New way to uncap engine regs, but maintain performance..

[xxChrisxx]

Chris, if there was an empty simulation space calibrated with a 100% scale wind tunnel, could it not be possible to eliminate the tunnel entirely? I know that the largest deviation between the tunnel and the sim is the turbulence modelling, and I feel that when the code is developed to run fractal turbulence modelling on the GPU processors of the CPU based CFD farms, that it will be able to come with 99.99% accuracy with double precision calculations. The current technology DOES exist, but no one is using it...

I don't see what you mean by calibared empty space, you can't calibrate empty space. Flows are different for each car. If you got a basic car, then did a validation test in the windtunnel you could, then elimiate the windtunnel (theoretically anyway).

The solutions using GPU or CPU won't make any differnce. The problem with modelling flows without a turbulence model is brute force computing power (not enough flops). No technology we have currently would be able to do a direct numerical solution to a flow in an acceptable time frame, we can't even do large eddy simulations (I think although this is becoming more feasable) in a sensible timeframe.

To be honest I know nothing about the CPU/GPU achitecture. I've heard that a comination will allow quicker solutions to turbulence models (more optimised for near wall applications or something liek that. This means you can use a more refined mesh, but it still wont bring the accuracy levels up that much. You have inherent cut off (rounding errors essentially) errors from the fact that it's a numerical comutation. As they say every little helps though.

[Giblet]

I may have mentioned it here or on another forum, but if a team were to put out a distributing processing clientm to harness our unused CPU cycles, it would be pretty popular I think. Williams being a prime example.

They could use my machines 4 cores all day while I am at work, the 2 in my other machine and open_CL (Mac) to share the CPU and GPU for math.

[SZ]

All that does is to continue development of obsolete IC engines.
It does not address CO2 emissions or energy recovery.
The two factors that must be addressed if F1 is to have a future.

As soon as energy recovery technology is balanced with fuel limitations as projected already by the FIA, then aerodynamics can be forgotten as the interest generating red herring it is and it can then be easily restricted within the regulations.
This has always been possible.
Both IC technology and aerodynamics/downforce development are well past their interest sell by date and achieve little in the real world any longer.
F1 must reflect that real world if it is to have any meaningful purpose or future.

I don't know that you'll ever get rid of aerodynamic development as a differentiator in any class where the cars go that fast. NASCAR teams employ aerodynamicists too, and do some serious testing - and they're supposed to be the redneck/hick of the auto racing world...

...the notion that it's all about downforce and not enough about drag is getting a little irrelevant though.

I don't really understand why F1 hasn't don't what MotoGP did a long time ago - commit both to a fuel cap and to progressive reductions. A lot of good engineering came of that and far less time was wasted chasing technical ends of little relevance or return.

FOTA basically allowed the teams committed to an inferior competitive solution (Marelli's KERS) to opt out (in other words, Ferrari threatened to run, and that threatens F1, so they got their way). I stated back then against many of your arguing the other way that Max was right and the FOTA teams wrong; it's nice to see the tide changing.

Bring it back, allow a lot more. Hell, Illen had HERS on F1 years ago. Student project around the world are fitting more complicated systems to student-designed Formula cars... think about that, there are future engineers the world over making a mockery of the very sport that inspired them to study! Ridiculous! People ask why Toyota left... who cares about KERS when they've got more complex systems working on road and race cars elsewhere! Plenty of ways to practically cap costs; standardize part costs and cap it, standardise suppliers, put a minimum supply restriction on it with a fixed cost, just find a way, FIA... and make sure the fuel regs are changed such that you can't run without it. If that means Ferrari's putting sponsor dollar into technologies they don't see themselves able to flog to the rich in road cars to nearly the same degree as what Toyota might soon put in a Yaris... tough tit. The sport needs to get beyond blackmail - run it without Ferrari if needs be. Plenty of us would watch a sport that's got decent, relevant technical competition. The day Bernie and Max gave Ferrari a technical veto they condemned the sport into a new era of hell. Never again.

You need technical avenues for performance differentiation in F1, but make them relevant. Major NA/petrol IC competition has had it's day - any more and it's tens (hundreds) of millions of £ spent flogging a dead horse for something with little relevance to a diminishing fanbase and little road car/social return.

autogyro - as much as there are (regrettably or sometimes just occasionally) poor aerodynamicists out there, and as much as there are limitations to what you can do in a wind tunnel, it remains several orders of magnitude better in accuracy and repeatability than a test drive for validating computational data, and allows useful (if sometimes complex and/or contrived) flow interrogation. All removing the tunnel would achieve is significant, non-repeatable performance variability team-to-team, upgrade-to-upgrade, which would defeat the point of engineering for competition.

I'm not sure of the cost savings as tunnels become antiquated far less quickly than a CFD cluster (RBR is testing in something that evaluated Concorde (the plane), with a few updates) - are there any F1 clusters left on the top 500? At any rate a bunch of computers acting as one capable of tens of teraflops has (somewhat) higher running costs than a hair dryer, let alone that keeping up with Moore's law isn't an inexpensive exercise, or that you can't just 'put' a supercomputer in a room - cooling needs are significant too...

Controlled experimental studies in a wind tunnel and computational methods will remain complimentary - if seeking the fastest way forward - for some time yet (didn't we have this discussion in another thread?).

However if you turned your argument on your head - and banned CFD - you would probably have a valid argument! Flow interrogation in CFD is very fast, doing the same in a wind tunnel only - well, if you wanted to understand what was happening beyond the load numbers, it'd take some time... wouldn't this slow development right down, lower cost and deemphasise aerodynamic performance as an avenue for competitiveness?

