Racecar Engineering F1 Digimag 2018

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990
Formula 1
Technical review
2018
30 & 31 October 2019 | NEC, Birmingham
The UK’s largest annual gathering of

OEMs and engineering supply chain
professionals
91%
of exhibitors met their
88%
of exhibitors have either
98%
of exhibitors were satisfied
objectives of networking booked or will be booking with their experience at
with new and existing clients again for 2019 Advanced Engineering 2018
Secure your stand today
“We have done this for the 5th “I found the event a great
year in a row and it is a very networking opportunity to meet
good event for us to meet new industrial professionals from
clients.” different backgrounds with
Thomas Evans, Business different products.”
Development Manager,
Kat Clarke, Wing Manufacturing
EBS Automation Ltd
Engineer, Airbus
Secure your stand now

www.advancedengineeringuk.com
CONTENTS
M
ercedes dominated the 2018 This year also saw the introduction of the
4 Unintended consequences Formula 1 season, wrapping up Halo head protection system, which has changed
How an attempt to curb aero the constructors’ title as well as the the ethos of the world’s premier single seat
development has had a dramatic drivers’ title for Lewis Hamilton. But, series. Open cockpits have always been at the
effect on CFD in Formula 1 in 2018 this was not a walkover by any stretch. The team heart of open wheel racing, but the Halo has
14 Pressure sensors believed, as did many observers, that Ferrari had fundamentally changed that.
Simon McBeath and the latest the better car in the middle of the season, and The new mounting hardware, and meeting
advances in scanning technology was unable to convert that advantage into a title. some incredible crash testing targets, means
20 Halo protection We are now coming to the end of a rule-set weight. This has led to a technical challenge for
Gemma Hatton on what makes the and finally we have the 2019 regulations to the Formula 1 teams, one that no doubt will be
Halo such a capable safety device hand. There have been steps taken to improve refined in the 2019 racecars.
28 Safety drive overtaking, to increase the life of engines, and Further safety features will come next year, in
New helmet design for 2019 revealed to reduce the array of tyre choices that are the form of new helmet design. Head protection
as the FIA steps up safety campaign available for each race, while retaining the spirit has been a focal point of recent FIA investigations
34 Big wheels keep turning of competition. But this is not the end of the and only now are we starting to see the results
Why Formula 1 has finally taken the story. As we discovered this year, the regulations that will benefit drivers in the near future. On a
plunge and gone for 18-inch wheels surrounding the computing restrictions need lighter note, the cars will be fitted with 18-inch
42 Cool runnings work, and since we ran the article (see page 4) the wheels in future, which will have an extraordinary
Sam Collins uses Caterham’s 2014 FIA has announced a change, but not one that we impact on suspension and chassis design.
data to explain F1 cooling tech expected. While the computing power limitations One shadow on the horizon is the news
meant a waste of money, the FIA has opened up that Porsche will not be coming into Formula 1.
Produced by Racecar Engineering team
those restrictions to ensure more data comes This lack of new blood is worrying; unless new
its way, and therefore it will be in a position to manufacturers join, Formula 1 must survive
do a more competent job on the next set of with the power unit suppliers currently in play
regulations, due out in 2021. (Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes). This puts them in
It was a smart move, but the costs are within a very strong negotiating position, as the loss of
the reach of only the wealthiest of teams. In this one of them would have far-reaching impact on
supplement, we also look at pressure sensors, and the remaining manufacturers.
how they can impact the rate of development and ANDREW COTTON
the lessons learned in testing. Editor
FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 3

TECHNOLOGY – AERODYNAMICS
Know your
limits
This year Formula 1’s CFD
restriction regime has been
shaken up big time as the
FIA looks to cut the costs of
aerodynamic development.
But has it worked, and how
has it changed both the
tools and the process?
Racecar investigates
By GEMMA HATTON
I
n January 2018, the FIA introduced the latest evolution
of aerodynamic testing restrictions for Formula 1, and
with them came the biggest change in CFD restrictions
since they were first introduced back in 2009. Racecar
went behind the scenes with HPC specialist, Boston Ltd, to
discover the impact of these changes and how Formula 1
teams have not only benchmarked new solutions, but also
upgraded their CFD supercomputers.
But to put these latest changes into context we need
to understand the history of the restrictions, both for CFD
and the wind tunnel. In 2008, aerodynamic testing was at
its peak. BMW Sauber, Honda, Williams and Toyota had all
invested huge sums of money in new state of the art full
size wind tunnels, each costing tens of millions of pounds.
All the top teams were operating in two wind tunnels
simultaneously, while Toyota was not only using two wind
tunnels 24/7, but each of these was full size.
However, the vast majority of this wind tunnel testing
utilised scale models, and over the years the scale of these
models increased from 40 per cent to 50 per cent and then
60 per cent. Operating two wind tunnels full time allowed
these teams to complete around 500 wind tunnel simulations
UNIFI LTD
per week, with each simulation incorporating approximately

20 different car attitudes. Full size wind tunnel testing was
commonplace, with teams either using their own facility or a Boston worked together with UniFi and CE to benchmark the performance of new CFD technologies in
customer facility such as Windshear in the USA. accordance with the 2018 regulations to see if F1 teams would be forced to upgrade their CFD capability
4 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

It quickly became clear that something had to be done to curb the
growth of aerodynamic testing in F1, and its associated costs
NOVEMBER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 5

In 2008 teams were already using Between 2009 and 2017 the regulations evolved wind tunnel. For example, let’s assume that CFD
CFD routinely as part of the aerodynamic and generally served to reduce the aerodynamic capacity allows a maximum of 12.5 TeraFLOPs.
development process, and as the software resources available to the Formula 1 teams, Using the equation with the 2013 limits results
and correlation improved while hardware particularly in the wind tunnel. This was done in 41.3 hours of wind on time, as shown by the
costs reduced, teams began to use it more, through introducing a ‘limit line’ which is green square. In 2015, however, 12.5 TeraFLOPs
integrating it further into the design cycle. defined by the following equation. would only give you 12.5 hours in the wind
At that time, BMW Sauber was leading tunnel (blue square) – that’s 70 per cent less
the way in CFD hardware with the Albert 3 than 2013. The exact balance between CFD and
supercomputer and over 4000 Intel cores, but wind tunnel resources varies from team to team,
other leading teams were not far behind. It Where: and sometimes from year to year, depending
quickly became clear that something had to be WT = Wind on time on the strategic approach and technology
done to curb the growth of aerodynamic testing WT_limit = 25 hours advances adopted by each team.
in Formula 1, and its associated costs. CFD = TeraFLOPs usage Of course, every restriction that is
The first step came into force in January CFD_limit = 25 TeraFLOPs introduced simply triggers the teams to
2009 as part of the FOTA Resource Restriction exploit the loopholes and optimise their
Agreement (RRA). This controlled the Therefore, the amount of time a team chose to designs and working practices to maximise
aerodynamic resources the Formula 1 teams run its CFD directly dictated how much time it their performance from the regulations. For
could deploy via restrictions on the wind tunnel could utilise the wind tunnel. Equally, if a team the TFLOPS CFD restrictions, this became
‘wind on time’ (WON) and the CFD compute could complete its maximum allocation of wind an arms race as teams pushed to develop
capacity, measured in TeraFLOPS (TFLOPS). tunnel runs using less wind on time then it their supercomputers to run the most CFD
Wind on time was simply a measure of would have more capacity for CFD simulations. simulations per given TFLOP allowance. This led
the amount of time the fan was turned on in teams to operate CFD hardware in ways which
the wind tunnel with the wind speed in the Working area were quite different from the wider industry,
test section above 15m/s. For CFD, TFLOPS Looking at the WT_limit and CFD_limit data with a clear focus on regulatory efficiency
was effectively the number of floating point from the last few years, Figure 1 can be created. rather than financial efficiency. For example,
operations completed within the designated Essentially, by plotting the maximum of each of the TFLOPS calculation naturally includes a chip
eight week Aerodynamic Testing Period (ATP) these limits, you can establish the ‘working area’ clock speed term which is reported either as the
and was defined by the following equation: that the teams could operate in. For example, maximum turbo clock frequency stated on the
in 2013, when the maximum WT_limit was 60 CPU specification (if the turbo mode is used),
hours and the maximum CFD_limit was 40 or the base clock frequency if the turbo mode
TeraFLOPs, the team could operate anywhere is not used. Teams quickly established that the
Where: within the green shaded area. In 2014, the turbo mode was not an efficient way to run
TotFLOPs = Total number of TeraFLOPs used per second limits were 30 hours WT and 30 CFD TeraFLOPs, CFD simulations, in terms of the number of CFD
MFPPC = Peak double precision floating point operations illustrated by the red shaded area, whilst simulations completed per TFLOP. This was also
per cycle per core of the processing unit 2015 was limited to 25 hours WT and 25 CFD true for many higher clock speed chips.
CCF = Peak processing unit clock frequency in GigaHertz TeraFLOPs, represented by the blue shaded area, Effectively, running supercomputers with
NCU = Number of processing unit cores used for the run which remained the same until 2018. slow clock speed was giving teams more
NSS = Number of solver wall clock seconds Since 2013, you can see that overall testing efficiency under the regulations but with the
elapsed during the run has dramatically reduced, but particularly for the obvious penalty in terms of CFD simulation
Figure 1: The FIA has restricted aerodynamic testing over recent years for both CFD and the wind tunnel, but particularly the latter. This graph shows the ‘working area’ that the
teams have been able to operate in. Assuming a maximum CFD capacity of 12.5 TeraFLOPS you can see that wind on time has dropped by 70 per cent between 2013 and 2015

turnaround time. Therefore, teams then had to regulation, but it was very inefficient financially, the FIA agreed to consider the rival Intel chips
balance the speed with which they receive their with as much as half of the purchased HPC (Sandybridge and Ivybridge) as four dp flops/
CFD results against the total number of CFD compute cores being left idle. cycle for the purposes of the regulations rather
simulations they were able to complete within The biggest issue came when one of than their rated eight dp flops/cycle.
the regulatory framework. This is quite different the teams developed the Fangio chip in By 2012 AMD had been persuaded by many
to the wider CFD industry, where the turbo collaboration with AMD, a chip specifically teams to produce a second limited run of Fangio
mode was ‘free’ performance and quicker designed to optimise the balance between CFD chips, allowing more of the grid to upgrade
clock speeds were performance gains if your case turnaround time and throughput which their supercomputers to this specification,
main criteria was financial efficiency, and so gave that team a huge initial advantage. with most of the remaining teams running an
the divide between the two environments was This exploited the fact that the modern Intel Ivybridge system. With the FIA unwilling
underway from 2009 onwards. HPC chips were then rated at eight double to extend the flops/cycle exemption to more
precision flops/cycle but commercial CFD modern Intel chips, such as the V3 Haswell
Cores and effect codes were only capable of delivering CPUs which were rated at 16 dp flops/cycle, and
Core under-population also became approximately one dp flop/cycle. The Fangio AMD not producing any more Fangio chips, the
commonplace in Formula 1 as it delivered chip was designed to operate at two dp flops/ teams were now locked into these older systems
further regulatory efficiency gains for the cycle giving a big efficiency improvement in purely by virtue of the regulations. Newer chips
teams. It was efficient for the FIA TFLOPS MFPPC. Following lobbying from various teams, were simply not viable because of their high
Fully correlated and complex CFD models, such as this by

