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?

This is getting very boring, news is hard to come by obviously. Helmut Marko says Hamilton is a "topic" of interest to Red Bull, presumably once they think they have got all they are going to get out of Webber. Eyebrows are raised over at NASCAR about Raikkonen's choice of financial partner for his Truck racing debut, one of the Gillette family of Richard Petty Motorsport and Liverpool Soccer Club "fame." The Gillett's still owe some money around the paddock, so is it payback time on track when Kimi hits it in May?

Charlie Whiting says the Red Bull front wing is still legal, even though it drags on the ground at speed. Damn clever these F1 engineers. What is interesting is that elsewhere in life these ideas are patented and no one else gets to use them for a long time. In F1 if you can work out how to copy it, then good luck. Adrian Newey is bemoaning this fact as he now fears McLaren is going to beat them with their own version of the Red Bull exhaust.Timo Glock is finally worried about the Virgin car not being good enough. Where have you been Timo, you've driven that dog for a year?

MotoGP will kick off in Jerez tomorrow as will the first round of the European LMS at Paul Ricard, minus the big boys.

Thank you for asking but my allergies are subsiding after a visit to the Doctor. In the middle of an amazing exercise to assemble a team of experts in every field involved in the design, construction, and operation of a motorsport facility. Just wait till you see who is going to be available from one source!

It is still the "silly season" it seems, with a Spanish web site sending false messages about Santander buying in to HRT. So not to be left out I will pass on a bit of fun I read in Nigel Roebuck's piece in this month's Motor Sport about a pilot coming in to land at Gatwick and announcing to the passengers "Welcome to Gatwick, the only building site with its own airport." That struck a chord with me, it seems every airport in the world, at least the ones I go through, are building something. You hear about problems for airlines making money, but the amount of travel must keep going up to warrant all this building.

Seems like no one is happy about what is happening to the Nurburgring, and nor should they be. A friend, Allen Petrich, asked the question about how the current drivers would fair on it against the likes of Nuvolari and Fangio, especially if they had to drive those old cars. He suggests building a new Auto Union and letting the youngsters try to match the times the old guys set, but it occurred to me that some bright programmer must be able to simulate a race between these guys. There is always going to be talk about who was really "the best" which is usually defined by whoever is doing the talking, and it makes for good discussion and often argument, so maybe we do not really want to find out?

In other bits and pieces Adrian Newey says the RB7 will be an evolution not a revolution, but Red Bull might build its' own engine one day. Don't know why you would want to do that with the new regs being sold as the way to bring the likes of VW and the Japanese companies in. Ferrari is really the only chassis/engine manufacturer that has succeeded on a consistent basis, but perhaps Mercedes will change that, and what of McLaren? BMW, Honda, Toyota and Renault tried it, with Renault the only modern success story, but even they really did not build the chassis.

HRT's engineer says KERS is an inefficient system and is only being used in F1 for the manufacturers to sell it on their road cars. If it is inefficient on F1 cars why is it not the same on road cars? The Williams flywheel system seems efficient enough for Porsche, so perhaps he is just talking of the electrical systems. I am all for using the energy out of the current engines as efficiently as possible and think we are still scratching the surface. Gordon Murray's town car just did London to Brighton on less than a gallon, which must be getting close to 100 mpg, and not an electrical cord in sight. But if we are going to all the trouble and cost of developing these systems and putting them in a race car why are we limiting the amount they can store and when they can use it? It just seems another "push to pass" deal, why not just use the energy as efficiently as you can whenever you want? That rewards the best engineering, which is what most of us want to see, until the FIA ban it.

Talking of HRT they are going to use the 2010 car for the first test so they can try out drivers. Yeh right.

Niki Lauda wants Sutil and Hulkenburg at Force India. Well I suggest he buys Force India, then he can have who he wants, until then who cares and why do we keep reporting what Niki wants? It's like Mosley, just fade away.