The Risk of Innovation

Tyrrell 019, photo by Sibo

F1 has a lot of nuance to it whether you are talking strategies, driving styles, off track politics, or technical development; and that technical development is mind blowing ; it is an arms race for gaining time. More and more the technical side of F1 has been about aerodynamics. Teams spend vast sums of money to improve car performance in this area. Even items that are not logically geared towards the aerodynamic performance, are in fact geared towards the aerodynamic performance of the car.

Since work on other components like engine development have virtually been eliminated, aerodynamic performance is the be all-end all of F1 performance. Hence, a very large factor in Red Bull's current dominance has been their iconoclast designer and renown  aerodynamist, Adrian Newey.  With engine development frozen, DRS and KERS still in their infancy, spec tires, you have to have top notch aero. This chase has lead to some teams to some interesting concepts, some successful, others not so successful. However, it is the price of looking to be innovative and chase those ever elusive tenths of seconds. We have seen these innovations take root, or be banned from competition or just flop.

Innovation can pay off or it can cost you. When we think of the most recent noteworthy technical innovation, the exhaust blown diffuser, it is not widely talked about that this innovation was pioneered in 1983 by Renault and Jean Claude Migeot. It became the standard in F1, then fell out of favor completely a decade ago with the advent and development of periscope exhausts, before being revived by Adrian Newey in an effort to maximize the downforce generated under the car; the place where most downforce is generated. A huge payoff for Red Bull.  

Then there is the story of Tyrrell (the genesis of the current Mercedes team), a championship winning team with a history of innovation. Tyrrell is probably most remembered for their 6-wheeled F1 car, the P34. However, they had several innovations that have carried over to contemporary F1. Generally speaking, they were all aimed at aerodynamic performance because they were lacking in the areas where the bigger teams dominated: engines and horsepower.

Tyrrell 025, photo by Rainer Nyberg

Before the days of engine freezes and standard engine designs you could overcome some aerodynamic deficiencies via horsepower, and you could be rather competitive this way. However if you did not have a good engine, you had to look towards other avenues to increase your performance...i.e. aerodynamics. In 1990, Tyrell and legendary Harvey Postlethwaite (whom Newey worked for) and Jean Claude Migeot introduce the world of F1 to raised noses, a concept that has been the standard design to varying degrees since 1996. Some of the other innovations from Tyrrell: aerodynamically shaped wishbones (again the concept is standard) in 1996. the notoriously ugly yet effective X wings in 1997 (banned by the FIA in 1998). The payoff was for other teams following the innovations. The Tyrrell name disappeared from F1 after they were purchased by British American Tobacco.

Williams FW26, photo by BMW AG

In 2004, Williams introduced a walrus-nose shaped F1 car, the FW26. This was a different and radical take on the raise nosed concept. The car was an acquired taste visually, but the aim was the same: achieve more airflow to the underside of the car to gain that aerodynamic advantage. However, Williams had what teams like Tyrell did not have, one of the best engines of the V10 era, the P84. Williams and driver Juan Pablo Montoya were favorites for the title. However, the design turned out to be a flop. The concept proved to be more heavy then anticipated, which led to instability and to car setup issues. They went with a more conventional design later in the 2004 which culminated in the team's sole victory at the end of the season. Williams took a risk with a innovative design after nearing winning the driver's championship with Montoya in 2003 and they failed. Williams have never been the same since. 

In late 2005, Renault introduced the Tuned Mass Damper (TMD), a movable weight in the car that helped the car perform better over bumps and keep a consistent contact with the track, improving grip and aerodynamic performance. The development of this technology helped them secure the 2005 title as well as being an important component to their 2006 championship winning car the R26.  This technology was banned in controversial fashion in 2006. However it's performance was subsequently replicated by the J damper, a standard arrangement in F1 introduced by McLaren.  

In 2010, McLaren introduced the "F-Duct" on their MP4-25. The design used a small snorkel mounted in front of the driver that channeled air through a duct in the cockpit and towards the rear wing. Changes in the pressure in the duct reduced the aerodynamic drag of the wing allowing for an extra 6 mph on a straight away, a poor man's but very ingenious DRS.  Although a legal component, it was banned for 2011. McLaren had a very competitive package but could not capitalize to a win the title. 

