On 9 January 2023, Draveil, France-born Frédéric Vasseur, started the role of Scuderia Ferrari General Manager and Team Principal. Vasseur’s motorsport career has been vast, beginning in 1992 while still studying Aeronautical Engineering at ESTACA (École Supérieure des Techniques Aéronautiques et de Construction Automobile) in Paris, preparing Formula 3 engines for Renault with his company, RPM. After graduating in 1995, he set up the ASM team, racing in Formula 3 in 1996 and ran the operation up to 2015, winning various titles, including the French one in 1998 with David Saelens at the wheel. He won the European title four times between 2004 and 2007, with Jamie Green, Lewis Hamilton, Paul Di Resta and Romain Grosjean.

In 2004, he created a second team, ART Grand Prix winning eighth teams’ championships across GP2 and GP3 and eleven drivers’ titles, including clinching the 2016 GP3 crown with Charles Leclerc. An inquiring mind and a willingness to explore new avenues led Vasseur to set up AOTech in 2010, a company specialising in driving simulators and CFD design. Two years later, along came Spark Racing Technology, designing and manufacturing hybrid and electrical systems. The company secured the contract to supply Formula E chassis when the category for fully electric single-seaters was first set up by the FIA (Federation Internationale Automobile) in 2014. Frédéric first appeared in the Formula 1 paddock in 2016 as Renault Team Principal. The following year, he became Managing Director of the Sauber Group and Team Principal of the Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team, which morphed into Alfa Romeo Racing in 2019, running Ferrari power units.

Vasseur explains the challenges of Formula 1 and what it takes to be competitive in the current era.

Q: How has working in F1 evolved over the last seven years, whether in management, engineering, or another role in the sport?

‘The weight of teamwork is much more important than the weight of individuals nowadays, much more so than it was just a few years ago. It is more a matter of team achievement because the large size of the teams requires more coordination within the departments. A single person’s influence is less, but that isn’t to say they are less critical because they are now more specialised than ever. Formula 1 is evolving in a way that responds better to specialists than individuals with an overview of a particular subject. However, with that, there has been the requirement to more effectively coordinate those specialists who previously would be able to do much more than they do now. This dramatically changes the structure of the teams and the output from that in terms of the rate of development. Another influence is that teams have a new generation coming into Formula 1, and this talent has an entirely new point of view. They respect different technologies and physics in various ways to the previous generation. It is therefore essential to have management with a lot of experience to do this coordination as effectively as possible without letting too many points of view interfere with each other.’

Q: What are your thoughts on the latest era of technical regulations?

‘The regulations are good if teams are in front! Jokes aside, they have changed dramatically over recent years with the cost cap regulations, technical regulations, sporting regulations for using wind tunnels, etc. All of these are going in the direction of the convergence of performance. Even the fact the engines are frozen means F1 is going toward a tighter championship fight, and it is working. Teams were spread out about five per cent in qualifying performance in 2017 and 2018, and now most teams are within two per cent. In 2022, five teams were within a one per cent performance margin between them. It will be a fantastic sport if F1 maintains these regulations for a while.’

Q: What’s F1’s best tool for development?

‘Simulations and simulators are our best tools. The rate of development is extreme with these. In the early stages of implementing simulators, teams made so much progress and now confidently use simulation technology to influence what takes place during the race weekend. The simulation and trackside departments need coordination and trust during the race weekend. The team at the factory will run simulations for set-up throughout the night after taking trackside data in from the car on Friday. They will then arrive at a set-up they believe is most performing before the team on the ground reaches the track on Saturday morning. If teams are confident with correlation, they know the decision made back at the factory can be performant if implemented on the car. The four pillars of performance are the wind tunnel, CFD, simulator and the actual car. Each needs to be working effectively to be performant. No one of those operations is considered less vital than the others; they are all critical.’

Q: How do you balance between what software suggests the next development step should be vs the trackside engineers’ philosophy?

‘Teams ask this question each day! This group’s task is to predict how best to use the tools they have to finish as high as possible. Before an event, teams do many simulations that scan all the set-up variations, including the wings, ride height, suspension etc. But then you have the event itself, which offers a multitude of variables that are very difficult to predict, let alone use in your favour. So, teams must constantly balance theory and practice. Nowadays, the theory is very close to reality, much more so than it was just a few years ago. So, it is safe to say teams lean on it more, but to say it provides all the answers is far from the truth. The margins across the field are also extremely tight, so if your delta from your target is out by just a tiny per cent, your position could be from the front to the back of the field. A small percentage between your simulation and reality could make a huge difference.’

