A friend of mine was a transmission/gearbox designer for F1 cars. It was fascinating to hear about the things going on behind the scenes.
Most teams have components built by a handful of specialized external engineering companies. Some things are dealt with internally, but the lower order teams don't have the budgets to deal with much of the technology in-house. Ferrari is the exception and they do almost everything themselves (this might have changed because this was nearly 10 years ago).
The lower order teams get called "pit dodgers" (behind their backs). External companies know that statistically these teams don't finish so many races, and the attention to detail in the design and finish for these teams is much less than those premium teams receive.
It is sadly a vicious circle. Statistically, they will have worse drivers, who are more likely to crash or damage the cars early in the race, so often the cars in the lower order teams don't have the required staying power for the entire race.
I found it interesting to know that F1 cars have reverse gear, simply in accordance with regulations. It doesn't always work that well however, and I believe on one occasion its inclusion was overlooked.
>>The lower order teams get called "pit dodgers" (behind their backs). External companies know that statistically these teams don't finish so many races, and the attention to detail in the design and finish for these teams is much less than those premium teams receive.
==
Not true. I have worked for several lower rug F1 teams (purely by chance - I live in Oxfordshire and I am not interested in relocating to Marnello). Suppliers love lower order teams - and its because they punch above their weight. Take for example the Saubers - low budget (~USD80 million?), high skill engineers. Also, suppliers provide standard components - they do not affect the race outcome - they are standardized - take for example CF brakes. An F1 race outcome depends on car balance w.r.t aero maps. Nothing more.
>>It is sadly a vicious circle. Statistically, they will have worse drivers, who are more likely to crash or damage the cars early in the race, so often the cars in the lower order teams don't have the required staying power for the entire race.
==
Not true. Statistically, all the best drivers have come from lower order teams. Hamilton is probably the only exception. Just look at history.
As I pointed out, this was a while back. Things might well have changed in the business these days. The lower order teams were "perceived" as being less likely to consistently finish, may have been a better way to have expressed my earlier comment. I don't think that all components are standardized. e.g. gearboxes? Again, I don't have any contact to the business anymore so I have no idea what it is like today.
I've seen reverse gear used on several cars this year to get a car back on track after going off. I think the FIA must be testing for this operation (otherwise the teams would find some way to work around the regulations)
Actually in this year it is the middle tier of teams that have been responsible for most of the race-affecting accidents. In particular Maldonardo (Williams) and Grosjean (Lotus).
I've found the bottom tier of teams to mostly be harmless. Usually they don't end up finishing races but are a great breeding ground for upcoming talent.
If you ever have a chance to go to an F1 race, do it. You might have a terrible view of the race, but it is the greatest sound you will ever hear. It's like the sky is getting ripped apart by a million banshees.
Very true. I was able to attend the inaugural F1 event in Austin last weekend and it was a great experience. Although not the same as in person here's a video to give you an idea: http://f.cl.ly/items/2e3T093G2Z1N3A3Z1m1n/F1.MOV
I have not been able to visit an F1 race, but for another wonderful sound (that you feel more than hear) a Top Fuel drag race is right up there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel
Apologies for those of you living outside of the United States, I'm not sure how widespread this form of racing is.
I got a free ticket to one of these races and woah... it was unreal. My favorite part was how awful the engines sound while they're lining up to start. They sputter and generally sound like crap until a crew member hits a switch. The engines suddenly settle into some sort of perfectly tuned resonance until the lights turn green and they simply explode down the track.
In the UK we have Santa Pod which runs Top Fuel drag races. Its definitely an experience. I have been to a few F1 races and the top fuel dragsters are noisier.
It's probably hard to believe, but the V10s sounded even better than the V8s. Even louder, higher pitch at higher revs, and traction control out of the corners sounded like a fully automatic shotgun.
Yeah, I hear they are trying to change the engines to a 4-cylinder these days too. That would be really unfortunate, and would probably sound awful.
I went to the Indy 500 this year, I heard in years past their noise rivals F1. But this year they downsized their engines, and the cars there were not impressive/loud. It would have been downright disappointing if I wouldn't have been so.."well hydrated" with beer. I really hope that doesn't happen to F1
I've been reading this blog for over a year now and the detail and knowledge Craig has is incredible. Understanding the technical characteristics of the cars has really deepened my love for the sport.
