
Formula 1 2020: The secret aerodynamicist – are capes the key? - ColinWright
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51739796
======
beaker52
There are a couple of aspects of Formula 1 that make it very compelling to
watch (my opinion of course, take as you will):

\- Accessible aerodynamics (it's on the road in front of you, not up in the
air)

\- Technological developments (e.g. this year, one of the teams has a steering
wheel they pull toward/push away themselves to change the geometry of the
front wheels)

\- Watching high-performing athletes demonstrating the ability to operate a
machine at speeds over 200mph and still having the capacity to understand the
strategic situations unfolding around them, even gathering information from
the crowd in the grandstands, or the tv screens that flash past them as they
navigate the track

\- Seeing an inter-disciplinary team design and operate a machine that fuses
aerodynamics, mechanics and hybrid propulsion systems, driven by a human
operator, monitored in realtime by a team of engineers distributed around the
world

\- On-the-fly risk/reward decision making in race strategy from observing
current data whilst incorporating gut feeling based on past experience to
great effect

~~~
JoeSmithson
The balance of importance between driver and constructor is quite unique in
sport. A sufficiently good car can make an average driver competitive (e.g.
Bottas), but also a sufficiently good driver can make an average car
competitive (e.g. Schumacher).

Plus everyone involved is such a drama merchant (or crook!) that the season
often plays out like a soap opera.

~~~
otherme123
The balance is probably around 90% the car and 10% the driver. In the years of
RB dominance, a subpar driver like Webber almost got the championship. OTOH
Alonso lost a decade in Ferrari and McLaren while being, tied with Hamilton,
the best driver in the grid.

The 10% of what the driver adds to the mix is what makes Hamilton champion
instead of Bottas.

~~~
wiz21c
Dunno if it's a valid comparison, but my kid races indoor karting. He's
average level, that means he's within 1.5% of the best in race conditions
(i.e. on a 40 seconds lap, he's about than 0.7 seconds behind the best on
average). And given the time it took to reach that, I'd say that being a
competitive pilot may be just 10% of the victory, but those 10% are super
tough to reach.

~~~
emerongi
I've been doing a bit of karting lately and the difference between a 58s and a
59s lap is crazy. Super hard to shave that second off, but it's also so
obvious that the guy doing 58s laps is way faster.

Last year there was a hobbyist race on my local track and the person who won
it was a guy who mainly practices at home on his computer. I imagine a gokart
simulation is close enough to the real deal that training on it actually can
help a lot. You can get much more fine-grained feedback on how well you're
taking certain corners etc. One thing that trips me up is understanding the
kart - my local ones have somewhat poor acceleration, so it seems it's not
actually best to take the corners as sharp as possible and try to accelerate
out of the corner, but instead try to maintain as much speed as possible going
into the corner, even if you end up on a bad line. This would be easy to test
in a simulation, but I just have to go by gut feeling.

~~~
jdhawk
how much do you weigh compared to the top drivers.

~~~
olyjohn
I don't think that matters as much as you might think. We have 3 race classes
at our local track. The Pro guys (top level) are easily 1-2 seconds above the
Pro-am guys (mid-level). Some of these pros are not exactly lightweights and
are considerably above the minimum weight. Yet they manage to slaughter
everybody else out there. You would think they had a disadvantage to the
people who are running the baseline weight in the kart, but you sure can't
tell it.

------
KuiN
Always tricky to see detail in this area of an F1 car, but the BBC really
haven't picked the clearest photos ...

Hopefully a bit clearer here:

* Mercedes W11 cape: [https://i.imgur.com/LoDuge8.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LoDuge8.jpg)

* Red Bull RB16: [https://i.imgur.com/lJ4SrYv.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lJ4SrYv.jpg)

