Open top menu
16 Dec 2015
Formula Zero - Part I

His Bernie-ness recently proclaimed that if it were up to him, he'd take the current rule book and contracts and rip them up, such is the state that Formula One finds itself in.  Meanwhile, it seems just about everyone is moaning but no-one has any clear answers with which to fix the issues.  So, as we have a little break until pre-season testing I thought why not procrastinate on such matters and perhaps I should have trademarked it, but for the sake of compartmentalising it from F1 let's call my take Formula Zero.  Starting from a blank page all sounds great but we learn from our mistakes, so, let's use F1 as the foundation and try to examine what is wrong.  I'm sure many of the things I'll talk about over the next few articles will polarise opinions but as I've already said these are my opinions and not driven by corporate agenda.

Let's start with the first snake on Medusa's head: Bernie and FOM.

The problem with dictatorships is that the ambivalent followers get restless after a while and want to overthrow their oppressors.  For decades Bernie and Max (Moseley) colluded to keep the sport relevant in their own eyes but, when Max was forced out and Jean replaced him the vultures began to circle.  For a long time Jean stood in the shadows and was criticised for being a voyeur rather than dealing with the issues the sport faced.  However, having tied a bow in his quest to right road safety campaigns he cast his eye back toward F1.  One of the mistakes Jean and Bernie made was selling the teams the right to influence the sport, through the strategy group and F1 commission, both of which are but vehicles for the teams and manufacturers to push their own agendas.  

They paid the FIA peanuts for this privilege but now have the right to influence the direction the sport is taken in, something I've not seen in any sport before and likely never will again.  The FIA should always write and enforce the rules, but the current format doesn't allow this, unless it is for safety, meaning proper changes that can actually have a bearing on the sport will not happen.  Whilst the teams and manufacturers should not have any final say over the actual shaping of the regulations, I agree they should be heard.  The strategy group / F1 commission should only put forward ideas not have the power to push them through and whilst I realize the WMSC has the final say in ratifying any changes, if the aforementioned groups have agreed that F1 become a tiddlywinks championship I doubt they'd oppose it either.

One of the fundamental issues that F1 faces is that characters, be it pundits, ex drivers etc, on its periphery are always keen to bad mouth aspects of the sport they don't like.
  
"It was always better in my day", "It's so expensive to operate in the sport these days" etc, etc it's like the whole paddock go around wearing rose tinted glasses.  

Whilst you can't please everyone I'd also argue that if you watched many of the races in what are often claimed as stellar seasons (which I have) it was simply punctuated by great individual performances, whilst, as is always the case, one team dominated another, until such point that a regulation set had reached a certain point in the gestation period.  As an aside I think we'll see that again next year, as Ferrari begin to challenge Mercedes superiority, just in time for the sport to make another knee jerk reaction and spend a fortune changing the regulations and therefore the cars again.
However, what I do agree with is that Formula One could be better and over these next few articles I'm going to delve deeper into some of the core issues the sport faces and make suggestions on how, if I were the new Bernie, I'd make changes to influence the direction of the sport.  You can check back here for all the links but here's an idea of what I'll be covering:

Top down, single seater ladder restructure.
Sporting Regulations
Technical Regulations
Read more
4 Dec 2015
Shell deliver a 25% power increase during 2015


Shell conducted a Google hangout after the Abu Dhabi GP, some snippets of which can be seen below.  One of the takeaway stories from the hangout was when Guy Lovett delivered the news that of the performance gained by Ferrari during 2015 Shell contibuted 25% through the development of their fuel and lubricants.



We've known for some time now just how important fuel and lubricants are in this 'hybrid era' but a contribution of 25% of the total gain during the season is staggering.  Going to show just how important it is for the engine manufacturers and their fuel/lubricant partners to work in unison to improve performance and efficiency.

That 25% increase in performance for 2015 has come via the innovation partnership that Shell and Scuderia Ferrari enjoy, with in-season powerunit development providing a clear pathway to this.  Ferrari deployed 22 of their development tokens before the season commenced, leaving 10 to spend throughout the 2015 season.  Ferrari waited until Montreal to make any changes, deploying 3 tokens on what was believed to be changes focused on combustion.  Undoubtedly these changes were made in consultation with Shell, as together they would be able to unlock further efficiency and performance from the use of different chemical compositions, otherwise not acheiveable with the previous components.

