Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Montezemolo: Formula simulators are a 'joke'


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:10

Seems he wants F1 to go back to unlimited testing instead of simulators.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111960

I guess you might think that way if you are the only team to have their own dedicated test track and you cannot get your simulator to work.
Probably wants a tyre war and one tyre supplier to give his team first dibs at testing/choosing the tyres as well.

Advertisement

#2 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:11

Fiorano hasn't been very active as of late.



#3 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:14

I agree with him. 



#4 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,978 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:23

would totally work with the budget cap from '15 onwards!

 

 

...not.



#5 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:25

would totally work with the budget cap from '15 onwards!

 

 

...not.

 

It would if you have a test circuit in your own backyard.



#6 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,842 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:28

He is right. For once I agree.

If you cannot afford F1, do something else.

Simulators are useless for promotion and adding value to F1.



#7 Crossmax

Crossmax
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:37

Here is a thought: ban simulators all together. Positive side effect: more on-track action during the free practices.



#8 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:39

He is right. For once I agree.

If you cannot afford F1, do something else.

Simulators are useless for promotion and adding value to F1.

 

With that mentality, F1 would end up with only 4-5 teams. If Ferrari have correlation issues then they need to sort them out.


Edited by F1ultimate, 25 December 2013 - 18:41.


#9 jedioriginal

jedioriginal
  • Member

  • 675 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:43

One of the rare times that i have to agree with Monty :)

#10 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:48

No shit.

Simulators are killing racing drivers track time

#11 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 25 December 2013 - 18:48

He is obviously looking after his own interests. But this F1 simulator culture is indeed a joke. All these fancy gizmos that you cannot relate to at all. Everyone is going for new advanced simulators, and like cell phones they are changing it every two years. So much for cost-control. So are the wind tunnels to some extent. That does not mean we can have unlimited testing.

 

One way to go in the future could be FIA has one common simulator, the only one which all teams could use for a very limited time.. This could be done somewhere in the near future when the present simulators would be past their useful time. Same for the wind tunnel. We should have some in-season testing. This in-season testing ban was proposed by LdM itself in first place when he was Chairman of FOTA.

 

I think the cost cap would help some of these. I don't think it would be a simple cap on overall cost. It would limit number of personnel, cap that accounts their salary and spending on some other key issues, which when added should not allow too much to be spent on other areas by the overall cap number.



#12 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,930 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 25 December 2013 - 19:05

Here is a thought: ban simulators all together. Positive side effect: more on-track action during the free practices.


How? Seriously, you gonna confiscate the drivers Nintendos?

#13 Crossmax

Crossmax
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 25 December 2013 - 19:09

How? Seriously, you gonna confiscate the drivers Nintendos?

If you can police a budget cap and CFD, you can police simulator use.



#14 Timothy

Timothy
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 19:11

With that mentality, F1 would end up with only 4-5 teams. If Ferrari have correlation issues then they need to sort them out.

 

With decades of in season testing prior to the ban, f1 was never in danger of fielding "only 4-5 teams". This absurd ban had nothing to do with cost cutting and everything to do with forcefully changing the status quo.



#15 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 516 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 25 December 2013 - 19:12

I don't see why the Monday after any non-back-to-back race / street race is such a problem for testing? And then fans can also have dirt cheap tickets to watch it too. Indeed, its so much better than teams relying on simulators behind closed doors. 

 

I'm not a big fan of lots of running on Friday as it takes away a bit of unpredictability for the weekend, and also support races need to fit in. 



#16 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,842 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 December 2013 - 19:17

With that mentality, F1 would end up with only 4-5 teams. If Ferrari have correlation issues then they need to sort them out.

 

The unlimited testing mentality was unsustainable. So is the no testing do it all in the simulator, as proven by the struggles of the the newest and smallest teeams.