Q: How vital are drivers in developing these cars with all the technology available in Formula 1 now?

‘The contribution is mega. The first part of their contribution is at the track, keeping consistent and pushing the car to its limit, as well as the race craft regarding wheel-to-wheel battles and making progress in every stint. The second part is to understand the physics at play and to work with the engineers to exploit the car’s potential under development. The third element is personal, which is maintaining their desire to keep pushing themselves and motivating the team to keep pushing and exploiting all the hard work that goes into producing the car and running the car at the track. This is not trivial.’

Q: What’s your approach to strategy?

‘Strategy is a critical part of Formula 1. However, it is made complex by specific allocations such as tyres, the timing of sessions throughout the race weekend, and developing and bringing new parts to the circuits where they’re going to be most performant. The closer you are to peak performance, the more dramatic the effect of any single mistake in the operations or strategy. You must be sure you’re doing the right thing at the right time to exploit the opportunities you have to collect data and make progress. Strategy during the race is entirely different. It hinges on what’s about to happen next and how to make the most of that. Teams are constantly looking at the next lap and simultaneously checking what their rivals are doing to see if they must manipulate what they’re going to do next because of what the rivals are doing. It also knows whether there are points in some races where your competitors might make mistakes. Typically, this will be around when tyre degradation is high, or some drivers are fighting for position. In moments like this, it can change your entire race. If there is a safety car, for example, you can make giant jumps in the field or make good progress on a new set of tyres when others are not putting in the best lap times.’

Q: How could artificial intelligence be used to influence Formula 1 strategy?

‘The database for the use of artificial intelligence for doing the complete strategy of the race has yet to arrive, but teams are well on the way to being able to do something like this soon. You could imagine that the software could eventually have the information to take into consideration the track, conditions, the number of pit stops, the relative position between drivers and when there is a chance for an incident to give you the probability of a safety-car on the upcoming lap, or something like this. But it will take a very long time to collect this kind of information at the size teams need to make the right calls from the output. In my previous life, I worked on a project that studied road accidents for trucks. The database for this was mega, with millions of trucks worldwide. These databases considered the hours the trucks had been running on that shift, whether it was AM or PM, summer or winter, and many more factors. It also considered the number of high braking events over the previous two hours and whether there were any incidents of over speed on some sections of the road. In the end, the software could consider all these elements and identify the risk of an accident. This took many millions of data points in a very consistent framework. In Formula 1, teams already take in billions of data points annually, but teams want to keep this private because it is a competitive advantage. Additionally, you cannot manoeuvre straightforwardly using data because the margins are tiny. Teams would have to consider a sub-one per cent margin of error, and the variables are still considerable. Due to the specificity of our business, I think Formula 1 will use this later.’

‘It’s easy to say we had a tough time when we went through the eight previous Formula 1 world championships, winning them all, and we’re no longer in that position,’ says Mike Elliott, technical director of Mercedes AMG Formula 1, on the team’s 2022 performance. ‘We’re bound to think it’s not brilliant. However, looking at a wider context, the 2022 regulations intended to mix up the field and improve the show. In that way, Formula 1 achieved those outcomes.’

Mercedes’ change of fortune since the introduction of the hybrid era has been well documented. Its 2022 car, the AMG F1 W13 E Performance (the 13 referring to it being the 13th car produced by the Mercedes-AMG works team since re-entering F1 in 2010), was the product of a top to bottom re-design in line with new Formula 1 regulations. The only carry-over element from its predecessor was the steering wheel.

Blank slate

Operating from a blank slate, with a steep development curve, the team’s Brackley and Brixworth engineering squads had to push much harder than the previous generation of Formula 1, where they stole a march on the competition and carried it through to the end of the era. Unlike the prior generation of dominant Mercedes machinery, the W13 had a bumpy coming of age.

For context, the 2022 rules reduced the cars’ wake (turbulence caused by the car passing through the air) as a function of the new aerodynamic regime, allowing competitors to get closer to one another, particularly in the corners. The challenge of overtaking in the previous generation of Formula 1 was primarily down to this wake. However, the lower wake means the corner gains are somewhat outweighed by the toe effect (slipstreaming) reduction on the straights.