On a side note, I saw on Twitter this weekend that Craig/ScarbsF1 has been ill recently. He's actually due to go for a tripple heart bypass tomorrow, so I'd like to wish him well and hope he makes a speedy recovery.
Why would you do this to me? I'm supposed to be working!
I'm fascinated by F1 because of the technology in the cars. The driving is astounding, but for the technically minded, Formula One cars marvelous.
I'm already excited for the race coming up in Brazil. Now I need to forget that this site exists or I will lose all productivity in these precious few days surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday. (Bogus holiday BTW, but at least I get to chill with my family).
One of the big draws for me in F1 is the technology. Each team is, more or less, producing a prototype car each year, and developing it throughout the season. Over the course of 8 months the cars get ~ 1 - 2 seconds a lap faster.
There are some mandated "common" parts, such as the McLaren ECU, but so many parts of the car are custom designed and manufactured it really does boggle the mind.
As cool as the technology in F1 is, I wonder what might be created if there weren't such labyrinthine rules imposed on them.
I think a league like Can-Am, with only a budget cap, would be fascinating. Would we be seeing three-wheel drive cars? Supercapacitor-driven electrics? Something entirely different?
(For those who don't know, many innovations came out of the league [1], especially from the Chapparal constructor. McLaren was another notable.)
the developers of Grand Turismo, the video game, asked famed F1 designer Adrian Newey[0] to design the ultimate race car for their game. The question was:
> "If you built the fastest racing car on land, one that throws aside all rules and regulations, what would that car look like, how would it perform, and how would it feel to drive?"
Just wanted to say that this isn't just any F1 technical blog, Scarbs is -the- best technical blogger and has uncovered and written about several innovations before any other source. He's a technical sleuth, who delivers great articles.
He was the last driver to die in an F1 crash. Unfortunately not the last person, but I think the road-side crews haven't seen a fatality in years.
My interest in F1 stopped a few years ago when they downgraded the engines and made things all weird for a while. I hear it's getting back to awesome nowadays.
It was partly due to the weird changes they started making 5-7 years ago that the sport is so good now. For the last few years the championships have been fought down to the last race or two, not to mention that we have 6 world champions on the grid. I don't feel strategy plays as important a role now as it did but they have certainly made it more entertaining to people with less knowledge of the sport.
Ending refueling during the race did a lot reducing the time required and therefore positions lost when you come in - so _some_ changes are good, though I agree most don't move the needle at all. This season is great - coming down to the last race to see who comes out on top between Vettel & Alonso...even if only mathematically, I couldn't really ask for too much more.
A few years ago they were discussing making qualy 3 short "sprint" races where the fastest of the pack start at the back of the next sprint - now that would be cool.
Edit: Forgot to mention how much I love seeing anything F1 related on HN.
2014 regulations introduce even more downgraded engines. New ones will be 1.6 litre V6 turbo (now it is 2.4, V8, but not turbo), revs will be limited to 15k rpm (now 18k).
I have read that the engines will probably rev to around 12.5k in 2014. Although they will be allowed to rev higher, fuel flow rates will be regulated to a maximum of ~ 100KG/hour. Keeping the revs lower will also decrease the friction which will allow for higher output per KG of fuel. Previously they optimized for max output / CC of engine displacement.
The turbo engines will also have a motor/turbine on the turbo, allowing them to charge the battery from the turbo shaft. They will be able to use the battery power to directly drive the wheels, or spin up the turbo more quickly to the 100k rpm max speed of the turbo.
There is also a plan in 2014 regulations that cars can only use electric engine when in pits. However, this can be delayed because teams are reluctant to it. Besides electric only engine is quiet so it could lead to some accidents in pit-lane.
That's a risk you take with racing. It's taken a while but they've put a lot of safeguards in place. Over the years I've seen things which should have seriously injured drivers but they managed to walk away. Probably the worst thing I saw was when Felipe Massa got hit in the head with a suspension spring in 2009 during a race.
Knowing how heavy those springs are and how fast those guys travel, that was one of the most painful things to see. I'm blown away he survived without any kind of serious disability and continues to race.
What I don't get is why the F1 officials haven't learned more out of that tragic accident. Sure the cars are much safer than they were when Senna died, but why do they have to at more and more races in city centers? Sure, I can understand that they want to keep Monaco for historic reason, but there isn't a good reason to have races in the city centers of Valencia, Singapore, and soon New Jersey.
