Grip and Green: FIA’s Quest for Failure
October 10, 2009 by Negative Camber
Filed under F1B Op-Ed, Negative Camber, Parc Fermé, Top Story
Some time ago there was a small group of men assembled to address overtaking in F1 and that group was named the Overtaking Working Group (OWG) in a master stroke of being literal commanders of the obvious. The intent was to increase overtaking in F1 and improve the “show” for the biomass or restless natives called fans.
The group toiled away burning the midnight oil and wiping the sweat from their brow from crumpled up FIA press releases and dog-eared copies of the financial Times. Snacking occasionally and imbibing only the most basic of sustenance, this group forged the design of the most outstanding, amazing, exemplary, brilliantly ugly car in the history of F1—but it’s not their fault. They weren’t charged with making pretty cars, they were tasked with making them pas each other and that’s not easy.
The design was complicated and intended to reduce the aerodynamic down force achieved by a modern F1 car. The reliance on tire and mechanical grip was the more pressing desire but not at the risk of removing all aero down force—just enough to make the cars less turbulent and more capable of running closely with each other.
The group consisted of such luminaries as Ross Brawn (Honda/Brawn GP), Paddy Lowe (McLaren), Pat Symonds (Renault) and Rory Byrne (Ferrari). By all initial observations this looked to be the type of crew that would design the ultimate car with the ultimate goal achieved. A group of adroit men which the likes of the “Deeds before Creeds” crowd would be impressed with since unleashing OppenHeimer on the world. These brilliant men set about making F1 a new venture of competition through machination instead of specification.
After all the gnashing of teeth and robe tearing they were thrown a vile bosie they had to address—KERS! FIA president Max Mosley felt that “greenwashing” F1 was more important than actually developing a resource-reducing concept for the sport. The birth of the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) came out sideways and tragically wasn’t still born but more pissed off by the trouble of being born at all. Exacting its revenge on the sport like a Kinetic-Mosley-Retard-System. After all the design and intricate concepts of mechanical versus aero grip had been developed, debated and screamed; they had to thrown 60 kilos at the car—deadweight.
How has it gone? Well…not good! This year has seen very little passing but what ever was gained during the design process was lost when the KERS unit turned in to the push-not-to-be-passed button. Some teams made better use of the unit than others and some had all the best intentions but fell short of realizing the goal—I’m looking at you BMW and Williams F1. The very concept to reduce aerodynamic force while increasing tire and mechanical grip was destroyed by the whimsical notion that an 80bhp boost for six seconds was also a good addition to the OWG’s car.
So where do we go from here? ITV reports that Ross Brawn mentioned something about less aero and more grip. Really?
“I still think we’ve got the ratio of tyre grip and aerodynamic grip wrong,” he said at Suzuka last weekend.
“I think we’ve got far too much aerodynamic grip and not enough tyre grip.“We really want a lot of tyre and mechanical grip and we want to diminish dramatically the aerodynamic grip, and then I think you’ll get cars that can race with each other more effectively.
“These cars are better than we had last year, for sure.“But we’ve still got cars which rely heavily on aerodynamic performance, and because they do, it’s very difficult to create a package whereby one car can follow another.”
Now you may be asking yourself if this is the same Ross Brawn that exploited a loophole in the regulations and designed the infamous dual-diffuser that saw 6 victories on the trot for Brawn GP at the onset of the 2009 season. Well, as a matter of fact it is the same Ross Brawn but he was more introspective than just taking blame for an obvious loophole. Brawn feels the damage was done long before the dual-diffuser came along,
“I think there was a reasonable push to be very draconian with the aerodynamic regulations, and it was resisted too much,” he said.
I guess one would expect that kind of answer from Brawn but in the end was it a case that the OWG didn’t go far enough in their design or was it the clown-from-the-cake KERS unit that urinated in the OWG’s swimming pool? I’m going with the latter and there is bugger all you can do to convince me otherwise. Although you may recall Mosley’s stern warning that if this didn’t work in 2009, the OWG was finished! Uh, that’s fine Max; guess we’ll be taking that issue up with Jean Todt or Ari Vatanen.
Loading ...
Whilst it was great to have the skills of the likes of Ross Brawn on the OWG you have to question the integrity of such a group. I thought at the time that this could be open to abuse.
For example if Ross Brawn had an idea of the doule decked diffuser whilst he was working as part of the OWG (as surely any engineer worth his salt would be devising ways to combat the reduction in aero grip as they were working to reduce it) it would have been entirely possible for him to steer process and wording of specification documentation in order to conceal the loophole that allowed said devices.
Please don’t think I’m picking on Ross as this was just an exapmle and I have huge respect for him. The process as a whole is flawed.
It’s a good point in that each participant knows the particular characteristics of their car and it’s desired evolutionary path. They would possibly lobby for certainly developments to favor that evolution. Not to suggest they did but you sure could see where it could have been biased.
Personally, I think Adrian Newey would be excellent at coming up with ideas separate from his own agenda. Then again, one of his casual suggestions is to get rid of wings entirely, which doesn’t play well in 8 place de la Concorde, Paris.
I don’t see how a link can be drawn between KERS and the role of aero. If anything, KERS demands a larger car due to packaging which should punch a bigger hole in the air and also be less efficient. This should actually reduce the influence aero has on preventing overtaking.
Another consideration is that one of the hardest cars to overtake is the Brawn, which was never designed for KERS in the first place but also delivers some of the dirtiest air to the following car. No KERS but definitely a double-decker diffuser.
As far as KERS drivers, the only ones who have _regularly_ successfully exploited KERS for defense are Hamilton and Raikkonen. Massa has missed too much of the season and Kovalainen has not demonstrated an abnormally high resistance to overtaking at all this season.
At Spa if it weren’t for KERS, then Fisichella would have won the race going away. If it weren’t for the Ferrari using KERS defensively in an inferior car, we would have had one of the most boring races of the season in terms of competition. Instead we had a tense battle that kept most viewers interested all the way through the race.
Correct me if I am wrong, but only Mclaren and Ferrari have stuck with KERS throughout the season right? If KERS is the reason cars aren’t overtaking more this season how do you explain the rest of the pack not overtaking each other left and right? Without the 60 kilo deadweight as you call it wouldn’t the KERS penalty be neutralised?
The OWT did a good job but as Ross says in the quote you referenced they needed to go further but it was resisted. I remember reading a driver quote (don’t remember who, maybe Jarno) which said that dirty air from a leading car now makes it difficult to get closer than a half second, as opposed to roughly a second last year. With or without KERS that is still not close enough for the amount of passing we would all like to see.
Negative Camber do you agree with Ross Brawn that less aero and more grip are needed. The way you wrote “Really?” in your article seems like you are saying he is stating the obvious. In which case you would agree the OWG didn’t go far enough in their design.
Seems like you just hate KERS, which is your right. But you have put it down to a one or the other question between OWG’s design and KERS and you have argued in favour of both.
First thing i want to comment on is the fact that the Mclaren KERS weighs only 23.5kg (as quoted from F1 Racing magazine Oct 2009 P72) a far cry from the 60kg the article above quoted (the first system tested on track only weighed 37kg)
second is that I think they haven’t gone far enough with KERS, make it 100-120bhp and 8-10 sec
but as well a that give it to everybody those that haven’t developed it or couldn’t for financial reasons get a customer version
third I agree with Ross Brawn they didn’t go far enough with the reduction in areo grip and subsequent increase in mechanical grip
What this is about is not only overtaking but the influence F1 has on the development of road cars (i.e. the same reason for the engine freeze)
I want to see KERS in road cars, to see more efficient areo on road cars and better fuel economy as well as brilliant racing
and until last round the drivers championship was between 4 drivers and very nearly a few more.
what a great season its been very exciting and completely unpredictable
all in all I think the OWG did a great job just not quite far enough
But Richard, if everyone had it isn’t that equivalent to no one having it? Why waste the time and money to give everyone the same thing? Just get rid of it.
Ultimately that is my question as well. It, by its very nature, turns in to a defensive button if everyone has it. Only a few had it this year and it was used for starts and to defend positions mainly.
I believe if the teams were asked they would say that the systems are all very different. You could make the same arguement about the engines…if everyone has a V8 built to FIA specs then what is the point of racing against each other…of course that is rediculous because the engines are all very different in weight, size, power delivery, fuel consumption, etc… The same can be said for KERS. There are starndards placed on the systems like 80 HP (which should definitely be altered) but ulitmately the teams build their own systems. Macca’s system is very different then Ferarri’s which is different then Renault’s, etc… The problem isn’t with KERS it is with the application of KERS. To throw the systems out after one season, when all that is really needed is a slight adjustment to regulations, would be to continue on with the Max Mosley type of broad sweeping knee jerk changes that brought us here in the first place.
Lets not forget that we are discussing systems in use on the teams that are 3rd and 4th or lower in the Championship. Its not like KERS has proved to be this all conquering technology that needs to be gotten rid of to return parady to the teams. On the few tracks where it made a big difference you could easily make the case that KERS improved the show. It does make the start of the race more exciting and it does add an element of uncertainy to the race, but isn’t that a good thing? So it gets used to prevent passing in certain situations…everything has its pluses and minuses. If you don’t want a KERS team to use the system defensively make sure your car and driver are faster in qualifying…with or without KERS, its their decision.
It all depends on how it is used
if everyone is using it to better their lap times it becomes irrelevant
but if people are using it to over-take and defend it becomes a question of who has more at the time if the attacker has more he gets past if not he doesn’t
the other part of the debate is not about the F1 cars but the development of the KERS system for road cars
F1 has long been a testing and development bed for technology which filters down to the cars you and I drive and I know i would sure as hell like to have KERS on my car
for both a push to pass button and to improve fuel economy
one reason i would prefer for everybody to have it is to eliminate things like Mr Raikkonen at Spa at the first corner gaining the advantage by running off line
if Fisi had KERS Raikkonens off-track jaunt would have been irrelevant and Fisi would have won like he should have
on the other hand would Fisi have had enough energy left to defend the attack made going up Eau Rouge
thats the question KERS brings to the race
Look at all this support for KERS. I love it! The systems should definitely be run in 2010, if the decision is made to scrap the idea after the ‘10 season fine, but at least let the teams who’ve spent the money refine the systems to see if their use can produce better racing. I’ve been vocal about my support for KERS and the need to tweak the rules that govern it and allow teams a little more latitude to develop the systems.
Hey JD, best quote of the bunch so far:
“…and Kovalainen has not demonstrated an abnormally high resistance to overtaking at all this season.”
…poor Kovy.
Dan: That was tongue in cheek. I do agree with Brawn on his comments.
Thanks for the correction, was it 60 kw that I am confusing with 60 kg? How daft of me. :)
So the resounding opinion so far is that KERS is a good system and should be kept? Can that work if they reduce aero and will it add to overall lap times? Or take away from overall lap times to be specific.
I like how Ross try’s to make himself out to be the victim of exploiting the rules (and a FIA that in the end really didn’t care about overtaking, but shaking up the grid). While it was reported by the drivers that the diffuser cars where defiantly harder to follow than the non-diffuser cars, that seems to be a problem. And I think he’s right about the aero to grip ratio. But to me KERS is the scourge of F1 right now! Even if it is let loose for full development, all it will do is allow certain cars to pass everyone (or not be passed!), while not addressing the core issue at all. It will just be an artificially expensive gimmick that will bring F1 racing down to whoever has the best KES system only. The finishing grids will just be a list of the most efficient KERS systems in descending order. And lets let’s face it, if let loose in full unrestricted form, it will be a giant step in the direction of electric F1 cars and I don’t want electric F1 cars!!!
Now with that aside, for my opinion I think while the idea of the OWG is noble, it is failing to address what I think is the giant white elephant in the room of overtaking (to the FIA and Bernie at least), and that’s track design. It seems to me (and I’m sure Paul can school me on this) that the fundamental problem is that there is only one line through the whole track. Even without the klagg buildup any car off line losses to much time so they can’t get into clean air anywhere to pass. And lets face it Hermann Tilke is TERIBLE, and has been terrible for the sport. I don’t know, it just seems to me like as cars have advanced, and become faster, more powerful, and with more aero grip, we are still racing on tracks designed for cars in the 1950’s (not just a F1 problem). Maybe instead of an overtaking group focused on aero we need to have an overtaking group focused on tracks. Get a group together, and look at all the track designs and notice which tracks have overtaking, why, and where it can happen, and put together some new tack ideas.
Regarding electric F1 cars, has anyone else driven an electric kart? They’re exciting from the aspect that acceleration is instant and the motor really pulls strongly up to about 80% and then it just tops out.
