German Car Zone

shonguiz · 10-04-2008, 01:04 PM

Translated Q&A (motorline.cc) made by AFCA from Autosport forums with Peter Schöggl, who is the head of 'powertrain engineering' in the race department of the all mighty AVL (Anstalt für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen) (some bimmer fans should know it

) based in the Austrian city of Graz.

Q: The company AVL developes Formula 1 software to carry out various simulations...
Schöggl: ''Not just for Formula 1, AVL is basically the biggest company with regard to the development of combustion engines, the manufacturing of control- and measurement systems as well as simulation tools. In this area AVL is the biggest company worldwide in private ownership with more than 4,200 employees worldwide, almost 2,000 of them work in Graz. Part of our tasks relate to autosport - we collaborate with several racing series: not just Formula 1 but also NASCAR and Formula 3.''

Q: Is your company comparable to Magneti Marelli ?
Schöggl: ''No, Magneti Marello supplies electronic control units and other electronical components for cars. AVL produces mechanical parts like cilinder heads or camshafts through the affiliated company AVL-Schrick, through our instrumentation group we sell highly dynamic testbenches, almost every Formula 1 team uses these testbenches. And we sell simulation tools with which the teams can optimise the entire car on forehand.''

''For a certain race for instance. A Formula 1 car roughly has 300 parametres that can be worked on. The suspension spring left at the front, the one right at the front, the downforce settings of the wings, etc... Gear ratio's must be adapted to the demands of the circuit, the same goes for the engine mapping - as said: there are about 300 possibilities to set up a Formula 1 car.''

''Just look at the shock absorbers, they themselves can be set up differently. You can set it up in traction phase and the compression phase, in a fast (loose) and slow (stiff) way. And each impact level has 14 clicks. So there are several million ways to set them up. Then you have to realise there are not just the shockaborbers but also the springs and many other things, so finding the right set-up is almost like playing the lottery.''

Q: So your work doesn't just relate to engines but also to simulations of the car ?
Schöggl: ''Yes it's both, but it's also related to the tyres and the aerodynamics. We have developed a simulation tool with which literally every part of a Formula 1 car can be optimised. Then it comes down to virtually driving laps on the computer - the good teams do thousands of laps completely virtually on the computer.''

Q: So what we're talking about is not a driving simulator a driver takes place in. It's purely simulation work, right ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, everything is simulated, the driver included.''

Q: The irregularities of a racing driver also ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, they can be inserted in the simulator. I wouldn't talk about irregularities though, I would call it the driving style. Each driver has his own driving style - the way he brakes, the way he steers in, the way he accelerates. How he reacts when the car under- or oversteers, each driver does that differently. And that can also be integrated in the simulation model.''

Q: In the way that you use the data - that is available of the driver - and calculate tendencies ?
Schöggl: ''A simple example: the rear of the car breaks out and the driver reacts by countersteering. Now you insert a response-time - how long does it take the driver to react and how quickly does he countersteer ? But you can also set up the intensity with which he does so. In this way you can develop a model that pretty accurately simulates the driver. Then you start to set-up the car around the driver for certain race tracks.''

''For instance Spa-Francorchamps - you optimise by driving 500 laps around the track and whilst doing so you change gear ratio's, springs, tyres, downforce settings. And then you have a set-up for Spa, but it only works when it's dry. And perhaps only on Saturday at that, when there's a certain amount of grip. But on Friday there is, let's say, seven percent less grip, then you have to optimise the set-up again for the Saturday griplevels.''

''Then you have to convince the engineers that the solution they've had on Friday, with which they perhaps were the fastest one, would only bring them tenth place on Saturday. No one will believe that though because they say: 'I'm the fastest now, I'm going to stick to this set-up !' So this is the kind of tool that we offer.''

Q: Let's look at a Formula 1 engine: in reality it has to cope with blows from kerbstones, bumps etc...
Schöggl: ''They're also simulated.''

