At Guyancourt

Carlos Ghosn, the boss of the Renault company says that Renault is back in F1 because “racing is an important part of our heritage” but primarily it is to boost awareness of the company, its brand and its technologies in new markets, notably China. The company has restructured its entire sporting departments with the Renault  Sport performance range of products being separated from the actual competition activities. Ghosn says he wants the F1 team fighting for victories within two or three years.

The team will be led by Racing Director Frederic Vasseur and Chief Technical Officer Bob Bell, reporting to CEO Cyril Abiteboul and President Jerome Stoll.

The team has backing from Total, EMC, Microsoft, Jack&Jones and Infiniti.

Meanwhile in India

The ownership of the Force India F1 team is rather complex at the moment. On paper the team is wholly owned by a Luxembourg-based company Orange India Holdings SARL. The last available records suggest that this is 42.85 percent owned by the Sahara India Group and 42.85 percent owned by the Mauritius-based Watson Ltd, a holding company belonging to Vijay Mallya. The remaining 15 percent is owned by the Mol family in Holland, who were involved in the team in the Spyker era. However, things are complicated by the fact that the spirits company Diageo, which controls USL, the Indian firm that Mallya used to own, gave Standard Chartered a bank guarantee worth $135 million for a loan facility for Watson. This defaulted on the loan in May last year and Diageo has since been seeking to recover the money, claiming shares in Orange India Holdings. The problem is that this process has been slowed by other creditors, fighting to get money from Mallya’s crumbling empire. The team stands to make around $70 million this year from the Formula One group, although some of that has probably been paid in advance, and the situation with Diageo is less than clear. Diageo wanted to get control of the team and rebrand it as Aston Martin, but it seems that there was too much risk involved for the British car company, which would love to be in F1, but has other priorities. There is money coming in from other sponsors, notably from Mexico, but the cynics in F1 believe that the announcement a few days ago that the team has signed a development driver deal with 16-year-old Nikita Mazepin was more to do with cash than talent. Mazepin is related to Dmitry Mazepin, a Russian chemical company billionaire.

The team has struggled with money a fair bit as a result of all of this but has done an amazing job in very difficult circumstances.

The latest twist in the story concerns Sahara’s Subrata Roy who has been in jail in India since March 2014 as the authorities wait for him to return money to investors. He has fought all along the way but has failed to sell his prize assets. The Supreme Court of India has grown tired on this game and so is now considering appointing a receiver and breaking up the group. This has caused Roy to ask the court if he can sell his F1 shares along with other assets, notably four planes and several luxury hotels. There are also reports that he has completed the sale of his flagship hotel, the Grosvenor House in London, to a Qatar government-owned trust fund. After paying the debts on the hotel, Sahara will be left with about $430 million. It is doubtful that Diageo would want to buy the team, but that really depends on the price…

Elsewhere the Indian newspapers have been filled with comments made at Davos by Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, who made a passing, but cloaked, reference to Mallya when discussing the state of some of India’s entrepreneurs.

“If you flaunt your birthday bashes while owing the system a lot of money, it does seem to suggest to the public that you don’t care,” he said. “I think that is the wrong message to send. If you are in trouble, you should be cutting down your expenses.”

This is viewed in India as being an attack on Mallya, who owes banks around $1.2 billion, but celebrated his 60th birthday recently in the only style he knows – ostentation.


On the London GP…

There are some stories kicking around at the moment about the possibility of a London Grand Prix. These suggest that an act of parliament is currently required to suspend the Road Traffic Act. The authors (and copiers) seem to have missed the fact that this has already been done with the 2015 Deregulation Bill, which received Royal Assent on March 26 last year, and thus is already law. This allows for the running of motor sports events on closed public roads, without needing to suspend the Road Traffic Act for each event. This was the culmination of a lengthy campaign by Britain’s Motor Sports Association, dating back to 2010, when it was decided that motorsport events can be successfully used to generate revenues for regional economies.

There are a couple of things that also need to be taken into consideration: a Grand Prix on the streets of London would have every nimby in Christendom up in arms, defending urban foxes and sewer rats; secondly, it would cost Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 10.54.24rather a lot money because roadways would need to be resurfaced to have road suitable for F1 cars, and someone somewhere would need to pay the race fees, which would need to be somewhere around $40-50 million a year (with an annual 10 percent hike) in order for the race to be worth considering. Another problem is that London already has very high hotel room occupancy rates and that means that the additional revenues generated by a race would be less than other venues which need tourists. The prices are already high and so adding any more special taxes to pay for the event would meet resistance.

Disruption could be kept to a minimum if the event was held in a park, but London’s only sensible equivalent to Albert Park is Hyde Park, which would mean that the event would have none of the landmarks such as Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliament.