Now to go full circle with exhaust blown diffusers. In 2011, Renault introduced a radical front exit exhaust (FFE) on their R31. Instead of a "traditional" periscope or exiting into the diffuser, the exhaust exited below the sidepod inlets. The aim was to blow exhaust gases under the floor and around the sidepods.Where Red Bull got it right, Renault admits they go it wrong. They admit they could not really develop it as the season progressed and it was too complicated for them to consistently generate downforce at all the tracks. Renault even experimented with going to a more traditional layout (like Williams in 2004) but they could not make that work either. After a very promising 2010 season, they put a lot of effort in 2011 and came up snake eyes from a design point of view. 

Nevertheless all of this gets us to the point. Sometimes you get it right and it changes the way the sport operates and moves it forward. Sometimes you innovations get banned because it is too clever or just plain illegal. Sometimes you just get it wrong and you have a terrible and useless design. However, in it's purist form, isn't that what innovation is all about; taking risks, trying to be quicker, advance the technology? I much rather see teams try something innovative and bump up against the rules or truly make an technological advancement than the push towards standardization.   

Can F1 Helmet Technology help the NFL?

Yes, I watch the National Football League and I like the hometown team, the New England Patriots. I know, those bastards. If you have followed the sport of American Football you know that there has been a heightened awareness around the issue of player concussions. Players have gotten bigger, stronger., faster and as a consequence hit harder. There have been a number of rules changes, points of emphasis in regards to hitting/tackling technique and levying of fines for "illegal" hits to address the issue. What does this have to do with F1? Well, they both make a lot of money but I am talking about helmets. The NFL helmet suppliers are making efforts to make helmets more impact resistant and help reduce concussions, but can they go further? I think there is a lot that NFL can learn from the world of motorsport, the FIA and F1.

When looking at the common impacts involved with F1, football and the brain, we are usually talking about blunt force hits whether it is crashing into a tire barrier or being stopped in your tracks by a 250 lbs linebacker. Your brain is going to bounce around in your skull cavity if your equipment is not absorbing a lot of the energy. The NFL estimates that 75% of helmets used in 2010 were made by Riddell, 23% by Schutt, 1-2% by Xenith, a few by Adams USA and Rawlings returns this season. The current safety standard for helmets used in the NFL are set by the The National Organizing Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE). They are currently in the process of reviewing the standards for youth football helmets and have considered motorsport standards set forth by SNELL, non-profit organization and a leader in helmet safety both in the United States and around the world. However, having these NOCSAE standards should not stop the helmet suppliers from exceeding industry standard in they are trying to truly address the issue of concussions.

There are a number of studies and initiatives in both motorsport and the NFL around the issue of brain injury and acquiring good data. Dr. Steve Olvey, a fellow of the FIA Institute of Motor Sport Safety, Circuit of the Americas Director of Medical Services and former Director of Medical Affairs for the defunct CART World Series among other things medical, advocates that NFL helmets have accelerometers implanted in earpieces so forces to the head can be measured, collected and cataloged during violent impacts; it is already mandated for use in F1. The goal would be to eventually have enough data in various sports to establish some sort of threshold for brain injury. In looking at Riddell, as they are the official helmet of the league,  their new top of the line 360 helmet contains data acquisition system they call Head Impact Telemetry System (HITS) and Concussion Reduction Technology.  This is embedded in the helmet and is a variation of the earpiece accelerometers. However, this has not been adapted by all the helmet suppliers and is not mandated. Nevertheless, even if a supplier is doing data acquisition now, what about we already know about materials and weight? What can they do in terms of advancements in helmet construction and testing given the standards that exist in motorsports and F1?

In both sports strong neck and shoulders muscles are important as they help improve performance and prevent injury, but clearly the athlete's strength needs to be supplemented. NFL helmets generally weight 6 lbs while the typical F1 helmet weights less than 3 lbs; that is additional weight that can cause injury to the neck or help accelerate the head to where a concussion occurs. NFL helmets are made of specially molded polycarbonate plastic construction and high-tech cushioning systems consisting of "energy managing" foam and inflatable bladders inside the helmet with an energy absorbing face mask. F1 helmets are made of a carbon fiber outershell, 3 layer foam inner shell, and bulletproof polycarbonate visor and in some models can withstand the force of a 55-ton tank; again weighing less than a NFL helmet. Should the NFL consider carbon fiber shells? When looking at the NOCSAE's drop testing parameters for 2012, the impact speed for the drop test will be 7.73 mph . The impact speed for F1 helmets (FIA 8860 standard) is 21.3 mph. I think the NFL could raise their threshold. You can say F1 should too, but racing drivers protection is supplemented by the use of a HANS device, cockpit surrounds and the chassis itself. In the NFL there is not much; the neck roll may supplement helmet protection but it is virtually unused at this level of football these days.

