A while ago I wrote a couple of posts about safety in Formula One and at the time I promised that I would take a look at crash testing standards. As they say, “better late than never” so I hope this post will be worth the wait! Clearly safety standards change from season to season but with this years’ ban on in-race refuelling, ever more stringent regulations have been made to secure driver safety. Hopefully, I’ll be able to shed some light on the challenges the FIA face in making sure that drivers are not exposed to more risk in an impact than is absolutely necessary.

The main challenge this year is related to fuel loads, tanks have become much larger; now with a capacity of 230 litres that’s more than double the 100 litre capacity we had in the 2009 season. Extra fuel means that far greater forces will be exerted on the chassis in the event of any head on impact than had been the case with a smaller fuel tank so better modelling and testing has to cope with these increased demands. The body which is responsible for ensuring safety is the FIA Institute, who rigorously set stringent tests to be completed on a chassis before it is allowed to compete in a Formula One event.

What exactly is tested?
The FIA have approved several test centres throughout Europe and further afield to carry out crash test work, these include DEKRA Automobil based in Stuttgart and the Cranfield Impact Research Centre, at Cranfield University, here in the UK. Crash testing has evolved greatly since tests were originally introduced in 1985 and a chassis must currently pass 3 dynamic tests and 12 endurance tests to comply with the regulations.

 

Impact testing involves mounting the chassis on a sled, accelerated to 15 metres per second and driven head on into a wall which is mounted with an array of crash tubes that record deformation, energy absorption and maximum deceleration. Not only has the chassis to withstand the forces to within precisely defined limits but the safety cell must always remain intact. But it isn’t only frontal impact crashes that are tested, these dynamic tests also consider sideways forces (of 10 metres per second) and backward forces (of 10 metres per second) in the testing paradigm.

The following two videos from the Cranfield Impact Research Centre, although they were made three years ago, give a flavour of how the testing is performed.

As I mentioned earlier, these new tests are designed to model the progressive forces experienced by a car during a heavy impact. The crash tubes themselves are of differing length as can be seen from the figure above. As each of the crash tubes comes into contact with the chassis the forces increase, leading to a maximum force of 36 tons on the chassis and trolley supporting it. Additionally, by filling the fuel tanks with water (which is denser than race fuel) engineers can model the effect of an impact at a nominal acceleration of 60g, 50% more than was required by least season’s standards. This ensures that even though the forces are greater, a fully fuelled car can withstand at head on collision of 40g without risking the integrity of the survival cell.

Static load tests
Apart from dynamic tests there are also static load tests to be completed. These tests apply a given load for a fixed time period to the component being tested. As before, tolerence on deformation of a component is clearly defined. In the case of the survival cell, five separate static load tests must be completed:
1) A vertical plane passing through the centre of the fuel tank
2) A vertical plane passing through the rearmost point at which the outer end of the forward-most front wheel tether would make contact with the survival cell when swung about the inner attachment
3) A vertical plane 375mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template
4) From beneath the fuel tank
5) On each side of the cockpit opening

Roll structure
Each car must be fitted with two roll structures which protect the drivers head in the event that the car is overturned. These two structures must pass static load tests to assess whether the car can withstand inversion without the rollover hoop distorting or breaking under load.

Steering column test
This test mimics the effect of the drivers’ chest striking the object in the event of a collision. The test will check that the substantial deformation is within the steering column and that the steering wheel quick release mechanism still works.

The FIA Institute do a brilliant job in making the sport as safe as possible for drivers, officials and fans. The regulations themselves make for fairly heavy reading but if you feel the need to read some on the work they do I have included some links below.

Additional reading:
2010 Technical Regulations Article 16 deals with impact testing.
FIA Approved testing centres
Focus on safety FIA Institute article

Image © FIA Institute

2013 should see new engine designs unless the FIA decide that the move is too costly. However, what form they will take is still very much open to debate. The FIA supported by the car manufacturers are keen to be more road relevant. The aborted KERS project was part of that plan and it could yet surface in the engine department with a move away from the normally aspirated units currently employed.

Turbo or Not Turbo?

One possible move (and which was discussed here some 18 months before one website this week claimed to have an exclusive) is a switch to turbo engines. However, before you start thinking about a return to the monsters of the late ’80’s, these could be very different beasts.