Simscale, are becoming an ever-increasing asset to F1 teams,
with some full car models now exceeding one billion cells
Every restriction simply triggers teams to exploit the loopholes, and

optimise designs and working practices to maximise performance
BOSTON LTD
A typical HPC cluster from Boston. With each new generation of

compute chip delivering up to 20 per cent efficiency improvement
the increased capacity of modern CFD clusters means that teams
can now have an extra 200 runs, as opposed to 20 back in 2009
flops/cycle rating. These older systems were WON was retained and a parallel regulation was node system based on the Intel Skylake 8176
coming to the end of their life and were no introduced with the aim of allowing teams to Platinum 28 core chip. The group also had
longer supported by Intel or AMD. continue using their old systems if they wished, access to a smaller four node Intel Ivybridge
Clearly the FIA had to do something, and the without too large a performance penalty – at HPC which was used to provide a baseline of the
target was to introduce a new regulation which least that was the intention. performance gains that teams could achieve by
aligned the Formula 1 aero departments more Boston Ltd has been specialising in high upgrading from their older systems to the new
closely with the wider CFD industry as well as performance computing (HPC) in a wide range hardware. This allowed Boston to benchmark its
allowing teams to upgrade to more modern, of sectors for over 25 years. In 2017 it formed own internal CFD model across a range of CFD
supported technology. This resulted in the 2018 a new partnership with Tim Milne of UniFi codes with a wide variety of hardware set-ups.
CFD restrictions and a move from TFLOPS to Engineering Services Ltd (UniFi) and Dr Lee The systems were all set up with the very latest
Mega Allocation Unit hours (MAUh) as defined Axon of Computational Engineering Ltd (CE). in networking fabric, up to date operating
by the following equation: Milne and Axon have extensive Formula 1 systems and storage solutions, ensuring that
experience, most recently at Manor F1 where the results obtained would be aligned to the
they were head of aerodynamics and head of expectations of the F1 teams.
CFD correlation respectively.
This group combined Boston’s extensive Hot chips
HPC technical knowledge with UniFi’s and Following the benchmarking of the older
Where: CE’s F1 aerodynamics and CFD experience to Ivybridge system, a number of options within
AUh = Allocation unit hour provide the F1 teams with a comprehensive the AMD EPYC range as well as the Skylake
NCU = Number of processing unit cores benchmarking of the new AMD EPYC and Intel 8176 chip were evaluated as single node tests
NSS = Number of solver wall clock seconds Skylake Platforms. They were able to use all the to gain an initial assessment of the various
elapsed during the run main F1 CFD codes with models aligned to F1 different chips available in each family, as
CCF = Peak processing unit clock frequency in GigaHertz methodologies and HPC hardware set-ups to well as some insight into the time/iteration
extract the maximum possible performance performance benefits of different options such
Effectively this a very similar measure to TFLOPS from the new regulatory environment. as the turbo mode. This also ensured that a clear
but without the reliance on flops per cycle, understanding of the raw performance of the
hence removing the barrier to upgrading to Node to joy compute chip was gained and that the results
newer, better supported, technology. The FIA The project began in August 2017, by which were not clouded by any networking issues
commissioned an independent study to be time Boston Ltd was one of the first companies which could be useful later in the process when
carried out in order to set the regulation limit worldwide to have invested in its own eight trying to understand the results on the larger
with the intention of giving parity between the node dual socket AMD EPYC system based on scale multi-node systems. The performance
old regulations and the new ones. The link to the EPYC7601 32 core chips and a similar eight gains over the older Ivybridge system were
The new method that was introduced at the start of this year is a very
similar measure to TFLOPS but without the reliance on flops per cycle
INTRODUCING...
THE BOSTON INTEL® SELECT SOLUTION

BUILD YOUR SUPERCOMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURE ON
BOSTON'S EXTENSIVE INDUSTRY AND DESIGN EXPERTISE FOR HIGH
PERFORMANCE COMPUTING APPLICATIONS.
BOSTON’S CFD SERVICES
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

WINNING AND LOSING
Our team of motorsport experts are on hand to support with code profiling and
optimisation, can aid in tuning meshing and solver performance, and more...
VISIT: WWW.BOSTON.CO.UK/AUTOMOTIVE/CFD.ASPX
WEB: WWW.BOSTON.CO.UK
EMAIL: SALES@BOSTON.CO.UK
PHONE: +44 (0) 1727 876 100
SIEMENS
Despite the efforts of the FIA to restrict the costs of CFD work, Formula 1 teams can now complete up to 1500 simulations each week on a typical model of around 200 million cells
very quickly evident and it soon became

clear that the teams would all be forced to
For example, the CFD case will be repeated
on the same HPC system but testing the It soon became clear that
upgrade their HPC systems in order to remain
competitive, which is the nature of Formula 1.
simulation on 48, 96 and 192 cores. It was
accepted that the case being run on 96 cores the teams would all be
forced to upgrade their
But this upgrade was extremely expensive. This will take slightly longer than half the time of
is not what the FIA had been aiming for, but the case on 48 cores and slightly less than
HPC systems in order to

reflects how quickly the HPC industry moves half the case being run on 192 cores – so
forward with the Formula 1 environment forced there is an element of inefficiency by running
to follow suit to remain competitive. on an increasing number of cores. However,
Once testing migrated onto the full, multi- it is in the teams’ interest to complete their remain competitive
node systems the full optimisation process CFD simulations quickly in order to allow
could begin. This involved running the same their iterative aerodynamic development
model over a wide range of different set-ups, programmes to continue as quickly as possible delivered performance gains which would
including options for memory bandwidth – so it’s a trade off and one which was vitally enable the F1 teams to run approximately twice
per core used and process bindings. The key important for the Boston group to understand. as many CFD simulations per week in 2018 than
at this stage was for the group to develop an they had been able to in 2017 (for the same
understanding of the efficiency vs performance Core values wind tunnel operation). Furthermore, the teams
of each compute system – ideally each compute The next step was to understand the impact of would complete each of these simulations in
chip in each family from Intel and AMD. leaving some of the compute cores dormant, approximately half the time that was required
In reality UniFi and CE were able to use their as previously mentioned. This is an approach under the 2017 regulations.
experience in the industry to limit the testing quite alien to most of the CFD industry (why
to the most likely candidates for Formula 1 would you buy compute cores and then not Formula 1 specific
operations and Boston used its extensive links use them?) but something that was already well Much of this optimisation is not relevant to
in the HPC industry to gain access to relevant known to deliver regulatory efficiency in the F1 the wider CFD industry, but is now considered
systems for benchmark testing. Once a small environment, if you could afford it. basic within the Formula 1 teams. The next step
range of AMD and Intel compute chips had Tests were completed leaving a range was for the Boston group to really exploit the
been selected, the focus was on understanding of the cores dormant in order to give less expertise available from the UniFi/CE group.
how they performed against the Formula 1 operational cores per memory channel, and The details of this remain confidential, but it
regulations. This required repeating the CFD thus increasingly improving the memory enabled the group to develop solutions which
simulation of their Formula 1 car on a range of bandwidth available to the CFD simulation. delivered even more performance for the F1
different HPC sizes and set-ups. The conclusion of this benchmarking study teams, and a further 20 per cent reduction
Much of this optimisation is not relevant to the wider CFD industry,

but it is now considered basic within the Formula 1 teams
The FIA focus
remains on
reducing wind
tunnel reliance and
delivering greater
CFD capacity in
exchange, and the
current regulations
deliver that
The benchmarking study concluded that teams would gain a huge performance advantage if they purchased a new multi-
million pound system because they would have twice the CFD capacity of 2017 – this was not the aim of the regulations
in solve times was extracted from the same the huge performance advantage available by replacing their CFD clusters. In 2018, with the
CFD set-up, which also increased the CFD purchasing a new multi-million pound system, massive increase in capacity, the same 10 to
throughput by the same 20 per cent. which was not the aim of the new regulations. 20 per cent improvement available from each
Finally, as the benchmarking study neared Furthermore, the impact of the increase evolution of compute chip technology is 100
its conclusion Boston worked with AMD to in CFD capacity available to the teams under to 200 runs – that is the same as the total
further optimise for the requirements of F1 these new regulations only serves to increase capacity of the systems in 2009.
by increasing the memory bandwidth whilst the financial pressure on the teams and in Is this a bad thing? Arguably not. HPC
retaining a relatively low base clock speed. particular the pressure to increase headcount systems are much cheaper now than they
‘AMD EPYC delivers exceptional levels within the aerodynamics departments as the were back in 2009. The FIA focus remains on
of performance in a number of workloads, CFD capacity available increases. Not only reducing wind tunnel reliance and delivering
including high performance computing CFD have they effectively been required to invest greater CFD capacity in exchange, and the
applications,’ explains Roger Benson, the senior in new HPC architecture in order to remain current regulations deliver that.
director of the Datacenter Group, EMEA, AMD. competitive, but the incentive to adopt future However, does it help to level the playing
‘We are excited to be working with Boston on improvements in chip technology has now only field between the high budget teams and
their automotive engineering focused platforms increased. How so? The benchmarking work the low budget teams? Does it help to
and improving the efficiency of aerodynamic completed by Boston suggests that teams are encourage new teams into the sport? And
testing for their customers.’ now able to complete between 1000 and 1500 does it make the working practices within the
CFD simulations per week based on a typical Formula 1 aero departments more aligned
The results CFD model of around 200 million cells. Teams to the wider CFD industry?
The stated targets of the FIA for this change may elect to ‘trade’ some of this capacity for With AMD releasing its second generation
in regulations was to enable the F1 teams larger models (some teams run CFD models of EPYC chip in 2019, the reaction of the
to upgrade from their Fangio and Ivybridge approaching one billion cells) or better quality teams will be interesting. Will they all upgrade
systems to the latest technology available, but models (transient simulations rather than steady immediately? Or will the well-funded teams
without a clear performance pressure to do state). But the key point is that the F1 HPC take the opportunity to get a performance
so, and with the aim of better aligning the F1 regulations have now given the teams twice as advantage from the new technology that
industry with the wider CFD industry. much capacity to play with than in 2017. the smaller teams cannot afford?
Firstly, it is clear that all the F1 teams have
upgraded to a new system, with most teams Step change Boston, UniFi and CE continue to develop
having done so ahead of the regulatory change Typically each generation of compute chip their partnership with a focus on the F1,
date of 1 January 2018. So, the first aim has that is released by AMD/Intel delivers around motorsport and automotive industries across
been achieved – the Fangio and Ivybridge 10 to 20 per cent improvement in efficiency. all CFD codes and working practices. For
systems that the teams were operating are now Back in 2009 this would give the teams an extra more informaition visit the websites at: www.
obsolete. However, the benchmarking work 10 to 20 CFD runs per week, and therefore boston.co.uk; www.unifimotorsport.com;
completed by Boston clearly demonstrates would not easily justify the large cost in www.computationalengineering.co.uk
When AMD releases its second generation of EYPC chip in 2019 the
reaction of the Formula 1 teams is going to be very interesting
TECHNOLOGY – PRESSURE SENSORS
Pressure relief
Thanks to a tiny new device, measuring aerodynamic pressures on
and around cars may have just become a whole lot easier, and in
some areas actually possible for the first time. Racecar investigates
By SIMON McBEATH
P
hotographs of pre-season themselves, via tiny pressure port tunnel as well, to accurately monitor calibration of pressure sensors
and pre-race testing often tappings over and under the major and control flow conditions. for many years, and have worked
show top race teams, downforce-generating surfaces. But how are these measurements closely with a concern that might
especially in F1, measuring Using these techniques enables made? And what are the practicalities? accurately be described as the
aerodynamic pressures around their aerodynamicists to gather pressure We visited Evolution Measurement sector founder, Scanivalve (see
cars. The most obvious manifestation data around and on the car’s surfaces Ltd (see sidebar), based in Andover in sidebar) since 2001. With an intimate
of this is the pressure sensor array, like that can be used to correlate with southern England, to learn more about knowledge of the available products
a two-dimensional rake with pressure CFD and wind tunnel data, as well as the challenges involved, and to see an and, importantly, a firm grasp of
sensors arranged over the area of the to calculate the real forces acting on ultra-compact new pressure sensor the customers’ needs, Evolution
rake, positioned on the raceccar in key individual components. the company has come up with, that Measurement has come up with the
areas where what might be described Pressure measurement is an will open up exciting new possibilities. EvoScann P Series pressure scanner
as partial plane pressure plots can be everyday critical part of wind tunnel Although Evolution Measurement which, they confidently assert, is
logged and recorded. testing too, with the wind tunnel is itself a new company, managing the smallest, lightest such pressure
Less apparent and no less models equipped with surface director Paul Crowhurst and export sensor currently available – no surprise
important is the measurement pressure ports, and measurements sales manager Iain Gordon have then that it has been generating
of surface pressures on the cars also being made around the wind been involved in the distribution and interest among F1, DTM, LMP and

Renault RS18 with pressure sensor array. This is highly visible but there might
also be small sensors measuring air pressures that are fitted to the car itself The EvoScann P Series miniature pressure scanner is so small (36mm x 33m x 8mm)
it can be located in areas of a racecar that have previously been impossible to access
MotoGP teams. This compactness –

the 8-channel launch version is just
applications. Traditionally pressure
sensor array and surface pressure
other controlled environments’. It is
a 16-channel device typically used in These enable
36mm (1.42in) x 33mm (1.30in) x 8mm
(0.31in) and weighs only 16g (0.56oz) –
measurement has often been done
with one of the Scanivalve multi-
wind tunnels where installation space
is not an issue, overall length being aerodynamicists
to gather
will enable the sensors to be located in port scanners such as the ZOC (Zero, around 200mm (8in).
areas previously difficult or impossible Operate Calibrate) range of analogue The newest and most advanced
pressure data
to access, such as within front wing devices in 32- or 64-channel form, and Scanivalve product is the MPS
elements or other important small these measure 105mm (4.1in) x 36mm (miniature pressure scanner) range,
aerodynamic parts. 1.4in) x 14mm (0.55in), finding use in a 64-channel high-end device
wind tunnel models and other space- measuring roughly 89mm (3.52in) around and
Pressure change limited applications. x 40mm (1.56in) x 22mm (0.87in),
To see where and how this new
compact pressure scanner fits into
Another oft-used device is the
popular DSA range, described by
several of which might typically
be seen on a wind tunnel model,
on the car’s
the overall scheme of things, let’s
first take a brief look at some of the
Crowhurst as ‘a good workhorse’ and
by Scanivalve themselves as ‘intended
and which is also used in on-car
applications, too. ‘It’s a fantastic
surfaces
complimentary products and their for most laboratory, educational or product,’ says Crowhurst, ‘and the