Net, Elliott said the cars’ resulting closeness and overall competitiveness over an individual lap have not changed much. ‘In terms of closing up the grid, it’s probably the same split as we’ve had before,’ he notes. ‘I guess we are the only ones that have seriously changed position in the rankings, and that’s our problem to deal with. We ended up with a poorly behaving car and an uncomfortable ride for the drivers, thanks to the direction we took with the new aerodynamic establishment.’

Bad behaviour

Thanks to the introduction of ground-effect aerodynamics, the 2022 rules rewarded running the car as close to the ground as possible. However, if platform control isn’t sufficient, this low running can induce instability in underfloor flow fields and lead to so-called porpoising and bouncing. Mercedes suffered badly from flow field instability in various ways throughout the 2022 season, but was not alone in this battle.

‘I don’t think any teams effectively spotted porpoising over the winter period between 2021 and 2022,’ says Elliott. ‘We did anticipate having to run the car very low under these full ground-effect regulations. However, the challenges of ground-effect aerodynamics are stronger on some cars than others. They are unique to the flow field structure under the car, its set-up scope and performance window.’

Cars have three modes in their suspension: roll, pitch and heave, which operate at different frequencies. In a porpoising scenario, the car ends up with a phase shift between its front and rear aerodynamics, which feeds into the pitch mode. With these cars, teams see predominantly heave, and some pitch, depending on speed and the characteristics of the circuit.

‘It became apparent early in 2022, even without significant aerodynamic work, that these cars wanted to run very low to the ground,’ said Elliott. ‘So we focussed on designing the floor to survive in those conditions, and at the ride height that would be most performant,’ says Elliott. ‘We underestimated one problem and didn’t spot another, which is why we had the behavioural issues we did. One thing we can put our finger on is that it was a consequence of the aerodynamic changes in the regulations.’

On the bounce

Mercedes claimed to make good progress ironing out its issues regarding underfloor flow field instability that led to the porpoising phenomenon in the season’s early stages. However, the W13 still suffered from ‘bouncing’ – a heave motion response caused by the underfloor aerodynamic instability.

‘Bouncing issues are complex,’ highlights Elliott. ‘The aerodynamics put energy in the vertical motion of the car due to a phase shift between the aerodynamic load and the car’s ride height position that gives you a net energy input more than the dampers can deal with. The fact we have to run these cars so low to the ground, with so much downforce on them to be performant, means they must run really stiff, and that’s a huge contributor to these significant consequences.’

As well as the changes to the aerodynamic regulations, the new-for-2022 18in wheel and tyre package has changed how teams approach car performance. ‘There are significant amounts of lap time to be found by improving the car’s dynamic behaviour, and engineers can find some of this in setting up the car to get the tyres into their performance window,’ notes Elliott. ‘The new tyres want slightly different things to get them into the window that works when compared to the previous 13in ones. Though this wasn’t the route to solve our challenges with car behaviour.

‘You have to put it in perspective. The tyre is not particularly stiff, and then you’ve got stiff suspension springs and, in parallel with the suspension springs, you have the stiff dampers. In reality, these cars are inflexible, so it’s hard to dampen the motions and take a lot of energy out of the car’s movement.’

Chassis

The chassis regulations also changed for 2022 and included a more challenging side squeeze test, requiring higher strength than the previous generation of cars. The aerodynamic regime has also driven teams to stiffen their cars in areas they otherwise wouldn’t have in the last regulation set.

The position of the homologated side impact structure is defined in the regulations, but early in the design phase for the W13, Mercedes spotted an opportunity to design a wing around the upper side impact structure to add a downwashing flow to the car in that region.

‘We spent a lot of the winter figuring out how best to work this loophole, and wondering if there was any part of the wording that would see the other teams trying to get it stopped,’ says Elliott of the wings that sit either side of the driver’s cell. ‘We went for it at a certain point in the development, and it performs well and suits our overall aero regime for the car.’ Others are yet to follow suit, instead using the space Mercedes carved away for this structure to house components.

Many teams throughout the 2022 grid did not push to meet the minimum 798kg weight, instead choosing to focus on more performant opportunities that were perceived as more rewarding than just having the lightest car possible by regulation.

