Cars perfect in lab environment, less so on track?

[bonjon1979]

I saw this quote from Alonso:

Q:You mentioned the problems with traction. Is the source of these problems rather on the aerodynamic
side, on the mechanical side or maybe even in one of the systems, you know, in directive suspensions,
whatever?

FA:I think it’s all aerodynamics to be honest because every time we test a small part in the
aerodynamics side, a rear brake duct or whatever, lip here or there, the car change completely so I
guess we don't have optimised traction in terms of aerodynamic philosophy.

Have we reached a point where teams are creating cars that have incredible aero in lab conditions but because they're so reliant on every vortex working perfectly, every little flick guiding the air in just the right place to have a positive effect on the car suffers in the real world.

I'm thinking particularly of Mclaren here and to a lesser extent Ferrari whose in lab developments haven't really delivered on track this year. It seems that while we may not have the aero parts, the chimneys etc, all over the car like pre-2009, the airflow is being managed in such a complex way that the slightest change in ride-height or small aero development completely throws the car out of balance. We hear so often that every tiny winglet guides the air in such a way over the car to interact with the rest of the airflow to create downforce but because all these complex flows are reliant upon one another, if one tiny piece of the puzzle is out of place then the car doesn't work at all. I may be barking up the wrong tree, but could the reliance on advanced CFD and simulation be creating a problem for teams? they're developing cars in a virtual world where they can tune the cars to such a fine level to get peak performance that they sometimes make a rod for their own back. I'm in no way suggesting that CFD or any simulation data is a bad thing, just that as teams try to micro manage the airflow it must mean that they're reliant on everything working in concert to achieve the downforce they're after. If one tiny piece doesn't quite work how they want then the whole aero philosphy fails. Basically, there's more ways for it to go wrong.

I'm sure that someone who has a better engineering brain might be able to describe it better than I can but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.

[Jersey Tom]

IMO this is the case with anything - wind tunnel, shaker rig, vehicle simulation on computer, tire test rig, you name it. You gain some things by going to a more or less controlled environment, but you're invariably losing some as well as you go further from "reality." Has been that way forever.

The naive engineer is one who goes to the track thinking everything they've done in the lab is going to work. Or even that they're going to be able to tell whether it worked or not - sometimes you can't even resolve that. Suppose you're bolting on piece parts and trying to see if you're getting small gains. You do one outing for a few laps, come in, make the change, and do another. How much have the ambient conditions changed, is that skewing your result? Has the track taken more rubber? The sun coming out or being overcast can change things. Tires degrade, and there's set-to-set variation among tires.

It's a very difficult task to be sure.

So to your original question, is it possible to lead yourself into some development that you think is good but doesn't work as intended when it gets to the race track? Absolutely. But it's nothing new.

[timbo]

First of all, wrong section for a thread like this. But this is an interesting topic for sure.

So to your original question, is it possible to lead yourself into some development that you think is good but doesn't work as intended when it gets to the race track? Absolutely. But it's nothing new.

Of course. The infamous F92A comes to mind.
However, it's interesting that the problem seem to have become more pronounced nowadays. I guess the major culprit is lack of testing. Teams only have so much time to work out whether your development works or not before they have to decide on the setups for rest of the weekend.

[Jersey Tom]

Is it more pronounced on the whole, though? More so for Ferrari, perhaps. For Red Bull?

Though I'd agree not having the track test time to weed out what works from what doesn't you'd think would make the situation more challenging.

[timbo]

Is it more pronounced on the whole, though? More so for Ferrari, perhaps. For Red Bull?

You should add McLaren to the list. Williams too as they found that removing coanda exhausts which they worked on full year seems to not give them anything. Also, Lotus and Mercedes (along with Sauber) all experimented with double DRS which had very little (or no) use in actual racing.
I do agree that all that is speculation, though.

[turbof1]

Is it more pronounced on the whole, though? More so for Ferrari, perhaps. For Red Bull?

You should add McLaren to the list. Williams too as they found that removing coanda exhausts which they worked on full year seems to not give them anything. Also, Lotus and Mercedes (along with Sauber) all experimented with double DRS which had very little (or no) use in actual racing.
I do agree that all that is speculation, though.

An oddly reversed situation presented itself last year. Mclaren told that the mp4-27 performed better on track then what the number in cfd/windtunnel were telling.

I think it is more about the tech behind the non-track testing/development not being sufficient anymore. Replicating exhaust effects was something very difficult to simulate, and teams continually develop micro aerodynamics further and further.

In theory you can always create a better car then it'll run in practice. The issue is the ever bigger demand on theoritical devices to better simulate the reality.

[Holm86]

This is why I cannot understand why some people in here believes that drivers has nothing to do with developing a car.

An engineer only has two tools. Theory and simulation. And if the simulations says a car is super and it isn't in the real world there is only the driver to tell how the car is reacting differently to the simulation. And if a driver isn't capable of that then its difficult for the engineers.

[Jersey Tom]

An engineer only has two tools. Theory and simulation. And if the simulations says a car is super and it isn't in the real world there is only the driver to tell how the car is reacting differently to the simulation. And if a driver isn't capable of that then its difficult for the engineers.

Engineers have data, measured on track, as well.

[marcush.]

It´s like it is:
All development is led by theories put into reality.Never had a pet project you really believed in ? Damn you would put all effort possible into it to make it work and voila at the end it will .
Need an example? Porsche still builds rear engined cars..... A dog of an idea ,but still the end product is developped to a level you hardly could say the car is a dog....this does not make the original idea a good one either...

Coming back to the original question -if you are asking the right questions and take into account the restrictions of your tools correctly I´m sure your designs will be good .

I don´t believe a car design starts with a spline Adrian Newey does draw on a white paper .It was always a bag of requirements you have to weigh up against each other and find the right balance -don´t give up any of your key performance drivers along the development to allow for some gains in areas you cannot make use of and show enough lateral thinking to come to win win solutions as the right way of striking a compromise.

i think todays teams are very reluctant to change major /key layouts of the car because they fear losing correlation to their calculations at home .somehow they think their latest creation has it all and only the guys need to release the potential.
That may be right in the first few outings but soon you will realise the basic wrongs and rights of your creation -and the delta to your calculations -mind you nobody would design his car with terminal understeer unless your driver was Alain Prost.

so will the team go back and check WHY the car does not behave as calculated or will the team go and try to rectify the misbehaviour?

But then -would this correct the original deficit in your theoretical approach ? surely not -happy hour starts next year with the new car and the same-wrong - approach.quite simplified ,i know but in essence i believe teams should work a lot more on their theoretical approach as obviously all teams -including all top teams -have got it all messed up at least once in the last 3 or 4 years -with stable regs.
To me this is a clear indication that all those calcs work perfectly within a very narrow band of change .but it also hints to major flaws in all models the teams have build ....cross the 8invisible)borders of your model working range and you are lost completely - well not completely as formula 1 is a very tight field these days and you cannot afford to not leave the last .5% of performance on the plate .