It's when, not if, for windtunnel ban

In the Formula 1 paddock there is a constant fight to unearth the truth in the face of obfuscation - nay, make that objection; obstruction even - by those with their own agendas, whether these fudge poor performance, or simply advance their own interests regardless of the impact on the greater good of F1.

Despite dismissive claims from some teams in public, the fact of the matter is - refer quotations below - that, just as the Strategy Group did discuss price caps of €12m and €8m for current specification and "Current -1" (year-old) engines, it also discussed an outright ban on windtunnels, with some suggesting that said regulation should be introduced "as soon as possible".

The key word here is "discuss", for the Strategy Group holds neither executive power nor mandate to introduce regulation changes. The group - which some of its own increasingly suggest should be disbanded - exists, as the name implies, to formulate and vote on the sport's future direction, with its recommendations then forwarded to the F1 Commission.

The Strategy Group consists of 18 votes: six each are held by the FIA/Formula One Management, with four teams (Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren) holding seats by right (as recent champions) and joined by Williams (heritage), with Force India (highest placed "other" team) currently representing the rest.

Many senior F1 figures bristled at talk of windtunnels being banned © LAT

Restructured in 2013, the Commission comprises FOM/FIA and team representatives, sponsor/technical partner delegates and circuit owners/promoters, who vote during either quarterly meetings or increasingly via e-vote (formerly fax vote) on proposals.

Items proposed for immediate introduction (or the following season if voted after March 1) require unanimity, while longer-term changes require a 70 per cent majority. Approved items are escalated to the FIA World Motor Sport Council for ratification, with the WMSC empowered to approve (not amend) items as tabled; rejected items are returned to the Commission for amendment/subsequent consideration.

With no F1 Commission meeting scheduled ahead of the next WMSC session on September 30 in Paris - the penultimate such meeting of the year - agenda items, which could include changes to tyre allocations plus redrafting of engine appendices to permit the two-tier engine supply arrangement, are likely to be e-voted.

One of these items could well be a ban on windtunnels, possibly as soon as 2017 - although a more likely cut-off date is end-2019 to enable technology for the expected wholesale regulation change from 2021 to be designed entirely by computational means. Despite a windtunnel ban being argued against passionately in Singapore, the odds are short that it will eventuate.

Of course there are vested interests for and against such a ban - refer to the transcript of the Singapore press conference - what with Ferrari having recently extensively upgraded its tunnel, while Sauber has arguably the best tunnel in team ownership. Toyota's facility runs it close, but that is, of course, rented by F1 teams - including Ferrari when its own data was suspect - rather than owned.

Against that, Force India and McLaren are suffering with outdated tunnels, and thus avail themselves of time at Toyota, while Haas has rented time at Ferrari, but some suggest this was more due to the nascent team's 2016 car bearing more than a passing resemblance to the red cars developed within the same tunnel and whose non-listed parts will be incorporated in the Haas design.

While the banning of windtunnels appears radical - particularly given individual investments of up to £50m by teams - the fact is that such discussions have kicked about for a while, having been raised last year during a presentation into the future of F1 by esteemed management consultancy McKinsey & Company. One of the considerations was to ramp down use of windtunnels ahead of a total ban by 2018.

Then, back in February, Red Bull team boss Christian Horner exclusively shared his vision for a non-tunnel future with this writer, eliciting raised eyebrows on account of the team's technology head being Adrian Newey, still the sport's gold standard aerodynamicist. Of course Horner's comments caused controversy, with the usual suspects arguing against a ban then as now.

Horner can see the writing on the wall for windtunnel use in F1 © LAT

Speaking post-race in Singapore, Horner was adamant that such a ban remained feasible: "I raised the topic in the Strategy Group because I believe it's the type of thing the Strategy Group should be talking about for 2016 or maybe even 2017. What role do windtunnels play, whether five years, 10 years down the road?

"With simulation becoming so powerful in all that we do these days, one has to question what is the role of the windtunnel for the future? I think strategically it's important for teams to have plenty of notice about that, considering capital investment, et cetera. We all have these very expensive tunnels and they all cost a lot of money to feed, but it's right to discuss what the objectives are for the future."

Indeed, he can foresee cars soon being designed without recourse to tunnels, with engineers relying increasingly on Computational Fluid Dynamics models as their primary design platform rather than in conjunction with windtunnels.

Questioned the previous day, McLaren's Eric Boullier confirmed the Strategy Group discussions before admitting the item had appeared on the Strategy Group's agenda - proving that questions had been far from "borderline nonsense" even if the ban is a year or two off.

"There is a lot of discussion since months about the regulation, you know, this 30/30 or 25/25 with the windtunnel and CFD (wind tunnel hours versus CFD teraflops equivalence)," said Boullier.

"It appears that this teraflop restriction pushed engineers, as usual, to the limit of the regulation, and we had to basically use old chips. The consequence of this is obviously we're not using the latest technology in terms of computing. We don't think it's good for Formula 1 to use 10-year-old technology, while we're supposed to be on the top [of the technology tree]."

