Expensive Aerodynamic Games

Those people paid to watch very highly paid drivers parade
around lap after lap and throw fits if anyone upsets the tedium.

I just watched the Spanish Formula One Grand Prix.  I used to be a huge Schumie fan and watched F1 religiously, but I've wandered away since I starting two wheeling.  It was an historic race with Max Verstappen being the first Dutch driver and youngest ever driver to win a GP race, but it was tedious.  Sky Sports' announcers tried to rev it up with one of the few attempted passes, which was then followed up by Sebastien Vettel complaining about an attempted pass.  Daniel Ricardo, the driver who attempted the pass said after the race, "I know no one tries to pass any more in Formula One, but I did, and it didn't work."

When you're working the air around a car that hard,you make
a lot of turbulence, which makes it hard to pass.  If you clip
another car with wings on it like this, you've probably just
done a million dollars in carbon fibre damage.  No wonder
they all drive around worried at being passed.

Having not seen an grand prix in a few years, I was surprised at how complex the wings have become.  The new normal isn't a front chin wing and a rear spoiler, it's layers upon layers of carbon fibre.  Thanks to complex 3d modelling the wings now consider wind flowing over them in all dimensions, so the wings have become these origami type pieces of industrial art.  You can only imagine what it costs when one gets clipped by a wheel.

The upside of all this aerodynamic black magic are cars that can corner like they're on rails because they have tons of carefully managed air pushing them into the pavement.  The downside is all that down-force creates huge turbulence, making passing next to impossible.  MotoGP doesn't produce passing stats, but based on any criteria I can imagine passing is orders of magnitude greater in MotoGP.

MotoGP has played with aerodynamics before, but because motorcycles change their angle of attack (they lean) when they corner, it isn't a relatively static shape that is always facing the oncoming wind blast.  As a result the benefits of consistent down-force while cornering aren't there for motorbike wings, but that isn't stopping MotoGP from pushing deep into it this season.

The vestigial wings on MotoGP bikes don't do much to glue the bike to the ground in corners (the main purpose of F1 wings), but they do provide some stability while under acceleration (keeping the front wheel from rising).  Turning a wing sideways makes it fairly useless, so acceleration is the only place it's facing the wind properly.  Even with these modest wings, riders are complaining that the amount of turbulence coming off machines has increased, making passing more difficult.  Between that and worries about wings clipping people in an off, there are obvious dynamic concerns around winglets.

Another problem with aerodynamics is that they're incredibly expensive.  You can only go so far with computer simulations before you wind up in a wind tunnel testing your designs, and wind tunnels aren't cheap.  Developing aerodynamics mean many models and constant refinement.  That the end results aren't that significant begs the question: why do it?

What I'd like to see is MotoGP ban wings.  The aerodynamic costs limit other manufacturers from considering entering the fray.  A strong multi-manufacturer competition is a big part of MotoGP's success.  That they create turbulence that makes following bikes unstable at speed and reduce chances of passing is another strike against them.  The aesthetic argument that they turn the simplistically elegant racing motorbike into a warty toad also rings true; winglets aren't pretty.

I love the high tech nature of Formula1, but aerodynamics have made the cars fantastically expensive with no real benefit beyond the race track.  Improvements to engines, transmissions and safety have a clear connection to the evolution of automobiles in general, but massive wings and tons of down force don't.  Watching a film like Rush reminds me of a time when drivers drove.  Today's races are more like a Moon shot, and the drivers astronauts.  In the last race Hamilton couldn't compete because he couldn't get his car to reboot, and Vettel is probably still upset that his carbon fibre wings might have been touched.  If I wanted to watch people who can't work computers I'd go to work, I hardly want to watch it in an F1 race.  If I wanted to watch people worried about how perfect their cars looked, I'd go to a concour d'elegance.

A Formula 1 with physically smaller cars and reasonable down-force limits could still explore the technical boundaries of driving on four wheels while encouraging something that looks less like a parade lap and more like racing.  Without the wings dripping off them and huge turbulence, passing could become a part of an F1 race again, perhaps so much so that drivers don't complain about a single attempted pass.  If F1 wanted to explore a more functional aspect of aerodynamics they should limit the massive wings but allow small, adaptive aerodynamics.  That's something that would once again be relevant to the evolution of the automobile.

I can only hope MotoGP doesn't follow F1 down this evolutionary dead end of aerodynamic inflation.  A bike festooned with wings wouldn't just be ugly, it would be irrelevant.

Can you imagine if the wings knocked each other, or got locked together?  I like my bike racing frenetic, fast and side by side.

Four abreast heading into the first corner?  The beginning of another frantic pass-fest in MotoGP.

F1 overtaking stats

MotoGP vs. Formula 1

A very expensive traffic jam

I just finished watching the F1 parade in Monte Carlo.  Watching the massive, modern F1 cars (so wide they practically fill the road) following each other through the streets of Monte Carlo reminded me why I've been watching MotoGP instead.  It's not uncommon to see multiple lead changes on a single lap in MotoGP, and dozens of mid-field overtakings during a race.  It's uncommon to see any lead changes in an F1 race and a driver climbing through the field has become a rarity.  At Monte Carlo this morning the only overtaking was political.

I started watching F1 during Michael Schumacher's rookie year and followed him all the way through his career.  My favourite race of his was '94 in Spain where he managed second place while stuck in one gear.  Spain a couple of years later was a master class in keeping an F1 car on the pavement in torrential rain.  While the engineering is interesting in F1 it's not why I watched it regularly for over two decades, it was because of the brilliance of the drivers.

I'm now into my second season of watching Motogp.  The first race I watched had a resurgent 34(!) year old Valentino Rossi chasing the astonishing Marc Marquez (beginning a record breaking run of wins) to a one two finish with multiple lead changes in a single lap.

It's hard to see just how much a MotoGP racer works their tires.

Slow motion is the way to go if you want to see just how much

they drift on a single wheel.

In one of the early races an announcer mentioned how in Formula One the car is the majority of the equation whereas in Motogp the rider is the key component.  From that moment on I made an effort to understand the complexities of riding a race bike.  Motosports that are decided by operator skill over engineering prowess (and budget) are what I'm into.  Schumi got that second place in Spain driving a second tier car.  When he started winning championships with a massive budget I was less interested.

Watching the parade around Monte Carlo reminded me of why I enjoy the bikes more.  With the rider such a big part of the equation, you'll see human excellence much more clearly on two wheels than you will with four. There is much less between a rider and the road than there is between a driver and the road.  While one is wrestling with their machine the other is setting suspension settings and adjusting engine maps.

With the Isle of Man TT coming up I'll also be able to see bikes battling on public roads just as the F1 cars didn't do on the streets of Monte Carlo. You see a lot of precision in Monte Carlo but you don't see the breath taking bravery that you'll see in the TT.  If you've never watched one before, give it a go.

This has me thinking about vehicle dynamics and the differences between motorcycles and cars... fodder for my next post...

From Tony Foale's Motorcycle Handling & Chasis Design: a must read if you're curious about motorbike dynamics

Some Links

Formula One vs. Motogp: vehicle comparison
F1 car mechanical and aerodynamic forces
Applying the fluid dynamics of F1 aerodynamics to motorcycle racing
The Physics of Motorbikes
Which is faster? F1 or MotoGP (by F1 fanatics)

A Silent, Fast & Sustainable Future

The other day I swung in for one of my infrequent fuel stops on the Ninja.  As I was finishing up putting $18 of super into the tank, good for another 300kms, the guy across from me was bleating about how much it was costing ($180 of the cheap stuff) to fill up his massive pickup truck with chrome wheels and low profile tires (I won't go into how wrong that is, suffice it to say that this truck wasn't purchased to *do* things, it was purchased as a look-at-me-penis-extension - one that costs over two hundred bucks a week in gas).

His fill up would put about ten tanks in the Ninja, at 300kms a tank his single fill up would get me over 3000kms (!), and he has the nerve to stand there crying about how his inferiority complex has resulted in poor choices?  If gas doubled in price tomorrow I'd still be able to afford to ride.  I wonder what Bucky-look-at-my-truck would do.

***

I was reading Cycle Canada last night and came across a letter from a reader who (after extolling the virtues of cruisers for a long time) went on to sneer at the idea of quiet electric bikes, basically saying that they'd have to pry his Harley out of his cold, dead hands.  Many of those dinosaurs will soon be extinct and maybe then we can move on to forms of motorcycling that are sustainable for generations.  I've often wondered what it would have been like to ride my Grand-dad's bike.  Wouldn't it be cool to get to a point where our descendants can?  It would give me great pleasure knowing that we developed a form of motorbiking that is so efficient and undamaging that my great, great grandchild could enjoy it without worrying if it will irreparably damage the world.

Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of a nicely tuned engine as much as anyone (you can keep your farty exhausts), but if the internal combustion engine is the pinnacle of human achievement, we're in real trouble, especially if we're going to stuff the world full of billions of people who all want a giant pickup.

