Site logo

Tracking to the Road Ahead?

FEATURE BY MAX NOBLE
13/10/2016

The other week Nico Rosberg made a statement that autonomous road cars would be the death of racing. While his observation is overly dramatic the slow decline of motor racing to a state of well supported minority sport, mirroring the fall from the every day to the obscure of equine jollity during the twentieth century, is beyond question.

The questions we should be asking ourselves are; how far and how fast will mainstream motor racing descend to (large) minority status, and who will care when it does?

Here I will dwell more on technology transfers between road and track, rather than the social philosophy, which I pondered at length in "Good-bye Horseless Carriage". We are going to examine this aspect as the technology, manufacturers and money will focus where the financial gains and power remain within the sport. It is when the dollars and prestige drain from Formula One that it will truly be in dire straits. The manufacturers will remain as long as they can justify the expense. Exposure, advertising, and halo-effect are all valid reasons, but is technology transfer and relevance to road cars really such a driver for Formula One?

When upgrading a road car to perform above the levels deemed cost effective by the manufacturer there are a few areas each budding Garagista can target.

In the broad we have engine enhancement (in the old days this would be mechanical, these days it is more often software), chassis/suspension upgrades, wheel and tyre upgrades, and induction/exhaust tuning. Each area can provide benefits from the modest and cheap to the extensive and expensive.

First stop, offering great bang for buck, is a wheel and tyre upgrade to enhance handling. The classic path is to up-size the wheels by an inch, and drop the tyre profile accordingly. The logic being, based on sound physics, that reducing the un-sprung mass (wheel, tyre, hub, brake assembly) and reducing the rotational inertia of each wheel will provide handling, accelerating and braking benefits. Further, a tyre upgrade should provide enhanced traction, including improved cornering via an increased lateral-g limit. Often a modest performance increase can be obtained by running the tyres at an increased pressure to that of the "normal load" recommendation of the manufacturer. Always ensuring that one remains within the tyre's safe operating range.

What do we find within F1? We find no adaptive suspension, no suspension adjustments on race day, control tyres, and mandated tyre pressures. So all the aspects a road going enthusiast would apply to tyre and wheel performance are closed to F1. Well no cross-over there then.

Next we have induction treatments. Both turbos and mechanical super-chargers can give an internal combustion engine a significant output boost. Modern ceramic turbo units, and low friction super-chargers, especially under the control of complex engine management software can generate stunning outputs. Coupled with variable induction tuning, power output can be pushed sky-high.

F1 has very strict limits on the induction system, the turbo used, and the software to control it all. Indeed Toyota was disqualified from having won the World Rally Championship some years ago because of tricky induction. At the mandated test temperature the Toyota air intake, on a fine looking Rally prepped Celica GT-four, tested precisely as specified by the FIA. Then under racing conditions the increased temperature in the engine bay would cause the intake to swell and hence allow far more air into the engine. Post-race, temperatures dropped in the engine bay, and as if by magic, the air intake was back within specification. As an engineer I love this solution. At the mandated test times under the mandated test conditions, the intake passed the FIA checks. That it then threw the rule book out the window at racing speed was a stroke of genius from the boffins at Toyota. Love their work. Clearly those cheeky diesel engineers at VW share my view of meeting the rules precisely as written. Now back to F1, boost levels, induction sizes, rev limits... all strictly set by the FIA to make the playing field level (surely this has worked fine, that's why Mercedes is more or less the same speed as a Sauber... total parity there! Well done FIA). So, again no benefit to road-based drivers.

We've fine new rims and tyres on our road car, we've increased the induction capability. Now to upgrade the software controlling it all. Chipping, as it is usually called, is one of the simplest and quickest performance hikes one can buy. Frequently completed in just a few minutes, depending on the car and computer involved, the existing memory can be flashed or a new chip can be piggy backed on an existing memory or controller chip.

Now it must be said most are set so that the original manufacturer cannot detect the upgrade, so that warranties are not voided, so this upgrade can be viewed as a bit cheeky. However, the original manufacturer is tuning an engine to run successfully for many, many miles under a huge variety of loads and conditions, so a modest level of tune that promotes fuel economy and long life is preferred. If one has no intention of towing a mighty sea vessel, or maintaining 140kph across the Simpson Desert with a double-axle caravan attached, then often a chipped performance boost can be taken with no adverse impact on the working life of the engine.

