So now the FIA will not only police what is created, but now there will be someone looking over your shoulder to see how you create it.

Will the FIA also pay a visit to the car manufacturer R&D centers? Nothing can stop them moving research over there. Is there?

These are the last days.

Apart from the difficulty of enforcement, these limits aren't really justifiable an you have to wonder what purpose they serve. F1 is already the preserve of organisations with money to burn. That's not going to change if they make it so you can only spend 50M a year on wind tunnel tests instead of 100M. It's not suddenly going to make the-team-formerly-known-as-Jordan more competitive. Even Red Bull stands no chance against a team like BMW. Forget catching up with McLaren and Ferrari.

I suspect this is just the usual FIA approach of propose something so unpalatable that the teams force you to step back to a position where you (the FIA) get what you really want and the teams feel like they've won by preventing the original proposal.

The FIA run a racing series, what a private engineering company does with the resources at its disposal behind closed doors is entirely their own business.

Ben

I could not believe my eyes when I read it. Why don't FIA simply supply the cars? Anyone knows if they will be regulations concerning the diet of the engineers?

If Max really had balls, he'd speak out what he really wants: a spec series.

• Restrictions will be imposed to stop shift of resource from wind tunnel testing to CFD.
• The number of people involved in CFD development will be limited to a number to be agreed.

I rather like this.

One of the least efficient ways of developing anything is a Taguchi DoE - basically you run hundreds or thousands of experiments testing every detail. At work we say it is worth running a DoE in two situations (a) we don't know what the Hell is going on and (b) when we know exactly what is going on. Of course very little engineering occurs at either extreme in reality. About the only useful DoE I ever run is used for setting ride heights and spring rates and sta bar sizes, basically it just automates the simple hand calcs, but you can do some nice things like spit out predicted understeer values and so on at the same time, again I can do that by hand, but it takes far less time for /me/ to set the DoE up and let it churn away for a couple of days in the background.

But, these guys are basically going to force everyone down the path of running DoEs (and similar inefficient approaches) on vast parallel networks of crappy computers. Global warming - what's that?

On the bright side - accurate fast analysts with a good feel for the subject will be worth far more than their slightly less competent brethren, so salaries should sky rocket.

I will love to read the RC when McLaren is thrown out of the championship for running an illegal computer simulation. But seriously - what's the point? TC was allowed because they could not police it. How can they possibly police rules like the ones proposed?

I'm all for it.
As explained before, current aero research is in majority empirical, "that works? good! why? emmmmm.."

Those measures will force engineers to scratch more for efficiency.

As always, don't forget thoses rules are set up with the total unanimity of the teams!

I don't think this is a correct statement. What do you base this on.

1 You would be.

2 Its great to know why something works in the hope that one can go forward from there but sometimes in the magical world of automobiles things can defy logic. That it works is sometimes simply more important than why.

3 I suggest you read the first post again, get a grip on its meaning then read Gregs post properly,

4 Huh ???

I think Ben came up with the best theory. For further proof see the ten year engine freeze.

We were supposed to have those weird split rear wings by now, but we didn't. We also avoided spec rear wings too.

They may just keep "standard" analysts and run them on shifts as they do now, but have them working off-peak when the wind-tunnels would be prohibited from doing so (9-5).

Where do you work Greg (in general, if you can't name a company) ?

Except when this costs too much for the result achieved, and when this "i don't understand why it works?" doesn't really permit you to switch to the next year car.


Is the idea i don't agree with some posts here while having understood them not more not less than other people have ever crossed your mind?
If you wanna get into insulting, that's fine.

To answer directly, Greg's comment are quite right, but i think the problem is a method one.
It occurs that i know a bit of how some persons works both in CFD and WT on very very big projects in aerospace and the problem of "i don't understand what occurs" is often a problem of cultural method of modeling
the problem.
Especially on international teams just like an F1 team is concerned.



So in case you don't know Concord Agreement require a rule to be adopted by ALL participants that's all teams.
www.concordeagreement.com let you see a version of the still currently

The rules are adopted then detailed, it just went that way for the engine freeze, decided during november WMSC and then detailed at this friday's one.

Same for the regulations noted around, so do the new 2009 aero regulations.

If you're not convinced then...


http://vod.eurosport.com/2008/12/05/archive_keynote_d1.wmv

That is correct, however, I don't believe that these "proposals" have been ratified by all of the teams, although they are being presented as if they have been.

Who knows? Well i think we'll know it for 11 january as details will be presented to teams.

But however, WMSC have always teams representatives present, also aero testing regulations have been discussed with teams since long time, the problem is that with the current concord agreement unanimity is required so this is really a burden.

Judging for how the 10 engine freeze went, i have doubts this won't happen, especially since the rules are to be in force for the 2008 season.

Mind if I ask how exactly CFD usage is to me monitored / enforced?????

What happens within the already very discreet and protected wind tunnel facilities is hard to tell, imagine if the security measures are taken to help breaking rules... but Ok ,some external control could be achieved. FIA marshals 24/7 at the premisses?

But how in hell would someone be prevented from sending their geometry to HP, IBM, SGI, Cray or I don't konw who in hell else and receiving their test back in a PDF file?