‘We were overweight at the beginning of the season, though we did a lot of work to bring it down towards the minimum,’ explains Elliot. ‘However, weight is an interesting equation in this era of Formula 1. Although it’s one of the key performance drivers, it is also limited by regulations. Because of that, car development differs from what one might think. We are always targeting a lower lap time, and reducing the weight to the minimum amount gains a certain amount of lap time performance, but a heavier car with a more sophisticated aerodynamic package generates even more performance on the track.

‘Because we have so many tools to develop a more performant car, lowering the weight to the minimum isn’t as dramatic a driver as it once was in Formula 1. Additionally, we’ll take a weight penalty for a more reliable car, as a DNF or grid penalty from replacing components that have failed, or run over the maximum unit allocation for the season, carries a high burden in the championship standings.’

Packaging

Mercedes’ aerodynamic philosophies dictated the direction they went in terms of the weight of each component that affects aerodynamic performance. Once a philosophy is settled on, much of the design concept comes from that, and forces a particular route to effectively deploy it. Mercedes went with a very narrow packaging concept, while much of the rest of the grid chose a wider body to suit their philosophies. Elliott doesn’t think there was a big difference in the potential of any of the 2022 philosophies because the detail is where it counts, much of which is under the floor.

‘When you look at a formula 1 car as an aerodynamicist, you immediately see that the dominant features are the front wheels. These generate a tremendous amount of wake, and how you deal with that is the key to performance. In the past, we would counter the effect of front tyre wake by implementing complex structures behind the wheels in the form of bargeboards and other wake control devices. But in 2022, we couldn’t do that. So, our philosophy for the W13 was to bring the bodywork in the central chassis of the car as tight as possible to the driver cell and the power unit to have a minimal effect from the front tyre wake.’

The W13’s aggressive sidepod packaging was partly thanks to the compact design of the car’s M13 power unit, which features volume dense systems such as water-to-air intercooling. On its creation, Elliott says the team had built up a lot of power unit systems modelling capability over the last few years, enabling them to do a superior job at predicting where the heat capacity and flow rates needed to be in order to be as efficient as possible.

‘We did a lot of work to optimise airflow through the car and work out the pressure losses around radiators,’ he says. ‘Charge air cooling is based on water-to-air heat exchange because we see a massive benefit in that in terms of the entire design philosophy of the car. Its role cannot be underestimated.’

The underfloor aerodynamic regime only slightly changes the packaging of the cars. However, Elliott notes that, in every era, Formula 1 teams always try to push the limits when it comes to packaging. ‘One significant change for us was the limited wheelbase regulations this season. We had the longest car in the previous regime, giving us some freedom where we wanted it. We certainly had a lot more packaging work to do in 2022.

‘The cost cap also drives this because you don’t want to reinvent every bit of the car every year. So, much of our thinking going into 2022 was about how we could develop a car where much of the architecture and critical systems could carry over from year to year. That drove more work on packaging than the aerodynamic regime.’

2023 and beyond

‘We’ve come out the end of the 2022 season with a huge amount of humility,’ says Elliott of the learning journey into this new era to date. ‘We have looked at all the other car solutions on the grid, investigated how other teams have arrived at their solutions and wondered if any of them are better than ours. It’ll be interesting to see how the 2023 cars turn out with all the lessons of the first season of this regulation set behind us.

‘The most significant thing we learnt in 2022 is how to go about adapting to a new rule regime, and figuring out how best to find a performant compromise in adverse circumstances. We’ve learnt how to find the right operations approach to finding performance in a very different type of Formula 1. Without giving too much away about what we did wrong in the first place, we’ve learnt and adapted to this new F1.’

In late summer 2022, the World Motor Sport Council confirmed there would be alterations to the 2023 technical regulations, citing driver safety as the main reason for the adjustments. These changes included raising the floor edges by 15mm and raising the diffuser throat height. The diffuser edge’s stiffness would also increase, and a mandated sensor to monitor porpoising more effectively.

As to how the rule changes for 2023 affect Mercedes’ performance, Elliott says, ‘The raised floor edges are probably the main thing that will affect the car aerodynamically, and this will influence performance. I think it will keep the floor edges off the ground in the high-speed sections, and I think that, generally, it will be helpful for most teams running the car really low.

‘On the flip side, to recover the lost performance from that, we have to see which way that drives us, whether to run the car lower or see a re-design. Running the car lower could end up back with the same problem, but we will investigate that. 15mm is not a huge move. We’re still going to have ground-effect cars, and they’re still prone to underfloor flow field instability. If you’re not careful with how you deal with that aerodynamically, you’ll still have the same problems.’

