Scuderia Ferrari SF16-H

[SR71]

-Off topic but I don't think you can use the words "a lot of research" and OWG in the same sentence.

They had a budget of like 1 or 2 million.

Merc probably spent more then that on the W floor.

-Back to our regular scheduled program-

And what makes you think that's not sufficient to do the research?

Idiocy

Maybe the lead researchers opinion that the findings were the result of being under funded and under studied? Also, I was wrong, the budget was only 500k.

So who's the idiot, is it Pat Symonds? Let's look at his view of the OWG:

"At the OWG, we did as much wind tunnel testing as a team would do in a week. That was the sum total of the OWG."

"The one thing that we suffered from in the last OWG was we could only work with quarter-scale models because of the size of the tunnel. "

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"

http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... nds-on-f1/

So you tell me what makes you think the OWG research was sufficient?

Apology accepted.

[wesley123]

A week testing is quite a lot actually, and a 500k budget is more than sufficient to do what they aimed to do. They aren't perfecting aero, they aren't aiming for that .001sec improvement. They are simply aiming to solve an issue. Which wouldn't require much more than a simple car in the (then) current ruleset(it doesn't require a model that's well developed), see where problem points are and come up with an idea, which again will be a simple car that can show improvements.

You previously said the budget was very little, comparing it to what F1 teams spend on tiny details. But that view is incorrect, the budget of the OWG wasn't (too) small, it's the teams that are spending a lot.

You are seriously over-complicating the view you have of doing such research. The question asked wasn't a complex "meaning of life" question, it was a fairly simple one.

[SR71]

A week testing is quite a lot actually, and a 500k budget is more than sufficient to do what they aimed to do. They aren't perfecting aero, they aren't aiming for that .001sec improvement. They are simply aiming to solve an issue. Which wouldn't require much more than a simple car in the (then) current ruleset(it doesn't require a model that's well developed), see where problem points are and come up with an idea, which again will be a simple car that can show improvements.

You previously said the budget was very little, comparing it to what F1 teams spend on tiny details. But that view is incorrect, the budget of the OWG wasn't (too) small, it's the teams that are spending a lot.

You are seriously over-complicating the view you have of doing such research. The question asked wasn't a complex "meaning of life" question, it was a fairly simple one.

Sorry, I didnt know you were more qualified than the members of the OWG to comment on the value of the findings.

Youre position: OWG findings were highly accurate.

My position (also shared by Pat Symmonds): Underfunded and lacking depth.

Let's leave it there.

[wesley123]

I don't need to be qualified to understand that 500k is more than sufficient to do the research.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said the OWG was accurate, I simply do not know. However, what I do know is that the question asked does not require significant resources to figure out. It was a fairly simple question and it's execution did not require much complexity.

But I'll go through your cherry-picked quotes:
"At the OWG, we did as much wind tunnel testing as a team would do in a week. That was the sum total of the OWG."
I don't know why you picked that quote to begin with.

1. Why would a week not be long enough?
2. Nowhere in the article did Pat Symonds say, nor imply, that it was insufficient. You are adding a whole story to a single quote.

"The one thing that we suffered from in the last OWG was we could only work with quarter-scale models because of the size of the tunnel. "
Why would a quarter-scale model not be sufficient enough?

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"
So? The quote itself already implies that they do have experience in this field.

[SR71]

I don't need to be qualified to understand that 500k is more than sufficient to do the research.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said the OWG was accurate, I simply do not know. However, what I do know is that the question asked does not require significant resources to figure out. It was a fairly simple question and it's execution did not require much complexity.

But I'll go through your cherry-picked quotes:
"At the OWG, we did as much wind tunnel testing as a team would do in a week. That was the sum total of the OWG."
I don't know why you picked that quote to begin with.

1. Why would a week not be long enough?
2. Nowhere in the article did Pat Symonds say, nor imply, that it was insufficient. You are adding a whole story to a single quote.