In addition to all of this, Silverstone has the contract for the British Grand Prix until 2027 and so there would need to be two races in the UK each year. While that is not impossible the current pressure on the calendar means that the concept of two races per country is now frowned upon…


Last chance…

There are just a few hours left for those who want to win a lifetime subscription to GP+. If you bug a subscription between now and 11.00 GMT on Tuesday (February 2), your name will go forward into a lottery, the winner of which will take the big prize.

The winner will be picked soon afterwards and informed immediately. We will also publicise the name of the winner, unless the person has any real objection to the idea. The winner will then get his or her 2016 subscription refunded and access to the magazine for free from then onwards – until either one party or the other disappears. If you have already subscribed, don’t worry you can always buy a gift for a friend and you will get an entry in the draw.

The prize is not transferable.

Go for it!


The news that Williams has taken on Gary Paffett to do simulator work says a number of things to me. Paffett is a hugely experienced virtual (and real) test driver, having spent eight years and done hundreds of hours driving McLaren’s state-of-the-art simulators, and gathering data that has been used to help design and develop the Woking team’s F1 cars. He left McLaren at the end of 2014 as a result of McLaren changing engine partners from Mercedes-Benz to Honda. His input was much appreciated at McLaren.

“His technical input, on test track and in simulator alike, has been hugely important to us,” said McLaren’s Jonathan Neale at the time.

Paffett is closely linked to Mercedes and so a job with Williams is no great surprise, as the Grove team is clearly the number two Mercedes operation after the factory team., although Force India and Manor Racing would like to change that.

The other point that I think a lot of people miss is just how important simulators are in Formula 1 today – and the effect they can have on performance. A lot if teams don’t like giving away details about their simulators, indeed I remember one team refusing to even tell me where in the building it was located because that might help me figure out how big it was, as some of these facilities are now the size of squash courts, to allow the cars to move around, thus giving the drivers a better sense of motion, as static simulators are deemed to be less accurate as the drivers do not get the same feeling about the cars. This is often a sub-conscious thing, relating to the motion sensors in the human body.

To explain more, here is an article I wrote some years ago on the subject:

It is no secret that Formula 1 teams use advanced simulation technologies. Today, computational fluid dynamics, windtunnel development, transient dynos and seven-post rigs are all standard in F1. The goal of all of these expensive tools is to ensure that the racing cars are as competitive as possible – and as reliable.

Simulation techniques in Formula 1 go far beyond that. Computers crunch away to work out every conceivable race strategy and increasingly the teams are realising the value of driver-in-the-loop simulators. This means that rather than engineers playing with computers, as happens with other simulation, the F1 drivers sit in “virtual” F1 cars.

There may be a belief that the F1 simulators are simply glorified computer games, which have a value in teaching drivers circuits that they have never visited, but the story is much more complicated than that.

Simulator technologies came to Formula 1 first because teams recognised that they could make money by working with computer gaming companies in order to create entertainment for the public. The first racing computer game was Gran Trak 10, a single-player racing arcade game released by Atari in 1974. The first big success was Pole Position, a Namco game in which a player had to complete a lap in a certain amount of time in order to qualify for a race at the Fuji Speedway. If successful the car would race with other cars. As home computers developed in the 1980s the first true F1 game appeared, called Formula One Grand Prix (F1GP), which was released in 1992.

Nowadays you can sit at home and drive F1 cars, playing with many different parameters such as the fuel loads, tyre wear and so on.

Home computers can only do so much. One may have a steering wheel and pedals, but there are none of the real sensations of what it is really like to drive an F1 car.

In recent years Formula 1 engineers have begun to realise that advanced simulation can be a tool not just for driver training, but also to work on technical solutions and set-up conundrums. Simulation can improve lap times and at the same time save time and money by giving the team a way to test without needing to put the cars on the race track. Virtual testing is now a reality.

Modern simulation technology can be traced back to the 1920s when an American engineer called Edwin Link, who had begun his career as a builder of organs and nickelodeons, used his knowledge of pneumatic pumps and valves to create the first flight simulator in the out of the way town of Binghamton, in upstate New York. At the time teaching new pilots to fly in cloud, using only their instruments, was both expensive and dangerous and Link felt that a machine could do the job more cheaply and safely. The result was an enclosed aircraft cockpit, which became known as the Blue Box. The pilot sat inside this device and used the controls to “fly” the device using instruments alone. The Blue Box produced pitch, roll and yaw motions controlled by the pilot. The prototype appeared in 1929 but Link’s business did not really take off until 1934, when the US Army Air Force purchased four of the machines after a series of trainee pilots died while doing instrument training. For Link the advent of World War II created a boom for his ever-improving machines. He provided 10,000 of them and more than half a million aircrew from different nations learned to fly on these machines. The development included large scale systems aboard which entire bomber crews trained together.