The 2023 car, Elliott admits, will see a different design to the W13, succeeding Mercedes’ investigations into the aerodynamic concepts of the other teams on the grid. ‘Normally, in a set of rule changes, as the rules get fixed – and they’re fixed for longer and longer – the teams tend to converge. I think the intention of the new rules and the cost cap was to try and constrain the grid, though the front three teams are as far ahead as they have ever been. Whether that will change in time, we will have to wait and see.

‘If you look at Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes, the three quickest teams, they look very different. The logical thing is to copy the quickest one, which, unfortunately, is Red Bull. But you can’t just photocopy a car and suddenly jump to the front. It doesn’t work like that. It’s more about trying to understand what people are thinking and their approach, which will converge a bit and maybe the teams will move together, but I don’t think it’ll be 2023 we see parity. I think it will take a few years.’

YOU’VE BROUGHT THE CHIP GANASSI RACING, AND ACTION EXPRESS RACING TEAMS UNDER ONE UMBRELLA AS CADILLAC RACING. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THAT PROCESS HAS GONE?
“This program, in general, has really rallied all of us to work together – even across the OEs. We had such compressed timelines. We have a brand-new hybrid spec system in the car. The chassis are all new for all of us, so we had to pull resources together to get to the point where we had running cars at Daytona last week and as we prepare for the Rolex. So, it’s the same approach for the teams. If we try to be off on different islands, we would be unable to compete once we got to the Rolex. We had to work together. We had to swap parts back and forth to make sure cars were running. We had to share learnings, and, I think, necessity can be the best tool that you can have in your toolbox because there really was no other option to get this program done than to collaborate. That has driven the message, and what I think has been great is seeing the results of the collaboration, seeing the ability to get the test program more done by having the two teams helping us and running two cars instead of running one car. The benefits are coming in. We still have a huge mountain to climb and constantly pushing that rock up the hill. Thankfully, we’re all rallying behind the rock together – depending on which rock we’re pushing that day. So, it’s nice to have people standing next to your right and left while you’re trying to do something incredible.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PRINCIPAL CHALLENGE IS AHEAD OF THE ROLEX 24?
“Parts management has been a struggle; to get enough parts and to make sure that the quality is what we need. Especially with fielding three cars, we want to make sure we have everything for primaries, we have spares, and then, God forbid something happens in the Roar, we have backups for backups. Some of it we’re probably going to get just before, and some we might not have backups for backups. Really, just having enough parts to field the cars successfully and working with the supply chain. Of course, Christmas makes things a little tricky, too. Trying to get things this time of year is a challenge, but we have a full team on it and working through it.”

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY UNIQUE CHALLENGES OR SURPRISES IN GETTING EVERYTHING TO WORK SEAMLESSLY?
“The sheer amount of code and software that has been written to run this car is daunting. We cannot have enough software engineers working right now because everything on the car is connected. Things that we never had to worry about influencing each other in the past with the DPi or other race programs, now if one thing is slightly off, it’s not going to run or turn or brake or whatever it needs to do. The importance of making sure that all the calibrations are correct and then the safety critical component of that to make sure that everything is correct is huge. Working through all of that has probably been the biggest mountain once we had all the parts on the car to test. This whole program has been a challenge.”

HOW DID YOU GET TO THIS POINT WITH YOUR ENGINE PACKAGE?
“Like everyone, we did not have much time to make a decision and move on with what we wanted to do with this car. A lot of it is leaning on the experience that we’ve had for decades racing at GM – both Chevrolet and Cadillac – especially with the DPi and the eight-cylinder. As quickly as we could, we did some engine packaging studies for multiple engines, and after we reviewed what we were trying to do, the criteria, and the performance requirements for this platform, for us and our experience, it made sense to carry forward with the V8 architecture. This is a new engine for this car, but leaning heavily on the experience and architecture of V8 engines that we have across the portfolio. No regrets, especially as we look to our trip overseas to run in the WEC. I think we’re bringing America pretty loud and strong with our Cadillac, and we’re proud of that.”

HOW DO YOU SEE THE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE HYPERCAR AND THE LMHD CAR FOR THE WEC?
“In terms of the two platforms racing against each other, there’s been so much work that has gone into that, countless technical working groups meetings, discussions, lots of decisions that were made to try to bring parity between the two platforms. The effort has been put forward to make it happen correctly. Did we miss something? Maybe. There’s always that one thing that once you worry about all the bigger things, then the little things become big things. I really applaud the effort from the two sanctioning bodies as well as the manufacturers. This is definitely a team sport to figure out how to get all these cars together so they can race in parity.”