Whilst the FIA failed to keep their promise of informing of us of what the manufacturers were changing, Ferrari used a fresh I.C.E, Turbo and MGU-H for Monza.  We do know they spent 3 tokens at this event, with changes likely being made to the I.C.E and Turbo, releasing further performance from not only the parts that were changed but also from a change to the fuel and lubricants.

The scheduling of token spends also had to coincide with powerunit component usage, so it was imperative whilst Shell and Ferrari sought to improve performance this did not come with the detriment of unreliability.  Any changes beyond the allowable four unit allocation per driver results in a grid drop come race day and so the chase for performance has to be measured against this risk.

With four tokens left to spend, Ferrari initially scheduled a further powerunit upgrade for the US GP, however, they delayed their introduction.  A technical directive issued by Charlie Whiting had cleared up a matter that suggested as long as it could be proven that parts had been bench tested that the tokens could be used without having to run the parts on the car.   So, whilst it outwardly appears like Ferrari left 4 tokens unused, they'll have been spent on developments for the 2016 powerunit.

In its most recent meeting, the WMSC ratified several changes to the token system for 2016 which should help Ferrari to make up ground on Mercedes.  Rather than having to homologate the powerunit before the 2016 season starts, the manufacturers will once again enjoy the freedom of in-season development.  Had they already sought to deploy their full quota of 25 tokens on the 2016 powerunit, they'll be glad to know that the WMSC also cleared all of the manufacturers to spend 32 tokens in the coming season too.

The continued success of the innovation partnership between Shell and Ferrari will be imperative, as it continues to bring additional performance, efficiency and reliabilty to the track.

As an aside I also find it fascinating what the cross-over could be with Shell providing fuel to the World Endurance Championship, especially given how aligned the hybrid powerunit regulations are.
Read more
3 Dec 2015
F1's 2016 tyre rules

The WMSC last night ratified the changes that Pirelli will implement for the 2016 season.  The statement itself was quite confusing and I profess to having to read it several times before it became a little clearer.

Even with the help of a press release from the Italian tyre giant I can see it is still confusing to many and so I thought I'd try and break it down into a more digestible format...

Pirelli will supply an additional slick tyre in 2016, increasing its offering from 4 to 5 dry weather compounds: Ultra Soft (Purple banding), Super Soft (Red banding), Soft, (Yellow banding), Medium (White banding) and the Hard (Orange Banding).  These will continue to be supplemented by the Intermediate (Green banding) and Wet (Blue banding) weather tyres.

Leading up to each event the tyre manufacturer will designate three dry weather compounds that can be used at the event by each driver, allowing them to select 10 sets from their 13 set allocation.  From this point forth I'll be calling these the "Selected Tyres"

The other 3 sets, made up of two compound choices, will be determined by Pirelli and CAN differ from the compounds given to the drivers to select.  Two sets of the softest compound from the selection will be made available and one of the harder.  One of the softest selections will be used for Q3 in qualifying.  From this point forth I'll be calling these the "Control Tyres"

Sounds a bit confusing doesn't it, well that is because of the format issues and the way tyres are handed back to Pirelli at different points throughout a weekend.  Of the thirteen sets available to the driver he must hand the following back:

  • One set after the first 40 minutes of FP1 
  • One set at the end of FP1
  • Two sets at the end of FP2
  • Two sets at the end of FP3
This leaves the driver with 7 sets of tyres to complete qualifying and the race.  One of the sets of the "Control tyres" given by Pirelli MUST BE used during the race, perhaps leading to some interesting strategies in terms of both qualifying and race deployment.  As is currently the case, drivers competing in Q3 will start the race on the tyres they set their fastest time on in Q2.

At any one point it could be possible for us to see three different compounds in use.  Drivers, even within the same team will be able to make their choice from the "Selected Tyres" from the three in the selection list, whilst Pirelli may choose altogether different "Control Tyres", although on safety grounds we'll never see the Ultra Soft and Hard compounds used at any event.