"The one thing that we suffered from in the last OWG was we could only work with quarter-scale models because of the size of the tunnel. "
Why would a quarter-scale model not be sufficient enough?

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"
So? The quote itself already implies that they do have experience in this field.

I think you said it all right there....

[ferkan]

Some news from Italy

- Ferrari in Canada with new TC
- Brings ~25hp (4 tenths) worth of lap time, especially on tracks with sparse regen
- Reliability update so it doesn't use tokens
- New aero parts

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/06 ... butto.html

[SR71]

A week testing is quite a lot actually, and a 500k budget is more than sufficient to do what they aimed to do. They aren't perfecting aero, they aren't aiming for that .001sec improvement. They are simply aiming to solve an issue. Which wouldn't require much more than a simple car in the (then) current ruleset(it doesn't require a model that's well developed), see where problem points are and come up with an idea, which again will be a simple car that can show improvements.

You previously said the budget was very little, comparing it to what F1 teams spend on tiny details. But that view is incorrect, the budget of the OWG wasn't (too) small, it's the teams that are spending a lot.

You are seriously over-complicating the view you have of doing such research. The question asked wasn't a complex "meaning of life" question, it was a fairly simple one.

Could you please inform me of your professional knowledge of aero testing and simulation? do you currently work in the field?

[SR71]

I don't need to be qualified to understand that 500k is more than sufficient to do the research.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said the OWG was accurate, I simply do not know. However, what I do know is that the question asked does not require significant resources to figure out. It was a fairly simple question and it's execution did not require much complexity.

But I'll go through your cherry-picked quotes:
"At the OWG, we did as much wind tunnel testing as a team would do in a week. That was the sum total of the OWG."
I don't know why you picked that quote to begin with.

1. Why would a week not be long enough?
2. Nowhere in the article did Pat Symonds say, nor imply, that it was insufficient. You are adding a whole story to a single quote.

why do you think pat gave the context of only having 1 week. nowhere in the article did pat say he had enough time. error defaults to pats context of it not being a lot of time compared to an F1 team.

"The one thing that we suffered from in the last OWG was we could only work with quarter-scale models because of the size of the tunnel. "
Why would a quarter-scale model not be sufficient enough?

Do you see the word 'Suffered" in the above quote? If thats not enough for you (clearly it isnt) then please explain to me your professional knowledge of developing aero that encourages passing on a 1/4 scale model and how it is sufficient. If you cannot do that, please understand Pat Symmonds is smarter than you and he states it was hampering the research.

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"
So? The quote itself already implies that they do have experience in this field.

Congrats, the members of the OWG that was studying aero have all been employed in the F1 field. did you have a point?

[bhall II]

With regard to the (off-topic) OWG stuff: the work took far longer than one week, and it was performed by trained aerodynamacists...

At the time [2006] the Technical Working Group, working with the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association (GPMA) used the Italian Fondtech wind tunnel, run by former Ferrari and Tyrrell aerodynamicist Jean-Claude Migeot, to see if the CDG wing would work. Migeot and his team concluded that the idea was flawed. By the autumn of 2006 no-one had much confidence in the CDG wing and Mosley agreed that its introduction could be delayed and that the Technical Working Group should come up with a better idea for 2009.

[...]

At the same time that this was going on Symonds was sent off to talk money out of Renault team principal Flavio Briatore and the other 11 team bosses. The result was a budget of half a million Euros [~650,000 USD in 2006]. The trio had agreed that they should use Fondtech to do windtunnel work for them and that they did not want to place too much faith in CFD. It was an interesting technology but it was not ready for this kind of work as it was not possible to use CFD to study unstable behaviour of the air behind a car. The McLaren simulator, which represented 30man/years of development proved a far more flexible tool than other simulations and used a real driver [Pedro de la Rosa] to get a subjective view.

Let's move on, shall we? (Seriously, if I'm the one trying to pull something back on-topic..)

[wesley123]

why do you think pat gave the context of only having 1 week. nowhere in the article did pat say he had enough time. error defaults to pats context of it not being a lot of time compared to an F1 team.