Q: Purely virtually or mechanically also ?
Schöggl: ''What we've been speaking about so far is purely virtual, that's the cheapest variant. Cheapest in the way that nothing can break down. The next step is to test on the testbenches what you've previously found in the simulation. There's also a gearbox testbench, where in reality only the gearbox is on the bench, but there are two electro engines attached to it: one at the front and one at the back. The one simulates the engine, the other the car. Now the gearbox thinks he's driving a lap round Spa.''

''Alternatively you only have an engine on the bench and with that a machine that simulates the rest of the car. But that will obviously be more expensive than the purely virtual variant. It may be a lot more beneficial than really driving on track, but in any case an engine breaks down after 1,400 km.''

''But that's the way it's done - today the good teams virtually lap a track thousands of times to then do around a 100 laps on the engine testbench. During these 100 laps every 5 to 10 laps something else is changed. You set it up to do 5 laps and whilst it's doing that you for instance insert the next engine mapping or change the set-up of the car in order to be able to assert that, for instance, the laptime changes in lap nine or something like that.''

''Then there's a second effect: when an engine 'survives' these 100 laps, then it's being disassembled and analysed. Parts are examined on how far they've worn down. Bearings are checked and so are the lubricants. You ask questions such as: is there debris in the oil ? How is the piston clearance ?''

Q: And AVL is involved in these examinations ?
Schöggl: ''They're usually carried out by the teams themselves, we supply them with the testmethods.''

Q: Which, in turn, also need software, don't they ?
Schöggl: ''Usually they do. The same simulation model, that I've talked about, is used for that. When I have a gearbox testbench I would only have to replace the virtual one by a real one. It's as simple as that. As said, per race around 100 such laps are simulated.''

Q: So one tries to adapt to all the possible circumstances ?
Schöggl: ''Well, not each eventuality can be simulated. An example: we've already experienced this at Hockenheim - rain in the western part of the circuit while it's dry in the eastern part. You'd go crazy if such things would also be taken into consideration. (When it raines) you make grip changes, you switch to a rain set-up, (but) often you cannot come in for a pitstop immediately when there are only a few drops, one should find out whether the car is driveable when it raines in the first place...''

Q: This summer Ferrari suffered from two engine failures in two consecutive races, which has worried the Scuderia. In such case, does Ferrari come to you saying: 'We now definately have to go through all eventualities on the testbench in order for this not to happen again !' Do you write software particularly for that problem ? What exactly happens ?
Schöggl: ''The software shouldn't necessarily be rewritten. Ferrari will look into the problem and accurately analyse what has caused the failure in case it's a part they've manufactured themselves. Or a 'taskforce' is called into live together with the supplier of the part to analyse the problem (which is indeed what happened with Ferrari and Pankl - AFCA). The team will possibly try to imitate on the testbench what has happened on track in order to find a solution as soon as possible.''

Q: Does it occur that parties blame each other in the event of a failure ?
Schöggl: ''No, it's not like that. When a part breaks down it's actually not important at all who's at fault. All of those that are part of the project dropped out.''

Q: The team still has the data from the race or weekend in which the engine failure occured. Does it go through all this data to find the cause of the failure ?
Schöggl: ''First of all you should find out why the part broke down - and it's not always possible to identify that by looking at the data. Sometimes an engine indicates it's going to break down. Either the oilpressure goes lost or the the oil- and watertemperature go up. Possibly because the inlet(s) of the cooling air got blocked or because a pitstop took to long resulting in the watertemperature hitting a critical area. Then you in case know there's been an 'activator' of the problem.''

''But there could also be a crack in a structure, for instance that of a piston - and there are no indications for something like that to happen: all of a sudden the piston has cracked. And then you have the following problem: often when a piston cracks, the conrod does so too, and the crankshaft as well. So in such an event it's very hard to tell where the failure initiated. An engine could have blown up so dramatically that it's a tough job to find out what has caused it to stop working.''

Q: Could you then virtually 'dive into' the engine positioning yourself at the conrod to look what the temperature and all that is like ?
Schöggl: ''Thermically the conrod itself isn't a part a lot of stress is on. It's rather stressed by the lubrication and the rigidity on both sides and obviously by vibrations so that it somehow gets damaged by these forces. But it's not really easy to find a solution here.''