I wouldn’t give up a gas kart entirely to run electric karts, but they do require a smoother driving technique that is enjoyable and something to look forward to.
I agree that having only one designer design all new circuits limits variety and creativity, especially considering his past “track” record. We have to spread the blame, however. Tilke is somewhat restricted by what the FIA will allow him do do. Perhaps what is needed, as suggested, is another group to conduct the research into how one can combine safety and excitement. There is ample proof that current safety measures work and track designs don’t. Time to mix it up without compromising on safety, which shouldn’t be all that hard to do. I’m sure the new regs wouldn’t allow for an Eau Rouge, but why not? It’s a perfectly safe curve, and it’s bloody exciting for fans and drivers.
My opinion? OWG (Oh why give….) and any other top down enforced regulation impedes F1 development. I understand safety regs- reduce the engine size, put a red light at the back, weigh the cars (and max out the driver weight like horse racing, say 100kg) DO NOT stick all that fuel in the car… but anything else impedes car development. Let the tires, wings, shape, controls, brakes, gears, engine change, revs… make all that the mfg’s deal and – if Bernie is worried about cost – stop any development more than 50% of the cost of the cars per year. Remember the first rear-engined cars – “Ban Them!” they screamed. Remember the first disk brakes? “Unfair!” they cried. And so on. Sure, initially it is “an advantage” but in’t that what racing is all about?
You want passing, pit a heavily winged Brawn against a sleeker Ferrari next year, the Ferrari will pass on the straight, the Brawn will pass on the outside of corners. There’s racing as it was decades ago. How did it get there? They had fewer restrictions – LESS GOVERNMENT (sound familiar?).
here here, less government, more anarchy. Surely overtaking can be improved by allowing more underbody aero and less reliance on wings, maybe like what Newey was alluding to.
Fandangio, Brawn said during diffuser-gate that he had warned the rules were open for interpretation of something like a DD diffuser, but no-one listened.
I disagree with Todd that current cars are ugly (McLaren/Ferrari/Brawn/Williams good, Redbull awkward & ugly imho). Have a look at end-of-08 cars to see what ugly looks like.
As I recall, Ross Brawn tried to warn the rest of the teams that there was a loophole in the regs, but they, BMW in particular, didn’t want to hear about it. Tough nuts then, Mario.
Have you people forgotten what a great start by a talented driver looks like? Good lord, I thought it was plain as day to every F1 fan that KERS was just another of Max’s follies. He has no rhyme or reason. If things start to approach anything like normal, he has to shake his crazy idea tree and see what falls out. A couple of years ago it was KERS. One has to give kudos to the engineers for their accomplishments, but they never should have spent millions of wasted dollars on it in the first place. For what, so Kimi could wring a few extra points out of a dog of a car? Waste of valuable talent and money. If FIAT wants a KERS system in their Ferraris’, they should develop in on their own dime, not in an area that steals from us, the fans. Besides, the argument that the technology is transferable is a no go. The systems used in F1 are completely different from that in a regular car. Firstly, you would have to have either an electric or a hybrid vehicle, and even then, it wouldn’t be used. Toyota’s Marmorini pointed out that the system they use in the Prius is much more complex and efficient, and that the one used in F1 is too dumbed down.
Negative Camber, this was without a doubt one of your best, and I agree with you entirely. There are so many other ways to improve overtaking. I prefer the Colin Chapman approach to the Max Mosley FollyA
I think you are right about RB warning the teams and FIA about said loopholes. As I said I have high regard for RB but the original point still stands in that this method of working towards new regulations can be open to abuse.
ok, but who else can write the rules, the FIA? Their track record of thinking things through is pretty crap.
I would have thought that technical people from the F1 teams were in the best position to understand the full implications better. Like any process it could be open to abuse, but then the other team’s reps should be able to see through attempts to “steer” the rules.
What ever happened to KERS in Indycar or CART, whichever series it was in?
It was CART and that series went belly up. Indycar just started using the boost button so it may be early to tell.
Also, the OWG was b3efore FOTA so I assume another attempt might be more equitable? Just a hunch.
And how did it go in CART? how was it implemented, like power and time-of-use?
Great discussion folks. The pro and con positions are all very well thought out, substantiated and presented with decorum. You guys are the best!