Formula One and the FIA? McLaren technology and Microsoft provide standard engine controllers, with tightly controlled user programmable parameters and data collection points to ensure no one does anything super clever to boost performance, so nothing interesting, clever or useful for the road happening here then... let's move along.

Exhausts! What young petrol head has not listened to an Aston Martin, Ferrari, or other deep breathing beast being floored by a cheeky owner (or thief to be fair) to have waves of wild powerful sound echo endlessly down the canyons of the city? Transfixed our young enthusiast dashes home and immediately starts saving to put stainless steel exhausts the size of the channel tunnel on his Korean wonder-beast and have that delightful sound for himself, if not the speed, power, and artistic majesty of the dream machine.

Now this is a case of Formula One mimicking real life. The dear FIA, bless them, mandated exhaust length, position, bore, etc. to ensure no naughty performance gains. Result? Well first Mercedes spent a King's ransom on other tiny performance gains, but that's a gripe for another day, but the result as predicted by people such as Christian Horner (actually Adrian Newey but he's too polite to say rude things about the FIA), was a dull, quiet, and frankly embarrassing, exhaust note that also had a huge negative impact on ear defender sales around the motor racing world.

Result? Like the teenager seeking the sound, if not the actuality of speed and power for his Korean sportster, the FIA now seeks an exhaust upgrade that sounds good, while doing nothing for performance! Dear me... the Staatliches Bauhaus design school in Germany, so amazingly inventive during the 1920s and early 1930s told the world that form was function. So here we are a century later, and the pinnacle of motor sport is faking it. So sadly, no lessons for the road here.

Finally we come to the most expensive road going upgrades, suspension, chassis, and brakes. Now for all those with a car built around a carbon fibre monocoque with mandated suspension pickup points we can learn much from Formula One. Oh, like me, your car is not built of aerospace grade carbon fibre. Well there goes that bright idea. Brakes!? Ok, here some cross-over is possible. Ceramic brakes and new brake pad materials all benefit from racing to prove the idea, and some of this knowledge filters down to road cars. But anti-lock braking, traction control, stability control, four wheel drive... all banned in Formula One, so no benefits to be gained there.

Suspension? Well the Williams a few years back had a trick adaptive setup that perfectly adjusted the car based on a mass of sensors allowing millimetre perfect adjustment hundreds of times a second. Brilliant! Lexus, range topping GM muscle cars, Ferrari, Jaguar, and a host of others now have electronically adjusted road-going suspensions derived from those early racing systems! Great News! Oh, except they've been banned in Formula One for years now. Back to springs and rubber bump stops for the big boys.

Hybrid energy! Surely we've found a winner here? Well maybe. The Tesla and the Prius, some Porsches, the ever so exciting Nissan Leaf... all have hybrid power, as do a growing number of others, BMW i8 anyone, oh wait, they stopped racing in Formula One years ago. Road and race have crossover here. The issue being the road cars are far more closely linked to FormulaE than they are to Formula One, where the hybrid technology is vastly more complex and expensive than the Tonka-toy insert batteries approach taken by road cars and FormulaE.

Which leaves us with not much really. So why worry about an artifice of relevance to road cars? Do we worry about the relevance of the Olympics to every day walking and sitting? No. We enjoy it for the amazing spectacle and challenge it is. Cheering heroes for achieving feats we can only dream of. We want the excitement, the thrill, the bold risk taking, and the drama of a close fight. We want modern day gladiators, but without all the blood and mess to wash away afterwards.

And that's what we want from Formula One. Driver and machine on the edge of the possible, dancing wildly on the fine line between high speed genius and madness, offering thrills, drama, and passion in equal measure. And make the artfully designed cars beasts of form and function please! Road-going relevance be damned!

If Formula One provides these things, then like the Olympics has zero relevance compared to running for the bus or walking across a cricket pitch, then the rise of autonomous cars poses no more risk to Formula One than paper airplanes do to AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.

