Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Bernie has just worked out what Renault engineers said two weeks ago and anyone with a mechanical bent knew anyway. When you have turbocharged engines it is hard to nigh impossible to increase the noise level. Noise is generated by the exhaust gas pushing the air which eventually beats against your ear drum. Turbos use that energy. That is why most earthmoving equipment do not require a muffler. The whole point of this formula is to use the waste energy, so what are we going to do? Waste some of what we just saved to give the whiners more noise? I guess we would not be able to hear them whine.

Bernie is also muddying the waters as usual, suggesting he could set up a "new" FI with GP2 cars, but call them GP1. Gets more noise, more teams and it would be cheaper. But hang on, didn't he just block a cost cap for the real F1? 

Teams stayed on in Bahrain to test some more, but information seems lost in transmission.

Watched the delayed NASCAR race from Texas yesterday. The end was good as usual, even if contrived by a yellow 3 laps from the flag. Kurt Bush had a close shave with the wall but did not touch it, and had a tire come apart on the apron. Enough for the guys at NASCAR, or did they lean on the button again? Bush spin earlier without hitting anything and continued and they threw the yellow then too. Lugano was not to be denied though and deservedly won from Gordon. We saw a lot of yellow, with the race starting under yellow for 12 laps as the track was still "damp." Rain tires anyone? I can understand them not running in the rain, the spray would be terrible, but a bit damp is no big deal.

Wet grass is another thing though as we saw with Junior's excursion. Tore his car up and Johnson's who was close behind. Jr. caught fire and thankfully got out OK as we saw an IMSA style chinese fire drill. While the boys on the fire truck were working out how to turn the hose on a marshal leant over the wall with a normal extinguisher and put it out. Not good enough.  We then had to have the "competition caution" of course as the track was "green" and the teams would not have known how to set the car up. It has rained every day from what I saw so what was different?

Missed the anniversary of Jim Clark's death yesterday. One of those "where were you when" moments. I was at Brands Hatch, where Clark was supposed to be, not racing an F2 race at Hockenheim. An incredible talent, and a humble gentlemen, not like our current World Champion. No one finger salute after races for Jim.   

Many spectators and not a few drivers equate noise with power. When asked to put on a muffler competitors complain it will cost them horse power, even though my mate Tony Dowe tells me they put mufflers on one of the Jaguars and it increased power. This is totally possible if you ask the top muffler specialists.

Anyway, when I grew up F1 cars ran around with about 200hp, and were loud. Jack Brabham suffered from a common complaint called "Coventry Climax Ear," i.e deaf on the side the single exhaust came out. Now Helmut Marko is suggesting Mercedes have around 900hp, and people are saying they are too quiet. Have they not been to a WEC race lately and heard, or not heard in this case, the Turbo Diesel Audis. Despite the whispering whistle they are mightily impressive. Yes we like race cars to sound "sexy" as the Oz GP guys are saying, but that does not mean we all have to go deaf. I drive an Infinit G35 as much for the exhaust note as anything. Like organ music, sweet, but not intrusive.

So Melbourne are saying the new cars breach the contract to stage the race. I doubt there is a clause that says that they have to have a certain noise level, or degree of sexiness. Try writing a spec for that, worse than fuel flow. Is this just a negotiating ploy to reduce fees, or get out of a major loss for the Government altogether? Or is it Bernie's mate Ron Walker just stirring it up for his old mate.

Talking of fuel flow, a lot more has come out since I wrote yesterday. Red Bull are being pinged because they did not follow FIA instructions as the other teams apparently did. There are some questions about how accurate the sensors are, so the FIA said whatever you are seeing, do as we tell you. Red Bull may have been trying to prove a point, but it just cost them 20. This could go on for a while with the appeal, but this is not about whether they exceeded the flow rate but about not following FIA directions as stated in the regulation.

It was a busy weekend for us in the US what with F1, Sebring and NASCAR. NASCAR was in Bristol, a 100,000 + seat half mile bull ring that you used to have to wait for someone to die to get a seat. Not yesterday. It was a sparse crowd last year, but Sunday there were a few thousand brave souls. It rained, and it was forecast to rain, so the "commentators" suggested most of the crowd were waiting to see if it would start. Really? These are the same folks who sat in a thunder storm and tornado warning at Daytona for six hours? Well when we did start they did not rush in, and those that stayed until nearly 10 o'clock must think twice about doing it again as the race went under caution with two 15 second laps to go. Unbelievable.