Okay that's just painful. He didn't specifically say they had enough time so they didn't have enough time? What sort of logic is that? You are literally ignoring everything ever just to bend a quote to suit your personal opinion, which is all okay, if it made some sense which it did not.

Do you see the word 'Suffered" in the above quote?

Yes I did. You picked the quote so there must have been some reason for you to pick that quote, which is why I asked the question.

If thats not enough for you (clearly it isnt) then please explain to me your professional knowledge of developing aero

Again, putting words in my mouth.

that encourages passing on a 1/4 scale model and how it is sufficient.

I'll quote myself here:
"They aren't perfecting aero, they aren't aiming for that .001sec improvement. They are simply aiming to solve an issue. Which wouldn't require much more than a simple car in the (then) current ruleset(it doesn't require a model that's well developed), see where problem points are and come up with an idea, which again will be a simple car that can show improvements."

The OWG were tasked with solving a problem. The problem that they had did not require many resources as it's simply solving a problem. They aren't designing the RB12 or anything, the task at hand did not require micro-aerodynamics.

I'll say it in other words:
If I have to put in screws, I would love to have a power drill, but a simple hand drill would do the job as well.

Oh, and here comes a funny argument, referencing my previous reaction:
PAt Symonds didn't specifically state he wanted a larger scale model, therefore, the quarter scale is enough.

If you cannot do that, please understand Pat Symmonds is smarter than you and he states it was hampering the research.

Yikes!

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"
So? The quote itself already implies that they do have experience in this field.

Congrats, the members of the OWG that was studying aero have all been employed in the F1 field. did you have a point?[/quote]
If you thought that your quote had a point, then yes. If you didn't think your quote had a point, then no.

Could you please inform me of your professional knowledge of aero testing and simulation? do you currently work in the field?

Could you please actually read my posts before you start accusing me of whatever because I do not agree with you?

[pciarro]

Some news from Italy

- Ferrari in Canada with new TC
- Brings ~25hp (4 tenths) worth of lap time, especially on tracks with sparse regen
- Reliability update so it doesn't use tokens
- New aero parts

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/06 ... butto.html

And new specs of fuel and rear suspension.

[SR71]

why do you think pat gave the context of only having 1 week. nowhere in the article did pat say he had enough time. error defaults to pats context of it not being a lot of time compared to an F1 team.

Okay that's just painful. He didn't specifically say they had enough time so they didn't have enough time? What sort of logic is that? You are literally ignoring everything ever just to bend a quote to suit your personal opinion, which is all okay, if it made some sense which it did not.

Do you see the word 'Suffered" in the above quote?

Yes I did. You picked the quote so there must have been some reason for you to pick that quote, which is why I asked the question.

If thats not enough for you (clearly it isnt) then please explain to me your professional knowledge of developing aero

Again, putting words in my mouth.

that encourages passing on a 1/4 scale model and how it is sufficient.

I'll quote myself here:
"They aren't perfecting aero, they aren't aiming for that .001sec improvement. They are simply aiming to solve an issue. Which wouldn't require much more than a simple car in the (then) current ruleset(it doesn't require a model that's well developed), see where problem points are and come up with an idea, which again will be a simple car that can show improvements."

The OWG were tasked with solving a problem. The problem that they had did not require many resources as it's simply solving a problem. They aren't designing the RB12 or anything, the task at hand did not require micro-aerodynamics.

I'll say it in other words:
If I have to put in screws, I would love to have a power drill, but a simple hand drill would do the job as well.

Oh, and here comes a funny argument, referencing my previous reaction:
PAt Symonds didn't specifically state he wanted a larger scale model, therefore, the quarter scale is enough.

If you cannot do that, please understand Pat Symmonds is smarter than you and he states it was hampering the research.

Yikes!

"None of us were actually aerodynamicists as our primary role"
So? The quote itself already implies that they do have experience in this field.

Congrats, the members of the OWG that was studying aero have all been employed in the F1 field. did you have a point?