Scanivalve MPS Scanivalve DSA3217

4264 pressure pressure scanner
scanner, with
pen for scale
Figure 1: Schematic layout of tube runs in a conventional pressure scanning system
Tubing lengths should be as

short as possible to avoid
frequency response issues The schematic in Figure 1 might not look so complicated but in reality on a wind tunnel
model (or a racecar) a conventional pressure scanning set-up can look more like this
latest version is a big technical so forth has therefore inevitably usual on-vehicle communication on accuracy, performance, sensitivity
advance over its predecessor as well as been highly compromised by the protocols (CANBus). The scanners and noise insensitivity was great.’
being the most technically advanced, long tubing runs that have been pick up their power supply from the The P8 launch model offers a
fully digital instrument available.’ intrinsically required. communication cable, and feature choice of pressure ranges; at the low
However, on the strength of integral signal conditioning. end of the scale +/-20kPa range is
Tube lengths feedback from customers, Evolution offered with an accuracy of 0.1per
Among the criteria for obtaining Measurements’ concept for the Small and light cent full scale claimed, providing +/-
accurate and repeatable pressure EvoScann P Series was to reduce Gordon says: ‘Our Evoscann P series 20Pa resolution. However, a number
measurements is that tubing lengths the size (and channel count) of the is certainly the smallest and lightest of developments are underway,
should be as short as possible to scanner so that they could be located pressure scanner available and it Crowhurst says: ‘The launch version
avoid frequency response issues, and much closer to where the pressure can be fitted [to measure pressures] was primarily aimed at absolute
should ideally all be of equal length measurements needed to be taken. in places that were previously not surface pressure measurements.
to maintain consistency between The concept of a ‘distributed system’, measurable. It’s been interesting But we will shortly be releasing a
channels. The diagram in Figure 1 shown in Figure 2, was to switch from that the door has been held open differential pressure version which
generically illustrates this challenge. a small number of centrally located wherever we have introduced it, so will measure the difference between
With tightly packaged racecars, multi-channel scanners with complex it’s clearly meeting an un-met need. atmospheric pressure and the [local]
available space for pressure scanners, tubing runs to more scanners with We have presented it to the F1 teams surface pressures creating lift or
associated hardware including power lower channel counts, and to locate and a few others outside F1 and downforce. This will have a choice of
supplies and signal conditioners, the scanners around the car close many have either bought it or asked ranges from +/-7kPa upwards.’
not to mention bundles of tubing, is to areas of interest. for customisations, or want to have it With a similar accuracy to the
clearly at a premium, and options are This vastly reduces the length when we reach the next stages in our launch model this would enable +/-
severely limited within the chassis of a and complexity of the tubing runs roadmap development.’ 7Pa resolution, which would be well
racecar and perhaps other areas within and associated installation, with Gordon also revealed that able to resolve the small variations
the body of a scale wind tunnel model. just a single cable emerging from EvoScann sensors were run on three in surface pressures seen on many
So getting reliable data from ‘outposts’ each scanner to connect with cars in free practice at the last F1 race areas of racecars. However, Crowhurst
such as front wings, endplates and data acquisition systems using the of 2017, and reported that ‘feedback added that ‘sensitivity and resolution

will also improve, we will likely

increase resolution by a factor of
10.’ Further variants with more
channels will also be available; a
16-channel version that fits the same
dimensional envelope will come, and
a 32-channel version that will only be
slightly longer will follow that.
Embedded device
One of the advantages of this slim
pressure scanner is that in some
instances it can be inset into the
surface of the device it is intended
to measure. For example, one F1 Figure 2: A distributed pressure sensor system vastly reduces the length and complexity of the tubing and installation. It puts local
client wanted to attach one to a scanners at the point of measurement, with the tubing installation then connecting via a single CANBus cable to the nearest node
bargeboard. The slender dimensions
of the EvoScann would enable it to scanner inside the small chord front ‘We can even supply the EvoScann and mount the sensor nearby where it
be embedded in the surface of the wing flap elements on an F1 car. And without its carbon composite casing, can be accommodated.’
bargeboard itself and cause negligible in some instances wind tunnel teams which reduces the thickness to just One F1 insider who is familiar
interference with the flows and have used additive manufacturing 4.5mm (0.18in) if the customer wanted with these new sensors says: ‘The test
pressures it was there to measure. methods (3D printing) to provide not an even more compact installation,’ teams are interested in mapping ever
Clearly, the small size of the device only a snug location for the pressure Gordon says. ‘But if there really is an more areas of the car with these small
will enable it to be mounted inside scanner within the test part but also inaccessible location that is too tight sensors. Getting a feel for downforce,
many aerodynamic components to print the tubing runs that connect even for the EvoScann P8 then it is especially at low speed, is better done
to allow the collection and local to the surface pressure tapping ports. possible to run the tubing through it with pressure mapping than with the
conversion of pressure data into four [suspension] pushrod load cells.
electronic signals to be communicated
to the data acquisition system Its slender dimensions would The pushrods have to measure car
weight and take impacts, whereas
enable it to be embedded in the

through just a single cable, rather than pressure sensors can be scaled for the
through many metres of delicate and pressures they have to measure.’
surface of the bargeboard itself

vulnerable small bore plastic tubing. A further interesting feature is
It is even feasible to fit the P Series that because the EvoScann P Series
Pressure scanners
S
imply put, a pressure scanner is data points could be obtained. Nobody Corporation in 1955, and the products including connections, small bore
a device that converts data from else was doing this at the time and it were quickly adopted by the wind tubing, steel tubulations and so
pressure tappings, for example became a huge advantage. tunnel industry. The company forth. Subsequently the company
over a car’s surfaces or from a sensor Pemberton subsequently left developed a large line of products had to adapt to – and exploit – some
array, into electrical signals that can be Boeing and founded Scanivalve to support the use of the scanners, world-changing technological
logged by a data acquisition system.
The concept was devised by one JC
Pemberton, who worked at Boeing In
Seattle, Washington, in the 1950s and
was endeavouring to measure pressures
over aircraft surfaces using lots of liquid-
filled U-tube manometers.
Scanning valve
Not surprisingly it was incredibly
difficult to zero and stabilise all these
devices and to obtain synchronous
data. So Pemberton invented and
developed a motorised, mechanical
scanning valve that multiplexed many
pressure signals into one transducer.
The device was called a scanning valve
because, in essence, the motor drove
the transducer to sequentially scan the
48 ports connected to the valve. It did
this in about 90 seconds, which vastly The original Scanivalve
improved the rate at which pressure

than most people need’. Pressure
ranges from +/-20kPa to +/-120kPa
(200-1200mbar or 2.9-17.4psig) are
currently available, with lower ranges
set to become available.
Homologation
As this article was being written
Evolution Measurement was notified
that EvoScann had been homologated
for use with the FIA standard ECU. This
process included, among other things,
being able to demonstrate that, as a
microprocessor-equipped sensor, it
was not possible to re-programme
the device for ‘alternative purposes’,
something it is demonstrably not
possible to do with the single CANbus
Figure 3: Screenshot of EvoScann GUI. Device has an onboard integral microprocessor so the output is in engineering units of pressure communication cable that provides
the power to and data from the
devices have an onboard integral fits most known requirements’ Gordon environmental conditions to be sensor. So prospective customers
microprocessor, the output is directly says. ‘Our aim is to not only fit the handled, although for applications now have the added confidence
in engineering units of pressure, as niche applications where the standard that don’t need it the outer casing can that this compact, innovative new
Figure 3 illustrates. Here the pressure device is most suited but also, where be omitted. The size of the internal pressure sensor has FIA homologation
scale is in mbar but this is configurable required, to customise for bespoke printed circuit board is a key factor for use on their racecars.
via the GUI to the units of choice. requirements. And, for example, the in the dimensions of the sensor; This also means that it will be
The design of the EvoScann price per channel is comparable to the however there is the capability to permissible in FIA-sanctioned events
incorporates temperature correction Scanivalve MPS scanner [mentioned reduce the size and thickness still to run the sensors during qualifying
for each pressure channel. It can be earlier] so it’s a good fit in terms of the further. The in-plane alignment of the and in the races, and not just in test
configured to measure differential applications it can satisfy.’ output tubulations helps to maintain sessions or free practice. Before such
pressures by setting one channel The carbon fibre outer casing, a compact installation. Scanning rates a compact sensor was available,
to measure static pressure. And it combined with the resin potting up to 1kHz per channel are possible, though, this probably wasn’t even
corrects for ambient pressure too. ‘It process enable a wide range of which Crowhurst says ‘is typically faster considered by the race teams.
Evolution Measurement
E
advances. During the 1970s Scanivalve In 1982 Pemberton sold the volution Measurement The company offers sales of the
developed a combination of valving and company to his sons Addison and was founded in July 2016 devices including spares supply,
calibration that was applied to miniature Jim, and around this time PCs started and is located in Andover, consultancy, support, installation,
silicon sensors and used computer landing on all our desks, so the Hampshire, UK. It is staffed by a team service, calibration, repair and
correction of temperature errors. And company developed PC-based data of engineers highly experienced bespoke solutions, as well as now
measurement of individual sensors was acquisition systems which allowed in measurement, instrumentation designing and manufacturing its
now multiplexed electronically, enabling ever faster data sampling rates. and calibration. The team has own new products.
much faster sampling rates. actually been in its current premises, Managing director Crowhurst
Digital age in a previous guise, since 2006 says: ‘we work in various sectors,
In the 1990s Ethernet-based and is now fully focussed on the niche areas especially where, as
communications boosted things, and high-end fluid temperature and a small, responsive company we
in the early 2000s UBS connectivity pressure measurement market. The can provide turn-key solutions for
speeded everything up further, and relationship with Scanivalve in fact multiple applications in building
all the while miniaturisation was goes back to 2001, via the companies design, wind engineering, aircraft
continuing. Originally signal outputs that the current staff used to work at. design, automotive, wind tunnel
were analogue so the voltage signals assessment and models, and of
required conditioning, but now Highly evolved course in motorsport.’ The latter
everything is digital and processed Evolution Measurement now handles includes MotoGP, from where interest
to output in pressure units, and northern Europe-wide factory- is emerging in what is an increasingly
it is possible to take thousands of level calibration, repair and service aerodynamics savvy sport.
readings per second per channel from support for Scanivalve while special There are applications in cycling,
increasingly compact devices. relationships also exist with Guildline too. And the company is also working
Such has been the impact of (as its exclusive UK distributor for on a package for Formula Student.
Scanivalve Corporation that it has precision measurement solutions) Please form an orderly queue …
become the Hoover of the pressure as well as with Meggitt (as its UK Contact: Evolution Measurement Ltd
scanning industry, the generic name application-specific distributors for Tel +44 (0)1264 316470, web:
An advert for the first Scanivalve device most folk reach for when a need arises. dynamic pressure sensors). www.evolutionmeasurement.com

FORMULA 1 2018 – TESTING
The reigning champion Mercedes team has taken

a conservative approach to Halo, where design and
implementation regulations allow some freedom

The Halo effect
Formula 1 2018 hit the ground running in Barcelona with all new Pirelli
compounds, aero and the controversial head protection Halo system
By GEMMA HATTON and SAM COLLINS
F ‘In testing we will

ormula 1 has ushered in a host of is confirmed we’re confident that the parts we’ll
changes for the 2018 season. The new bring to the car will sort out those losses.’
head protection system, known as
Halo, is the most obvious from a visual
It is something being worked on right
up and down the pitlane with lots of airflow make sure we understand
point of view, and has already attracted a lot of
negative feedback from the teams. It has also
sensors fitted to cars around the Halo structure
and downstream of it. ‘Aerodynamically that the losses coming
off Halo are where we
had a significant effect on the rest of the car, speaking, Halo is certainly not penalty free
in terms of weight and design thanks to a late and I think there is a challenge there to either
introduction of the regulation leading in some cope with it in the first instance, let’s call
cases to an all-new chassis design. With new it damage limitation, and thereafter think think they are’
tyres from Pirelli, offering teams a new challenge about opportunity and exploitation,’ Peter
of working them at different circuits, and longer Prodromou, McLaren’s Chief Technical Officer ‘It has effects on the cockpit because it is local
life power units for this season, teams have had for aerodynamics adds. ‘It does open up some to that opening. You have got the driver in
anything but an easy preparation for the season. avenues which are possibly interesting to look there and so you’ve got to make sure you don’t
The Additional Frontal Protection-Halo (AFP- at. I am sure there will be a variety of different have the negative effects there,’ Toro Rosso
Halo, or just Halo) is without doubt the biggest solutions out there but the scope is quite Technical Director James Key adds. ‘You’ve
visual change between the 2018 Grand Prix cars limited to the allowance around the basic got effects on the engine air intake and effects
and those used in 2017. In design terms the shape, but there is opportunity.’ after that towards the back, so there are a
Halo is governed by its own specific appendix to number of different things you have to think
the FIA technical regulations. Everything from Aesthetic gain about. None of them are massive effects but
the shape and dimensions of the device to the The rules allow a 20mm area of freedom around they all require some level of attention.’
material it is made from (titanium alloy Ti6Al4V the titanium structure, introduced partly for Fitting the Halo is no easy challenge either;
Grade 5) is defined. However there is still scope aesthetic reasons but predictably these fairings not only does the Halo have to be homologated
for different manufacturers to supply their are being used for aerodynamic gain, as some independently, it also has to pass crash tests as
own products into the category, though each teams have added winglets and in one case part of the chassis homologation procedure.
must be homologated independently at the airliner style vortex generators to their Halos. This has proved to be a major issue for teams.
Cranfield Impact Centre. At the time of writing
three companies had homologated Halos; CP
Autosport of Germany, SS Tube Technology in
England and a third company, V System, from
which each team must purchase their Halos.
Airflow impact
As can be imagined for such a visually obvious
addition to the car, the aerodynamic impact
of Halo is noteworthy, and the teams are
doing what they can to deal with its impact,
particularly on the airflow over the whole car.
‘It has a significant downstream effect,
especially round the rear wing area,’ highlights
Andy Green, Technical Director of the team
known as Force India at time of writing (the
team name is likely to change by the first race
in Australia in March). ‘It is not designed to be
an aerodynamic device, so it doesn’t do us any
favours in that department and it requires a lot
of work to mitigate the issues that it causes. In
testing we will make sure we understand that
the losses coming off the halo are where we
think they are from our modelling tools. If that Toro Rosso is one of several teams to try to increase aero efficiency with its Halo design, one of many to choose this option