Driving that close to walls at the speeds they do, will sooner or later lead to another tragic accident.
Its tradition and a feeling of invulnerability until something really bad happens. Sometimes even after the fall things aren't done. IndyCar was working on a safer car before Las Vegas 2011, but I am not sure they have got the total message themselves or really in a financial position to change what they need changed.
NASCAR changed everything after their tragedy and hasn't had a driver death since. The next car after the COT is safe yet and all the tracks have safer barriers. I get the feeling that the restrictor plate racing is going to be the next big set of changes (funny, given that the plate was to keep the speeds down to make those tracks safe).
Street tracks has to conform to the same strict rules as the regular ones. That's why they usually have much smaller average speeds, so things like huge run-off areas are not needed. Take a look at your video again: only in one place the car reaches 300km/h. Crashes on street tracks happen quite often (less room for errors), yet I can't recall any serious one. Ok, Kubica's shunt in Montreal looked scary - but Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is a semi-street and unusually fast track. The new ones are fine (safety-wise), really. Open cockpits and loose wheels are the big issues for now - both being currently worked on.
If you are interested in how the construction of F1 car is an equilibrium between technological advances and hard limits set by the FIA just go through the "Technical Regulations" section on the right hand side at http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/tech..., "approved by the FIA" is a very common phrase.
Software-related excerpt from "Electrical systems":
"The electrical and software systems of all cars are inspected by the FIA at the start of the season and the teams must notify them in advance of any subsequent changes. All teams must use the same FIA-specification Electronic Control Unit (ECU) for controlling engine and gearbox.
All software must be registered with the FIA, who check all the programmable systems on the cars prior to each event to ensure that the correct software versions are being used. Electronic systems which can automatically detect the race start signal are forbidden."
"notify them in advance of any subsequent changes", right...
The best site for F1 technical fan. A great reference for most of updates to a car component neatly explained with illustrations and diagrams.I am Fan of F1 for some years now and what amazes me is the speed and sound of F1 and the different race strategies. Really its the pinnacle of Motorsport
It also be great to have such an exhaustive peek inside the workings of the drivers head !!
After-all the driver is maybe the most important part of the race !
On the other hand, will there be driver-less F1 races in the future ? ... or more aptly put, WHEN will there be driver-less F1 races ?!
If not done right, it will not make enough downforce to corner properly. The cars are designed to have no air underneath them, so as to create a vacuum to the track. If air does get underneath them, the car becomes (briefly) an airplane...
edit: A lot of the regulations are also based around making the cars somewhat slower(safer), so they dis-allow massive wings so you can't fly around corners at 200per... And then everyone trys to take advantage at any cost, so they bend the rules to the limit. To the point where it could almost be seen as cheating.
There are some really crazy stories around bending the rules. Or pushing human technologies to the limit to achieve the smallest advantages.
Here is one of my favorites:
I read a really interesting print article a few years ago about one of the big F-1 teams (McLaren?) creating the first carbon fiber transmission housing. This was a HUGE deal at the time because in F-1, the transmissions are structural component of the cars. They bear huge stresses for extended periods of time.
The team spent a couple years and tens of millions of dollars reinventing the way carbon fiber is manufactured. It was all very hush, hush. In the article itself, the picture of the transmission was taken from about 20 feet away, because that's as close as the team would let anyone from the magazine get to it. It looked like the made the camera man stand across the shop from the thing and take his pic with a portrait lens.
The big take away at the end of the article was that they saved 50 lbs or so off the weight of the transmission... but the car was already under weight regulations. So they were adding 50lbs to the lead plate that was already on the bottom of the car so it makes weight. The net benefit of all the money and time spent on the CF transmission was to lower the center of gravity of the car 3/4 of an inch and that was considered a huge advantage until the other teams do likewise.
A carbon fiber transmission, properly constructed would allow for tighter aerodynamic packaging. Adrian Newey (the current Red Bull designer) is famous for making cars fragile and very aerodynamic. Sometimes his tight packaging causes his cars to overheat.