''First and foremost: you believe to have found a solution - but whether in the end it really is the solution, even if you think it is - you will only find out at the next race. You're very nervous then. You could also think of three or four solutions, knowing that probably only one of them is the cure to the real problem. But it's out of precaution, you don't have the time of four races, possibly finding out at the fourth race that the fourth solution is the right one. You could drive with more oilpressure, you could change things to the bearings, you could change the heat management of the conrod.''

''Another example: oil is always injected onto the postons - and a bit of it goes onto the conrod as well. So I could change the direction of the 'oilshowers' in such a way that the conrod is lubricated and cooled down bit more.''

Q: Are you actually allowed to do that regulations wise ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, you can. You can carry through with such changes in case something brakes dwn. What you would do in such a case - and I now very consciously say things that don't relate to Ferrari: you can make three to four changes at once - just to play it safe. But these changes may cost you 5 bhp - but you accept that.''

Q: Could it be that Ferrari has been a bit too optimistic during their last revision of the engine ?
Schöggl: ''For confidentiality reasons I can't go into detail too much here. At the moment there's a design freeze, that means that the engines of all the teams have been frozen on the 31st of March.''

Q: But you're allowed to change something when you're worried it's going to break down. Whilst making that change you could also change something else possibly gaining an advantage, can't you ?
Schöggl: ''The FIA isn't stupid. The FIA very precisely knows what's being changed.''

Q: And the other teams are made aware of these changes...
Schöggl: ''All the other teams are informed about the changes. And when someone is doubtful whether this change hasn't just been for the better of the reliability but has also enhanced performance...''

Q: ...then they would immediately protest.
Schöggl: ''Yes, then a protest could follow or someone could also ask whether he is allowed to carry out these changes. At the moment it's pretty transparent.''

Q: In Ferrari's case a crack in the conrod was the cause...
Schöggl: ''Right - partly the material that's being used has been used for the past two or three years. A part has broken down that hasn't done that for all that time. Basically the engines that are used now have been there for some time. But something like this can simply happen - in two or three years hundreds of parts have been manufactured, for some reason there was simply a problem with the 640th part. Something could have gone wrong during the manufacturing, during the transport, or whenever. It's uncannily difficult to figure that out.''

Q: Or alternatively a whole bunch of parts could carry a manufacturing error, these parts ending up in a particular engine...
Schöggl: ''That can occur. That's a big problem and since it's a whole range of parts the first question is how to get new ones. How do I get new parts supplied in time for the next race ? I mean, everything is possible but... - it really has priority.''

Q: So did you notice that Ferrari was pretty worried about their engine failures ?
Schöggl: ''Personally I didn't notice it, but in general everyone runs around fearsomely when something happens.''

Q: And all of that, despite the engine freeze, for reasons of expense. This (the engine freeze - AFCA) probably didn't have an influence on your company, you're assiduously simulating around-the-clock assumingly...
Schöggl: ''Well, you do notice it. There's less development when the engines are frozen. Even the basic (concept) development isn't there. In the past the teams kept on looking for something new during the season.''

''The pitstons, or other parts, were changed three or four times a season. They obviously had to be tested, that part of the development basically is no longer there. The interesting thing of Formula 1 of recent years is that the right engine power was actually only found during the season.''

''Usually not a lot was found in the engine during the winter because during the season the teams were able to drive in race circumstances. But that's gone now, it's frozen.''

''That indeed means less testing is carried out on the benches. However, that doesn't mean we sell less testbenches - but it does for instance mean that suppliers like Mahle or Pankl definately sell less parts. The meaning of cutting the costs has really come into play. Partly these companies have massively recuded the numbers of personnel.''

Q: Because there are less engines overall...
Schöggl: ''Yes and because new ones are no longer designed. When new ones are no longer designed, then no new ones are manufactured, and when no new ones are manufactured there's nothing to test either. And that's a great difference.''

Q: But the money that is saved is now spend elsewhere. More work is carried out in the windtunnel, or teams take up a third one...''
Schöggl: ''Well, no-one can work longer than 24 hours a day.''

Q: Or more high performance computers are bought...
Schöggl: ''Yes, that being a cheaper variant. On the engine side the cost cutting measures have really led to a cost reduction.''

Q: And how big is this reduction percentage wise ?
costreduction ''I can't tell exactly. I know that a lot of people have left, that many people have been dismissed or have switched to another job. At some teams people have gone working on roadcars.''

Q: In 2009 KERS will introduced, this has something to with engine, right ?
Schöggl: ''Well, I'd say yes and no.''

Q: Well, if you can call upon more power...
Schöggl: ''You can't turn a constructor of piston engines into an electro engine expert overnight...

Q: But for AVL the introduction of KERS probably isn't a disadvantage, is it ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, the KERS introduction is okay. Usually it's a good thing for an engineering partner when he makes use of a new regulation offering solutions for it and desiring money for it.''

Q: What kind of influence will KERS have on the races ? Have you already simulated that ?
Schöggl: ''Yes.''

Q: Will there be more overtaking or will the drivers press the power button at the same time ?
Schöggl: ''A lot will change when it works. It will possibly have an influence on the excitement of the race. It will be more interesting for the tv viewers. Depending on the track you're two to three tenths faster with it a lap, but if everyone has it you can forget about that. Because if everyone's faster nothing has changed. Then the fast ones are up front again.''

Q: And KERS costs as much as developing an engine, or even more ?
Schöggl: ''The engine manufacturers probably say that, don't they ? I'd say KERS doesn't cost that much. KERS can be bought - there are companies that offer KERS. You then only need to integrate it in the car. So it's certainly not as expensive as the engine development.''

Q: There are different sorts of recovery systems though...
Schöggl: ''Of course the development of KERS costs something. But the whole of Formula 1 is financed by marketing and OEM's (Original Equipment Manufacturer - AFCA) - and when the OEM's want to gloat over being able to build green roadcars and green Formula 1 cars then that's a corporate image benefit for them. If they can take advantage of that then that's optimal.''

Q: Some say that it's 'abnormal' when you implement KERS in an existing Formula 1 car because it can lead to many technical problems, especially related to the driving, which would thus disadvantage the driver.''
Schöggl: ''I see it differently. Of course there will certainly be problems. After all, there's been a test in which a mechanic got a shock. It will happen again - but it's always complicated with a new technology. One hopes no one gets injured obviously ! But every single new technology brings along teething problems.''

Q: Will the Formula 1 KERS' end up in roadcars. Or isn't that the aim at all ?
Schöggl: ''Exactly on this theme I've given a lecture together with Jürgen Stockmar (Director of Magna Education & Research - AFCA) in Graz. I do think there can be a relation between F1 and roadcars in this respect, because the F1 development is very special in the way that the storage unit should be charged at the brakes. For the energy to be available you only need a fraction of a second or a second at most. A normal battery as we know it, is completely unsuited for that. It takes me ten hours to charge the battery in my car.''

Q: So new storing methods should be developed...
Schöggl: ''In Formula 1 the storage unit should be charged in the shortest of times with good efficiency, that's why these things got so warm (in testing) because in a very short time so much electricity goes through it. It almost explodes but it's a solvable technology. And I think that when the teams have gotten to grips with this technology - so charging the unit in a short time without overheating - it can also be very interesting for roadcars. This is obviously only a small detail because at the moment I wouldn't take a Formula 1 KERS and build it into a roadcar.''

Q: So it should also be effective in city traffic...
Schöggl: ''For instance.''

Q: It may even be interesting for completely different (branches of) industries ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, yes of course. There are still discussions whether batteries are possible. There are these supercap batteries, condensators. I do think these things will be used both from a technical as well as from a marketing point of view. There are already two manufacturers that say: ''We make KERS for our roadcars.'''

Q: Honda and...
Schöggl: ''...Ferrari. Ferrari has said they'll build KERS for a roadcar. They don't mean KERS, they mean a normal hybrid. That's basically the same though. But they consciously say KERS because they feel that once this word is in the minds of people they can use it as a marketing tool.''

Q: Are you already simulating entire races with KERS ? Do you also simulate the driver pushing the power button ?
Schöggl: ''I already wanted to mention this: the fact that it's not exactly clear who is going to push the button at what time, will I think increase the spectacle for the fans.''