The 20mm area at the top of the Halo has been exploited
differently by the teams. The Haas team has adopted this
toothy solution while others have mounted a wing
everything that moves around – which it is

designed to do – it is a bit scary.’
During the chassis homologation tests the
Halo has to withstand various loads without it or
the monocoque failing. The biggest load applied
to the structure is 116kN from above, which has
to be endured for five seconds. Longitudinal
forces of 46kN and 83kN are applied from the
front as well as a lateral load of 93kN from the
side. For comparison, the roll structure on top
of the car has to withstand 50kN laterally, 60kN
longitudinally and 90kN from above.
Weighty issue
To survive these severe loads, the Halo itself has
become quite a substantial structure, weighing
by regulation 7kg (+0.05kg, -0.15kg). In addition,
the monocoque has also had to increase in
strength significantly to cope with these tests.
This has further increased the weight of the
New rubber from Pirelli is designed to help drivers and teams at ‘We always knew it was going to be a chassis by approximately 12-13kg. Whereas, the
particular tracks. Pressure sensors were all the rage in Barcelona challenge so have invested time and money 2018 technical regulations have only allowed
as teams completed their aero maps during pre-season testing up front to do a lot of test pieces,’ McLaren a minimum weight increase of 5kg to 733kg,
Chief Technical Officer Matt Morris admits. forcing teams to save weight in other areas of
‘It takes the weight of a ‘Obviously, you don’t want to build a complete
chassis but we built a few test pieces with
the car. Interestingly, now at the start of a race a
2018 Formula 1 car will weigh roughly the same
London bus and when dummy Halos and parts of Halos to test how
the interfaces would behave and we found
as a non-hybrid LMP1 in qualifying trim.
‘From a design perspective, weight is a big
you see that test going some issues. It was close, we didn’t breeze
through and there were some heart-stopping
part of it. The weight limit did go up, but not by
nearly as much as the installation weight of the
with that amount of load,

moments with particular static tests coming halo so it put additional stress on all the other
in from an oblique angle. It takes the weight parts of the car,’ Green continues. ‘We had to try
it is a bit scary’
of a London bus and when you see that to optimise the weight in those areas to try and
test going on with that amount of load and keep the weight limit below the minimum so

Short sidepod concept
I
n 2017 Ferrari introduced a new short sidepod concept,
relocating the upper side impact structure (a single
specification design shared by all teams) and moving
the main cooling aperture rearward. A set of box shape
aerodynamic elements forward of the duct ensure rules
compliance. Ferrari took this approach for aerodynamic
reasons rather than those of cooling. In 2018, half the grid
featured the same solution, but not all teams agree that it
is the right route, with Mercedes, Renault, Force India and
others all opting against adopting the concept.
Conservative approach Sidepod design seems to be led by Ferrari, with impact structure relocation for efficient aerodynamic effect
‘Everything you do in aerodynamics has an opportunity
cost; there is much more opportunity to make the car worse
than better,’ claims Mercedes Technical Director, James
Allison. ‘If you want to pursue a new and different concept,
you will expect to find a fair amount of loss before you
get back into positive territory. We looked at that concept
and felt it would spend too much time being in negative
territory before it would perhaps offer any gain at all. If you
are a [team] that is a long way down the grid the situation is
different it is worth taking that gamble, as you have less to
lose and you know that the path you are on is not right.’
It is likely that the relocation of the side impact structure
would require a substantial change to the monocoque
design, while getting adequate airflow into the cooling
system with such a complex arrangement of aerodynamic
elements around the leading edge of the sidepod duct is
also likely to be a major challenge. Mercedes has not adopted this same approach, believing that too much time would be lost in development
that we can run ballast because the other area

that we have to bear in mind is we have to hit
a weight distribution target as well.’
Although it was originally introduced as
a temporary measure to help Pirelli develop
tyres when it became the sole tyre supplier in
2011, the technical regulations still limit every
car in terms of weight distribution, with just a
7kg window of freedom. This means that while
some teams may be able to build a car under
the minimum weight, they cannot get it fully
within the distribution window.
Halo kitty
‘You only have a very small window of weight
distribution so the actual architecture of the
car needs to be correct to start with, otherwise
you’re adding ballast to a car that doesn’t
need ballast just to get the weight distribution
right,’ Green says. ‘We would have loved to
have added a huge safety margin to the whole The loss of the T-wing is not total; some teams are trying to recover some of the effect with lower mounted winglets
design so that we would happily sail through
the crash and load tests without any issues but
that wasn’t possible because the weight limit of
rear end of its car as a result, abandoning its
cast titanium gearbox casing (something it ‘You have a small window
the car didn’t go up enough. We couldn’t afford
to increase the base weight of the car more
has evolved over many seasons) in favour of
a composite transmission. of weight distribution so
the architecture of the car
than a few kg because we knew we only had a While the price of the Halo itself is relatively
few kg that wecould take out of the car. It was, modest, the cost of developing a chassis to fit it
needs to be correct’
structurally, incredibly challenging.’ is higher than some of the smaller teams would
This weight challenge has seen at least like. This cost was worsened by the late decision
one team, Renault, substantially rework the to adopt the Halo as the 2018 AFP solution, with

With only a 7kg weight distribution, teams have struggled to get the weight down and remain in the window; Renault adopted a composite gearbox casing to reduce weight
teams only informed of this final decision in as it is much lighter than Halo with lower The significant aerodynamic changes of
September, 2017 after a long discussion process. requirements on the chassis structure. the 2017 regulations resulted in an increase in
‘Expense-wise it’s huge because we had to The weight increase as a result of the Halo loads of over 20%, demanding the tyres to be
do a new chassis. We wouldn’t have anticipated also places an additional demand on the four extremely robust, leading Pirelli to ramp up the
doing a new chassis this year given the number power unit suppliers, which have also had to stiffness of their entire compound range. Pirelli
of changes we made last year. For a team like increase the life of their power units. Teams can also had to develop tyres with little knowledge
us we would look to try and get two years out now only use three combustion engines (ICE), of the potential performance that the teams
of the chassis if possible. So in that respect three MGU-H’s and three turbochargers (TC) could achieve in 2017. Despite 12,000km of
it cost us a huge amount to redevelop and during the season, compared to four last year. testing, the 2014 adapted ‘mule’ cars that Pirelli
redesign the new chassis. It is in the hundreds That’s 2,100km of racing mileage not including used to develop the 2017 compounds only
of thousands, if not million dollar mark, to put practice sessions or qualifying. Whereas the achieved a 10% increase in downforce and
the Halo on the car for us,’ says Green. energy stores (ES), control electronics (CE) and therefore the results were unrepresentative
MGU-K’s are all limited to two per season, or and inconclusive. To cope with this, Pirelli went
Screening process 3,150km of racing. This demand for increased for a conservative approach last year, and
The Halo has had a largely negative reception reliability will no doubt have forced the having tried and tested their designs for an
from drivers, teams, the media and fans. This suppliers to manufacture more robust units, yet entire season, the 2018 range is a slightly more
has lead to work continuing on alternative they have had to minimise weight to help teams aggressive evolution of 2017.
additional frontal protection systems. In comply with the minimum weight regulations
2017 a brief test run was conducted with which have been challenging to achieve with Compounding issues
a clear windscreen fitted to a Ferrari, but the consequences of Halo. It remains to be seen ‘The 2018 compounds are from the same family
while this solution solved the frontal impact how successful they have been. of compounds as 2017,’ explains Mario Isola,
requirements, the driver complained of Sporting Director of Pirelli. ‘The reason why
visual distortion. However, Indycar is now Tyre dilemma degradation was so low last year was because
experimenting with a similar aeroscreen The other major changes for this year come these compounds have less surface overheating
solution (see p16). Teams prefer the windscreen from the tyres. To encourage overtaking and pit and in general behave in a different way. In
option not only for aesthetic reasons but also stops, Pirelli have added two more colours, and particular we used the 2017 Soft as a baseline
therefore compounds, to their tyre compound [for 2018] because last year the Soft had a
‘We used the 2017 Soft as rainbow, the Superhard and the Hypersoft, as
well as making the entire range a step softer,
wider working range compared to the other
compounds. Last year’s Soft is now the Medium.’
a baseline because last and introducing new allocation rules. The

Superhard is now the hardest compound,
From there, the 2017 Soft ‘baseline’ was
then developed and used to create this year’s
year the Soft had a wider

adopting the conventional orange colour of softer compounds (Soft, Supersoft, Ultrasoft
the Hard, which has now become the light and Hypersoft), each decreasing in stiffness in
blue, and the Hypersoft is the softest compound relatively consecutive steps. Although Pirelli,
working range compared and is light pink in colour. However, to gain a along with some drivers, have commented
full understanding of these additional that the softer compounds of the 2018 range,
with the other compounds’ compounds we need to reflect on 2017. tested at Abu Dhabi last year were ‘much closer

MADE IN THE USA
MADE FOR THE WORLD
Learn more about

Hastings Piston Rings at
www.hastingspistonrings.com.
ATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETS
The Science of Speed

Performance Engine Bearings
Race Series Bearings

Provide Exceptional
Performance and
Outstanding
2nd place is for the other guy Durability
XP BEARINGS - Tri-metal, Copper-lead

HP BEARINGS - Bi-metal, Silicon Alloy
ENGINE PARTS (UK) LTD

Purfleet: 01708 890494 Hinckley: 01455 250222
sales@enginepartsuk.net www.enginepartsuk.net
➤
HARD SUPERHARD
MEDIUM HARD
Compound stiffness
SOFT MEDIUM
SOFT
SUPERSOFT
SUPERSOFT
ULTRASOFT
ULTRASOFT
HYPERSOFT
2017 2018
➤
Working range temperature
Above: A simplified diagram illustrating the compound changes from 2017 to
2018. This year’s compounds are all a step softer, with the 2017 Soft and its
wider working range becoming the 2018 Medium. The delta between the Soft,
Supersoft and Ultrasoft are much closer, and the Hypersoft is an aggressive step,
based on running at the Abu Dhabi test last year. Right: Pirelli’s new tyres on
display in Barcelona – the colours were chosen by the marketing department
the compounds more predictable,’ says Isola.

