This article appeared in Racecar Engineering, The International Journal of Motorsport Technology (RCE V19 N12).

As a computer scientist, I find it hard to comprehend that you cannot always quantify engineering. Computers represent, in many respects, a form of perfect engineering, free from the burdens of materials, tolerances and the infinite physics of an environment. In theory, a given operation is entirely predictable whether it is invoked once, twice or a thousand times.

The same cannot be said for most forms of motorsport engineering. Despite absolutely every possible effort being taken to minimise variance, there is no guarantee that two engines, two chassis or two sets of tyres, for example, will ever perform equally – despite being manufactured to an identical specification. And so, I was wondering, if you cannot quantify the manufacturing itself, is it possible to at least quantify the performance gain between different engines?

Formula Ford and the legend of Patch

Ever since the hey day of Formula Ford, there have been stories of engines that have dominated the formula. And the legend that is Patch demonstrates this well.

Patch was a Kent engine with remarkable pedigree. It is most well-known for powering four different drivers to successive Formula Ford Festival wins - Roberto Moreno (1980), Tommy Byrne (1981), Julian Bailey (1982) and Andrew Gilbert-Scott (1983). Additionally in 1981, it also believed to have powered a young 21-year old Ayrton Senna to the RAC and Townsend-Thoreson championships, in the same works-run Van Diemen that Tommy Byrne piloted to victory in the Festival.

However, the origins of Patch are rooted earlier with a young South African driver called Trevor Van Rooyen.  In 1977, Van Rooyen piloted a semi-works run Royale RP24 with a self-built (but Minister badged) engine. That year, Van Rooyen won the RAC championship and in the process won a staggering 33 races. However, the following year (1978), Van Rooyen’s engine was destroyed in a test session and the South African returned to his native land. For the record, Van Rooyen went on to enjoy a distinguished career which included winning the 1985 South African Formula Two championship.

Leading Engine builder Graham Fuller (Minister International) subsequently repaired the broken block, welding a ‘patch’ of aluminium where the block was damaged. The engine then returned to racing during the 1980s and to claim its place in history.

Whilst many would argue that much of the latter successes of ‘Patch’ was due to powering a works Van Diemen chassis, the dominance of which would invariably attract the fastest drivers anyway, the legend of ‘Patch’ continues to be known as the greatest advantage a Formula Ford driver could possibly have.

Formula Ford engine power and torque curves

The following is the dynamometer chart from my Formula Ford (1600 Kent) engine when it is was rebuilt in January 2009.

The vital statistics are that at the time of the rebuilt, this engine produced 105.8 BHP at 5800 RPM and 148.8 NM/torque at 4400 RPM.

The problem is that with only data from a single engine, who is to say whether or not this is a strong engine? What’s more, any comparison would only be valid if it were also from the same dynamometer. However, after a year of racing in Formula Ford I would suggest that immediately after being rebuilt, this engine was average. It was not poor but it was also not great and as the season progressed and the engine ran hotter, it became an obvious disadvantage.

But my question is, what did this disadvantage really do to my laptime?

rFactor for real world simulation

Image Space Incorporated have been producing world class simulations for over a decade and the latest incarnation of which is rFactor. Consumer distribution is almost exclusively online and the success of which is demonstrated by the large, dedicated and vibrant community of contributors it has amassed. GMotor2, the 3D and physics engine behind rFactor is utilised and licensed in many other popular sim racing titles including GTR2, ARCA Sim Racing and RACE – The Official WTCC Game. What’s more, Formula One teams including Williams F1, Red Bull and Ferrari use a (albeit customised) version of rFactor (and gMotor2) for their in-house simulators.

I could have approached this problem using a headless simulation such as Bosch’s LapSim. However, as a driver, the benefits of using an interactive simulation are too attractive. None the less, in the future, I might still do this and it would be interesting to further validate the results.

A more accurate Formula Ford for rFactor

In an attempt to answer this question, I have modelled the physics of a Formula Ford 1600 that is as close to my Swift SC94 Formula Ford as possible. In the process, I have accurately modelled the suspension geometry, imported the power and torque data from my engine and re-profiled the tyre slip curve to one that resembles the Avon ACB10.