''At the moment there's the thought of making it visible to users of pay-tv when a driver pushes the button. Perhaps with a bit of delay, because if it were shown simulataneously an engineer of another driver could inform his driver that his rival has pushed the button. ''

Q: ''And the energy that is allowed to be stored and converted into power will be increased year after year...
Schöggl: ''That's not fixed yet. This was once planned but there are still discussions about it. Now you have 60 kilowatt, that's almost 82 bhp and 400 Kilojoule is the storage capacity - with that you can get the 60 kW extra boost for seven seconds each lap. Each lap 82 bhp for seven seconds - that's obviously not a lot.''

Q: ''But to add 82 bhp to the already existing engine power is like turning on a turbo...
Schöggl: ''Well, as said: 82 bhp. At the end of the a straight, depending on its length, it are usually two, three or four km/h extra - sometimes that's enough to outbrake a competitor...''

Q: Does the system react without a delay when you press the button ?
Schöggl: ''At most there's a delay in the area of thousands of a second, so that's as good as non existent.''

Q: When a driver notices his rival behind him has pushed the button he will do the same thing...
Schöggl: ''When you see him in your mirrors it's already too late. It only brings you something when you push the button at the begining of a straight. The effect is insignificant when you push it in the middle of the straight. And that will be the interesting thing: on each track there are only one or two straights that are suitable for an overtakingmanoeuvre and normally the button will be pushed there. It could be that a driver decides not to push the button on the one straight to have a little extra energy at his disposal on the other. So I see a certain exciting factor for the viewers.''

Q: At the same time there will be drastically reduced aerodynamics that should facilitate overtaking, and this should also enhance the excitement. You've probably also carried out some simulation work in this respect.''
Schöggl: ''We know a little about it, yes.''

Q: How do you rate the chance that the loss of downforce is indeed going to facilitate overtaking ? Is this reduction sufficient ? Or could a little more be done ?
Schöggl: ''I think it's a good solution. There's one side detail: namely the fact the driver will have the possibility to change the angle of attack of the frontwing.''

Q: Is that fixed already ?
Schöggl: ''Yes it is. It's completely new, there has never been something like it because so far adjustable aerodynamics were an absolute taboo...''

Q: ...because there were very grave accidents in the sixties with 'antiquated' adjustable aerodynamics...
Schöggl: ''Today's solutions are not comparable to those of that era. The background is: when you drive closely behind a competiror there's a clear reduction of downforce at the front of the car and you often have this horrible understeering car. After four laps your fronttyres are so overheated that you need to back off again and wait a few laps before the tyres have cooled down again. This is what must be prevented with the adjustable aerodynamics - when you're in the slipstream of a competitor you can set more wing in order for the car to behave neutrally. Only then it will make a difference.''

Q: Do you also simulate that ?
Schöggl: ''That can be simulated, yes.''

Q: Well, do you ?
Schöggl: ''Yes, we do.''

Q: Do you simulate how several cars drive behind each other ? Can you express the targeted improvement percentage wise ?
Schöggl: ''That's difficult to say. But there are releases that say that there is 30% less lift on the frontend of the car, when you drive behind another one. But it's very difficult to say how many more overtakingmanoeuvres we will see. I'd state there will be more.''

Q: And there was no such danger at all of the cars taking off with the adjustable frontwing ?
Schöggl: ''You're now thinking about the cars from the sixties - for instance the Chaparall - which had wings mounted two metres above the car. But today we're talking about a strictly limited adjustment, from an adjustable window of exactly six degrees.''

Q: So a Formula 1 car will not suddenly turn into an airplane...
Schöggl: ''Normally not. I knock on wood and say no. But you should never say never, when something somehow gets wrongly manufactured, then it could happen - but that is actually to be excluded.''

Q: Byrne, Lowe and Symonds were part of the Overtaking Working Group. Was AVL involved in some way ?
Schöggl: ''No, but we have acces to the results of their studies.''

Q: This group has come up with new aerodynamical regulations. Will it be converted 1:1 ?
Schöggl: ''It will never be converted 1:1 though I have to say a lot of their dossier was converted.''

