32 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

Rich C on JA blog comments makes an interesting point:

I like the way these ppl are throwing around the term “aggressive.”
But I’d bet it just ain’t so.
F1 designers are all playing *defense – they just don’t want to be the guy that tries something way out that fails.
So they’ll all be just about the same again.
They should learn to play *offense and just ‘go for it’!

Now is this "walrus" phobia true or not? Are teams not willing to be the first to introduce ground effects, active suspension, winged cars, turbos, gas turbine cars, 4wd, 6 wheelers, fan cars etc etc etc for fear of looking a goose and bankrupting the team?

Now, on the one hand the field contains many cars that are merely refined evolutions of previous specifications, 2 % improved here, 200 g lighter there and so forth. Clinical number crunching, super computer, algorithm driven stuff.

Yet on the other hands, teams have debuted radical ideas like FEE, EBD, F-duct, DDD, flexi wings etc etc.

So does this phobia exist... or not?

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 February 2011 - 10:45.

[Owen]

Every design decision is weighted on risk vs reward. Yes.

[Ross Stonefeld]

F1 is very conservative, just look at the huffiness over the CFD Virgin.

[Jackmancer]

Can't really blame them, so much money at stake. But indeed it's a balance of risk vs balance and some teams are just more conservative then others (Sauber vs Virgin is a some difference imo).

[PayasYouRace]

It's worse than that. The walrus nose was blamed for Williams poor season in '04, yet their engineers said at the time that it made little difference. Yes they won in Brazil with a conventional nose, but Montoya was a strong 2nd in Malasia with the walrus. It got painted as this absolute failure when in fact it made little difference.

So I think the teams are reluctant to try radical designs because even if they don't work too differently, they will get blamed for the poor performance.

[DanardiF1]

It's worse than that. The walrus nose was blamed for Williams poor season in '04, yet their engineers said at the time that it made little difference. Yes they won in Brazil with a conventional nose, but Montoya was a strong 2nd in Malasia with the walrus. It got painted as this absolute failure when in fact it made little difference.

So I think the teams are reluctant to try radical designs because even if they don't work too differently, they will get blamed for the poor performance.

And rather than thinking that the rest of the car was the reason for the fall in performance in 2004, Williams dumped an idea that was clearly worth further development and research.

[Risil]

And rather than thinking that the rest of the car was the reason for the fall in performance in 2004, Williams dumped an idea that was clearly worth further development and research.

I thought it made 'little difference'?

I'm sure Williams would've listened to their own engineers before the technically-illiterate sections of the media.

[JackTorrance]

Bad example. The walrus was designed by a woman. Hence it didnt work.;)

[toonczyk]

I think teams really do look for radical solutions all the time. It's just that the regulations are so strict that it's difficult to come up with something really different. And when something like this happens, someone finds a loophole allowing for some crucial innovation - like DDD, exhaust blown diffuser, F-duct, new shape of airbox (Merc last year) - it quickly becomes illegal.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if next year's technical regulations limited exhausts position to an area where they used to sit before this season...

Edited by toonczyk, 03 February 2011 - 13:02.

[WhiteBlue]

There is a long term consensus among the majority of F1 teams to restrict the competitive advantages of the formula to certain fields of technology. Immediately when the teams gained power by the Concord Agreement a huge range of propulsion technologies got outlawed followed by ever stricter rules on the engines. Contrary to popular believe it wasn't the FiA which was the driver behind most of the engine restrictions. In the past teams like McLaren and Williams have pushed chassis technologies and now Red Bull ensures that a bigger focus on power train technologies doesn't happen. Even Ferrari have at times suppressed engine technology like AlBeryllium when it hurt competitors.

So it is fair to say that engineering conservatism isn't rooted in the minds of the engineers. The team strategists and politicians have been cutting the heart out of F1 for decades.

[roadie]

This season's designs aren't altogether dissimilar to the Walrus. I believe Owen's reply sums the question up in its entirety. The only thing remaining is how much emphasis you put on risk and how much room there is to do so in the regulations?

[DanardiF1]

This season's designs aren't altogether dissimilar to the Walrus. I believe Owen's reply sums the question up in its entirety. The only thing remaining is how much emphasis you put on risk and how much room there is to do so in the regulations?