Let’s talk a bit about KERS. A few have supported the use of KERS next year but with less limitations or more power for longer. If the OWG is retained and they do reduce more aero in favor of more mechanical and presumably Bridgestone with heed and give more tire grip; will KERS upset the apple cart again? Should we avoid KERS until we get the car parity better? Or as PEter says, let the teams just develope and race? Are there better ways to mitigate the over-development and expense of doing so?
AS for the look of the cars, that’s an eye of the beholder issue probably. I like the wider cars with slicks. Truth be told, the 7 Up Jordan was a favorite as well but… The 2009 car is just too narrow and out of shape for my liking. :)
Now that they have no refueling, what about opening KERS up to be an economy improvement device. If it was used as a range extender there is no issue with push-not-to-pass. Its still “green” and probably more applicable to road cars.
It’s still a ridiculous tool from an energy standpoint. If you spend untold resources on developing something , you are wasting energy. If that thing is limited in it’s use, it is a waste again. The only way to give the engines better range and make them road relevant is to ban refueling and open up engine development to make the more fuel efficient, not spending stupid money on KERS.
Once again, this was about Max having control. He doesn’t care about the environment or how F1 will be relevant to the real world. He doesn’t live in it.
Another way to look at the KERS issue is as an investment in a new technology. It’s not necessarily a waste if, over time, the system(s) can be developed to become even more efficient over time (e.g. smaller, lighter, yet more powerful for longer periods).
Not only that, but as different teams are developing different types of KERS, the potential for many different solutions is huge, which in turn has a lot of potential for trickle-down applications, like road cars.
Think of it as ‘the good old days’ where F1 had several different configurations of engines, with different characteristics such size, weight, power delivery and so on. This time, we simply have a new type of propulsion system.
I hope they don’t scrap KERS for next year; if they do, it might come across as a move to spite Mad Max and for certain people within F1 to say ‘I told you this was a bad idea’ when, in fact, it might actually be one of the most interesting things to happen to F1 — and the evolution of automotive propulsion systems — for a long time.
Whether development is re-opened to the 2.4L petrol V8s or KERS, the teams will end up spending tons of money in either case. I’d rather they invest in this new technological frontier, because I think the outcome, like this year’s championship, will be hard to predict and very exciting to follow.
There is a bit of a circular argument going on here. First Max courts the manufacturers into F1. Then he complains that they are bad for F1 because they are beholden to shareholders and could up and leave any time. Then he introduces KERS, part of his dubious argument being that it could or should be relevant to road cars. Then he does his damnedest to further alienate the manufacturers by trying to impose an arbitrary budget cut and bringing in minnow teams that have little hope for true success.
I’m afraid it doesn’t work, any way you look at it. You can’t instill a crippling budget cut and then argue that exceedingly expensive new technologies need time to develop. You can’t give manufacturers the finger and then tell them they have to develop road-relevant technologies.
F1 teams need to be given a safe environment in which to be creative and flourish. Remember how Renault developed a brilliantly simple way of starting better than any one else? It wasn’t a new electric powered motor, it used the bloody clutch and an extra button on the steering wheel. We need the FIA to come up with a set of regulations IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEAMS and then leave them alone to race, both on and off the track.
Another quick point or two. There have been many technologies developed in F1 that went on to be relevant on road cars, ABS being the best example. But these are safety tools. Safety is an area that F1 excels and really pushes the envelope, and I am all for it. But to push irrelevant technologies onto F1 in the name of being green is just plain stupid. This is F1!
Ferrari’s “invention” of semi-automatic gear-boxes and paddle shifters lead to being now almost universal in higher end cars, but keep in mind that yet again, this was not mandated from without, it sprung from the creative minds of Ferrari’s engineers. It was not a relevant technology from a safety or environmental stand point, but it gave a competitive advantage. This is where F1’s creative minds should be focused. Just as Williams turned ground effects and active suspension to their advantage, we need to let other teams come up with new ideas, not push them in directions that make no sense for safety, the environment, road cars or, perhaps more importantly to us, on the track racing.
In reference to the question of how the CART boost button was different from F1’s, the “KERS” in CART (Power to Pass or P2P) was actually a temporary increase in RPM to increase horsepower for a pre-determined allotment of time over the entire race (not per lap as in F1). Like KERS, it was activated (“deployed” in F1-speak) by pushing a button on the steering wheel.
