Turning the Past into the Future - Part 2 07/02/2009 My previous post on this subject produced a flood of thoughts and opinions, many of them extending the scope of the article into areas not looked at yet. A lot of the matters I was going to raise have been chewed over already as a result but, fortunately for me, the central issue of reducing the cost of designing and building chassis was left untouched and I have something to write about therefore.I am not going to go into great detail, specifying limits and measurements here, there and everywhere, as the FIA would do. Instead I am going to suggest something so radical, shocking and yet obvious that there is little chance of it ever being considered by the governing body or the teams. To an old wrinkly like me, it seems the simplest thing in the world, however. The answer is:Ban Carbon FiberThe FIA already has a list of expensive and exotic materials that it does not allow to be used in the manufacture of a F1 car; to add carbon fiber to the list would be easy and, with a stroke of the pen, we would be rid of one of the most expensive technologies in use today. Ban it and let the designers go back to aluminium alloys - that will cut costs drastically!I do not deny that carbon fiber is a brilliant answer to the question of what to build the chassis from. It is light, strong and can be molded to an infinite variety of shapes. So useful is it that it has wandered from its primary function as a chassis material to be used in such diverse areas as brakes and steering wheels. Yet it is expensive and an obvious candidate for the economic axe therefore.Although carbon fiber is so obviously a better material for F1 tubs than is aluminium, that is not to say that the old way is of no use. It still works and is used in less technologically-driven forms of motor racing. Over the last couple of decades, we have learned just about all there is to know about the application of carbon fiber in racing and it is no longer at the cutting edge. Everyone uses it and it gives no particular advantage to one team over another. It would only be worth continuing with if it were cheap - and it isn't.Allow the cars to be (comparatively) heavy again with aluminium chassis, I say, and let carbon fiber be yet another bequest from the sport to production cars. It is too expensive to be bothered with anymore.This also raises the matter of carbon fiber brakes, of course. Here again it has become the status quo, every F1 brake manufacturer using it thanks to its superior heat-resistant and strength qualities. But it is not as if all brakes are carbon fiber in the real world now - steel remains the dominant material for brake disks on road cars and will probably do so in the future for reasons of cost. They work well enough, after all, and there is no need for the manufacturers to increase their costs by introducing carbon fiber brakes.I have seen it suggested that F1 return to steel discs anyway to increase the braking distances and overtaking chances as a result. That may or may not be a valid reason for outlawing carbon fiber brakes but the cost factor certainly is. Let us be done with the esoteric material - we know that it works now and can save an awful lot of money by returning to a technology that works nearly as well.The third part of this series would have been on the matter of aerodynamics but, on reflection, I think enough has been said on that score to be going on with. My readers know that I advocate a ban on wings, front and rear, and an extension of the plank to the nose of the car, but these changes have more to do with making overtaking possible again and they would have only minor effects on the costs of developing a F1 car. The two suggestions made already are sufficient to reduce costs considerably - I will leave it at that.
Clive
Gary I'm impressed at the punishment that a carbon fiber chassis can take and live to be repaired and raced. Would aluminum chassis be able to take the same beatings? If a team had to build twice the number of chassis in aluminum to account for crashes then the savings would be less. Date Added: 07/02/2009
Clive The safety aspect would have to be looked at before returning to aluminium chassis, it's true. Aluminium does have better crumpling qualities than carbon fiber, however, and the likelihood is that less rebuilding work would be needed after a major crash. The central survival cell would be considerably heavier if aluminium were used but could be as strong - and peripheral structures would provide better protection since they would crumple rather than shatter.Overall, I think safety aspects could be retained at a greater cost in weight - but this is nor necessarily a bad thing. A weight limit is just a way to achieve a level playing field between the cars, after all, and any loss of performance as a result would be compensated for by an increase in maximum engine size. Date Added: 07/02/2009
Steven Roy I think changing chassis back to aluminium could prove to be a hard sell given the survival rates since carbon tubs were introduced. Were some poor driver killed or seriously injured in the first couple of seasons after a switch then there would be an immediate switch back and a very difficult court case.I am totally in favour of banning carbon from bodywork, wings suspension etc. In effect everything other than the tub. At the Autosport International show they had a McLaren on a podium so that it was at eye level. Despite how much time I spend looking at these cars on TV or the net and having seen F1 cars as recently as the Festival of Speed I was stunned at how thin the wishbones were. It is time that all suspesion members, steering arms etc were made of metal and round in section. That would cut a vast amount of aero cost. It would also cut down on the amount of carbon shrapnel that litters the track after even the most minor incident.I am not sure steel brakes will increase braking distances very much but there is no sense in brake discs that run at 1000 Celsius and are capable of bursting into flames and destroying a car perhaps with a driver trapped in it.On the subject of underfloor aerodynamics I have a slightly different take on it albeit with similar aims. I am against the plank as it acts like a surf board in the wet and it is ugly from a design point of view and ugly design has no place in F1.I was looking at a Jackie Stewart Tyrrell some time ago and it had a curved underbody similar to the cigar shaped cars of an earlier era. Since the underfloor shape is already specified why not specify a fixed curve which at least has a degree of elegance? Date Added: 07/02/2009