Well there was room in the regs in 2004 to do the Walrus nose. I imagine it'd be doable now too. And like you say it's a trend that's developed in the last two years in a similar form anyway.

[JacnGille]

I think teams really do look for radical solutions all the time. It's just that the regulations are so strict that it's difficult to come up with something really different.

Yep

[Rinehart]

Only the fundamental design principles like wheelbase and weight transfer (how far forward/back the cockpit is) are pretty much boom or bust decisons.

Everything else, like the EBD, f-duct or walrus nose is a reversable decision if it doesn't work.

So I don't see the reason for the fear factor.

[boldhakka]

It's physics mostly, there are only so many innovations you can do. There will be fewer and fewer big ones spread out over longer and longer periods as most of the low-hanging fruit are already done.

[BenettonB192]

If it makes the car faster it will be used no matter how ugly it is. I doubt that any F1 designer cares about aestetics except for the guy who designs paintjobs and motor homes maybe.

[domhnall]

I don't think there's any such phobia. If a radical concept is thought up it will be tested and checked for legality and performance benefits. If it's good it goes on the car. It's not like the aircraft industry where safety concerns are holding back some proposed radical aircraft co figurations. Also for an aircraft manufacturer, developing a flawed aircraft can have major financial implications, generating a natural conservative approach. In f1, an team would jump at an opportunity to gain 'the unfair advantage'.

[Boing 2]

i think the walrus nose was too heavy, a consequence of having to pass crash tests with a much shorter structure.

[Clatter]

I think it's false. If the teams have radical ideas they will test them, and if they work implement them. The problem is that the rules have got ever tighter over the years making truly radical solutions harder to find.

[Sausage]

Nah. Teams want changes that work, not for change's sake. Even for small teams with less to lose there's a huge risk. Besides that we don't ever see 80% of the changes since most of them are inside the car but are at least as important.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

I think it varies by team. Ferrari is conservative to a fault, reminds me of the USSR under Joe Stalin, if the car doesn't work or they lose a race, they hunt out someone to blame and eviscerate them.

On the lesser teams, something unusual nets them more attention than they deserve -good for drumming up new sponsors.

So far, "Lotus" Renault is getting a lot of attention for a design that likely won't work.

[V8 Fireworks]

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if next year's technical regulations limited exhausts position to an area where they used to sit before this season...

On safety grounds I would imagine, afterall the Renault exhaust goes directly next to the fuel tank! Not the optimal place if downforce was not "king".

[V8 Fireworks]

Well there was room in the regs in 2004 to do the Walrus nose. I imagine it'd be doable now too.

I believe the front-on profile of the front wing supports are fixed now, as part of the control centre section of the front wing. Much more difficult to make a walrus nose I think.

[ViMaMo]

From what I remember: Walrus was not a failure but rather their twin keel concept . There was much flexing due to their keel.

Quotes from old threads

Ralf had a good balance with his car which was just simply not quick enough compared to the opposition. He said that Williams has little too little room for moveable ballast, hence the car is overweight compared to the opposition.

Understeer was a major problem

Possibly something to do with the extra strength required in "that" nose.

Indeed, Williams weight problems are coming from the twinkeel construction with the walrus nose. It might give plenty of downforce, but the weight penalties apparently are severe.

Maybe the Walrus is heavy and is a problem. If that's the case then the weight needs to be taken out, if that's possable. The same goes for structural issues. But if those things mentioned are real issues, why weren't they better made in the first place.
There's also the general concern IMO about twin keels. Ferrari, even Sauber (the inventor's I think of the twin keel), BAR/Honda, Renault, have single keel cars. McLaren and Williams now do not. For me, the twin keel seems to have structural downsides, and despite its lesser drag maybe the structural issues and weight benefits of the single keel offer a competitive advantage.

Edited by ViMaMo, 04 February 2011 - 03:43.

[V8 Fireworks]

Teams want changes that work, not for change's sake.

For example we saw BAR unveil similar cars for 2-3 seasons, each no doubt a X% quantifiable improvement on the previous. A fresh concept would be an unknown I suppose. However they were a crappy midfield runner for all 2-3 seasons! Until I think Willis brought in more contemporary thinking with a racier car when Button joined the team. A win for fresh ideas?

