Judging from what I've read it sounds like more than that to me. I think they are testing setups and helping the drivers to improve their ability to adapt to setup and condition changes and probably even virtually testing new parts.

If they were only using the simulator for the sort of things you mention then there wouldn't be much point in PDLR and Paffett, as test drivers, spending so much time in it.

Might be testing cockpit components too - trying a new seat for 3 hours, or dash warning lights etc is much cheaper on a sim.

They can't test aero stuff on it, as it won't be accurate enough. Can't test tyre stuff on it because we don't understand tyres enough (even clever F1 people don't - even Bridgestone people don't!). Maybe mechanical stuff. But it won't be to aid driver skill. If it was they'd just hire cheaper drivers and train them in the sim, rather then buy world champions....

Quote from tristancliffe :

If it was they'd just hire cheaper drivers and train them in the sim, rather then buy world champions....

Nicely put!
Says it all really.

Quote from tristancliffe :

If it was they'd just hire cheaper drivers and train them in the sim, rather then buy world champions....

Maybe they should?

Seriously though, the thing cost 60 million pounds and LH has done more than 1000 h in it so I believe it is more advanced than you think.

Somebody get a job at McLaren and find out, it's the only way to find out for sure.

To add to what tristian said. They probably use it to do things like

Race Legnths in extreme heats (to simulate fatigue caused by heat :P)
Testing New Steering wheel arrangments (i dunno)
Possibly the sequence of formation lap, Race Start, Safety Cars, and race restarts.

I dont know but they could probably use it for other things.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Somebody get a job at McLaren and find out, it's the only way to find out for sure.

I have a mates dad who used to work for mclaren. If i ever get the chance i will ask about it, as it seems to have been mentioned a few times in the past.

Quote from J.B. :

Maybe they should?

Seriously though, the thing cost 60 million pounds and LH has done more than 1000 h in it so I believe it is more advanced than you think.

It probably is more advanced than I think, but there is no way it can do accurate aero analysis (so they can't be using it for aero part development/trialling), there is no way it can do accurate tyre simulation (so it cannot be used to get used to tyre behaviour to any level of accuracy). Therefore, without these two main aspects along with the fact that by the time they get on the simulation they are already acknowledged as some of the best drivers in the world, it cannot possible be used to aid driver talent or a lot of vehicle development.

It might be useful for procedures, stamina, or mechanical testing (e.g. setup work, where you want to see how a car reacts to more front roll resistance in a fairly vague fashion, as the dynamic aero solution will be 'best guess'). It can also be used to trial strategies, learn tracks (depending on the accuracy of the track map - would it work at Monaco; I think not).

I'm not denying it's USEFULNESS, I'm saying that the uses are not the ones initially guessed in this thread.

Of course they can't get aero or tyres perfect but we don't know how close they can get. Aero wouldn't be realtime but they could use CFD and the wind tunnel to create loads of data and then drive the sim with this data. And on the tyres side there's no doubt that Bridgestone and Michelin know more than anyone else about the physics.

Hopefully in time more info will become available about the simulator.

id hazzard a guess that for 60 mil you could come up with a computer that can do a low res tyre fem in real time

Quote from tristancliffe :

I doubt any computer simulation will help an F1 driver ever...

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'm not denying it's USEFULNESS..

Riiiiight. I'm with you. It won't help, but it is useful? I'm glad we cleared that up.

I think you should send a memo to McLaren outlining how they have wasted up to $60,000,000 and thousands of hours of time on an unhelpful useful machine. Fax it to Attn: Ron Dennis, c/o McLaren. Oh, and don't forget to stamp it "URGENT!"

Quote from tristancliffe :

...they are not driving the simulator to teach driving habits, but to aid situational practice...

Quote from tristancliffe :

...there is no way it can do accurate aero analysis (so they can't be using it for aero part development/trialling), there is no way it can do accurate tyre simulation (so it cannot be used to get used to tyre behaviour to any level of accuracy). ...it cannot possible be used to aid driver talent or a lot of vehicle development.

Do you have a source for any of this information, or should we just add it to the long list of things that you enjoy extracting from your arse?

I can feel a 'stupid australian convict' stereotype brewing here.

Hamilton will not use the simulator to hone his driving. If they could do that they wouldn't have put him through the lower formulae. They wouldn't hire Alonso, they're hire Scott Speed and train him.... Thus 'not useful EVER to F1 drivers'.

However, it is useful in OTHER ways. D'ya see now? The moronic blur clearing out of your worn out retinas? They CAN use it, IN MY OPINION, to aid their motorsport activities as I have mentioned below.