It's important to note that the "Control Tyres" are only chosen by Pirelli once the drivers/teams have made their "Selected Tyre" choice, this eliminates any chance of extreme strategy options being run by the drivers/teams and then blaming Pirelli for allowing it.

Pirelli chose the Soft and Medium for Melbourne in 2015 producing just a singular pit-stop for the entire field.  Disappointing given their remit to produce races with 2 to 3 stops...

As such they'll look to be more aggressive in 2016 (and whilst I hear they'll only allow the Ultra-Soft on street circuits I hope this includes Melbourne and Montreal ;) ) hopefully (see previous caveat) giving the teams freedom to choose from the Ultra Soft, Super Soft and Soft.  Then selecting either the Super Soft and Soft or Super Soft and Medium as the control tyres.  This would open up the window in terms of strategy and also allows the teams to select the Ultra Soft as a one lap wonder tyre for qualifying.  This could allow the weakest teams to challenge for Q2, the midfield challenge for Q1 and/or give us a superb battle for pole.  Meanwhile for the race all of the teams will have undoubtedly used the Ultra for Q2 and have to start on those, forcing them into at least a 2 stop race...

The biggest problem with this format change is it really removes the Prime and Option tyre scenario we currently have, making it a little difficult to follow for those used to the current format.  Whilst I understand why Pirelli have done what they have, as it is an attempt to spice up the racing and give the teams some of the control they wanted I can't help thinking there are easier ways to go about it, especially for the fans.
Monaco 2009 - Lewis Hamilton (McLaren) on the option tyre (green band) battles with Nick Heidfeld (Sauber) on the Prime

When Bridgestone provided a Prime and Option tyre the viewing public were not aware of its potential and/or if the compound had changed from race-to-race, even though they were...
Whilst I admire Pirelli's transparency, for the sake of the casual viewer it may have been easier to just switch back to this method, with the decisions being taken behind close doors.  Had they chose to do so, they could have just introduced a qualifying tyre and moved around the allocations to allow for it.
Read more
2 Dec 2015
Reblog - Willem Toet - Formula 1 Performance – Aerodynamics


Aerodynamic forces are the number 1 performance-determining and differentiating factor in Formula 1 as well as in many branches of motorsport involving open-wheeled and sports cars.  That’s a pretty bold statement with the present state of powertrains in F1 but analysis says it holds true, despite big differences in powertrains.  There is still more lap time difference from aero than from power.  Red Bull have the problem that they are fighting other teams that also have great aerodynamics.

The plot shows speed (vertical scale) against distance (horizontal scale) for the 2012 F1 car I know well, along with several theoretical cars. The present generation of cars will have similar performance characteristics (but I am not permitted to show this data).

We all know that, speaking generally, the forces exerted by aerodynamics increase with the square of speed.  Perhaps that is why I am often asked “From what speed does aerodynamics make a difference”.   I think from the speed of a tight hairpin bend – in other words from nearly nothing.  You won’t get a big percent speed improvement in slow corners, but you spend “ages” waiting to be able to accelerate so even a tiny improvement will make lap time.  If you look at the plot showing speed against distance, perhaps it isn’t so clear.  So I’ve created a plot of the same data showing speed against time (two traces only).   The problem with a time plot is that the corners move to different locations so it is harder to compare.  However, if you focus on the area around 26 seconds where the “cars” are aligned in time, you can see how much more time it takes the car without downforce to cover this part of the lap.   So the long duration of slow corners means that aero is important there too.
Speed against time.   Much harder to follow because the places on the track move about on the plot but it should be clear that the car without downforce (which also has very low drag) takes much more time to get around the corner centred around 26 seconds than the car with downforce.  The other corners would show the same trend if they were aligned.

Back to the first plot, which shows how downforce and drag can influence the limit speed of a car over part of a lap of the Barcelona track.  Zero downforce is certainly achievable but getting the drag down to 25% of today’s real car values is probably not possible for a legal F1 car.  No problem - what we are trying to look at here is the limit of performance.  That’s why I’ve chosen such an extreme drag reduction (to give drag the best chance I can to influence performance).