 

What do Ferrari have to show for the hundreds of hours Alonso spent in the simulator in 2012? Any on track action? Any intelligent commercial for their sponsors and partners? Any memorabilia that can be marketed and sold? Any footage of breathtaking speed driving and racing? And yet, how much money do you think was spent for those hundreds of hours he did simulator work? The development might actually be fantastic, but they are a poor solution for everything else.



#17 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:10

If you can police a budget cap and CFD, you can police simulator use.


I'm under the impression that F1 teams use rFactor Pro. Good luck banning drivers from having it installed on the their gaming rigs at home.

Edited by F1ultimate, 26 December 2013 - 00:49.


#18 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,978 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:18

It would if you have a test circuit in your own backyard.

yeah, newsflash: 10 of the 11 teams don't, and won't if there is a budget cap.



#19 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,419 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:28

Sounds like Ferrari are struggling with their simulator.



Advertisement

#20 Crossmax

Crossmax
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:34

I'm under the impression that F1 teams use iRacing. Good luck banning drivers from having it installed on the their gaming rigs at home.

What? Are the teams basing their simulators on iRacing too? How can it be that expensive if that is the case?



#21 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:36

It would if you have a test circuit in your own backyard.

It would not since FIA mandates very strict safety even in the tests.

#22 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:45

With decades of in season testing prior to the ban, f1 was never in danger of fielding "only 4-5 teams". This absurd ban had nothing to do with cost cutting and everything to do with forcefully changing the status quo.

When the test ban was introduced there had been four different champions in the past four years. What was the status quo? On the other hand F1 had lost BMW, Honda and Toyota due to the economic crisis. Not everything is a conspiracy against Ferrari.

Edited by Gorma, 25 December 2013 - 20:46.


#23 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,105 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:52

They still can't get their simulator to work then. If Montezemolo has ever proposed something for the common good it would be a miracle.

 

With decades of in season testing prior to the ban, f1 was never in danger of fielding "only 4-5 teams". This absurd ban had nothing to do with cost cutting and everything to do with forcefully changing the status quo.

 

F1 had about a decade of the in-season testing Monty wants back, which happened to coincide with the time most of the teams had the budget for it. For most of the sport's history, testing was an occasional occurrence, with much of the work (including the odd new wing!) happening during the race weekend.

 

The unlimited testing mentality was unsustainable. So is the no testing do it all in the simulator, as proven by the struggles of the the newest and smallest teeams.

 

What do Ferrari have to show for the hundreds of hours Alonso spent in the simulator in 2012? Any on track action? Any intelligent commercial for their sponsors and partners? Any memorabilia that can be marketed and sold? Any footage of breathtaking speed driving and racing? And yet, how much money do you think was spent for those hundreds of hours he did simulator work? The development might actually be fantastic, but they are a poor solution for everything else.

 

All that could of been provided with a five minute demonstration run. Filming days were provided for under the testing ban.

 

Simulators are expensive, but much of it is in the initial cost, rather than the constant outlay from track testing.

 

I'm under the impression that F1 teams use iRacing. Good luck banning drivers from having it installed on the their gaming rigs at home.

 

There's little relation between a computer running iRacing and a team's simulator.



#24 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:52

He is obviously looking after his own interests. But this F1 simulator culture is indeed a joke. All these fancy gizmos that you cannot relate to at all. Everyone is going for new advanced simulators, and like cell phones they are changing it every two years. So much for cost-control. So are the wind tunnels to some extent. That does not mean we can have unlimited testing.
 
One way to go in the future could be FIA has one common simulator, the only one which all teams could use for a very limited time.. This could be done somewhere in the near future when the present simulators would be past their useful time. Same for the wind tunnel. We should have some in-season testing. This in-season testing ban was proposed by LdM itself in first place when he was Chairman of FOTA.
 
I think the cost cap would help some of these. I don't think it would be a simple cap on overall cost. It would limit number of personnel, cap that accounts their salary and spending on some other key issues, which when added should not allow too much to be spent on other areas by the overall cap number.


