23 replies to this topic

[ElJefe]

Formula 1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsports, both in terms of driving skill and engineering. However, for the past decade or so, I believe that especially the engineering part has taken a turn for the worse. The great strength of Red Bull - and indeed Adrian Newey - is aerodynamical engineering and to a lesser extent electrical engineering. Mechanical engineering nowadays has become less important, due to the regulations that allow for very little diversity and it allows little room to push engineering boundaries. I believe that this is harmful for both the competition and the relevance of the sport. Gone are the days of engine blowouts and mechanical breakdowns, which eliminates the factor of unpredictability and thus some of the tension and excitement during a race in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, Formula 1 has always had such an appeal to the masses because of the diversity of the cars. Back in the seventies and the eighties, when the pits and paddock were much more accessible to the public, massive crowds would go to there not to get an autograph of their favorite driver, but to see, feel, hear and smell the cars and the ingenuity of some of the designs. The technology used has always been highly sophisticated, but people could relate to it, much more than they can do nowadays with aerodynamical engineering. Mechanical engineering in the pit lane has relevance to your car in Average Lane, whereas aerodynamical engineering is more abstract and clinical.

I believe that mechanical engineering should be promoted and to do this we need to lift the restrictions for engine development and put more restrictions on aerodynamical development. In a highly sophisticated sport measures such as an engine freeze and standardization of engines is absolute blasphemy in my opinion. Any thoughts on this and engineering in F1 in general?

[rolf123]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

What I find annoying is that even in the early to mid 90s, 20 million was considered a ridiculous budget.

Today, 20 million is nothing.


This sort of increase in budget is unsustainable. Otherwise in 20 years the top team will have a trillion dollar budget!


F1 is a bubble waiting to explode, in fact many sports are such as football too.


This aero BS and mechanical harmonisation is done in the name of "cost cutting" but that is total BS.

Same argument goes for limited tyres. And yet in the early 90s Goodyear and Pirelli would bring 5 sets of tyres, totally customisable config by the teams (A, B, C, D, Q). And now we are told that they must limit the tyres to limit the costs? That is a total crock of sh*t because costs were one tenth what they are now back in the early 90s and yet they had all tyre types at their disposal.

With mechanical, you can also catch up more easily. If someone has an amazing suspension, you can maybe beat them with a better gearbox.

If someone has amazing aero, it's down to your aero team to beat them. Your mechanical improvements pale in comparison.

[phoenix101]

Formula 1 has always......

I agree, the sport is sterile, and the formula is needlessly technophobic.

The sport looks the way it does b/c the British are in charge. Britain has the world's best motorsport aerodynamicists, but almost no engine building capability compared to the Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, French, and Americans. Max, Bernie, and British teams have been at the top for a long time, so it was only natural that everything except aerodynamics would hit the chopping block as team budgets shrank.

It is perplexing, after all of these years, that neither the teams nor the FIA have created a formula that allows sustainable mechanical & electronic development. It is perhaps the greatest failure of F1, and I think it is attributable primarily to the manufacturers. They work in an environment that doesn't tolerate monopoly, trust, or cartel, yet the moment they roll onto the race track, they expect to win every race, and they demand that the rules support their technological hegemony. If the manufacturers just want to advertise at the race track, they demand that the cars are equalized for fairness and cost control. The engineers are dismissed, the sport stagnates, and the value of racing plummets.

It's not called catching, it's called fishing. It's not called winning, it's called racing. Redman said it best when he proclaimed that the purpose of racing is not winning, but the satisfaction of knowing that you did your very best, and that you had gone to the edge of what was possible. Francis Batta said that racing was fulfilling b/c every thrill, challenge, and hardship you could ever experience in life, could be experienced at the race track. The corporate executives will probably never understand racing, but in my experience, most fans don't understand racing either. To most fans, racing is all about celebrating victory and gluttonous expenditure without any consideration for the intangibles that make victory so satisfying. If the fans don't understand racing, the sanctioning bodies will continue moving everything towards NASCAR.

If the FIA will re-invent the concept of sanctioning races and drafting formulas, F1 will benefit in the long run. I appreciate what Mosley was trying to do before he was forced out, even if it was a bit crazy.

[Kubiccia]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

What I find annoying is that even in the early to mid 90s, 20 million was considered a ridiculous budget.

