Can Formula 1 really do without wind tunnels by 2030?

That is the hope of many in the sport, and the plan is supported by a majority of the team bosses for the time being.

It was discussed at a meeting of the F1 commission late last year, and in an exploratory vote, eight out of ten teams supported the rationale.

The vote was a “declaration of intent” about something that seemed a long way off at the time. However, any decision that sticks to the 2030 timetable must be made sooner rather than later for everyone to plan the change. So the debate is ongoing.

The idea of ​​an F1 wind tunnel ban is still, to some extent, shaped by the Virgin team’s much-touted efforts to focus on CFD for its 2010 machine, which was hardly a great advertisement for the then ambitious strategy.

The technology has advanced massively since then, and racing cars in other categories have been developed entirely via CFD.

Timo Glock, Virgin VR-01 Cosworth

Photo by: Charles Coates / Motorsport Images

The F1 organization is wholeheartedly behind the move away from wind tunnels. In-house engineers focused on using CFD simulations to help the FIA ​​define the 2022 rule package, although this research became more effective by not removing the FIA ​​CFD resource constraints applied to the teams had to adhere to. This gave him some powerful tools.

There are two obvious reasons for trying to abandon tunnels. First of all, there is the environmental impact associated with the energy requirements of wind tunnels. For this reason, the plan is geared towards the 2030 date set by Formula 1 to make the sport climate neutral.

Tunnels use huge amounts of electricity – an estimate is a typical team bill worth over £ 1 million a year. Multiply that for the 10 F1 teams and you can see why the bosses of the sport are interested in curbing this, even if some competitors – Mercedes in particular – have made it a virtue to use renewable energy.

Apart from the sustainability aspects, the enormous costs themselves are important. The budget ceiling will only go in one direction in the coming years, and that is down. Teams must continue to look for ways to cut their expenses without detracting from the relentless pursuit of performance. Take wind tunnels out of the equation and there is a considerable saving.

The tunnel costs are not only related to the energy bill, but also to the personnel required to operate and maintain them. Added to this are the costs for model making departments, which include salaries as well as materials and machines.

Teams are shy when it comes to accurately quantifying the annual cost of running a tunnel, but estimates start at £ 5 million. Those who don’t have their own tunnels and instead rent time elsewhere typically pay around £ 25,000 a day, which adds up over a season and doesn’t include model costs.

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes W12, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB16B, and Valtteri Bottas, Mercedes W12, are preparing to lead the field away for the start

Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images

CFD supercomputer systems also consume a lot of energy, and they require extensive cooling – just think of the current debate about resource consumption in Bitcoin mining. However, it is still less than required for tunnels.

For many years, teams have had complete freedom in dividing their R&D work between CFD and tunnels. The current aerodynamic test restrictions, as described in the FIA ​​sporting regulations, dictate very specific restrictions on tunneling and CFD use, with an inverted sliding scale – based on last year’s championship position – now used to attribute to the less competitive teams help.

These rules could be slightly tweaked in the years to come to encourage teams to give preference to CFD as the tools keep getting more powerful. But could the FIA ​​really require teams to only use CFD?

The decisive factor is where the technology will be by 2030 – and how Moore’s law, the theory that computing power doubles every two years, will affect.

This method also helps to reduce costs, so that the required computing power becomes cheaper. On the other hand, the price of building a new tunnel while observing the latest technology will only increase.

The teams are understandably suspicious of the sport, which definitely pledges to give up tunnels, but the long lead time leaves them some leeway.

“I think all teams are open to discussion,” said Mattia Binotto from Ferrari. “And open to accept it at some point, because it was a long time ago.

“Are we ready today to ban the wind tunnel? Not at all. I think in general it was always about design simulation and testing, and testing is still very important, whatever it is – aerodynamics, power units, etc.

“I think that we are already reducing the hours in the wind tunnel in order to cut costs, which is a step in the right direction.

“To ban it completely if you did it today would be testing on the track, and that would be even more expensive than doing it in the wind tunnel. So I think the times are not right for a decision today. “

“The danger is that people will lose touch with the track,” says Marcin Budkowski from Alpine. “And the tunnel is an important element in it. Formula 1 loves challenges, and I think if you tell us that in 10 years we will move away from something that is essential for development because we will ramp up the simulation.” Part of it, I think it’s doable. “

One of the big supporters of switching to CFD is Red Bull Racing, a team known for their aerodynamic excellence and of course led by Adrian Newey. He fully supports any eventual ban, noting that “wind tunnels were great but served their purpose”.

