A recent proposal to ban the use of wind tunnels as a cost cutting measure has been criticised by key technical figures in Formula One.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner suggested it would save teams money by forcing them to use simulations such as Computation Fluid Dynamics instead.
However Williams’ chief technical officer Pat Symonds said he disagreed with the proposal. Symonds previously worked for Marussia, which entered F1 as Virgin Racing in 2010 using a car which was designed exclusively in CFD without using a wind tunnel.
Symonds said F1’s work with wind tunnels has helped improve road car manufacturing and the potential cost saving from switching to CFD is not as great as some believe.
“I think some of the restrictions we’ve put in place over the past few years have been quite sensible in terms of saving money and actually forcing us into being more efficient,” he said in a press conference today. “I think that Formula One has contributed an awful lot to the improvements we’ve seen in CFD.”
“That’s something that’s gone on and benefited lots of different areas of society. So I think we are doing quite a good social, we have social responsibility in what we do. But I think same goes with the wind tunnel.
“Not that long ago I was doing some work for one of the top, major road manufacturers, showing them how they could use their wind tunnels better on production road cars to decrease drag, improved fuel economy etc… So it’s techniques that I think we develop in Formula One that are actually quite useful in other areas.
“We’ve invested a lot of money in wind tunnels, we’ve invested a lot of money in CFD – it’s not as cheap as some people might think. I think we have quite a good balance at the moment and I’m happy with the way things are.”
Ferrari technical director James Allison agreed with Symonds, saying a wind tunnel ban would not be “the best direction for us to take as a sport”.
“We do our best as teams to take our technical budgets and turn them into lap time. Aerodynamics are a huge part of the performance of your car and you need to be confident when you’re spending that budget that you’re going to deliver to your investors and your team the performance that you hoped you would be.
“At the moment you wouldn’t find too many engineers who work in aerodynamics of any hue who would recommend developing the type of thing we’ve got using just CFD – it’s just too error-prone. And you need to have the wind tunnel to keep dragging you back to reality.
“Without that you’re at very high risk of spending your investors’ money foolishly and not delivering a car with the performance you thought you would have. And that doesn’t really save any money or do anyone in the sport any good. So I don’t think it’s in the right direction.”
However Red Bull’s chief engineer for car engineering Paul Monaghan said it was down to the Strategy Group, which Red Bull is a member of, to decide whether it is best for F1.
“It’s a proposal which has been originated in Red Bull,” he said. “I think at the moment it moves to the Strategy Group to decide whether they want the sport to go in that direction.”
“If it comes down to the Strategy Group then much more of the technical detail can be resolved to have a mandate to do so or we don’t.”
RV (@zenren)
10th April 2015, 10:19
Unlike Red Bull who doesn’t care about how technology in F1 can be translated into road cars, manufacturers would be looking at that aspect to justify the spend on F1. If CFD is as efficient as wind tunnel, then the teams have the option to use the cheaper alternative to achieve the same results. If CFD is not as good as wind tunnel, then the wind tunnel is the direction to go at least for the immediate future in terms of the techonology transfer to road cars. Otherwise, the entire R&D spent on wind tunnels all these years are practically a waste.
May be Red Bull can save costs using CFD and give that budget to Renault for improving the engine! We are already seeing Red Bull threatening to pull out of F1 if they don’t get a good engine. So it would be win-win.
socksolid (@socksolid)
10th April 2015, 11:08
I don’t think manufacturer’s care either. Road relevance is just important as an excuse for the pr, marketing and the leader inside the manufacturers who need to justify the huge costs of the f1 programme to the people who control the money and own the manufacturers. I think overall red bull cares more when its own performance and design is so much shifted to and dependant on of the engine manufacturer. Same is also very much true for any team that doesn’t make their own engines (lotus, force india, toro rosso, williams, sauber…)
Cfd and wind tunnels are very complementary technologies and going without either one makes life very complicated. Many f1 teams have made huge investments into wind tunnels and for them it is hard to get rid of them whereas a team like redbull can’t just sell their windtunnels at moment’s notice even at huge loss.
petebaldwin (@)
10th April 2015, 11:33
@socksolid – I was just thinking that. What happens to all the huge wind tunnels that teams have spent millions fine tuning if they are suddenly banned? I fail to see how it would save money because without a cap, teams would spend the same amount on CFD.
Ignore the figures here as I’m just using it as an example:
If using a wind tunnel costs £1000 per minute and CFD costs £500 per minute, wouldn’t the teams just spend twice as much time using CFD? In addition to that, wouldn’t there be a huge cost for some teams having to ramp up their CFD operations?
Andy
10th April 2015, 15:22
My understanding: CFD is theoretical and wind tunnel is the real world. I.e. CFD output is meaningless without valid data going into the CFD model. Where does that input data come from? My guess: wind tunnels and testing days.
BasCB (@bascb)
10th April 2015, 11:59
In reality it is a mix. CFD can be a great tool to prepare and shift what parts to actually build and improve them, but the windtunnel still gives that needed dose o real world to test if what one thinks should work really works.
Off course then it gets tested on the track to see if that works on a moving car.
If anything, it would make sense to further limit use of the windtunnel AND CFD to cap off aero development cost and forcing teams to think well about what parts to fully develop in CFD and Windtunnel models even more.
@HoHum (@hohum)
10th April 2015, 22:21
@bascb, I think the more effective way would be to reduce the effectivness of the aero package by reducing the size of the wing(s?) and banning/limiting all the multi-element fins thereon and the finlets and widgets attached to the body work.
BasCB (@bascb)
11th April 2015, 5:19
I think limiting the iterations of front wing per year might be an even easier solution (maybe to 5-6?). That way you don’t hamper people in catching up, but limit how many they can develop and throw money at new versions of wings @hohum.
Sure, big teams might still test 5 times as many wings in their CFD and Windtunnels, but if they play it clever a small team CAN make a difference if they get a clever idea.
gweilo8888 (@gweilo8888)
11th April 2015, 18:02
In reality, next to nothing in F1 is of any real relevance to road cars — that’s just a talking point aimed at making you think your road cars are under a halo of high-tech, influenced by what are, in effect, a completely and utterly unrelated product.
I challenge anybody to point to a single F1 innovation that has had any real, lasting impact on road cars within the last 15 years. Honestly, I can’t think of a single one. If you go back 20-25 years, you might perhaps claim flappy-paddly gearboxes as they didn’t become widespread in road cars until after they appeared in F1, but they too predate F1 in road cars by quite some time.
Ivan B (@njoydesign)
10th April 2015, 11:41
I think Allison said it quite well in todays PC, that wind tunnel really helps them to get accurate data, while CFD is very error prone and may lead to bigger costs due to its data not always correlating well to reality.
Solo (@solo)
16th April 2015, 16:13
That a good thing. The the field could be mixed more and it won’t be just about how much money you have but also about how you managed to translate the CFD data.
I hate to say it but once i actually agree with Red Bull and Horner.
The wind tunnels consume more money that the engines that everyone is crying about how expensive they are and yet the engine is the “motor” in “MOTOR sports”.
Boomerang
10th April 2015, 11:59
I’m looking for volunteers willing to fly the first passenger jet designed only using CFD. You’ll just have to sign some papers. Liability and that kind of legal stuff.
You’re all forgetting the holly trinity of aviation design: 1) CFD; 2) WindTunnel; 3) FlightTesting. Correlation between aircraft design and F1 design is huge, really huge.
Everything indicates that Red Bull Racing needs a new wind tunnel. In that case, banning wind tunnel tests saves a lot of money.
Asanator (@asanator)
10th April 2015, 12:34
By wind tunnel I assume you mean engine supplier ;)
petebaldwin (@)
10th April 2015, 13:59
Based on the fact no-one does anything in F1 for any other reason than for the good of their own cause, it must mean that Red Bull have issues with their wind tunnel or that they have absolutely nailed CFD.
They’re certainly not doing it to cut costs because they aren’t willing to sign up to a cost cap and benefit hugely from the fact that they can spend more than most teams!
Gabriel (@rethla)
10th April 2015, 19:50
The first perfectly safe jets where designed without wind tunnels. CFD and windtunnels is not about safty but rather finetuning.
beneboy (@beneboy)
10th April 2015, 22:46
@rethla
Which jets are those ?
Maksutov (@maksutov)
10th April 2015, 14:29
Tunnel bans the plan to favor the wind
To find favour wind bans the tunnel plan
Favour fails to ban the wind to find the tunnel
To ban the plans wind favours the tunnel
Plan bans the tunnel to favour the failed wind
Wind tunnels the ban to favour the failed plan
Tunnel fails the wind ban to favour the plan
—
Sorry, but thats all I could think of when i read that heading…lol
Ivan B (@njoydesign)
10th April 2015, 17:41
I like no. 5 =)))
Arnold Triyudho Wardono (@ernietheracefan)
10th April 2015, 17:48
CFD is only works for Acura/HPD ARX series.
pxcmerc (@)
10th April 2015, 19:01
gotta love these people that think banning stuff actually works to curb costs or solve some moral dilemma. When it comes down to it, teams and factories will spend what ever money they can, how ever they can. Taking opportunities away from people really does nothing to solve a problem.
Gabriel (@rethla)
10th April 2015, 19:55
Spending whatever money you can however you can does not always lead to big performance gains. Banning windtunnels will remove an easy “pay to win” solution for the biggest teams.
Sure RedBull can take all those windtunnel money and develop a super helmet instead if they want but they will only gain 0.001sec instead of 1sec performance boost out of that compared to the small teams.
pxcmerc (@)
10th April 2015, 20:47
lolz. Do you know why the team with the weakest motor wants to ban wind tunnels? Do you know why people ‘ban’ stuff? it’s a desperate attempt to try and degrade Merc & Ferrari, it has nothing to do with ‘paying to win.’ It has everything to do with not being able to carry as much drag as Merc or Ferrari, and thus not being able to run as much drag, RBR has to find some way to limit Merc and Ferrari’s ability to exploit their more efficient motors.
BTW, RBR had the most efficient motor when it was winning, it’s why they had the most drag/down force.
Gabriel (@rethla)
11th April 2015, 5:20
Im not comparing RedBull, Ferrari and Merc they are all doing fine budgetwise.
Windtunnelban will help teams like Force India and Lotus etc.
Ian Stephens (@ians)
10th April 2015, 22:16
Teams will spend the available money. Every time the rules are changed the teams with the most money will adapt first and best. You can change the balance of expenditure between wind tunel, CFD, and pen & paper by changing the rules, but money will win out.
Bernie chose to give more of the sport’s money to the big teams. In doing so he has made sure they stay ahead, even to the extent that the small teams go out of business. He is the cause of the problem because by the time he has taken his cut, and then given the lion’s share of the rest to the big teams , there is not enough to sustain the rest.
coskibum (@coskibum)
11th April 2015, 2:02
There should be only one wind tunnel and each team gets x amount of hours of it. Problem solved…