Today, 20 million is nothing.


This sort of increase in budget is unsustainable. Otherwise in 20 years the top team will have a trillion dollar budget!


F1 is a bubble waiting to explode, in fact many sports are such as football too.


This aero BS and mechanical harmonisation is done in the name of "cost cutting" but that is total BS.

Same argument goes for limited tyres. And yet in the early 90s Goodyear and Pirelli would bring 5 sets of tyres, totally customisable config by the teams (A, B, C, D, Q). And now we are told that they must limit the tyres to limit the costs? That is a total crock of sh*t because costs were one tenth what they are now back in the early 90s and yet they had all tyre types at their disposal.

With mechanical, you can also catch up more easily. If someone has an amazing suspension, you can maybe beat them with a better gearbox.

If someone has amazing aero, it's down to your aero team to beat them. Your mechanical improvements pale in comparison.

Agree completely.

In early 90s or late 80s, they had tones of engines available for a season, tones of tires and almost no restriction. Still they expended much less.
Restrictions on rules only make things more expensive because they have to squeeze tiny improvements from what is possible to.

If teams had more freedom with engineering, they could work better with their smaller budgets.

If FIA wanna limit wind tunnels hours or CFD hours, then fine. But allowing more freedom in other engineering aspects would only do good to F1, imo.

[DanardiF1]

Despite billing itself as the pinnacle of motorsport technology, F1 is actually finding itself to be falling behind advances in road car tech. F1 is in the same problem as NASCAR: both are at the limit of their own particular technology. NASCAR may be more 'old-fashioned' in their tech, but they are in the same boat as F1 in that they aren't finding the variety and advances that they used to. Their cars are not trend-setters in the real world car industry, and the gains from new parts and development are reducing all the time.

Motorsport needs a change from it's current view of what makes car fast to new ones. Embracing hybrid technology, embracing the need for variety and the pros and cons of that. Aerodynamics in F1 may be very cool, but it's clearly a case of more money beats less money. Even back in the 90's, the reliance on aero was not so much that a well sorted new team, like Jordan, couldn't put together a mechanically sound car with sound aero (though with much less data and knowledge than existing teams) and still be able to compete, through good engineering and novel solutions to problems. You could argue that Red Bull are kind of in that vein, but their innovations have come at a massive cost, rather than just clever thinking. Last year's F-duct on the McLaren was interesting to me in that it seemed like a 'cheap' idea, thought up by some bright spark, rather than brute force of chucking money at a wind tunnel and seeing what happens.

F1 cars in the next 10 years should change their aero focus from downforce to drag reduction. They should have ground effects for the downforce needed to be fast racing cars, but teams should spend their time making the cars as aero-efficient (in the proper sense) as possible, in order to make gains in knowledge that would benefit the automobile world. Their engines should be low-capacity, make use of energy recovery systems, but still push the limits on power and performance. Fuel should be capped at a certain amount for the race, so the best team will be the one who can go fastest with that amount of fuel. Efficiency should be rewarded.

We've reached a peak of knowledge about the car as it was in the last 100 years, and motorsport bred that. Motorsport can still breed new advances and knowledge, but what a car needs to be in the future is entirely the same as it is currently. And rather than mock cars like the Prius etc. for being wussy and 'un-manly', they should be looked at as the first fruits of a new line of engineering.

[Amphicar]

Britain has the world's best motorsport aerodynamicists, but almost no engine building capability compared to the Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, French, and Americans. Max, Bernie, and British teams have been at the top for a long time, so it was only natural that everything except aerodynamics would hit the chopping block as team budgets shrank.

Eh? Half the cars on the grid for tomorrow's Brazilian Grand Prix have engines designed and built in Britain - more than from any other country.

[Bloggsworth]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

I do. The quality of mechanical engineering is second to none.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 26 November 2011 - 23:01.

[phoenix101]

Eh? Half the cars on the grid for tomorrow's Brazilian Grand Prix have engines designed and built in Britain - more than from any other country.

With funding provided by the FIA courtesy of Max and Bernie. Britons can obviously design engines, but Britons don't have the manufacturing base to pump 9-digit-sums through the prototype engine building departments at Cosworth. By contrast, Britain does have the infrastructure and the funding to build the best chassis and bodywork. British built cars have traditionally been the best, and they've been powered by engines from other countries. The DFV is the exception, but it was funded by Ford, and Ford is credited on the engine manufacturer tally.

The point is that Britain runs F1, and everything about British manufacturing is reflected in the technical regulations whether it's state of the art chassis/aero or frozen, equalized, cost-controlled engines and cush leasing contracts for private teams.

Edited by phoenix101, 27 November 2011 - 00:53.

[pingu666]

nascar is more the reverse, only tiny changes allowed to aero, but still plenty of engine and mechanical devlopment going on.

but honestly, the teams are spending so much because they can raise that amount, thats what really seporates the f1 teams from pretty much any other motorsport team.

offroad stuff is where the most interesting mechanical stuff is now anyways

[onewingedangel]

With funding provided by the FIA courtesy of Max and Bernie. Britons can obviously design engines, but Britons don't have the manufacturing base to pump 9-digit-sums through the prototype engine building departments at Cosworth.

Mercedes HPE also build their engines in Brixworth - surely if there wasn't an advantage of building the engines in Britain they would have moved HPE in-house back in Germany by now. It's not the regulators that set up this situation.

Similarly in terms of road cars Ford have their smaller capacity engines designed and built in the UK - there is a history of engine design and manufacture - but you are right in saying that as there are no longer any large british car manufacturers it is usually multi-national companies that are funding them.

[rolf123]

I do. The quality of mechanical engineering is second to none.

No I mean I don't think anyone disagrees with you in the sense that it is stupid that aero is really the only important thing in F1 today. Everything else is a secondary focus.

[cheapracer]

Britain has the world's best motorsport aerodynamicists, but almost no engine building capability compared to the Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, French, and Americans.

Eh?? Besides Ferrari (Italy with Brit staff), Toyota (Germany with plenty of Brit staff) in recent times and Honda (Japan) there has seldom been engines or most of the major components from anywhere else...

It's not called winning, it's called racing. Redman said it best when he proclaimed that the purpose of racing is not winning, but the satisfaction of knowing that you did your very best,

Plenty of drivers who never won at F1 seem to say that (and yes I know Redman's driving history elsewhere) while the regular F1 drivers tend to say the opposite.

Despite billing itself as the pinnacle of motorsport technology,

F1 is actually finding itself to be falling behind advances in road car tech.

Can you actually show me where F1 officially bill's itself as "The pinnacle of motorsport technology" thanks ....

This has been done to death, F1 has never been ahead of of road car tech and historically draws from road car tech - there was even a thread here solely on the subject as recently as a few weeks ago.

[cheapracer]

I do. The quality of mechanical engineering is second to none.

That's a very relative statement and I'm sure offensive to engineers in other automotive pursuits, Le Mans cars have greater suspension and driveline loads and have to substain them for 24 hours for example.

http://www.epi-eng.c...f_cup_to_f1.htm

[aerodynamic]

Formula 1:



Aerodynamics

[cheapracer]

Formula 1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsports in terms of driving skill

And rallying fans would argue that as well....

[phoenix101]

but you are right in saying that as there are no longer any large british car manufacturers it is usually multi-national companies that are funding them.

That's all I was trying to say. It's not uncommon for German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, or American manufacturers to drop a couple billion on engine development. Development spending of that magnitude is not as commonplace in Britain. Therefore, locating a manufacturing base, from which to skim an annual stipend of at least $100M, is a more difficult task for British race engine constructors. Britain's engine building capabilities are almost none, relative to other F1 participants of the past/present, simply b/c British engine builders lack funding.

[Talisman]

That's all I was trying to say. It's not uncommon for German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, or American manufacturers to drop a couple billion on engine development. Development spending of that magnitude is not as commonplace in Britain. Therefore, locating a manufacturing base, from which to skim an annual stipend of at least $100M, is a more difficult task for British race engine constructors. Britain's engine building capabilities are almost none, relative to other F1 participants of the past/present, simply b/c British engine builders lack funding.

Race engine design and development is independent of roadcar engine development.

I have yet to see a Korean designed engine threaten even to compete in any major racing series for example.

Your first point about the dependence on aerodynamics is purely because adding downforce without increasing drag gives by far the best result in increasing laptime and is not dependent on nationalities. Why is it do you think that non-British teams also pursue aero?