Obviously the severity of the impacts are different. Players are not travelling at 190 mph, but they are running up to 20 mph apply forces directly to the body and doing it 50 times a game. When you consider the cumulative effects of these collisions with players like Ted Johnson or Andre Waters retiring early, beset with emotional problems brought on by brain injuries, or early onset dementia or Alzheimer's disease, clearly there is room for the use of stronger, lighter materials and more rigorous standards for football helmets. The NFL is certainly moving in that direction but it should not take this long.

Interested in F1 and NFL helmets, here are some links:

FIA- Setting the Standard
Schuberth SF1 helmet fact sheet
National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment
Riddell Helmets

No need for qualifying tires in 2012

Pirelli has proposed that in 2012 teams can utilize a special qualifying tire. Pirelli motorsport director, Paul Hembery told AUTOSPORT that they have offered the teams to bring the special tires and was waiting to hear back. "We've put the idea of qualifying tires to the teams and we will get their feedback; if they don't want to do it, we won't do it."

It must be said Pirelli have done a good job so far. Also, it has been very active/vocal as a tire supplier in their return to F1 this year. They have previous advocated for qualifying changes, had to reaffirm that their tire choices would be neutral and not advantage any one team, advocate the return of in-season testing, and actively sought feedback from teams.

All well and good, but this latest proposal for qualifying tires is unnecessary. Parc Ferme restrictions, where teams can not change the car after qualifying starts, is at odds on the whole concept of outright qualifying pace. Teams obviously need to have race setups and not qualifying setups. Sure teams can get the qualifying glory, but they would just ruin their races. I doubt the FIA would like that as it leads to the slippery slope of other qualifying only parts which will only escalate costs. This was the case in the past.

I think if Pirelli want to produce more tires, they should advocate that teams just get more sets then they do now. This year teams are restricted to 11 sets of tires whereas in recent years they were allocated 14 sets per team. This reduction in sets has led to "tire hoarding" for strategic purposes but some teams.

Obviously a benefit of the qualifying tires are that they would be faster over a single lap; the downside they will only be any good for that single lap. Rather wasteful and can lead to more complaints from drivers about being impeded on their qualifying lap by traffic; no one wants that. I would say that if Pirelli wants them to go faster, advocate that the minimum weight goes back to 605 kgs or something similar from the current 640 kgs.

They have done a good job, but lets keep the tinkering to a minimum for the time being as F1 currently has a decent on track show going.

More CFD: New Force India partnership

A few weeks ago Computational Research Laboratories, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons, and Force India announced a three-year multi-million dollar partnership deal to offer a fully automated Computational Fluid Dynamics assistance to the design of Force India's future race cars as well improve aerodynamic efficiency in the current racing models.

As a result of this deal, Force India will now have access to 'EKA', India’s fastest supercomputer and one of the most versatile supercomputers in the world. 'EKA' was ranked the 4th fastest in the world in November 2007, marking India’s presence in the Top500 list of supercomputers. However, as of June 2009 it is the 18th fastest, but 2nd fastest in Asia.

Nevertheless, this will be the first time a Formula 1 team will utilize an Indian high performance computing organization for their design activities. Given that Force India is also Indian owned, it makes sense to leverage Indian hi tech companies; giving more exposure to these companies and increasing the profile of F1. India is due to host a Formula One Grand Prix in 2011.

Wirth wants to showcase CFD technology

By Mark Glendenning and Pablo Elizalde, Autosport.com

Virgin Racing technical boss Nick Wirth is aiming to showcase the CFD technology outside of Formula 1 by building a successful grand prix car with it. Wirth is designing Virgin's maiden F1 car using CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics - instead of the traditional wind tunnel method used by all Formula 1 teams. He had already used the method in Acura's the American Le Mans Series car.

Now Wirth is hoping to prove CFD can be used outside of racing to improve what he labelled as 'the real world'. "The miracle of the Acura programme has been the technology behind it - the simulator and the CFD," said Wirth.

