Ready for the off
Melbourne 2018
Australian Grand Prix
Sepang – Special Technical Update
Sepang – Special Technical Update
Posted By: James Allen  |  02 Apr 2010   |  4:50 pm GMT  |  89 comments

Ever wondered why F1 designers go to such extraordinary lengths to refine the design of the front wings and particularly the endplates? Top teams bring something new in this area to almost every race.

When you drill down into this area of the car’s design, you realise that it has far more effect on the aerodynamics than the much discussed double diffuser – probably five to ten times more effect!

Double Diffusers grab all the headlines, largely because of the legality issues, but they are nothing like as important to an F1 car as the barely discussed “outwash” front wing.

So this week we’re going to give the outwash wing, the spotlight it deserves.

The front wing tip vortex and the front wheel wake are the most important things to control in F1 aerodynamics. You want to stop them going in places where they do too much damage. 50-60% of the aerodynamics of an F1 car is concentrated on this vital area.

In 1998 when F1 cars were new rules narrowed in width from 2 metres to 1.8 metres the cars ended up with the front wing endplate alongside the edge of the front tyre. Designers developed very sophisticated solutions to manage the front wheel wake and wing tip vortex in order to get lots of downforce.

But then in 2009 the FIA brought in a radical change of aerodynamic rules, one of which was to make the front wing wider. Now, with the tips of the front wing sitting directly ahead of the front wheels, it was a completely different ball game.

The more experienced engineers in the pit lane, who had been around before 1997, or who had worked on IndyCars or Le Mans cars, knew that it would be desirable to produce an outwash effect from the front wing endplate, which would generate a low pressure area on the outside of the front wheel. It would also avoid the front flap being blocked by having a wheel right behind it.

Toyota were one of the first to try it, thanks to the intervention of veteran aerodynamicist Frank Dernie, and it was one of the signature items on the Brawn car. Engineers say that the outwash front wing was the single biggest step from 2008 to 2009, far more than the double diffuser.

The huge step in performance McLaren made last July was largely down to introducing an outwash front wing for the first time.

This year every car in the pit lane has one, with varying degrees of sophistication.

Red Bull has a very pronounced vortex channel underneath the end of the wing. If you look really closely there are lots of new details, sometimes tiny, sometimes very pronounced every race weekend, because the front wing, and particularly the tip of it, is an incredibly sensitive area and the tiniest change to a turning vane can make a big difference to the car’s performance. Ferrari made a good gain in Melbourne with the new wing endplate detail we featured in the Australian LG Technical Report.

Some of the new teams like Lotus and Virgin have fairly crude front wings and refining them will bring a big step forward in performance, moving them closer to the midfield teams. Lotus has an upgrade to its front wing coming for Spain.

For Virgin Racing, whose designer Nick Wirth insists on using only CFD (computational fluid dynamics) in the design and development of his car, this will be a real test and the whole pit lane is watching to see how well he does it.

This is because the main weakness of CFD in F1 design is in the area of modelling front wheel wake. It is so complex and changes with every tiny movement in the attitude of the car. Rival engineers, who also have big CFD capability in their factories, say it’s not possible to accurately measure front wheel wake using F1 standard CFD alone. This is because the air flow in the wheel wake is unsteady and the only CFD programme capable of modelling unsteady flow is owned by NASA and costs $1 million a month to run!

If the rivals are right then this will hold Virgin racing back. But if Wirth comes up with a major step in this area, then the others may begin to concede that he has found an affordable way to do away with wind tunnels.

But Virgin’s development may be held back in any case by the urgent need to build a larger fuel tank and Wirth’s attention will be focussed on that. It is a huge job, not just lengthening the chassis and redesigning the floor and bodywork, but the wiring harness will not be long enough. There are two options there; build a new one which is a huge task, or lengthen the old one, which is sub optimal and could introduce reliability problems.

Renault introduced a sophisticated new outwash front wing solution in Australia and it contributed a significant amount to the car’s improvement.