I agree most of the part.

Fundamentally it is all about cost of validating the development. If a small team finds it most cost efficient to use it on track testing, it should be allowed. On another hand, at the same time big boys such as Ferrari and Mercedes can leverage some infra and contracts with external test houses related to their commercial business to lower the cost of their F1 operations..

There needs to be a way to verify the development be it on track or on simulator. It seems the simulator technology is still too immature and also too costly to replace in track development. This may change in couple of years time but there should be a freedom for the teams to choose what is the most cost efficient way of validating development work. A change with almost total test ban on track with unlimited testing on simulators has led into rediculous situation where we are now.

How to balance the situation between big teams and smaller ones? Perhaps a total testing budget limit combined with total in house testing facility ban letting the teams to choose how to spend it. It could also help to grow commercial third party test facilities that could be deployed also by commercial car developers as well as other series teams. And if Bernie really wants to see the underdogs to survive, allocate them a testing and development money that would be reverse proportional to the WCC standings but would need to be spent on development and testing only.

#25 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 5,562 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 December 2013 - 20:55

Hi, 

 

My simulator not working so well si? So simulators all stupido m'kay? Testing good. I rememberera testing very'a well'a. Let's'a havea testing again'a and no stupido simulator. 



#26 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 December 2013 - 21:00

He is right. For once I agree.

If you cannot afford F1, do something else.

Simulators are useless for promotion and adding value to F1.

 

 

because Ferrari doing 2-3000 miles a week in Fiorano "promotes" and "adds value" to F1?



#27 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 December 2013 - 21:11

I'm under the impression that F1 teams use iRacing. Good luck banning drivers from having it installed on the their gaming rigs at home.

 

Actually played some games against Scott Speed back in the day, and managed to beat him :D

Hamilton and Kovalainen also have accounts IIRC.
 



#28 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,289 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 25 December 2013 - 21:54

Why not give the teams a choice. Either spend the money on simulators or do it on real track testing? 

I can totally understand why Ferrari wants to do some real testing seeing they have invested a lot in those tracks. The teams should be allowed to spend their own money the way they want to do it. It worked like that for a long long time and it worked well. Too many rules hurt the sport, it has been doing so for a long time. Give the teams more freedom, in testing, in choosing their own engine configuration etc and see how F1 will be exciting again.



#29 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,370 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 25 December 2013 - 21:54

Unlimited track testing as and when the teams please. Stop being stupid. The teams with no money dont compete even without testing, but extended testing at race weekends and at FIA organised test sessions all year would give them good opportunities without huge cost too.



#30 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 December 2013 - 22:43

Why not give the teams a choice. Either spend the money on simulators or do it on real track testing? 

I can totally understand why Ferrari wants to do some real testing seeing they have invested a lot in those tracks. The teams should be allowed to spend their own money the way they want to do it. It worked like that for a long long time and it worked well. Too many rules hurt the sport, it has been doing so for a long time. Give the teams more freedom, in testing, in choosing their own engine configuration etc and see how F1 will be exciting again.

 

 

What "money" ? The simulator has an initial cost for the hardware (not much) and software, beyond that the cost of running it is near 0 (well  yeah ok electricity and an engineer). For track testing you need engines, gearboxes, tyres, blah blah blah. 10 engines for a whole season cost about 18mil and that's just the engine, that's  the big cost of track running, not in hiring 30 marshals and an ambulance for a couple of days.



#31 mp4x

mp4x
  • Member

  • 217 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 December 2013 - 23:01

Of course Luca di Montezemolo would want that. He obviously thinks about the last Ferrari domination era a lot. They had unlimited track testing and it was an unfair thing that they only had. What he says is exactly like in today’s Formula One let’s ban the simulator work and the teams have to guess what they should do and one particular team (hint: its name starts with Ferrari) can have the luxury of simulator work. The next thing he wants is tire war and of course a Ferrari-loving supplier (like Bridgestone).