Again, as with ANY internet forum posting other than HARD FACT, it is simply my opinion. You might think that F1 people at Bridgestone can do workable (accurate) tyre simulations, but I know that they cannot. I also doubt the aero is made from tables from wind tunnel data - they still test aero stuff BECAUSE WIND TUNNELS ARE NOT RELIABLE, so why would they put known innaccurate data into a simulator to train drivers or test aero parts - answer: they wouldn't.

Quote from sam1600 :

Do you have a source for any of this information, or should we just add it to the long list of things that you enjoy extracting from your arse?

Yes. Wind tunnel figures are OFTEN (over 70% of the time) wildly different from what happens on track, especially in transient conditions. Read many many interviews over the last @6 years to see this trend. If the data is no good (mostly) from wind tunnels against CFD against reality, then why should a simulator (that costs a lot less than a wind tunnel, and probably includes a $30m car in it) suddenly be realistic in real time (CFD is not real time, and wind tunnels are largely non-transient.

As for the tyre data, why do the teams get caught out with graining. With wear. With pressures. How did Michelin make a 'wrong' tyre for Indy? Why, when testing tyres, to Bridgestone use either real cars or rigs with real tyres against moving 'tarmac' (wheel equiv of a wind tunnel)? Because simulations are lousy at being realistic.

Now, if you were trying to improve two/four of the best drivers in the world, using the 'best', most technologically advanced cars, on the most over analysed tyres in the world, to gain perhap 0.05 seconds per minute (0.08% improvement), would YOU be happy using at best 95% accurate data? Do you think you are likely to split the atom using a hammer and chisel?

Bloody Australians. What have they ever done for us. (this is HUMOUR. Watch Holy Grail [Monty Python] if you don't understand it)

Tristan is absolutely correct (imho). They have a simulation, I'm sure an accurate one, based on all the data they have collected, but I don't see Bridgestone closing its test facilites and McLaren selling its wind tunnel and abandoning all the costly real-life testing that they do.

It's for driver practice, to get an idea of what turn one might be like when you start from the grid slot, to learn the tracks you haven't visited before, to hone strategy and quite probably basic aero/gearing setup.
I'm sure a novice could be taught to become "quite" competent in real car with it, and perhaps Hamilton is faster at a new track earlier in the weekend because of it, but I don't think his ultimate pace is any quicker because of a few hours in the simulator, and I'm certain a novice who could drive to within a few tenths of the pros in the sim would still be nowhere on the real track.

A new little snippet of info from Mark Blundell at www.itv-f1.com

Lewis Hamilton was reported to have put in eight hours of driving a day in the McLaren simulator whilst preparing for his rookie season. Can you tell us more about the nature of F1 simulators and what it involves?

Alex
London

These are high-tech race car simulators that can be used for driving a new circuit, setting up a car, changing a part and getting feedback, and can even apply some forces that the driver will feel physically in the car on the track.

They are very much the trend at the moment and I think more and more teams will use them, as they are great to evaluate drivers and compare data without spending huge amounts of money on track testing with a rookie.

And of course there is no risk.

But at the end of the day they still don’t replace the real thing!

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature. ... ;PO_ID=39309&PO=39309

Not really any new information, but interesting nonetheless.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I doubt any computer simulation will help an F1 driver ever

Those are big words, they lept off the page at me. look how far simulation has come in the last few years? look at the test restrictions in f1 now.. so it would make sense to push the technology as far as it can possible go. as far as i see, the only thing they cant simulate is the danger. and yanno if they really wanted to they actually could simulate that too. but thats silly talk. crash the sim and it will break your back lol

sry if this was said already tl;dr and all that.

Richie

Quote from Richie Cahill :

Those are big words, they lept off the page at me. look how far simulation has come in the last few years? look at the test restrictions in f1 now.. so it would make sense to push the technology as far as it can possible go. as far as i see, the only thing they cant simulate is the danger. and yanno if they really wanted to they actually could simulate that too. but thats silly talk. crash the sim and it will break your back lol

sry if this was said already tl;dr and all that.

Richie

Well the only way to truely simulate something is to have EVERYTHING about a car simulated real-time. This would mean everything down to how the hoodpins on a tintop would disrupt the tiny little bit of airflow, or how rivets create disturbances in airflow, the lise could go on and on of items that have not even begun to enter into simulations. What about driveline load and flex? Proper Chassis flex? The best chassis setup in the world will not perform if the chassis moves with an increase in forces. Gearplay is also not calculated so ATM everything is solid. This isn't even mentioning that nothing for simulations are calculated "real-time" LFS does calculate some of the basics but even then it's only at 100hz IIRC and thats nowhere near a RL clocking speed.