The boom in civil aviation after World War II led Link to develop simulators for the new generation of jet engines. By the 1960s the technologies had changed with pneumatic actuators being replaced by hydraulic versions and the new simulators were built to include what was known as “six degrees of freedom”, which meant that the platforms on which the cockpits were mounted were able to generate roll, pitch and yaw plus surge (longitudinal), heave (vertical) and sway (lateral). Visuals were introduced, with the earliest versions using cameras that filmed models of the ground and then in the 1970s wide-angled screens with film footage and later curved mirrors and ultimately plasma screens with virtual imagery.

The development was not restricted to planes, with the advent of gaming and a diversification into ground vehicles, notably armoured vehicles. These simulators enabled the army to create battlefield environments in order to train its crews. The automotive industry also started looking at the potential of simulators to help the companies involved understand how drivers behaved in different situations, thus enabling the designers to improve dashboard ergonomics and to strengthen the safety features based on the accidents that might occur because of drivers becoming tired or being distracted. Military demands meant that development was constant with innovations such as G-seats, belt-tightening devices and pneumatic cushions, all of which helped to create the impression of the pressures that a driver would feel at certain speeds, in addition to 360-degree domes to create a totally virtual environment.

Today there are reckoned to be 1200 professional flight simulators in the world, designed and developed by companies such as Canada’s CAE, France defence giant Thales and US firms like Flight Safety International and Northrop. The majority of these use motion platforms known as Hexapods or Stewart Platforms, which feature six independently-actuated legs, the lengths of which change in order to orient the platform. Sound and imagery add to the environment created.
The accuracy of simulators is based on the interaction of these three elements, but it is an area in which there has been much controversy between the mechanical engineers and advanced medical researchers, who argue that it is not very realistic because of the way in which the human body reacts to stimuli. This is a very complex question because of the wide range of sensory inputs that the brain integrates. The medical men argue that the reactions of the muscles and joints (the proprioceptive system) do not tie in with the others and also believe that the vestibular system (the balance mechanisms in the inner ear) is also affected. They argue that this means that depth perceptions are not always correct.

One of the problems with some of the simulators is that they induce sickness for some drivers because of a discrepancy between the perception of visual motion and the corresponding motion cues. This led the engineers to look at ways to overcome the problem and to the development of what are called dynamic simulators, which have the entire hexapod moving around to meet the body’s need for the sensation of real motion.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a standard simulator. Each one is a prototype and the most interesting element in their use in F1 is that most of the systems have been developed in-house by the teams, rather than being developed with specialist partnerships. One thing that is clear is that the experts on simulators have also been moving as teams realise the value of what they do not have.

There is general agreement that the two best systems at the moment are the two that have had the most development: McLaren is believed to have spent as much as $40m on its system and used British Aerospace technology, developed for the Eurofighter aircraft. At Woking the driver sits in a full-size F1 monocoque, in front of a large, curved plasma screen. The whole device is mounted on a hexapod which moves around an area about the size of a professional basketball court, in response to the driver’s steering and pedal input. This is the only dynamic F1 simulator in F1 at the moment. It is believed that the best of the fixed-base units is at Williams where the development has been amazingly cost-effective, with a budget of probably a tenth of what has been spent at McLaren. Williams is believed to be able to stream data back to its factory after a practice session so that it can use the simulator to try out other set-ups, which can then be tried overnight to ensure that the cars have the optimum set-ups based on absolutely current data.

Up to now Ferrari has been using a fairly simple unit, which is housed at the Fiat Research Centre in Turin. The team had recently announced a partnership with the US firm Moog. This will be the very latest dynamic device.

“The dynamic driving simulator is a new step for us in developing virtual tests that give drivers the true feel of a real environment and direct feedback on their actions,” says Scuderia Ferrari’s head of R&D Marco Fainello. “It will support the new breed of tests we are planning to launch.”
Red Bull Racing tried a relationship with a specialist company but is now doing its own thing and intends to have a dynamic unit as soon as one can be built. Honda is doing likewise. Renault has an arrangement to use a system created by a local specialist firm, but they don’t want to give details. The team admits that the system is not on par with other teams. Force India has its own very basic system but recently tried out a facility at the old Upper Heyford airbase which is owned by Wirth Research, built by Nick Wirth, who was technical director of the Benetton team before it became Renault. It maybe that this is also Renault’s secret facility. Oddly, Toyota and BMW say that they are not using any simulators at the moment, although both firms have advanced road car simulators: Toyota having the world’s largest driving simulator at the Higashifuji Technical Centre in Japan and BMW having a similar unit in Munich. Both teams say that they do not use a simulator at all.