Featured News
Editor's Picks
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!


by Newest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Absolutely preferred to say whats up and let that I personally have recently been returning here for a long time, normally hanging out within dark locations rather than seriously talking my intellect. Nicely it is time to spend my own value and notify your agency, as a regular audience that My spouse and i undoubtedly adore your on line company and expect you will carry on upon this specific spiritual voyage of words and phrases. Greetings indicates everyone


Nicole Scherzinger has recently revealed that she’s thrilled that she replaced Cheryl Cole with regards to the X-Factor USA. She believes that she is ‘better served’ as a suitable judge compared to as a host.


Incredibly beneficial posting Excited for extra content articles within your web page.


the new cars these year looks very streamlined and very stylish, i wonder what the new cars next year would look like ,.’


The front wing in modern F1 has the function to create a hole in the air in front, making sure that air flow will go over the car, under the car or around the front wheels.

All this airflow need to be as “clean” as possible, making sure that there is no turbolence or wake in it.

The interaction between air flow and aerodynamics parts creates the downforce that will allow the driver to go faster in the corners.

Most F1 nowadays are very efficient and the different end plates will divert the air in different ways mainly due to the speed of the car.

If the iar is getting around the car, under and over, very clean the double diffuser and the shrk fin will work very efficiently.

But if the air is disturbed these components will not work as good as they should making a huge difference in the os called points of downforce.

What is the aim of the front wing and end plates ?

To open a hole in the air and try to make this hole as neat as possible.

Double diffuser will try to produce avacuum behind the car to “suck” the car in the hole.

The two combined effects will make the car faster and more slippery in the air.


Now we’re talking! I’ve always felt the DD was being given way too much credit for it’s effect on the wake behind cars!

With a front wing of the size of today’s, it will obviously have a major effect!

I would actually prefer to have the downforce of the cars produced mainly by ground effects as opposed to wings, this would drastically reduce the size of the turbulent wake behind the cars and allow much closer following, slipstreaming, braking and overtaking.



Paul, if we are going to have downforce produced by ground effect, F1 will be very very dangerous.

We need to remember why F1 banned ground effect, Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi accidents showed what it is dangerous with this solution.

Ground effect is the reverse concept of how planes are able to take off as everyone knows and at the moment in which the ground eefect ceased to work, the car become a plane, taking off the ground and basically reversing its properties.

With today understanding of aero and the teams ability to manufacture different parts with every race, a ground effect F1 car will become a fatal accident waiting to happen, Cars will be much faster in corners and therefore at top speed, it will be much more difficult to follow another car without being sucked.

Moreover drivers will need to be very carefull while driving at speed in order not to touch curbs, it will stop the suction under the car.

And finally ground effect might cause the car to bottom and loose the steering for short time during the race, one of the causes of Ayrton Senna death.

In my opinion ground effect is not a feasible solution for modern F1 cars


Mmmm. I doubt that a Spitfire could be flown inverted straight and level. Certainly not in GE. You won’t have enough thrust to keep it flying with the AoA that would be required. If you flew it close to the ground, there would be no downwash as the trailing edge will be positive. Why, you have a car wing in effect. The only trouble is that the car wing has too little area to lift the car when it is out of ground effect. The car lifts because the floor has the required area for rotation. Aerobatic aircraft have symmetrical wings with a zero trailing edge angle so with even a slight AoA inverted or not, the lift coefficient will increase up to 20% if the wing is within 10% of the wing span off the surface. A full gross Spitfire at TO speed in GE, will fly at the same AoA as it will at cruise speed at 20 000 ft. The lift coefficient in GE will improve by 35%


Oops. Just watching quali 1. Should be a great race tomorrow. Lewis, jenson, fernando and felippe at the back.


james, you are buddies with the relevant people at the FIA. how do you feel about dropping into conversation how easy things would be with standardised front and rear wings. they could then make it easier to follow the car in front, and avoid wasting such vast sums of money on something that does precisely nothing to contribute to good racing or the world outside F1. The FIA should be steering F1 towards standardised aero and open technology on engine development and fuel efficiency – at the moment it’s completely the opposite and it’s plain illogical.

i heard one journalist talking casually to charlie about all these different buttons and modes that the drivers should be allowed along the lines of push to pass and it just made me shudder. we need to get back to simple pure racing. no gimmicks. no knee jerk interventions to ‘improve the show’. and while we’re at it, no 18″ rims. this is F1, not pimp my ride.