The curves are created using lap-time simulation software, which is regularly validated against real-car performance.  It is assumed that other parameters such as tyres are at the same performance level, which is not strictly realistic but that is not that important for the purposes of this discussion.  Removing downforce increases lap time by more than 20 seconds.  Reducing the drag of the car to just 25% of its real value, gives much less than 5 seconds of lap time gain, and just 2 seconds if you have no downforce.  Why does the gain vary due to downforce level?  If you are at the cornering limit because you have no downforce, a drag reduction is not going to help much until you get to a straight and only then once you have enough grip to use all that power.  Alternatively, if you can fly around the corner because you have grip, your average speed is higher and you will have to ‘fight’ drag more, using power – so a drag reduction will help you more in those circumstances.  In low-speed corners little power is needed to maintain speed, so reducing the drag has almost no effect.  In high-speed corners the influence of drag can become quite significant.  However, it makes 10% of the difference you make with downforce and that is with lower drag than can actually be achieved..

In extreme cases, e.g. when all cars are easy flat though a given (very high-speed corner), then the situation changes and, practically speaking, only drag will be important.  Teams take this into consideration when selecting the downforce level for a given race track as the ideal compromise changes.

The designs of the race tracks in many ways drive the compromise teams use for selecting the drag level of the car used for their development work.

Sergio Perez in the 2012 Sauber Ferrari F1 car – I am not sure who to thank for the picture (Sauber Motorsport I believe).   The designs of the race tracks in many ways drive the compromise teams use for selecting the drag level of the car used for their development work.  Modern tracks tend to be centred around a restricted spectator area.  This means they have more corners and shorter straights.  That drives designs in the more extreme direction of downforce (rather than worrying about drag).

Looking at today’s Formula 1, it is clear that both powertrain and aerodynamics are critical to performance.  For a privateer team, modifying the engine is not realistically an option.  I say realistically also because the engine would need to be re-badged.  This is something that only Red Bull could afford to do.  For a factory team, both clearly need to be at the highest level.  However, recovering from a deficit in powertrain will cost more than recovering from an aerodynamic deficit.

P.S.
Here's an alternative way to see how time plots stretch low speed corners.   The same car plotted from the same start and finish places on the track.   Same data. The two lines are speed vs. distance and speed vs. time.   Time squeezes the high speed and stretches the low speed.   Lap TIME is important....
For UK followers of the blog the following opportunities exist for anyone interested in Willem's work...

2 Dec  18:30 to 20:30 plus Oxford - Free public lecture - F1 Performance, Design and (maily) Aerodynamics see toet.eventbrite.co.uk   There will be some entertaining stories and time for questions.  Free, book early.  This is the one to aim for if you work as it starts at 6:30 pm for 7 pm talk start point.   Organised by the IMechE.  Some refreshments available from 6:30 pm.   Questions and discussion due to finish at 20:30 but I'm happy to discuss any questions you may have for a bit longer.  I will bring additional material so we have the potential to illustrate answers to questions.

4 Dec - 13:00 - 17:00 approx.  Southampton University (Building 45 room 0045 which should be on the ground floor and is a large lecture theater - see site map here https://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/sharepoint/groupsite/Administration/SitePublisher-document-store/Documents/About/visit/highfield_accessible_routes.pdf).   Guests welcome and free.   First lecture is similar to the one on the 2nd - Formula 1 performance, design, & aerodynamics.  This does not require specialist knowledge.   Would be suitable for higher school pupils, motorsport enthusiasts, engineering students and engineers.  After the first lecture we then focus more on the use of CFD to develop a race car (aimed at university students but anyone using CFD may find it interesting) and how new aerodynamic testing restrictions (in the FiA regulations) are changing the approach F1 teams are taking to aerodynamic development.   There will also be discussions with the Formula Student team which are probably not open to all.
Read more
Reblog - Willem Toet - Control over power

This is reblogged from Willem's LinkedIn account with his permission: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/control-over-power-willem-toet?trk=mp-reader-card & https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/control-over-power-2-willem-toet?trk=mp-reader-card

Power without control is worse than useless, although control without power is just frustrating (thanks Luca C).   Beautiful V12 Honda drawing.   I think racing engines are absolutely stunning works of art if you can ever see inside them.  This image of the V12 is not entirely accurate (you do not want to give away all your secrets) but it is a very nice example of a cutaway racing engine.