HAS IT BEEN MORE OF A CHALLENGE FOR YOUR BRAND THAN YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOING IN?
“I still have a lot of growing and experiences ahead in my career. I can’t wait to compare whatever the next challenge is to this one because this one has been incredible. And it’s been incredible what we’ve done in a short period of time with all of the economic factors in the world that have influenced how everyone is running their businesses these days. Labor shortages, supply chain. They are real, and they impact us every day. We have brought on some incredible young people to our program that is just blowing us away with what they are able to do. If you say, ‘Hey, we have this problem to solve. Figure it out,’ and then give them the freedom and the ability to do what they think is right; it’s been awesome. It really is the future. It’s seeing how we can mesh people with 20-plus years of experience in racing with new people who have more experience in this new software and everything we’re bringing on board. You can see the mature and the up-and-coming working together and how they are learning from each other. It’s given us a great opportunity to just grow what our motorsports family is in terms of everyone who is working on the cars and the types of people being part of this.”

In an interview with The 10 Group, Oracle Red Bull Racing’s two most senior figures reflected on the origins of their professional relationship, how working together for a common goal formed a bond, and how successes – plus the lean times in between – have shaped the team into a modern-day F1 powerhouse.

Christian Horner is the only Team Principal Oracle Red Bull Racing (ORBR) has ever had, playing an instrumental role in taking what he describes as a ‘party team’ to the lofty heights of winning 2022’s F1 Driver and Constructor Championship.

It’s been a long journey full of twists and turns since the team first competed in the world championship back in 2005 when a relatively green Horner was trying to turn an unproven team into serious competitors. Reflecting back on the period, Horner says it was clear to him what was needed, or more specifically who he needed: Adrian Newey.

Formula 1 introduced new fuel regulations for 2022, including a 10% ethanol fuel percentage. The construction of the ethanol molecule means it carries a lower quantity of joules per kilogram as a combustible vapour than the equivalent volume of Formula 1 race gasoline. However, as per all alcohol-based compounds, ethanol’s evaporation characteristics mean that it will extract temperature out of the combustion chamber during the intake and compression strokes and initial stages of combustion. That lets the mapping engineers lower the ignition advance, taking it closer to TDC and initiating better-timed combustion. For these reasons, ethanol brings a favourable prospect to the efficiency potential of Formula 1 engines.

Design engineers can adjust several follow-on configuration parameters from these characteristics thanks to introducing the higher ethanol content. The compression ratio is the primary beneficiary of the ethanol blend and could increase and drive the combustion efficiency higher. Additionally, ethanol molecules contain oxygen. Instead of solely relying on the oxygen ingested into the engine through the intake, further oxygenation of the working fluids in the combustion chamber will occur with the higher percentage ethanol blend in the Formula 1 fuel. Engineers can implement a lot of redesign and optimisation into the air loop because it will no longer have the same target of kilograms per hour of oxygen from ingested air.

When the energy-limited formula came into place in 2014 and research into the fuel started, Formula 1 fuel manufacturers discovered that some fuel molecules produce significantly more energy than others. Because the fuel flow and load are prescribed in kilograms, there is scope for developing the calorific value of the fuel. The development targets are how engineers can apply as much energy into one kilogram of fuel and generate the proper pressure and motion for the direct-injected gasoline engine. The research octane number (RON), which ranks how close to the most efficient moment the sparkplug can ignite the fuel, is a primary driver in the combustion development of the high-efficiency fuel.

‘Having 10% ethanol significantly affects the pressure and temperature of the air as it mixes in the chamber,’ highlights Thomas. ‘There’s less calorific value in each ethanol molecule than race gasoline, which means collectively, the fuel potency is slightly diluted. However, some parts of its characteristics benefit performance, such as its lower vapour pressure, which has quite a nice impact on the temperature and volatility of the combustion chamber environment. Other areas of the fuel characteristics were not quite as good. We’re developing with Petronas and trying to have more of the good characteristics exploited and less of the bad sides integrated. Additionally, matching that to the engine characteristics is critical for the best output from the power unit.’