‘Teams complained that they would set up the
car for the Soft and it was difficult to manage
when they put the Supersoft on. Now, with this
change in working range it will be much better.’
With regard to the Superhard; ‘Forget
it,’ laughs Isola. ‘We’re not going to use it.
The Superhard compound is an insurance
for us in case we have underestimated the
development of this year’s cars. It’s much better
to homologate an additional compound to keep
in our pocket, rather than introduce a new one.
From our simulations we are quite confident
that we are not going to use this compound.’
Joy division
This year’s softer tyres are not only going to
make the drivers happier, but hopefully the
fans as well. Softer compounds lead to higher
Traditional testing methods like flow-vis are still a primary aero tool for F1 teams in testing; here a Haas in the pitlane degradation, resulting in larger performance
differences between drivers out on track, so
together’ in terms of the performance delta, The aggressive nature of the softer promoting more overtaking. To encourage this
the Hypersoft is much more aggressive. compounds has also led Pirelli to modify the further, Pirelli have changed their tyre allocation
‘The Hypersoft is quite a step softer front tyre construction. Not only do this year’s rules. Rather than teams choosing their
compared to the Ultrasoft,’ highlights Isola. ‘We tyres feature a rounder profile, incorporating allocation from three consecutive compounds
don’t have a lot of data but at Abu Dhabi, which new materials, but the distribution of forces specified by Pirelli, teams can pick a double step
is a low severity circuit and not that far from over the contact patch have also improved. in compound. For example, instead of running
a street circuit, the Hypersoft was behaving the Medium, Soft and Supersoft, teams can use
like a very soft compound. It was about 0.9-1.0 Shooting range the Medium, Soft and Ultrasoft, as is the case for
seconds per lap quicker than the Ultrasoft and ‘The other difference for this year is that the this year’s Chinese Grand Prix. This opens up the
it was able to run for eight laps on average.’ working range now decreases consecutively options for some interesting strategic decisions,
However, Valtteri Bottas at this year’s Mercedes from the Medium to the Hypersoft,’ says Isola. which again could result in more exciting racing.
launch highlighted how the Hypersoft was only ‘We don’t have this alternating between Although 2018 is an evolutionary year in
suitable for 2-3 laps during Abu Dhabi testing. low working range and high working range terms of regulation, once the effects of Halo
Similar to when Pirelli introduced the compounds. The harder compounds are high have been validated on track, teams will be
Ultrasoft in 2016, the pink Hypersoft has been working range and the softer compounds are bringing plenty of performance upgrades
predominantly designed to give drivers that low working range.’ Previously, the high working throughout the season. This, together with the
extra level of grip at street circuits. Depending range compounds were the Hard and Soft with unknown performance of the new tyres and the
on the results from Monaco, however, teams the low working range compounds the Medium increased pressure on power units, gives 2018
might just see the pink tyres at other low and Supersoft. The Ultrasoft was Medium to all the ingredients for an exciting season –
severity tracks towards the end of the season. High working range. ‘This is important to make let’s hope that this is the right recipe.
‘The Superhard compound is an insurance for us in case we

have underestimated the development of this year’s cars’
HIGH SPEED
CONNECTIVITY
SOLUTIONS
MINIATURE
IP68 SEALED
RUGGED
RELIABLE
IP68 SEALED UNMATED

High Tech | High Speed | High Quality
Connect with us
Call +44 23 9245 9600
Email Sales@fischerconnectors.co.uk
NEW USB 3.0
MiniMax: ultra-miniature
USB 3.0 connector, 12 mm diameter
 Ultra-compact and lightweight
Signal & power
Pankl Systems Austria GmbH

 Up to 10 Gb/s data transmission

Engine Systems
A-8600 Bruck/Mur, Kaltschmidstraße 2-6

Phone: +43(0)3862 33 999 0
Fax: +43(0)3862 33 999 290
e-mail: engine@pankl.com
USB 3.0 Rugged Flash Drive for
the safe storage of sensitive data
 Up to 100 MB/s read speed www.pankl.com
 Up to 128 GB memory size
 Withstands corrosion, vibration,
shock and extreme temperatures
www.fischerconnectors.com THE RELIABLE EXPERT

TECHNOLOGY – HELMETS
Head first
The FIA’s updated helmet standard, which will be
mandatory in Formula 1 from 2019, promises to take driver
safety to ‘the next level’ – but how will this improve
what are already the very best racing
helmets on the planet?
By PETER WRIGHT

The 8860-2018
I
n motor racing’s early days drivers made do helmet standard, working with the industry
with leather helmets and goggles to protect and test laboratories to develop test standards,
helmet standard
them from stones, dust, wind and rain – but protocols and helmet construction methods
not head impacts. Then, in 1954, Bell Sports to achieve the latest performance standard.
developed the first mass produced motorsport Mellor worked at TRL (Transport Research
extends the test helmet, and five years later the Snell Foundation Laboratory), performing the R&D and writing
developed the first motorsport helmet standard. the specifications for the UK DOT’s Advanced
areas at the sides of Nearly 60 years on the FIA has now
updated its racing helmet standard, 8860-2018,
Motorcycle Helmet. Since working with the
FIA Institute (now the Global Institute) he
the helmet to match launching it at the FIA Sports Conference Week
in Manila in June. This standard provides the
has authored a series of helmet standards:
8858-2002, Auto Racing Helmet; 8860-2004,
the car components most sophisticated and protective performance
in a motorsport helmet. The helmet industry
Advanced Racing Helmet; Visor reinforcement
for 8860 in 2011; 8860-2010, update; 8859-2015,
– represented by Stilo, Bell Racing Helmets, Premium Helmet and now 8860-2018 update.
Schuberth, and Arai – has worked with the FIA With so much experience in the R&D of
throughout and developed their prototypes for helmets, there is no one better than Mellor to
this standard. The first homologated products discuss the physics and engineering behind the
will be available for Formula 1 in 2019, quickly latest motorsport helmet standard.
followed by other top FIA championships (see
box out on page 86 for the full spec). Bone dome
Since composite and polystyrene foam replaced
Head start leather and cork in the 1950s, the concept
A modern motorsport helmet may look of a strong, semi-rigid outer shell and an
simple, while also being stylish, but it provides energy absorbing liner has dominated helmet
protection to the driver’s most valuable asset, construction. Carbon fibre has replaced glass
their head, under extreme and emergency fibre for the shell, whose task it is to prevent
conditions when involved in a crash. It sets out penetration or fracture that would leave the
to restrain the head, via the built-in FHR (frontal skull vulnerable to injury, and to spread the
head restraint) anchors; to prevent skull fracture impact load into the foam liner and limit the
and limit deceleration to below 300g whatever deceleration of the brain and its connections
the head hits in his racecar, at the highest likely experienced during an impact.
head velocity relative to the car. It must also Unlike motorcycle accidents on the public
protect against a loose object at an impact roads, what the helmet actually strikes can be
velocity of over 250km/h without inhibiting tightly controlled in most motorsports these
vision. All this with a structure that is just 50mm days. In the past, the driver’s head could hit the
thick and at a weight of under 2kg. road, barriers, trees, and other cars, but today
Andrew Mellor is the person who has, over the helmet and the car are regulated as a single
the last 20 years, steadily progressed the FIA’s protective system. The development of FHR,
The FIA worked closely with 8860-2018 standard specifies that the helmet must withstand
Stilo, Bell Racing Helmets, this 225gm metal curved disc fired at 250km/h into the top of
NEWTON LABS
Schuberth, and Arai while the visor area while not subjecting the head to more than 275g
formulating its new 8860-
FIA
2018 helmet standard

FIA

NEWTON LABS
The projectile is loaded into the barrel of a pneumatic gun powered by a pre-charged reservoir of compressed air (this test rig was developed by the FIA and Newton Laboratories)
One issue that has evolved with the very high

average g necessary is that the energy absorbing
materials, whether in the helmet or headrest/seat
foam, have to be very stiff. This stiffness tends to
lead to quite high peak g at lower head impact
velocities, potentially leading to concussion.
Balancing the trade-off between concussion and
severe head trauma has led to the use of Confor
foam in headrests and seats. This is relatively soft
at low velocities and stiffens up at high velocities
due to its inherent viscous damping properties.
Visor panels
Then, in 2009, Felipe Massa was struck on
the head by a rear suspension third spring at
the Hungarian GP. The spring penetrated his
visor and helmet and caused skull fracture.
NEWTON LABS
After extensive simulations of the accident at

Aermacchi’s ballistic impact test facility in Italy,
Mellor developed a visor reinforcement panel
The velocity of the projectile is measured at the muzzle of the gun. The target is instrumented with a tri-axial accelerometer for the 8860 helmet. This consists of a 50mm
wide strip of Zylon composite, bonded to the
The concept of a strong, headrests, steering columns, racing nets, roll

cages, and seats are all specified to interact with
top of the visor and covering 25mm of the
helmet just above the eye port. The 25mm of
semi-rigid outer shell

the helmet. The 8860-2018 helmet standard visor covered by this strip is generally used for a
takes this compatibility to the next level by sponsor banner, so does not reduce vision. Tests
and an energy absorbing

extending the test areas at the sides of the showed that this would have prevented helmet
helmet to match the car components. penetration in Massa’s accident.
To limit head acceleration to less than 300g Since being used in Formula 1 and in IndyCar,
liner has dominated – a level at which there should not be long-term this anti-penetration strip has prevented serious
medical consequences – the new drop test is or fatal injuries on at least three occasions.
helmet construction conducted at 9.5m/sec, the equivalent of a head
impact at a head velocity of 35km/h! To pass
However, fitment and maintenance of the
protective strip requires significant servicing,
since the 1950s the test requires careful design and use of
materials characteristics for the shell and helmet
so it could only be mandated in open-cockpit
championships where helmet manufacturers
liner that spread the load into the head below were able to provide this service.
the skull fracture load, and ride down the head The 8860-2018 standard, as applied to
at a deceleration that does not exceed the 300g helmets used in open-cockpit championships,
limit. The average g over the 30mm of effective incorporates this protection directly into the
liner crush will be at least 150g. helmet, with the eye port upper edge lowered

Figure 1: Development of FIA standard 8860-2018
ANDREW MELLOR
ANDREW MELLOR
Table 1 Table 2
Being suspended, the helmet and headform are free to move Projectile Helmet shell Head Projectile + helmet shell Head
longitudinally and laterally to achieve the right body dynamics Mass: 0.225kg 1.3kg 4.7kg Mass: 1.525kg 4.7kg
Velocity: 250km/h 0km/h 0km/h Velocity: 37km/h 0km/h
Energy: 542J 0J 0J Energy: 80J 0J
10mm, and does so using a simple but clever the panel fails to prevent penetration of the
physical principle: momentum transfer. shell, the projectile easily passes through the
The standard specifies that the helmet must liner and strikes the headform, resulting in
withstand a 225gm metal curved disc fired at head gs of over 330g. When the panel prevents
250km/h into the top of the visor area, and not penetration, g-levels are kept below 50g –
subject the head to more than 275g. Such a probably a headache, but not the appalling
projectile has energy of 542 Joules, exceeding injuries that Massa suffered.
the muzzle energy of most pistols … except for This protection, built into the 8860-2018
Dirty Harry’s .44 Magnum. helmets, will deal with small loose objects such
The physical conditions just before the as the spring that struck Massa in Hungary in
projectile hits the helmet are shown in Table 1 2009, then. But it will not deal with large, heavy
while Figure 1 shows just after impact, during objects such as a wheel and tyre (Henry Surtees,
which momentum is conserved. 2009) or a nosecone (Justin Wilson, 2015). It is
The loss of energy is accounted for by the for protection against these objects in particular
plastic deformation of the Zylon panel, which that the Halo was developed.
dissipates the energy by the crushing of the
composite in the same way as the composite Barrier brief
crash structures on racing cars absorb impact Momentum transfer is not just used in ballistic
energy. Now the helmet shell is travelling at only protection for helmets. It is also employed in the
ANDREW MELLOR
37km/h relative to the head. These conditions design of high-speed barriers. To bring a car to a
are such that there should not be significant halt from 200+km/h without hurting the driver
injury to the head (Table 2). requires deceleration at around 60-70g over
around 3m. The FIA high-speed barrier achieves
This shows the actual hit of the projectile against the helmet and Head shot this partially by momentum transfer. Segmented
visor. The test helped prove that using momentum transfer worked The test rig and procedure was developed with barriers of a prescribed mass (110kg) are set up
Newton Laboratories, in Milan. The projectile in layers, with spaces between the rows. Built
This protection, built into consists of an aluminium piston and the curved
steel impactor, weighing 225gm in total.
into the sections are anti penetration layers,
just like the helmet’s Zylon panel, but in this
the 8860-2018 helmets,

This is loaded into the barrel of a pneumatic case they are steel to resist the pointed nose
gun, powered by a pre-charged reservoir of the car. The car connects with the barrier
will deal with small loose

of compressed air. On firing, the velocity of at the point of impact and draws connected
the projectile is measured at the muzzle. The sections of the barrier inwards and forwards,
target is an inverted, suspended headform, progressively adding mass to the car. The initial
objects such as the spring instrumented with a tri-axial accelerometer, deceleration as the car hits the first barrier is
on to which the test helmet is fitted. Being attenuated, and energy is dissipated by the
that struck Felipe Massa suspended, the helmet and headform are free
to move longitudinally and laterally to achieve
crushable nose cone and the friction between
the barrier segments and the ground. Once the
in Hungary in 2009 the representative body dynamics.
Development of the specifications for
car has coupled with sufficient barrier mass,
raising the total by a factor of around three
Mellor’s approach to using momentum transfer times its running mass and totalling around 2.5
theory showed that it worked in practice. If tonnes, it will have slowed to 60km/h, which

is dealt with by crushing the barrier sections

against the Armco or concrete final barrier.
Carlos Sainz’s impact at Sochi in 2015 at
over 150km/h, when he hit three rows of Tecpro
barriers spaced to give an overall depth of 3m,
illustrates this effect very well. The barriers
slowed him to under 60km/h at an average of
20g, and the final phase, as the car crushed the
Tecpro blocks against Armco, had a peak of only
40g. This progressive slowing enabled both the
car and the driver to race the next day.
Sudden stops
Momentum transfer, or the conservation of
momentum, is a principle that forms a valuable
tool in the motorsport safety toolbox. Whoever
it was who said: ‘It’s not speed that kills, it
is the sudden loss of it,’ was right. Excessive
deceleration or dissipation of energy into a
human is injurious. Firing the 225gm helmet
test projectile at 250km/h into a stationary
2-tonne car would stop the projectile and
accelerate the car to under 3km/h. Collision
with a 3km/h car would not injure a human if it
Carlos Sainz’s accident at Sochi in 2015 was a good example of how momentum transfer works in the Tecpro crash barriers hit them. Matching up the masses of a helmet
and projectile and managing the energy of the
Momentum transfer, system is a neat trick of physics.
Other changes to the helmet standard
or the conservation have set out to generally increase the helmet’s
performance characteristics. Tests to check
of momentum, is the overall crush resistance, and resistance to