Hang the relevance! Give me the heroes and the passion!

Max Noble.

Learn more about Max and check out his previous features, here

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

more features >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images

POST A COMMENT

or Register for a Pitpass ID to have your say

Please note that all posts are reactively moderated and must adhere to the site's posting rules and etiquette.

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

 

1. Posted by Max Noble, 18/10/2016 11:59

"@cricketpo - yes, agree with your sentiment. Also that's a great example with the Brabham. That's the sort of inventive reading of the rules that Colin Chapman lived for!
I think we are all in general agreement that a simplification of the rules, and a reduction in the current highly prescriptive approach, might unleash moments of low budget genius from the smaller teams and once again spice up the order in an unpredictable manner.

...and yes... come back with a great engine Cosworth, all is forgiven!"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by cricketpo, 18/10/2016 0:04

"Whilst I agree with the central premise that Nico Rosberg is essentially wrong about driverless cars and their part in the terminal decline in motor racing I take issue with the idea that it is the rules that are the the blemish that holds F1 back from a glorious future. In all my time watching F1 it is the bumbling rule changes from the FIA and the dastardly way the engineers went about circumventing them that drew me into F1. th and the noise, spectacle and drama There is an F1 equivalent story to the Toyota one you describe Max. In 1982 ish the now defunct Brabham team introduced a car with ground effect in a season where it was banned. At rest the car stood tall enough so a plank could fit underneath it at scrutineering but at speed the aerodynamics of the car forced it onto a the ground effect skirt and hey presto Brabham started winning a lot of races. It was this sort of interpretation of the rules that attracted me to F1 in the first place. Just maybe we have seen the last of those days. We are in the era of making many small changes that create a big improvement.

The problem with this approach though is that the rich teams can afford to have a lot more good ideas. The concept of making for a level playing field is to encourage the involvement of teams that do not have Mercedes/Ferrari budgets. Hence all the rules

For my part the only major change for next year Iwould like to see is a competetive engine supplier that has no team interest "

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by Max Noble, 15/10/2016 2:41

"Whoops for clarity - typo - "ety" should read "safety"!"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by Max Noble, 15/10/2016 2:40

"@Spindoctor and @GrahamG - first my thanks to you both for reading the article and then making detailed comments. It is highly gratifying as a writer when people take the time to critically read a piece and then provide thoughtful feedback.

You both raise great points. We all delight in inventive technology that adds to the sport, and possibly moves the game forward for road cars. I believe we are all frustrated at rules that seem hell-bent on ruining both possibilities while doing little to enhance the racing spectacle or the sporting challenge. I agree a high-technology road car such as the Audi TT has many complex features that make it a far better driver's car. All of which are banned in F1.

The WEC appears to handle technology in a far more logical manner, and even allows for engine equivalents to be drawn between different induction types. I will however point out they banned rotary engines as soon as Mazda used one to win Le Mans. I like to think a simple set of rules, as you both suggest, framed around ety requirements, and then fitting within physical size and weight limits would do far more to foster amazing new technology that high prescriptive rules that stifle all innovation, and force a company as mighty as Mercedes to spend millions and millions on the most minuscule of gains in turning vains and energy recovery systems not used in road cars.

Finally, no im not looking for a return to the "good old days" - history is just fine left where it is. I'm looking for a bright exciting future that's not stifled by needless rules, but rather shaped by engineering brilliance, and a fine machine controlled by a hero on the very edge of their abilities.