This is a non issue.

Ridiculous.

It is like forbidding people to think...

They are already forbidden to speak. The step is not that far.

Is it less ridiculous for that?

How can you ban thinking? Ask a man like RDV, who has given these matters thought for some 40 years. He might come up with a new scheme on a completely unmonitored and unexpected intercontinental flight... How would you ban it=

'Other restrictions' sounds a bit :\ to me. But presumably these proposals must've come through the manufacturers and the TWG/SWG first?

GP.com seems to like the idea that all this is just a decoy for stringently-policed budget caps, which in a manufacturer sport might actually be workable. Whether that will create genuine parity or just freeze the teams in place is another matter, of course. Still, the sport's going to close down in 10-15 years time the way it's going anyway, so what have we got to lose?

What we have got to lose? Maybe the last 10-15 years of F1 racing? It is extremely difficult to remain interested in a sport that is plain silly. Explaining the fuel burning process in qualifying was embarrassing. Explaining that driver A would have a new engine but driver B was not allowed to have one was embarrassing. Explaining that they are not allowed to develop the engine is embarrassing. I can take "embarrassing". But if this proposal becomes a reality, any non-hard-core F1 viewer will laugh themselves silly, believing I am telling the worlds funniest joke when I am dead serious and is trying to explain the rules. I would give up. I would not invite people for a F1 afternoon. I would not care about who becomes World Champion because I will not be able to fool myself into believing the competition is fair.

How do you monitor CFD usgae? Easy way - spec hardware, spec software.

Admittedly that would be a bit draconian, the problem they face if they try and do it via licenses is that there is a reasonable open source solution available (OpenFOAM) which does not give a hoot about licenses.

As a general question, given that they will still spend all their sponsorship money, what will they spend it on next, having taken the four biggies out of the budget (testing, tires, engines, aero)?

My guess:weight saving.

Unjustifiable, unenforceable, and nonsensical.

Where to the FIA get these ideas - a hat full of random words?

Doug

Should this thread be in the 'racing comments' section, liberal FIA bashing is hardly a technical consideration.

Perhaps the extra high yield strength alloy to ensure the poor baseball bat escapes unscathced when used by a disgruntled F1 fan to 'accidently' belt Mosley in an 'everyday motorway bingle', not at all caused by the F1 fan blocking the exit and enraging the delegates just outside the carpark at full of Bentleys at the FIA council meeting is a relevant technical matter.

All data analysis is to be conducted and monitored by the FIA on any 12 computers distributed in the annual raffle, up for grabs are a:

* 1998 Powermac a 200 mHz beast no less,
* 1989 Mac, less of a beast
* 1957 Mainframe, vintage computing excellence at it's finest, why ban tractional control when you can ban the automatic distribution of data to each of the 12 (?) bits of memory, the FIA is all in favour of manual controls after all
* 1985 Unix unconnected terminal, far better than anything the 1965 world championships winners had at their disposal the FIA shall say......

But how do you enforce it? It's impossible. All the information fits in a pen drive or set of DVDs, can go forward and back from the factory freely, and FIA won't have all the computers in the world that have CFD running under surveillance to check if they are running tests for McLaren, Ferrari or what so ever. And regarding licenses, if the software vendors themselves are not able of control it, how would FIA?

Maybe the suggestion is just a part of a brainstorm by people in FIA that are not very tech-able. They have then handed over some wild suggestions to the tech-able people to shoot down and the press does not see it as what it really is? As you said, it must be completely impossible to monitor CFD use. Will Shell let FIA have access to their network? Sun? Any other partner? You can build in quite impressive amount of computing power into a shoe box. Will FIA make weekly visits in the homes of all the team employees and look under their beds? I can not believe it is a serious suggestion. Can anyone see how it could be monitored? Even if FIA specify a standard software which automatically logs its usage into Max's laptop there is nothing that prevents anyone to run other software as well. If I was a ambitious young engineer and the computer time was limited at work, I would would do computing at home. If it was not allowed, I would not tell anyone, just magically produce the results at work and get a pay raise for my brilliance.

After the McLaren shenanigans all you have to do is wait for the information to emerge. As soon as an ero guy switches from one team to another the cat would be out of the bag.

And that's when the fun starts. But it seems clear where all the money saved will go - to lawyers.

I thought it quite sporty of the FIA to to lower the cost of F1 by reducing McLaren's fine by $50mil. You guys are being unfair.

Did they, really?

Ok, can someone explain something to me please?

Of course a Governing body can take points away, time away (regards to race times), disqualify from champs etc. but how the frogs turds can they take money? And 50 mill????

I could understand if there was an initial bond at the start of the season or similar.

I've never been able to get my head around it...

Footy players get fined. Their teams get fined.

Cricketers get fined

V8 Supercar teams get fined

It all depends on how the franchise is worded

McLaren lost their WCC share. That must have been a few millions? At least I understood it as if Mac/Merc paid $50 and the other 50 would be deducted from what they would have won? I might be wrong, there was some confusing turns in that story.