Would be amusing if at the next draft of the Concorde the FIA stepped forward with a 'spec' F1 design, free areas in which to change things and significantly restricted tunnel time from a set date to start developing an aerodynamic package, with no CFD... add cost-controlled, unlimited energy recovery...

...it'd be a battle of wits and genius! Back to the good old days! Make it happen, FIA .

[xpensive]

This subject has been discussed many times before of course, when people a lot smarter than myself have had their say,
but for what it's worth, this is what I would suggest anyway;

- Put a limit on energy consumed, not produced, by introducing a flow-limiting device, a maximum fuel-flow, cc/second.

- Switch to Methanol made from cellulose, which has a lower energy-density than gasoline, 16 vs 34 MJ/liter, but "green".

- Un-cap everything else as long as they are IC-engines. Performance can easily be kept in check through the fuel-flow.

[ISLAMATRON]

No flow limiting device, just a total volume of fuel, use it as you see fit.

Bio-butanol is "better" then methanol.

So no KERS? or HERS? absurd... that is clearly the future

[xpensive]

Biobutanol shares the same raw-material as ethanol, food-related crops, which makes it unsuitable as fuel ethical-wise.

This thread is about engines, go wreck a KERS-thread or something.

[ISLAMATRON]

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/27/dy ... t-le-mans/

read something and learn before you go around spouting your imbecilic drivel

it can and has been made from cellulosic sources, and has many other reasons why it is superior to methanol.

Alchohol(ethanol) comes from food-related crops but yet I dont see the idiots that are drinking it putting down their glasses... it has no nutritional value, requires much energy and resources to produce and has nothing but negative social impact... go spout on about that.

[xpensive]

I wonder why you seem to be so full of agression and disrespect for other people's opinions and right to voice them?

Not beacuse you're American, most Americans I know are very nice, so it must be something else, what can that be?

[ISLAMATRON]

I wonder why you seem to be so full of agression and disrespect for other people's opinions and right to voice them?

Not beacuse you're American, most Americans I know are very nice, so it must be something else, what can that be?

I only reflect the "agression and disrespect" you put out towards me and others on this forum... show some respect and you will recieve some.

[Scotracer]

Biobutanol shares the same raw-material as ethanol, food-related crops, which makes it unsuitable as fuel ethical-wise.

This thread is about engines, go wreck a KERS-thread or something.

Actually, Algae is a great source of it...

[bergzy]

okay,

i am not an engineer, aerodynamist, mechanic, or even a guy that changes his own oil.

i love watching formula one and follow some of the technical aspects of it since it intimately tied to the sport.

there is always so much talk about cutting expenses to make it more fair for the little guys...you know, making everyone and everything 'equal'.

first: thus, i think that spending caps for teams are silly but ness. BUT i think that engine and tranny developers should have a blank check to develop the engine and tranny as long as they provide the same technology to teams that use their engines and tranny. thus, the $$$ spent on r&d to produce race quality engines and tranny should be separate expenses.

to keep the 'sport' "fair', all teams get a working materials budget and a separate 'salary budget' that will include engineers, mechanics, directors and drivers. no different than the salary caps for football and basketball here in the united states. it makes the teams more even and more competitive.

second: onto engines. again, i am not an engineer, aero etc. but, what ever happened to turbo? isnt turbo a form of hers, kers? not directly i am saying...but it does use a 'waste' product to increase power thus enhanced efficiency.

i wasnt following F1 in the turbo days so i do not know why they stopped using turbo. all i know was that it generated a ridiculous amount of horsepower from a very small engine.

is turbo not considered because it is regarded as antique technology? if so, then why do so many of my friends private small aircrafts still use turbo prop engines?

it seems that hers and kers will have their day in racing...but perhaps just not yet.

[ISLAMATRON]

Turbos were banned because Ferrari could not make a good one, plain and simple.

[SZ]

Turbos were banned because Ferrari could not make a good one, plain and simple.

Sad... but true.

to keep the 'sport' "fair', all teams get a working materials budget and a separate 'salary budget' that will include engineers, mechanics, directors and drivers. no different than the salary caps for football and basketball here in the united states. it makes the teams more even and more competitive.

With the teams based in different countries, allocating a preset amount of money doesn't work.

[xpensive]

Turbos were banned because Ferrari could not make a good one, plain and simple.

Sad... but true.

I am not so sure about that SZ, the decision to ban the turbos was taken already in 1986, long before MrM and too much hype about Ferraris "historical value to the sport". Besides, Ferrari was WCC in 1982 and both Arnoux and Tambay were title contenders in '83. I think the big problem was cost and power-output, with BMW sporting some 1500 Hp in 1985 quali trim.

Ferrari even had to build an Indy racer and threaten to leave F1 for CART, unless they were allowed an atmospheric V12 for 89, when Balestre and the FIA wanted all V8s. But this was way back when the FIA was very sensible with rule-changes, first by limiting boost to 4 Bar for 1987, 2.5 Bar in 88, to be fully atmo only by 89.

As for the production of biobutanol, it seems to me that the primary method is still rather traditional fermentation of the same feedstock as for ethanol. There are however other methods under development, such as algae - solar-energy and cellulose with genetically modified yeasts (DuPont and BP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol

[SZ]

You're right on that historical account, but M's more recent attempt to get turbo diesel F1 happening was snuffed by the only team/manufacturer/engine supplier with nothing to gain from it... Team Red.