As it is I feel Max Verstappen could nearly jump into a lowered Jaguar F-Pace with 400Kg of batteries in the back and still finish on the podium...! Oh wait, we'd need to remove all that trick software first...
"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by GrahamG, 14/10/2016 14:24

"Interesting and useful comments - yes F1 cars are now years behind road cars - even my 15 year old Mk1 TT has more intelligence than a modern F1 car. LMP1 has fostered innovation and novel thinking, both of which are rigorously forbidden in F1, and as for the tyre situation, words fail me. Actually F1 has become a formula for the rule makers, whatever happens, think up a new rule and make the sport even more opaque, everything else is just there to facilitate them.
The current situation just forces teams to spend huge amounts of money to gain a few hundredths, in previous generations (no not a perfect world) a couple of hours hard thinking and some innovation gave much more for much less cash.
Could we go back to a few simple limits - plan area, length, width and energy per race plus a few safety issues and a standard tyre which would (if you wanted) last a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps a minimum amount of time for a pit stop (say 40 seconds) to keep costs under control and avoid a tyre race. I still think F1 should use a derivative of the LMP engine rules which do manage a reasonably level playing field from vastly different technical approaches
"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by Spindoctor, 14/10/2016 12:22

"I sort of agree, but are you suggesting that the pre-hybrid age was somehow "better" simply because the team that won year after year had louder engines, and no pretentions about technology transfer?

I'm a fan of hybrids simply because they are superior power-plants for racing cars. It's not 'technology transfer' per se that encouraged Ferrari, Porsche & McLaren to put hybrids in the hyper-cars, and a safe bet that Mercedes & Aston will do likewise.

As you suggest, the problem isn't with the technology, but with the rules.
Those who made the rules may claim some eco-awareness and\or relevance to Road-going cars, but that's just PR nonsense. Were there any genuine commitment to being 'relevant' or 'green' there wouldn't be those hundreds of paragraphs of nit-picking, tedious, banal bull ordure. As you say, these prevent original thought and innovation: precisely the characteristics which would make F1 both greener and more relevant... Indeed F1 is dull not BECUASE it's green & relevant, but mainly because it isn't!


So we come to the crux.
It would be easy, and no-doubt highly popular, to scrap hybrids and return to (say) 3.5 litre V8's, 10's or 12's. Job done? I rather doubt it. We'd just have a noisier procession, and one without any Manufacturer team cars. I reckon this would lead to a sort of Indy Car Maxx formula: loud 'n proud, but hardly innovative nor technically challenging.

My 'solution' to achieve the kind of 'passion' you aver would be to return to something akin to Formula Libre, but with a few loose constraints.
These might include retaining current chassis safety tests, limiting total fuel (of whatever type) per race, and have some means of controlling over-reliance on aero. Le Mans Prototype Racing works on a similar basis and has engendered numerous responses to the problems posed. Naturally the current tyre stupidity would be abolished in favour of using something that works properly.

It might spice things up significantly if much of the current telemetry were binned too: let drivers use their senses, not sensors to determine the fastest line etc....

Oh, and finally of course let's have some in-season testing, so that drivers can contribute more to the success of the cars than simply pointing-out how the CFD simulations weren't right!"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by Max Noble, 14/10/2016 7:02

"@NS Biker - Many thanks for the positive feedback! Hope you enjoy the rest of the site and that we all have an exciting end to the season! ...and then the adventure of 2017..."

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by NS Biker, 14/10/2016 5:51

"Soooo nice to read something form a "Max" that isn't Mad.
Right on the mark and you have no idea how much this fans a glimmer of hope for beneficial change.

Thanks Max
You made my day.
"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by Max Noble, 14/10/2016 3:29

"@Natcheztoo - Quite agree. I can save the planet by sensible personal choices, - recycling, driving green, using sustainable food supplies. Twenty cars driving flat out on a Sunday are a drop in the ocean... so let's go racing!"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

10. Posted by Natcheztoo, 14/10/2016 2:38

"From the article:

"If Formula One provides these things, then like the Olympics has zero relevance compared to running for the bus or walking across a cricket pitch, then the rise of autonomous cars poses no more risk to Formula One than paper airplanes do to AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.
Hang the relevance! Give me the heroes and the passion!"

This states the problem and solution much more eloquently than I. But, I insist: What fans want is: huge horsepower, brutal sound, high revs, without the EuroGreen nonsense about making F1 relevant for road going cars. Who gives a shit how much fuel is used or how many tires are burned off? In short, the fans want and demand (only to fall on deaf ears) the loudest, fastest racing on the planet."

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Share this page

X

Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2024. All rights reserved.

about us  |  advertise  |  contact  |  privacy & security  |  rss  |  terms