Bob Barnard Track Engineering

A few examples of splits showed up during the Bahrain GP, some between people, some mechanical and some track related.

Mark Hughes had a great piece on Sky Sport about how Mercedes have managed to build a car/engine combination so much better than everyone else. They have split the Turbo. No it does not leak. The turbo consists of a turbine driven by the exhaust gas and a compressor that raises the pressure of the air entering the engine. Traditionally these are in one unit, one body, so the heat from the exhaust impacts the air in the compressor. This has to be cooled before it enters the engine to maximise the density, so there is an "intercooler" like a radiator mounted in a side pod, adding to the drag. The team suggested to the engine guys at Mercedes that if they were split, one on each end of the engine, then that problem would be lessened. So that's what they did, with a shaft through the block to drive the compressor. Intercooler size goes down, and the size of the unit on the back of the engine reduced so the engine cover can be tighter. The battery and gearbox also run cooler, etc. etc. Very, very clever. One of those "what if" someone asks that makes the light bulb go on.

As Mercedes designed the car around this concept they could maximise the benefits, but the other customer cars did not have time to, so they still have a benefit, but not maximised. The real hit for the non-Mercedes cars is that they cannot copy it, the engines are "frozen." Nice one. And thank you Mark for another great piece of journalism. This is Formula One, not just a bunch of noisy cars.

The other split is between Adrian Newey and Joe Saward, both angry men. Adrian hates the current rules. Would he still hate them if he were winning? He says yes, but we can only wonder. He said "It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every lap." Well anyone watching the TV can see the drivers are performing to their limit, much more than we have seen for years. The cars are no longer on rails, glued to the track by Newey's aerodynamics. Just what Ferrari wanted, but now they have it and their engine is not good enough they want to change it too. Adrian should have watched his driver Sebestian over-performing at Turn 2 in the 3rd practice.

He goes on to say "The cars are going a lot slower and that should be factored in when we talk about the whole. OK, they are using 50 kilos less fuel, but they are going a lot slower to achieve that." Really, what timing screen is he watching? His own cars obviously. Pole time this year is less than a second slower than last, with harder tires and 50 kg more weight in the car. Top speeds are higher. Monza is predicted to be 360 km/hr! Over 225 mph. Slower? This is not an economy run, the cars are being driven to their limit over the same race distance at similar speeds with 33% less fuel due the design of the car, not by the drivers driving slower. As I said after Australia, imagine if this translates to road cars?

Joe Saward is also angry about the Ferrari's and Red Bulls of this world whining about the rules. As I said yesterday, how does he keep his press pass?

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/top-of-the-flops/

The additional set of tires for Q3 has certainly helped at keeping all the cars on track for the Q2 & 3 sessions, but we now have the teams not running in practice sessions. Mercedes did very few laps any session, did not need to, but Williams were concerned at putting too much heat stress in the power unit and sat out most of the time. The fact that the teams tested here for two weeks recently undoubtedly played a part. They knew the set up so saved the car. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next races. Teams are already using up components at a fast rate, so we will see grid penalties later in the season.

Now for the track split. In the barrier there are regular openings to allow emergency access and to allow cars to be pulled back off the track. They are called "regulation gaps" as there are regulations as to how they are installed. The lead edge is supposed to stay in line, with the trailing edge curving into line behind. This is the main straight at Bahrain.  

Not a great photo but you can enlarge. The leading edge turns in towards the track. I can't imagine why I have never noticed this, but if you hit that end then it will not only hurt but it will throw the car back on the track. Not a good idea. So how does Tilke design this, and worse, how do the FIA approve it?

In a similar vein the curb at Turn 4 was altered to install a "sausage" raised section behind the existing. This is the orange piece we see at lots of tracks now, but at the apex on slow corners, not a fast exit where it can be struck end on. So if you watched practice yesterday you would have seen a Lotus do just that and launch itself. They removed the "sausage" last night, but who approved it in the first place?

In this month’s Motor Sport Mark Hughes provides a view on what should change with the current F1. It occurred to me that with the asking price for the current F1 being around $10bn, when CVC decide to sell, it would be much cheaper just to start your own. What would it cost? $2bn?

Here in the US it is a time honored tradition that if you do not like something you start your own. Banks, churches, and yes even IRL. So, with John Malone reportedly interested in buying F1 I thought why can’t he just start his own? He has the money and the media, so what else would he need?

FIA Approval: If you are going to run an International Series you need FIA approval, but that is not hard to get. Look at Formula E just starting up. The FIA don’t really care as long as they get a cut and some say in the running. You could not use Formula One of course, but so what. With a good promotional plan you can sell anything.

Tracks: Thanks to Bernie and CVC there are loads of tracks that can no longer afford F1. The real fans would love to see a series that goes back to some, and races on real tracks not “Tilkedromes.” You could go back to my first track in Adelaide. It is still used and a reasonable fee would have kept the F1 there, so price it right and there you go. Same with France, who started this, Indy in the US or a street race, India now has a track available, as does Turkey. Imola in Italy, any of the Spanish tracks, they are all FIA Level 1, and maybe even Valencia would like it at the right price. Japan has Fuji and China Zuhai. We would need a South American leg, and we are starting to get a decent calendar. In England the Circuit of Wales is being built to Level 1 standard, but does not want F1. And I am sure some of the existing tracks would come over at the end of their Bernie contract.

Drivers: As with circuits there are a lot of very good drivers who cannot make it to F1 because of the existing business model and some who made it and could not stay. Paul Di Resta and Nick Heidfeld for just two, and I bet for every Kevin Magnussen there are ten guys who could not afford to pay for drives to get there. We need to find them early and provide a path based on talent. A sort of Red Bull scheme but managed by the series. Who knows, we might even have an American driver succeeding.