I TOTALLY agree, JohnG,



I agree 100% about the standard front and rear wings.


Single element front and rear wings (that the teams retain control of), an outright ban on the rear diffuser, a wider wheel track and cruicially then a standard (ground effect) sidepod floor is the way to go IMHO.

Move the sidepod leading edge suitably so the sidepod floor local aerodynamic centre is about the same place as the desired car aerodynamic centre, and that should hopefully remove alot of the sensitivity to the wake of a car ahead.


I knew that the front wings must play a big role because of the complexity and variety of designs. Only something that is worth it would command that type of attention.

Which goes to the heart of what ails F1. Too much attention on aero. It’s no longer a WDC but a world aerodynamics championship. As a fan, I have zero interest in that contest. I watch to see the heirs of Fangio and Jim Clark show their craft and could not care less how clever Frank Dernie or Adrian Newey are.

I say standardize aero as much as possible, with the emphasis on reducing turbulence on following cars.


WELL said, beautifully put, absolutely correct, CanadaGP. And btw, I’m looking forward to your race this season!



Great stuff James!

Wonder if you could show a picture of the airflow for “bad” front wing in comparison to “good” wing?



James, do you have any insight into the different T-Cam Fairuz Fauzy was running early in FP1?


it seems a bit simplistic to equate performance to the directing of air around the front wheels. surely when the width of the frotn wing was extended, this was the obvious solution for directing air around the front tires. I’m interested to know how much info you James get from engineers and how you much you assume for yourself and draw your own conclusions?


It’s all from engineers


I would agree that the nasa CFD programme story sounds like poo, and in any case, $1million a month for something that is worth so much time would be snapped up by every team.

Ban aerodyamasists and accountants and you would have better racing!


Again, to reiterate a post above, you can always watch NASCAR, if that it is your mindset …


Re: Computational Fluid Dynamics

$1 million a month to run a very complex flow simulation. Sounds a lot, but thats actually about £9 million a year. In F1 terms that is very affordable.

Not so long ago top F1 budgets were in the mulitple hundred million dollar mark.

Even if you think that is not affordable, consider this: (potted tech history bit coming up)…

Less than 20 years ago I had a computer next to my desk valued at £80,000. It had 64MB of memory (MB not GB!) and a processor that ran at a blazing 120MHz (compare that to your modern day AMD/Intel processor running at about 3.5GHz). It was a DECStation 5000 workstation with a MIPS R4000 chip in it. Your iPhone is more powerful (by a very large margin).

6 months later it was worth £32,000. And so on.

Only a few years ago we had single core CPUs (Pentium III and the like). The hyper threaded pseudo 2 core CPUs (Pentium IV). Then real dual core CPUs (core2-duo). Then iCore7 with with 4 hyperthreaded cores (8 pseudo cores). AMD are about to launch a chip with 12 cores.

As time goes on more cores per chip will happen faster. Why is that important? Because CFD is one of those problems that is very parallelisable (sorry about that word).

When you can keep chopping problems into small pieces and hand them out to a CPU for its undivided attention, solving that problem gets cheaper (until you run out of bus bandwidth and etc).

The rate Intel and AMD are going for it with the extra cores (because they can no longer crank up the chip speed) it won’t be long before that cost per month figure gets very affordable.

Oh and if that isn’t enough, in a few years (guess, 10) time they’ll start making chips using a new technology that allows even finer lithography and faster speeds (and if memory serves, it won’t be on silicon). The first papers on this tech were published about 3 months ago. So when that comes on stream, plenty of headroom to crank up the speeds as well as have the god knows how many cores they’ll be creating by then.


Off topic, but being a computer architecture freak, I was wondering what new tech you were talking about at the end of your comment. Can you send me a link to those papers ?


Sorry I can’t. It was linked to from a story on Slashdot. I can’t remember the URL. About 2 or 3 months back. Not a hoax or anything like that.


