A digital supplement from the publisher of

Formula 1
All change for 2022

>> Porpoising explained

>> Cost cap racing
>> Sauber technologies
�,NATIONAL
MOTORSPORT
'!'4li ACADEMY 00®00

Make Your Childhood Dreams a Reality.

The National Motorsport Academy's on line motorsport engineering degrees allow you to study flexibly from
anywhere in the world, making them the degree of choice for top-flight engineers in F1, WEC and WRC.
All courses have been designed by motorsport engineers for motorsport engineers so you can be sure that
your qualification is industry relevant and up to date.

The world of motorsport is fast-paced which is why we make our courses as flexible as possible.
Choose your own start date and fit your studies in around your work and family life.

Don't put your career on hold! Accelerate your chances of promotion, bring your skills up to scratch or retrain
with the National Motorsport Academy's online motorsport engineering qualifications.

Motorsport Engineering Motorsport Engineering Advanced Motorsport

Final Year Top-Up Engineering

Get your motorsport career on Take your existing skills and Become a Master of Motorsport
track with the world's first online qualifications and make them Engineering with the world's only
degree designed for motorsport motorsport ready with our 1 year online, motorsport specific
engineers. Top-Up Degree. Postgraduate degree.

All degrees awarded by our academic partner motorsport.nda.ac.uk

Make your Childhood Dreams a Reality. +44 (0)1159 123456
FROM THE EDITOR
Divided opinions
F
ormula 1 rarely sees a paddock united. It happens, sometimes,
but more commonly it lives up to its nickname; the Piranha
Club. This is a place of no compromise, just competitive people
with an insatiable hunger to win. The issue of racism has brought
the paddock together. People have different ways of expressing their
views and although some refused to take the knee, now accepted
as a public symbol against judging a person by their skin colour,
that does not mean that they don’t sign up to the basic message.
In other respects the paddock remains as divided as ever, and
here we can talk about porpoising, and the FIA’s decision to step in
to help address the issue. There have been rumours of favouritism,
of course, as a former adviser to Mercedes’ Toto Wolff now works
for the FIA, which mandated a change,
which Mercedes already had ready, and
which helped the Mercedes cars. It’s not
hard to draw the line between the dots, All manufacturers
whether that’s the right thing to do or not.
Personally I don’t think these dots were party to the same
should be connected. It would be
extremely ill-advised for a governing rules at the start of
body to show any favouritism to a
competing team, and in Formula 1 where the design process
the Piranhas are always hungry, to do
so would be called out immediately.
The point is that all manufacturers were party to the same rules
at the start of their design process, all teams had equal opportunity,
and all teams took the decision to design the cars as they did. The fact
that some designs produce this problem is not down to the governing
body. Others didn’t experience porpoising, or did so to manageable
levels, so it was possible to cope with the phenomenon. The question
follows that, if a car should suffer from such a characteristic, and that
it affects a driver’s health to the point that some are complaining of
long-term damage, is it the responsibility for a team, or a governing
body, to fix it? This seems to be the crux of the argument; rivals
say it’s team related, teams say that it’s governing body, as their
rules permitted cars to be designed with such an attitude.
With the battle lines drawn in this matter, the FIA decided to step
in, take responsibility for the long-term health of drivers, and offer a
solution. It’s not an easy one as the measurements needed to provide
the absolute oscillation figures that are deemed acceptable have yet
CONTENTS
04 AERO
Understanding the changes for 2022
12 TRUE COST OF WINNING
What is the effect of the cost cap on a team?
20 ADRIAN NEWEY
One of the greats on F1 and the environment
26 SAUBER TECHNOLOGIES
Behind the scenes at Hinwil’s engineering centre
32 CHASSISSIM AND PORPOISING
How to identify bouncing, mathematical style
38 CHASSISSIM AND PORPOISING 2
How to calculate your way out of aero trouble
to be calculated and for sure there will be column inches filled as
engineers and team bosses argue over the formula. However, there is
a line in the FIA’s ruling that is probably more important than what it
intends to do about addressing the porpoising issue: ‘…it is considered
that all of a driver’s concentration needs to be focused on [the] task
and that excessive fatigue or pain experienced by a driver could have
significant consequences should it result in a loss of concentration.’
Countries all over the world are banning the use of mobile
phones at the wheel as they cause distraction from the process of
keeping the car on the road and not hitting inert objects. Will the
FIA consider that the complex arrangement of buttons and switches
on a steering wheel are a distraction? Will they consider talking
to the team on the radio be a distraction?
For some drivers it clearly is. Some teams
have to carefully time when they speak to
their driver as they know that it could cost
tenths of a second in lap time or cause risk
to the car if communication is poorly timed.
Will the FIA consider driver comfort more
fully in future, and mandate such things as
controlling driver temperature, or cooled
helmets to help maintain concentration?
Velvet-lined gloves? Where is the line?
Personally I doubt that they will go this
far, but they have opened up a potential cause for argument. If a
governing body steps in to address a design fault by a particular
team, or set of designers in different teams, it has stepped beyond
what might be considered to be normal for a governing body.
In the print edition of Racecar Engineering, Lotus engineer Peter
Wright explains how excessive porpoising led to ‘flutter’ in the
Lotus T80, an aerodynamic phenomenon that brings down aircraft
if left unchecked. In the racing car it could not be fixed, and so the
T80 was withdrawn from competition in favour of the older T79,
compromising the team’s competitiveness but allowing its drivers
to compete safely. That’s not an option this year, due to regulation
changes, and the budget cap prevents real-world testing that might
also offer a solution to porpoising. The solution, of course, is not clear
cut and neither is the way to reach it. Welcome to the Piranha Club.
Andrew Cotton, Editor
XPB
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 3
F1 2022 AERO REGULATIONS
Shape
Shifters
The shape of Formula 1 has changed for 2022 in
a bid to improve the action on track by altering
how cars interact in close proximity
By Stewart Mitchell
F
ormula 1 has made a revolutionary
change for the 2022 season with
one of the most extensive chassis
regulation edits ever seen in the sport.
The new cars flipped the rules on their
head by introducing previously banned
design and aerodynamic techniques such as
ground effect and cutting back on once heavy
development elements such as the sidepods.
The 2022 design relies less on a surface-
type aerodynamic regime, whereby much
of the generated downforce is by elements
seen above the car, compared to 2021. The
car’s downforce predominantly comes from
tunnels under the car’s floor that interact with
the track surface. This technique is known as
the ground effect and is a far less sensitive
aerodynamic regime than a surface-type one,
producing less turbulence and a smaller wake.
The philosophy behind these regulations
is to allow closer racing, with the potential
for more overtakes by reducing the ‘dirty air’
rejected by a leading car.
The previous design saw cars lose 35 per
cent of their downforce when running just
20m behind a car in front, measured from the
lead car’s nose to the following car’s nose. As
the trailing car closed in, the loss raised to as
much as 47 per cent at around 10m distance
behind. The 2022 car, which puts a heavy
onus on the ground effect, reduces those
figures to four per cent at 20m, rising to 18
per cent at 10m.
The journey toward the 2022 aerodynamic
regulations started in 2017 when Liberty
Media took over Formula 1. The new owner’s
primary focus was to up the entertainment
spectacle of Formula 1, and this rhetoric
eventually filtered down to the technical
regulations, which govern much of the on-
track behaviour of the cars in competition.
4 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
Following the Liberty Media takeover,
Formula 1’s in-house technical team started
to look at the then current state of the sport
aerodynamically, notably in car-following
scenarios, which it had not addressed before.
It was not a priority, nor was it in the scope
for teams to investigate car-to-car interaction
in this way as they were only ever searching
for performance on their own cars.
Formula 1 has a small technical team,
with just five personnel in the aerodynamics
department, along with a few other engineers
on other projects such as power units, vehicle
simulation and the like.
Of those five in the aerodynamics group,
there are three aerodynamicists and two
designers, all with Formula 1 experience. All
came from teams in the series. This is a tiny
fraction of even the least well-funded Formula
1 team’s aerodynamics department, so they
certainly had their work cut out.
Following the Liberty
Technical resource
However, although the department is small,
Media takeover [in
it has enormous computational resource,
collaborating with Formula 1’s technical
2017], Formula 1’s in-
partners, such as AWS, and can far exceed house technical team
what teams can use.
Formula 1’s technical department started to look at the then
also has a wind tunnel at its disposal,
although it should be noted that most of current state of the sport
aerodynamically, notably
the work it undertook in this programme
was computational. This is because the
investigations were predominantly looking
at two-car interactions, and there’s no wind in car-following scenarios
tunnel big enough to run two F1 cars at a
sensible distance from eachother.
In the F1 technical team’s investigations,
it became clear early on that there were
considerable numbers at play in terms of
performance delta from nominal to that

associated with car-to-car interaction, and
cars were losing as much as half of their
downforce in a close following situation.
That was a consistent theme in driver
feedback since the 2021 generation of F1
technical regulations were introduced.
Drivers have often commented on the
challenging feel of the car’s handling and
system management, particularly cooling,
when running close behind another car.
Once Formula 1 understood the
magnitude of the problem, it set about
deconstructing the cars to understand the
elements driving the performance loss. The
investigations showed two main areas of
influence. Firstly, wake – the aerodynamic
losses from the leading car and how they
present to the next car. Secondly, the
sensitivity of the following car to that wake.
No matter what, following cars are always
going to be driving through disturbed airflow.
So, the two strands of development
became improving (reducing) the wake from
the lead car and making the car less sensitive
to driving through a disturbed fluid.
Over the years since then, Formula 1’s
technical team has been evolving various
geometries to address those problems.
‘We’ve been very open minded about
where to look, and developed and simulated
many different options,’ says Jason Somerville,
head of aerodynamics at Formula 1. ‘We
even went back through history, looking at
how car-to-car interaction was in different
eras of the sport.
‘We found that there’s no magic era where
cars were aerodynamically very downforce
laden and also followed each other very well.
‘We never really saw that, certainly not
in our research, though we were able to
capture some features that are proven to be
particularly bad in those conditions.’
The 2022 car was designed by
F1’s in-house aerodynamics team
to generate better racing, both by
reducing the wake produced and also
the sensitivity to running in dirty air
XBP Images
The differences between the 2021 and
2022 cars are readily apparent, as is the
scope for development, due in part to
the abolishment of Formula 1 features in
elements such as the bargeboards.
When presented with undisturbed laminar
flow, bargeboards are incredibly strong
performance devices, but severely inferior
when shown a heavily turbulent wake.
So, these were components that Formula
1’s technical team highlighted as an area
where they could reduce the sensitivities.
Ground effect
Central to the 2022 car’s aero package
is the shaped underbody with two large
tunnels, which relies on the ground effect
phenomenon to produce the highest
proportion of the car’s downforce.
Ground effect works though Bernoulli’s
principle, which states that an increase in the
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 5
 F1 2022 AERO REGULATIONS

speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with

a decrease in static pressure, or a decrease in
the fluid’s potential energy.
So, by using a curved profile to the
underside of the car’s floor, a low-pressure
zone will occur with the highest downforce-
generating section at the throat (the section
with the lowest volume / closest to the
ground). The cross-sectional area available
for air passing between the car’s floor and
the ground then shrinks from the entry to the
throat and expands behind it.
This causes the air to accelerate and,
as a result, the pressure under the floor
drops, while the pressure on top of the car
is unaffected. Combined, this results in a net
downward force.
‘This is the first time Formula 1 has
changed the primary physics of the floor

since it brought in the stepped flat bottom
regulations in the 1990s,’ notes Somerville.
‘With a shaped underbody for 2022, the
floor [has] become much more powerful and
[is] a way of compensating for the lack of
barge boards, which are particularly sensitive
to driving through a wake. The result [is] a car
much more resilient to dirty air.
‘Provided you’re not feeding the underfloor
with front-wheel wake, it will then remain a
powerful downforce-generating device across
a broader range of operating conditions.’
Performance philosophy
Naturally, a major focus for the teams ahead
of the season was to try and exploit the new
conditions. In terms of the performance to be
gained with the 2022 regulation philosophy,
combining the new floor and the new
diffuser is a good few percentage points more
powerful than the 2021 floors, with scope to
be more powerful still.
‘The regulations are our end game in
terms of our research model,’ continues
Somerville. ‘It hasn’t had all the development
and extracting performance from it at a
competitive team’s level yet.
XBP Images
XBP Images
The 2021 cars were sensitive to dirty air and drivers commented on how difficult they were to manage in
following scenarios
‘The cars will [run] much lower rake in
2022 to get the sealing effect of the floor to
The cars are running
generate the ground effect and work the
tunnels in the floor in the most efficient way.’
much lower rake in 2022
The new, shaped underfloor also affects to get the sealing effect of
how the aerodynamic balance shifts when
the car is subjected to wake. the floor to generate the
The largest aerodynamic load contribution
in the 2022 car comes from the centre of ground effect and work
the tunnels in the floor in
pressure of the floor, which is likely to be close
to the middle of the car.
In contrast, the highest contributing
aerodynamic devices of the 2021 cars comes the most efficient way
from the wings located at each end of the car.
The change under the 2022 regulations is will see a lot of performance gains from
reasonably positive for the drivers, as stability the teams as they develop their cars, and
will be more consistent in the racing scenarios that will have an effect on how the cars
the cars see on track. operate in dirty air.
‘We have done a great deal of work to ‘For now, though, they are a lot less
try and ensure that the regulations haven’t sensitive than the 2021 generation of cars.
got anything intrinsically unbalanced about In theory, when a car follows another, the
them,’ says Somerville. ‘It’s inherent that you aerodynamic balance will remain quite stable.

The 2022 car’s downforce predominantly comes from a curved underfloor with tunnels that take advantage of Bernoulli’s principle to interact with the track surface

6 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

 18 0 m p h w i t h o u t m o v i n g a n i n c h

Take cutting-edge wind tunnel technology. Add a 180 mph rolling road.

And build in the best in precision data acquisition capabilities. When we

created the world’s first and finest commercially available full-scale testing
Take cutting-edge wind tunnel technology. Add a 180 mph rolling road.
environment of its kind, we did much more than create a new wind tunnel.
And build in the best in precision data acquisition capabilities. When we
We created a new standard in aerodynamics.
created the world’s first and finest commercially available full-scale testing

environment of its kind, we did much more than create a new wind tunnel.

We created a new standard in aerodynamics.

704-788-9463 info@windshearinc.com w i n d s h e a r i n c .c o m

704-788-9463 info@windshearinc.com w i n d s h e a r i n c .c o m

w s i - 28

WSI-28_Motorsports.vF.indd 1 8/15/08
w s 11:08:14
i - 28 AM
Simscale
F1 2022 AERO REGULATIONS

Controlling the Y250 vortices shed from the front wing was very influential in the wing and underside’s downforce-generating capability on the 2021 cars.
These are a thing of the past in 2022

It’s not like we’re losing a lot on the front or at

the rear. It’s a relatively balanced loss to both
axles, according to the research we’ve done.’

Lower drag wings

Like the bargeboards, the front and rear wings
on the 2021 cars were very wake sensitive
so they became more simplified systems for
2022, less susceptible to dirty air.
The 2022 regulations place less value on
the front and rear wings in reaching target
overall downforce figures, but the effect
of the regulation changes here is that they
should produce lower drag cars.
This, too, will provide more aerodynamic
resilience in car-to-car interaction, as a lower
drag car does not generate as much disturbed

XBP Images
wake for the following car to drive through.
The 2022 regulations abolish the
element-less 250mm section across the
centre of the front wing in favour of wing The 2022 rear wing enables flow to roll off the top of the wing tips and narrows the expansion of dirty air
elements that connect directly to the nose. from the back of the car
As such, the 2022 cars lack the Y250 vortex
and its controlling devices, which have been
present on Formula 1 cars since 2009. This
has a significant effect on the downforce-
generating capability of the front wing and
underbody flow feed.
‘The element-less 250mm section across
the centre of the front wing went quite early
on in our research because it was something
that didn’t stand up to scrutiny,’ explains
Somerville of that decision. ‘It was one of the
first things that we found was very sensitive.
For the 2022 prescribed nose area, the way it
interacts with the front wing gives room for
interpretation and there will likely be different
XBP Images

philosophies in this area across the grid.’

In the 2021 generation of the Formula 1
rules, an enormous development avenue for
teams was to outwash the front wheel wake
with front wing end plates, front brake duct
furniture and bargeboards.
Rear wing tip vortices, seen here being shed from the left tip of the Alfa Romeo, had a huge influence on the
size and shape of the dirty air shed from the 2021 cars. These are not a factor in 2022, and the hope is that
the racing will be correspondingly closer

8 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

 These components contributed
enormously to placing the front wheel wake
wide away from the chassis, not disturbing
the aerodynamic features further down the
car. With that front wheel wake being pushed
outboard, away from the sidepods and
underfloor, it was very difficult for a following
car to maintain a stable aerodynamic platform
when passing alongside it.
The lack of bargeboards in the 2022 cars
means the ability to generate outwash from
behind the front wheels has gone, so teams
have to find more subtle ways to manage it.
The 2022 car removes some of these
outwash-generating tools, and implements
a considerably simplified front wing design
with a radiused transition to the end plates,
specifically designed to avoid too much
vorticity around the front wheel.
Certain mandated components on the
front drums also avoid generating too much
XBP Images

outwash behind the front wheels, while the

introduction of wake-deflecting fins over
The 2022 regulations abolished the element-less 250mm section across the centre of the front wing in the front wheels and wheel fairings further
favour of wing elements that connect directly to the nose manage front tyre wake and outwash. The
aim of these devices is simple: to improve
airflow around the high disturbance area of
These elements build up to create a car the wheels, reduce lateral wake and make it
easier to pull alongside a car ahead.
that still works aerodynamically in a wake These elements all build up to create a
car that still works aerodynamically in a wake
situation and doesn’t create the disturbing situation and doesn’t create the disturbing

outwash of the 2021 generation cars

outwash the 2021 generation cars did.

Combining years of simulation and development shows

the 2022-spec car to be far less susceptible to dirty air
from a car in front than the 2021 cars. This simulation
highlights how the car manages the flow

Simscale

Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 9

F1 2022 AERO REGULATIONS

A further tightly constrained area by

regulation for the 2022 car is the rear wing.
There is scope for teams to develop some
elements to coincide with their philosophies,
but the new regulations are far less free than
the outgoing 2021 wing design.
The restrictions here predominantly focus
on the tips, which coincide with the shape
and size of the car’s rearward wake. The new
design enables the flow to roll off the top of
the wing tips and narrows the expansion of
dirty air coming off the back of the car.
However, according to Formula 1’s
technical design team, the regulations leave
some unique upper profile design scope.
Additionally, the lower wing elements
are quite open in terms of the regulations,
which will provide a lot of development focus
for teams to try and find the most efficient
solution, particularly in integrating the wing
with the flow coming out from the floor.

DRS to stay
DRS (the controversial drag reduction system)
remains for the 2022 rear wings. The benefits
that Formula 1’s aerodynamics department
has found by reducing the effective
downforce loss in following situations works

Simscale
against the following car’s aerodynamics in
drag reduction. As such, the 2022 regulations
enhance the need for some form of DRS, Under the 2021 rules, an enormous development avenue for teams was to outwash front wheel wake with
as Somerville explains: ‘Certainly, from our front wing end plates, brake duct furniture and bargeboards. However, many of the outwash-generating
simulation work, we believe DRS is required. elements have been removed for the 2022 car
‘Because the cars will be able to follow
each other closer through the corners, it
follows that the cars should be closer to
each other on corner exit. But because
there’s less of a hole being punched through
the air by the lead car on the straights, cars
need DRS to get closer there.’
Larger cooling louvres are permitted on
the sidepods and engine cover, giving the
teams some opportunity to play around
with cooling configurations and, therefore,
convergence of bodywork at the back of the
car and the pressure delta at the diffuser.
‘We wanted to ensure we weren’t
developing a set of regulations that
were going to be enormously expensive,
particularly with a budget cap in place,’ says
Somerville. ‘We felt that although cooling
XBP Images

louvres had come and gone over the last few

years, the new regulations would likely favour
reintroducing them as they are efficient ways
of cooling. Plus there is no downside to them The swept back new front wing end plates take inspiration from the aircraft world in reducing the vortices
from the wake perspective. generated at their tips

No sprouts
‘Consequently, there’s a region within the
bodywork where teams can develop louvres
and exits. It’s reasonably tightly governed
so there should be no aerodynamic devices
sprouting from various apertures.’
Comparing the 2021 car with that of the
2022 version, Somerville is confident about
the potential speed and stability. ‘I think the
cars will generally be more stable and work
very well through the high-speed corners,’
he says. ‘Where we left this car [in terms of
regulations], the performance figures were
somewhere south of the current generation
of cars, in the knowledge that teams will
subsequently find performance.
‘Even before the start of the season there
was a lot of chatter about teams making
progress. If you put the 2022 Formula 1
base car on the 2021 grid, it would be a few
seconds off the pace, but I would have been
very surprised if teams hadn’t extracted
most of that back from their ongoing
development ahead of the 2022 season.’

10 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

CALL US ON +1.614.255.7426 (USA) OR +44 (0)1280 840316 (UK)
OR EMAIL INFO@TOTALSIM.COM

ACTIVE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES

Design • Analysis • Manufacture

We specialise in the design and development of

technologically advanced polymer products for use
within motorsport, defence and industry.
Our design activities are dominated by expert use of the
latest Finite Element Analysis software.
We manufacture high performance polymer products including:
• Low Profile CV boots • Bladder accumulators
• High performance PTFE • Custom polymer solutions
Lined shaft seals • AV mounts

For more information visit: www.active-polymer.com

Tel: +44(0)7756 515772 • Email: support@active-polymer.com
 LIVING WITH THE COST CAP

Cap in
hand
F1’s cost cap has forced teams to take a
long, hard look at every aspect of their
business, but is the end result a fairer,
more efficient operation?
By Dieter Rencken

Mercedes and Red Bull set the pace in 2021 with their two
Photos: XPB Images

lead drivers, but how much will they be affected by a cost

cap for the 2022 season and will that allow the rest of the
field to close the performance gap?

12 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 13
LIVING WITH THE COST CAP

A
lthough F1’s sporting and technical While these moves arguably saved various
regulations were largely rolled teams (and F1?) from bankruptcy, the bottom
over from the 2020 ‘Covid’ season line is they immediately hurled F1’s plans for
(around 60 per cent of the cars an orderly transition off the patio on the top
was carried over, although some of minor floor of the FIA’s building in Paris.
changes such as to floors and wings caused ‘[The revised] cap cannot be achieved
headaches) for practical and financial reasons, without further significant sacrifices,
in 2021 F1 teams grappled with another especially in terms of human resources,’
variable, namely financial regulations – argued Ferrari team boss, Mattia Binotto, at
‘budget caps’ in popular parlance – that were the time. ‘However, if the current situation
introduced after a protracted gestation. puts the existence of some of our competitors
Under consideration even before in this sport in doubt, and make it necessary
Liberty Media gained control of F1’s rights to revise certain cornerstones, then Ferrari
in 2017, the budget cap restricts spend in would be open to it.’
performance-critical areas and is intended
to level the playing field. Three main areas
are targeted: car design and development, ‘[The revised] cap
component manufacture, and testing and
race operations. Spend in these areas was cannot be achieved
restricted to $145m (approx. £107m / €128m)
in 2021, reducing by $5m (approx. £3.7m /
without further
€4.4m) per annum in 2022 and ’23.
Ahead of the 2022 season, McLaren
significant sacrifices,
Racing CEO, Zak Brown, welcomed the
reduction and glidepath. ‘With the spending
especially in terms
limit reducing to $140m this year and $135m of human resources’
next, the new financial regulations present
us – and the sport as a whole – with a fairer Mattia Binotto, team
framework to compete by reducing the principal at Ferrari F1
inevitable advantage of the biggest spending
and best resourced teams,’ he said.
Exclusions to the cap are power units (at
present), marketing / hospitality and team
travel – to prevent cutbacks on standards
of accommodation and flight classes – and
car demonstrations and heritage (museum)
operations. Crucially, despite drivers being
major performance differentiators, their
wages are also (currently) excluded from the
cap, enabling better funded teams to gain
distinct advantages in this quarter.
Equally, the top three salaries paid to team
personnel are excluded, enabling wealthier
outfits to recruit and retain top designers
or strategists at the levels these command.
Still, the cap does go a way to redressing
imbalances, although such are the facility
and operational advantages accrued by
major teams over the years that, according to
AlphaTauri team boss, Franz Tost, momentum
will carry them for three years, at least.

Kick in the Covid

A complicating factor is that introduction of
the (then $175m) cap was timed to coincide
with F1’s ‘new era’ cars, planned for 2021.
Teams would have open budgets during 2020
under which to design their new cars, while
having headroom to spend on campaigning
their outgoing designs. The cap would then
kick in during the first year of operation for
the new era cars. All was sweet, it seemed.
But then came Covid, forcing F1 to reduce
the planned cap by $30m and simultaneously
roll over 2020 cars on cost saving grounds.

14 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering


Overall, Ferrari says the cost cap has forced
it to be more efficient, and to set higher
targets for performance in all areas
McLaren believes
the cost cap will
eventually put the
emphasis back on
engineering as
the performance
differentiator
But, as always in F1, there’s no gain without
pain, as Binotto admits: ‘With the financial
regulations, we cut some of the development
and cut parts of our organisation. When
you’ve got a cap, you need to limit yourself.’
For example, Ferrari took an early
decision to cease aerodynamic development
of its 2021 car in April, bringing its final
upgrade package to Silverstone in July
after transferring various aerodynamicists
to the 2022 car earlier in the year. Under a
‘normal’ budgetary regime the team would
have pushed through much deeper into the
season, possibly even to the final round.
Crash damage can be very costly, and at one point there was a suggestion of a compensation
fund for innocent victims
That said, due to its internal values,
Ferrari was fundamentally committed to
reducing the human sacrifice where possible,
with the benefit of also preserving its
hard-won expertise, as Enrico Racca,
Ferrari’s chief of staff functions, points out:
‘We first attacked any waste in production,
especially to eliminate things we do several
times because we were not able to succeed
the first time.
‘The team’s head of chassis (engineering),
Enrico Cardile, expands on that comment:
‘This was the first way we tried to reach our
target, and we improved our simulation
instead of using physical materials.
‘Of course, the budget cap is decreasing
in the following years. We started on this
path and we don’t know exactly where it
will lead in the end, but for the 2021 car we
focused on what we have explained, and in
2022 we have plans to stay in the budget,
while trying to preserve our know how.’
The introduction of the cap gave rise to
perceptions that teams, particularly the better
funded ones, were squandering money and
needed to be saved from themselves, but
Racca counters this. ‘[Controls] were in place,
but the budget cap [forced] us to set higher
targets with cost of performance to ensure
that when we decide to improve, or to invest
money in another direction, or a specific
design or material, it is done for performance
that we recognise the merit of, because
now the [cost implication] is part of the
performance,’ he says.
McLaren technical director, James Key,
believes it will take a certain amount of time
for matters to settle in. ‘There will be some
mismatches in facilities and things for a
little while but, as things begin to coalesce
between the various teams, I think you’ll
begin to see much more of the performance
engineering influence than we’ve been used
to as a financial influence.’
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 15
LIVING WITH THE COST CAP
A measure of how tightly the financial
regulations impacted team operations was
revealed during the Monaco Grand Prix in
2021, when Mercedes F1 CEO, Toto Wolff,
admitted the team was unable to conduct
wet tyre tests aimed at 2022’s 18in tyre
development due to budget constraints.
‘We are trying to make the budget cap,
which is not trivial, and we couldn’t take the
costs related to the tyre test and we wouldn’t
have been able to send our mechanics on
such a long journey,’ he said, adding the $1m
costs in damage from Valtteri Bottas’ Imola
crash last year had tipped the balance.
Brown and Tost, though, believe the caps
are still too generous, despite budgets for
the majors tumbling by as much as 50 per
cent, the latter telling Racecar Engineering:
‘They are still too high. Teams just have to
get used to [lower budgets].
Crash course
‘It’s a question of organisation, of
management,’ notes Tost. ‘We were sitting
together [in 2021] to plan for [2022], and
everything we could put into consideration
we put in there, which means there should
be no surprises because we know exactly
how much money we have for car parts. That
includes modifications, upgrades and so on.
‘The only thing that could really cause
problems are some very big accidents,
expensive accidents, but we have some
money on the side for this.’
To ensure employees grasped the full
implications of the restrictions, teams staged
Savings are being made in all areas, from material choice to freight to simplifying component design. But ultimately, for F1 to survive, it must retain its
position at the top of the motorsport tree
16 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
internal training courses for staff at all levels
to reinforce savings awareness in all areas.
Still, considerable juggling was required to
ensure maximum efficiencies, with savings
in one area – for example, freight costs –
benefiting car performance.
‘In my specific area, the main impact is
the freight,’ explained McLaren executive
director of racing, Andrea Stella. ‘This is an
operational element of going racing that’s
sometimes not in the spotlight, but actually
is a considerable opportunity to generate
savings and efficiency.
‘I welcomed the push given by the budget
cap, because we generated efficiency in the
way we ship stuff around the world, and I’m
pleased with the way we were able to do that.’
Unsaid was that the savings facilitated
additional spend in car performance areas.
Key stresses that McLaren has also been
more cautious with its materials selection
process. ‘There are some carbon fibres that
are very expensive but very effective, and
you sort of default to them knowing that
your part will work as intended,’ he said. ‘[Not
doing that] adds a layer of workload and
complexity onto material selections, but it’s
the right thing to do to reduce costs.’
According to various team sources, the
cost of raw materials for a given car design
are in the order of 10 per cent of the total,
so substantially bigger cost savings are
facilitated by simplifying the design of
certain components, in turn reducing tooling
requirements and manufacturing costs. Still,
it is not a binary choice.
‘The search for [better] material is a
never ending area of development, both
for performance and for financial saving,’
confirms Ferrari’s Cardile.
‘I would not say we compromised our
2022 car by choosing cheaper materials.
What we did is push for a more rational
approach by challenging past assumptions,
or challenging some choices we would have
[made] in the past by going into deeper
analysis to check if a certain material was
really needed for a specific application.
‘We now have another dimension that has
to be taken into consideration,’ he adds.
Sporting changes
This year’s rules also include changes to the
sporting regulations as part of F1’s cost-
saving ethos, including a reduction to three-
day race weekends, meaning teams need to
pack the same workload into one day less.
This, too, has complicated the design task as
the cars ideally need to be simpler to work on,
in turn saving money.
‘You want to have a car that is slightly
easier to operate, so you don’t find yourself
up against time, or rushing, or having to
complete the car in the morning,’ Key says,
‘which is never a healthy condition to be in
because you end up missing other important
aspects of the weekend if you’re constantly
flat out with your car.’
Having worked for a several independent
teams before joining McLaren, Key has seen
first hand the effects of cost restraints, noting,
‘I’ve seen how much efficiency you can
With their eyes on the prize(s), both Mercedes and Red Bull pushed development of their 2021 cars to the absolute limit, no doubt spending every last dollar
of their budgets in the process
‘The only thing that could
really cause problems are
some very big accidents,
expensive accidents, but
we have some money on
the side for this’
Franz Tost, team principal
at AlphaTauri F1 team
gain by thinking in a different way, trying to
extract maybe 80 per cent [performance] out
of 30 per cent of the cost.
‘There are definitely ways of working,
which are kind of smart and to the point
and prioritised and lean and kind of
aggressive and agile. That’s where you need
to be under the cost cap.’
Nevertheless, it was all a balancing act,
with Key admitting that restructuring the
technical department to meet the cap was
no easy task. ‘We wanted the team to be
internally recognisable, because it settled
down into a rhythm of work with various
groups operating very well together,’ he said.
‘So, we didn’t go through a massive
restructure in the way the team operates.
We just looked at sensible directions. We
needed to find efficiencies and found many.
Disrupting the team would have been
counter to our longer-term objectives.’
Alfa Romeo (Sauber) team principal, Fred
Vasseur, agreed. ‘Budget caps changed the
mindset of F1, forcing the sport into efficiency
mode.’ he said. ‘We have a [finite] budget and
we have to make the best usage of [it].
‘It’s more the reality of business, back to
the reality of life. You have to anticipate much
more than before – what will be the impact
of developments in terms of lap time? What
issues could arise?
‘Also, you can’t launch parallel projects,
you have to make a choice beforehand
because you won’t have resources for both.’
The French graduate motorsport engineer
says it will be crucial for teams to make the
right choices throughout all stages of their
design phases as they will no longer be able
to spend their ways out of wrong decisions.
‘If a team takes the wrong way from
the start [and] have to change some big
component, this will penalise these teams
for a very long period because they will
need to spend a large part of the resources
to change the monocoque, or the gearbox,
for example, and [that will] take you to the
limit of the cost cap,’ continues Vasseur,
adding that major components could be
rolled over to the next season provided the
regulations remain stable.
The big question, though, is how
Mercedes and Red Bull – both of whom
pushed development of their 2021 cars to
the maximum for as long as they dared in
their quests for both titles – will fare once
F1’s financial adjudication committee scours
their respective accounts. While there are no
suggestions that either team broke, or even
bent, the rules, they surely ran extremely
close to the limit.
‘We tried to extend the life of components
to cut down on frequency of replacements,’
Red Bull chief engineer, Paul Monaghan,
said in an exclusive interview with Racecar
Engineering. ‘We sought to curtail the number
of large aerodynamic updates we could
consider for the seasons.’
Close to the limit
Max Verstappen’s Silverstone crash [in 2021]
effectively lost Red Bull an entire car, and
a second of that magnitude could well
have cost the Dutchman’s team two major
upgrades, potentially torpedoing his title
challenge. Indeed, teams have discussed
‘crash compensation’ for innocent victims
of expensive incidents and, although talks
went nowhere, that the topic was even tabled
proves how close to the limit some teams are.
‘We didn’t want to spend money on
just making spares replacements,’ says
Monaghan. ‘We didn’t want to spend money
on making parts that were benign in terms of
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 17
LIVING WITH THE COST CAP
performance, and so by careful diligence and
Friday running we were able to evaluate that
we could make fewer components. So, a few
pennies [saved there].’
There’s no doubt the pinch was felt
across the board, he says, with head count
reductions and resource restrictions affecting
design and development as much as research
capability and manufacturing capacity. ‘So,
you try to minimise the effects of that.’
Financial adjudication
In terms of financial regulation, all teams
are required to supply full documentation
detailing all information pertaining to
the operating year, as prescribed by the
regulations, plus any declarations they may
wish to table, by March of the subsequent
year. The FIA reserves the right to impose spot
checks at any point during the year.
All outsourced goods or services, whether
obtained from another team or outside
supplier, are subject to checks to ensure they
are booked at ‘notional values’ to prevent
teams from indirectly profiting from transfers
from associated entities. So, for example, Red
Bull could not supply sister team, AlphaTauri,
with gearboxes for a dollar, or Mercedes have
foundry work done at half price.
‘There’s quite a lot of checks going on,’
Alpine executive director, Marcin Budkowski,
told Racecar Engineering. ‘We get regular
visits from the FIA, regular requests for data
and for information. Probably more than
we expected, and at very short notice,
including surprise visits to the factory.
Red Bull was able to develop their 2021 challenger within the cost cap with intelligent planning. They sailed close to the financial wind, and one more crash
might have scuppered their year
18 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
That’s how it should be, though, and that’s
how it should be policed.’
The acid test will not be whatever
outcomes arise from the adjudication
process, but rather what penalties should be
applied if teams are found in breach of any
area of the financial regulations. Penalties
range from reprimands through monetary
fines and time penalties to race suspensions
and even exclusion from the championship,
with the nominated responsible executive(s)
potentially in line for bans from the sport.
Crucially, though, no prescribed tariffs
exist, as is the case with sporting and
technical contraventions: breaches will be
subject to penalties as above being handed
down on a discretionary basis by the
adjudication committee.
‘The regulations don’t specify what
the penalty is for [a specific] breach,’ says
Budkowski. ‘The reason they are not defined
is that as soon as you define a penalty,
teams start to calculate whether [a certain
interpretation] is the right thing to do or not.’
In other words, it’s a deliberate decision to
prevent teams trading lap time gains against
the cost of specified penalties.
The million-dollar question remains,
though: how low can Formula 1 actually go,
having initially fought tooth and nail against
any kind of budget cap, and then rolling over
and accepting $175m before signing up for a
pandemic-induced glidepath from $145m to
$135 over three years?
Teams could, if they desperately need to,
survive on $100m (approx. £73.7m / €88.2m),
The acid test will not be
whatever outcomes arise
from the adjudication
process, but rather what
penalties should be
applied if teams are found
in breach of any area of
the financial regulations
as Williams (and others) did recently. If all
teams raced to such levels, it would hardly
affect the competitive order. It might even
tighten it. But would it still be the Formula 1
loved by millions of fans, and recognised
globally as the pinnacle of motorsport?
Ultimately, market forces will decide
whether fans vote with their feet, and
whether broadcasters and circuits remain
willing to shell out eyewatering sums for a
parade of increasingly dumbed-down cars.
This is Formula 1’s conundrum. Take
budget caps too far, and the most capitalist
sport on earth may well find itself paying
the highest price for what, ironically, was
intended as a saving spree.
In the interim, teams need to preserve
sufficient budget to build and race their
2023 cars on another $5m less.
 TESTED & PROVEN
Around. Above. Below.
ARP fasteners are used in racing all around the globe and
applications from space to below the earth’s surface.

ARP Fasteners are tested and proven in the most demanding environments on Earth...and beyond.

All ARP fasteners are

manufactured entirely
in our own facilities
in Southern California
and raced all over
the world.
5,000 catalog items and specials by request
Special Orders +1.805.525.1497 • Outside the U.S.A. +1.805.339.2200
1.800.826.3045 • arp-bolts.com
ADRIAN NEWEY
On the
right track?
Thoughts on Formula 1’s new era from Red Bull
Racing’s chief technical officer, Adrian Newey
By Dieter Rencken
T
he consensus throughout the
Formula 1 paddock is that the 2022
technical regulations have seen the
most significant changes to any rule
set in the sport’s history. Mid-way through
the season some teams are on top of the
handling characteristics of their cars while
others are still looking to achieve it, and have
turned to regulators for help.
The journey into the new era of the
sport was a bumpy one in every sense
of the word, as teams faced a plethora of
technical challenges throughout the testing
weeks, primarily revolving around so-called
porpoising – a bouncing phenomenon
caused by the car’s inability to control its
platform, stemming from extreme swings in
downforce generated by the ground-effect
aerodynamics. These issues first surfaced in
testing at the start of the season, and there is
no doubt that the solution is hard to find.
Racecar Engineering (RE) had the
opportunity to sit down with Red Bull Racing’s
chief technical officer, Adrian Newey, and ask
his views on this latest era of Formula 1.
RE: First of all, can you explain the
porpoising challenges?
Newey: ‘It’s a classic control theory problem.
When you have a set of aerodynamic
regulations that allow ground effect, the
closer the car gets to the ground, the more
downforce it gives. If those vortices or
structures, or whatever it might be, that give
you that downforce starts to stall or separate,
20 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
you lose downforce, the car springs back up
and then the cycle repeats itself.
‘It’s nothing new. I believe the venturi
cars of the late ’70s and ’80s had it. Certainly,
plenty of Group C cars and so forth have
struggled with it, including the current crop
of LMP2s, so it’s a well-known phenomenon.
But while there’s nothing new to it, it’s
perhaps unknown to many of the younger
generation of Formula 1 aerodynamicists.’
RE: So, if it’s not new, why is it so difficult to
manage, or even simulate?
Newey: ‘The first problem is wind tunnel
models, generally speaking, are rigidly held. non-rigidly to do it. That would ultimately, or
And, if you hold the model of the car rigid, could ultimately, resolve the issue.’
you won’t see the problem.
‘People in the past have tried to do RE: How difficult is it to actually solve the
transient movements of wind tunnel models, porpoising problem then?
but that becomes a whole art form in itself. Newey: ‘First of all, you have to understand
Just as you have Reynolds number for the the problem properly, which is not that easy
scaling of speed and scale, you have another in itself. Then after that, it’s about trying
thing called Froude number, which governs to come up with solutions that reduce the
the frequency vs scale vs speed (the ratio of problem without losing downforce.
the flow inertia to the external field) that you ‘You’re in that classic performance vs
have to move the model at to replicate what comfort trade if you like.’
goes on on track.
‘If you have a car on the track bouncing RE: Is this porpoising occuring at a
along at five or six hertz, you have to go to a different point of the car to the ones from
much higher frequency on the scale model, the 1970s and ’80s?
which creates dynamic problems. If you had Newey: ‘I was still at university in those times,
a full-size model, you’d actually be able to so I can’t completely answer the question. But
replicate that, or at least replicate it far better I think the phenomenon of flow structures
than you can at the moment. But you would breaking down will be exactly the same.
have to find some way of suspending the car Where they break down on those cars didn’t
 Adrian Newey is regarded as one of top
engineering minds in the sport, winning
no fewer than 10 Formula 1 constructors’
titles with cars he’s overseen

The first problem is Photos: XPB Images

wind tunnel models,

generally speaking, are
rigidly held. And, if you
hold the model of the car
rigid, you won’t see the
[porpoising] problem

Red Bull Racing’s Adrian Newey and driver,

Max Verstappen, on the podium after
winning the 2021 Monaco Grand Prix

Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 21

ADRIAN NEWEY

Red Bull Racing driver, Max

Verstappen, preparing for a
test run in the team’s RB18

have any significant vorticial structures as we

have now. So I’m sure it’s different.
‘However, the basic principles are the
same. These cars are aerodynamically
reasonably complicated underneath in their
flow structures. So, what’s actually going on,
and where it’s breaking down, is going to vary
from team to team.’

RE: Moving on, how do you find the new

18in tyres?
Newey: ‘Taking the new tyre parameters
compared to those from the last few years,
the rim diameter change hasn’t particularly
changed anything because the sidewall
behaviours are about the same. And it is the
sidewall that tends to govern the stiffness
and the characteristics.
‘They’re a little bit different, of course, and
we’re still in the early days of understanding
them. Still, they don’t obviously seem to be
hugely different to previous generations’
Pirellis. Though they’re a lot heavier, of course.
Personally, I think the reason behind going to
these big rims is to make it look more like a
road car, which is a bit of a funny thing to do.’

RE: Does this lower profile tyre allow you

better control of the suspension?
Newey: ‘As I say, the sidewalls have very
similar behaviour, it’s just the tyres are bigger. Much has been said about the porpoising effect due to the new ground effect aero package, not so much
So the rim diameter has gone up, the tyre’s about the weight gain

22 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

 overall diameter has gone up and the sidewall
isn’t a lot shallower.
‘The bottom line is that the tyre spring
rate is about the same, so there is very little
change from a dynamics perspective.’
RE: How do you conceptualise the
aerodynamic regime of these cars?
Newey: ‘I think the principle of trying to help
cars to overtake by reducing the sensitivity of
the following car to the one in front is okay.
And so, I think it will help [drivers] to overtake
a little bit. I don’t think it will be a significant
shift, but it will help a little bit.
‘In reality, the only thing I would say
is that these are the most considerable
aerodynamics regulation changes we have
ever had since Formula 1 banned venturi cars
at the end of 1982. So, if you’re going to have
In a few short years the
weight limit has gone from
low 600kg, and carrying
onboard around 30-40kg
of ballast, to cars that are
800kg and then some
such a significant regulation change, which
inevitably will bring all sorts of other changes,
it’s probably going to spread the grid of cars
in the early seasons.
‘Let’s just say I think there are different
ways it could have been done though.
‘The reality is you’ve now got cars at over
900kg start line weight. That’s well into what
used to be considered heavy for Sportscars.
In a few short years, the weight limit has
gone from low 600kg, and carrying onboard
around 30-40kg of ballast, to cars that are
800kg and then some. And we’re all working
like mad to try and get to that currently
prescribed minimum weight limit of 795kg.
‘In short, the cars have got bigger and
heavier and aerodynamically not particularly
efficient because they have lots of drag. I
think it is a bit of a shame that Formula 1 has
gone this direction, especially because there’s
the need and opportunity at the moment to
go the exact opposite. Obviously, that wrong
direction is the same sort of direction general
automotive has gone recently, driving ever
bigger and heavier cars all the time, and
people obsessing about whether it’s battery
or petrol. Well, the biggest single problem is
the amount of energy it takes to move the
damn thing, regardless of where that energy
comes from. It seems Formula 1’s technical
book doesn’t grasp that because, of course,
the big car manufacturers don’t want to.
‘I think just getting the cars to the
minimum weight limit is the big challenge of
2022 for a lot of teams, for sure.’
RC: There are discussions about adding
3kg to the minimum weight to try and
make the job of weight saving less intense.
Does 3kg really make such a difference?
Newey: ‘Well, you have to remember that,
very roughly speaking – and of course, it
varies from circuit to circuit – you’re talking
approximately 3/8 of a second per 10kg of
car weight. So, that [3kg] weight difference
equates to around 1/8 of a second.
‘I don’t have a benchmark figure for per kg
saved, or per 10kg saved in terms of cost, but
in truth it must be enormous.’
RE: How has the budget cap affected the
whole development of the car?
Newey: ‘It is difficult for everybody. I totally
agree that Formula 1 needs to avoid constant
arms races and reduce costs. Whether you do
it mainly by cost cap – which is obviously the
route Formula 1 has taken – or you do it by
other means is heavily debatable.
‘The reality is trying to do it financially is
very complicated. So I’m sure there will be lots
of acquisitions, and some people, as you can
imagine, taking liberties in some areas.
‘And it’s going to be very difficult to police
that down to the nth degree.
Sergio Perez gets to grips on track during
testing with the team’s 2022 challenger
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 23
ADRIAN NEWEY

‘Now, you could say, if you can’t police it,

Red Bull Racing

does the last five per cent matter? But the
problem is we all have an enormous fixed
cost. So the bit you have left over is the bit
you can put into research and development.
Look at it that way, and those last few per
cent do make a big difference.
‘And when we are in the position we’re
in now, where just about every team on
the grid has hit the cost cap, you can easily
argue the cost cap is actually too low. In my
opinion, it should be preventing an arms race
amongst the top two or three teams, not
bringing the whole grid down.’

RE: In terms of designing the car, do you

find it more of an engineering challenge to
design a car to a regulation set than to an
accountant’s directive?
Newey: ‘I don’t mind that because it’s just
another constraint, and in a way it’s an
interesting thing to have to take into account. The cost cap is making life difficult, so Newey says we should expect lots of acquisitions between teams as
So that itself is okay. the new era progresses
‘I think what I fear is the kind of room
for manoeuvre it potentially still leaves RE: I know it’s early days, but overall, how fantastic research tools, which means we can
within the regulations in terms of fairness. does this era compare to previous ones? have a decent level of understanding.
And also the fact that we, like many of Newey: ‘Nowadays, of course, we have ‘Of course, you still get surprises, and the
the other teams, have unfortunately this incredibly tight and lengthy rule book porpoising problem is a perfect example. But,
had to let some people go. That really that very much constrains the shape of the by and large, the cars perform as expected,
doesn’t feel right.’ cars. But, on the other hand, we have these particularly once you understand them.

We need smaller, lighter cars that are more

energy efficient. Unfortunately… with these new
rules, Formula 1 has done precisely the opposite

24 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering


Adrian Newey (right) sits alongside Red Bull Racing’s team principal, Christian Horner
‘If there is a significant regulation change, Newey: ‘Light weight and aerodynamic
it will not be too dramatic if the cars are well efficiency are the two most important features.
understood. It’s unusual to get nasty surprises.’ Formula 1 often talks about road relevance,
and it has had its place in popularising certain
RE: Okay, so what would be your ideal areas in the showroom. Carbon fibre trim is an
regulations for a Formula 1 car? easy example. And paddle-shift gear change.
Much of the plan view profile of the 2022
Formula 1 cars is prescribed, though
there are many detailed areas of freedom
that teams can exploit in line with their
individual design philosophies
‘When the turbo era of the 1980s got
underway, the automotive market saw more
turbocharged cars produced. So, whilst there
may not be any direct technical exchange,
Formula 1 can certainly popularise trends.
‘Correctly, ecology is a massive subject at
the moment, and Formula 1 can, and should,
play its part in that. But there is all this debate
about where your energy source should
come from – whether it’s electrical, biofuels,
synthetic fuel, hydrogen etc – and a lot of
misinformation on this stuff, particularly on
the electric side. People are starting to realise
that the carbon footprint of manufacturing,
and eventually disposing of, an electric
vehicle is much higher than a petrol one.
‘But the assumption that the electricity
that comes from wind or solar is somehow
zero emissions is just not valid. You look at a
wind turbine, particularly an offshore one, a
tremendous amount of concrete goes into
putting the structure in place. And concrete is
one of the worst things for CO2 emissions.
‘There is also a lot of aluminium and
copper in these structures, which are also
very polluting materials in the manufacturing
phase. So it’s good, but it’s not zero.
‘What nobody seems to be talking about
is the amount of energy that is used to move
the vehicle. So, rather ridiculously at the
moment, manufacturers get a dispensation
if they make their cars bigger and heavier in
terms of their CO2 emissions, provided they
make them less polluting at the tailpipe. I
mean, where is the logic in that? It is driven
by the government, which is lobbied by car
manufacturers, which is very much like motor
racing these days.
‘Some of the changes that happen in
Formula 1 are a result of lobbying, too. So,
in terms of where we need to get to, in my
opinion, we need smaller, lighter cars that are
more energy efficient. Unfortunately, at the
moment, with these new rules, Formula 1 has
done precisely the opposite to that.’
RE: Should we have a weight limit for all
the safety stuff perhaps, and then have a
maximum weight for the rest?
Newey: ‘Some of the safety stuff, of course,
becomes a self-feeding problem. The heavier
the car, the stronger it has to be. Some of [the
weight increase] stems from power units,
some of it from the safety stuff, and some of it
comes from other regulations.
‘To me, it just needs a complete review.
The cars need to be quick, of course they do,
because we all know that television has the
effect of slowing it down and making them
look less dramatic. Because of that, to look
good on television, they have to be properly
quick, which they are.
‘But there are other ways of doing that,
which would be much more efficient than
the routes F1 is currently pursuing.’
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 25
 SAUBER TECHNOLOGIES

From a privateer race

team to one of the
biggest players in the
industry, Racecar charts
the evolution of Sauber’s
engineering groups
By Stewart Mitchell

Axel Kruse, CEO of

Sauber Technologies

Sauber’s wind tunnel is one of the best known and

widely used of its type in motorsport today. This
impressive facility now forms part of the newly
formed Sauber Technologies

‘We’ve been pushing AM

very hard because we
recognise its potential for
supply of the wind tunnel
testing components and
realising our designs in
Images: Sauber Technologies

the real world before they

go to final manufacture’
Axel Kruse, CEO at Sauber Technologies

26 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

Forward thinking
L
everaging a Formula 1 team’s
engineering expertise and DevOps
capabilities for other applications is
nothing new. Teams up and down
the grid have formed race team partner firms
to sell their services to outside organisations
for many years. However, this part of
Formula 1 has evolved significantly over the
past couple of years to accommodate the
cost cap regulations and keep the staff’s
amassed engineering expertise in house.
The Alfa Romeo Formula 1 team is run
by Sauber Motorsport, part of the Sauber
Group based in Hinwil, Switzerland. The start
of 2022 saw the birth of Sauber Technologies,
a new company devoted to bringing Sauber’s
engineering innovation and Formula 1
mindset to businesses worldwide. Sauber
Technologies incorporates Sauber
Engineering and Sauber Aerodynamics,
which have both been around for a while,
strengthening their capabilities for customers
across a broad range of industries.
‘In the past, we had three entities
in the company: the motorsport pillar,
aerodynamics and engineering,’ explains
Axel Kruse, CEO of Sauber Technologies.
‘The engineering, which is the base of the
Sauber Technologies group, came from our
recognition of us having an excellent product
in engineering expertise and being very
strong in additive manufacturing (AM).
‘We’ve been pushing AM very hard
because we recognise its potential for supply
of the wind tunnel testing components
and realising our designs in the real world
before they go to final manufacture. With
the introduction of the budget cap, it
made sense to merge the aerodynamic
and engineering capabilities as they are
hand in hand. So, we created the Sauber
Technologies arm of our company.’
There and back
The evolution of the Sauber Group started
in 1970 when Swiss businessman, Peter
Sauber, founded Sauber Motorsport. After
various stints in a multitude of racing
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 27
SAUBER TECHNOLOGIES

disciplines, from hillclimbing through to

Sportscars, the team entered Formula 1
in 1993. After failing to make much of
an impression as an independent outfit,
Sauber sold the team to BMW in 2005.
It then competed as BMW Sauber from
2006 to 2009, scoring one victory.
Then, when BMW pulled out of Formula 1
at the end of the 2009 season, Peter
Sauber bought his old team back again,
and it was granted a 2010 entry.
The BMW Sauber project had resulted
in a substantial increase in competitiveness
for the team. Third party engineering
work was always a strong pillar for Sauber,
but its reliance on engineering output
increased with the withdrawal of BMW’s
funding. Today, Sauber Technologies is
its own entity, entirely dedicated to third
party business, though one of its biggest
customers is Sauber Motorsport (currently Additive Industries’ modular and scalable MetalFAB1 system, designed for integrated and automated
the Orlen Alfa Romeo Formula 1 team). production with metal powder bed fusion technology using four lasers
Within the Technologies arm, the
company has finite element analysis (FEA)
and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
capacity, milling and other subtractive
manufacturing solutions, additive
manufacturing (AM) capability and wind
tunnel services, able to run from full-size
cars down to 50 per cent scale models.

Clear vision
‘With this capability, alongside our
consulting within those areas, we can
support companies with a clear vision
who want to execute their programme
from taking a blank sheet of paper and
ideas to full production,’ explains Kruse.
Sauber Technologies’ additive
manufacturing capability was born out
of the high demand for test parts to be
made quickly and accurately. When BMW
bought the Formula 1 team, it brought with After an AM part is manufactured and processed, it is laser scanned and compared to the original CAD file
it a significant budget. The Sauber Group to ensure no discrepancies
management therefore put together a
plan for team to improve efficiency across
all its operations. Part of that drive was
to stop outsourcing the production of
wind tunnel components. That desire saw
Sauber build up its additive manufacturing
department internally, initially for plastic
parts for Sauber Motorsport produced
via stereo lithography (SLA) and selective
laser sintering (SLS) techniques.
‘Early on in our additive manufacturing
journey, we discovered some parts on the
full-scale car we wanted to print, but the
material was not available in the quality we
needed,’ notes Kruse. ‘For example, for the
Monaco GP, you need the front brake ducts
to have the maximum ducting because of
the high number of braking zones and the
low flow field velocity through the front
braking system. But you only need this Often, additive manufactured parts will be hand finished by operators with subtle surface techniques used
configuration for that race once a year. on external aspects

28 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

 ‘In the past, we built Monaco GP brake
ducts from virgin carbon fibre. The process
included positive and negative laminating
followed by milling, and then you have six
sets for the two cars for that weekend. The
design would evolve for the following year,
so the tooling would be a waste. We wanted
to print them because it’s a one off, but we
had to find a material temperature resistant
enough to do that. So we developed our own.’
The company’s proprietary HiPAC
SLS material was the result. It is based
on a carbon-reinforced polyamide 12
and offers high mechanical properties
and dimensional stability, with low water
absorption compared to other polyamides,
making it barely affected by moisture.
Outside of the niche Monaco brake duct
application, Sauber saw a market demand
for such a material in different applications.
‘So, we ramped up the plastic AM
capacity to supply the needs of the Formula
1 applications [wind tunnel testing and
some additional parts on the car] and
third-party market demand,’ Kruse explains.
‘We bought six SLA and six SLS machines
to cope with the demand as it came in.’
Material composition
With Sauber an early adopter of the then
new AM techniques within the Formula
1 fraternity, it also pioneered material
composition, alongside powdered
material manufacture. The powdered
material evolution has been rapid,
although many of the exotic materials
used to exploit performance in high-end
industries are banned in Formula 1.
On the plastic AM side, Kruse says there’s
always something new coming. For example,
Sauber Technologies is currently doing a lot
of work with carbon fibre-reinforced PA12
material. The reason is that it’s so versatile,
and engineers can manipulate its composition
to fulfil a wide range of different demands.
Its most significant strength is its high-
Titanium additive manufacturing is a major
development for Sauber Technologies. Here’s
a post-turbine exhaust part for a contemporary
turbocharged, 1.6-litre, V6 Formula 1 engine
temperature stability when compared
to other AM plastics – up to 170degC.
The fibre orientation cannot be stipulated
in manufacturing fibre-reinforced polymers
produced using current AM. That means
engineers cannot optimise the internal
structure for the number of fibres and load
directions the part will experience during
operation. However, the part’s shape can
be designed to be more optimised for the
application, thanks to the almost limitless
construction freedom of AM. That means
some of the strength lost from the lack of
fibre orientation in the material structure
can be compensated for by good design.
‘After many trials, you learn what is the
right number of fibres over that part,’ explains
Kruse. ‘Everywhere across the part has the
same density of fibres, and so the same
strength, because you can’t orientate them.’
Metal AM
Soon after the plastic AM side of the business
took off, Sauber began investigating the
potential of metal additive manufacturing.
At the time, the technology was immature,
and a lot of expertise was required to make
parts successfully using this technique.
Consequently, Sauber decided it needed
a partner for this venture, which it found
in Dutch firm Additive Industries. Today,
they are a principal partner to Sauber
Technologies, providing a series of metal
AM technologies, including the machines
and the software to produce metal AM
components. Finding a partner in Additive
Industries also saw the company install four
metal printers to print titanium, specially
strengthened aluminium and stainless steel.
Metal AM machines work with a vast array
of powdered materials, so improving the
performance of AM-produced parts is down
to the laser parameters and environment
around the part during production.
‘We are focusing on the metals usable
for Formula 1 in metal AM and exploiting
what we know for third party business,’ notes
Kruse. ‘Formula 1 wants to keep a stable bill
of materials. The management does not want
a situation where things like beryllium are
used again, and the costs ramp up. They have
a strict catalogue of what is available to use,
‘Metal AM was a huge
shift in capabilities for
the Formula 1 application
as a vast number of
components on the car
could now be printed’
Axel Kruse
so there’s little point in exploring anything
else outside those specified materials.
‘Metal AM was a huge shift in
capabilities for the Formula 1 application
as a vast number of components on
the car could now be printed.
‘This was a massive milestone for the
technology and us as a supplier of these
elements, but there was still a steep learning
curve to climb. Early on, there was quite a
disparity between the performance of an
additive manufactured part compared to
a part subtractive manufactured from a
billet of material. To further optimise the
AM components, we needed to develop our
design approach for manufacture with AM in
mind. Our technology and FEA programming
has evolved to the point where we are
designing in a completely different type of
way to accommodate the potential of AM.’
Additive manufacturing has a series of
positive knock-on effects outside of the
lack of material waste and the potential
to optimise shapes stemming from the
freedom in design it offers. It allows users
to reduce considerably the number of
milling machine cutters required, and the
produced parts are often lighter, so cheaper
to transport. Engineers can also now achieve
integrated features with four or five functions
within one AM component, rather than
producing several parts from subtractive
manufacturing that go together into an
assembly. As such, part count on a given
system can be reduced, meaning storage
departments can reduce their capacity, too.
Finally, lead times for AM
components are significantly less than
other manufacturing techniques.
Techniques for AM
When the part is being layered during the
AM process, the first layer will heat cycle
more than the top layer if the build chamber
environment isn’t properly managed.
Making sure the heat distribution is even
throughout the part, therefore, so there’s no
additional stress placed upon the first layers
compared to the top layers is critical for part
performance when it goes into service.
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 29
SAUBER TECHNOLOGIES
‘We’ve worked very hard to develop
working practices for AM throughout this
journey,’ remarks Kruse. ‘Working out what
the right chamber and build platform
temperature should be when you start
is critical to how the layers bond during
construction. And this process is different
from material to material. We print several
millimetres before the formation of the
main structure begins because we cut
the part off the build platform, and this
support structure will take the heat away
from the part and into the platform.
‘If you are building a complex structure,
any overhanging or long lateral forms must
be supported by structures underneath them.
We design the manufacturing process so the
machine prints these support structures, and
they have several roles. Their primary function
is accurately mechanically supporting the
part, but they must also effectively draw heat
away from the component body, and also
need to easily break away, or grind away,
from the main feature in post-processing.’
The secondary and tertiary roles are more
intensive in engineering than mechanical
handling. ‘We carry out in-depth finite
element analysis and simulation to identify
how the part’s mechanical and thermal stress
comes out through the support structure,
and ensure when we cut it out that it’s not
going to damage the part,’ continues Kruse.
‘Proprietary design techniques are used to
ensure the heat from the build follows a given
support structure path away from the part
body better than through the part itself.
‘We simulate this in the design
programme we use: where the support
structure contacts the part, where the
heat goes, where the mechanical forces
go, and the interface between the support
structure and the part is defined extremely
accurately. Then we will optimise that
Sauber Technologies has invested heavily
in AM technology in recent times. Shown
here is its four stereolithography (SLA)
polymer additive manufacturing machines
30 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
to ensure the part can go into service
as soon as possible after the build.
‘Additionally, using the build platform
most efficiently is critical, because the
money you’re spending is mostly machine
running time. So, you have a platform size
with several parts and different structures,
which should not interfere with all the
others. Yes, this is the tricky thing.’
Engineering consultancy
Despite the manufacturing side of Sauber
Technologies being a significant element of
the business, the largest growth area for the
company has been in engineering consulting.
In the beginning, the consulting arm was
around 30 per cent of the output, and now
it’s over 50 per cent, with far more customers.
‘The engineering, consulting and project
management is growing very fast,’ says Kruse.
‘Very often, these projects are combined with
the AM technology or wind tunnel facility,
making our company a one-stop shop
for all the required parts of a project.’
Of the consulting side of things, Kruse says
the competitive edge for the engineering
side of the Technologies group is its design
for AM capabilities. ‘I think it’s a big move,
especially when talking with the designers,
because they often think in structures they
know. But when designing for AM, you must
come from the other side, focusing only
on what is necessary for the specification
of the part, not thinking about what it
should look like. This is a different type of
thinking. It’s also a lot of learning to give the
designer confidence that we can do that.
‘In Formula 1, speed of learning is
everything, and we have a very high
learning curve. To maximise this, we
have dedicated programmes on the AM
machines to do pre-development for the
Formula 1 team, including testing. We have
‘We have invested a lot of
money in test facilities and
equipment to carry out
tensile strength tests and
finished part tolerancing
to verify the [AM] material
and its properties’
Axel Kruse
invested a lot of money in test facilities and
equipment to carry out tensile strength
tests and finished part tolerancing to
verify the material and its properties.
‘Because the AM techniques we use have
a powder bed and are created by melting
that powder in layers, you must make sure
everything is consistent from top to bottom,
and you have to test it. When we started, the
testing methodology for this technology was
not available. We had to develop it ourselves.’
Wind tunnel
Perhaps the most well-known part of the
Sauber Technologies group is its wind tunnel
facility. It boasts cutting-edge technology
for all relevant aspects: wind speed, size
of the test section, rolling road, model
motion system and data collection. The
tunnel has a maximum tube diameter of
9.4m and is designed as a closed circuit,
measuring 141m in length (without the test
section). The overall weight of all the steel
elements, plus the fan housing, comes to
480 tonnes. The single-stage axial fan with
carbon rotor blades is state of the art.
 At the heart of the wind tunnel is the
test section. It is generously proportioned
to provide representative racing conditions
for precise results. Testing with a full-scale
racecar is possible and consequently it
is used by many third-party clients.
However, current regulations ban full-scale
testing in Formula 1 and some other racing
series, so F1 exclusively uses 60 per cent
scale models for wind tunnel testing work.
The entire measuring platform can be
rotated in the Sauber Technologies tunnel
to allow test models to be exposed to the
airstream – at anything up to 288km/h – at
an angle of up to 10 degrees. The platform
features a rotating steel belt that runs in
sync with the airflow to simulate the relative
motion between the vehicle and road,
and has load cells mounted underneath
to measure wheel loads. This gives a
more accurate picture of the dynamics
and includes the influence of the rotating
wheels, enabling engineers to measure
aerodynamic loads in different states.
‘We put a lot of emphasis on the tunnel
facility to develop it to a very high standard,’
remarks Kruse. ‘We pride ourselves in being
state of the art. This has really developed our
relationship with the FIA and its racing
championships. The tunnel size means we can
prepare full-scale testing, ideal for
understanding real world behaviour. We
can also do all the BoP testing and validation
with real cars, and we have always had an
open mind to having third party business here.
‘As a supplement to wind tunnel
development, or as a substitute for
complex tests in which engineers can try
out many possibilities and options, CFD is
the solution for working out results quickly
and efficiently. We operate a computer
centre in the wind tunnel facility, which
allows us to perform numerous calculations
At over 141m in length and with a maximum tube diameter of 9.4m, the Sauber wind tunnel is
a colossal structure, capable of accepting full-scale vehicles as well as the 60 per cent scale
models required by current F1 regulations
The wind tunnel’s single-stage axial fan with carbon rotor blades can power the air speed up to 288km/h and
uses 3000kW at full load
in a short time. In addition to efficiency,
the correlation between software and
reality is also a major focus of our work.’
Unconventional thinking
The high standard of correlation, combined
with the precise and flexible testing options,
make the Sauber wind tunnel the most used
of its kind in the world. Kruse explains why:
‘In Formula 1, the boundary conditions are
always changing. This calls for unconventional
thinking to gain a competitive advantage.
To support this process, we have developed
a series of complex measurement and
control systems and integrated them
into our wind tunnel environment.
‘We have also designed flow switches
controlled by changes in air velocity
‘In Formula 1, the
boundary conditions are
always changing. This
calls for unconventional
thinking to gain a
competitive advantage’
Axel Kruse
and developed many other mechanical
and fluid-based testing systems.’
Naturally, the wind tunnel testing
protocol changes depending on application,
too. ‘You can run full scale, high
sophistication and development rates
for things like Le Mans Prototype
with tyre, suspension and powertrain
measurement active,’ explains Kruse,
‘but sometimes it doesn’t make sense to
instrument everything to the nth degree.
So, you design the testing environment
to gather all the necessary information.
‘For standard equipment, or GT-type
racing, especially those running under BoP,
LMP levels of instrumentation are not needed.’
It’s clear that the Sauber Technologies
arm of the Sauber Group does not still,
which is why it continues to grow. And with
it, so does the Orlen Alfa Romeo Formula 1
team’s performance on track. That’s not a
coincidence, but the result of a dedicated
engineering operation with state-of-the-
art facilities that leverages the extensive
talents of its crew. That’s where the
competitive advantage lies these days.
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 31
SIMULATION

The porpoise effect

It’s nothing new, but what exactly is it,
and how do you deal with it?
By Danny Nowlan

XPB Images
Porpoising has been one of the main topics of conversation amongst professionals and lay persons since the new generation F1 cars hit the track earlier this
year, but Danny’s seen it all before

M
otorsport-wise, one of the key
problems that has emerged
from early season testing of the
new generation Formula 1 cars
is so-called porpoising. Given that myself
and ChassisSim customers have dealt with
this to some degree over the years, I’ve had
a wry giggle at the number of lay punters
out there who think this is a new thing.
Porpoising has been around for a
good while now, and is one of the things
that’s always lurking around the corner if
you run a high-downforce racecar. In this
article we’ll discuss what it is and, more
importantly, how you can deal with it.
First things first. If you insist on running
a high-downforce racecar that is passive,
the risk of porpoising is the price you pay.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re running
ground effect tunnels or flat bottoms, if
you have either very badly conditioned
aerodynamics, or a badly tuned
spring / damper package, it will make
its presence felt at some point.
What porpoising refers to is low-to-
high frequency oscillation in the pitch
mode of the sprung mass of the vehicle.
To illustrate this, Figure 1 shows how
downforce is generated on a racecar.
The two ways you generate downforce
are by accelerating air under the car or
over the rear wings. The latter is tied quite
closer to the former, but we are nitpicking.
When a car is prone to porpoising, from
an aerodynamic perspective you have
two culprits. Either the front wing / splitter

Porpoising… is low-to-high frequency oscillation in the

pitch mode of the sprung mass of the vehicle
32 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
Fig 1: How downforce is generated on a racecar
From a mathematical perspective, what drives this is the aerodynamics
having a fundamentally destabilising moment on the car
Equation 1
stalls, or chokes the floor to the under
floor. Alternatively, the rear gets too low
and that stalls the diffuser. What happens
in both cases is that when either the front
or rear gets critically low, the discontinuity
that occurs kicks in and sends the relevant
end back up. Downforce then kicks in
and pushes the relevant end back down
again. This up / down motion can set up a
high-frequency pitch oscillation that can
be deleterious to both the car itself and
performance. During my career I’ve seen
both effects make their presence felt, so it’s
not limited to one situation or the other.
There are some other interactions what
will induce porpoising as well. Typically, a
badly conditioned spring / damper package.
The worst offender I tend to see is a third
spring arrangement that hits a bump rubber
that’s effectively a brick. This then sets up an
oscillation that is very difficult to manage.
Another popular culprit is when you have
a large amount of downforce combined
with a massive aero balance. Both of these
on their own are bad enough, but combine
them and you are quickly in a world of hurt.
From a mathematical perspective, what
drives this is the aerodynamics having a
fundamentally destabilising moment on the
car. This is summarised in equation 1, taken
from my book, The dynamics of the race car.
Now, I’m not going into all the terms of
this equation because it would distract us
from the purpose of this article. However,
I want to bring your attention to two
things. Firstly, the spring and damper
settings described by the k and c terms
have a fundamentally stabilising effect
on the sprung mass, particularly in pitch.
The aero terms are described by the
derivatives of F and M respectively, and
fundamentally destabilise the sprung
mass. How big these terms are will dictate
what you can and cannot do about it.
Problem solving
The first step to solving this problem is
having an aero map validated from race data.
This is a do not pass go, don’t collect your
$200 point. If you haven’t got that, you need
it, and it should look something like Figure 2.
Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 33
SIMULATION

Without something like Figure 2, you are

Fig 2: A suitable aero balance map derived from race data
not in the game. That’s the very reason we
at ChassisSim went to a great deal of trouble
to develop and evolve the aero modelling
toolbox. I also hammer this point home in
the ChassisSim bootcamps, and the seminars
I give, because it gets results. Simple as that.
Once you have this, you have the tools at
your disposal to start addressing the problem.
Before we begin, though, there is a
common misconception that, unless you
have inerters / mass dampers and front
and rear interconnected springs, you can’t
deal with this. I can tell you from personal
experience that is nonsense, but the best
way to dispel a myth is by example.

Lead by example
To illustrate this, I have recently been
working on a hillclimb car called an
Empire Wraith, as shown in Figure 3.
What made my job a lot easier in this
instance is the aerodynamics of the car
were done by Willem Toet. The car is a
masterpiece of the art, with very well
conditioned aerodynamics. That said, there
were still issues in terms of the stability of
the platform, which is where I was called.
I should also add, in terms of suspension
for this car you are dealing with a front
monoshock and twin main springs. The The mechanics of how to drive and use response when you have a heave input.
accompanying damper package was this I have covered many times before, so The telltale sign that you have a porpoising
nothing special, so it was just a matter the quick ‘elevator speech’ version is the problem, or at the very least have pitching
of harmonising the components. contact path load (CPL) variation is a direct that needs to be controlled, is when the
The first step in bringing this measure of your mechanical grip. You cross pitch mode is very high. This is exactly
project together was the ChassisSim are then watching the heave mode (the what we see with this car, illustrated by
shaker rig toolbox. A typical output variation of vertical load of the chassis) and the black trace in Figure 4. Fortunately,
of which is shown in Figure 4. the cross pitch mode, which is the pitch for this car, the latter was the case.

Fig 3: The Empire Wraith hillclimb car

34 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

Discover The PressurEvolution
Introducing the EvoScann® P16-D.
The most advanced miniature true-differential
16 channel digital pressure scanner available.

Ÿ 0.1% Full Scale Accuracy

Ÿ Data output directly in engineering units
Ÿ Lightweight - <45g (including 1m cable)
Ÿ Small - dimensions: 50 x 32.4 x 10mm
Ÿ True-differential measurement, shared static
reference
Ÿ Lightweight carbon fibre external construction
Ÿ Integral microprocessor
EvoScann® P16-D
Ÿ CAN-FD output

Get your competitive advantage now.

Book a demonstration or request a quotation.

Call: +44 (0) 1264 316470

Email: enquiries@evolutionmeasurement.com
www.EvolutionMeasurement.com

HIGH PERFORMANCE
SAFETY FUEL CELLS
CUSTOM DESIGN

CUSTOM FUEL CELLS DESIGNED & MANUFACTURED

BY ATL FITTED IN FORMULA ONE AND WRC CARS

CRASH RESISTANT, EXPLOSION SUPPRESSANT & EXTREMELY LIGHTWEIGHT

CUSTOM FUEL SYSTEMS HISTORIC REMAKE
UTILISING DECADES OF MOTORSPORT
KNOWLEDGE, ATL CAN SUPPLY AN FIA
APPROVED LIGHTWEIGHT FUEL CELL
WITH A FULL INTERNAL SYSTEM
RETAIN THE ORIGINAL LOOK OF YOUR
TANK BY SENDING US A SKETCH, 3D
CAD MODEL, EXISTING OR RE-MADE
CONTAINER

#ATLInside #ATLInside
SIMULATION

While porpoising is certainly a problem that needs to be taken seriously,

it can be dealt with, or at least mitigated, using off-the-shelf components

An additional challenge faced in this

Fig 4: ChassisSim shaker rig toolbox
example was that, in addition to its high
downforce levels (a CLA well north of three,
in a very light car), the car was running on
some exceptionally bumpy circuits, which
meant you couldn’t go to insane spring rates.
We therefore had to be very creative
with the damping. Here, the ChassisSim
dual rate damper model is your friend,
and this is illustrated in Figure 5.
The important thing to understand
here is the low speed section controls the
sprung mass and the high speed filters out
the bumps. With this car, we needed to
pay very close attention to the bypasses,
and the relations between the low speed
and high speed damper rates. In particular,
since we had to go to a softer spring rate,
we needed damping ratios north of 0.7
in the low speed. Compromises like these
are the dance you need to engage in
and, while the dual rate damper model
is far from perfect, it’s a powerful tool
to help you sort through the options.
And the tuning process you have to Fig 5: The ChassisSim dual rate damper model
go through will be very enlightening. The
spreadsheet of this is shown in Figure 6.
Since this is a live racecar, I have redacted
the specific set-up information, but the
take away is right down the bottom. Note
the increase in the rear spring rate and
the reduction in the CPL and cross pitch
mode. This is what happens when you
have a proper aero map (in this case
generated from CFD) that has an effect
on the shaker rig calculations. This should
lay to rest one of the primary criticisms
of shaker rigs – that you always soften
the car. This was not the case here.
Of course, the ultimate proof is in the
pudding so, if you want to see the result,
the last 20 seconds of this YouTube video quick porpoising cheat sheet: • When the bump rubber engages, make
speaks volumes: youtu.be/DTWh9XyL1yU • Know the car’s resonant frequency, sure it is continuous and smooth.
You will note how stable the platform is. so you can stay away from it. • Finally, a tool like the ChassisSim
• Don’t worry (within reason) about shaker rig toolbox is invaluable.
Summary being aggressive with damping.
The point of this case study is to show how • Don’t fall into the trap of no bump In conclusion, while porpoising is certainly
far down the road you can get toward and plenty of rebound. That is a problem that needs to be taken seriously,
addressing porpoising using straightforward the last thing you need if you are it can be dealt with, or at least mitigated,
suspension elements. To summarise, here’s a suffering porpoising effects. using off-the-shelf components.

Fig 6: Tuning process for the dampers

36 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering

 ROD ENDS
SPHERICAL BEARINGS
BUSHING
ACCESSORIES

RODOBAL ®

SUPPLIERS OF
HIGH QUALITY
ELECTRICAL HARNESS
Seals-it®
SYSTEMS
PERMAGLIDE® Cyprium designs product for the Global
motorsports industry with our in house
expertise, knowledge and know how
Broadest range in Europe!
generated by many years of experience.

Your demand, our efficiency TEL: 01379 897262

www.getecno.com
Member Contact: Chris Hart chrishart@cyprium.co.uk
or Nigel Barber nigelbarber@cyprium.co.uk
www.cyprium.co.uk

Untitled-22 1 22/04/2022 13:30

Primary Designs are leaders in the design and

manufacture of world-class high performance exhausts
Suppliers to championship winning Formula 1
teams and world record breaking supercar
manufacturers. Our knowledge of exhaust design,
alongside our expertise in the welding and
fabrication of thin wall exotic alloys makes
us the ideal partner to design and build
high-performance racing exhausts for an
extensive range of motorsport applications.

Tel: +44 (0)1844 216 057 Web: www.primarydesigns.co.uk Email: patbarrett@primarydesigns.co.uk

SIMULATION

The porpoise effect Part two

A case study approach to understand

what drives this phenomenon
By Danny Nowlan

XPB
At Barcelona Ferrari’s 2022 car suffered from porpoising, but Carlos Sainz (left) and team-mate Charles Leclerc (in car) are now proving competitive following
fast work from their engineers

I
n the first article on porpoising, I gave a
broad overview of what the effect was,
and a case study of how the approaches
to dealing with it were applied to a high-
downforce open wheeler.
What that article lacked, however,
was detail, because I was talking about
a live racecar and was unable to share
any particulars about the programme.
So, to address this, I have taken one of
the ChassisSim templates and radically
increased the downforce so I can give you
some actual numbers and a quantitive
case study. Along the way, I’m pleased
to say a lot was learned, in particular the
limits of what you can actually do, and
what you should be thinking about.
This is what we’ll be discussing
in depth in this article.
First things first. While my initial
comments on porpoising still stand, one
thing I was remiss in not mentioning was
what you can do about porpoising is highly
dependent on the relationship between the
platform and tyre stiffness. To understand
why this is, let’s refer to the quarter car model
of a car’s suspension, as shown in Figure 1.
The relationship between tyre spring Fig 1: Quarter car model of the car’s
stiffness and platform stiffness will dictate suspension
what you can do about porpoising. In
particular, equation 1 explains it.
K B × KT
K eq =
K B + KT
KT
% x B = 100 ×
K B + KT (1)
Where,
Keq = equivalent spring rate of the body
and tyre spring combined
KB = spring rate of the sprung mass
KT = spring rate of the tyre
%xb = percentage of movement of the
sprung mass
The vital point to note here is your absolute The parameters are
limit is the spring rate of the tyre, particularly mB = mass of the sprung mass (kg)
if the tyre spring rate is too low. If we cross mT = mass of the unsprung mass (kg)
reference this to Figure 1, you’ll see you KB = sprung mass spring rate (N/m)
can do everything you want with the body CB = sprung mass damping (N/m/s)
spring and damper but, fundamentally, there KT = tyre spring rate (N/m)
is little you can do to solve the problem.

What you can do about porpoising is highly dependent on the

relationship between the platform and tyre stiffness
38 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
 So, let’s now talk about the racecar
particulars. These are outlined in Table 1. The first challenge in resolving the
To add a bit more colour to this, Figure 2
is the CLA front and rear ride height map.
set-up for the racecar is to figure
One thing to note here is that the values
in these maps have been normalised to
out what the limit condition is
aid the illustration. The actual numbers are
multiplied by the CLA number in Table 1.
The first challenge, then, in resolving Faero _ f
Aero oscillation the set-up for the racecar is to figure td f =
The real challenge in setting up this car is out what the limit condition is.
2 × k tf
manifold. Firstly, there is quite a bit of aero From some preliminary simulation 6176.04 N
variation here. While not porpoising in the work I did, the mid-corner speeds are =
2 × 220
strictest sense, this car will be prone to a lot typically 200km/h and end-of-straight
of aero-induced oscillation. speed is 300km/h. For the mid-corner = 9.09mm
Secondly, the car is producing peak speed, equation 2 is what we have in Faero _ r
downforce between zero and 8mm of front terms of downforce requirements. td r =
ride height. This is going to dictate a very stiff 2 × k tr
front heave spring / bump rubber package. 7548.54 N
Faero _ f = ab f × 0.5 × r × V 2 × C L A =
Table 1: Example racecar particulars 2
2 × 270
æ 220 ö = 13.98mm
Item Value = 0.45 × 0.5 × 1.225 × ç ÷ ×6 (3)
CLA 6 è 3 .6 ø
Aero balance on front axle 45% = 6176.04 N The reason we have multiplied the tyre spring
Car mass 800kg rate by two is to account for the fact there are
Faero _ r = abr × 0.5 × r × V 2 × C L A two tyres holding the car up. As can be seen
Weight distribution at the front 45%
2 with the cornering limit combined with the
Front rh 70mm æ 220 ö
= 0.55 × 0.5 × 1.225 × ç ÷ ×6 static ride heights, we are comfortably within
Rear rh 80mm è 3.6 ø specs of the current spring rates.
Front spring rate 270 N/mm
= 7548.54 N (2)
Rear spring rate 350 N/mm
True limit
Front tyre spring rate 220 N/mm
The true limit condition is the end-of-straight
Rear tyre spring rate 270 N/mm So, in terms of tyre deflection, what we are condition, and if we re-run the numbers at
All motion ratios front and rear 1 looking at is shown in equation 3. 300km/h, things become most revealing, as
Circuit Eastern Creek equation 4 shows.

Faero _ f = ab f × 0.5 × r × V 2 × C L A
Fig 2: Front and rear ride height map
2
æ 300 ö
= 0.45 × 0.5 × 1.225 × ç ÷ ×6
è 3.6 ø
= 11484.4 N
Faero _ r = abr × 0.5 × r × V 2 × C L A
2
æ 300 ö
= 0.55 × 0.5 × 1.225 × ç ÷ ×6
è 3.6 ø
= 14036.45 N (4)

The tyre deflection now becomes as shown

in equation 5.

Faero _ f
td f =
2 × k tf
11484.4 N
=
2 × 220
= 26.1mm
Faero _ r
td r =
2 × k tr
14036.45 N
=
2 × 270
= 26mm (5)

Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 39

SIMULATION
What is immediately clear to see is that
the end-of-straight condition is the limit
condition, since the tyre deflection is almost
half of the ride height value.
Spring deflection
The next challenge is to determine the
front and rear spring rates. The first step
in choosing this is to figure out the spring
deflection you need. So, what we will
choose is 10mm at the front and 20mm
at the rear. This is being driven by two key
considerations. Firstly, we want some wiggle
room in terms of how we can adjust ride
height (remember, the kerbs get a vote, too).
Also, if we refer back to Figure 2, we are
going to be highly constrained in terms of
what we can do with our front ride height.
To start working out the effective
spring rates, we’ll use equation 6.
Faero _ f
k f _ eff =
2 × ft _ damp
11484.4 N
=
2 × 10
= 574.2 N / mm
Faero _ r
k r _ eff = the rear, it is as shown in equation 9.
2 × rear _ damp
14036.45 N
= mbf = 180kg
2 × 20
= 350.9 N / mm
(6)
The reason we can do such a simple
calculation in this equation is the motion
ratios front and rear are one. The big take
away from equation 6 is that we don’t need
to run a rear bump rubber (that said, we will
run one anyway, just as a precaution), but we
have a bit of work to do at the front.
The next port of call at the front is to
figure out the total force we’ll need for the
front bump rubber, which we will run on the
third, or heave, spring. Doing the maths,
the answer is produced by equation 7.
BR _ force fnt = Faero _ f - 2 × k f × ft _ damp
= 11484.4 N - 2 × 270 × 10
= 6084.4 N (7)
Given that we don’t want any huge
discontinuities in the bump rubber, we will
have this engage at a ground gap of 2mm.
The bump rubber curve is shown in Figure 3.
Now we have established the springing,
we need to establish the base damper
parameters. The rear is pretty straightforward,
but I’m going to cheat a little bit and select a
rear spring rate of 330N/mm. This brings the
natural frequency at the rear in line with the
front without the third spring.
40 Formula 1 2022 • Racecar Engineering
Fig 3: Applied front third spring bump rubber curve
But what is the base spring rate we
should select for the front? We choose a
mid-point for the engagement of the third
spring because this is what we’ll expect at
the mid-corner conditions of the high-speed
turns. Here we’ll see 5mm of bump rubber
deflection. This is a spring rate of 500N/mm
and so, split at the main spring where the
damper is, this equates to an effective
spring rate of 520N/mm (270 + 250N/mm).
The base damping rate at the front is
therefore given by equation 8. And at
520 ´ 10 3
w0 =
180
= 53.74rad / s
C B _ fnt = 2 × w 0 × mb
= 19349.4 N / m / s
(8)
mbr = 220kg
330 ´ 10 3
w0 =
220
= 38.72rad / s
C B _ rear = 2 × w 0 × mb
= 17041N / m / s (9)
Now we have the base damping rates,
we can start the work with the shaker rig
toolbox. The base damper curve will be
a bypass of 50mm/s. Note that is only an
educated guess, but one based on a good
deal of experience. That said, the base
damping curve will be a damping ratio of
one in the low speed and 0.5 in the high
speed. And remember we are choosing a
speed of 200km/h here, since this is the
mid-corner condition.
The shaker rig toolbox results, in this
case unredacted, are shown in Figure 4.
A very quick observation is that
the baseline run was the spring rates
we specified with the dampers as per
the car model, not our specification
that we just discussed.
From this run log, a couple of things
pop out immediately. Firstly, don’t be shy
about aggressive damping rates in the low
speed, as that was imperative to keep the
car’s platform controlled. Also note the
drop in contact patch load variation when
we went from run one to two, when the
higher damping rates where applied.
Given our goal was to control this
as a porpoising simulation, the final
configuration chosen was that shown in run
seven. The reason being the big drop in the
cross pitch mode response, which should
drastically reduce any porpoising behaviour.
To conclude this section of our discussion,
let’s look at the final damper curves.
These are presented in Figures 5 and 6.
With the fronts in the low-speed bump
we have kept very close to a damping
ratio of one, forced upon us because of
the high springing. In the high-speed
bump, we have kept to a damping ratio
of 0.5. No major surprises there.
You’ll note in rebound, the damping rates
are less. This was driven by managing the
contact patch load variation at the front.
The rear is very interesting though. In the
high speed, the damping ratios are 0.5 in
bump and 0.4 in rebound. Again, nothing
particularly unusual about this. But note the
high damping ratio of 1.17 in the low speed,
which was to control the cross pitch mode.
Sometimes, this is just the way the cards
fall to achieve the outcome you are after.
Lap time validation
The final validation was to run this through
lap time simulation, and the results are
shown in Figure 7.
The baseline with the dampers set to
that of the baseline ChassisSim model
are coloured, while the new damper
specifications, as per run seven, are in black.
Fig 4: Shaker rig run log

Fig 5: Final front damper curve The traces of note are the front and rear
pitch (average of the left and right damper
movement of the front and rear respectively)
and the front and rear ride height. But
note the reduction in oscillation of the
pitches and ride heights. This gives you a
much more stable platform to lean on.
While this is a considerable improvement,
it’s still not a night and day situation.
Reason being the front tyre doesn’t have
enough spring rate. So, while we did an
effective job of improving the damper
movement, it didn’t translate completely
to the ride heights. This situation was also
present at the rear, albeit slightly better
Fig 6: Final rear damper curve because of the higher tyre spring rate.
Consequently, while there are gains to
be had, if you are running on marshmallow
tyres, your hands are very much tied.
Hopefully, this has shown, numerically,
how to deal with porpoising and aero-
induced pitch oscillations on a high-
downforce racecar. Using a combination
of hand calculations and simulations we
were able to make considerable progress
toward negating the porpoising effect, but
weren’t able to alleviate it entirely due to the
low tyre spring rates. Some improvement
is better than none though, right?

Fig 7: Comparison of the baseline model to the final damper specification

Racecar Engineering • Formula 1 2022 41

2 & 3 November 2022 | NEC Birmingham

The UK’s LEADING annual

gathering of OEMs and engineering
and manufacturing supply chain
professionals
A great event bringing
multiple sectors together
2 days of networking to show innovation in
engineering.
4 free to attend forums
Matt Travis, Engineering
Manager, JCB
1000s of innovative solutions
400+ leading suppliers
Scan here to
7000+ engineering professionals register to attend

Association partners

Composites Trade Association

REGISTER TO ATTEND WITH CODE 5058 Co-located with

aeuk@easyfairs.com | +44 (0)20 3196 4300

advancedengineeringuk.com
Great savings when
you subscribe

SAVE
OVER

£3 4 off the
**

full price

PLE U S
FRE access
t h e d i g i tal
to ver
c h i ve – o
ar
100 back
issues!

Order your subscription TODAY

12 issues from just £49.95 – SAVING 40% (UK delivery)*
USD $109.95 / RoW £79.95 / AUD $159.95 / Europe €84.95*
VISIT www.chelseamagazines.com/CRCEDM22
CALL US ON +44 (0) 1858 438 442 and quote code CRCEDM22
NB: *Free postage UK only. **Prices and discounts based on our annual UK rate of £84 / US rate of US$109.95
If for any reason you’re not happy with your subscription, you may cancel within 14 days of placing your order.