No wonder NASCAR keeps promoting itself at every ad break. Never understood that. I am already watching so why advertise to me? Same goes for the Tudor Sports Car series, but of course that is run by NASCAR too now.

The first day of the 2014 F1 season is in the books. A new era and a complex car for the teams and us to understand. What did we learn from the first two sessions?

Red Bull has made a huge step since testing and is not far off the pace set by Mercedes. Williams is continuing its testing good form, Ferrari is doing OK, and Lotus is nowhere. I for one had considered we could see very few cars finish, and a possibility of none doing so. That appears not to be so, at the moment, but we did see that very small problems can cause major problems. Hamilton had a sensor problem on his very first lap and lost the whole 90 minutes. He overcame that quickly in the second session to top the time sheet, so obviously already has a good handle on how to drive these machines. Raikkonen stopped at the end of pit lane without a first gear engaging. He was back out, but there are obviously very small margins involved here.

The "brake by wire" is surprising most teams. This is actually a misnomer as they are still hydraulic, but there is an ECU sensing the rear braking from the energy recovery and balancing that with the pressure from the driver. Grosjean was caught badly and hit the wall, while the Toro Rosso boys had numerous offs due to this.

The speed of the cars is down on last year, but this is early days with the new car and the margin is only about four seconds, some of which is down to not having the super softs here this year. Pirelli are playing it a bit safer. Tires still need looking after, and this combined with the fuel flow and amount will require a lot of management by the teams and drivers.

It was obvious that the drivers have had to adjust their race lines with wider entries and exits, a more sweeping line to maintain momentum through the corner, and then handle the oversteer the increased torque induces. This led to a few problems with wheels on the grass on entry, and some wild rides on exits. Lots of astroturf and gravel flying. Raikkonen even brushed the wall on entry at one point he was so wide.

There were several comments that they were too quiet for F1 cars. Now as many of you know I am a bit of an old purist and not always in favor of all things "green", but here I do agree with a lower niose level. It is still a good sound by all reports, but it is hard to judge from TV. The in-car sounds like a sewing machine. It is said that you no longer need ear plugs, which is no bad thing. What is the difference if without them you are hearing 100 decibels, and when the cars used to make say 120, which was reduced to 100 by the ear plugs? Just numbers for example. You get the point. One the biggest obstacles to motor sport in developed countries is the noise level, not the fuel used. Just ask Croft and Malllory Park in England. So, lowering the noise level of race cars without diminishing the show is important.

I mentioned the problems of Lotus, but at least they got on track. Caterham did not get either car out, so it begs the question, not how many will finish but whether some will not start. The 107% rule will have to be interpreted leniently.  

Just received the April Edition of Motor Sport, which is one of their best. I highly recommend you find one to read their comments on the current state of F1 and what they think needs to be done to fix it. Mark Hughes and Nigel Roebuck being right on the mark as always. To quote Martin Whitmarsh in his comments on current track design, " When you get a circuit map like Abu Dhabi, you don't need simulation, you don't need anything-you just wonder. What the hell were you thinking!" Thanks Mr Tilke for that and all the rest.

So welcome to 2011, wasn't that the sequel to "2001 A Space Odyssey?" At least we do not have HAL running the cars yet. But as Rubens Barrichello said in his interview with Autosport, "As a driver we're just concerned that we're going to have to press so many damn buttons that it's going to be tough!" Rubens was talking about the 2011 Williams which he believes will be a more "aggressive" design thanks to his input. With over 300 races under his belt he certainly has the experience, and with top teams, and it is nice that the team at Williams are listening. I'm sure most of us fans have a soft spot for Sir Frank and wish him well for the new season.

Luca di Montezemolo is not giving up on the four cylinder turbos for 2013 and is looking for "friends" to help him get it changed to at least a V6. Cosworth are saying it will only cost 30m Euros to design, only? I suspect teams like HRT would like that as a budget. What happened to cost cutting? It's like the ethanol deal, it seems to be "green" until you look at what it takes to produce it.

