www.engineeringnews.co.nz 47
from these kinds of expensive add-ons, isn't
really noticeable for the racing fan. “If we
can cut down the frequency that the teams
are rebuilding their engines we’re saving
them money,” says Burgess.
There are some very clever engine builders
working with the teams. “We're trying to
capitalise on that expertise by introducing
the facility for Lambda control,” says
Burgess. “It is in the new version of the
MoTeC control ECU, but it probably
won't go live at the first race, but it will be
introduced.”
Generally speaking, Supercar teams don't
have the luxury of having a design office and
a race team, they are usually one and the
same. The benefits of this are that a small
cadre of engineering professionals do both
jobs, so the designers have the opportunity
to experience the design issues first hand.
They also get to talk to the drivers, so lines
of communication are as short as possible.
This of course is a blessing and a curse. It
results in some incredible high-power, high
adrenaline racing, but when things go wrong
the emotional impact is significant right
across the whole team.
Also, because each team is trying to be
effective with the minimum number of
engineers, most teams resist the temptation
to embrace the latest and greatest that the
software community can provide. They all
have a very limited time to do their design,
manufacture and test before racing starts.
Apart from the fact that fancy new software
generally needs fancy new, highly paid
software engineers to use it, most teams
prefer to rely on familiar tools. This means
that they don't do full body kinematic
analysis or use the latest tyre models in their
expensive hexapod simulators, because
they don't have them.
Every software tool has to produce a benefit
quickly otherwise it's not even loaded.
Anything that requires specialist users to
use the systems and/or understand the
results will probably go to the back of the
queue. This is not to say that the teams are
populated by ‘ordinary’ design engineers,
the engineering personnel in most of
the teams, especially the top teams, is
exceptional and they are exceptional in
every branch of their racing endeavour.
Most teams use sophisticated analytical
techniques for discrete parts and sometimes
assemblies, but whole-body simulations
are rare, unless they are done by the OEM
companies (Ford, GM, Nissan).
Most of the top teams make their own
uprights and front and rear subframe
assemblies. The control chassis mandates
the location of the transaxle and the hard
points for the front suspensions and hard
points for front and rear subframes -
everything else is under the control of the
teams.
Even if you don't have control over
components it's useful to know what it
does, so most teams regularly test the
bending and torsional stiffness of the
chassis, so they know what they are
working with.
Some teams tend to consider driver training
and development above the latest and
greatest technical innovations. Things like
low oxygen (hypoxic) training rooms to build
up driver’s red blood cells and improve their
ability to perform, towards the end of long
endurance races.
They are also looking at simulators, but
nothing like the kind of devices used in F1.
The potential budgets for simulators are
probably in the $1 - 3 million range and the
main purpose would be for driver familiarisation
and discrete component simulation. The
major benefit will be in driver training, so that
they can simulate the racing environment as
effectively as possible to provide the driver
with the same kind of visual and physical
feedback that he would experience during
the race. It is unlikely that they would get
data from the simulator that would allow
them to improve the car significantly,
because they are limited in terms of what
changes they can make.
It's very difficult to tune the suspension
effectively from simulation data unless you
have a very sophisticated tyre map. So, the
best way of achieving a good car for qualification
and racing is to do as much testing
on the track as possible and this they do
that at every race. If they get everything
right, the car will perform straight out the
box, if not it will take a few races to achieve
the level of performance they’re looking for.
It is more effective to spend the simulation
money on kinematic and compliance rigs
where races can be rerun using collected
race data, to see if changes can be made
to individual components to increase
performance against real data. In many
cases it's not even worth using a four-post
rig as they cost more for very little added
benefit. It is often cheaper to ship cars of
the UK and have them put through their
paces on an SKCMS rig (Suspension
Kinematics and Compliance Measurement
System), than to spend the money acquiring
the same equipment in Australia.
They can still achieve a good balance for the
start of each race weekend at new track.
They don't like to change the car too much
from one race to the next, as you can throw
out the setup completely by changing too
many things at the same time. Experience
is critical.
Kiwi Scott McLaughlin
and DJR Team Penske -
the team to beat
/www.engineeringnews.co.nz