#32 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 December 2013 - 23:45

What "money" ? The simulator has an initial cost for the hardware (not much) and software, beyond that the cost of running it is near 0 (well  yeah ok electricity and an engineer).

 

Yeah let's let the simulator develop itself.



#33 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 December 2013 - 23:59

What "money" ? The simulator has an initial cost for the hardware (not much) and software, beyond that the cost of running it is near 0 (well  yeah ok electricity and an engineer). For track testing you need engines, gearboxes, tyres, blah blah blah. 10 engines for a whole season cost about 18mil and that's just the engine, that's  the big cost of track running, not in hiring 30 marshals and an ambulance for a couple of days.

 

This (not much) may lays in the eye of the beholder. Mercedes (not the F1 team) has spend "just" app. 25 Mill Euro, on there latest driving simulator, so as always, you can spend as much as you want/have on something like this. Just as you can for wind tunnels, multi post test rigs &/or CFD computers. Someone will start a "arms race" and every one else will (try to) follow suite.

 

As with a wind tunnel, engine dyno, 7-post rig and other similar HiL systems, you need to maintain them, which costs money, and as development continues, you will need to upgrade them, so that you stay current, and this can be expensive too.

 

While you may can run a simulator with a engineer/technician or two, you will need a couple of smart guys who actually "code" the things you want to test/investigate. 

Someone will need to transfer the characteristics of the new damper / wing / F-duct / engine-map etc. into the "virtual world".

While some modifications, are perhaps just simple parameters to be adjusted (more engine power, different gear ratio etc.) others (FRIC etc.) will require the development of complete new models. This is an ongoing process, just as a wind tunnel is pretty useless without a good "model shop", a simulator is of limited use, if you can't characterize the new components/developments you want to test correctly in the software. In worst case, you even need to model a complete new track/circuit (Mexico / New York etc.), or at least keep your track models up to date - tracks getting resurfaced etc.)

 

While I see and partly agree with your general point, you may oversimplify things a little bit in your post.

 

The "problem" is, that F1/people seem to go from one extreme to the other, where more often then not, an sustainable optimum can be found somewhere in the middle.

In there eternal quest for "secrecy" they pass up/miss a lot of opportunities to utilize/monetize the infrastructure they have.

A top of the line Simulator is a pretty "cool" piece of kit, and opens up great opportunities to engage with sponsors, partners and even the fans, if someone would be open/interested to do so.

As with most technologies, they are not "good or evil" on their own, it all depends on how you decide to utilize them.



#34 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 00:04

What "money" ? The simulator has an initial cost for the hardware (not much) and software, beyond that the cost of running it is near 0 (well  yeah ok electricity and an engineer). For track testing you need engines, gearboxes, tyres, blah blah blah. 10 engines for a whole season cost about 18mil and that's just the engine, that's  the big cost of track running, not in hiring 30 marshals and an ambulance for a couple of days.


You cannot be serious, are you? You actually need to run quite a lot of simulation software and continuously keep modelling the new parts to run the results in the simulator. But how do you know your modelling is matching the reality? Imagine this: You develop a new part of the front wing that the design team thinks is right. You have all the infra but you need to design a new aerodynamic model of the part that you think will match the reality and attach that to your already imaginerily developed car model. Would you trust the result? What about if rear wing design team is changing their product at the same time. What about if the rules change the underlying design completely?

With all the resources in the world, it was only a few years ago that US Army decided that they do not need to test nukes in real life but they can trust computer simulations. And this was in an environment where all rules were established and you were simply developing a known design. Or just imagine any civil aviation company going to any carrier in the world to sell a new airplane that has throughly been tested in simulator environment but not a single air hour has been used to test the design. Hand in heart, would you buy such a plane in tens or even in hundreds?