penetration of the shell are uprated. To meet
a principle that these tests the shell structural properties are

tuned along with the impact requirements.
forms a valuable Because helmets are produced in a range

of sizes to suit the full spectrum of adult
tool in the motorsport head dimensions, the variation in head mass

that goes hand-in-hand with size means
safety toolbox
that each size of helmet/head mass needs
These days crash helmets reflect a driver’s personality tuning to the homologation standards to
and allegiances and also carry advertising. But this provide the same level of protection.
should not detract from their main purpose; saving lives Visor performance, chinstrap strength, and
flammability have also all been improved.
Helmet spec 8860-2018 Evolving knowledge
The head is the most vulnerable part of a
• Standard impact. Helmet impact at 9.5m/s. • Visor coating. Transmitter test to ensure colour and racecar driver, particularly in an open-cockpit
Peak deceleration on driver’s head shall vision is not significantly changed or distorted. car. Injuries to the head are among the most
not exceed 275g. • Retention system. Roll-off test and dynamic test to serious, being either life-threatening or leading
• Low velocity impact. Helmet impact at 6m/s. ensure strength of chin strap and its attachments. to long-term impairment. Although for many
Peak deceleration shall not exceed 200g with a • Chin guard linear impact. Impact test with full years drivers relied on a leather helmet or
maximum average of 180g. headform at 5.5m/s. The peak deceleration reversed cloth cap, science has provided a
• Low lateral impact. Helmet impact at 8.5m/s. Peak shall not exceed 275g. very high level of protection in the event that
deceleration shall not exceed 275g. • Chin guard crush. A hammer hits the chin the head is either struck by an object or strikes
• Advanced ballistic protection. A 225gm metal guard and measures its ability to keep impact some part of the car’s structure. Research
projectile fired at 250km/h. The peak deceleration away from the head. continues in line with evolving medical
shall not exceed 275g. • FHR mechanical strength. A test to ensure knowledge about brain trauma and the physical
• Crush. A 10kg weight falling 5.1 metres on high strength of attachment points for the forces and accelerations that cause it.
to helmet. Lateral and longitudinal tests. The frontal head restraints. Not only does the racing helmet protect
transmitted force should not exceed 10kN. • Projection and surface friction. Test to ensure the driver but it also provides a surface upon
• Shell penetration. A 4kg impactor dropped helmet surface uniformity and that friction is which he or she can express aspects of his or her
on to helmet at 7.7m/s. minimised. Shell surface also subjected to BARCOL personality and allegiances to the world. In that
• Visor penetration. An air rifle fires a 1.2gm pellet hardness test for resistance to penetration. respect it is so much more than a safety device
at the visor. The pellet must not penetrate the • Flammability: Helmet exposed to 790degC flame; it these days – but as a safety device it is still a
interior of the crash helmet. must self-extinguish once flame is removed. seriously effective piece of kit.

FORMULA 1 – 2021 REGULATIONS
Reinventing
the wheel
With Formula 1 announcing a shift to 18-inch wheels in the first of its

2021 regulations to be revealed, we examine the technical implications
for F1 teams, brake suppliers and its future tyre manufacturer
By SAM COLLINS
I
t is no secret that Formula 1 will introduce announcement took teams completely by change wheel size had been taken and it was
an entirely new set of technical and sporting surprise. The revelation came in the form of an clear that they were somewhat taken aback that
regulations for the 2021 season. However, official invitation to tender posted on the FIA the media were aware of a major change to the
until now the rules themselves have largely website. The tender is for the Formula 1 tyre technical regulations before the teams were.
been a closely guarded secret. But the veil was supply contract from 2020-2023 (inclusive) and ‘We were not aware of that,’ Paddy Lowe of
partially lifted at the German Grand Prix where in the documents uploaded to the website there Williams said after the tender document was
the first solid elements of the new regulations is an unprecedented level of detail about what shown to him. ‘I know the idea of 18in wheels
were revealed. These were that in 2021 F1 will the FIA wants from the new F1 tyres. has been debated many, many times over the
adopt 18in wheels, low profile tyres, and it will At the pre-race press conference in Germany last 10 or more years. So, it’s an interesting thing
also ban the use of tyre warmers. none of the four technical directors present to make a commitment to that because it’s
This change has substantial implications (from Williams, Renault, Red Bull and Force not absolutely clear that’s a great way forward,
for the overall car design in 2021 and the India) were actually aware that the decision to and I think we need to analyse the implications

Formula 1 tyres are to go low profile avoid, despite Isola’s claims of lighter front tyres.
from 2021 to fit new 18in wheels, while ‘I think what will make a huge difference to the
F1 will also be banning tyre warmers packaging inboard of the front of the car will be
mainly what we do with uprights, brake drums
and all the outboard kit, understanding what the
tyres need, in terms of suspension kinematics, all
of that,’ Bob Bell of Renault F1 says.
One detail of the new regulations which
is also included in these tender documents
is that the mandated weight distribution will
shift rearwards by three per cent, though the
reason for this is not provided.
Wonder wall
A low profile tyre also gives teams a much
smaller sidewall to work with, something which
both complicates and simplifies some car
development tasks. Currently the sidewalls of F1
tyres play a major role in the suspension system
and that role will change substantially in 2021.
‘The influence on the inboard suspension
will be higher in terms of tyre deflection,’ Red
Bull Racing technical director Pierre Wache
says. ‘For sure, the spring will take more load.
I think that it might give more control for the
chassis people of the ride height of the car. So
it is not so bad from that aspect, and the tyre
deflection will have less of an influence on the
Paddock rumours aerodynamics of the car.’

But what degree of influence the sidewall
suggest that there change will really have on the design and layout
of the suspension system on the 2021 cars is
is interest from uncertain, as it is not yet clear if a conventional

system will be used at all, as there are ongoing
both Michelin
discussions around the reintroduction of
active suspension for 2021. If this happens
and Hankook
then the system will likely be a common set of
components shared by all teams.
Black art
technically before going in that direction. 18in wheels and the front tyres will be sized at As Wache mentions, the reduction in sidewall
Certainly, it makes a very different tyre. A much 270/D1-18, the rears 405/D2-18 (D1 and D2 are deformation will have a major impact on the
heavier package as well, and quite challenging two uncertain dimensions, left up to the tyre aero development of the cars. Currently every
to design and manufacture.’ makers but which must be ranged between team is struggling to accurately model the
Switching to 18in wheels is by no means a 700mm and 720mm). Notably, this means that behaviour of the Pirelli product, especially in the
new discussion in F1, as Lowe suggested it is the front tyres will be 35mm narrower than wind tunnel, and the lower profile tyres could
something which has been under consideration present but have a slightly larger diameter. The well make that task a lot easier.
for years, with tests of prototype wheels and rear tyres will also have a larger diameter than ‘Wind tunnel tyres are a real black art, to try
tyres taking place on both F2 (GP2) and F1 cars. at present but will remain the same width. This and replicate reality is very hard,’ Force India
means in terms of tyre weight alone that the technical director Andrew Green says. ‘You end
Tyre change rears will be heavier, while the fronts may be up in a situation where you can try and replicate
Developing the new low profile tyre for 18in slightly lighter than the 2018 rubber. a condition on the track, say a high speed
wheels will fall to the nominated tyre supplier, ‘The thing which is really important is the corner, you can have a wind tunnel tyre that
currently Pirelli, but this could well change for volume of air inside the tyre because [of] the replicates that, but it is no good for replicating
2020. At the time of writing the Italian company variance in the loading capacity of the tyre,’ a low speed corner. You are always stuck with
had not decided if it would put in a tender or Pirelli racing manager Mario Isola says. ‘The the compromise of which tyre do you develop
not, while paddock rumours suggest that there front tyre will be narrower than now, while the around. So we have to be quite smart about that
is also interest from both Michelin and Hankook. rear is the same width. Don’t forget we do 18in and know where the limits of the tunnel tyres
The change of tyre shape and size is something tyres for sportscar racing, and we did it for F2 in are at, where it is reporting good correlation,
that the rule makers feel will increase road the past as well as doing the prototype tyre for and where it is reporting bad correlation, and
relevance, in theory, but in reality this has been show and testing with a Lotus F1 car, so we have make sure we are not developing around
done more for aesthetic reasons, and it’s known investigated this to some extent.’ something which does not exist. Pirelli give us
that this is something that Michelin favours. The changes are of particular interest to car updates through the year to mitigate that but
The tender document states that from the designers, with an increase in unsprung weight it’s a real challenge, especially as they are busy
start of the 2021 season all cars will use larger inevitable, something they always strive to developing the full size tyres too.’

‘We don’t know what the rules around the brake disc size will be yet’
Modelling the real tyre is a major job for all
teams not just in terms of physical shape but
also thermal performance, and it is something
that may be eased in 2021 simply because with
a lower profile there will be less deflection. ‘We
have an FEA model provided to us by Pirelli, and
we use that as a basis then modify and tweak
it to match the data that we see on the real car,’
Green says. ‘We do on-car measurements of the
tyre behaviour, feed that to the tyre modeller,
then that into the FE model, and finally those
shapes go into CFD and that is when we
start looking at where the wind tunnel tyres
are deficient and when we have to turn the
attention to CFD. You start getting creases and
all sorts as the tyre changes shape.
Pirelli tested 18in wheels fitted with low profile tyres on a GP2 car during a demonstration run at Monaco three years ago ‘We have to look at sidewall deformation, the
way the contact patch changes shape at high
speed, low speed, medium speed, and what it
is doing on the inside wheel and outside wheel,
front and rear,’ Green adds. ‘At times some of the
tyres are barely touching the ground as they go
round corners, other times they are planted so
hard you think that they are about to pop. Steer,
slip, roll, all of that factors in as well and it’s an
incredibly complex equation and you can get
yourself lost very quickly if you are not incredibly
clear about what you are trying to achieve.’
Big brake
However, before Pirelli or any other organisation
can even start to consider the design of the new
tyres it needs to understand more about other
areas of the car; not only the weight distribution
but also aerodynamic performance as well as
some mechanical parts, and key among them
is the braking system. When the 18in wheels
were originally tested by Lotus the brake system
Tyres are already mounted to 18in rims in LMP1. Low profile tyres are said to be more road relevant than current F1 rubber carried over from the current 13in rims, but
there is great uncertainty over what the 2021
rules will include in terms of brake disc size.
‘I would welcome bigger brakes,’ Bell says.
‘I think for the new formula we will need
them as we are getting close to the practical
limits with the current brakes. I think it does
represent an opportunity to redress some
capacity in the braking system.’
Disc discussions
But to date it seems that the group developing
the new rules has yet to turn its attention to the
braking system, and at the time of writing had
yet to consult with the brake manufacturers
about what the new rules could bring, and there
have even been suggestions that the current
brake regulations will carry over to 2021. ‘We
don’t know what the regulations around the
brake disc size will be yet,’ Andrea Pellegrini,
Brembo’s F1 brake engineer, says. ‘We expect to
talk with the FIA about the rules, I know there
Mario Isola, Pirelli racing manager, alongside an 18in low profile tyre. These were fitted to a Lotus to test the idea in 2014 are some meetings coming up, as was the case

ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODIES MOTORSPORT ABS POWER BOX PBX90
C AS M A N T I - C O L L I S I O N R A DA R MOTORSPORT MOBILE MOTORSPORT IGNITION COILS