When you develop a racing engine, one of the things you try to do is maximise the power over the rev range a driver normally uses.  This depends on many things but one is how many gears you have.   Imagine developing an engine for a car with a perfect variable speed transmission.  You would be able to focus most of your effort over a very small rpm range.  If you have a 3-speed gearbox, as many road going cars had in the past, then you need a much wider rev range.  Modern road cars are tending towards having more gears, mainly so that the engine can be put into the best rpm range for fuel consumption even at higher (European motorway) speeds.

For the 1994 season the rules changed, removing active suspension and driver aids such as traction control.  This had an impact on engine requirements as well.

At Benetton the Cosworth “Ford” engine was used in 94.  It wasn’t the most powerful engine on the grid but it was really quite drivable and relatively simple to manage.   At Ferrari the V12 was a bit more of an “animal”.  No problem when you have traction control but as soon as it is turned off there could be issues.   What was the “problem”?   The drivers described it a bit like this.   “You come out of the corner and carefully increase throttle position until you can just go flat to the floor.  But then at 12,000 rpm wheelspin starts and I have to back off again – and I don’t know how much but it feels like a lot.”  Part of the reason for this is that tyre friction reduces with high levels of slip – so it does take a lot to reduce it again.  For an engine tuner it can be difficult to purposefully reduce power where you have peak torque in order to have a flat torque curve,  It can feel counter intuitive.  After all in the next gears the driver will want all the power he can get (even without downforce, as you go into higher speed gears, torque at the driven wheels is reduced due to the change in gearing).  After years of working with racing engines, both as a driver and as a member of the engineering team, I conclude that a driver likes to have a “torque pedal”.  He gets more acceleration with increasing throttle.   Perhaps obvious but it does not mean that it can be achieved with ease – in fact it is hard.  Of course, as soon as you are on full throttle you want more!
The 1994 Benetton Ford engine - picture taken in more recent times I believe.

In concept a 4-stroke engine sucks in charge air (1 of the 4 strokes – intake valve open), compresses it (2 - valves closed) the spark plug fires and the air fuel mixture pushes the piston down (3 – valves closed) and then, when the piston comes back up again (4 – exhaust valve open), the exhaust gas can escape.   When I first looked at camshaft timing back in the 1970’s I was shocked.  At this point engine builders will be laughing their heads off, I imagine!  They already know about valve timing.  The camshafts drive the valves which determine what can happen at which point in the engine’s cycle.   I found that there was a massive amount of overlap between exhaust closing and intake valve opening.   Then even more I was surprised at how early in the power stroke (3) the exhaust valve would start opening.   These timings are because of wave motion – which is fast – and I was clearly thinking in slow motion.

Despite valves being open together and being open “too early” compared to the view of a naïve young engineer, engines are remarkably efficient as pumps.   I reasoned that, with the best will in the world, an engine would pull in its theoretical capacity every two engine revolutions (4-stroke engine).   In practice, I thought, you’d never get there.  My life in F1 (measuring airflow into the airbox which feeds the engine with clean air) taught me that it swallows more than 120% of its theoretical capacity.   Pretty impressive and all due to wave motion.  The exhaust gas escaping from the pistons sucks some charge air out with them but, just before the exhaust valve closes, a pulse from the first joining of the exhaust pipes sends a pressure wave back which rams fresh charge back into the cylinder.   The inlet trumpets are also tuned to create a column of air that has momentum, which then pushes a bit more air in at the last millisecond.  Mere “conventional” aerodynamicists can only create about 4% of density with ram (due to car velocity) air but the acoustics make well over 20%.  The amount you can compress the air due to velocity increases with the square of speed so the percentage varies with the type of racing.