I talked about losing the sound of F1 and Mark Hughes of Autosport also raised the likely sound of these new four cylinder cars. "A 12,000 rpm turbo four will sound flatter in tone and lower in volume." Perhaps that is another "green" agenda? Noise is a bigger issue for tracks than fuel economy, but it seems that people living near tracks will accept the major events such as F1, NASCAR, V8Supertourers etc, it is the daily use all year long that gets to them. When I ran Phillip Island the locals asked if we could just have the MotoGP thank you.  They certainly make enough money from that one event, it is a pity that the tracks do not. So, do not mess with the sound of F1. Wait till we have electric cars racing, they will have to have extra horsepower to run the "boom boxes" providing the noise.

Talking of noise, I always loved the sound of a Ducati, so distinctive, so I am glad that they say they are not out to produce a Yamaha "replica" with the GP bike, despite Rossi and his crew coming into the team. I've not had the pleasure of hearing the GP bike so maybe it does not enjoy the same notes as the street versions.

Who can foretell the future? A lot of people are trying lately in respect of motor racing. The discussion on LinkedIn Motorsport Professionals Group rolls on, with the latest social media being the focus of much of it. Then there is the article in GP Week, "F1's Chance to Change the World," which is focused mainly on the 2013 engine regs, and the chance to be "seen" as green by sponsors.

GP Week asks, "But will a greener Formula One really help in attracting more sponsors to the sport? Harry Gibbings is the Head of Global Sponsorship at TW Steel, a Renault sponsor, and he thinks it will make sponsors less intimidated to join the sport: "From a sponsor's perspective the green ethos is important and, from my point of view with TW Steel, Renault has pushed that to great lengths, taking the technology from the F1 programme and translating it to small fuel efficient cars," explains Gibbings."

"That's not the primary reason that we're in Formula One sponsorship. Obviously we're there to get a return on investment - it hits 450 million people at each round - so from our point of view, that's the important thing. But to have positive green credentials in the future is also an important aspect of it."

So, in the end it is about raising money, as I said yesterday. As you all know I continue to question why motor racing has to be "relevant" when no other sport has to?

In the same article Martin Whitmarsh, the thinking man's team principle, says that F1 must keep the sound, or noise as some would say. I agree, and it is likely that F1 and NASCAR will always be allowed to make as much noise as they want, but what about the rest of motor sport? Much is made of fuel efficiency when "green racing" is discussed, but you know, whenever I have been at a town hall meeting over a new or existing track no one ever raises the issue of fuel efficiency, it is all about the noise generated.

As we have seen with the Croft decision in the British High Court, noise restrictions have potentially a much bigger impact on the future of racing. Unless racers in most series agree to limit their exhaust emissions their opportunity to race will become limited to tracks in the middle of nowhere that they do not want to go to. No one is saying it has to noiseless, but a serious attempt has to be made to limit it to a reasonable level of say 90dba? Either that or we will be watching electric cars with noise makers in them to sound exciting.

Then there are the enormous numbers of tires used at a race. NASCAR seems the worst offenders with new tires fitted at every pit stop, and there are a lot of those thanks to the yellow flags. It cannot be a good advert for a tire manufacturer when their tires wear out after 100 miles or less. Tony Dowe is the only person I know who has raised this issue, but think of the resources and cost. Have a look in the Michelin or Goodyear tents next time you go to a  race. We now have engines and gearbox limitations that require teams to use them for more than one race. Did the world end as we know it? Most fans would not tell the difference from the old days of qualifying specials. So how about one set for a race weekend, unless you puncture? Use the set from the race before for practice and qualifying at the next. In the sixties it was not unknown to use a set for two or three races. Then maybe we will see who can drive to manage their tires.

So, back to the future of F1 and motor racing. Are they one and the same? If F1 died as we know it, it would survive, it always has done. Whatever was the next level of racing would by right would become F1. Would F1 survive if the rest of motorsport died? Probably, we all watch major events like the Baseball World Series, Superbowl, Tour de France, Le Mans, Indy 500 etc. as the best of the sport, so I suspect F1 would survive, but where would the drivers come from, a virtual GP2?

The future of the rest of racing as a spectator sport is definitely under question, but there will always be those that wish to experience the thrill of driving fast, and yes racing their competitors, and not just in a simulator.