Actually it is known in aviation that all new plane models units with under certain serial number always sell for discount. When a carrier commits itself for a deal for a new plane, it is usual that the serial number request is written in the deal e.g. no planes under serial number under 30.

Computer modeling can be cheap but it still today does not quarantee working result in real life. If you want to compete at the top of F1, your suggested solution does not deliver results.

#35 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2013 - 00:04

What? Are the teams basing their simulators on iRacing too? How can it be that expensive if that is the case?


rFactor Pro is very powerful and allow teams to load new maps, tyre wear mapping, weather conditions and anything else. It's very different from your average racing game, it's a professional simulator. What's made simulators less useful for some teams this year, are the tyres. If teams can't grasp how they work, they can feed simulators with the correct mapping. Given that tyres are the lowest common denominator for a car throughout a season, this could compromise the development of other parts.

Edited by F1ultimate, 26 December 2013 - 00:50.


#36 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 00:08

This (not much) may lays in the eye of the beholder. Mercedes (not the F1 team) has spend "just" app. 25 Mill Euro, on there latest driving simulator, 

 

how sure are you of these figures? Cause Ferrari were pretty public about the fact their own simulator which in terms of hardware at least is similar to aircraft simulators cost them about 6 million, and the software behind it is a (granted heavily modded) version of rfactor pro, same thing Red Bull run in their simulator

 

 

Besides, even if it cost them 25 mil that's a one off investment that may last them 10 seasons, moderate in season testing costs more than that each season.

 

And no simulators are just physics models, the actual software maintenance/upgrade required is pretty minimal. They plug in the numbers from the windtunnel/cfd/7post rig etc they don't really recode the physics around all that much



#37 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 00:12

You cannot be serious, are you? You actually need to run quite a lot of simulation software and continuously keep modelling the new parts to run the results in the simulator. But how do you know your modelling is matching the reality? Imagine this: You develop a new part of the front wing that the design team thinks is right. You have all the infra but you need to design a new aerodynamic model of the part that you think will match the reality and attach that to your already imaginerily developed car model. Would you trust the result? What about if rear wing design team is changing their product at the same time. What about if the rules change the underlying design completely?

With all the resources in the world, it was only a few years ago that US Army decided that they do not need to test nukes in real life but they can trust computer simulations. And this was in an environment where all rules were established and you were simply developing a known design. Or just imagine any civil aviation company going to any carrier in the world to sell a new airplane that has throughly been tested in simulator environment but not a single air hour has been used to test the design. Hand in heart, would you buy such a plane in tens or even in hundreds?

Actually it is known in aviation that all new plane models units with under certain serial number always sell for discount. When a carrier commits itself for a deal for a new plane, it is usual that the serial number request is written in the deal e.g. no planes under serial number under 30.

Computer modeling can be cheap but it still today does not quarantee working result in real life. If you want to compete at the top of F1, your suggested solution does not deliver results.

 

no that's not how the driving simulator works. You are confusing it it with CFD, which is what generates the numbers that go into the simulator. The driving simulator, in simple terms, is a game similar to what you can play on  your home pc with just very detailed physics, running on a much more powerful processor base that you can fit in your home. Alonso has one at home (no joke, Ferrari built him one) Plus a secondary bank that feeds back the physics to the driver. The simulator is no different to what airlines use every day to train their pilots



#38 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:11

no that's not how the driving simulator works. You are confusing it it with CFD, which is what generates the numbers that go into the simulator. The driving simulator, in simple terms, is a game similar to what you can play on your home pc with just very detailed physics, running on a much more powerful processor base that you can fit in your home. Alonso has one at home (no joke, Ferrari built him one) Plus a secondary bank that feeds back the physics to the driver. The simulator is no different to what airlines use every day to train their pilots

I think I know what a simulator is and I think I know what it is good for.

A simulator in aviation is good for training people to deal with a known design and it's malfunctions. In these cases the simulator behaviour is based on well established physical design and it's assumed behaviour in different situations, including lost engine during take off etc.

Now, in F1 simulator is been used to get feedback on virtual unknown design where the engineering modelling, validation of design changes, their interdependency in different environments and how their performance related to real world is not earlier understood. It is literally doing research and development in virtual world.

Can you not see the difference?

In the first world the design exists, is well established and modelled and simulators are been used to train people how to use it in all circumstances.

In the F1 world the simulator is been used to develop the design that does not exist in physical world so that you do not know how it correlates with the reality.

In the latter case you can spend as much money as you want because you are modelling the unknown.

Edited by Jvr, 26 December 2013 - 01:14.


#39 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:22

I'm under the impression that F1 teams use rFactor Pro. Good luck banning drivers from having it installed on the their gaming rigs at home.

 

No mate, some of them may use the same rendering engine and track maps. But they are a whole different bit of kit to any PC game.



Advertisement

#40 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,340 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:25

I guess it's hilarious that the FIA ban real-world testing, so the F1 teams are forced to basically create their own f'in alternate universes. To be honest I would be as much interested in learning about them as I would the actual real F1 cars.

 

Monty is right there. The testing hasn't reduced costs it's just diverted them into something far less reliable and trustworthy (though I recognise their advancement and amazing nature). 



#41 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:30

I think I know what a simulator is and I think I know what it is good for.

A simulator in aviation is good for training people to deal with a known design and it's malfunctions. In these cases the simulator behaviour is based on well established physical design and it's assumed behaviour in different situations, including lost engine during take off etc.

Now, in F1 simulator is been used to get feedback on virtual unknown design where the engineering modelling, validation of design changes, their interdependency in different environments and how their performance related to real world is not earlier understood. It is literally doing research and development in virtual world.

Can you not see the difference?

In the first world the design exists, is well established and modelled and simulators are been used to train people how to use it in all circumstances.

In the F1 world the simulator is been used to develop the design that does not exist in physical world so that you do not know how it correlates with the reality.

In the latter case you can spend as much money as you want because you are modelling the unknown.

 

No the simulator in F1 isn't a design tool, it's an evaluation tool. In the simplest of terms the simulator is a series of matrices (tyres, engine etc) which are converted to loads on the fly. The simulator itself doesn't do anything more than match the various matrices and apply laws of physics on the numbers. The data in the matrices comes from 2 sources, one is the track and the other is the design office. Which pretty much explains to you that the problem isn't the simulator, it's the modeling that goes on before the data gets to the simulator. In layman's terms those age old "correlation" problems. If your CFD/WT etc spit out junk then the simulator is useless, if they don't its the cheapest way to get a driver to experience the changes in the car without lugging a team of 30 people, an engine, a gearbox and a chassis halfway across Europe and spending 2-3 mill on a couple of test days. The function of the simulator in F1 and aviation is pretty much identical, neither models anything, neither generates "fresh" data. You don't evaluate the aerodynamic profile of a new aerofoil in the simulator. You CFD it, you WT it, you get the data from the modeling (ie CFD and WT) and plug it into the simulator which in turns serves the driver with a "scenario" ie the variation on the existing model based on the data from the new aerofoil.



#42 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:33

No mate, some of them may use the same rendering engine and track maps. But they are a whole different bit of kit to any PC game.

 

no they don't, the core for both Ferrari and Red Bull (and McLaren afaik) simulators is rFactor pro. They even use the same parameters as rfactor pro (pro being NOT what you can play in your home by the way pro is this -> http://www.rfactor-pro.com/ ), The core is the physics engine, not the render not the "maps" ... they don't even use maps, they use track scans



#43 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:41

how sure are you of these figures? Cause Ferrari were pretty public about the fact their own simulator which in terms of hardware at least is similar to aircraft simulators cost them about 6 million, and the software behind it is a (granted heavily modded) version of rfactor pro, same thing Red Bull run in their simulator

 

Besides, even if it cost them 25 mil that's a one off investment that may last them 10 seasons, moderate in season testing costs more than that each season.

 

And no simulators are just physics models, the actual software maintenance/upgrade required is pretty minimal. They plug in the numbers from the windtunnel/cfd/7post rig etc they don't really recode the physics around all that much

 

The new simulator is part of an 160 Mill Euro investment program; it's cost alone, are said to make up one quarter of the sum (40 Mill)

 

*************************************

Der neue Simulator in Sindelfingen ist Teil eines 160-Millionen-Euro-Investitionsprogramm; allein seine Kosten belaufen sich allein auf rund ein Viertel dieser Summe.

http://ww2.autoscout...k/44276/194693/

 

 

the sum I mentioned earlier was from this article:

 

 

Mercedes have released a video of the world’s most advanced driving simulator in action.

The short film shows a driver using the 1,700 horsepower, 25million euro ($32million/£21million) machine to test potentially hazardous scenarios.

The powerful driving simulator, built on electrically driven hydraulic stilts, weighs a massive 300 tonnes.

It has eight high-powered projectors inside which create a 360 degree view for the driver — who sits inside a real vehicle mounted in a special pod on a 12 meter long rail.

 

So, as I said, the "sky is the limit", I'm well aware, that an entry level Cruden/Moog motion platform sells for app. 160k US$, but that doesn't mean, that it will stop their.

Just as with wind tunnels and other technology, people will spend what they can on it.

 

While I can see, that teams will buy some of the VR models / Circuits etc. "off the shelf", and perhaps use commercial packages for visualization, I doubt, that they will not do their own modeling for the car characteristics. 

How would an external supplier be able to model you latest developments (FRIC for example)? 

I'm sure they could technically, if you explain them, what it is that you are actually doing, but I doubt that teams would like to give this info out, to some developers at Rfactor or whoever.

 

Modelica / Dymola is widely used within the industry fro this sort of task. It's a bit like Matlab/Simulink or the tools, the engine guys use to program the functions within the ECU.

It's an software environment, that let's you make use of blocks and standard libraries, but what you do with it, and how you logical & functional combine it, it's up to you.

And the "know how" will remain within your company/group. 

 

Also, and this is the main difference and why the comparison to an "video game" is perhaps not entirely correct. There are different type of "simulators", 

they can be used as "procedure trainers", basically the classical flight simulator application, to train the pilots, and make them familiar with different cockpit layouts and aircraft characteristics (type ratings etc.), but this part, while still being present, is a secondary consideration for the F1 teams.

What they want/need is a virtual lab, to develop their car/engine, not so much training their drivers.

For this application, you need to be able to "define" the response of your car/model yourself, otherwise, you will be always "one step behind".

If you see the latest movements, from some guys leaving RBR, one of them was "head of simulation", I doubt, that he was only operating their "simulator", theirs a little bit more behind it.

 

You are right, that rFactor provides some technology to F1 and other race teams, but as I said, that's mainly track data and the vision/sound model.

This paper explains a bit the outlines of an generic  DiL system.

 

http://www.ep.liu.se...ecp12076058.pdf

 

BTW: it's off topic, but what is a real joke, it's this new forum software. 


Edited by TC3000, 26 December 2013 - 02:17.


#44 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:16

I think, you may have a misunderstanding of what "physics model/engine" means, and what it does.

And yes, this part may comes from Rfactor pro for some applications, but the teams still write their own code, to describe, what their car actually does on the track, thereby supplying the inputs for the "physics model".

 

that's a photo of the MB simulator / Toyota/Lexus has a similar one.

the main difference to the Ferrari model shown, is that it doesn't only uses a stationary steward platform, which has some limitations in reproducing truly "linear" motions for longer periods of time.

 

9084_10346.jpg

 

links-lexus-simulator.jpg?w=470&h=150



#45 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,883 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:25

A bit too many Montezemolo-threads as of late. No 'silent night' with him.