As far as I know they not only lower the center of gravity with the ballast but they also can put the weight where they want it to be and move the center of gravity to achieve a better weight distribution. So the effect on handling is more than just lowering the center of gravity but your point still stands :-)
A big reason things like side skirts and vacuum cars were banned was that those technologies were very good at making downforce, until you hit a bump or curb big enough to break the "seal" between the car and ground. Then most of your downforce went away in an instant. Not a very safe thing.
Yes most of the regulation changes in the last 20 years have been focused on taking away downforce b/c without constraints the engineers could design cars that would corner with such force the drivers would be on the verge of blacking out.
The other focus is to try and make passing easier. When you depend on downforce for grip and you get right behind another car, in their air wake, your downforce goes down b/c not as much air is going over the wings. Your grip goes down and you can't pass that car.
I don't know it this is what you need to know, but:
As far as the front wing is concerned:
- the bigger, the more complicated means more downforce thus enabling drivers to go faster in a corner but such wing leads to more dangerous situations, such as puncturing oponent's tires.
The bigger wings were introduced in 2009 when many parts of the cars were streamlined in order to improve overtaking and reduce dependency on aerodynamics.
The rear wing:
- DRS was introduced 2 years ago. It stands for Drag Reduction System - driver can "open" rear wing to reduce drag (downforce is reduced). Basically means that rear wing is split horizontally into two smaller wings. This system improves top speed so it can be only used on straight lines. The failure of this system can lead to lost of control of the car in non-straight parts of the circuit.
The usage of this system is heavily reduced by regulations.
A brief aside into the history of aerodynamic advances in auto racing....Chaparral Cars were some of the first race cars to be designed with a focus on the aerodynamic forces at play. While primarily competing in Can-Am instead of F1, they introduced cars with movable aerodynamic surfaces (Chaparrel 2E) and even a partial vacuum (Chaparrel 2J) to increase downforce.
If the wing breaks mid corner in a high speed section the results could be spectacular as it would result in a sudden, unexpected and uneven (front/back) loss of grip.
If a front wing comes off it can wedge under the car lifting the front wheels off the ground removing most of the braking effect. Near the end of the straight this could mean 200mph towards the scenary.
Generally there are limits imposed so the cornering speeds don't get too high.
I don't remember and F1 story getting so popular on HN, the Austin GP has helped :) I think the sport is fascinating because it really is a battle of geek engineers and drivers. The most successful geek around today is this guy:
Normally the champagne can get stuck in your eyes.
These guys and the huge teams behind them battle off track with each other and with the regulations, and the strategists and races battle on track. The off track battles make these cars safe in accidents at 300 km/h (186 mph),
Robert Kubica was unconscious after the crash and he missed a race but Mark Webber hit the barrier at 280 km/h (174 mph) and walked away from it. As some other readers have mentioned, there has not been a driver death in F1 since 1994.
A typical trade off we might think about in software is this:
In F1 the trade offs when writing the regulations are between safety, cost reductions and entertainment.
And yet the two aspects that make the cars go slower (safety and cost reductions) are exploited to the maximum. No matter if wings are taken off the car to reduce downforce, or traction control is banned to reduce speed into and out of corners, or if fans are declared illegal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rZKlutlzE), the cars each year go just as fast as the year before.
For example in 2009 this little trick from Brawn GP caught most teams off guard and won them the championship:
Interesting story: the development of this car had been carried out by three teams separated from each other so that they each understood and explored the regulations differently.
Kubica's accident at Montreal was very scary. I saw it unfold befor emy eyes and managed to snap a bunch of photos. Your post reminded me of this and inspired me to write a Thanksgiving/Racing Safety blog post:
http://blog.octanenation.com/news/an-automotive-thanksgiving...
Most teams have components built by a handful of specialized external engineering companies. Some things are dealt with internally, but the lower order teams don't have the budgets to deal with much of the technology in-house. Ferrari is the exception and they do almost everything themselves (this might have changed because this was nearly 10 years ago).
The lower order teams get called "pit dodgers" (behind their backs). External companies know that statistically these teams don't finish so many races, and the attention to detail in the design and finish for these teams is much less than those premium teams receive.
It is sadly a vicious circle. Statistically, they will have worse drivers, who are more likely to crash or damage the cars early in the race, so often the cars in the lower order teams don't have the required staying power for the entire race.
I found it interesting to know that F1 cars have reverse gear, simply in accordance with regulations. It doesn't always work that well however, and I believe on one occasion its inclusion was overlooked.