"What we're actively looking to do right now - I've got an 11-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter, we'd really like to stop the ice caps slipping off Greenland and flooding everybody - we'd like to see applications of this technology help the real world. We didn't live in the real world, Formula 1 is not the real world. We're really determined to showcase this technology on a global stage and then use it in much more useful ways for mankind."

Wirth also highlighted the importance of CFD when reducing the costs of running a Formula 1 team. "It's absolutely critical," he added. "We did it because it's cheaper and faster. If there was unlimited money, I'd just employ loads of people. The point is that you can get more accurate aerodynamic answers for a given amount of money using this technology than any other thing. You can try more endplates, more rear wings and other things then the same money gets you in wind tunnel testing or full-scale testing."

He added: "We've done it - we've built race and championship winning cars since then, so we're very happy. We've also been doing open-wheel work in Formula 3 and IndyCar racing at the same time as the Acuras. We'll be using the same technology, so this isn't new to us."

"Can things go wrong? Absolutely, that's life. Brawn brought out the new front wing development for Jenson Button to run at Suzuka this year and it was a disaster, it didn't work and it screwed his race up. They have a load of aerodynamic technology which says that front wing is good, they put it on the guy trying to win the world championship at a critical race, and it didn't work. What must they be thinking about what they understand about aerodynamics? Everybody has problems and issues."


Check out the blog entry earlier this month on Wirth's Development in the Digital Domain philosophy:

http://formulaoneamerica.blogspot.com/2009/12/virgin-racings-nick-wirth-development.html

Toro Rosso gets ready by crashing

Part of a F1 team's preparations is designing, testing, developing, building and destroying. Destroying you say? F1 cars have to undergo a series of 16 different crash tests, mandated by the FIA, to help ensure the strength and safety of these missiles on wheels. All teams must pass these tests and sometimes it is used as a anecdotal marker of a teams progress. You may recall some fuss around USF1 when Ross Brawn of Mercedes remarked about USF1's lack of crash testing.

In any case, the destroying piece is currently underway at Scuderia Toro Rosso (STR) where they are crash testing their new 2010 car; and according to Technical Director, Giorgio Ascanelli it is progressing well and on schedule.

Currently, they are going through a process which is documented in this 2008 piece on crash testing from Honda (Brawn GP, now Mercedes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrO8x4HAK28


This will be STR's "first" chassis of their very own design and construction due to the total ban on customer cars. The past several seasons STR had the assistance and basic input of Adrian Newey from Red Bull Technology.

F1 and Defense technology crossover

Technology crossover from defense/military and aerospace into motorsports is not a particularly new phenomenon. You can point to the use of carbon brakes, carbon fiber for structural rigidity purposes, exotic metals, aerodynamics and communication tools as examples where this has taken place.

There has been some very hardcore efforts that emanated from the defense sector. In the mid 60's to early 70's Mécanique Avion TRAction or MATRA had quite a successful history in Formula One and endurance sportscar racing with a F1 Constructor tile with Tyrell in 1969 and multiple wins at the 24 Hours of LeMans. It was a name well known in racing circles and is still very active in the defense industry under an assortment of different names. Although it stopped official operations in the 70's, in essence the team lived on as Ligier until 1996 and then as Prost GP until their ultimate demise as a F1 constructor in 2002.

These days you can say there is still plenty of involvement from the defense sector and it is wide ranging. The visible of this involvement was Intertechnique, who supplied Formula One re-fueling rigs and ancillary equipment from 1994-2009; refuelling is banned from 2010 on. Intertechnique's business is development and manufacture of fuel circulation systems for aircraft, helicopters, and missiles. An interesting performance fact is the fuel delivery rate was 3.2 gallons/sec (12 Liters/sec). Imagine going to the local gas station and filling up in under 5 seconds.

BAE Systems, a British defense, security and aerospace company and recognized as the 2nd largest defense contractor in the world, has a partnership with McLaren Mercedes. In their words, the partnership has resulted in significant cross-fertilization in areas such as aerodynamics and rapid engineering. They redesigned McLaren's fuel tanks, leading to more accurate determination of the fuel remaining and improvements to the cars centre of gravity. Those advancements were utilized on the MP4-20, a title contending car that garnered a lot of post season awards for being the best car in F1 in 2005.