Power Unit Technical Specification

• Type: Mercedes-AMG F1 M13 E Performance
• Power Unit Minimum Weight: 150 kg

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)

• Capacity: 1.6 litres
• Cylinders: Six
• Bank Angle: 90
• No of Valves: 24
• Max rpm ICE: 15,000 rpm
• Max Fuel Flow Rate: 100 kg/hour (above 10,500 rpm)
• Fuel Injection: High-pressure direct injection (max 500 bar, one injector/cylinder)
• Pressure Charging: Single-stage compressor and exhaust turbine on a common shaft
• Max rpm Exhaust Turbine: 125,000 rpm

Energy Recovery System (ERS)

• Architecture: Integrated Hybrid energy recovery via electrical Motor Generator Units
• Energy Store: Lithium-Ion battery solution of minimum 20 kg regulation weight
• Max energy storage/lap: 4 MJ
• Max rpm MGU-K: 50,000 rpm
• Max power MGU-K: 120 kW (161 hp)
• Max energy recovery/lap MGU-K: 2 MJ
• Max energy deployment/lap MGU-K: 4 MJ (33.3 s at full power)
• Max rpm MGU-H: 125,000 rpm
• Max power MGU-H: Unlimited
• Max energy recovery/lap MGU-H: Unlimited
• Max energy deployment/lap MGU-H: Unlimited

Fuel & Lubricants

• Fuel: PETRONAS Primax
• Lubricants: PETRONAS Syntium

Peugeot is set to make its debut in the World Endurance Championship at Monza this July with its new 9X8. One of the major talking points of the 9X8 is its aerodynamics. The French car will run without a rear wing and still be competitive in the various temperature ranges, track conditions and even car conditions found in the WEC. Peugeot says it finalised the design of its car with non-downforce generating rear winglets to help trim the car for the different states. The surprise is that these winglets are fixed, and Peugeot has decided to have its single adjustable aero device at the front of the car.

According to the technical team, that combination opens up a wider window of adjustment for the car. ‘The classic way of doing it is that you can adjust your rear downforce, but the way we do it, you balance the front and the rear together,’ says Technical director Olivier Jansonnie. ‘This device’s purpose is to change the aero balance because you must adapt to different drivers, tracks and conditions. The idea is to increase the front and reduce the rear simultaneously, or vice versa.’

Peugeot cancelled its previous Le Mans 908 diesel programme in January 2012 due to financial constraints on the company. So it never competed in the World Endurance Championship round, which started that year. It, therefore, missed the experience of running the very high downforce hybrid cars, and this, says Jansonnie, is a loss to the team.

‘We had to be a bit more cautious because our experience is more limited than the others, so we had to take a range of adjustments that were a bit big. We chose this concept because the adjustment range is more significant than just a wing, but you still have to stay within the performance window [set by the regulations]. We spent quite a lot of time on it. We felt it would be easier to get a big balance adjustment in a tiny window.’

The 2022 chassis regulations allow for very different design philosophies to be used, and teams across the grid have chosen their own paths to follow. The AT03 is relatively conventional and conservative in both its design and layout. The side impact structure supports the leading edge of a rectangular heat exchanger intake on either side of the driver cell. The cooler housing lays very flat, with the upper surface sweeping downwards towards the car’s rear. The underside of the cooler housing is heavily sculpted away for aerodynamic benefit. However, with so much scope for different design concepts, AlphaTauri has built some flexibility into its concept to give it scope for change if the team discovers a better one later down the line.

‘We have reasonable fluidity in our design,’ confirms AlphaTauri’s technical director, Jody Egginton. ‘It’s been this approach for several years now in this team but, with a new regulation set, we are all starting from the same new point. We focussed very much on making sure what’s under the skin gives lots of scope for us to develop the aerodynamics of the car without having to make expensive and non-performing architectural changes.

‘We’d hate to be cornered by an architectural bit of hardware under the skin that we probably could have dealt with, so we believe we’ve built in as much scope as we can to make quite reasonable changes in something like sidepod geometry, or engine cover, without having to do new radiator packages etc.

‘It’s the same story with the front wing / nose interface. I’d imagine many teams are working on that simply because of the newness of the regulations, but the way we’ve done that will not limit us if we want to change it. However, I’m sure there are concepts out there we couldn’t adopt. For example, we’re running pushrod front suspension. If we decided to go to a pull rod layout, that’s unlikely to be happening in season.

