FIA Thread

[AR3-GP]

It’s a sail boat, not a submarine. Emphasis on the word “sail”….

The current generation of "boats" are foilers, the most important bit of the boat (something i don't personally consider them), is the foils.

.

Without a sail to capture wind energy, these sail boats wouldn’t move. Sail boat design has a fundamental aerodynamic component. You are more likely to win a race with zero hydrodynamic design and all aerodynamic design, than the other way around for you must capture wind energy before you worry about how to reduce the hydrodynamic drag of your motion. It’s explained in the video you linked.

[AR3-GP]

RB are collaborating with a sailing team: https://alinghiredbullracing.americascup.com/

If I follow the logic here, evil RB put a hydrofoil on an RB19 to gain some windtunnel hours, but Mercedes and James Allison have learned absolutely nothing of relevance from their own sailing adventures because the Reynolds’s number is not the same and Sailing is a hydrodynamic problem so nothing transfers.

Lol

[dans79]

Without a sail to capture wind energy, these sail boats wouldn’t move. Sail boat design has a big big aerodynamic component.

I'm aware, I've worked on monohull hull and sail design previously. However the aerodynamic of the sails is very different to f1, because the current rules do not allow for rigid sails. If they still allowed a rigid mainsail/wing then something "might" be transferable.

[AR3-GP]

Without a sail to capture wind energy, these sail boats wouldn’t move. Sail boat design has a big big aerodynamic component.

I'm aware, I've worked on monohull hull and sail design previously. However the aerodynamic of the sails is very different to f1, because the current rules do not allow for rigid sails. If they still allowed a rigid mainsail/wing then something "might" be transferable.

F1 cars don’t have rigid wings

In fact, flexible wing design is exactly the kind of transferable discovery of which F1 teams would be all over.

[vorticism]

I'm aware, I've worked on monohull hull and sail design previously.

Compressible flow sailboats, dang. I'm out of the loop on this scene. What mach number were the operating in?

[dans79]

In fact, flexible wing design is exactly the kind of transferable discovery of which F1 teams would be all over.

I think you might want to do some research into the differences between a rigid wing/sail and a flexible one. It's more of a mechanical engineering exercise than an a fluid dynamic one. In other words how do we keep them as light as possible, without having them deform or shread under load.

[dans79]

I'm aware, I've worked on monohull hull and sail design previously.

Compressible flow sailboats, dang. I'm out of the loop on this scene. What mach number were the operating in?

I think you need to re-read what i posted.

[AR3-GP]

In fact, flexible wing design is exactly the kind of transferable discovery of which F1 teams would be all over.

I think you might want to do some research into the differences between a rigid wing/sail and a flexible one. It's more of a mechanical engineering exercise than an a fluid dynamic one. In other words how do we keep them as light as possible, without having them deform or shread under load.

James Allison has spoken at length on the similarities and knowledge transfers of F1 and sail boat racing: https://the-race.com/formula-1/inside-m ... the-water/

Toto Wolf even said the following:

“Mercedes Applied Science is not a commercial engineering entity and we are not pitching actively for engineering jobs,” says Wolff.

“But we want to work with people that want to break records, to win championships on land, sea, air, and space. And we have seen [in America’s Cup] the most challenging of all racing, the pinnacle – comparable to Formula 1.

“This is not in the pursuit of margin, but it is more in the pursuit of learning, of diversification for the benefit of Formula 1.

You can stop arguing now. As was said from the very beginning, the TD was aimed at all of Mercedes, RB, Aston Martin, and Ferrari and all of the shenanigan side projects they developed outside of the purview of the cost cap, in order to build a better F1 team without paying for it.

[dans79]

James Allison has spoken at length on the similarities and knowledge transfers of F1 and sail boat racing: https://the-race.com/formula-1/inside-m ... the-water/

he did, and he was very detailed in some cases. he even mentioned that a lot of the interesting stuff wasn't aerodynamic. Just like with an f1 car their is a lot more to building a winning car than just aerodynamics.

That's one of the reasons i've come to hate the F1 press. They jump from generalization to generalization, and make it sound like any one era is only about one very focused subject matter. It's never been the case, and it never will be.

[AR3-GP]

James Allison has spoken at length on the similarities and knowledge transfers of F1 and sail boat racing: https://the-race.com/formula-1/inside-m ... the-water/

he did, and he was very detailed in some cases. he even mentioned that a lot of the interesting stuff wasn't aerodynamic. Just like with an f1 car their is a lot more to building a winning car than just aerodynamics.

That's one of the reasons i've come to hate the F1 press. They jump from generalization to generalization, and make it sound like any one era is only about one very focused subject matter. It's never been the case, and it never will be.

What is your point? Some of the stuff is not aerodynamic. So what. That doesn't mean it's not related to F1.

James Allison and Toto Wollf are telling you in plain english that the entire purpose of this sailboat collaboration is to to advance their F1 team. What other way can it be said? It's not as Jahf said either. Adrian Newey may have benefitted from designing the Valkyrie, but it was a project commissioned by a third party (Aston Martin Lagonda). RB now have their own RB17 and their own sailing team. Mercedes had the most prominent sailing team collaboration and told you the purpose. This is what the TD seeks to clamp down on. Having engineers transfer out to an applied sciences division, develop ideas relevant to F1, and then return and apply ideas for free.

It's right here:

“If you were to go and dig through the boat you’d see there’s things in it that would interest a cooling engineer, a hydraulics engineer, a structural engineer, a composites engineer, a mechanical mechanisms guy, an aerodynamicist, you just name it.

“The full gamut of electronics, data acquisition sensors, for pretty much everything that makes up the backbone of an F1 team you could find some parts of an America’s Cup boat that they could work on and be excited by.

“So the type of people that we hope to bring to the party on this project will cover all the technical areas in our team, but not necessarily all at the same time.

“This is not in the pursuit of margin, but it is more in the pursuit of learning, of diversification for the benefit of Formula 1.

[Just_a_fan]

It's laughable to think that someone who goes to work on sail boat design cannot bring anything they learned back to f1.

And yet when it was suggested projects like Valkyrie could be used to help finesse ideas for an F1 car, the idea was lambasted by many as nothing on another car applies to F1 cars.

It's fairly obvious that the TD is aimed at ground effect hypercar projects rather than egg timers or racing yachts.

The Valkyrie was commissioned by Aston Martin, not RB. Call it good luck to have this project fall into his lap. The others also made hypercars. Mercedes are using an F1 PU in a road car. Ferrari just won Le Mans with a V6 hybrid race car. So long as the regulation do not forbid such cross collaboration, then there is no rule violation.

One must accept that some teams are more clever than others.

Those projects are all now in the past and good luck to the teams if they managed to cross-pollinate their F1 cars with them (the Merc and Ferrari won't have as they aren't anything like an F1 tunnel car, unlike the Valkyrie).

The RB17, on the other hand, is a current project that is in the process of being designed, engineered, developed. It is also a car that uses "advanced ground effect package". This is exactly the sort of project that the TD is aiming to prevent the teams using to gain illegal extra resources for their F1 cars. Only Red Bull are doing this at the moment so far as we know. Now, that might be "clever" but it might also be "naughty". The FIA are aiming to ensure it isn't the latter.

It's actually very good of the FIA to help in this way. We wouldn't want a "clever" team falling foul of the cost cap rules two years in a row, would we?

[AR3-GP]

And yet when it was suggested projects like Valkyrie could be used to help finesse ideas for an F1 car, the idea was lambasted by many as nothing on another car applies to F1 cars.

It's fairly obvious that the TD is aimed at ground effect hypercar projects rather than egg timers or racing yachts.

The Valkyrie was commissioned by Aston Martin, not RB. Call it good luck to have this project fall into his lap. The others also made hypercars. Mercedes are using an F1 PU in a road car. Ferrari just won Le Mans with a V6 hybrid race car. So long as the regulation do not forbid such cross collaboration, then there is no rule violation.

One must accept that some teams are more clever than others.

Those projects are all now in the past and good luck to the teams if they managed to cross-pollinate their F1 cars with them (the Merc and Ferrari won't have as they aren't anything like an F1 tunnel car, unlike the Valkyrie).

The RB17, on the other hand, is a current project that is in the process of being designed, engineered, developed. It is also a car that uses "advanced ground effect package". This is exactly the sort of project that the TD is aiming to prevent the teams using to gain illegal extra resources for their F1 cars. Only Red Bull are doing this at the moment so far as we know. Now, that might be "clever" but it might also be "naughty". The FIA are aiming to ensure it isn't the latter.

It's actually very good of the FIA to help in this way. We wouldn't want a "clever" team falling foul of the cost cap rules two years in a row, would we?

Your hyperfocus on the aerodynamics of the RB17 shows a limited understanding of the scope of F1 technology and how teams are learning from outside projects. I will leave it to you to do your own homework but you may find some of the James Allison excerpts above to be illuminating.

[dans79]

Your hyperfocus on the aerodynamics of the RB17 shows a limited understanding of the scope of F1 technology and how teams are learning from outside projects.

https://www.redbulladvancedtechnologies ... -the-rb17/

the RB17 is a two-seat hypercar optimized for the ultimate on-track driving experience. Just 50 RB17s will be made at the Red Bull Technology Campus in Milton Keynes, with production scheduled to commence in 2025.

Designed around a carbon-composite tub, the RB17 features the most advanced ground effect package available in a series production car.

[AR3-GP]

Your hyperfocus on the aerodynamics of the RB17 shows a limited understanding of the scope of F1 technology and how teams are learning from outside projects.

https://www.redbulladvancedtechnologies ... -the-rb17/

the RB17 is a two-seat hypercar optimized for the ultimate on-track driving experience. Just 50 RB17s will be made at the Red Bull Technology Campus in Milton Keynes, with production scheduled to commence in 2025.

Designed around a carbon-composite tub, the RB17 features the most advanced ground effect package available in a series production car.

What's your point? Would it be possible for Adrian Newey or the RB17 project designers to learn about vehicle design and ground effect by developing the RB17? Yes, just as it's possible for other teams to use outside projects to benefit their own F1 teams for which many intended to do. The teams that were named were RB, Aston Martin, Ferrari, and Mercedes. All have activities which have been targeted by this technical directive. It's not just "evil RB" as some would have you believe. You can reference the post upthread as a reminder.

[Just_a_fan]

Your hyperfocus on the aerodynamics of the RB17 shows a limited understanding of the scope of F1 technology and how teams are learning from outside projects. I will leave it to you to do your own homework but you may find some of the James Allison excerpts above to be illuminating.

It's called "an example". It's a well known side-project and thus is useful as "an example" in this discussion.