WHEEL ALIGNMENT
MOTORSPORT FUEL PUMPS MOTORSPORT SENSORS PROGRAMMABLE WIPER MOTORS
Motorsport Systems Ltd, are a UK based dealer of Bosch Motorsport

products. With an innate understanding of the motorsport industry, we
specialise in delivering a personal service that gets your parts to you, on
budget and on time. For further information on the products detailed above,
please do not hesitate to call or email info@motorsport-systems.co.uk.
01684 291122
www.motorsport-systems.co.uk
with the thickness change for 2017, but we

have not spoken to them yet. With the big rims
we can increase the diameter of the discs, so
it would be like GT or LMP1 where they have
a similar rim size. I personally think that the
diameter of the disc will increase, in fact I hope it
does because from my point of view the big rim
and a small disc would not look good.’
Science friction
There are a number of variables which will need
to be decided in terms of the brake system
design before any serious work on the tyres
can begin, as Pellegrini highlights. ‘In terms of
the friction material, nothing will change. The
discs we use on LMP1 cars are the exact same
material we use in Formula 1, we change just
the diameter, the thickness and the cooling.
The rules relating to brake systems have yet to be announced yet the brakes play a key role in the performance of the tyre But these are options to consider; you could
have a bigger diameter disc, but to keep the
weight down maybe it would not be as thick
as now, perhaps back to 28mm thickness or
30mm. The radius would increase with a bigger
disc so you can reach more torque without
any problem. The current discs are on the limit
because we cannot increase the diameter, and
32mm is quite a thick disc. With the current
regulations the braking torque is really high,
and in terms of safety it would be better to
have a bit of margin. If there was a significant
performance increase it could be a problem.’
Brake time
However, time could be an issue in terms of
developing new brakes, as much work will be
needed to be done by the brake manufacturers
to be ready for 2021. ‘For us it is really important
LMP brake discs have a larger diameter than those used in F1; it is possible the latter might use similar discs from 2021 to know the regulations in advance as the work
required to get the discs ready in time is very
long,’ Pellegrini says. ‘It takes around eight or
nine months just for the manufacturing. There
is also the cooling design, and the calipers too.
The sooner we get the rules the better.
‘To give you an example, for the 2017 season
the brake disc thickness increased from 28 to
32mm,’ Pellegrini adds. ‘This was done because
the energy of the cars with the new tyres and
increased downforce would have been too
much for a pre-2017 brake disc, so the only way
to increase the performance was to increase the
thickness as we could not increase the diameter
then as the discs are already as close as possible
to the wheel rim. That change may seem from
outside like it was not such a big deal, but in
truth we had to design the caliper from scratch.
That small change was a big job. Changing
the diameter means you have to redesign
the upright, the disc, the pads, the calipers,
everything, so it is an incredibly big change.
Just how much a current F1 car leans on its tyres during hard cornering is clear in this image of the McLaren at Silverstone Just take the disc cooling; the extra 4mm in
Currently the sidewalls of F1 tyres play a major role in the

suspension system and that role will change substantially
Primary Designs are leaders in the design and
manufacture of world-class high performance exhausts
Suppliers to championship winning Formula 1 fabrication of thin wall exotic alloys makes
teams and world record breaking supercar us the ideal partner to design and build
manufacturers. Our knowledge of exhaust design, high-performance racing exhausts for an
alongside our expertise in the welding and extensive range of motorsport applications.
Tel: +44 (0)1844 216 057 Web: www.primarydesigns.co.uk Email: patbarrett@primarydesigns.co.uk
WE CONNECT TECHNOLOGY
VAD FOR SOURIAU
8STA CONNECTORS
ULTRA MINIATURE
HARSH ENVIRONMENT
CONNECTORS
MIXED POWER AND
SIGNAL CONNECTORS
HERMETIC CONNECTORS
DEDICATED ASSEMBLY TOOLING
FUEL PROOF HEAT SHRINK BOOTS
ULTRA LIGHTWEIGHT ACCESSORIES
FUEL PROOF HEAT SHRINK TUBES
+44 (0) 1403 790 661

10 -11 JAN 2019
TH TH
STAND NO. E760 lanemotorsport.com

come and see us motorsport@fclane.com
ONLINE SHOP
CONNECTORS ACCESSORIES HEAT SHRINK BOOTS FOR AFTER HOURS ORDERING
thickness meant that we went from 1000 holes Talking of tyre temperature, this is another This change will require a completely new
to 1450 holes, and that was a major project. That major consideration for 2021, with tyre warmers approach to the tyre compound development,
would be a bigger challenge for a bigger disc.’ to be banned from that season on. This is according to Isola: ‘It is really difficult, as
Brembo and the other brake manufacturers actually not something that is entirely unknown without blankets we will have to change all the
also need to feed information on the disc design in motor racing, as Super GT, for example, has compounds,’ he says. ‘Right now the cars leave
to the teams well ahead of time so they can a total ban on tyre warmers, while the WEC the garage with the tyres at 110degC but now
design the cooling package around them, and has a ban on tyre blankets but uses tyre if they roll out with the tyres at 20degC it is a
the size of the disc could have a fundamental warming cabinets. However, for Formula 1 completely different challenge. Then, additional
impact on how that package might look. the challenge could be quite significant. to that, we have to design a number of
‘The cooling systems around the brake discs compounds to meet the tender. It will be more
are very sophisticated these days. Originally Blanket ban than the four specified by the FIA, it will
these were just used to control the temperature Isola certainly thinks it will be: ‘The pressure be six at least and we have to be able to deliver
of the caliper and disc, but now there are a evolution is going to be important, with certain specified performance gaps at 20 or 21
lot of things being done to warm up the rims, the tyres starting cold, the temperature and different circuits. That is not easy.’
for example, a lot of things are done for tyre pressure difference will be a lot bigger,’ he
temperature,’ Pellegrini says. says. ‘You can’t just start the tyres at 5psi cold Cold comfort
because this is F1 and there has to be a certain While some have questioned the value of this
‘If it drives us towards performance level. It will be important to have a

minimum pressure which is enough for the car
change, it has been met with cautious optimism
by others in F1. ‘If it drives us towards tyres that
tyres that have a much in the first few laps. We need to understand how
the tyres will work and how the temperatures
have a much wider window to operate in, that
could be a good thing,’ Lowe says. ‘I know at
wider window to operate

and pressures will evolve. It is not easy to make the same time they are talking about moving
a tyre like that, but it is a technical challenge. qualifying perhaps to formats where there are
in, that could be good’

We do it in F2, they start from cold, but the less laps, more criticality around doing single
performance level of F2 is much lower than F1.’ laps and, again, if that’s around tyres that aren’t
prepared with blankets that would drive us
towards tyres with a wider window, then I think
it would be a good thing for the sport.’
The tender (see box out) also specifies
that there must be three different tyre
compounds available at each race; a hard,
medium and soft. One of the requirements of
the tender document is that the performance
gaps between these compounds will be
significantly larger than they are at present
and the degradation will be higher. The hard
tyre will lose about two seconds a lap in terms
of performance through degradation after 22
per cent of the race distance; the medium tyre
will be around 1.2 seconds a lap faster than the
hard but will lose two seconds of performance
Tyre warmers will be banned for 2021 bringing challenges for both the chosen tyre manufacturer and the Formula 1 teams after 18 per cent of the race distance; while
the soft will be the quickest tyre, around 2.2
seconds a lap faster than the hard but will lose
two seconds a lap in performance after 10 per
cent of the race distance. This tyre performance
is expected at 75 per cent of the races, as it is
clear that it will not be possible at every race
circuit. This is all intended to force the F1 teams
to move away from a one stop strategy and
towards two and three stop races, something
the rule makers believe will ‘improve the show’.
On the edge
Additionally, the degradation of the tyre will be
non-linear, so the tyres will be designed to fall
off the cliff part way through the degradation.
It is suggested that an under-layer of a lower
performance compound is designed below
the main tread compound to achieve this. The
tyres will also be required to quickly recover
performance after a period of following another
car closely or some aggressive driving over a lap.
The tender document states: ‘It is anticipated
The tyre supplier will need to provide three different compounds for each race, with large performance gaps between them that to achieve this, for any given compound,

‘The degradation of the tyre will be non-linear, so the tyres will
be designed to fall off the cliff part way through the process’
the deviation of grip under a particular favours Pirelli as it already has a product at for the following year, and we track tested in
condition of surface macro and micro roughness this size. Though the tyres will have to comply August. It’s not a problem for a tyre maker to
and at a typical slip velocity will not drop by with the new performance criteria, in 2020 tyre react like that, it’s unfortunate but in Formula 1
more than five per cent in a temperature range warmers will still be used. everything is always quick.’
of plus/minus 15degC from that which achieves But Isola says of this: ’For 2020 we have to
peak grip. Furthermore the cross linking of the design a new tyre anyway, so it is no advantage Race against time
compound polymers must be robust enough for us to already have a product. We have a Quick or not, Formula 1 still faces a race
to resist permanent damage due to high slip or new tyre every year, there has not been a single against time to get everything ready in time
surface temperature conditions.’ season where we have not done a new tyre. for 2021, with many areas of the regulations
As the contract also covers the 2020 season ‘The tight deadlines should not be an issue still undecided and a number of deadlines
the winning tyre maker will also have to supply for us as it is the same as it was for us when fast approaching. By the time this is published
high profile tyres to suit 13in rims for a single we came to Formula 1 in 2011,’ Isola adds. ‘We the initial selection of the tyre supplier will
Formula 1 season, something some have said were only appointed at the end of June 2010 have been made subject to commercial
arrangements, but the details the tyre makers
will require are not likely to have been finalised.
‘We need additional details. We need to
know what the brakes are, what the downforce
levels are, anything that will help us start
designing the tyre,’ Isola says. ‘Right now with
no information it’s quite difficult. Ideally, it is
already too late for 2021, we need at least a draft
set of technical regulations which are not too far
from the final rules really by the time we would
be fully appointed, which will be September or
October time, once the commercial deals are
done. Then we will have to start immediately as
it is not only the tyres we have to design. We will
have to upgrade the machinery in the factory,
we need to change our indoor test equipment.
There are a lot of other minor factors which will
result, too. When they changed to the wider
In 2016 Pirelli used ‘mules’ to test the 2017 rubber, but it seems unlikely there will be a suitable test car for the 2021 tyres tyres in 2017, we had to increase the number
of trucks we have and the number of flight
Tyre performance targets cases, because you cannot fit the same number
of tyres in the trucks if the tyres are bigger, we
need to consider all of those things.’
• Tyre stiffness should vary
monotonically with working
above and below optimum at
which grip is reduced by five
two per cent with respect to
normal loads encountered Testing headache
range. In addition tyres with per cent on typical micro and during operation and must When Pirelli became the sole F1 tyre supplier in
the highest compound stiffness macro roughness tracks and maintain these limits within the 2011 it tested its products extensively using an
should also have the highest sliding velocities. normal variations in tyre wear. unbranded Toyota TF109, and ahead of 2017 it
working temperature range and used a number of specially adapted mule cars
the tyre temperature working
range should reduce as the tyre
• For 2021 the ratio of cornering
stiffness of the tyres should be
• Peak cornering force in low
speed corners should be
from various teams to try out the new wider
rubber. For 2021 the problem is somewhat more
compound stiffness reduces. compatible with a rearward achieved at six to seven degrees challenging with no car available at all which
The variation in working range shift of the longitudinal centre of slip angle on the rear tyres will be fully representative of the new rules.
between the compounds of gravity position of three and in high speed corners at ‘It’s like 2016, when we had mule cars, we
should not be excessive. per cent from current values. around eight degrees. Peak need cars that are designed to test 18in tyres,
Suggested values are shown Furthermore the change in cornering force on the front but I’m not sure we will get that,’ Isola says. ‘A
below where ‘working range’ cornering stiffness ratio must tyres should be achieved at NASCAR style test programme would be the
is defined as the temperatures remain a constant plus/minus slightly lower slip angles. ideal, we have it in GP2 and GP3 where the
organiser has a test car with a small team and
Variations in working range • Tyres should provide safe
performance when leaving the
we can test when we need to, and that gives
no advantage to any team. But in F1 it seems
Compound Optimum bulk temperature Working range
pits cold. The glass transition unrealistic to have a test team just for the tyres.’
A (hardest) (x + 10 to 15)ºC
temperature must be chosen The first data from the new tyre supplier
B (x + 5 to 10 ºC so that the tyres are never in is expected to be shared with teams just two
Optimum bulk temperature
C x ºC a ‘glassy state’ when either weeks after the contract is finalised, with the
+– 15 ºC
D (x – 5 to 10) ºC the ambient or the track first rig testing tyres for the 2020 season
E (softest) (x – 10 to 15) ºC temperature is above 10degC. delivered to teams on 1 January 2019.

FORMULA 1 – COOLING
Hot and bothered

Solving the problems of cooling a hybrid-powered car has been one of
the major challenges of the current Formula 1 era, but thanks to genuine
F1 team blueprints Racecar has been able to piece together the complex
thinking, and plumbing, that goes into the design of these systems
By SAMUEL COLLINS
I
f you walked around to the bin stores at any defunct Caterham F1 team, which detail the strict thermal control. The complete power
F1 team’s factory (and a few WEC facilities development of the 2015 Caterham CT06. This is unit consists of the internal combustion engine
too) in late 2013 or at any point in 2014 you the first time such detailed information has ever (ICE) and the hybrid system. The hybrid system
would have found the metal waste hoppers been published on a modern grand prix car. is made up of a number of core components;
overflowing with scrapped radiator cores. It When you look at any competition car (or the motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H) and
was a sign of the biggest shift in grand prix car indeed any car) you will quickly note that there the motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K), an
cooling system design in decades, if not ever. are several sources of heat and those all need to energy storage (ES) as well as control units for
Today, cooling system layout and be cooled to some extent. All of these sources each (CU-H, CU-K and CU-ES).
optimisation remains a crucial part of the can be gathered into two main categories; those
design of every single car on the grid and is a that only need to be cooled, and those that not ICE cool
constant area of study. The bins at the back of only have to be cooled but also have to have The main source of heat the cooling system
the F1 teams factories are still quite full, if not their temperature controlled and maintained has to manage is the internal combustion
overflowing as they were four years ago. This between the proper operational boundaries. engine. The cooling of the engine is against the
article looks at the cause of those overly full bins One source of heat that does not need thermodynamic efficiency; the cooling system
– the process of the design, development and an accurate control of its temperature is the extracts heat from the combustion chamber
optimisation of a current F1 car’s cooling system. racecar’s braking system. This system only that could be used to increase the pressure
It draws on two main sources of information. needs to be cooled to keep its temperature within the cylinder to extract more work from
Numerical Simulation of a 2018 F1 Car Cooling below the operational limit of the materials in the engine. However, the cooling system is
System for Silverstone Circuit is a technical paper which the different components of the system mandatory in an internal combustion engine
by Victor Tizon Otero and Stephen Samuel of have been manufactured. due to the limits that materials composing the
Oxford Brookes University, which was presented But falling entirely within the category of a internals of the engine have regarding higher
at the WCX SAE World Congress Experience in source of heat which needs its temperature to temperature. Above certain temperatures, these
early 2018. The second source of information be controlled is a Formula 1 power unit. Every components would fail, so their temperature
is a set of internal design documents from the single component needs to be kept under has to be kept under safe conditions.