‘As we get more familiar with the regulations in later years, we will probably get a better read on where we need to focus. For now, we want to develop quickly without having to do a lot of extra work to get the aerodynamic surfaces you want onto the car.’

Performance is a multi-faceted word in Formula 1. It can be associated with lap time, driveability, top speed, tyre degradation, downforce, power unit output and efficiency, overall reliability, component stiffness, aerodynamic drag, resource efficiency in cost, time, energy and much more. The various areas of performance can influence each other, so measuring them depends on the data collected and the analysis undertaken. Each Formula 1 car carries around 300 sensors onboard, producing 1.5 terabytes of data throughout a race weekend.  For a race season, a two-car team produces 11.8 billion data points. These must all be filtered and analysed to look for performance gains, reliability issues or strategies for the team to make better decisions or to work out their competitors’ actions.

From the 11.8 billion data points, it is fair that teams reasonably understand what the car is doing. However, to make performance gains and other improvements, they need to keep developing the car, find ways to be more efficient, and understand the car’s characteristics in more detail. When engineers design parts for the car, teams produce them virtually in CAD, so there is an exact digital twin of each full-scale car in CAD and a fluid dynamics model. This is where the virtual world and the physical world intersect.

Teams will simulate the properties of any newly designed elements in this digital world before a component is built, tested, and put onto the racecar. CFD analysis produces a vast amount of data, measuring every cubic centimetre of airflow around the car in high resolution. The post-CFD analysis is equally critical, as it influences whether a part should be taken to the 3D printer and manufactured at a 60 per cent scale for testing in the wind tunnel.

Formula Student cars operate in domains of low dynamic pressure whilst competing on circuits with many tight corners and few long straights. Therefore, significant lift (or downforce) generation can be challenging to achieve in racecar terms. The aerodynamics team at UGRacing developed an aerodynamic package to achieve downforce targets whilst simultaneously maintaining efficiency by minimising the drag created by other aerodynamic surfaces. The aero team also collaborate with the powertrain team in performance-critical applications such as the development of air-cooling systems.

Aside from the aerodynamic requirements, the aero team’s goal is to create lightweight and stiff parts that meet regulations and do not compromise the car’s performance, looking at material justification and integrating structural aerodynamic components. As UGR20 was UGRacing’s first attempt to incorporate winged aerodynamic devices, the team set out to gain valuable manufacturing experience working with composite materials and pattern making.

UGR20 adopts a simplistic and conservative design, composed of a front wing, rear wing and undertray. The front wing design produces high downforce with a simple two-element design while providing sufficient airflow to both the underfloor and the two side-mounted radiators. Rear wings on Formula Student cars often carry the highest drag penalty; this is usually attributed to their large size and aggressive multi-element design; the profile drag, and induced drag are more significant. The team chose a conservative two-element design to minimise drag while delivering an excellent aerodynamic pressure balance.

The front and rear wings work together to provide the desired aerodynamic balance. UGR20 positions the centre of pressure slight rearwards of the centre of gravity; this gives the car slightly understeering and predictable handling behaviour, which is preferable for amateur racing drivers.

Formula 1 testing in Barcelona was a real eye-opener for the teams up and down the grid. A common challenge was getting to grips with 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. As the ground effect aerodynamic load comes on, the car gets lower to the ground, exponentially increasing the underfloor load. If the car’s floor gets too close to the ground or even hits the tarmac, the underfloor flow field is destroyed, suddenly shedding the load, and the car shoots back up to static ride height. Once the ride height goes up to a point where the flow field can recover, the aero load recuperates, and the process repeats.

Jody Egginton, Technical Director at Scuderia AlphaTauri, says, ‘With a ground effect floor, getting the most aerodynamic load means running the floors as close to the ground as possible – there’s an attractiveness in that, and there’s an aerodynamic benefit to do it. So, logically we all try to exploit that. The closer you get to the ground, the higher the risk of inducing instability from things like the floor choking. The floor stiffness can affect behaviour or lead to an oscillation, which means you’re picking upload and then losing it. Ultimately, that’s upsetting to the car’s performance as the aero load on the tire contact patch varies. Load means performance, which translates to better lap times so we will fight for peak load.’

On many of the 2022 Formula 1 cars, this ‘porpoising’ process seemed to cycle several times a second when the car is in this state. With the DRS open, it appeared to reduce the peaks of the oscillations, but it still occurred as the flow field was unstable.