Another example is the Phantom Works, a division of Boeing, again one of the biggest defense contractors in the world, has done composite work with the Renault F1 team since 2004 and now is partnered with them to jointly develop computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code within Renault's CFD research center. Also, the partnership extends beyond development of new CFD tools to areas like structures, advanced digital manufacturing and even accident investigation. Renault's R29, was the first car to take full benefit from the new CFD center.

Also, let us consider the use of CFD itself and the amounts of computing power needed. Probably the most known is Sauber's Albert 2, developed by Swiss-based Dalco AG. When launched in 2006 it was one of the most powerful supercomputers in Formula One. Now Sauber has Albert 3 and the new performance of this supercomputer is 45th on the worldwide top 500 list of currently running systems (including military/defense) and 3rd of all systems in private industry. One of Dalco's customers is General Dynamics, 5th larger defense contractor in the world.

In sticking with the digital domain, there has been a proliferation of simulator technology in F1. McLaren have a very sophisticated simulator (again probably with help from BAE) and Red Bull Racing supposedly has one of high quality. Ferrari contracted with Moog who has a lengthy defense industry history and has also been involved in motorsport since 1982 when they initially supplied Team Lotus active ride height equipment for use on their F1 cars, the first cars to use "active suspension" in Formula One, just recently completed a military grade simulator and said to be most advanced simulator in F1. Moog still produces electro-hydraulic products for F1 and presumably other motorsport series as well.

In terms of "flow" from racing to the world of defense, motorsports has been identified by the UK Ministry of Defense as a potentially valuable source of appropriate technology in high-stress, high-reliability, rapid-turnaround engineering. I suppose very useful in a military context. If we consider actual war-fighting in dealing with asymmetrical tactics of IED's and car bombs, engineers at McLaren Applied Technologies in conjunction with US-based Vibration & Sound Solutions Limited (VSSL) to design and build a Blast Shock Mitigating Seat for the US Office of Naval Research. Using McLaren’s rapid prototype techniques and manufacturing methods, the project was completed for testing in 11 weeks. A number of blast seats have since been built for long-term testing with the US Office of Naval Research.

It becomes rather obvious that these industries can inter-mix when you think about it in the context of danger, life, death, speed and adaptability. Interesting things to consider when you think about the racing industry or a nation's military. And although 'tis the season for peace on Earth and goodwill towards men, when you watch your next race or you continue to follow the current conflicts in the world take a pause to think; the same people that are preparing behind the scenes for war on the track, are literally behind the scenes preparing for war. There is definitely some good and some bad in that.

Virgin Racing's Nick Wirth: Development in the Digital Domain

Nick Wirth is a racing veteran with more than 20 years experience having held positions of aerodynamist, chief designer and even team owner. Wirth has also been a pioneer in forwading advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technology. Simply CFD is the use of numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. In the case of racing, primilarly we are talking about air.

His company, Wirth Research uses an unique approach to car design and development, part of a process they call Development in the Digital Domain. Since the late 1980's, he has chased the idea of an entirely digital development process for advanced engineering products but only until recently has there been computer systems and hardware, plus the refinement of advanced software simulation tools that have made this possible.

In addition to using CFD programs, which is standard operating procedure in F1 these days, they use virtual engineering technology developed within Wirth Research enabling simulated testing and vehicle development; allowing for a reduced need for costly and wasteful prototype manufacture. This is coupled with the use of a vehicle simulator.

If you have followed the American LeMans Series (ALMS) in the United States you know that Wirth has already produced the class-winning Acura LMP1 prototype using this system; and according to Wirth Research, the car is the first car to be developed using this all digital approach. However, if you have not seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucKq_otBN3U

The 2010 Virgin racercar is due to hit the track in February with no windtunnel testing, and using the Wirth methods is most likely to be developed completely in the virtual world. It is safe to say that the use of these methods have allowed Virgin Founder, Sir Richard Branson to proclaim during Virgin Racing's launch that they will have the lowest budget in Formula One.

Just as everything with the Virgin brand, this will be a very serious and first class effort.

http://www.wirthresearch.com

Ferrari and Peugeot 908 Program as KERS partners?

According to Mulsanne's Corner, Ferrari and Peugeot have entered into a relationship where Peugeot will run Ferrari's F1 KERS system on a 908 development car. It is reported that Ferrari are very worried and preparing for the possibility that their KERS system will not be ready for the first race in Melbourne.