On the other hand the first Red Bull car scored more points than the two previous Jaguar combined, even though it was the same fundamental concept and relatively outdated looking compared to the cars it was racing against. A win for refinement?

[PayasYouRace]

For example we saw BAR unveil similar cars for 2-3 seasons, each no doubt a X% quantifiable improvement on the previous. A fresh concept would be an unknown I suppose. However they were a crappy midfield runner for all 2-3 seasons! Until I think Willis brought in more contemporary thinking with a racier car when Button joined the team. A win for fresh ideas?

On the other hand the first Red Bull car scored more points than the two previous Jaguar combined, even though it was the same fundamental concept and relatively outdated looking compared to the cars it was racing against. A win for refinement?

...and sadly for them, they still finished in the same place in the WCC (7th). How much of an improvement was it?

[steveninthematrix]

i have a radical idea... scrap the ARW and let the drivers and teams go racing without the stupid manipulations!

[Cxxx]

Only the fundamental design principles like wheelbase and weight transfer (how far forward/back the cockpit is) are pretty much boom or bust decisons.

Everything else, like the EBD, f-duct or walrus nose is a reversable decision if it doesn't work.

So I don't see the reason for the fear factor.

It's because, in aero at least, developing an F1 car is an ongoing process and everything you change has an effect on how everything else works, so new developments in one area will mean you develop the rest of the car differently. Most new concepts require a bit of work to get right - your traditional car is very well optimised, so something completely new will always require a bit of time to get up to the same level. So if you decide to go with a new concept, you might spend a couple of months developing it, and developing the rest of the car around it. If eventually it doesn't work as well as you'd hoped then yes, it's reversible but you will never get that development time back. Even if it's just a couple of weeks, that time could have been spent improving your traditional concept, so if you decide not to use it in the end you've effectively put yourself behind the other teams in the development race.

[Italiano Tifoso]

I think you will find that the most radical idea's come from the teams whose baseline chassis the previous year did not meet their goals.

Teams who are further behind the leaders in terms of pace tend to stretch the search for the silver bullet a bit more. Look at Renault and McLaren design in 2011 compared to Red Bull and Ferrari whose designs are mere evolutions of their 2010 cars.

Sometimes the radical designs can bridge big gaps (Brawn 2009) and sometimes it goes nowhere (Terza's 'Walrus' Williams).

Either way it is always refreshing to see new ideas come to life.

[Marbles]

I think much of the conservatism in modern F1 design can be traced to the starting template established by the rules and the ubiquity of computer modeling and wind tunnel testing. They all start from the same departure point and it should come as no surprise that with the aid of computer modeling and wind tunnel tests they arrive at roughly the same conclusion. I think it's quite likely that all the interesting or radical ideas are quickly dismissed before a scale model is even made.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Calculations are King.

[nomeg1]

I will humbly quote Whitmarsh on this one. From Autosport :

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said that the car would be developed aggressively before the start of the season - and confirmed that the team gave little away about its design in Berlin, beyond its U-shaped sidepods.

"Be warned, you haven't seen it all," he said during a media conference. "I think there are some really interesting bits on the car that you can see. But there are some bits we have hidden from you and our competition.

"F1 is about continuous development, and we will start testing next week. By that stage the car will have moved on subtly. There are some fantastic innovations. It never ceases to amaze me that even though the regulations are much more constrictive, especially around the diffuser area, it just drives creativity.

"For me, one of the thrilling parts of my job is to look at what much cleverer people than me are doing. They have some great ideas, it's interesting, it's challenging, and there is some risk. But we're in a business where if you're not innovative, you're not competitive.

But that's McLaren's way of seing things, and I must say, me who a Ferrari fan to the bone is, I love it !

[Tenmantaylor]

Great quote from Whitmarsh. I think innovation is categorically not shied away from by F1 teams. The fact is the rules kill most large scale innovations we saw in the past. In fact the reverse is true, most of those innovations caused rules to be implemented banning them! So modern F1 finds itself as a victim of it's own innovation because rules banning things rarely get lifted unless the FIA think it "will improve racing".