* Renault RS20: [https://i.imgur.com/XJVeFwN.png](https://i.imgur.com/XJVeFwN.png)

~~~
KuiN
Even harder to see the J-vanes on the Ferrari (not helped by there being only
10 photographers round the tracks at the moment, so many fewer pictures than
usual) but I've found a couple photos of the SF1000's vanes:

[https://i.redd.it/4awyalvl1al41.jpg](https://i.redd.it/4awyalvl1al41.jpg)

[https://i.redd.it/xrhjfzmj0ql41.jpg](https://i.redd.it/xrhjfzmj0ql41.jpg)

It'll be interesting to see if they change cape/J-vane philosophy with their
much vaunted aero upgrade for Hungary in a couple of weeks. There certainly
seem to be some pretty fundamental issues with their 2020 car at the moment.
I'm sure their newly legal engine isn't helping them but watching some of
Vettel's onboards from yesterday[0] there's clearly something aerodynamically
wrong too, the car just isn't planted in any phase of cornering.

[0] -
[https://twitter.com/deadlinex/status/1279825624719392768](https://twitter.com/deadlinex/status/1279825624719392768)

------
arooaroo
People who are not normally interested in F1 are finding the Netflix series
Drive to Survive a more accessible version to spectate. It's not just
highlights in chronological order, but a distillation of the main themes of
the season, e.g., certain inter-team battles, intra-team rivalries, fallouts
between teams and suppliers, regulations, etc. The behind-the-scenes glimpses
are fascinating.

I remember (pre-family when I could easily give-up a large chunk of my
weekend) tuning in to the beginning of TV coverage on Saturdays (qualifying)
and Sundays (race day) primarily to watch all the build-up about the
developments since the previous race, particularly all the new technical
changes; the relentless engineering efforts are immense and we only get a tiny
glimpse of it.

These cars could in theory be even faster. They stopped in season testing
years ago; there are limits to the amount of high performance computing they
can do; many parts are standardised. There's a tension in the way the sport is
regulated to constrain the vast budgets of the larger teams so that smaller
teams can try and compete, and ideally new teams enter the sport too. In
addition, the aerodymics evolved to such a degree that the wake each car
leaves behind makes it almost impossible for cars to follow closely and
overtake, leading to uninspiring processions on race days. So regulations are
constantly being added to try and ensure a spectacle (DRS, degrading tyres,
forcing sub-optimal front and rear wings). But they continue to innovate at a
staggering pace.

When DRS (Drag Reduction System -- used in set portions of the straights, a
car that's within 1 sec of a car can deploy DRS, that causes the rear wing to
have less drag and can potentially allow an overtake). But absolutely amazing
lateral thinking from the teams saw innovations like the "F-duct" that was
eventually banned and then the so-called "Double DRS". They are channeling
relatively small amounts of air-flow through little vents and holes to create
small but improvements to their aero performance.

And when in-season testing was removed, all teams rolled out state-of-the-art
digital car simulators that have become incredible sophisticated; they design
new aerodynamic parts, such as a tiny adjustments to their front-wing, then
they test the part on the simulator before actually building and taking to the
next race.

~~~
dom96
So I watched Drive to Survive and loved it, so much so that I would like to
get into watching F1 proper, but when I tried it just doesn't hold my interest
(although admittedly I mostly attempted to watch random races on YouTube). Do
you (or anyone else) have any tips on what and where to watch to get into it?

Perhaps it's time I get a proper subscription for the TV coverage and watch it
like you say over the weekend.

~~~
beavisel
I think the more you understand about the race, strategy, technology,
rivalries, and race-craft will definitely help you enjoy a GP much more. It's
combination of all these things that make it that much more than just cars
going around a track quickly. The Austrian GP just gone was very exciting,
especially the end!

Try watch a few more races and even check out the F1 subreddit /r/formula1 -
its a good community that share plenty of news, clips from new and old races
etc - and if you have any questions, they're all very helpful

------
gripfx
If anyone is interested, the software team I work for is hiring! F1 is
definitely an interesting challenge and a unique work environment.

Find out more here: [https://jobs.redbull.com/at-de/bicester-scuderia-
alphatauri-...](https://jobs.redbull.com/at-de/bicester-scuderia-alphatauri-
software-development-team-leader-128988-047824?lang=en)

~~~
logicx24
I'm probably not up for a move to the UK, but if you don't mind, could you
tell us a bit more about your job?