Q: Is Formula 1 going the right way with KERS and the reduced aerodynamics ?
Schöggl: ''It depends on what is considered the right way for Formula 1. My experience is that the makers of Formula 1 very strongly orient themselves on America - and with our company we're doing quite a lot in the USA too. There the fan is the most important thing - and there they don't care less whether a car has a two, four or twelve cylinder engine. The number of camshafts doesn't interest them either - the fan merely likes to see some excitement !''

''And I already see that Formula 1 has improved in that aspect. For the manufacturers though, the current regulations are traumatic - especially the big OEM's are greatly frustrated with the engine regulations. Whether this is optimal or not, the past has shown that there were still some very exciting races. In recent years Formula 1 has often reacted very swiftly.''

''An example: the demands with regard to the engine life span has constantly changed in the last five or six years. This was once taken too far: the engine was to be used for two race weekends, the practice sessions included. The result was that no one any longer went out on track on Friday's.''

''Then there was quick reaction saying: 'Okay, this isn't the solution !' - and the engine life was limited to Saturday's and Sunday's. Often though, Formula 1 needs an entire season for something to be changed. But when it concerns a safety aspect a decision can be taken quicker than that. Of course there is always something to improve but each individual has a different view on that.''

Q: Some fans are thrilled by Formula 1 because of its topnotch technology, they might have to content themselves with a lot less of that...
Schöggl: ''Yes, perhaps. Engines that remain unchanged over a period of five years is something that has never happened before in Formula 1. It's something both the manufacturers as well as the fans will have to get over with. Only in 2013 there will be changes.''

Q: A new aperture in the engine concept would be cool...
Schöggl: ''That won't happen unfortunately. Instead, we'll be moving in the direction of current roadcar engine technology.''

Q: The return of turbocharged engines has been thought of, is that a good thing ?
Schöggl: ''We shall see.''

Q: Americans wants to get back to turbo's as well.
Schöggl: ''The general consensus is to downsize the engines of roadcars also - so smaller turbocharged engines. Turbocharged engines are lighter and more cost-efficient also when it comes to constricting or enlarging the charging-air pressure. While the basic engine usually can remain the same.''

Q: And can this turbo be combined with KERS ?
Schöggl: ''That's certainly what's going to happen.''

Q: Some are of the opinion that only the energy should be 'prescribed'. You get a certain volume of energy at your disposal and everyone can do with his engine what he reckons is the right thing: fuel, diesel, etc. Wouldn't that be a great thing, it would also be interesting for roadcars.
Schöggl: ''From a technical point of view that's something very good. Because the team that is up front is really the one that has built the most economical engine. But also in this case there's the orientation on the USA: Formula 1 regulations are strongly taking the fans into consideration - and from a fans' point of view it's not understandable when someone suddenly starts to drive slowly because he has to save fuel. We've already had that in the eighties with 195 or 210 litres of fuel - that was boring.''

Q: Racing in an economical style that is...
Schöggl: ''The races were becoming boring because the people saw that most drivers were slowing down at some stage. What the fans want to see is that the drivers have the knife between their teeth from the first lap till the very last. That's what we have at the moment. At the moment the drivers do 70 qualifying laps.''

Q: But often with a number of car distances in between them...
Schöggl: ''But one mistake and your gone. Again though: from a technical point of view those people are absolutely right but from a marketing point of view I fear we would loose tv viewers.''

Q: The race in Valencia was dreadful to see though...
Schöggl: ''Yes, but perhaps it will get better with new regulations.''

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interview: Stephan Reil, Head of Technology Development, quattro GmbH	Bartek Sikorski	The Audi Lounge	1	05-08-2008 09:08 AM
List of Automotive Design Directors and Designers	bmer	Concepts & Designs	6	03-27-2008 08:08 AM
Interview with Stefan Sielaff (Head of Audi Design).	Yannis	The Audi Lounge	6	04-12-2007 01:40 AM
Interview with Audi's Head Designer Walter de'Silva.	Yannis	The Audi Lounge	0	12-10-2006 05:44 PM

German Car Zone

Interview with Peter Schöggl head of powertrain engineering at AVL