About two years ago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a small turbocharged engine fitted with direct fuel injection that matched the performance of current hybrid motors at a fraction of the cost. They also offered better fuel consumption due to their small weight. With European Union rules in the pipeline to judge car manufacturers by the average CO2 emission across their entire fleet, I suggested that this was exactly the kind of engine that manufacturers were crying out for, especially performance manufacturers such as Ferrari.

And where better to develop the technology than Formula One?

After a number of spectacularly off-target predictions (okay, it seems McLaren weren’t sandbagging, Brawn were as good as their testing speed and Michael Schumacher would return to F1) it looks like I might have hit the bulls-eye on this one with Ferrari talking about exactly the power-unit I described.

“If F1 has to develop something helpful for real driving conditions, then the best solution is for an engine that is turbocharged and GDI. That is what we would support.”
Amedeo Felisa, Ferrari CEO

Gasoline Direct Injection, GDI offers even greater fuel economy. It is a form of fuel injection whereby instead of injection of the fuel under pressure into the inlet stream it is injected directly into the cylinder. This allows precise control of the amount of fuel injected and by careful design of the injector can also lead to a more controlled combustion. The result is improved efficiency.

What About KERS?

It’s looking more likely that KERS could return, even before 2013, although it may be a standard unit available to all the teams. The talk is of less restrictions on the amount it can be used compared with 2009 in order to offset the weight penalty of carrying the system which was marginal last year. However, the issue with that is in further developing the system and the cost incurred. McLaren were class leading last year and Williams’ system while never seeing the race track is turning into a commercial success. Either could be supplied to the rest of the field but the cost of the development needed to increase storage and transfer rates would have to be passed on.

Interestingly, KERS makes an ideal partner for the small turbo engines discussed above. The lighter engine will help offset the weight of carrying KERS while the energy recovery system is the perfect way to eliminate turbo lag. Potentially, in a road going car, stored energy could be released automatically in order to cover the engine lag and again Formula 1 could play a part in developing the technology side-by-side.

Any Alternatives?

Improved normally-aspirated engines, perhaps extended with direct injection technology would be the low cost option although with the lowest benefit. There is also of course the rotary engine although there has been little interest in developing the system outside of Mazda.

One alternative mentioned this week is the gas turbine engine, something that Colin Chapman tinkered with in the early 1970’s with moderate success. A company has reportedly contacted the FIA with a proposal to supply such engines, however, the big question is whether the manufacturer teams would want to go along with such an idea. The idea of a single engine supplier was quickly shot down and it is difficult to see Ferrari wanting to go the gas turbine route. The technology’s one hope may be in a multiple engine configuration series, with some form of equalising factor between types – potentially an unpopular route if one developing technology is seen to be favoured over another. The other issue with the gas turbine is that it’s green credentials rely on using biofuels, the subject of continued debate as to just how green they really are.

At the moment, the teams look to be closing in on 1.5 litre turbo-powered engines, able to produce something like 670 bhp. They may not be totally clean but they seem to be taking Formula 1 in the right direction.

Image © Bridgestone Corporation

Yes, the Bahrain Grand Prix was processional. However, for some reason this came as a surprise to many. This is odd as when it comes to press reviews, the word ‘processional’ is as closely linked with the Bahrain Grand Prix as ‘jewel in the crown’ is with Monaco. Only the 2006 race offered any reasonable level of overtaking, ironically the last time that Bahrain opened the season. Even then it was all one man – Kimi Raikkonen, stranded at the back of the grid following a wishbone failure in qualifying, carved his way through an inferior field to eventually reach the podium. I’m actually loath to mention that fact in case somebody holds it up as an example of why we should have ‘reversed grids’ but there you go anyway. No, Sakhir seldom provides a feast of overtaking and if we’re going to have this level of over-reaction, perhaps Bernie Ecclestone needs to reconsider giving Bahrain the opening slot on the calendar.

What is most surprising though is that it is Formula One insiders who have gone on the attack. Whether it’s team bosses blaming the circuits (read as ‘it’s not our fault’) or the tyre compounds for not being edgy enough (read as ‘it’s not our fault’), there has been a clamour to point the finger at everything but the cars themselves. To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, ‘Don’t Mention the OWG!’

So accepting that the circuits are not going to be changed in any hurry (although Bahrain might like to consider changing back to the 2009 circuit configuration next year) and the tyres are going to be changed over Bridgestone’s dead body, it seems to be Martin Whitmarsh’s suggestion of mandatory pitstops that many a casual fan is clinging to in vain hope of salvation. Indeed, even David Coulthard has hopped on that bandwagon now, which suggests that Red Bull is one of the three teams that Martin alluded to.

Yet these same people reacted with outraged indignation at the (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) suggestion of Bernie to introduce short-cuts. But what is a mandated pitstop but a mandated long-cut with a neat label? It’s as far removed from what racing is all about as Bernie’s idea – was he in fact taking a swipe at the already discussed mandated pitstop idea? To spell it out for Martin, we would like overtaking ON THE TRACK please. Even allowing refuelling seldom provided that.

Yes, the circuits could be more overtaking friendly but someone needs to take a hold of Formula One and force some changes on car designers. But before we start applying quick fixes and gimmicks, at the very least let us taste a few more races.

Back in November I wrote about qualifying on low fuel and how I would miss the loss of the fuel-predicted grid. At the time I had mixed views; I hadn’t been privy to watching F1 when qualifying on low fuel was the norm but, as many fans seemed genuinely excited by the prospect I thought (and hoped) my pessimism would be unfounded.

Qualifying itself was fine, it wasn’t fabulous. I’d watched and had been happy that Formula One was back but it wasn’t as exciting as it could have been. I would have loved to have had the qualifying weights published so I could have had a stab at predicting each teams’ fuel consumption but it was not to be, even though the FIA had temptingly left a space for the pdf file of fuel weights on their site. But why was qualifying not as good as I’d hoped? I’d put that down to the drivers’ uncertainty over their cars handling on low fuel given the loss of extensive winter testing. The quirkiness of the new extended Bahrain circuit couldn’t have helped much either. Still, we had the race to look forward to and the race-refuelling ban would spice up the action as teams gambled on a safety car deployment and misjudged the amount of fuel to carry or they found that the cars handling characteristics changed so much as the race progressed that pitting for tyres would be essential… or so I hoped.

The race itself turned into another of those processional events where there was a distinct lack of overtaking. If it hadn’t been for Sebastian Vettel’s dodgy spark plug dropping him down the order we would have had the situation where the three front runners ended the race in that position, albeit with Alonso and Massa having swapped position. But a race review isn’t my plan for my post, I want to look at some of the reasons for the lack of overtaking; even the drivers feel that the race wasn’t as challenging as it could have been.

Are the new regulations to blame?

The ban on in race refuelling was put in place because the overtaking working group (OWG) felt that much of the overtaking for position was gained during pitstops and less so on the track. So this year the ban, coupled with an increased differential between the points for gaining a place were meant to act as encouragement to overtake on track. But these ideas don’t take into account the physics of overtaking; it’s all very well saying you have to overtake on track and the extra points are the “carrot” to make it work but the fundamental problem of being physically able to overtake in the wake of the preceding car have not been addressed.

“I caught up with Michael and then sat behind him for the rest of the race, I couldn’t get any closer.
You lose downforce, you lose front and rear grip. You don’t have traction, so you can’t exit a corner quickly. Michael was very weak on braking. I’d be eight car lengths behind and catch up on him but there was no way I could go past. It’s not like the old days. You could follow cars then, you could slide up the inside, you could race. It’s very different now.”
Jenson Button

Finding a cure that will assist overtaking will not be easy, changes to the technical regulations over the last few seasons haven’t done much to fix the problem yet we still had exciting racing, albeit with most of the overtaking courtesy of pitstop refuelling. If we now remove that element of strategy are we left with boring processional races this season? It’s something that the teams are concerned with too.

Whilst Bernie follows the money trail, teams know that without the support of the fans they will find it harder to attract sponsors and hence the money that provides for their technological input and allows them to be competitive racers.

“The most important people are the customers – they are the people who pay to come to races, or watch it on television. We are beholden on them to put on a good show and we should see what we should do.”
Nick Fry, Mercedes GP

So what can be done about it, at least in the short term?

 
Martin Whitmarsh, in his role as Chairman of the Formula One Teams Association is also of the belief that something must be done and done quickly, to resolve the situation and make the racing both exciting and challenging.

“Formula 1 has to be entertaining, people have to be switched on to what is going to happen in the race, if it’s processional they are not going to be. Today was not the best show, we know that and we have all got to work together to improve it.
I personally believe that more challenging tyres will help the spectacle of the show. We do need to look at mandating stops, we do need to look at the tyres and make them more fragile, and we do need to work on making the cars capable of racing close together and easier to overtake.”
Martin Whitmarsh, FOTA Chairman

Whilst I think a second stop and more friable tyre compounds (as long as safety wasn’t compromised) would help, I’d much prefer to have refuelling return. For me, it added another strategic layer to the racing and if we are to get back to more exciting racing, at least in the short term it’s something that should be considered.

2010 sees new regulations, both sporting and technical, resulting in bigger, heavier cars and a lot more points at stake. So with just four weeks until the first race of the season, here’s a quick run down of the main changes and the likely effect on the season.

Qualifying Format
Qualifying will again be split into three session, although with a larger grid of 26 cars expect, the bottom eight drivers will drop out at the end of each of the first two sessions. However, it is in Q3 that the biggest changes will be seen as the teams will no longer have to use race fuel for qualifying and so cars will be fuelled to the bare minimum. Don’t expect a return to a pure contest of which is the fastest car though – drivers will have to start the race on the same tyres that they set their qualifying time. The intention is that some drivers will opt for the harder of the two compounds allocated for the weekend, sacrificing pace and qualifying position in the hope of taking advantage of the optimum race tyre. Whether it works out like that remains to be seen.

A new points system
2010 sees a new points system with a mammoth 25 points now awarded to the winner. There is then a larger gap to second, with the intention of creating more incentive to push for victory, and points will be awarded down to 10th place reflecting the larger field: 18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. It means that one of Michael Schumacher’s records, 148 points over the 2004 season, is certain to be lost – unless he can extend it himself. However, the is one question lingering over the decision to change the points system: Does it make any sense if only 11 teams make the grid?


Additional engine penalties
Once again, teams will be limited to eight engines per driver over the season, however, this year that means 19 races not 17, meaning that engine life and effective usage will be even more critical. A loop-hole that I spotted in last year’s regulations meant that teams could minimise the effect of taking an additional engine by also taking a tenth, eleventh, twelfth, etc. engine at the same weekend and only paying the penalty for that one race weekend. That’s now been closed as using a second additional engine during a race weekend will now incur a 10-place grid penalty that is carried over to the following event.

Safety Car protocol
The safety car procedure has been simplified, presumably to reflect the larger field, as backmarkers will no longer be able to unlap themselves behind the Safety Car (the old article 40.11 of the Sporting Code). This should mean that racing will be able to resume more quickly although the front runners will have to deal with a mix of lapped drivers at the restart.

In-race refueling banned
No more refuelling during the race will have both sporting and technical consequences for 2010. Firstly, races will become more dependent on tyre strategy, however, cars will be significantly heavier and slower at the start of races, which could have consequences on tyre wear as well as other areas such as brake life. It also means races are likely to be noticeably longer due to the heavy fuel stage reducing early lap times. For example, last year’s Singapore Grand Prix just crept in under the two hour mark, not helped by the deployment of the safety car – it seems likely that the race may not go the full distance of 61 laps. Of course, the in-race refuelling ban will become most obvious at pitstops which will be significantly quicker when unlimited by fuelling flow rate, with stops potentially of less than four seconds. It also means the 2010 cars feature significantly larger fuel-tanks and the result is that all the cars are slightly longer as designers accommodate the change. By necessity, teams will also have to adapt how they run behind the safety car – conserving fuel is precisely what they don’t want to do.

Teams agree to not use KERS
One thing that designers won’t need to accommodate in 2010 is KERS, the teams having agreed not to use the energy recovery system. Therefore, don’t expect the Ferraris and McLarens to be screaming past half a dozen cars at the start every weekend.

Minimum weight increased from 605kg to 620kg
With larger fuel tanks and KERS expected, it was decided to raise the minimum weight by 15 kg. This means that ballast positioning will be much easier for teams, especially now that they will no longer be using KERS.

Less sets of tyres
There is a reduction in the number of sets of tyres available to drivers over the weekend with 11 sets of dry tyres instead of the previous 14. A simple piece of maths possibly reveals why: 14 sets of tyre for 20 drivers is 280 sets, while 11 sets for 26 is 286 sets – a minimal change from Bridgestone’s point of view. The 11 sets will consist of six prime and five option compounds and there will continue to be four sets of intermediate and three sets of extreme wet tyres. However, it will mean that on Fridays, drivers will have to manage with just three sets of tyres instead of four, two of which will be the prime compound the other the option tyre.

Narrower front tyres
Dry, slick tyres for 2010 will be narrower – the same width as the existing wet tyre in fact. The reason for this is that the change from grooved to slick tyres last year resulted in a greater proportional increase in contact area at the front, effecting the overall car balance of the car. The change should make the teams’ jobs easier in terms of setting up the car.

Aerodynamic wheel fairings banned
The wheel covers introduced by Ferrari, ostensibly as a brake cooling device but also considered to have aerodynamic benefits, have been banned in order to save costs. Teams will look to recover their benefits elsewhere and it has been noticeable that larger brake ducts have been on show on this year’s new cars.

Wheel rim-heaters banned
The FIA wanted to outlaw tyre blankets before eventually relenting and instead limiting tyre blankets to only heating the surface of the tyre, banning the inner heated core used to heat the wheel rim. It will partly achieve what the FIA originally sought – making tyre heat up more critical and putting drivers on new tyres at more of a disadvantage.

Oh my, they are playing with the points system yet again! Of all the things that need improving in Formula 1, is the points system really high up on the priority list? The thing is, repeatedly when you recalculate past season based on new points systems, the results is seldom changed. Of course, drivers will drive to the system given to them at the time so that may not be a fair test but then it probably is a fair result. However, 2010 is looking like resulting in one of the biggest shake-ups in points systems yet as the grid expands.

For a long while there was a large gap between coming first and second but as Michael Schumacher repeatedly ran away with the title, an attempt was made to curb him in, with minimal results: 10 points for first, 8 points for second, followed by 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 for the next six places.

However, 2010 will see 26 cars starting the race and with reliability now at unprecedented levels, it was felt that the first 10 cars should score points. The result is 25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1, a system that left people wondering why sixth scored 1 more point than seventh who scored a whole 2 points more than eighth. The reason seems to be hidden in the rounding up – a balanced system was calculated and then rounded off to the nearest whole point – presumably sixth was rounded down and seventh was rounded up.

Now the teams have met under the guise of the Sporting Working Group and proposed a new system for this year and awaiting approval by the FIA: 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. The key to the change has been increasing the gap between first and second.

“I think that what the points are trying to be designed to do are first of all – to generate a pecking order perhaps lower down in the top ten – so that with the points going down to 10th place there is reward for a top ten finish,” said Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner, “But I think also one of the factors that Bernie is keen to look at is perhaps having a heavier weight between first, second and third, so there is more emphasis that rather than drivers cruising and collecting points, that they have to go for it. It is not because drivers don’t want to take the risk, but if the points difference between a win and second is two points it is not the end of the world, whereas if it is a significant number then it adds motivation for the drivers to push each other very hard.”

The logical extension to this would be to have a steadily increasing gap between points from tenth place upwards: 55-45-36-28-21-15-10-6-3-1, basically a system based on ‘triangular numbers’.

“Thankfully, Lewis walked away unharmed from what was a pretty big shunt – simply the result of his never-give-up attitude, his unquenchable desire to fight until the very last metre of the very last lap.” - Martin Whitmarsh

However, let’s take the SWG’s proposal and look at an example of a driver currently in second place. He’s on target for 18 points but there is the chance of 25 points if he can catch and pass the man in front. That’s an extra 7 points, incentive indeed but what is repeatedly overlooked is not the points that can be gained but the points that can be lost if a passing attempt goes wrong – take the example of Lewis Hamilton at last year’s Italian Grand Prix for instance. McLaren’s season was such that they could laugh off the loss of 6 points, 15 or 18 would be a bit harder to bear even if the system provides plenty of opportunity to get them back at a future event. However, how about at the top of the standings in the title chase? The very guys who are most often criticised for settling for position? Can you persuade them that risking 18 points for an additional 7 points is worth it? And if so, how about an extra 3 points at the risk of losing 15 for third place? The SWG’s suggestions is undoubtedly an improvement on the current system in place for 2010 but is it an improvement on previous ones?

A lot of factors have led to limited overtaking in Formula 1, yet the points system seems to be the least of them. Yet it is the one that is constantly debated. Isn’t it about time that they concentrated on the real issues?