What sort of projects have you been able to work on? What's the work culture
like? Do you find the actual technical problems you work on exciting, or is it
more the domain that excites you (i.e. building and operating a racecar)?

~~~
gripfx
Sure. The role (and myself) are in the aerodynamics department, developing and
maintaining software for the aerodynamicists. The role of the aerodynamicist
is to develop the bodywork of the car (wings, ducts, chassis shape etc) to
improve aerodynamic efficiency. This is done primarily in computational fluid
dynamics simulations [1] (virtual) and scale model testing in a wind tunnel
[2] (physical) before being tested on the actual race car. My group works on
the software to analyse the data output. Think data science dashboards with
lots of real time and historical data. Due to our requirements, the tools are
designed in house with input from users. In my time here I have worked on
interfacing with the HPC cluster, improving visualisations and improving our
backend stack amongst other things.

For your last question, it is a bit of both. I went to university with the
goal of working in F1 and the competitive aspect is definitely there but as I
was not a comp sci student the technical problems are still interesting.
Developing aero is very visual heavy as ideas are implemented as 3D CAD
designs and often reviewed as such. So it's not just a more complicated stock
ticker that needs to be shown.

[1]:
[https://static.carthrottle.com/workspace/uploads/posts/2016/...](https://static.carthrottle.com/workspace/uploads/posts/2016/03/0b59df596795aa48e1ed670478d2b06a.jpg)

[2]:
[https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/2/1000/425/5/uploads/p...](https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/2/1000/425/5/uploads/posts/2019/08/462980c00e8a3c285d85b9931da87a73.png)

~~~
esjohnson5
This sounds like a great blend of Mechanical and Software Engineering. It
would be a bit of a commute from the US unfortunately.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
Watched a lot of F1 in 90s/00s, stopped after 2017 season. Current regulations
make it very predictable. Most offending rules are:

\- limit on testing means that whoever makes the best car after regulations
change will win until next regulations change (2010..2013 Red Bull, 2014..
today Mercedes), others have very limited means to catch up

\- scoring system introduced in late 00s rewards reliability over racing, and
gives miniscule reward for 1st place: now you get 25 for P1, 18 for P2, and in
80s it was 9 or 10 for P1, 6 for P2, and in 1980s only 11 of 17 results
counted towards championship, so drivers would often take more risks to get
for results. Now they just drive home safely.

~~~
rurban
Limiting on testing is just taking away the unique Ferrari advantage.
Previously they just took their design out on their private racetrack next to
the lab. Now they have to test as all the others: virtually in computer
simulations. And for a short time on the track.

It's much more interesting to do the simulations virtually. Some even do the
windtunnel testing now virtually. But only the richest.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
So how do you explain that now after each regulation change and until the
next, one team wins every constructor and driver title?

Previously, dominance was never that total, not even during Schumacher/Ferrari
era (and Schumacher was way better driver than Hamilton). But since 2010, no
competing team is able to catch up.

~~~
arooaroo
On paper it looks like Mercedes are dominant and have been since the V6 engine
era. For sure the first couple of years they had a massive lead.

But the stats disguise the fight; the fact that Mercedes have won didn't mean
their position wasn't earned, frankly they've had a fair slice of luck in
several races. For the last two or three years one could easily argue that
Ferrari had the means to take them on and beat them, but their campaigns have
unravelled for various reasons. Many races they've had to earn that win and
many seasons where there was a fight throughout.

The fact that Maclaren has vanished into obscurity despite originally having a
Merc engine, and RedBull and Ferrari getting in others faces so often has
actually allowed Mercedes to keep their head down and get on with bringing
home their maximum potential points haul per race.

------
jstanley
I read Adrian Newey's autobiography, "How to build a car", last year, and
thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the
engineering side of motorsport.

------
tentboy
Judging by yesterday’s race, the real key is just having your car finish the
race (said in jest but there were nine DNFs in yesterday’s Austria Grand Prix
and close to having a few more with Mercedes gearbox issues).

There is a ton of cool engineering in F1. If you are bored poke around
[https://www.f1technical.net/](https://www.f1technical.net/)

------
deltron3030
The true beauty of motorsports for me is the symbiosis of
man/machine/environment interaction, the best drivers are are able to adapt
their driving style to the limits of their car/setup in respect to changing
weather.

------
ajoy
I used to like watching it, until it became boring.

The cars got wider and more sensitive to the car in front, that overtakes
became rare, even with DRS (*Drag Reduction System - that allows the back wing
of the car in the back to fold to reduce drag at certain points in the track,
if the car is close enough to the car in front).