To demonstrate its potential, the following is a comparison of two similar laps (within one tenth of a second) of the Silverstone National circuit. The blue trace is the actual speed (mph) sampled from my Swift SC94 on 27 June 2009 whilst the red line is the same speed sampled from a simulated lap of the same circuit.

It would be unrealistic to assume that the two traces would perfectly overlap. This particular lap of data was sampled during race conditions and at the time I was dicing closely with two other competitors. There is also a degree of precision lost in comparing data sampled from two different loggers (one of which being virtual) as there is a small variation in actual sample frequencies. Finally and inevitably, there are small inaccuracies in both the Formula Ford physics and indeed the ISI model of the Silverstone circuit (Formula One teams will have access to much more accurate surface data, for example).

However, for the purposes of answering my question, it is sufficient and accurate somewhere in the region of about 2-5% at terminal speed (comparing speed and RPM).

The following video is two sample laps of Silverstone National circuit using the simulator (one of which produced the simulated data shown above).

One final note before I move on. Whilst I would love to contribute this work to the rFactor community and make it available for download, I can only take credit for remodelling the physics of the car. The artwork and 3D model itself originates from the impressive netkar PRO and doing so would be a violation of their copyright and intellectual property. The original conversion of the car encountered similar problems and for those reasons I will continue to respect the rights of these parties but thank them for their hard work.

Building three more powerful engines – artificially, that is

I have remodelled the engine power and torque curves three times – with two, five and ten more horse power. This is obviously theoretical; a real engine producing more peak power would do so with a entirely different power curve. If anybody has dynamometer data from their own Formula Ford engine please drop me an e-mail.

Running the experiment

I have run four separate 20-minute simulations of Silverstone. In order to minimise driver inconsistency I will be using the worlds best test driver – the computer. This enables me to run four near identical sessions. Internally the rFactor AI uses predefined way-points on the circuit to drive each lap.

A summary of each session is shown in the table below.

The following chart shows the individual lap times for each session run.

Finally, the following two charts show the speed and RPM traces respectively, for the fastest lap in each session.

Making sense of it all

I don’t think there is any particular surprises in the results. The fastest overall lap time was set using the most powerful engine. Ten extra horse power yielded a lap time of 62.626 seconds or 1.105 seconds faster than the best lap time set with the standard engine. Similarly, the average lap time was slightly faster still at 1.113 seconds.

An extra five horse power produced a fastest lap time of 63.298 seconds, 0.433 seconds faster than the standard. On average, it was 0.463 seconds faster.

With just two more horse power, the best lap time was 0.183 seconds faster than standard and on average 0.202 seconds faster.

Broadly speaking in this experiment, one horse power equates to roughly a 0.1 second per lap performance. Obviously, this will vary from circuit to circuit.

Back to reality

During the National Formula Ford race weekend in June I qualified in 7th position with a best time of 63.986. This was 1.216 seconds off the pole position time of 62.770, set by Rory Butcher. For the record, I did not test before this weekend and this qualifying session was the first time I had driven a Formula Ford 1600 around the Silverstone National circuit. I was also driving with a left-rear slow puncture caused by a broken tyre valve core.

If we assume that there was a couple of tenths to be found through familiarisation with the circuit, that brings us close to the fastest simulated time of 63.731. Likewise, Butcher’s pole position time of 62.770 is equally close to the best simulated lap time of 62.626, set with ten extra horse power. However, I would suggest this is probably more coincidence than it is scientific fact. An interesting coincidence, none the less.

Concluding with the caveats

Ultimately, there are many caveats to the conclusions drawn from this experiment. I will reiterate that the remodelled power curves are artificial and in many ways, unrealistic.

There is no allowance for engine wear – at the Silverstone race weekend my engine had run for around 400 miles and probably no longer produced 105.8 BHP at 5800 RPM. However, this works both ways and it could actually mean a horse power differential closer to ten, after all.