Yes, the endplate has critical functionality in:

(1) making the front wing work, through the mechanisms you quote (interestingly, what the endplate does is the exact opposite of what you would do if the wheel were not there!)

(2) sealing the sidepod floor to enhance underfloor downforce

(3) providing turbulent flow to the upper surface of the diffuser for entraining additional flow out from under the diffuser (i.e. further increasing diffuser effectiveness) – however this would be a poor third to the above two.

But, to say the endplates are more important than a diffuser is a bit… well. Being crude about it; if car A has a perfect “100% efficient” front wing endplate but only a 90% efficient diffuser, and car B has a 90% efficient front wing endplate and a perfect diffuser…. car B would definitely be the winner.

Oh, and whoever told you “the only CFD programme capable of modelling unsteady flow is owned by NASA and costs $1 million a month to run!” was telling you little white ones. There are loads of commercial codes, such as Fluent (used by Ferrari and Sauber AFAIK), CFX and Star-CD all capable of modelling unsteady flow to varying accuracies (dependant on what techniques you use from the myriad of options!). There are also “home-made” codes, which are probably better suited to this job as it can be tailor tuned; I’m pretty sure Renault use a code of their own.

I’d reckon nearly all of the teams will have their own in-house codes, and also use some commercial stuff as well – and every single one of them will be capable of modelling unsteady flow. 🙂

[oh, and NASA do have some great codes!]


They may well be capable of modeling unsteady flow, but to what accuracy? If they were accurate enough then they wouldn’t still need the wind tunnels.


Guys, I did state:

“all capable of modelling unsteady flow to varying accuracies”

Note the varying accuracies bit! 🙂

Theoretically, you could do a complete DNS simulation capturing every single eddy/vortex, no matter how small. However, you’d need a computer like Jaguar or Roadrunner to do it, and you’d need months for a single simulation. Of course, modelling approximations are used… the most accurate feasible option being Large Eddy Simulation, the least accurate option probably being 1 or 2 equation turbulence models (probably k-w SST).

As long as you know your code, and know the questions certain models are likely to get the wrong answers to, then CFD is an incredibly powerful too. If you don’t know your code, chances are you’ll be barking up the wrong tree.


Then what’s the point of having and running expensive Wind Tunnel operations?


Hi James,

If this is such a sensitive section of the car, why does the FIA and/or the OWG not concentrate on simplifying the design of the front wing? It sounds that because they are so sensitive to the airflow when following another car the airflow would be different to that of what is produced in the windtunnel – thus possibly making it harder to follow.

What is the difference between now and say 1993/94 between the designs of the front wing where following a car was much easier? Is it not possible for the OWG to look at the figures in their wind tunnels between now and then and calculate why it is harder to overtake?


Great article. I didn’t really understand why the wings were so complex but I do now.

Does the very complexity mean they are reliant on clean air (I.e is this a primary reason for the inability to stay close behind another car).

what are your thoughts on 18 inch rear tyres. Bridgestone stated it would induce oversteer? How would a wider surface area on the road create oversteer?


Personally I’d rather not see wider, lower profile tyres on the grounds that they would be more sensitive to camber change curves built into the suspensions thereby creating greater sensitivity to track surfaces, (especially street tracks), corner weights etc and heaps of other things, as well as creating more turbulence in the wake, and leading to cars being more twitchy and difficult to optimise the setup, and probably vary the handling characteristics to a greater degree throughout the course of a race.



It is the inside diameter of the tyre that Michelin is looking to increase.

Fitting wider tyres doesn’t increase the contact area. The contact area is driven by air pressure.

The tyre’s grip comes from the force on the tyre from the cars mass and aerodynamic load and the ability of the tyre’s surface to grip the road. Softer rubber grips better, but gets hotter.

As a tyre rolls it distorts to create the contact patch. The distortion generate heat. A wider tyre has a shorter contact patch than a narrow one. This means the tyre distorts less as it rolls generating less heat. If Michelin reduces the tyre’s profile then the distortion will be over a shorter distance, which could generate more heat.