With the F1 testing ban set to go into effect, it is understood this partnership was hatched in order to further debug the KERS system in the back of a Peugeot 908. Therefore, making an end run around Formula One's test ban.

Ferrari is not new to the game of finding ways to circumventing the spirit of rules (no F1 team is for that matter) and if the reports are to be believed, it certainly speaks to Ferrari's very public KERS development woes which have been discussed here in several posts. However, it may also speak to Ferrari making a KERS system available to racing teams in other series in the future. Sticking a KERS system in the back of the sportscar prototype may address installation issues for future prospective customers. As in Formula One, Sportscar racing (generally speaking American Le Mans Series, Le Mans Series, and Automobile Club de l'Ouest or ACO) has car manufacturer and private team participation. Also as in F1, they are looking to cut costs and are developing and using 'greener' technology such as diesel, E85, and hybrid technology. It certainly would be a cost saving to some manufacturers and teams if they were simply to purchase an install a hybrid system as opposed to trying to develop one.

Whatever you think about Ferrari and the bending of rules, I certainly appreciate Ferrari thinking outside the box.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov08.html
http://formulaoneamerica.blogspot.com/2008/11/ferrari-kers-complaints-ominous.html
http://formulaoneamerica.blogspot.com/2008/09/kers-development-is-challenge.html

2009 aerodynamic package: is it that bad?

At the recently concluded pre-season/post-season test (depending on how you looked at it) in Barcelona, BMW-Sauber brought aerodynamic pieces that would be used in the 2009 season; most prominently a front and rear wing. The consensus so far in regards to this aero package is that it is hideous and beneath Formula One. At this point, all I will say it is certainly a look to get used to.

However, in our world of instant gratification we must remember a couple of things:

1. This is still the initial on track test of such aerodynamic components. Only Williams and Honda have specifically brought 2009 spec wings to the Barcelona test.

2. In regards to teams that brought 2009 spec aerodynamic parts, the parts have essentially been graphed to 2008 spec chassis.

This is important to remember as at this point forms follows function especially as teams come to grips with the new regulations. Let us go back in time a little bit; when V8's were re-introduced several years ago the first dyno test I heard of a Cosworth engine I thought, "this engine sounds like a hoover vacuum on steroids;" that is not a pleasant sound. Although I still believe nothing replaces the wailing sound of a unrestricted V10 engine, the V8 engine in its current formula and as currently installed is not the end of the world when it comes to acoustic appreciation. So, what is gleaned from this line of reasoning is that some of the first on-track tests of these parts does not mean that the aesthetics will not be improved as pre-season testing continues. It most certainly will as teams begin to optimize the designs in preparation for 2009, instead of modifying 2008 car packages. The most visible example of the 2009 aero package is from BMW-Sauber. At first glance it is a disturbing site. However again, let us realize that these bits have been graphed on to a F1.08B and not the definitive model to be raced at the first GP.

With that said, here are some images of the 2009 aero package on the BMW-Sauber provided by F1 Technical. Let me know how you feel.

http://www.f1technical.net

Ferrari KERS complaints ominous

Today Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo hit out at the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) in Formula One in 2009 claiming they are too expensive and questioning the relevance and importance to road car technology.

In Autosprint, di Montezemolo said, "the future looks very complicated with these new regulations. We feel introducing KERS already this year was a mistake, even though we're in favour of F1 being a technological springboard. But the energy recovery system in the races will in any case be very different from the road system. It's true, however, that the costs are prohibitive, and with FOTA we've studied important proposals in order to meet Max Mosley's fair requests regarding spending cuts."

Although there is something to say about the costs of new technologies, this concern is reduced because of the introduction of radical cost cutting proposals due to come on line in 2009. So the real question is: how far is Ferrari in making the KERS system work effectively?

Ferrari have already admitted on several occasions they are behind in developing KERS. Technical director, Aldo Costa is clear that the biggest challenge to the team is the development of the KERS (and reliability) but that they must also consider the development of the 2009 aerodynamics package.

What is also a consideration is the reported impact of the new slick tire, weight distribution and the 3 tenths of second per lap that KERS is theoretically worth. If Ferrari can not make the new slick work with the 2009 package with or without a KERS system, their problems could be compounded three fold: they can be slower because teams have better KERS; they can be slower because they are having difficulty with the tires; or both. The fact that di Montezemolo is vocalizing more complaints about KERS on top of Ferrari's already admitted problems with the system should be a real concern for Ferrari fans and their 2009 championship aspirations.