marc It seems odd that we are avoiding the topic of customer chassis. Certainly economies of scale along with the savings in R&D can be had by allowing some teams to sell basic tubs. The idea that a manufacturer must represent a nationality isn't entirely necessary. A field of independent teams using customer chassis and drivetrain packages could be a good thing. I have rather enjoyed seeing Toro Roso out perform RBR, and Super Aguri did a great job with the old Honda chassis.One cannot deny that carbon fiber is expensive compared to fiberglass or aluminum or steel, but I don't think it is outlandish. For example: plain weave carbon fiber cloth is listed as being roughly 8 times as expensive as comparably sized fiberglass cloth. That may seem like a lot, but it takes the same amount of time to build a mold for a part made of either material. Most of the cost associated with carbon fiber chassis development is the design and research. Once a chassis tub has been designed and a mold made, it is relatively easy to make copies. After all, GP2 chassis aren't millions of dollars because they are made of carbon fiber. The same is true for every other part made of carbon fiber. A greater proportion of the cost comes from the R&D. The research involves making a mold, trying a part, then making a new mould of a slightly different part... etc. A savings could be achieved by freezing a team's tub at the beginning of the season. The idea of standardizing the cross section of the suspension parts would reduce costs as well. Requiring the chassis only be made from aluminum could save a lot of money. Some low budget SCCA classes require ferrous framework (tube steel) without stress panels. It has the obvious low cost advantage of being repairable, and the technology is within the grasp of your average gear head. But I wouldn't want to restrict F1 chassis to steel or aluminum for the simple reason that F1 is the pinnacle of motor sports. Date Added: 08/02/2009
Nick Goodspeed How long will it take the teams to start out sourcing parts to China, to meet budget? I've read that the rumoured USA team believes they can be competitive due to the lower cost of doing things in the southeast (USA). As the US manufacturers cut more and more personnel, there will be a glut of highly trained engineers to choose from. Beware the arrival of the Wal-Mart special!! Date Added: 08/02/2009
Steven Roy Marc,The cost of carbon fibre is not really the issue for me more what can be done with it. If you look at suspension members now they are shaped for aerodynamic performance and as a result teams can try different shapes and different angles of istallation for the same shape. If all pieces were made of metal and round in section there would be a cost saving in material but the big saving is in all the research that goes into optimising them aerodynamically and all the multiples that are built as a result as you said at the end of your comment.It is also worth considering that it would be impossible to make some of the sophisticated wing shapes we have seen in metal. They only exist because of carbon fibre. The other advantage is a metal wing will not shatter in contact with a wheel so given this year's wide wings aluminium wings could stop races being ruined through minor contact.One thing that could be scrapped to save money are those stupid hub caps. Since it was proved last year that they are not for brake cooling since Ferrari twice had to remove them to stop their brakes overheating it is clear they are illegal aerodynamic deives and in breach of four separate rules. They add nothing to the racing and are a completely unnecessary cost.Nick,You make a good point on budget caps. Assuming they can be controlled at all they cannot be controlled internationally to be even handed. I had thought before about how various tax systems would affect the budgets but when it becomes better to build a car in China then something is clearly wrong. Date Added: 08/02/2009
Steven Roy Clive,I had an interesting conversation on sidepodcast last night on your idea to ban carbon. There was broad support for the idea although people seemed think keeping carbon chassiswas a good idea. I will let you know when the podcast comes out and you can listen to the conversation yourself but various people commented on it in the thread below. I have not read all the comments yet but I will later. To save you some time the first comment that mentions your post is at 21:35.http://www.sidepodcast.com/2009/02/08/live-were-going-live-with-kers/ Date Added: 09/02/2009