Cars: There are very good designers currently not in F1 that could provide a specification for the car. Gordon Murray and Gary Anderson for two. They still need to be a high tech vehicle, and certainly not a spec series, but more open to get back to the Can-Am and early F1 rule books that allowed ingenuity to be rewarded. Costs are always a factor, but with money staying in the series and being shared equitably then the teams would have the money they need.

Teams: As with all of this there are would-be F1 teams who just know they could not survive. Just look at how HRT, Caterham and Murussia have struggled. There should be some basis for rewarding success, but Bernie’s formula is a recipe to fail for any new team. Do you think Gene Haas would rather invest in a more equitable series? There are plenty of very good teams in GP2, GP3, European F3 and FR3.5 who could step up with the right balance of reward to investment.

TV: There are no shortage of specialist sports and motorsport TV channels to provide world wide coverage. With more reasonable fees I am sure with John Malone’s connections he could arrange for the series to develop a following.

So, a word used here a lot is equitable. There are business models that share the wealth. NASCAR does a good job, and so do the NFL and MLB. Yes the investor needs a return, but so do the other investors who built tracks, cars and careers. The current business model of F1 is fatally flawed, so who would risk $10bn to buy it? Bernie is talking about retiring so who do we get then, a suit? We need a series promoter who actually does reinvest in the promotion of the sport year round to support the individual track promoters, build a renewable base of stars, and listen to their fan base, not their pockets.  

Joe Saward, an F1 journalist I have followed assiduously for many years, has a post on today's blog about an ethical challenge facing the FIA. Now I presumed he was talking of Sochi, about which there is still no comment from anyone. But no, he is talking about Bahrain.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/

So it has taken two years for someone to actually raise the F1 race in Bahrain with the FIA as an ethical issue. Now as bad as the situation is there, they have not invaded their next door neighbor. I personally find it disturbing that Joe has not even mentioned the issue, but there again who has among the media, FIA and FOM. Are Gary Hartstien and I the only ones to care. I suppose they all think this will blow over by the time the Sochi race comes around. I would not bet on it. Putin will want East Ukraine soon to protect the Russians there. And then what, the Baltic States?

The purported sale of the Nurburgring raises more questions than it has answered. What was actually sold, and to who? In anybody's money the price paid of around 80m Euros seems very cheap for an F1 racetrack, but I suppose it does not matter how cheap it is if it only loses money. So why buy it?

That was the title of a piece on the ESPN blog about Bahrain a year or so ago, and we are hearing the same about Sochi. Has the FIA or FOM nothing to say? Not even "this is sport and not politics," as lame as that is? Ask Putin if the Olympics or F1 are about sport.

So India is not going to be on the 2015 calendar, what a surprise. They fell for that one. Now what are they going to do with that white elephant of a racetrack? The fate of Turkey, Valencia and Korea in recent times does not stop would be promoters it seems, with Azerbaijan getting a race according to Bernie. What with Long Beach still trying to decide, and a raft of others waiting in the wings there are plenty of people and countries who think they are smarter than Bernie and all the other F1 race promoters.

To assist those people I have recently connected with a group called Meet The Crowd, MTC, who specialise in strategies for would be and existing race promoters, and economic impact assessment, to assist with analysing whether to bid for an event or to renegotiate an existing contract. Our combined experience of organizing and promoting such events is now available. Check out their web site:

http://www.meetthecrowd.com/

In two wheeled matters it seems that Dorna is making up the rules as it goes along. Not a good basis for keeping teams in a sport. As soon as Ducati decided to do what Dorna wants and go to the open class they make up a new class for "works" teams in the open category, a class of one so far. Nice one. I bet Ducati are well pleased with that. Dorna has managed to upset both Ducati and the rest of the open teams, and is annoying Honda about them using the common ECU. If they keep this up they will be as popular as the FIM was in the early 90's.

With the raft of ideas coming out of the FIA lately you would think someone has been at the cool-aid. Or maybe Bernie thinks if he makes it more like NASCAR the Americans will understand and like F1. Driver's permanent numbers, compulsory pit stops, what next, yellows for debris?

Bernie has spent a long time making F1 about teams and not drivers. In his words, "drivers are like busses, another one will be along soon." He has built the teams into valuable franchises with permanent numbers except for the current driver's championship. Now he wants to change all that and give drivers permanent numbers, as if we can read the car number anyway. Good for merchandise I guess, except under the current system they get to change numbers so we all need to buy new stuff don't we? 

Then there are compulsory pit stops. Either you want to spice up the racing with short life tires and different strategies or you don't. If you don't then just make tires last the whole race, or more, like the engines and gearboxes and really start getting serious about being green.

Let's not forget double points for the last race. How about a "Chase" where the points get reset so Vettel has to start even for the last four races. Oh yes, NASCAR thought this was a great idea. How to piss off fans without really trying.

This all smacks of that old trick of floating a lot of stupid ideas wherein is the one you really want so you trade those you don't want and seem like a good guy. What is it Bernie or the FIA want? How about a real budget cap? Good luck making that work. How about giving more money to the people who make the show, the teams, so they do not need pay drivers and make it a bit more equitable. Yes the best teams should be rewarded, but the teams at the back are never going to make it if starved of cash. I am not suggesting an NFL style inverse system where the worst team gets the best players. You would see teams trying to lose to get more money, but there should be a more reasonable basis than now. I for one can't wait to be shot of CVC, and not just for another robber baron.