I will be curious to observe testing times and their KERS reliability when we get into 2009 pre-season testing.

"We are very confident that we won't be electrocuted"

Those are the words of Honda Racing test driver Alex Wurz after Honda completed their first major test of their KERS system at Jerez. Honda have already completed tests with KERS at Santa Pod and Silverstone, but Jerez was their first chance to run the system at length.

In an interview with Autosport.com he was asked if he could feel the difference KERS made to driving, "Yes. Thank god I feel it! If I wouldn't feel the 60 kilowatts, then I should not be a test driver. I have driven it before in a shakedown, the very first time the KERS was in the car at Santa Pod, and now it is interesting to drive it on the track. It has different effects on the car, and feeling how power output is interesting. It is all good. It is not that extreme, but you do feel it and it is quite nice. It works and, in the end, it is not rocket science. The car companies already have KERS in road cars, but the difficulty for F1 is getting it packaged."

Wurz was also asked how good Honda's KERS system was compared to the opposition: "It is impossible to answer because we don't know the output of the other teams, how they store the energy, so we cannot say. I would hope we are ahead, but there is no guarantee."

As I mentioned previously, given some of the struggles teams have had developing and integrating the KERS, and if Honda, Toyota, and BMW get their systems working properly, we can see a real competitive shift in 2009 if only for part of season. Particularly if there is a real performance advantage. Given the trusted feedback of a test driver the caliber of Alex Wurz, Honda might be on the climb back to respectability.

http://formulaoneamerica.blogspot.com/2008/09/kers-development-is-challenge.html

KERS development is a challenge

It is clear that the introduction of the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) is something that will test the Formula One world in regards to technology, safety, implementation and integration. However, the scope of the challenge is evolving everyday. The system is set for introduction in 2009, but is not mandatory.

Today, Ferrari's engine technical director Gilles Simon says they are struggling with KERS development. "The Kinetic Energy Recovery System is a complex subject, which finds us dealing with a lot of new and complicated areas, while ensuring that we still devote all necessary efforts into continuing our usual development program on the current year car. It will be really challenging to run this system next year. We are learning every day, but we are struggling and I think that all teams will struggle to run the new system reliably right from the opening race of the 2009 season."

Overall, the KERS has seen its share of teething problems. Ferrari and Simon have now voiced their struggles and earlier this summer BMW-Sauber and Red Bull Racing had problems when a BMW-Sauber mechanic was struck to the ground by an electrical shock and Red Bull had a fire in their factory due to testing of a new battery for KERS. There have been calls for the introduction of the KERS to be delayed, but Honda, Williams and BMW-Sauber, despite the incident earlier in the summer, have been vocal in their opposition to any delay.

Honda has encountered few problems with their KERS development and Williams and BMW-Sauber echo similar sentiments of the system being a welcomed technical challenge; Toyota's feelings have been mixed. Toyota team president John Howett was unsure if it would be ready in time but those comments were later countered by engine chief Luca Marmorini who expressed confidence in the staff that things will be done on time for the first race of 2009. "Our development is focused on producing a KERS system which is appropriate for Formula One and brings performance increase. We have a group dedicated to this and we trust them to deliver." Ferrari's revelation that they too are struggling is a bit surprising given the level of talent that resides at Maranello, but at the same time not surprising given the research and development aspects of developing such a system. Teams like Honda, BMW and Toyota can call on a lot of resources and some experience with this sort of technology whereas Ferrari can not.

Renault's Flavio Briatore and McLaren's Ron Dennis have been forces opposed to the introduction schedule for the KERS, which makes you wonder about the resources available to Renault F1 even though Renault do hybrid R&D with their partner Nissan. McLaren's call for a delay in the KERS implementation is more surprising than finding out Ferrari is struggling because McLaren houses its own automotive and electronics companies within its technology center, and has the resources of Mercedes-Benz plus talented staff. It makes you wonder the disadvantage a team like McLaren and Renault will be in if teams like Honda, Toyota, and BMW get this system working properly and McLaren and Renault have to delay. If Ferrari has to delay as well, we can see a real competitive shift in 2009 if only for part of season; and would that be bad for Formula One? If the system is safe for drivers, marshals, and spectators, then more power to the teams that can get it to work.