This would also apply to the front tyres, so I’m not sure why oversteer would be increased.


We’ll do something on that if it starts to look like a goer


I posted this as a response in the previous article but it happens to relate to this one, so reposting here:

That (Renault) looks like the most developed front wing on the whole grid. Some of them are certainly (visually) getting closer to the pre-2009 regulation wings, what with the curvy planes and elements that want to touch the nose, as opposed to the ‘Group C’ looking front wings that were normal under these regulations.


This once more shows how sensitive these cars are concerning front end grip. Not good news for overtaking.

Makes me wonder why in Indycar cars can run close behind each other and not in F1…

If only there were rules that forced designers to exploit more the potential of mechanical grip at the front, instead of exploiting front-end aero grip..


The IRL cars have a lower downforce to mass ratio and generate a greater proportion of their downforce from underneath the car.

Wings on cars work by forcing a mass of air upwards and the equal and opposite reaction in the car going downwards. Wings result in a lot of high velocity air.

Ground effects work using the Bernoulli effect. With a perfect venturi the exit air is returned to normal atmospheric pressure by slowing it down through an expansion volume – the diffuser.

Turbulence is driven be velocity, so slow air is better than fast air. This reduces the turbulence behind the IRL cars. The banning of double diffusers is likely to make the problem worse.

If we went back to 1982 regulations, with full ground effects allowed, then front wings might again disappear.

On mechanical grip, I’m confident that there is minimal design performance to be gained in this area. Some changes can be made to change the feel of the car to make the driver more comfortable and from that faster.




Thanks Martin, a brilliant explanation, and one I absolutely agree with! (note my post on here).




I am really fascinated by this. I know I may ask a bit too much, would it be possible for you to find some computer animation air flow through the front wing?

Thank you so much to bring F1 much closer to the fans like me. One of the major attraction of F1 to me is the technology part of it.


As someone who develops and uses CFD codes in a research context, I can state categorically that the statement that “the only CFD programme capable of modelling unsteady flow is owned by NASA” is complete BS. It will be costly to run, however, because of the power consumed by the supercomputers required to get (reasonably) accurate solutions.


it also struck me as rather odd.


very good,but no idea about ban of sidepod mounted mirrors.


Excellent bit of work, I love this sort of stuff. I would love to see the BBC cover this sort of thing but I guess it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Only just found your website a couple of weeks ago its the best F1 site out there.


Excellent bit of work, I love this sort of stuff. I would love to see the BBC cover this sort of thing but I guess it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Only just found your website a couple of weeks ago its the best F1 site out there.


hi james,i have a question:

what is your idea about ban of sidepod mounted mirrors?

can these ban effect on aerodynamics?

if yes,why fia change the aero rule in season and why team such as ferrari and red bull accept it?


I’ve been talking about this forever. They need to dumb down the front wing endplates, they are one of the main reasons why there are problems with overtaking and aero stability when following another car. They need to be SIMPLE! only 1 piece of carbon fibre without any holes.

Changing the width to 2m again is also another great decision F1 could make


I totally agree about widening the cars again, even if only for cosmetic reasons. Having watched the beeb’s highlights of the 1990 Australian GP last week I was struck by how much more clean and in proportion the cars looked then. They seemed to be able to follow closely and overtake as well.

I believe that pre 1993 the cars were wider than 2m and had even wider rear tyres as well.

By my simple understanding of how the current cars are working, it seems that because of the narrow track and with each change to the wing regulations, the engineers are having to go more and more extreme to find the same downforce they had previously. By all accounts they have regained all the downforce and more, but as I see it, by beating the airflow into submission to make it do the work they want it to.

I say go back to 1992 car and tyre widths, make the front wings much more simple (especially the endplates), and allow Michelin’s low profile tyres and we can get back to cars that generate grip because of their shape and layout rather than in spite of it.


To be honest I’m not a fan of the wider front wings. And to some extent it may contribute to drivers being more cautious than previously when battling for position. Or alternatively unnecessarily penalizing drivers who get tagged during the inevitable first corner hustle and bustle.

Whilst I’m also not a fan of standardizing components on F1 cars this may be an area where if the difference between top teams and back of the grid is mainly due to lack of resources in optimizing this area of the car then why not tighten rules to give a little less freedom.

Is there any rule of thumb to calculate dollar investment against reduction in lap time. I’m thinking that for the millions spent simulating and refining aerodynamics some of the gains are small. Although this goes against the five to ten times effect quoted it is also one area where developments are harder for fans to see and understand.

We all know that extra horses help make the car go faster, fewer I suggest, can understand ‘The front wing tip vortex and the front wheel wake’.

Does the TWG perform simulations and provide feedback to teams or does each team have a bank of servers to crunch the numbers separately?


This article highlights the reason that you are THE expert in the F1 field – thank you so much for your insights!


Thanks James! Great stuff!


James, a terrific artical


As someone old enough to remember the thrill of F1 races before 1980, for years I’ve been thinking that a new and simple approach to the regulations is required because it’s clear that the sport’s governing body will never be able to get the better of F1 engineers.

I would suggest that, as soon as possible, F1 should ban all aerodynamic appendages (including the front wing) that fall outside an imaginary box created by the wheels of the car. Within that box, anything goes (aerodynamically-speaking). Not only would this simplify the policing of regulations, it would make all cars easier to overtake. Add Mike Dernie’s suggestion of harder tyres and it would rejuvenate the sport and bring back the excitement that we now only seem to see in wet races.

If, for some technical or safety reason, an aerodynamic appendage IS necessary, then it should be provided by a third party and standardised across all teams.

John MacMicking

JR – I too remember the 80’s and before if truth be told. I agree fully and I like your ‘box’ concept.

I would also add- 1st a return to 1 lap qulaifying and 2nd either unlimited tire use or enough of a grip difference to allow a pit stop.


Basically F1 has been developed almost to the end of the road. All the big advances have already been made in aero, brakes, suspension engine etc. Nowadays the rules actually say that any new development will be banned from the following season unless it benefits the sport in general.

Unless there are major changes in the regs for the future allowing development in the very few areas left, the F1 is bound to stagnate until it devolves into A1.

The problem with allowing major development is that it is now ruled out on grounds of cost as the supposedly agreed (in the magical but secret Concorde agreement) for the foreseeable future.

By changing some of the rules covering the front and rear wings and the floor there would be scope for development.

AS it is we are looking at fine tuning of the outwash, this all goes to pot when the car goes over a bump or kerb, or turns a corner.


Totally agree.

Zobra Wambleska

You could always watch NASCAR if you want maximum standardization and lots of passing.


No thanks, just writing “Camry” or “Buick” etc on the bonnet doesn’t make the car a Camry or a Buick, who are they kidding! 🙂 + the whole punting people off the track if they overtake you & not getting penalised doesn’t really do it for me.

Ahem, Robbie Gordon on Marcus Ambrose for example, a cheap cheap move by someone who knew they weren’t fast enough on the day.


Yeah but writing Mercedes on the cam covers of an Illmore seems to make the engine a Merc!



Great stuff James!


Hi James, interesting article as usual. Sorry to change the subject but I was reading an article on autosport website today that said Michelin were keen to come back to F1 but with 18-inch diameter tyres rather than the 13-inch ones that are currently used. It didn’t explain why Michelin wanted 18inch tyres though. Do you know why they would want this and what the advantages & disadvantages?


A flow on effect would be increased brake disc diameter, which should reduce the likelihood of failure.

The ability to mount the upper and lower further apart gives flexibility in choosing the geometry, but my understanding is that does little for performance.


Huge increase in drag!


It was mentioned by Crofty during commentary on this morning’s practice – apparently with tyre warmers being banned it’ll be easier to maintain air pressure with bigger wheels, since there’ll be less air to warm


Yes I also read that they were considering 18 inch rear rims – the benefit is a fairly hefty increase in mechanical grip on the rear tyres. some argue it would make overtaking more of an option but having said that, we always see the most overtaking when it is raining and mechanical grip is at its lowest, so how that would improve the show i do not know. The increased rims size would hugely increase the stiffness of the tyre, and make it easier to maintain pressure and heat, therefore creating the increase in mechanical grip.


Can’t fit 13″ F1 wheels to a BMW 316. So no marketing value in that.

Before you know it F1 drivers will have heavily tinted visors and those infuriating fluorescent lights under the cars.

Bernie had whopping great alloys on his Merc and look what happened to him.


What an insightful and surprising article! I had no idea that the front wing was that important to he cars’ performance.

When you compare the Red Bull front wing to the Ferrari’s, the Red Bull looks far more developed and complicated. Clearly there isn’t much difference between the cars in overall performance, but can one assume the Red Bull wing is more effective?


“a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when he has nothing left to add, but when he has nothing left to take away.”

All parts work together, so I imagine ferrari’s front wing is close to the best for their package, as is red bull’s for theirs.


Hi James…

Great report explaining the importance of something that the average F1 fan doesn’t even have on their radar!

In regards to the CFD capabilites my view is that a future advantage will come to any team that can create their own CFD software that has for want of a better description “finer grained computation” The hardware needed to create large parallel computers from standard pc type units is relatively inexpensive these days.


As I said in another post below, most, if not all the teams, will have their own in-house codes. Renault I’m quite sure have their own in-house code, as well as using Star-CD from CD-Adapco.

Here; found link to story on it:

Many will run on clusters of standard workstation PCs as you state. Some will run on pukka clusters (like BMW/Sauber’s Albert2).

I’m not sure on this, but I’d be surprised if teams were not looking to take advantage of GPGPUs in their CFD. Speedups in jobtimes of up to 100x are just too big to turn down – especially in this particular industry!!


Virgin have had what seems to be a fairly successful program on developing civilian space travel (well, nearly there) so you’d think if the F1 team can use that CFD then they should have rather good software to hand. Would be interesting to know if they could access it.


Except there is no air in space? 🙂 + CFD for say a plane is alot simpler than CFD on a F1 car, with attempting to simulate open wheel air disturbance etc etc. I think this is the point some experts are making, that it is regarded as too difficult to accurately simulate something like this as opposed to just simulating airflow over a wing surface or a smooth surface for that matter.


I recently read in a magazine that simulating the turbulence created by just one wheel of a Formula 1 car in a CFD model is as complicated as simulating a jumbo jet. I also read that Boeing provides CFD code to Renault, which Renault use for their F1 CFD modelling. From the complexity of the F1 modelling Renault provide knowledge to Boeing, which Boeing use to improve their CFD model. So it’s a case of F1 providing knowledge to the aircraft industry, rather than the aircraft industry proving knowledge to F1.

So if anything the modelling undertaken by Wirth Research (the people behind Virgin’s F1 car) is probably more complex than the modelling undertaken by Scaled Composites (the people behind Virgin’s space program).


As they develop, are these wings becoming more sensitive to turbulence, or perhaps creating more “dirty air” behind the car?

In other words, are they bad news for overtaking?


I think the effect they have is more over the car itself, i.e. general drag/down force rather than really effecting the dirty air behind – the diffuser, rear wheels, and rear wing have a far greater effect on this.


Yes this is true however it is a flow on effect, if for example a car loses even 15% of its frontal downforce when it enters the dirty air of a car in front of it, it cannot hope to keep close enough through say a fast corner to be able to have a run on the car in front down the next straight as it simply cannot take the corner as fast while its front downforce is compromised.

Its not so much an issue with these end plates making the “dirty air’ cross section bigger at the rear of the car, just the loss of front downforce to the car when following another closely.


I totally agree, Ausi Fan, hence the reason I believe the wings should be much smaller so their percentage of work done is reduced thereby minimising there negitive efect when following closly.

I’m guessing the wings and upper body have a far greater efect on both downforce and following turbulent wake than ground efects, which is why I reckon they should encourage more ground efects and less wing efects to improve following, slipstreaming, braking and passing.

NZ Fan.