If you thought that your quote had a point, then yes. If you didn't think your quote had a point, then no.

Could you please inform me of your professional knowledge of aero testing and simulation? do you currently work in the field?

Could you please actually read my posts before you start accusing me of whatever because I do not agree with you?[/quote]

So you agree you have no experience in the field and aren't qualified to judge whether the problem at hand was easy to solve.

Why do you keep saying it's an easy problem to solve when you're not qualified to judge?

[bhall II]

There's no need for a speculative debate - much less one that's way off-topic - because a detailed account of the OWG's process was published a loooooong time ago...

[...]

Pat Symonds of Renault, Rory Byrne of Ferrari and Paddy Lowe of McLaren were all well-established engineers of repute and all were keen to get the job done using commonsense and a scientific approach. The OWG met for the first time in January 2007. They cut straight to the chase. They defined the downforce targets they were looking to achieve and the character of the aerodynamics that was required to improve overtaking. Whiting provided data which had been averaged out from information he had been given by all the teams. The aim was make the cars five seconds a lap slower, but they had to factor in other progress and the reintroduction of slick tyres, planned for 2009. This meant that the OWG was looking for very significant changes. The conclusion was that they needed to reduce downforce by 50 per cent while retaining similar drag coefficients to the 2006 car.

The first move was to use McLaren's highly advanced simulator to establish baseline aerodynamic performance parameters. McLaren test driver Pedro de la Rosa was called in to 'drive' the simulator and after recording a series of different laps with different settings it was determined that in order to overtake going into Turn 1 [at Barcelona] he would need to have a car that was two seconds a lap quicker than the one in front. The engineers paid great attention to De la Rosa's comments. He would try each configuration and report on whether the resulting set-up would allow him to attempt to pass or not. Halving the downforce meant that the necessary 'overtaking advantage' figure could be reduced to 1.5s a lap and the work then moved on to finding ways to balance the following car to reduce the necessary 'overtaking advantage' to a second. The three engineers all agreed that this was a realistic figure, rather than trying to make it even easier to overtake.

At the same time that this was going on Symonds was sent off to talk money out of Renault team principal Flavio Briatore and the other 11 team bosses. The result was a budget of half a million Euros [~650,000 USD in 2006]. The trio had agreed that they should use Fondtech [run by former Ferrari and Tyrrell aerodynamicist Jean-Claude Migeot] to do windtunnel work for them and that they did not want to place too much faith in CFD. It was an interesting technology but it was not ready for this kind of work as it was not possible to use CFD to study unstable behaviour of the air behind a car. The McLaren simulator, which represented 30man/years of development proved a far more flexible tool than other simulations and used a real driver to get a subjective view.

Once they had established the basic data and the targets required, the OWG asked Fondtech to devise means by which the desired changes might be achieved. Ferrari provided baseline data for the two models that Fondtech ran in tandem in its 25 per cent moving ground wind tunnel. They in turn had drawn on an experiment by Ferrari at Monza in 2004, when it ran two cars in tandem round the autodromo. This full-scale Ferrari data was used to validate the twin model behaviour in the tunnel, in turn to validate the entire experimental technique. This was a very important step, that justified the use of tunnel rather than CFD.

Between March and September 2007 there were several sessions in the wind tunnel, with Byrne doing much of the hands-on work and all sorts of ideas were investigated. The final configuration pretty much hit its targets though baseline drag fell by 10 per cent.

The next step was to feed the actual data back into the McLaren simulator in order to compare it with the baseline model that had been established. De la Rosa confirmed the benefits in terms of improved chances to overtake. The OWG made its presentations to the TWG in October 2007 and the teams agreed to accept them.

[...]

Again, let's move on, shall we?

[SR71]

There's no need for a speculative debate - much less one that's way off-topic - because a detailed account of the OWG's process was published a loooooong time ago...

[...]