Eco-friendly Formula One

Everything is going "green" these days and that is not a bad thing. There has been a huge uptick in energy prices as well as concerns for carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions. If you have watched the Olympics you have seen the smog, athletes wearing masks, and the efforts of the Chinese to reduce the pollution prior to the games; Formula One is not any different. So, how does an industry such as Formula One that wastes fuel and pollutes for the sake of entertainment become environmentally friendly and conscious? Well, like anything in F1, it is done through action, technology and marketing.

Firstly, F1 is carbon neutral. the FIA, F1's governing body, worked behind the scenes to make F1 carbon neutral since 1997. It has been financially supporting the Scolel Te project in southern Mexico to offset the emissions caused by both the Formula One World Championship and the World Rally Championship. The FIA offsets the greenhouse gas emissions of the two world championships through buying credits in the project's trust fund, the Fonfo BioClimatico. I have my opinion about cap and trade systems, but given the nature of what F1 is and what it's purpose for existing is, it is a commendable effort.

Secondly, the introduction of the KERS in 2009. The purpose of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) is to recover energy used by the car in braking and recycle it back to be stored energy in batteries. This will help save fuel and reduce green house gas emissions while in theory adding to the on track show by having this recycled, extra power and will be available via a "boost" button.

Finally, Honda's Earthdreams campaign. Honda embarked on a project to raise environmental awareness in 2007. Earthdreams is a unique global positive marketing programme whose message was carried on last year's RA107 race cars via a dynamic livery of the Earth in space. They have carried on with the theme on this year's RA108 and the initiative is supported throughout Honda Racing F1. The earthdreams initiative is a long term commitment which is based on Honda's core values of good corporate citizenship. $1.2million has been committed, $700,000 of which has already been allocated to environmental charities such as Marine Stewardship Council, Green Light Trust and Wiser Earth.


Although these measures are being undertaken by the sport, I have some regrets and criticisms. In sportscar racing in the 1980's there was Group C. This was a formula based on fuel consumption. It is kind of like "hypermiling" but only at 200mph over a race distance of 600+ miles with a maximum fuel use of 132 gallons; by racing standards, a rather difficult achievement. An example of this concept was explained by former Benetton F1 mechanic and SPEEDTV analyst Steve Matchett in regards to Michael Schumacher and his Group C days (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xazImNY0hNg). Drivers had to drive more efficiently and manufacturers had to produce more efficient engines. Why F1 could not introduce comparable limits is a mystery. In addition, in the early 1990's teams were looking into regenerative braking systems which would have made the cars more efficient. This would have been a beneficial racing application because teams were not allowed to refuel the car during the race. However at the end of 1993, the FIA in an effort to reduce the reliance on technology, banned a whole range of electronic "gizmos" in an effort to elevate the importance of the drivers and improve the show as well as allowed for teams to refuel the cars. From an environmental standpoint one can argue that it set back "green" technology for racing back a decade. Moreover, I believe that F1 would have perfected hybrid technology for today's market long ago and it would have had a more sporting and acceptable image to the masses. Also, I believe that car manufacturers would have implemented this technology in road cars sooner as the market would have called for it sooner due to exposure in F1.


We now have this introduction of greener technology such as the KERS however there are calls that the system as constituted is not very advanced. Toyota engine chief Luca Marmorini said in an interview with Italian magazine Autosprint, "the adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive. (They are) extremely simplified compared to the system we have on the Toyota Prius road car, or even on the Toyota Supra HV-R that won the 24 Hours of Tokachi. The potential of hybrid engines is immense, but the solution chosen by the FIA restricts itself to recover energy from the rear wheels. The parameters involved should be more. Let's say that, if the Supra that races at Tokachi recovers 70% of the dissipated energy, the system chosen for F1 restricts itself to 20%. This system will end up being the same for everyone too, and in this case we'll refer to it as an accessory, devaluing a great technical issue along the way."


Still, even after these sorts of statements, Toyota is unsure if the KERS will be ready for 2009. The system is experiencing some problems and there are concerns about safety. This past July there have been 2 publicized incidents related to KERS; a factory fire at Red Bull Racing and a BMW Sauber mechanic was electrocuted and knocked to the ground during a test when he touched the car. Again, perhaps if F1 was allowed to continue working on similar systems in the 1990's or had adopted strict fuel limits like in Group C, it would not be a concern.


I certainly applaud and like the continued push, but I am to wonder what could have been. Still, I rather it be late than never.