD is useless without experimental data to compare to, to tune the model parameters to and to check for correlation. They may embark on a massive development effort, produce a whole range of parts they believe to be performing well, build a car, and then put it on the grid - yet it may all very well be absolute horse excrement (and this is what will most likely happen for them over the next 5 months).

But again, for the sake of argument, let's say they have an ok-ish model. Depending on their hardware they are probably looking at run times of the order of 2-4 days per CFD case. That is a run with the car in a single condition (a single ride height, a single yaw angle, a single steer angle etc). In order to "test" a component across a sensible range of ride heights they are going to have to run, say, 20 CFD cases. Then that has to be repeated for a couple of yaw angles, and again for a couple of steer angles. Granted, depending on the sensitivity of the area of the car you are looking at you could make a judgement and cut out a number of car conditions from your test, but you are still looking at having to run say at least 40 simulations - all to judge the effect of a 50mm carbon lip. Conservatively speaking that's around 100 days of cluster running!

They are quite simply going to have to compromise massively in order to just test a sensible number of different parts - and that will lead to all sorts of issues. For example, how are they going to be able to accurately judge pitch sensitivity for new front wing assemblies? They may very well design a new wing that's 0.2 seconds quicker in terms of downforce production, but what if that assembly craps itself at low ride heights or produces a very large balance shift as the car begins to yaw? This might very well make the car undriveable.

Bah I'm starting to go on a little. It hurts to think about the challenge they are facing in designing a car.

I'd be willing to put money on Manor being more than 3.0s off the last of the current cars come Q1 in Bahrain.

It just doesn't matter how the PR department spin it - CFD just isn't good enough yet with current computer hardware (especially under the new FOTA limits, though seeing as Manor don't have a tunnel they aren't exactly limited by them) to accurately model the flow over an F1 car with the degree of precision necessary to develop individual components.

....But again, for the sake of argument, let's say they have an ok-ish model. Depending on their hardware they are probably looking at run times of the order of 2-4 days per CFD case. That is a run with the car in a single condition (a single ride height, a single yaw angle, a single steer angle etc). In order to "test" a component across a sensible range of ride heights they are going to have to run, say, 20 CFD cases. Then that has to be repeated for a couple of yaw angles, and again for a couple of steer angles. Granted, depending on the sensitivity of the area of the car you are looking at you could make a judgement and cut out a number of car conditions from your test, but you are still looking at having to run say at least 40 simulations - all to judge the effect of a 50mm carbon lip. Conservatively speaking that's around 100 days of cluster running!

They are quite simply going to have to compromise massively in order to just test a sensible number of different parts - and that will lead to all sorts of issues. For example, how are they going to be able to accurately judge pitch sensitivity for new front wing assemblies? They may very well design a new wing that's 0.2 seconds quicker in terms of downforce production, but what if that assembly craps itself at low ride heights or produces a very large balance shift as the car begins to yaw? This might very well make the car undriveable.

Bah I'm starting to go on a little. It hurts to think about the challenge they are facing in designing a car.

I'd be willing to put money on Manor being more than 3.0s off the last of the current cars come Q1 in Bahrain.

Thanks for your knowledgeable post. We need more of those around here.

They can do some validation with straight line testing, but they won't be able to do that until they have a car in the new year.

The argument that was used fore the Wirth approach is that he applied the same methodology when designing the Acura ALMS car, which did pretty well.
Would you agree that ALMS cars have less complex surfaces (no tyres sticking out in the wind, flat bottom ground effects) and are thus better suited to a CFD-only design approach?

Interesting post. Presumably though the range of different circumstances would also have to be tried in a windtunnel?

Oh yes, absolutely. But the key thing with a tunnel is that you can test all of your required ride heights, steer and yaw conditions in a single run - with a run time in the order of 30 minutes (as opposed to 100 days for CFD!)

Virgin Fuel?
I remember reading Branson tried to get Brawn and Mercedes to use this 'clean' fuel Virgin is developing.
I wonder what the composition of this fuel is. Even if it works well with an F1 engine, the regulations will have to change if the composition is different from normal fuel.

Well, as i said in my previous post the CFD mapping took aobut 14 days, not exactly 100, but a lot longer than 30 minutes!!

So is 'cfd mapping' an overall kind of thing that takes longer than other runs?

Also I was wondering whether the run length is variable according to the level of precision?

And on the comparison with windtunnels, presumably some time is gained back by not having to physically manufacture parts fior testing?

So with Brawn now becoming Mercedes GP (or whatever they'll call themselves), it can only be a matter of time before Virgin announces they're becoming Manor's title-sponsor and re-branding as Virgin GP?

I guess they are waiting to confirm the second driver.

Its sounding like there is a goood chance it will be Di Grassi.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...117112919.shtml

So with Brawn now becoming Mercedes GP (or whatever they'll call themselves), it can only be a matter of time before Virgin announces they're becoming Manor's title-sponsor and re-branding as Virgin GP?

Its sounding like there is a goood chance it will be Di Grassi.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...117112919.shtml

Welcome Timo.

Sorry, but IMO Timo has just killed his F1 career.

I am yet to understand what do people see in Lucas Di Grassi. Yes he is super consistent and always makes his way into the points, but he's gotten what, one win per each GP2 season? That's after driving for ART, Campos and Racing Engineering ffs. He replaced Hamilton and Pantano directly in the cars they won the championship with, and didn't impress neither time. And this year he had more miles of experience in GP2 cars than any other in the field except for 2 or 3 dinossaurs like Zuber and Filippi.

I guess he's worth a shot but I'm not seeing much potential, and this isn't the right kind of driver for a team like this tbh. For a backmarker team, you don't need someone that will take the car home every race in a solid 16th position, nobody gives a crap about that. You want a guy that might bin it half the time, but will be quick and will have a chance of making it into the points in an attriction race. Honestly I think Manor would be better off with a Parente, a D'Ambrosio or a Di Resta, and that's not just my bias towards the portuguese guy. Unless Lucas brings quite some more cash.

At least he's got a drive.

D'Ambrosio and Parente together don't make for 0.1% of di Grassi.

Its sounding like there is a goood chance it will be Di Grassi.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...117112919.shtml

No more than Adam Carroll who is the far better option. Di Grassi has had the favoured Renault backing but still got beaten by a rookie to the GP2 title this year and had a whole season in a ART car and had 1 win!

I have to admit, I'm interested in seeing how this team does come next season. Having development so heavily reliant on CFD, to the exclusion of the normal practices, intrigues me, mostly because, from what I know of the process, I don't see how this can possibly work. I really, really want them to surprise me because in doing so, they'd be radically challenging the accepted F1 car development process.