Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
As an engineer, I am at times confused over some Formula One team's idea testing this and that, to my mind the idea of testing is simply a way for the not-so-confident to practically verify a theoretical model for an improvement?
As an xample, why did Coloni bother to "test" Carlo Chiti's 3.5 flat twelve beast (see avatar), if they already knew that it was hopelessly overweight and pitifully down on power? Why did Jackie Oliver bring Porsche's V12 to Milton Keynes?
My supervisor keeps doing the same thing, "we have to test this", he says everytime I come up with a theoretical improvement, but to what purpose I always ask myself, I don't have to step into manure to know I'm on a horse-trail?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Because of the fact that computer models and calculations are necessarily simplified representation of the real world and it is quite likely that there will be unexpected results of various magnitudes that will never show up until you run the car on the track.
In short: to check for unexpected results. You cant model everything.
How about this:
Say you have an engine. You know it is down on power and overweight, but the designer tells you they can reduce cooling and trim down some parts to lose weight and there's a plan to raise revs so you'd get more juice.
The prototype is ready and was tested in dyno, the advanced version would be ready in two months time. Would you just leave the prototype on the bench or try to check how systems integrate in actual car?
All our theories, all our ideas, have nothing to do with the real world. At best they're statistical approximations, so you need to validate your theories by testing. Yes it's overly meticulous, but if we weren't a bit anal retentive/OCD we wouldn't be engineers, we'd be theoretical physicists, or some other idealistic "hard science" that requires you to drop a lot of LSD.
You have to test to see if the theoretical result is the same as the actual result. What if the theory was wrong? Or what if a crucial element was overlooked in the theory? Or that the theoretical calculations were wrong? Maybe the theory is correct but only in a certain set of conditions.
Thats why you do testing, to validate the theory. Testing also allows you to identify any problems that you may not have been aware of in the theory stages.
Testing is very important, don't ever just rely on theory
xpensive wrote:As an engineer, I am at times confused over some Formula One team's idea testing this and that, to my mind the idea of testing is simply a way for the not-so-confident to practically verify a theoretical model for an improvement?
As an xample, why did Coloni bother to "test" Carlo Chiti's 3.5 flat twelve beast (see avatar), if they already knew that it was hopelessly overweight and pitifully down on power? Why did Jackie Oliver bring Porsche's V12 to Milton Keynes?
My supervisor keeps doing the same thing, "we have to test this", he says everytime I come up with a theoretical improvement, but to what purpose I always ask myself, I don't have to step into manure to know I'm on a horse-trail?
Because they're scientists – not engineers.
Yes, a lot of the things they're producing are based on reasonably refined theory, but for a lot of the time, the designs they're coming up with involve a lot of unknowns. Because of that, they apply the scientific method – experiment, and try to get duplicatable results.
Basically, because the theory isn't perfect yet – they're still working on that.
I agree that with testing a novel theory, but what's the point in "testing" something already proven by a trusted sub-contrctor or associate, like a KERS system, that's the part I don't get?
Even worse, such as from my xamples above, testing something which already on paper is not up to par with what's desired, McLaren once tested the Lamborghini V12, while they from the start knew that such a monster was not the future?
MGP testing an old diffuser together with a new xhaust is another one, as if two negatives would somehow result in a mega-positive?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive wrote:I agree that with testing a novel theory, but what's the point in "testing" something already proven by a trusted sub-contrctor or associate, like a KERS system, that's the part I don't get?
A KERS unit is one thing. Testing everything on the car that integrates to it is another.
Not to mention a bench test on a KERS unit is not necessarily the same as running in the real world.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
xpensive wrote:I agree that with testing a novel theory, but what's the point in "testing" something already proven by a trusted sub-contrctor or associate, like a KERS system, that's the part I don't get?
A KERS unit is one thing. Testing everything on the car that integrates to it is another.
Not to mention a bench test on a KERS unit is not necessarily the same as running in the real world.
Are their limitations on bench testing during the off season in F1?
I don't know. Fundamentally though, a bench test isn't the real thing - for a variety of reasons. With an item so critical, you need a real world validation.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Jersey Tom wrote:I don't know. Fundamentally though, a bench test isn't the real thing - for a variety of reasons. With an item so critical, you need a real world validation.
No doubt, but my point is, if bench testing is unlimited within the frame work of testing. There is value to bench testing. I know the lubricant providers are set up in the paddock during the practice, and I think race weekends. But the teams could carry out tests as simple as these for new materials or spec's there of! Just wondering?
Another idea of testing is to see how much a driver can nail it, or push it.
Lets say this, with the constants being known downforce and a known track with constant conditions, and the driver not being given any data appart from tyre brand:
Run 1 = Known brand rubber A - 1:25.6
Run 2 = Known brand rubber B - 1:24.9
Run 3 = New brand rubber A - 1:25.4
Run 4 = New brand rubber B - 1:24.7
Run 5 = New brand rubber C - 1:25.1
Only one of the brands was a new brand at a test, and it wasnt B or C. It was actuallt brand A that was the new rubber, and it was theoretically faster than known B. Now thet change the brands about a little and tell the driver that New A is Known A and he goes a full second quicker than the previous run. Thats what testing is for, its for testing a variable against a known or a known set of results.
Its only when you have a driver that goes out on a Known when you have put on a New and he goes slower that you worry a little, however you keep chaging the running order and when you come to the same result again and again you worry and then go back to the drawing board, or race the new item if thats what the results are showing.
Sometimes going to the back of the car and ratteling the spanners about under the bodywork can often lead to a increase in pace in a driver, Thats the unknown that you have to get to become a knon. And thats why testing is so desireable, getting the driver conditioned to the point the driver just performs like a known. The best known drivers in F1 are the ones that have tested cars to the moon and back, at least a couple of times, De la Rosa and Badoer are the ones that spring to mind, bud Wurz and Gene arnt far behind also.
Once a unknown is known, they can then start to change other areas and bolt on performance in other areas quicker and easier once every part is fully exploited.
Sometimes you have to go back a few steps to re-baseline against what worked best last to get a true refection in car improvement. Hence why you can see a car top one day and last the next, they have "reverted to settings that worked last" just to see a reflection in performance. Its also why teams want to have at least 3, but ideally 4 or 5 drivers sometimes in the car to A/B results using a pre determined run plan that they will all do.
All of this is cost, and why testing has been restricted in the past 3 years to just 18 to 19 days a year for the last two years.
Personally, i think testing is required, and would have helped all teams in the past 2 years, the 3 newbies from the 2010 entry would have been able to dial in much quicker and been much closer by now. But i have always thought that testing should be allowed, but in a manner that is justafyable performance wise to cost base.
If it were me id have each team have a maximum of 12 pre season test days, 10 in season test days and 6 post season test days. Limit race drivers to just 5 pre season days, 4 in season days and 2 post season days is a way to manage the driver duties to make sure Test Drivers and Young Drivers get a look in, and also a way for teams to finance those days thrugh young guys. Id also instruct Pirelli that they can only give teams tyres at those tests and thus stopping teams testing on their own outside the RRA, if a team wants a set of tyres from Pirelli for events outside theese paramiters, the rubber will be outside the remit of F1 grade, either being too hard or too soft for any results to be conclusive.
Testing is a necassary evil, it gets results, and sometimes you test without something new just to test something else out, say a Data Engineer will engineer the whole car that day, also a No.1 mechanic may be tasked with running the team for instance that day. It can be for the eventualities that sometimes arnt always shown that you test.
Sometimes its about the car, sometimes its about the team arround the car thats tested. Its about getting those unknowns to become known.