As an OpenFOAM user I can only say that, if these regulations get accepted, the FIA might do best to indeed force the teams to use only open source software and that any developments they make to it must remain open source. That way we would all get well tested and constantly developed software. It could then be easily claimed that the F1 research is actually contributing to society in a meaningful way.

Of course I do not expect the FIA to actually have that deep an insight nor vision.

That would be nice. It would also be a real cost saving action because each team would benefit from the development done by another team. I guess they are all inventing wheels separately. That is not good use of money.

No one is addressing the practicality of this proposed rules package.
I don't think it will ever be the FIA's businesss how research is conducted, be it on an F1 premise or other location (read auto manufacturers R&D facilities).

I think that if for instance OpenFOAM was to be the standard software it would probably be suicidal to develop your own software because OpenFOAM would be developed so much faster than any one team could, specially if they had to do it secretly. I am just dreaming though, it will not happen. Actually, I do not want it to happen because I don't like the idea at all that FIA is deciding how the teams should be managed and how the development should be conducted. It is stupid. There is no other word. But if, IF, they are going that route, the very least they could do is to make the standards that they force the teams to use public domain.

I can't believe these proposals are real. As others have correctly pointed out, they're unenforceable in the extreme. Although if the tech ever made the public domain, wouldn't the distributed computing grid operating systems they'll need to develop to work invisibly in the background on as many tenuously justifiable PCs as they can find be cool?

I look forward to hearing that the chief designer's four-year-old is using a Tesla D870 to play Bob the Builder on the CBeebies website.

How they get the money is pretty simple: You either pay it willingly or you don't play with my ball never again, it's up to you. They did it to let's say Minardi or Arrows those guys would be banned from the sport for good.

For the current shower that owns the FIA, one hopes they are the last days. I know there are Moseleyite apologists out there, and I'd love to hear them trying to justify the current situation.

This attempt to limit aero developments is on a par with the freeze on engine development. If the car technical regulations were where they should be, there would be no point in 2x24x7x50 wind tunnels because tunable aero effects would be very limited. But we've been through all that on here already...

you're certainly right, the FIA is going into her own Vortex.

Tough, that doesn't mean their aim is no sense...relatively to their situation.

In the absolute this is stupid.

I think that a far from technical point dictates the rules: The FOM/FIA doesn't know how to make enough from what they gain (money wise).

So the sustainability is "said" to be endangered..hence those rules..

I refuse to think Max mosley is stupid..because he's not alone!! Or the FIA is the world's exclusive HQ for the most stupid person concentration ever seen.

In the absolute this is stupid.

I think that's a fair assessment. Obviously from the perspective of a reasonably objective observer many of the proposals that have come out of the FIA of late seem overtly absurd, unworkable, counterproductive etc. So either they are just that or there's an internal logic at work that isn't even remotely apparent from without. Most of them strike me as ad hoc improvisations that only make sense in the narrowest of perspectives, both temporally and across the overall sport/business.

My guess is that there is no real underlying vision of where the sport is and needs to go and that most of these proposals are desperate and near random reactions to transitory percieved political and financial crises du jour. Another contributing factor might be that most if not all of all the decision makers are frankly very old and wealthy men so used to operating unchallenged that there is no honest sounding board of constructive criticism in place. The decisions are made in a an environment so utterly divorced from what we as fans would recognize as reality that there is no commonsense check to vet them. The age (not to be ageist but...) of the men in charge I think also means that there is no realistic possibility of the recognition of alternative viewpoints or fundamentally differing visions of the sport/business. At their age these men are incapable of objectively making necessary reassessments to their vision of the sport and so are mentally constrained to operate in a state of passive reactivity to events and can no longer see anything beyond the sport's short-term profitability. Each desperate proposal is only designed to keep the gravy train running through whatever is thought to be the current fiscal crisis.

My further guess is that lacking any fresh blood or thinking in F1's management, the enterprise is doomed to slowly circle the drain as the brand is diluted to a watery broth only palatable to doddering old men whose only remaining interest in life is counting and recounting their hordes of golden treasure. The sport's only remaing purpose is to keep the revenue stream alive for the perhaps ten or fifteen years of life that remain to its rulers. Nobody that now matters will be around after that to care.

Not to say that de facto spec-car F1 cannot be a profitable business going forward longer- if these men know anything at all any longer it's money and profit- but it will no longer bear any resemblence to or contain more than the faintest glimmering of what built the brand and once made it the unquestioned "pinnacle of motorsport".

The present situation is the outcome of disastrous, stupid, blind maneuvering to fix something. It will be an ever lasting chain effect by the looks of this.

Correction: ..., run by Ferrari supplied chassis, so that the poor italians never run out of business.

And call it A1GP...

I think Max explained it all in "Hard Talk". He said that all the controversy surrounding F1 this last couple of seasons have been very tiresome for everyone involved, but good for the general interest of the sport. No publicity is bad publicity (he did not say that loud). I think he basically want to stir shit to make sure everybody is on their edge and more situations like those we have had lately will occur. I can not see any other reason.

I think you have a legitimate shot at the Bulwer-Lytton.

Yes, and not even the 2008 election is going to fix it...er, is this the politics thread in er....