The strategic difference in CART versus F1 was that Power to Pass was never “recharged.” It was up to the driver to determine when to use it and how much. If the driver had more P2P at the end of the race than rivals, then it was definitely a tactical advantage. Or some drivers used a lot of P2P at the beginning of the race to gain track position which then allowed for a defensive strategy later in the race.
The CART P2P was never conceived as an environmental device, but purely to encourage competition. This is a critical difference. However, like F1 many times it was used defensively rather to actually make a pass.
It is slowly coming into public awareness that F1 teams are already employing (and “deploying”) non-KERS boost buttons. Unlike the RPM-based CART P2P, the F1 boost device is a spark advance. This is not as powerful as an RPM increase, nevertheless it is a small increase in horsepower.
It would be easy for the FIA to allow a CART P2P-type boost button since the engine speed is already limited by a spec ECU. They could simply rewrite to rules to allow for an temporary increase of, say 500 revs.
As an aside, CART also introduced the mandatory option tire (red sidewalls in CART), in which both compounds had to be used for at least one lap in the race.
The actual racing in CART was really entertaining and was certainly not the reason why the series went bankrupt. If you could find old footage on the Internet or on DVD, it’s certainly something worth watching.
Another thing to remember is that KERS is still in the rules. However, the FOTA coalition (or monopoly) has an agreement to not use it.
I would rather see FOTA be neutral about KERS and the FIA say that it is not mandatory. Then we will have an opportunity for teams to take advantage of the rule for competitive reasons. I would compare it to the 3.0L normally aspirated/1.5L turbocharged engine rule that was in place for decades, but was never exploited until Renault came around.
In the relevancy game, however, wouldn’t a challenge to the teams to produce the same performance on less fuel be more immediately effective and more likely to make the jump to the road car versus KERS? I am a fan of letting teams develop, reducing aero downforce performance and asking teams to consume a determined rate of fuel that would be significantly less than today’s amount. This would force some really key engine design on fuel efficiency and not just for a honda Civic but for a race car which is turning 800bhp and 18,000 revs. That seems like a real challenge and road relevant to me.
Really interesting to know about the CART P2P system, thanks JD. So it seems there could be scope to make a KERS system actually beneficial to better racing.
Arnet I agree with you that the FIA really seemed to bollocks everything up by bringing in KERS + cost reduction + reduced aero etc at the same time, the way its been done is at odds with itself. But I don’t agree that KERS is an irrelevant technology, I think it has a bit in common with turbocharging, which is also more or less an energy recovery device.
It all comes down to how it gets implemented. I reckon if you adopted the idea of allowing only a fixed fuel flow rate and then let teams design whatever drivetrain they liked to use that fuel, I wouldn’t be surprised if some sort of KERS turned up on its own and it would be there on its own merit. Arnet is right that multi-valve heads, ABS, active suspension, turbocharging, ground effect etc were developed because they were obviously seen to be cost-effective rather than being mandated.
IMO, KERS should stay as long as they give total control to the driver to use it and to increase the amount of kW able to be stored. I think Macca and Ferrari did a good job adapting the device and make it work properly. It it crazy to stop using it after the amount of HR, time and facilities to make KERS a reality; teams will end up wasting a huge amount of money for nothing.
If you ask me about less aero and more grip? I think that’s difficult to achieve; teams were developed to learn about ways to get more downforce; the development of new mechanical grip devices -i.e. tuned mass dampers, j-dampers, etc- is ridiculously small compared to aero developments. If you want to change that you have to change the structure of the teams and in the end aero grip is hugely needed to keep those beast stick to the ground.
One possibility to make Brawn’s idea into reality could be to re-think the concept of a F1 track. This is the hardest way to achieve it because of the costs but certainly getting rid of hairpins and chicanes and developing tracks with variable width and a wider range of slopes and cambers would add a lot of excitement. F1 is about speed; at current speeds F1 cars are basically safe -in racing terms- so what you need is faster tracks and more variability on the tracks variables that can sieve the great drivers from the good ones….In theory a pre-2008 car can race upside down thanks to the aero grip; you can get back to backing curvers nasty cambers and breath taking up and down hills…that would be terrific!