The same gear ratios were used for each run (2.40, 1.74, 1.43 and 1.17). These are also the same ratios used during the race weekend. With ten extra horse power, I would expect to run longer gear ratios and suggest this would see a further reduction in lap time. The flat line at the end of the straights on the RPM trace confirms that fourth gear is indeed too short.

Ideally, this experiment would need to be repeated a high number of times before the data is collated and analysed. Unfortunately, one reality of using a real-time simulator such as rFactor is that each 20-minute simulation takes 20-minutes to complete. A headless simulator, such as LapSim, would be able to repeat simulations at a much faster rate and as such produce more reliable results.

As far as I am concerned, this experiment has demonstrated that despite its caveats, a small horse power advantage offers a quantifiable and not insignificant reduction in lap time on the Silverstone National circuit. But even more, it has demonstrated what a brilliant and accurate simulation rFactor really is.

Related posts:

1. Formula Ford (Duratec): Snetterton testing
2. Formula Vee: Pole Position, Fastest Lap and 2nd at Silverstone
3. Articles

At my last count, I believe I raised somewhere in the region of 1600 votes (I can’t be certain of the actual amount due to the unreliability in how votes are recorded). You may be wondering in that case why I did not win a place amongst the final three. On 24th September the voting rules were changed and my votes effectively void.

I have to admit, I’m not entirely surprised. I knew there was only two real outcomes; either I would win a place or I would be disqualified. But none the less, I can’t help feeling slightly disappointed because ultimately I did invest significant effort in the competition.

This is the story of how I achieved my votes and why I believe it was wrong to change the rules and disqualify me.

The Original Rules

When the competition began, I started to think of how I could maximize the number of votes I could achieve. The nature of the contest naturally suits those with ties to large organisations, marketing companies or access to large distribution lists.

The rules for the competition were relatively simple. Of the six relevant clauses the following were of particular interest to me.

Essentially, the competition will allow one vote per e-mail address and up to ten votes per IP address per e-mail domain. In theory, the rules allow for one person to vote up to ten times using Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo or any other provider. And I’m sure that they did.

The reality is that whilst immediate family might have the patience to register tens of e-mail accounts across the Web, it isn’t going to win you the competition.

I needed something more. I wanted to ensure that I achieved the maximum number of votes allowed within the rules. I also wanted to make sure it was as painless and as simple as possible for the voter.

The following diagram shows my solution – aptly named the Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic.

Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic

Essentially, the Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic made it simple for a single voter to register the maximum number of votes allowed under the rules.

The voter initially enters his or her e-mail address into the Vote-O-Matic on my website. Upon submission, this fires an XMLHttpRequest to a webservice, also on my web server, which itself fires another call to a webservice on a Mail Relay I had set up.

The Mail Relay creates ten unique e-mail addresses for four different e-mail domains, each of which are configured to forward to the voters original e-mail address. These addresses are then passed back to the webservice on my web server and finally back to the Vote-O-Matic via JSON.

For each e-mail address (40 new plus the one original), an iframe which contains the voting form is created dynamically. The e-mail address is then injected into the form and at scheduled intervals (for 30 seconds), each form is submitted (the intervals are delayed to prevent the browser DOM becoming overloaded and causing a Denial of Service on the DriverDB server). At the this point the vote has been cast. (NB: 40 votes is an arbitrary number I felt was sufficient to win).

In case you are wondering, the Raison d’être for submitting votes in this way (using Javascript and iframes) is to ensure that each vote still originates from the users IP address and not my webserver.

The user now receives 41 validation e-mails in their original inbox and they must manually confirm each vote individual before it is valid.

Ultimately, both the IP address that submitted the vote and the IP address that confirmed the vote match and every e-mail address continues to be manually validated by the voter. This process is the same as a voter manually registering a number of e-mail accounts and voting multiple times.

For a demonstration of the Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic see the video below.

The Unfair Advantage

I believe that Mark Donohoe would have called this The Unfair Advantage. I also believe that Perry McCarthy would have done the same (given his history with the Racing for Britain programme).