I also think you're ignoring some of the beautiful mechanical engineering that does go on, for example with the suspension. Developing suspension that is contorted massively away from optimal geometry purely to accommodate aero needs (like a high nose) or can tolerate the extreme temperatures encountered in the exhaust stream is pretty impressive and certainly not easy. I could go on about other developments like seamless shift or the mass damper and increasingly small yet reliable gearboxes.

[Bloggsworth]

That's a very relative statement and I'm sure offensive to engineers in other automotive pursuits, Le Mans cars have greater suspension and driveline loads and have to substain them for 24 hours for example.

http://www.epi-eng.c...f_cup_to_f1.htm

Do you have a problem with comprehension? I said 2nd to none, not better than anyone else. If the question had been different, my answer would have. The question was not about technology, not about inventiveness, it asked the simple question. I have absolutely no doubt about the quality of engineering in F!.

[Tenmantaylor]

Formula 1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsports, both in terms of driving skill and engineering. However, for the past decade or so, I believe that especially the engineering part has taken a turn for the worse.

Please enlighten us as to your authority to hold this view validly. Are you a motorsport engineer? I'm not but from the outside the cars are, given the rules, way faster and way, way more reliable than ever. Based on this I'd say you sir are a charlatan talking absolute rubbish.

[2ms]

Why do I get the feeling that this thread was created by a bitter Ferrari or McL fan? Fact is that fluid dynamics is as important an aspect of mechanical engineering as any other. The classical "machine elements" design aspects of F1 are just as critical as they would be if there was even greater artificial limitation of aerodynamics side of F1 than are already being imposed. In other words, putting even more restrictions on "aero" than already exist wouldn't change a thing other than reducing the level of technology in F1 cars.

[KoezhVukotic]

Of course mechanical engineering is important. Look at the problems some teams have had recently with tyre wear or heating issues which is caused in part by the suspension. Also what about Red Bull's mini KERS causing them all sorts of grief early on? It may not be the most important thing like in the 60s but you won't win in a poorly engineered car.

[PayasYouRace]

Formula 1 has always been the pinnacle of motorsports, both in terms of driving skill and engineering.

Except it hasn't. There have been times when Indy, Can-Am, Le Mans/World Sportscars if not others could also hold that claim.

However, for the past decade or so, I believe that especially the engineering part has taken a turn for the worse. The great strength of Red Bull - and indeed Adrian Newey - is aerodynamical engineering and to a lesser extent electrical engineering. Mechanical engineering nowadays has become less important, due to the regulations that allow for very little diversity and it allows little room to push engineering boundaries.

When talking about a car in the performance envelope of an F1 car, you cannot escape aero as the dominant factor in car performance (apart from maybe tyres, but those are generally outside the teams'/constructors' control). The quality of all disciplines of engineering in F1 is top notch and engineering boundaries are pushed all the time. But it would be strange to expect hugely drastic and visible changes in the more well understood disciplines such as mechanics.

I believe that this is harmful for both the competition and the relevance of the sport. Gone are the days of engine blowouts and mechanical breakdowns, which eliminates the factor of unpredictability and thus some of the tension and excitement during a race in my opinion.

This is actually a testament to the quality of mechanical engineering in F1 that mechanical breakdowns are so rare today. Yet in today's race we saw gearbox problems.

Also, in my opinion, Formula 1 has always had such an appeal to the masses because of the diversity of the cars. Back in the seventies and the eighties, when the pits and paddock were much more accessible to the public, massive crowds would go to there not to get an autograph of their favorite driver, but to see, feel, hear and smell the cars and the ingenuity of some of the designs.

Access to the paddock has little to do with engineering. It was possible in the past because F1 was less popular, so the numbers of fans interested in paddock access was more manageable. With F1's popularity now, the teams would be swamped by fans and would not be able to work. It's an issue because of F1's success and sadly there's not much that can be done about it.

The technology used has always been highly sophisticated, but people could relate to it, much more than they can do nowadays with aerodynamical engineering. Mechanical engineering in the pit lane has relevance to your car in Average Lane, whereas aerodynamical engineering is more abstract and clinical.

Such is progress. There was a time when the average enthusiast could take apart and service a home electronic device. Nowadays you would not be able to discern the innards of 2 computers without any labels and a serious bit of expertise. Aerodynamics are a bit more difficult to grasp at first but ironically produce the most visible changes on the cars. If you think aerodynamics and fluid dynamics in general have little relevance to road cars you are sadly mistaken. That is a great way to improve fuel economy in road cars, which is something the average road user will be very keen on.

I believe that mechanical engineering should be promoted and to do this we need to lift the restrictions for engine development and put more restrictions on aerodynamical development. In a highly sophisticated sport measures such as an engine freeze and standardization of engines is absolute blasphemy in my opinion. Any thoughts on this and engineering in F1 in general?

Yes, some aspects of mechanics in F1 are severely restricted, but such is the depth of knowledge in automotive and aerospace engineering in the 21st century that it would not be possible to have F1 without severe restrictions. An aero freeze or standardisation of aero would be just as "blasphemous" as it is with engines. As long as races are held in Earth's atmosphere aero will always be king on a car of F1 performance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As a general comment, I find the whole anti-aero attitude a bit silly. For some reason mechanical engineering is seen as acceptable even though it is just as difficult, abstract and clinical as aerodynamics. Tuning an engine is just as difficult and requires as much expertise and sculpting bodywork.

PS. I agree with the last 2 comments by 2ms and KoezhVukotic. Very true.

[phoenix101]

Race engine design and development is independent of roadcar engine development.

I have yet to see a Korean designed engine threaten even to compete in any major racing series for example.

Your first point about the dependence on aerodynamics is purely because adding downforce without increasing drag gives by far the best result in increasing laptime and is not dependent on nationalities. Why is it do you think that non-British teams also pursue aero?

I also think you're ignoring some of the beautiful mechanical engineering that does go on, for example with the suspension. Developing suspension that is contorted massively away from optimal geometry purely to accommodate aero needs (like a high nose) or can tolerate the extreme temperatures encountered in the exhaust stream is pretty impressive and certainly not easy. I could go on about other developments like seamless shift or the mass damper and increasingly small yet reliable gearboxes.

There is no British industrial giant to lobby on behalf of engine development. Engine development was frozen. Cosworth was able to rejoin the sport. The pleas of the aerodynamicists fell on sympathetic British ears, hence, aerodynamics decides who wins (along with chassis and suspension development). RRA is an inconvenience, but it is hardly an aero freeze/balance.

As was pointed out above, NASCAR is almost the exact opposite. American manufacturers dumping millions into small block V8 development, while aerodynamics are specified. DTM is somewhat similar.

I'm not trying to slight Britain, I'm just making a straightforward observation. The upside-down airplane is a British game. If Italians ran F1, the engines would be screaming V12s and the aero would be frozen and balanced........similar to NASCAR or DTM.

[ferruccio]

Formula One is 'pinnacle' in terms of promotion and reach. For that I give it credit. The rest is of course just hype.

Do the 24 F1 drivers represent the top 24 race drivers in the world in terms of skill? Certainly not. As we all know skill alone is not enough.

Are the best mechanics in the world all in F1? I can assure you they are not.

Of course there are certainly some very clever brains in F1 especially at the pointy end of the grid especially if you look at car design.

I would also not imply that the mechanical design engineers in F1 are not clever. They are certainly doing the very best they can and we have seen some clever solutions but they are all done to give the aero guys more performance. Very rarely these days do we see something revolutionary. Most of the progress we see these days in F1 seems sadly, directly related to financial capacity with a few exceptions.

The J-damper was something thought of by a Cambridge professor. The Williams' compact gearbox.. more to do with material science which is related to money. It is also a decision driven by aerodynamicists and all about resource management. Williams chose to throw more money on shrinking their box and to think that any other team could not have done the same is incorrect. The seamless shift box was not born out of F1. There were parties in the automotive industry already developing it. F1 teams chose to adopt the concept because sadly, the were not allowed to use things like CVT, dual-clutch etc. KERS was not born out of F1 but teams spent a lot of money to try and package it into the car without upsetting the aero guys too much.

Having said that I think if someone needed the best automotive aerodynamicists, yes perhaps they can be found in F1. Perhaps composites as well - material science. As for the mechanical side of an F1 car.. its just not that exciting enough. I'd rather look at what the boys in Le Mans are doing.

Edited by ferruccio, 28 November 2011 - 08:00.