Pat Symonds of Renault, Rory Byrne of Ferrari and Paddy Lowe of McLaren were all well-established engineers of repute and all were keen to get the job done using commonsense and a scientific approach. The OWG met for the first time in January 2007. They cut straight to the chase. They defined the downforce targets they were looking to achieve and the character of the aerodynamics that was required to improve overtaking. Whiting provided data which had been averaged out from information he had been given by all the teams. The aim was make the cars five seconds a lap slower, but they had to factor in other progress and the reintroduction of slick tyres, planned for 2009. This meant that the OWG was looking for very significant changes. The conclusion was that they needed to reduce downforce by 50 per cent while retaining similar drag coefficients to the 2006 car.

The first move was to use McLaren's highly advanced simulator to establish baseline aerodynamic performance parameters. McLaren test driver Pedro de la Rosa was called in to 'drive' the simulator and after recording a series of different laps with different settings it was determined that in order to overtake going into Turn 1 [at Barcelona] he would need to have a car that was two seconds a lap quicker than the one in front. The engineers paid great attention to De la Rosa's comments. He would try each configuration and report on whether the resulting set-up would allow him to attempt to pass or not. Halving the downforce meant that the necessary 'overtaking advantage' figure could be reduced to 1.5s a lap and the work then moved on to finding ways to balance the following car to reduce the necessary 'overtaking advantage' to a second. The three engineers all agreed that this was a realistic figure, rather than trying to make it even easier to overtake.

At the same time that this was going on Symonds was sent off to talk money out of Renault team principal Flavio Briatore and the other 11 team bosses. The result was a budget of half a million Euros [~650,000 USD in 2006]. The trio had agreed that they should use Fondtech [run by former Ferrari and Tyrrell aerodynamicist Jean-Claude Migeot] to do windtunnel work for them and that they did not want to place too much faith in CFD. It was an interesting technology but it was not ready for this kind of work as it was not possible to use CFD to study unstable behaviour of the air behind a car. The McLaren simulator, which represented 30man/years of development proved a far more flexible tool than other simulations and used a real driver to get a subjective view.

Once they had established the basic data and the targets required, the OWG asked Fondtech to devise means by which the desired changes might be achieved. Ferrari provided baseline data for the two models that Fondtech ran in tandem in its 25 per cent moving ground wind tunnel. They in turn had drawn on an experiment by Ferrari at Monza in 2004, when it ran two cars in tandem round the autodromo. This full-scale Ferrari data was used to validate the twin model behaviour in the tunnel, in turn to validate the entire experimental technique. This was a very important step, that justified the use of tunnel rather than CFD.

Between March and September 2007 there were several sessions in the wind tunnel, with Byrne doing much of the hands-on work and all sorts of ideas were investigated. The final configuration pretty much hit its targets though baseline drag fell by 10 per cent.

The next step was to feed the actual data back into the McLaren simulator in order to compare it with the baseline model that had been established. De la Rosa confirmed the benefits in terms of improved chances to overtake. The OWG made its presentations to the TWG in October 2007 and the teams agreed to accept them.

[...]

Again, let's move on, shall we?

I totally agree, like you said in the above summary, extremely limited budget, very short time frame, and somewhat archaic tools when it comes to permutation simulation.

Since that study concluded various other groups have studied and found that there are MANY ways to achieve close following distances while maintaining or increasing downforce AND allowing balance for the following car (saving tires).

The OWG's results were lacking in depth and it's solutions should be compared to medical advice from the dark ages, things have changed with technology in the 10 years since then.

Which is why we shouldnt reference a thing they concluded.

[Pierce89]

I totally agree, like you said in the above summary, extremely limited budget, very short time frame, and somewhat archaic tools when it comes to permutation simulation.

Since that study concluded various other groups have studied and found that there are MANY ways to achieve close following distances while maintaining or increasing downforce AND allowing balance for the following car (saving tires).

The OWG's results were lacking in depth and it's solutions should be compared to medical advice from the dark ages, things have changed with technology in the 10 years since then.

Which is why we shouldnt reference a thing they concluded.

Please share.