Alternative interpretations of rules is as much a part of motorsport as the racing itself. You could in fact argue that in modern Formula One it is the greater force. You can take this years double decker diffuser row as a case in point. I consider the Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic to be my diffuser – my way of performing up to the maximum allowed by the rules.

I would like to point out that at no point did I attempt to deceive the organisers of the competition. Each unique e-mail address was an obvious collection of random characters. I could have generated e-mail addresses against a word list to create more authenticate looking addresses. What’s more, the pool of subdomains was also kept intentionally small.

A Late Addition to the Rules

On 24th September an e-mail was sent to all participants in the competition introducing a new clause to the rules.

The first part of this clause is obviously directed at the Grand Prix Shootout Vote-O-Matic where as the latter is not applicable to me.

In my opinion, this addition to the rules confirms that the original rules were not broken. Whether it is in the “spirit of the rules” is a matter of opinion and I have made mine open.

The outright winner of the competition, Karline Stala, did so with 7038 votes. However, despite 7038 votes there are no more than 4200 unique IP addresses. I would be interested to understand the voting pattern that produces this and I would welcome a raw log of all votes (including my own) to be published and made accessible.

Not Hard Done By

I would like to reiterate that I actually do not feel hard done by. I knew that the Grand Prix Vote-O-Matic would either see me win or be disqualified but I felt that it was an interesting enough story the share none-the-less. I am content in the knowledge that I did in fact secure enough votes to win a place in the Grand Prix Shootout and I would like to extend my thanks to all those who voted for me.

If we are to learn one thing from this story it is this. Internet voting, of any kind, is and will always be inherently insecure. In the words of one of the worlds most influential computer security experts, Bruce Schneier:

Related posts:

1. Vote for me in the Grand Prix Shootout!
2. The Death of the 2010 British Grand Prix?
3. Dunlop Race Academy: Now with Motorsport News

Let’s hope that my prophecy is wrong. Maybe Simon Gillett and his team will emerge as the saviours of the British Grand Prix. Maybe, but I don’t think so and this is why.

1. TunnelGate

Have you ever looked back with the benefit of hindsight and thought to yourself that something that happened along the way should have warned you of the outcome? Well, I have and I think this is good example of another.

Construction work on the tunnel between McLean’s and Coppice began on the weekend of February 7th and 8th. The rationale was simple: to stop construction traffic crossing the circuit and to keep the circuit operational whilst the extensive and elaborate circuit modifications were completed.

Copyright © Malcom Edeson.

Copyright © al_green.

The only problem was, nobody thought it through. Every single kid in the world knows how much easier it is to take something apart than it is to put it back together again.  And that was the problem. When they had finished constructing the tunnel, they neglected to reinstate the run-off, instead placing the barriers (also now part of the structural integrity of the tunnel) quite literally feet from the track.

Copyright © al_green.

It was the following weekend that I first had an opportunity to drive the new section of track. It took just one pass for me and my colleagues to know it wasn’t safe. Ultimately, I guess that what’s most disturbing about this whole episode. It is the fact that nobody involved in the construction, the circuit management, architects and builders thought so too.

Unsurprisingly, the Motor Sports Association (MSA) refused to grant Donington Park a license for 2009 on safety grounds until modifications were made to rectify the problem. This caused the first major casualty of the works and the British Formula Three and British GT meeting was postened until July.

None the less, by the time the British Tourng Car Championship round in May came around, the track was ammended and the MSA granted Donington Park the necessary permit for racing.

2. TunnelGate Returns

The most recent episode in the TunnelGate fiasco occurred last weekend when I was at the circuit for the BRSCC Midland South Formula Ford 1600 championship. It was raining, heavily, but not severely. I have raced in worse and what’s more, I have also worked at Donington Park in conditions just as bad.

The problems started around midday when track activities were postponed whilst the MSA Clerks assessed the flooding of the circuit between McLean’s and Coppice (the location of the new tunnel). The area of new track had become a large, two inch deep puddle. The organising club and the MSA officials did everything they could to get track activities resumed but after bringing in a pump to remove the standing water, the (reinstated) run-off subsided and the Clerks finally relented and cancelled the meeting.

The official line printed in Autosport magazine was that the build up of water was caused by a drainage pipe that had been crushed during the earlier construction works. Plausible, but I don’t think that’s the whole truth. Sources at the meeting hinted that the new surface was absolutely flat with no crown (and therefore provided no natural drainage) and that the tarmac used was of an unusually poor quality.

3. The Recession and an Ambiguous Business Model

Pitpass has published a series of great articles on the business of chief executive Simon Gillett and his company, Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd. (DVL). Upon it’s announcement, the £100 million redevelopment was to be funded by an anonymous, private investor. It later emerged that a proposed deal with sports marketing giant IMG and investment bank Goldman Sachs was withdrawn when the bank was unable to justify the £100 million investment in the current economic climate – despite Gilletts optmisitic projections of a £175 million return over 10 years.

Since that time Gillett claims he has another individual debenture scheme with predictions worth £140 million. The bottom line is that if Gillett and DVL can’t raise the necessary funds within the next month, construction work will cease and ultimately, the British Grand Prix will be lost.

4. Welsh Local Motorsport Centre of Excellence

Simon Gillett’s previous venture was an attempt to establish a Local Motorsport Centre of Excellence in South Wales on disused mining land around Garn-yr-Erw. The “world class” facility would have created around 200 local jobs and included a 60-room hotel, conference centre and off-road facilities.

However, after his Innovate Motorsport (note that this company is now in liquidation) failed to secure the necessary planning permission (sound familiar?), Gillett vowed to move the programme to a site in the Midlands (Donington Park) with £30 million of investment. A year later and six months after Gillett sold his share in the company Innovate Motorsport went bust owing £200,000 to its creditors.

My own sources close to event security firm Mckenzie Arnold, who recently pulled their staff from operating at the facility, confirm allegations of unpaid bills related back as far as 2008. Taken in the context of fresh BBC allegations that contract catering firm Eclipse Catering are currently owed £46,000 by DVL (having been involved with Donington Park for almost eight years) and rent arrears with the landowners,  it does little to calm fears that Donington Ventures Leisure wont share the same fate as its predecessor.

5. Local Infrastructure

In 2002, a £56 million pound investment was made to improve the main arterial route to Silverstone – the A43. With four lanes of dual carriage-way traffic leading to its gate, Silverstone is better equipped than any other circuit in the country to deal with the influx of traffic that a Grand Prix creates.

Donington Park on the other hand, is not. Whilst DVL will tell you Donington Park lies central between the M1, A42, A50 and not far from the M42, the fact remains that it requires miles of single carriage way road to reach the circuits gate.

Should Gillett and his team defy the odds and the 2010 British Grand Prix actually goes ahead,  it could well be 2011 before anybody actually gets out.

6. Timescales

Even if the required investment is made in time for construction to begin, my final reservations lie in whether or not there is in fact enough time for construction to be completed before the Grand Prix in twelve months time. Bernie Ecclestone recently imposed a September deadline for the inspection of progress and as somebody who visits Donington Park regularly, with the exception of the new Tunnel and the removal of the iconic Dunlop bridge, nothing much has changed. And given the FIA deadline for track inspection of April 1st, necessary to grant Donington Park the type of license required to host a Grand Prix, the chances of completing the elaborate redevelopments seems increasingly slim.

Time until FIA Donington Park Deadline:
3 months, 30 days, 22 hours, 38 minutes, 40 seconds ago

The Bottom Line

Honestly, I hope I am wrong. If Gillett and his team deliver on their promises then the British Grand Prix will continue to prosper for years to come. However, the alternative is bleak and I fear that in out manoeuvring Silverstone and the BRDC, Mr Ecclestone may well inadvertantly deprive Britain of our blue ribband event and ultimately damage the motorsport industry.

Motor sport contributes an estimated £5 billion annually to the UK economy and much of that depends on the Formula One teams and ancillary suppliers which are based here. Without a Grand Prix and despite the potential of two different British World Champions in succession, it seems unlikely that Britain can sustain its position as the centre of motor sports technology, innovation and culture.

Related posts:

1. The Donington Park Farce
2. In an alternate reality, would we still have Lewis Hamilton?
3. Where does all the money go?

Before I say anything more, I’d like to state where I stand on these matters. I am, overwhelmingly, in favour of the London 2012 Olympic Games. I do not disagree with the funding expectations of athletes or with the investment in sporting and public infrastructure it requires. What’s more, I have little doubt that there is indeed, a correlation between a nation’s investment in sport and its Olympic medal success. After all, I know this to be true in motor sport.

The table below summarises the largest funding cuts.

Let’s take Fencing as an example.

For the Beijing 2008 Olympics, Team GB fielded three athletes: Martina Emanuel, Richard Kruse and Alex O’Connell. They were allocated £3.07 million for the games and their efforts yielded zero medals.

For London 2012, Team GB will be allocated £1.26 million, representing a 59% decrease when compared with the previous games.

Is £1.26 million too little or too much? If in London 2012, Team GB were to again field three athletes, it would represent a cost of roughly £400,000 per athlete, or £100,000 per athlete per year. Or, if they were to double the number of athletes (six), pay each athlete a salary of £20,000 per year, they would still have £780,000 to spend on coaching, promotion and facilities over the four year period.

That doesn’t seem so bad to me.

So here’s the question: how much public funding should sports really receive? Should there be a relationship between the level of funding a sport receives, its contribution to the UK economy and the level of participation both in terms of audience and competitors? If this is the case, is it right that grass-roots motor sport receives little, if any public (or lottery) funding, especially considering as an industry, it contributes an estimated £6 billion to the UK economy?

I don’t think for one moment that public money should fund the career of any young racing driver. However, shouldn’t there be more balance? If that same £1.26 million allocated to Fencing over a four year period was also allocated to motor sports – what impact could that have on grass-roots participation?

Related posts:

1. In an alternate reality, would we still have Lewis Hamilton?
2. The Racing Steps Foundation… almost.
3. Dunlop Race Academy: Now with Motorsport News

When I first saw the calendar for the National Formula Ford 1600 championship, that was the impression I got. It is a true championship of the British Isles with two rounds in Wales (Anglesey, Pembrey), one round in Scotland (Knockhill), one round in Ireland (Mondello Park) and the other five in England (Snetterton, Silverstone and Castle Combe).

And for me at least, that means a lot of travel.

Nobody really wants to race at the same circuit every weekend and in having a diverse calendar not only gives a championship more credibility but in theory, it also gives itself the widest possible audience of competitors (the likely case in National Formula Ford 1600). But the question is this: does there come a point in which the sheer amount of traveling involved in a championship undermines the motivation to compete?

I decided I’d take a look at the other single seater championships in Britain and see how they compare.

Calculate your own season travel costs using this tool

To collect this data I have created a simple tool that given a post code and a calendar of races, gives an estimate to the likely travel costs. You can find this tool (and try it for yourself) here: Link to Calculate Season Travel Cost Tool.

Comparing the Data

So, from the six main single seater championships this year, National Formula Ford 1600, for me at least, involves the most significant amount of travel, from the second smallest number of meetings. In fact, if I was to substitute my home address for say, Manchester, there would be no difference in outcome (4169 miles).

What’s more, in National Formula Ford 1600, trips to Ireland, Scotland and Wales generally mean three day weekends and therefore, hotels. And so the real figure is actually likely to be much higher indeed.

You might be thinking that £751.79 doesn’t seem that much money, especially considering how much it costs to compete in motorsport in the first place. But it isn’t the amount itself that is important, it is the number relative to other series.

In a year in which the UK economy is officially in recession, is it sensible that the National Formula Ford 1600 championship has 35% more travel than its British Formula Ford counterpart (bearing in mind that National Formula Ford is supposedly an affordable “club” championship)?

Either way: right or wrong, smart or dumb, that’s how it is and as I’d like to challenge for the title, I will have to find a way. But it does make you wonder, doesn’t it?

Related posts:

1. Tools
2. Formula Ford: About Pembrey
3. Who is the most successful country in motorsport and F1?