Quote from Viper93 :

Well the only way to truely simulate something is to have EVERYTHING about a car simulated real-time. This would mean everything down to how the hoodpins on a tintop would disrupt the tiny little bit of airflow, or how rivets create disturbances in airflow, the lise could go on and on of items that have not even begun to enter into simulations. What about driveline load and flex? Proper Chassis flex? The best chassis setup in the world will not perform if the chassis moves with an increase in forces. Gearplay is also not calculated so ATM everything is solid. This isn't even mentioning that nothing for simulations are calculated "real-time" LFS does calculate some of the basics but even then it's only at 100hz IIRC and thats nowhere near a RL clocking speed.

All in good time I'd wager. they are pretty close to simlating a mouse brain, the future will bring faster and faster computers capable of simulating all these things, where theres a will theres a way, and there is a will.
colour me an optimist if you will.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes. Wind tunnel figures are OFTEN (over 70% of the time) wildly different from what happens on track, especially in transient conditions. Read many many interviews over the last @6 years to see this trend. If the data is no good (mostly) from wind tunnels against CFD against reality, then why should a simulator (that costs a lot less than a wind tunnel, and probably includes a $30m car in it) suddenly be realistic in real time (CFD is not real time, and wind tunnels are largely non-transient.

As for the tyre data, why do the teams get caught out with graining. With wear. With pressures. How did Michelin make a 'wrong' tyre for Indy? Why, when testing tyres, to Bridgestone use either real cars or rigs with real tyres against moving 'tarmac' (wheel equiv of a wind tunnel)? Because simulations are lousy at being realistic.

Now, if you were trying to improve two/four of the best drivers in the world, using the 'best', most technologically advanced cars, on the most over analysed tyres in the world, to gain perhap 0.05 seconds per minute (0.08% improvement), would YOU be happy using at best 95% accurate data? Do you think you are likely to split the atom using a hammer and chisel?

Bloody Australians. What have they ever done for us. (this is HUMOUR. Watch Holy Grail [Monty Python] if you don't understand it)

The Aquaduct, Roads, Public Health, Schools....

F__cking Britains Splitters!

Quote from Richie Cahill :

All in good time I'd wager. they are pretty close to simlating a mouse brain, the future will bring faster and faster computers capable of simulating all these things, where theres a will theres a way, and there is a will.
colour me an optimist if you will.

Even if computer speed is no longer a problem.

It might take a team a lifetime to code all that, and it will cost more then the real thing, and no one will invest in something like these just for the sake of having it, hence I don't think it will ever happen. It's be more likely developed into smaller more specified simulations rather then one and only ultimate realism machine.

the simulator might not improve the driver skills... but possibly (for sure) improves his skills in that particular track...

if there was a blackwood track IRL, lfs players would have a major advantage against drivers that never driven there, or driven a week 1 year before.

knowing how much they can push, braking points and stuff

oh and by the way... just for you guys... even the game wtcc which is not as good as the maclaren sim (I think :P) a player changed the car setup for a track and later found out that his setup was very close the real setup used by that team IRL.

oh... and trainning a "normal" guy instead of a professional... even if both had same skills that doesnt mean the normal guy can drive phisically IRL as good... fear also makes a lot of difference

also knowing the track helps being confortable and knowing where they prefer to overtake and stuff. familiarity IRL driving makes a hell of a difference. driving in your home track is much easier than on other tracks, (except if you are like me that gets a bit nervous with your friends watching... but still it is better)

Filipe Massa practices at Armaroli Simulator

thursday, 13/3/2007
Fonte: Veja Magazine


To stand the physical stress of the tracks, every racer needs to have a good physical conditioning. He practices, daily, two hours of exercises aeróbicos and weight-training. When it is in Sao Paulo, it usually runs 10 kilometers in the Ibirapuera Park, less then 200 meters of the academy where he practice. Between the appliances that he uses, there is a simulator of direction developed in partnership with the Ferrari. The necessary strength to spin the steering wheel is similar to that of the Formula 1

at rscnet someone is trying to make such a simulator that pulls your head into certain directions. Might prove a little bit dangerous with lfs' collision physics

Quote from mikey_G :

at rscnet someone is trying to make such a simulator that pulls your head into certain directions. Might prove a little bit dangerous with lfs' collision physics

Especially those idiots that insist on ramming you at the end of the race, imagine all those litigation claims for whiplash...

or decapitation