If Branson can put the public into space I’m sure getting a car to go round a track fast should be within Virgin’s capabilities – does anybody know whether the technologies involved in both projects are cross-referencable ? I assume Wirth could call on the assistance of the team building Virgin’s SpaceShipTwo, the rocket which will take passengers into space for aerodynamics assistance – they must already of got around NASA’s requirement for a $million dollars a month CFD computer – i can’t see Branson funding something of that magnitude.


Branson is not funding the “Virgin” team, he is in his words “putting his brand in” instead. In other words he is getting several million pounds worth of free, above the line publicity.


Thanks. Is there any parallel to the Target sponsorship on Ganassi’s cars where suppliers to Target pay the sponsorship, rather than Target itself? In Australia there’s the airline and some repackaged finance products and mobile telecoms. From there, I could see a company like Nokia seeing a link, but otherwise I’m obviously lacking imagination.

Lilia’s comment on partnerships has merit, particularly if suppliers are looking to establish a long-term relationship to recover an up-front investment. Whether Branson would let Virgin (Manor) fall if it needed a cash injection (new chassis design?) to keep going will only be known if the situation arises.

Your business experience is another perspective. Is F1 worth it if a company is only in one or countries? BTCC would get virtually zero ratings in Australia these days.


So how does Manor (as it was) benefit, apart from not looking as desperate for sponsors as Sauber is? Without putting cash in, how does Branson expect the car to do anything other than come last?


Just being the major sponsor and coming last is worth millions to that sponsor. Time on track and “opportunity to see” is the objective. Ideally a crash on the last lap is the best outcome for a sponsor, getting maximum possible camera time. Back many (probably 20) years ago having been offered a chance of a sidepod for £several thousands for one race, I can tell you that you need to think in telephone numbers for F1 sponsorship.

The BTCC is much more realistic but there it is wise to have your wordmark and logo on the floorpan as well, since an overturned car often gets several replays.

It would be interesting if James could dig out some info on the current going rates for various parts of the car and then the range of costs through the field.


Manor basically accepted because joining with Virgin will have benefits with other sponsors and especially companies that work with Virgin. Also it helps finding partners to provide things for the team. It’s one thing calling a guy asking him to be your partner providing you with “carbon fiber” for example, and trying to convince him by throwing the Manor name and is another thing trying to convince him by throwing the Virgin name.

Off course even if Branson says so i don’t believe he didn’t give at least a few millions to completely change the name of the team. But knowing him is true that those millions won’t be a big number.


Virgin Galatic is like an airline. They take people places. They don’t make the craft.

That is being done by a separate company “The spaceship company” in conjunction with the company Scaled Composites founded by Burt Rutan.

Any tech transfer from Scaled Composites to the F1 programme would almost certainly require large sums of money as well – Branson doesn’t own Scaled Composites.


Great insight once again, thanks James.


Again a fantastic report about the real nitty-gritty of F1 tech. Thanks James! Where do you want the cheque?


How long are these new cars with the larger fuel tank compared to last year’s cars? Who’s car is the shortest?

I wonder how they will run around Monaco. I remember how much fuss there was about the longer wheel base Ferrari some 5 or 6 years back – it wasn’t good around Monaco.


The year you were thinking about was 2007. The McLaren had a general advantage over the Ferrari, as it did at Montreal and Indy. People blamed the long wheelbase, but there are a couple of things to note: Massa was a year away from sorting out how to drive around Monaco (he admitted as much in 2008 after setting pole); Kimi crashed in Q2 putting him 16th, which stuffed his race; and finally in 2008, with the same long wheelbase concept, Ferrari was first and second on the grip.

Tibet Fonteyne

The devil really is in the details. Good read, thanks mate.



Great article and as Tibet says the devil is in the detail, would love to have seen a diagram showing the flow from the wing across the wheels. This would aid in understanding better the terms like out wash and front wheel wake.

But got to say this does help explain why we keep hearting ‘the team brought a new wing this weekend and expect improvements’



Interesting stuff James. I wonder how long people think it will be until someone declares them detrimental to entertainment and demands them outlawed?

Top Tags
JA ON F1 In association with...
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer

Sign up to receive the latest F1 News & Updates direct to your inbox

You have Successfully Subscribed!