Clive Steven: Sorry to be so late getting back to this - had a bad cold over the last couple of days and didn't feel up to anything. I did ponder over the matter of allowing the safety cell to remain carbon fibre but feel that this defeats the object of the exercise really. If a team has the facility to to create the CF tub, it saves little money to prevent their using it for other components. The idea would be to get rid of the facility completely.I am not convinced that an aluminium tub need be less effective in protecting the driver than a CF one. Remember that we are comparing old designs with recent - if aluminium tubs were forced to take modern crash tests, I am sure the engineers would be able to design tubs accordingly.As regards the plank, I use the term to indicate the idea that the underbody should be flat all the way to the nose since we are trying to limit downforce. The raised nose is only possible because the original length of the plank specified by the FIA (and therefore the truly flat bottom) only extended as far forward as the rear edge of the tyres. I want to get rid of the raised nose since it is so important to high downforce levels and, incidentally, makes modern F1 cars look like storks sipping water from a trough. Plus, it forces the driver to adopt a very odd position, with his feet almost as high as his head.Get rid of all the aerodynamic work enforced by raised noses and costs start tumbling. Sure, there'd be some work done on reclaiming downforce with a flat-bottomed, low nose, but the returns would be pretty miserable and designers would soon turn to other means of improving cornering ability - the famous mechanical grip. Date Added: 09/02/2009
Clive Marc: I avoided mention of customer chassis because I have written a lot on the subject quite recently. Basically, I am all for them but do wonder for how long the constructors would be happy to produce copies of their chassis for rival teams. I can see a situation where McLaren, for instance, produce a winning chassis and then suffer the indignity of being beaten by a customer team (it happened to March when they were trying to be the great chassis suppliers to F1).For the moment, however, the manufacturer teams seem happy to become suppliers so the idea of customer cars must be pursued, at least over the short term. It is certainly true that they would make new entries to the sport much more feasible. Date Added: 09/02/2009
George I don't want a return to the days of drivers dying on the circuit as a result of accidents. With the possible exception of Hans I can't think of any other development in F1 that has saved so many lives. Without being too blunt about it and I'm sorry if this though upsets people but if it wasn't for carbon fiber would Robert Kubica still be with us? Would Schumacher have become the most successful driver of all time? and would Lewis Hamilton have been able to compete in 2008? the list goes on and on, think about every accident where a car has speared into a barrier and then think about what is being suggested here. Date Added: 09/02/2009
Clive Nick: It will be a while before outsourcing to China happens in F1, I think. There is a reason that most of the teams, regardless of the nationality of their owners, base themselves in Britain - and that is that it has been the centre of racing car development for over thirty years and a huge resource of experience and knowledge has grown up in quite a small area as a result. There are even those who would say that Toyota's decision to base their F1 outfit in Cologne played a large part in their long struggle to become competitive.I would like to think that USF1's hope that the enormous resource of racing experience in the Carolinas will enable them to become competitive in F1 in a short space of time is well-founded but I have my doubts. It is a long step from the fairly primitive technology of Indycars and NASCAR to the esoteric and pressurised environment of F1. Not that I write off American chances - they have been responsible for some of the ground-breaking inventions that F1 is so proud of, after all (Jim Hall was the originator of ground effect, not Colin Chapman), and there is no reason why they should not continue in that vein (apart from the increasingly restrictive nature of F1's technical regulations).Having said which, I do expect a gradual dilution of Britain's pre-eminence in the field over the next several years. Germany is gradually building another hotbed of engineering skills in Cologne/Munich/Hinwill and Italy has always been a competitor. Japan and India may well develop similar centers of experience over time and, if USF1 ever gets off the ground and survives long enough, the same may happen in the States.Nothing lasts forever and the days of British leadership in race car construction may well be numbered. Date Added: 09/02/2009
Clive Steven: Thanks for the Sidepodcast link. I found it particularly interesting that an argument against the safety aspects of carbon fibre should be mentioned - the thought of embedded shrapnel from a shattered CF seat leaving at least one driver forced to use crutches is enough to give one pause. Date Added: 09/02/2009
Clive George: I thought about it before ever I wrote the article and I am fairly sure that modern design could build a safety cell as strong from aluminium as from carbon fibre. But my opinion does not matter - before anything like this could be tried, the necessary tests would have to be conducted to see if I am right. Date Added: 09/02/2009
George The reason CF is used is for it's strength and ability to dissipate energy. You may be right Clive, maybe it could be done with other materials and in the interests of cost cutting maybe it will be looked at, but I really can't see it working.Maybe I'm not giving the engineers enough credit but if the engineers had there way in the early eighties, all the drivers would be racing G-suits by now :) Date Added: 09/02/2009
Steven Roy Probably the most famous example of a customer team beating the factory is Lotus. The first win for Team Lotus was Innes Ireland at Watkins Glen in 1960 or 1961. Before that Stirling Moss had won in Rob Walker's customer version. Date Added: 10/02/2009
Steven Roy Clive,The edit of the podcast is up now athttp://www.sidepodcast.com/2009/02/10/episode-93-kers-for-5-year-olds/My piece starts at 49:00. The sound is not great because of the Skype connection but you may find it interesting. Date Added: 10/02/2009
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
