USF1 -- F1's All-American Challenger

[ds.raikkonen]

Team Amer... USF1 car pic leaked:



Grosjean-proof!

...in fact its shaped like a battering ram, good for the first corner incident proofing. Its front reminds me of a Peterbilt.

[nipo]

I love that TeamAmericaF1 blog. Hilarious!

Ken Anderson interview, from formula1.com:

Q: So the car is finally being built? Isn’t it a little late to get something like that started?

KA: Funny that you ask that question - we get that one a lot. Thanks to our in-house design and engineering staff and the aid of our technical partners, for the last 10 to 12 months, the car has gone through thousands of iterations in a virtual environment. With this virtual design, we can test and be sure that it’s right from structural, design and engineering standpoints, so we don’t have to make a part, test it, break it and start again. Instead, we’ve taken out a lot of the guesswork and can get close to a race-ready piece right off of the machines, which is happening now. Our timing is according to plan, with an early November ‘roller’ and a finished car in time for January 2010 testing.

Am I correct in saying that they are struggling even to make a car that won't have parts flying off at speed? Or, put it this way, that making such a car is a major achievement for them?

I reckon they'll be 3 seconds off the pace at the beginning of the season, if not 10.

[modbaraban]

At best. If they do turn up in 2010 that is.

There's one interesting thing that Nick Wirth said about the Manor car. They don't plan using wind tunnels at any point of the development of their F1 car. He said that wind tunnels are "so 20th century", and they plan relying solely on CFD.

How about that?

[MiG31_Foxhound]

At best. If they do turn up in 2010 that is.

There's one interesting thing that Nick Wirth said about the Manor car. They don't plan using wind tunnels at any point of the development of their F1 car. He said that wind tunnels are "so 20th century", and they plan relying solely on CFD.

How about that?

I understand it goes against the grain of conventional wisdom and that it's always a good idea in any engineering discipline to model and test, but isn't it possible to do what Wirth mentioned? At some point, whether now or in the near future, it's likely going to be more fiscally viable to operate a computing farm doing CFD than operating and maintaining a wind tunnel.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, that's a pretty interesting point MiG-31 raises. Can somebody in the area gives us an estimate of when computers will be able to use such a fine grid that we get that kind of results from CFD?

Besides, why stop there? If we talk about faaaar future, it's definitely more "fiscally viable" to simulate the races.

[xpensive]

At best. If they do turn up in 2010 that is.

There's one interesting thing that Nick Wirth said about the Manor car. They don't plan using wind tunnels at any point of the development of their F1 car. He said that wind tunnels are "so 20th century", and they plan relying solely on CFD.

How about that?

Straying off thread here, but anyway, the above is sooo Nick Wirth, always a need to do things differently.

I remember when he disclosed what he had been working on for the new Simtek F1 before the team folded, an active-suspension car, differing from the norm in the application of the hydraulic actuators.

Instead of mounting them directy on the push-rods with a conventinal suspension layout, he planned to have them vertically mounted at the wheels, supported by solid "wings" sticking out from the tub.

[raceman]

F1's official web site also displays some pictures from USF1's "so-called" factory

http://www.formula1.com/gallery/other/2009/430.html

[noname]

Well, that's a pretty interesting point MiG-31 raises. Can somebody in the area gives us an estimate of when computers will be able to use such a fine grid that we get that kind of results from CFD?

it's not as simple. finer grid is not an ultimate solutions. currently "progress" in the area of engineering analyzes rely on increasing computer power. we are improving meshers, creating better grids, integrating CAD with CAE, etc. , etc. but our understanding of underlying physics and ability to simulate it has not improved much.

we are still neglecting simple fact reality is not determined but stochastic and spending a lot of effort in performing such an artificial activities like optimization. you can get some progress this way, especially in such specialized area like motorsports but I do not expect breakthrough if we will still follow that path.

of course there is a chance Wirth left the path majority is walking and knowing his cv I would not be surprised.

[xpensive]

F1's official web site also displays some pictures from USF1's "so-called" factory

http://www.formula1.com/gallery/other/2009/430.html

Picture 1 and 2 doesn't xactly convey the impression of a workshop scrambling to finish an F1 car in time, just the same three guys moving from one side to the other. Thankfully, IKEA-man still works there, so they're gonna be fine!

[Mystery Steve]

At best. If they do turn up in 2010 that is.

There's one interesting thing that Nick Wirth said about the Manor car. They don't plan using wind tunnels at any point of the development of their F1 car. He said that wind tunnels are "so 20th century", and they plan relying solely on CFD.

How about that?

I understand it goes against the grain of conventional wisdom and that it's always a good idea in any engineering discipline to model and test, but isn't it possible to do what Wirth mentioned? At some point, whether now or in the near future, it's likely going to be more fiscally viable to operate a computing farm doing CFD than operating and maintaining a wind tunnel.

I have a limited CFD background, but that sounds like a terrible idea to me. Do I think you could run through several iterations to get a qualitative idea of how a design improves using CFD? Sure. But having talked to engineers who do CFD, the problem is accounting for turbulence. There are several models to account for this, but the models are only as good as their limitations. I could see it feasible to run several design ideas through CFD to at least get an idea for what could and couldn't work, and then make an educated guess at a good design. Then when you have a general design you like, start doing wind tunnel testing.

If there is someone here with considerable CFD experience: can current CFD capabilities (the software... not the hardware) accurately calculate lift and drag of an entire automobile with flow as complex as an F1 car? How about things like pitch sensitivity and yaw stability? And assuming the software can handle it, how much would the supercomputer to process all the data cost when compared to a subsonic windtunnel? I would imagine the windtunnel would be cheaper and easier to setup and maintain.

Assuming the quote is in fact correct, why would a new team even consider trying to do something like this? They are a new team that is starting from scratch, and while I'm sure many of the individuals working on the project have F1 experience, the general organization does not. If I were running the team, I would be using as many methods that are tried and true as I can just to get a car running first. Once you have a reliably working car, then you can innovate. Maybe there's a reason I'm not an F1 boss..?

[WhiteBlue]

Look they don't even have a real keyboard. A fake paper one instead, just like one of those 'stock' cars.

That is a standard Apple Mac Pro keyboard. The Mac Pro is a top level workstation with dual Intel Xeon CPUs. With 8 cores and 16 virtual cores for hyper threading and up to 64 GB RAM this is probably one of the best CAD workstations in the market. It runs all market going 64-bit operating systems and serious workstation graphics packages. Unless you have an outright mainframe not much is going to beat such a beast. The screen is a 30" Apple Cinema display with Dual-DVI interface and 2560 x 1600 resolution. That is not a bad screen for CAD work.

From a comparison of the two photos I rather think that Ikea have photo shopped the USF1 pic for their add. The content on the screen fits the USF1 pic much better and the quality suggests it is the original.

[raceman]

Look they don't even have a real keyboard. A fake paper one instead, just like one of those 'stock' cars.

That is a standard Apple Mac Pro keyboard. The Mac Pro is a top level workstation with dual Intel Xeon CPUs. With 8 cores and 16 virtual cores for hyper threading and up to 64 GB RAM this is probably one of the best CAD workstations in the market. It runs all market going 64-bit operating systems and serious workstation graphics packages. Unless you have an outright mainframe not much is going to beat such a beast. The screen is a 30" Apple Cinema display with Dual-DVI interface and 2560 x 1600 resolution. That is not a bad screen for CAD work.

From a comparison of the two photos I rather think that Ikea have photo shopped the USF1 pic for their add. The content on the screen fits the USF1 pic much better and the quality suggests it is the original.

right said

I have them in my office too

[tarzoon]

That is a standard Apple Mac Pro keyboard. The Mac Pro is a top level workstation with dual Intel Xeon CPUs. With 8 cores and 16 virtual cores for hyper threading and up to 64 GB RAM this is probably one of the best CAD workstations in the market. It runs all market going 64-bit operating systems and serious workstation graphics packages. Unless you have an outright mainframe not much is going to beat such a beast. The screen is a 30" Apple Cinema display with Dual-DVI interface and 2560 x 1600 resolution. That is not a bad screen for CAD work.

From a comparison of the two photos I rather think that Ikea have photo shopped the USF1 pic for their add. The content on the screen fits the USF1 pic much better and the quality suggests it is the original.

Doesn't make much of a difference, though. They still need a cluster to run simulations. Something like this:

http://www.hpcwire.com/offthewire/17910044.html

To reach that processing power, you'd need well in excess of 300 mac pros.

There is another great factor influencing computer capabilities nowadays: power usage: on one side, it's expensive, on the other it's hot. Clusters are being mounted in cooled containers and the whole thing is really power hungry.

So, to have a fine grained CFD simulation running, it could get to the point of costing more in energy, maintenance and hardware replacement than it would cost to run a wind tunnel.

[nipo]

we are still neglecting simple fact reality is not determined but stochastic

=D> =D> =D>

Tell that to the quant guys who build models for banks, maybe we'll be saved from another Lehman Brothers crisis.

Seriously, we need someone with an insider knowledge of the process of aerodynamic development in F1. When we get that picture we'll know how much CFD really contributes, and what are its limitations.

IMO, that wind tunnels are still around and quite heavily depended on at the moment tells us that CFD is probably good only for a coarse evaluation of design.

That said, we are seriously going OT

[WhiteBlue]

Doesn't make much of a difference, though. They still need a cluster to run simulations. Something like this:

http://www.hpcwire.com/offthewire/17910044.html

To reach that processing power, you'd need well in excess of 300 mac pros.

I would think that there are multitudes of engineering jobs to do on workstation level before you go into CFD with maximum resolution and realistic rolling road conditions. Those Mac Pros will be fully utilized.

USF1 are entering the game at a point where resources are going to be restricted very soon. So having a top of the line wind tunnel in the area on a hired basis should be very much ok for them. They will not set the fastest times in 2010 anyway. So it doesn't matter that the top teams still enjoy much bigger resources in CFD and tunnel work for one year. By the time they are up to speed they have a pretty good chance to run as a middle of the grid team in 2011 if they do a good job.

How good that job will be is difficult to say at the moment. They would certainly profit from a US race and it will help them that FOTA is pushing for that. What can be said at the moment is that their plans for American drivers seem to have hit the rocks at least for 2010. It will be a building year for them and and that may apply to 2011 as well. I'm surprised they did not get some young guys into F2 (real cheap) and groom them for later years. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Without US team young drivers will not go Europe for the feeder series and without American driver public interest will be low.