Also, Mercedes started dominating it, to a point that the only battle in the
race was in the mid-field. The winners were almost always, already decided at
qualifying (unless some reliability issues happened during the race).

~~~
ksk
TBH, I think its better now that they're trying to level the playing field.
Before (circa 2006 when I used to watch every single race) it was basically
whoever had more money to spend.

>The winners were almost always, already decided at qualifying (unless some
reliability issues happened during the race).

I don't think that's fair. FWIW, in the 2019 F1 season only 8/21 races were
won by the driver in pole position.

------
kavinskyy
As someone who wishes to work in the field of motorsport specially Formula 1,
what opportunities are present for software engineers at a junior role?

~~~
squidofbits
Most teams have career opportunities on their websites. I suggest starting
there.

------
Ptrulli
I see the formula one body always trying to change rules that effect car
performance. The goal, more overtaking and competitive racing. My question is
if they were to have more technology limitations meaning less area of
improvement would that balance of 90% car 10% driver change for the better.
Say 60% car and 40% driver. Wouldn't that make it more competitive?

~~~
arooaroo
The problem is that a lot of the investment comes from the large automotive
manufacturers. Despite the fans and media interest in the drivers'
championship, what really counts within the sport is the constructors'
championship (the two are strongly correlated, of course).

What makes the sport more interesting to the fans is not necessarily what
motivates teams to participate. One could argue that there are many other
formula and racing formats that get that balance between the car and driver,
but it's not necessarily something that gets people tuning in. People watch F1
because it's supposed to be pinnacle of automotive engineering and racing. So
if I'm a team boss of one of the top 3 teams, I'm not going to be interested
in artificially handicapping the sport so that the smaller teams can get in
the mix.

However, they've seen repeatedly that fans get bored when it's the same couple
of teams who are wrangling for the podium and there's not much excitement per
race. So teams at the top will begrudgingly let the regulations be altered to
try and spice things up, but nothing too significant. Unfortunately it'll take
a downturn in F1 rights income & viewership to make the teams think twice
about how to fight this tension between the competitiveness vs status quo. But
then the big teams will think, why am I investing hundreds of millions in F1
when I'm not winning when I can spend a fraction in DTM or Le Mans and start
building up prestige from other events.

Take the Monaco race, the quintessential F1 race. Watch the pole position lap
from the driver's viewpoint and it's the up there with the most amazing 70secs
you've seen in sport. However, watch the full race and it's typically a dull
procession. As a fan I'd be glad to see the back of it, but sport itself love
it.

~~~
Ptrulli
I think you captured this perfectly with your explanation. I did not take into
account the teams. I was solely concentrating from a fans perspective in error
or from being a fan myself. So this delicate balance won't really change much
due to the reason you outlined. I'm curious in your opinion what do you think
could change that will affect the sport in a positive manner (from a fan and
business perspective)?

------
rurban
Bold move by this technician helping out their worst competitors. You normally
don't do this, even if Ferrari looks really poor this year and would need some
help. They are just redesigning their front, because their J-Vane is not good
enough.

------
obilgic
It's only gonna get interesting when Tesla puts a fully autonomous F1 car
racing against the drivers.

~~~
meditative
automated cars would obviously eventually become faster than F1 drivers, it's
just there's no interest in it (unfortunately).

The biggest interest to most people are the drivers and they strongly dislike
driver aids. I'd prefer every driver aid under the sun and have a real
engineering battle. I'm obviously in the minority here.

Formula E is under very tight budget constraints in order to lower the barrier
to entry. I look forward to the day when the series is established and they
can start to compete on things like motor construction and battery tech to
drive the field forwards.

~~~
doikor
> drivers and they strongly dislike driver aids

The racers like whatever makes them go faster. When ABS and traction control
was allowed everyone was using it. It just made you faster. But the current
rules ban them with the goal of trying to make the driver matter more.

One of the sports all time great (Micheal Schumacher) won all of his
championships with traction control most likely. The teams used their own
computers in the cars then so it was basically impossible to police and thus
the ban was lifted in 2002. The ban was put back in place when the onboard
computer in the cars was homologated (everyone uses the same computer by
McLaren)

~~~
obilgic
I think OP meant "viewers dislike"