While the cooling Figure 1: The first step was to map out the expected cooling demands over a season, including the extreme temperatures
demands for a
combustion engine
are well understood,
those for a hybrid
system are far
more complex
In addition, oil loses its lubricating properties

when the temperature is higher than around
175degC, thus increasing wear of engine
components and maybe leading to premature
failure of the engine. DLC (diamond-like carbon) Figure 2: The average conditions were also analysed. Both sets of data were then used to create the cooling specifications
coatings and other treatments play a role here in
reducing friction and, in turn, heat. Another area addition or rejection quantity. So one of the fitted a reciprocating combustion engine to a
where DLCs help is in the transmission – which first challenges is to model the associated parts car in 1886. That said, a challenge not quite as
also has a cooling demand, though significantly and components in order to assess the thermal old, and very new to motor racing, is cooling
lower than the power unit components. performance of the complete vehicle. a hybrid system alongside the combustion
As mentioned, the main source of heat for engine. This was the reason behind the piles of
Cool for CADs the cooling system is the 1.6-lire V6 engine. The experimental cooler cores found in those bins
The design of a cooling system for a Formula 1 heat transfer takes place via two main fluids. The mentioned at the start of this piece.
car is a demanding task that has to be carried main coolant is the water, the fluid in charge of With many more sub-systems requiring
out following all the regulations that govern the removing excess heat from the cylinder and the cooling than before one of the first challenges
sport. In addition to the specific regulations for head. The second fluid is the oil, used mainly to that the Formula 1 teams had to understand in
the cooling package which place restrictions on lubricate engine components like the pistons, the run up to the introduction of the new power
some materials, for example, its design has also the camshaft and the crankshaft, but also to units in 2014 was actually working out what the
to take into account the regulations of other remove heat from pistons, the turbocharger and cooling demands really were.
components of the car since they interact and other engine components. Additionally, the fuel For Caterham, the starting point for this was
transfer thermal energy across the systems. used also has a cooling role. analysing the weather data from the race circuits
For instance, the maximum pressure a pump But this challenge is nothing new and that are visited by Formula 1 over the course of a
can deliver or the maximum energy that the combustion engine cooling systems have been season, with the weather extremes mapped out
battery can hold can change the overall heat refined and optimised ever since Mr Benz first (Figure 1) along with the average conditions

This is the first

time such detailed
information has
ever been published
on a modern
grand prix car
(Figure 2). This data was then used to create
both a maximum cooling specification and a
baseline cooling specification, as well as the Figure 3: Flow rates. T-air is ambient temperature, W is flow rate required by water coolers, O for oil coolers and E for ERS
bodywork options for the racecar.
A design report on the car states: ’For the
maximum cooling specification one has to look
at the extreme weather predictions as well as
the average and consider the likeliness of the
extreme weather to be occurring and whether
there are other ways of reducing temperature
(at the cost of performance obviously). Once
established, these massflow numbers can
be used to size the radiators needed (based
on expected maximum possible massflows
from an aero point of view). For the baseline
cooling specification one needs to consider
on how many circuits one does accept an aero
penalty for average conditions.’
Packing heat Figure 4: In first ERS cooling circuit devised by Caterham the small central cooler would feed the control unit for the MGU-K
Another factor which Formula 1 teams have
to consider is the maximum operational
temperature of various components. A typical
2015 Formula 1 power unit had the following
maximum allowable temperatures for the
various components in the power unit. The
control units ranged from 60degC to 75degC,
the MGUs around 85degC, and the energy store
was between 73degC to 85degC.
Additionally, the fluid temperatures in
various systems are often defined by the power
unit supplier. This is all factored in to allow for a
cooling circuit (or indeed circuits) to be laid out
and the various coolers sized and positioned
in the car, as well as the various airflow
requirements for coolers within the system. Figure 5: Team looked at integrating energy store cooling into the MGU-H circuit and making greater use of centreline cooler
Those flow rates can be seen in Figure 3. Here
the extreme conditions are shown in red and the
average conditions are in blue.
Based on the maximum flow rate for water The final Caterham CT06
at Singapore (1.01kg/s @ 32degC) and the cooler layout. Two charge
Hungaroring (1.07kg/s @ 36degC) a maximum air coolers with ERS and oil
flow rate for the water coolers was set at and water coolers are on the
1.02kg/s, similarly for oil (0.71kg/s at Singapore left side, water cooler on the
and 0.75 kg/s at Hungaroring) a maximum right. The gearbox cooler is
of 0.72kg/s was set. In terms of the ERS the above the turbocharger
maximum was set at 0.47kg/s.
While the cooling demands for a combustion
engine are well understood, the demands of
a hybrid system are far more complex and
required a lot more investigation than would

usually be conducted by a Formula 1 team. As a
result, one of the first cooling circuits to be laid
out was the ERS cooling, and this was to utilise a
heat exchanger in the left hand side sidepod as
well as a smaller centreline cooler. The sidepod
duct circuit would cool the energy store, both
MGUs and the control electronics for the
MGU-H. The small central cooler would feed the
control unit for the MGU-K (Figure 4).
Chill out
However, this layout was found to place a high
demand on the left hand side radiator, so to
overcome this the team looked at integrating
the energy store cooling into the MGU-H cooling
circuit and make greater use of the centreline
cooler (Figure 5). But simulation suggested
that while this layout would likely work for
the average circuit temperature demands
(Figure 3) it would struggle to meet the
Figure 6: A second pump was added to serve the CU-K and this was to be fed via a cooler on the centreline of the racecar demands in the extreme conditions, it would
also be a struggle to get adequate cooling
from the centreline cooler. The issue was felt
to be the low temperature requirement of the
MGU-K control unit, which essentially caused a
bottleneck in the system.
To get around this a second pump was
added to the system, primarily to serve the
CU-K, and would be fed via a cooler on the
centreline of the racecar – the additional
pump would also have the benefit of
reducing the airflow requirement of the
centreline cooler (Figure 6). This layout would
allow the CU-K to run at a cooler temperature
while the other components would be able
to run hotter, reducing the size of cooling
Figure 7: The single pump would have been workable but the demands of the oil system and ERS cooling counted against it apertures across the racecar.
Pump action
However, there was still interest in a single
pump layout and both the twin and single
pump layouts were re-evaluated at a higher
ambient temperature, but it was found that
while the single pump solution would be
workable the demands of the oil system and
the ERS cooling could create a significant
aerodynamic penalty (Figure 7). The double
pump layout was found to still require less
air flow into the centreline cooling duct, but
made little difference in terms of the size of the
sidepod duct and ultimately this layout, the
same as Figure 6, was adopted.
Once the layout had been confirmed
the attention then shifted on to the coolers
themselves. A set of design targets were
established, not only based on the pure
cooling demands of the power unit but
also on the racecar’s overall aerodynamic
goals. Additionally, the weight of each of the
Airflow under the body and through sidepods was calculated in CFD to ensure adequate flow and a good level of efficiency components was also tightly monitored.
The issue was the low temperature requirement of the MGU-K

control unit, which essentially caused a bottleneck in the system
The final design called for the mounting of a Perhaps the most complex layout on
double pass charge air cooler in the left sidepod display in 2018 is that of the Sauber C37 (see
along with a double pass oil cooler and the ERS Racecar Engineering June 2018, V28N6), which
cooler. In the right sidepod a second charge air is equipped with a multitude of different
cooler would be installed (though of different circuits and coolers. This has been done for one
dimensions to the one on the opposite side) overriding reason – aerodynamic performance.
along with the engine water cooler. Indeed, the cooling system is a major challenge
The transmission cooler would be mounted for the aerodynamic performance of the car
above the turbocharger and fed from the and it is constantly adjusted and optimised. It
centreline of the car. After a substantial amount is also one of the few areas of an F1 car which
of optimisation of the coolers the weight of can be developed outside of the perimeter of
the entire cooling system for the car was restricted aerodynamic testing, so the amount
brought down to 16kg. The Caterham CT05 had of development is substantial.
a cooling system weight of over 30kg, so the
2015 Caterham would have seen a substantial Playing it cool
saving, had it been completed. The use of thermal barrier coatings on the inner
surfaces of the car bodywork has seen the cars
Out in the cold almost shrink-wrapped around the power unit
But that’s the sad part. Ultimately, how effective at the rear, and climate specific aerodynamic
this system would have been was never packages developed. But the teams still struggle
determined as the CT06 was never constructed to get the heat out, scorch marks still appear
because the team collapsed during the 2014 on bodywork and extra ducts and outlets have
A set of cooler design targets was established and this was not season. It is fair to say, however, that the to be added at hotter circuits. All of which
only based on the pure cooling demands of the power unit but complexity of cooling systems has increased create an aerodynamic penalty for the overall
also on the racecar’s overall aerodynamic goals. Meanwhile substantially since 2015, with a significant car. So the never ending cycle continues, with
the weight of each component was also monitored (above) shift toward centreline cooling, largely for testing optimisation and development, and all
aerodynamic reasons, and with more coolers the while cooling systems offer a significant
and elements added to the systems. potential performance gain.
The use of thermal barrier coatings on the inner surfaces of the body
has seen the cars almost shrink wrapped around the PU at the rear
SST Advert half page FIA.qxp_Layout 1 28/02/2018 14:17 Page 1
at ta
V ut E
is os 48
A nd
S
it p 2
us or
t
Design and manufacture of
high performance exhausts,
precision fabrications and
RADIATORS AND HEAT
EXCHANGERS thermal management solutions EXHAUSTS AND PRECISION
FABRICATIONS
SST are the only UK

manufacturer of the
Additional Frontal SST Technology
Protection Halo SST-DPS-ProTi
AFP.003.18-T
TITANIUM DRIVER (AFP-Halo) 8869-2018
PROTECTION SYSTEM
SUPPLIERS TO F1, INDYCAR, TOURING AND SPORTSCAR, RALLY AND PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE SECTORS
SST Technology
Oxfordshire T: +44 (0) 1865 731018 E: info@sstubetechnology.com
www.sstubetechnology.com
Oil coolers and
Intercooler cores
Reliability Flexibility Know-how

Visit us at www.setrab.com/proline
SUBSCRIBE TO MOTORSPORT’S
LEADING TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE
Get the latest product

developments, technical
insight and performance
analysis from the leading
motorsport technology
publication every month.
INSIDE
EACH ISSUE
•Unrivalled analysis
of major events
including Formula
One, the World Rally
Championship and
the World Endurance
Championship
•Detailed racecar design
and innovation
•Features from leading
industry engineers print or
and the latest product digital
development access
TO ORDER
www.chelseamagazines.com/CRCEF1D8
+44 (0) 1858 438 443 (quote code CRCEF1D8)
AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE
DIGITAL EDITION ALSO AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

for tablet, smartphone and desktop. To order go to:
www.chelseamagazines.com/racecar-CRC1F1D8

Racecar Engineering F1 Digimag 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Racecar Engineering F1 Digimag 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

The UK’s largest annual gathering of

Secure your stand today

Secure your stand now

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 3

per week, with each simulation incorporating approximately

4 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

NOVEMBER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 5

6 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

Fully correlated and complex CFD models, such as this by

Every restriction simply triggers teams to exploit the loopholes, and

A typical HPC cluster from Boston. With each new generation of

THE BOSTON INTEL® SELECT SOLUTION

BOSTON’S CFD SERVICES

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

very quickly evident and it soon became

HPC systems in order to

Much of this optimisation is not relevant to the wider CFD industry,

14 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

MotoGP teams. This compactness –

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 15

Scanivalve MPS Scanivalve DSA3217

Figure 1: Schematic layout of tube runs in a conventional pressure scanning system

Tubing lengths should be as

16 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

will also improve, we will likely

enable it to be embedded in the

surface of the bargeboard itself

18 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 19

The reigning champion Mercedes team has taken

20 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

F ‘In testing we will

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 21

everything that moves around – which it is

with that amount of load,

22 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

that we can run ballast because the other area

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 23

a baseline because last and introducing new allocation rules. The

year the Soft had a wider

24 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

Learn more about

ATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETS

The Science of Speed

Race Series Bearings

XP BEARINGS - Tri-metal, Copper-lead

ENGINE PARTS (UK) LTD

the compounds more predictable,’ says Isola.

‘The Superhard compound is an insurance for us in case we

IP68 SEALED UNMATED

NEW USB 3.0

 Up to 10 Gb/s data transmission

A-8600 Bruck/Mur, Kaltschmidstraße 2-6

www.fischerconnectors.com THE RELIABLE EXPERT

28 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018

2018 helmet standard

FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018 www.racecar-engineering.com 29

One issue that has evolved with the very high

After extensive simulations of the accident at

The concept of a strong, headrests, steering columns, racing nets, roll

semi-rigid outer shell

and an energy absorbing

30 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 · WINTER 2018