#46 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:32

It is about time that Montezemolo starts to fight seriously for Ferrari culture of empirical development instead of "scientific simulation".

 

 

I guess it's hilarious that the FIA ban real-world testing, so the F1 teams are forced to basically create their own f'in alternate universes.

 

That nails it.



#47 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:58

The function of the simulator in F1 and aviation is pretty much identical, neither models anything, neither generates "fresh" data. You don't evaluate the aerodynamic profile of a new aerofoil in the simulator. 

 

some may disagree with your point of view, on this.

 

 

Driver-in-the-loop simulators are increasingly used

in Motorsport and Automotive companies to enable
engineers and drivers to experience a new vehicle
design in a realistic environment before it is built.
The use of simulators enables drivers to test a new
vehicle and/or control system without having to
build a prototype and to carry out those tests in com-
plete safety and in repeatable conditions

 

Coming back to the core question of the thread, so what? 

Now that everyone and his dog has spend millions on their simulators (some more - some less) we bin them, and go back to track testing?

That doesn't sounds like a clever idea, to be honest.

LdM has a point, in what he says, but is a bit late to the party with his pov. Let's leave aside, that his motivation is unlikely the common good of the minions.

F1's/FIA's and other governing bodies/governments problem is, that they tend to some knee jerk reactions, and go from one extreme to the other. 

The "beauty" of an budget cup (if it could be enforced - an I don't hold by breath), would be, that you could/should get rid of all the others restrictions.

Leave it to the teams, if they want to spend xx Mil $ on their simulator or private race track. Some spend it on WT's others on CFD etc. 

Now, they just define the area of the next arms race, after teams/people have already spend the money on it.

So, you will bin your just recently acquired latest gadgets (whatever they may be), before you get any return of investment form them, and rush out the door, to get the latest gear, which is still "fair game" to spend the money on. People scraped their test teams, laying off some mechanics, engineers and truckies, just to rush and spend money on CFD and Simulators. Stumbling over each other, trying to hire the brightest minds with the new skill sets required, and driving the prices up in this area.



#48 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 December 2013 - 04:23

He is right. For once I agree.

If you cannot afford F1, do something else.

Simulators are useless for promotion and adding value to F1.

And how does running cars around the track to find an extra 0.1 seconds per lap add value to F1?  At least the incentives to develop the science of simulators has a chance to make the world a better place, whereas someone driving around in circles all day with no spectators only burns natural resources.



#49 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,842 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 December 2013 - 05:03

And how does running cars around the track to find an extra 0.1 seconds per lap add value to F1?  At least the incentives to develop the science of simulators has a chance to make the world a better place, whereas someone driving around in circles all day with no spectators only burns natural resources.

 

The value added comes from how well the teams explore the marketing and promotion opportunity testing creates. Footage, images, news releases, VIP parties, whatever. It's up to them to be creative and do business. They are already doing development, which is naturally crucial. And their drivers get actual mileage, they might even dare test candidates for future rides. 

 

Simulator work is a botomless pit with very limited use. Look no further than Mercedes jumping at the chance to get some mileage when the chance presented itself, nearly at the cost of FIA's wrath and whatever punishment it could have handed. And suddenly they won 3 races.



#50 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 December 2013 - 06:03

What was it that Captain Bligh said? '...the flogging will continue till the mood of the crew improves..' Teams only want things changed if its in their own self interest. The bottom line here is that Ferrari's simulation capabilities lags behind that of Red Bull, Lotus and McLaren. How many times have we heard that their aero programs do not correlate with the on track data. All on track testing means is that Ferrari can bring more resources to outspend their competitors. Just to give an example of the sheer cynicism of the big teams; When Sauber suggested that teams unable to fund in season testing next year could be compensated by more wind tunnel time it was blocked. 


Edited by Petroltorque, 26 December 2013 - 15:52.