Another area of development for engines is the start.  Particularly true for very powerful cars.  To make a good start you need perfect control over the engine when it is producing quite low power – quite challenging to do.  With computer control it is easier to allow for things like the temperature of the clutch from pre-start burnouts but that’s not legal in F1 so the driver has to manage that himself.   A Formula 1 car goes from 0-100kph (62mph) in roughly 2.4 to 2.7 seconds depending on how good the start is.  Not bad but, as it only happens once per race, it isn’t the main design focus of the car.



I had the best (ex F1) engine in British Hillclimbing - a very special 4 litre Judd EV, and I sold it - to get more power.  Photo is of me in the Pilbeam Judd at Loton Park in April 2005.   Here I'm doing some pre-start burn outs.  650 bhp with truly delightful drivability.  This car allowed me to win a number of rounds of the British Hillclimb Championship and set an outright hill record (for a short time).  Image Derek Hibbert.

When a racing engine is “mapped”, starts are one of the areas that need to be considered.   The ex-F1 Judd I had in my Pilbeam hillclimb car was fantastic for starts.   It had wheel spin capable, but fully controllable, torque from 2500 rpm to 12500 rpm .  With a 145kph (90mph) first gear in the car I would hold the engine at 3800 rpm on the start line, take up the driveline slack and then drop the clutch (slide sideways off it) when it was time to go.  The rpm would drop to about 2500 and I’d just play with the throttle to control the wheelspin.  When it was slippery, of course, the start rpm would be even lower.   0-100kph was about 1.9 to 2.0 seconds.   Felt “hooked up”.  With the turbo engine, the starts went out to nearly 3 seconds.  Pretty poor by comparison and most of it due to lack of control.

At the end of 2005, having come second in the championship and wanting more, I looked around for what we could do to make the car faster.  Three obvious ways stuck me: increase aero, reduce weight and increase power.   To get the aero I needed to do some research and probably build a new car.  I rejected that as being too expensive and needing too much work/time from me personally – the day job in F1 really didn’t allow me time for that.  I looked at all the available options and chose a new power plant.  Not all the decisions you make in life are the best ones – but hopefully we learn from our mistakes!   The new power plant was an ex-Indycar engine of about 3.2 litres which would be rebuilt and tuned with twin rally turbochargers.  In the end we could not get any power down low and also could not reduce turbo lag to a reasonable level.  I went from about 650 bhp to nearly 900 but the car was much harder to drive and ultimately much slower coming out of corners (not to mention off the line).  As a driver the feeling was nothing, nothing, nothing, wheelspin (and sometimes “sideways”).  In truth the power change was probably from 200 bhp (feels like nothing) to 700 (spins the wheels and feels like it is out of control).   The project also ate up some money of course, so I could not “go back” and go for the new car with the old engine, or even an aerodynamic update on the old car, both of which would have been better choices.
Judd EV 4.0 in my Pilbeam.  Tyres wrapped in security wrap to keep them clean.
About the Judd EV 4.0.  It originally came out of a 1989 Leyton House F1 car and was a 3.5 litre V8.  For hillclimbing it had been “stroked” (more piston travel via a different crankshaft and conrods) out to 4 litres.  It had milder intake camshafts which gave it great torque.  You could idle it around the paddock under complete control.  Throttle response was fast – faster than anything I’d driven before.  After some experimentation I put about a 90 mph first gear into the car for most hills.  145 kph (90 mph) at 12,500 rpm.  Hairpins were down to about 40 kph so they would take the revs down to about 3,500 rpm.   With this engine more than enough to thrust the car forward (and sideways).   My competitors used to bring their engine tuners to the startline at hillclimbs and ask them to watch and listen.  I imagine they were asking why their engine didn’t get off the line like this one.  Start line marshals too would be warned – you won’t know when this one is about to go – be careful.

For a lot of hillclimbs I’d put the car into second once off the line and leave it there.  That left me with a go pedal and a stop pedal.  Nothing could be easier.  Just so you know I’m not a great driver – just very enthusiastic!

After two seasons of competition I had the engine rebuilt.  JF Engines I was told was the place to go.  Now, John and Fred (J & F) used to build these engines when they worked for Judd back in their F1 days.   They had retired but built engines they enjoyed building for people they liked – they were retired so they did it more for fun than anything else.  Happily we got on well and they agreed to do a rebuild.  I gently asked what it might cost.  Don’t know boy, depends what it needs but something near 2,000 pounds plus whatever special parts it needs.   Two thousand pounds!   Hell we’d spent 4 times that rebuilding the engine in the Peugeot 2005 hillclimber.  I didn’t believe them, but hoped for the best.  Well it needed some valves and a few other parts so it came to a bit under 2,500 pounds.   I could literally not believe it.   They were such lovely old boys too.   They found me a bit entertaining I think because I asked lots of questions about crack detection and how they did things.   Good powers of observation and experience told them more than most young people would learn with the best crack detection equipment on the planet.   They used it but only on a few parts.

When I put the turbo engine into the Pilbeam at the end of 2005 I sold the Judd.   Man, that was a daft thing to do!   I dare say if you went anywhere else to have your ex-Formula 1 engine rebuilt you can start adding zeros on the end of the quote!   I really like the song “Let Her Go” by Passenger.  A comment about how blokes sometimes have no emotional intelligence.  Not quite the same thing but...........  The great thing about life is that you’re never too old to learn – and arrogance is eventually knocked out of most people!   I hope I have learned.   A number of good friends did their best to warn me beforehand not to go there!

There is a short compilation video of some of the climbs from 2005 available via the link below.   At Shelsley the commentators talk about a start time – that is the time to complete the first 64 feet – at one G (acceleration) it would take 2 seconds.  It’s quicker than that – I think my best ever was 1.60 at Gurston Down.  If you watch the video. listen to the start rpm.....  Notice too how wide and accommodating the UK hillclimb tracks are (not)!



The image below – used in an earlier post is not a fake – this really happens with some cars at this place on Gurston Down.  Combine super sticky tyres with too much (really) weight on the rear axle and great torque and the car just comes up (almost gracefully at first) as the bump in the hill flattens.  You have to actively come out of the throttle.   There is one other place on the championship calendar where the car would lift front wheels and that is at Loton Park after the last corner if you’re having a really good run (lots of grip).  More dangerous there as it is higher speed and you absolutely have to come out of the throttle if it happens.
Image Gerry Marshall?  Pilbeam at Gurston Down.

For UK followers of the blog the following opportunities exist for anyone interested in Willem's work...

2 Dec  18:30 to 20:30 plus Oxford - Free public lecture - F1 Performance, Design and (maily) Aerodynamics see toet.eventbrite.co.uk   There will be some entertaining stories and time for questions.  Free, book early.  This is the one to aim for if you work as it starts at 6:30 pm for 7 pm talk start point.   Organised by the IMechE.  Some refreshments available from 6:30 pm.   Questions and discussion due to finish at 20:30 but I'm happy to discuss any questions you may have for a bit longer.  I will bring additional material so we have the potential to illustrate answers to questions.

4 Dec - 13:00 - 17:00 approx.  Southampton University (Building 45 room 0045 which should be on the ground floor and is a large lecture theater - see site map here https://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/sharepoint/groupsite/Administration/SitePublisher-document-store/Documents/About/visit/highfield_accessible_routes.pdf).   Guests welcome and free.   First lecture is similar to the one on the 2nd - Formula 1 performance, design, & aerodynamics.  This does not require specialist knowledge.   Would be suitable for higher school pupils, motorsport enthusiasts, engineering students and engineers.  After the first lecture we then focus more on the use of CFD to develop a race car (aimed at university students but anyone using CFD may find it interesting) and how new aerodynamic testing restrictions (in the FiA regulations) are changing the approach F1 teams are taking to aerodynamic development.   There will also be discussions with the Formula Student team which are probably not open to all.
Read more
Post Abu Dhabi GP Pirelli tyre test gallery

Following the GP the teams stayed on at the Yas Marina circuit to complete a days testing with Pirelli.  As the test was held without the media in attendance I have decided to post a gallery of the images made available by Pirelli.



















































































Read more

Total Pageviews