Afterwards the Frenchman confirmed that a group of McLaren CFD engineers had attended a CFD conference in 'Silicon Valley', and returned wide-eyed at the sophistication of systems currently banned by F1 due to the equivalence formula, which favours older-style chip sets designed specifically to exploit the prevailing regulations rather than efficiency.

"There is a CFD Group where some discussion has taken place about changing the regulation from this teraflop story to an energy, let's say bandwidth, control which would allow more room or more freedom for the teams to do what they want with their computers, but still being regulated, the same as the FIA," explained Boullier.

The 2010 Virgin was designed exclusively using CFD © XPB

"That's something we are very much in favour [of], because it would be right for F1. We can't be seen, perceived to be using some, let's say, old technology computers on our CFD. Then the question [about] windtunnels: Obviously if you concentrate on your CFD development, maybe one day a windtunnel could be obsolete."

There in a nutshell lies the primary reason for passionate, if weak, arguments by engineers against any ban: Only turkeys vote for Christmas, and engineers foresee the day when they will be rendered redundant by emerging technologies. Given the enormous salaries paid to ace aerodynamicists they have cause for concern, but the sustainability of F1 is increasingly on the line, and progress simply cannot be ignored.

That said, team principals are obviously anxious to avoid uncomfortable questions, and hence public pronouncements that insiders swear are at odds with the same people's pronouncements and votes during Strategy Group discussions. For example, one team boss was publicly vehement when asked about his team's position on the ban, yet is said by his peers to have argued for introduction by 2020.

A (deputy) team principal who does not hide his enthusiasm for phasing out windtunnels is Force India's Bob Fernley: "I think it's a genuine desire to get cost control in, and obviously to make sure new teams coming in have an opportunity," he said. "It's very difficult, no matter who you are, to set up an aero department. It's a significant investment, number one, then [there is] the human resource side of it.

"You don't just switch it on, whereas CFD is a much more affordable and more accessible technology. But more importantly, longer term, simulation is the future.

"I think we're broadcasting a great message with hybrid engines and everything else from an environmental point of view - we should be doing the same thing for windtunnels. They're massive users of electricity."

A senior team source refused to comment on record, but told this writer his team's tunnel costs around £1million per month, made up of running and maintenance costs, electricity, staffing, model makers and componentry, but excluding amortisation.

Boullier's estimate, for McLaren's lower capacity tunnel, was two-thirds that, adding that a new tunnel - currently in planning - would set the team back "about fifty million Euros" (£35m). Any wonder he admits the project currently being on hold?

"There is still a plan to make a new windtunnel," he said, "but we need confirmation about long-term commitment. You are not going to invest a lot of money if the regulation is about to change in two years. But we also have different scenarios in place, including upgrades of the current windtunnel we are using."

Boullier is weighing up McLaren's planned new windtunnel amid talk of a ban © XPB

Although most team bosses indicate a ban would result in very little manpower saving - aero staff would simply be substituted by CFD specialists - annual running costs of CFD are estimated to be 10 per cent of the costs of windtunnels, while acquiring a state-of-art CFD set-up is put at around "two million pounds".

A windtunnel's 'green' credentials are nothing to brag about either. While team bosses decline to provide power outputs of their tunnels, the specifications of the enormous Gene Haas-owned Windshear tunnel in America is illuminating:

Cars run on a 30 sq metre rolling road bed over which air is blown at 80 metres per second - equating to 300km/h - by a 5100hp (3800kW) electric motor driving 29 carbon fiber blades each 22 feet (6.7 m) in diameter. True, F1 tunnels run 50/60 per cent scale models at 200km/h, but consider the power usage per 25-hour run week.

Indeed, McKinsey estimates savings to major teams to be in the region of £15m per annum, with independents saving £10m should tunnels be banned - equating to around 10 per cent of annual budgets for such as Williams and Force India, or 7.5 per cent of total budget for McLaren. Not to be sneezed at, although the ban is unlikely to result in lower budgets as the savings would simply be allocated elsewhere.

"That's the problem with Formula 1," smiles Horner. "It's like a balloon: you squeeze one end and the air goes somewhere else. That's why it's important to discuss in a transparent manner what the solutions can be."

Windtunnels do, though, have disciples: "I personally don't believe in banning anything like this," says Sauber's Monisha Kaltenborn. "If you look back, when we decided to invest more into windtunnels, it came from [a desire] to reduce track testing, because that was so expensive.

Asked about possible bans on wind tunnels, Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene grimaced before asking a rhetorical question about the safety of road cars designed without recourse to windtunnels. With that he prepared to fly out of Singapore on aircraft designed totally via CFD and similar simulations.

The bottom line is it is now a question of when CFD replaces windtunnels, not if. F1 faces two choices: recognise the inevitability of simulation technology and plan responsibly, or adopt the ostrich stance and stick to crude technology rooted in the 1970s.