What is clear is that the teams believe that the F1 simulators are the most advanced of all.

“I think they are better than the best flight simulators,” says Red Bull Racing’s Geoff Willis. “Those are now more about training and not so much about performance.”

And do they work?

“It’s pretty useful,” says Williams’s Patrick Head, although he won’t say more than that.

The other thing to watch is whether or not the F1 teams can find a way to make money from the systems. In the world of computer gaming, the race is on to create cost-effective simulation systems that could be sold to the to public. The Nintendo Wii is a move in that direction with sensors that transform the movement of the players into actions in the game. The next leap forward will probably be a device to give players the same sensations as those being simulated. Since the end of 2006 an astonishing 30m Wiis have been sold. They cost around $250, which means that it is a $7.5bn market. The first company to get to the markets with simulation technology as is seen in F1 stands to make even bigger profits. In the meantime money can still be made. Recently the Costa cruise ship line bought a series of F1 simulators from a Dutch company called VESC to try to attract customers (mainly Italians) to a number of its ships. The fullscale machines, complete with hexapods, are now cruising the world.

Max Chilton looks like he is on his way to a competitive career in IndyCars, with the news that he will be driving this year for Chip Ganassi, joining 2015 champion Scott Dixon, Brazilian veteran Tony Kanaan and Charlie Kimball in the four-car team. They will drive Chevrolet-engined Dallaras. The entry that Chilton is taking over was run last year for Sebastián Saavedra and Sage Karam.

Rumblings about engines

So Pastor Maldonado has admitted defeat and says he will not be in the Renault F1 team this year. Denmark is rejoicing, Kevin is back! Time to get out the horned helmets again. The Danes are enthusiastic about the sport – and such enthusiasm is terrific. But, before everyone gets too carried away, one does need to wonder just how good the Renault team is going to be this year, given the mess it was in at the end of last season. The chassis was good and with a Mercedes engine it was able to score a pretty miraculous podium finish at Spa, where Romain Grosjean was inspired (and Sebastian Vettel had a late race puncture). But with a Renault engine?

Yes, in theory the French engine should be better in 2016, but that does not mean it will be? The 2014 Renault was, by all accounts, better than the 2015 unit. So we must wait and see how the new engine goes. At the same time, there will need to be reorganisation at Enstone and that will take time. The job of fixing the team will go to Fredéric Vasseur, who is a good man, but it is likely that his primary initial task will be to get Enstone operating quickly and efficiently, without too much interference from Paris. F1 is a world in which a good operator will be respected as a good operator whether he is French, Greek or from Baluchistan, so the idea that there might be a clash of cultures doesn’t really work. The folk in Enstone will want a good engine. The folk at Viry-Chatillon will want a good chassis.

That may sound obvious for racing folk, but it is amazing how often car manufacturer executives, riding around on their high horses, mess things up when they start meddling in racing teams. A team needs to be ring-fenced to stop car executives sticking their oar in. The perfect model of this was created by Jean Todt back in his days at Peugeot Talbot Sport. He was the boss and reported to the big suits once a year. That was the right model. He used similar techniques at Ferrari to build the successful team there.

There are too many examples of this to list them all, but if you are looking at the real Chamber of Horrors then Jaguar Racing is the classic example of how NOT to do it. Control of the team and of the competition department that was supposed to oversee matters became a snake pit, with executives screwing one another in their efforts to gain control, only to be knifed in the back or axed in the head in their turn. It was painful to watch. Toyota messed it up in another way, taking control away from the racers and giving it to plodding middle management types. They always say things like “it’s just like any other business”, but it is not and those who do not understand that, will never succeed, even if they have enjoyed successes in other businesses. Racing is racing. Things move faster.

On wonders the same sort of things about the Honda. There are stories from Spain that there has been some huge leap forward in the performance of the Japanese engine, but it doesn’t sound right to be. Things don’t happen like that. If you make gains in one area, you might lose in another. And weight is key. Honda should know how to make engines, but there is always their that companies like this underestimate F1. Honda was brilliant in the 1980s and 1990s but that generation have passed on and the next generation have not shone in their F1 adventures to date. Maybe there are new people coming up… We can hope.

If ever there was evidence of that one needs only to look at Porsche, which built the brilliant TAG engines in the 1980s. The company came back in 1991, with engines for the Footwork team. This was a complete disaster and the team gave up on the engines at mid-season.

People say that it is not fair that Mercedes and, increasingly, Ferrari are strong and that it is not fair, but the truth is that the two are where they are because they have done a better job than the others – and that means that there is nothing to stop the others from catching up – if they do it right.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32,079 other followers