***

Way back in the 1990s I watched one of those Star Trek: The Next Generations that was dangerously insightful.  In the episode, Force of Nature, it is discovered that warping all over the place actually damages space.  It snuck up on you, but the allegory was clear - even if you love something (burning fossil fuels and making CO²), you can't be blind to the damage it does.  What was previously a blind-love relationship with motor vehicles became more complicated for me after that.

Think gas is expensive now? You
ain't seen nothing yet.
Welcome to the end of cheap oil.

Just recently I watched Cosmos and the episode they did on climate change was jarring.  Neil deGrasse Tyson demands something more than blind devotion to fossil fuels no matter how easy they've made life.  Ever the optimist, he states that in the next century we'll build the last internal combustion engine as we move on to less environmentally damaging technologies (he's an optimist, I don't know if we're that adaptive).  

If you ask most people to imagine a world without internal combustion, they can't.  I asked kids in class a couple of years ago what they'd like to do when they retired in 2045.  One said she wanted to buy a Camaro.  I asked her what she intended to do with it, use it as a planter to grow flowers?  She couldn't conceive of a world without cheap, plentiful oil, most of us can't, but that world is coming.

"Though they run on fossil fuel, these
are digital machines" - Ewan McGregor
describing the lastest MotoGP bikes

Nothing thrills me more than seeing real change.  Formula One this year is using hybrid gas/electrical power plants and reduced the fuel from 176 to 100 kilograms per race.  The cars are faster than ever but the engines are changing how to drive quickly.  Instead of having to wait for a gas engine to rev up to peak output, the electric assist is providing instant, full torque.  Drivers are having to change how they negotiate corners because the power is instantly available.  The cars are also much quieter, you can actually hear the rubber squealing as they peel out of the pits (you couldn't before over the howl of v8 engines).

I also caught some of the 24 Hours of LeMans.  The prototypes in that race used only electric power to enter and leave the pits.  They were eerily silent and people could carry out normal conversation as they went about their work, it was pretty awesome.  They are also faster than anything previously while using less fuel.  That's the kind of future I can get excited about.

The McLaren P1 is an astonishing piece of engineering.  Over 30mpg and capable of well over 200mph.  It's not just fast for a hybrid, it's one of the fastest cars ever built.  The future won't be slow, though it may be much quieter.

There are still people who keep steam engines alive because they love the history and the mechanics of the things.  They aren't very efficient, and it wouldn't be sensible to have everyone using steam, but it's nice to see mechanical history honoured.  There are people who will keep gasoline engines alive.  They aren't very efficient or sustainable, and it wouldn't be sensible for everyone to have one,  but it'll be nice to see that history remembered too.  For the rest of us (doofus with his pickup truck included), I'm looking forward to a quieter, faster, cleaner future.  In the meantime I'll enjoy my 0-60 in under 4 seconds Ninja that gets more than 60mpg.  There is nothing like the minimalism of the motorbike to make the most out of every drop of fuel.

80/20 split

2003: Faster, a good introduction
to MotoGP

Faster (2003)  is a fast paced documentary with fantastic inside access to MotoGP.  With long-form interviews with all the major names in the sport in the early 2000s, it offers you an accessible look at the sport.

I've been a Formula One fan since the early 1990s when I saw a rookie Michael Schumacher astonish in an inferior car.  His race in the rain in Spain with only one gear cemented me as a fan.  While I've always enjoyed the technology in F1 it's the driving that really gets my attention.  I'd much rather watch a Senna or a Villeneuve than a Prost or pretty much any of the modern crop of scientists at the wheel.  I long for rain in a race not for accidents, but to see who can actually drive.

Faster showed me a sport where the human being is still the main element in creating speed.  At one point one of the many interviewees said, "in MotoGP the rider is 80% of the equation and the bike is 20%, in Formula 1 it's the other way round."

After watching the last couple of seasons of Formula 1 I'm tempted to agree.  Engineers practically drive the cars from the pits.  Given the top car any one of the drivers would win with it.  I'm no fan of Alonso, but he is a once in a generation talent, like Schumacher, or Senna, and he seldom lands anywhere on the grid except where his engineers place him.  I'd love to see F1 with no live telemetry or radio contact, no driver aids and more open engineering options, but it'll never happen.  The F1 circus is on its way to Nascar - just a staged media event.

That 80/20 split is of much more interest to me as someone interested in how human beings and machines can combine into something magical.  I really have no interest in seeing how quickly robots can travel around a track, it's the human expression through machinery that fascinates me.  It's as apparent in comparing MotoGP to F1 as it is in driving a car or riding a bike on the road.

Maybe that's the magic of this that I haven't been able to articulate: motorcycling is complicated, challenging and offers you, the operator, a much more expressive means of interacting with your machine.