His team boss is also looking forward to the change.

“That is a topic that I took up a few months ago,” says Christian Horner. “A wind tunnel is not particularly efficient, it is not very environmentally friendly.

“The way CFD evolves so quickly – for example, the Valkyrie never went into a wind tunnel a single time during its entire development phase – I think if you look at a 10-year perspective, it’s far enough away that these effective dinosaur machines that use a lot of electricity and electricity are a thing of the past. Formula 1 should be state-of-the-art. “

Horner points out that F1 is attracting more high-tech partners and sponsors, the kind of people who could help provide the computing power needed. In contrast, wind tunnels represent an investment outlay.

“We’re seeing more and more investment from the technology sector, so why not be the showcase for this technology with F1?” he says. “I think when it’s about 10 years away then there is a glide path that every team knows is coming and you adjust your investment accordingly over time.”

This is an important point. Some teams have relatively new or recently upgraded tunnels that do not require large investments in the years to come. However, others, particularly Aston Martin and McLaren, plan to build new facilities that will now have a relatively short lifespan.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB16B

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

Despite the prospect that the new tunnel will be obsolete in less than a decade, Aston Martin still intends to make the investment.

“We are now planning to build a tunnel,” says Otmar Szafnauer. “I think aerodynamics are still a big differentiator in our sport, and having your own or not having your own can be detrimental, so maybe one can put it right.

“So right now we are seriously thinking about building the tunnel, and we will probably start it soon. The 2030 question, if we can do it in a couple of years, I think there is still a decent amount of time to go by.” to make use of a new tunnel. “

Teams like Aston and McLaren now building new tunnels could actually be in a strong position in 2027-29 as rivals choose not to invest in updated technology and be content with what they have right now.

Szafnauer warns that tunnels will remain indispensable for at least a few years.

“The way we sit here now, CFD cannot replace tunnels,” he says. “Not what we use CFD for. CFD is great when you need to solve very simple wings or aerodynamic problems.

“But an F1 car has so many interactions and so many subtleties that you want to solve, and CFD is not currently capable of doing this.

“There are aspects of CFD where you can do this work, but to just do CFD it’s not as good as CFD with a tunnel.”

He also questions the overall financial savings, meaning money may be wasted getting pieces of CFD straight into the original car only to find out that they don’t work as intended.

“Running a tunnel doesn’t cost you that much,” he says. “It’s just the electricity and a little maintenance every now and then. They replace expensive straps, but not as often.

“The expensive part of a tunnel program is making the model parts that you need to put into a tunnel. That’s the expensive part. So getting rid of the tunnel tests can certainly save you some money.

Otmar Szafnauer, Team Principal and CEO, Aston Martin F1, at the pit wall

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images

“But then there will always be unintended consequences if you don’t really get what you want on the car, and then you drive it for the first time, and that’s not good, and then you throw all these parts away. Before you go you know what? You did in the tunnel, you are now on the line.

“These are 100% auto parts and they are more expensive. So it will not be 100% savings on what you are now spending in the tunnel.”

Similarly, some have cited safety concerns should teams be forced to skip the model / tunnel phase and head straight onto the track where problems could arise.

“I think there was broad agreement that this will happen in the long term,” said Toto Wolff after the initial vote last year. “But it’s such a massive regulatory change that also brings with it certain security aspects.

“We mustn’t forget that these cars are the fastest in the world, with the most downforce, and we don’t want to experiment live with drivers in the CFD-based cars.”

One suggestion is that a limited amount of tunnel use could be maintained after 2030, mainly for safety clearance with full-size cars. The Sauber tunnel in Hinwil, for example, is able to carry out such tests.

An alternative would be the reintroduction of aerodynamic straight-line stability with real cars, which has not been on the agenda for several years.

With or without a tunnel, aerodynamic research remains an important area of ​​expenditure, where in the end the brightest minds with the best ideas triumph. It’s just the tools used that will change.

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool