F1 IN THE HIGH COURT
(£110,550 / $176,050). Once the model was built, a
set of targets were established for its performance. These were detailed during a design meeting at Aerolab. ‘At the moment the balance target is at 42 per cent. Obviously, the balance target will change in connection with the possible (although not yet confirmed) changes to front tyre size. The balance range that will be used is still unknown (±2 per cent, so 40-44 per cent seems to be a good range). It has been pointed out that the previous client (Force India) asked for a wider balance range (±4 per cent), which seems excessive. ‘Given recent experience,
and considering efficiency is close to 3.1 (all the coefficients are proportional to a surface of 1.47m2
), the assessment of the
downforce for the configuration R30 (start-up shall be Czt = 2.95 (correct value 2.75)). ‘The load targets are as
follows: start-up spec (Oct 2009): Cxt = 0.95 – Czt = 2.95 – A per cent = 42 per cent (correct value Cxt = 0.95 – Czt = 2.75). Launch spec (Jan 2010): Cxt = 0.95 – Czt = 3.10 – A per cent = 42 per cent (5 pt in load per month).’ In the first session between 12 and 21 October 2009, the front wing was almost completely re-designed, adding 8.1 points of downforce. In the second session, between 21 and 30 October 2009, the design of the diffuser was changed significantly, adding 9.4 points of downforce. By the end of 2009, the model was producing 263.3 points of downforce, a total gain of about 40 points (18 per cent). Aerolab and FondTech charged Lotus €1,669,800 (£1,397,150 / $2,225,250) for the wind tunnel testing carried out up to 31 December 2009. But Aerolab was not happy with these gains, as an email sent internally shows: ‘I would like to remind you all (without wishing to be critical and purely because we have to keep our feet back on the ground) that the model’s performance is still well below the level expected to make the right impression. I am absolutely happy about all the improvements and consistency between the two tunnels but the truth is that we are still (as
Both companies have supplied wind tunnel services extensively in F1, notably FondTech to Tyrrell and Renault, and Aerolab to Toyota and, recently, Force India. We contracted FondTech to supply us with a wind tunnel model and wind tunnel testing time for 2009 as Aerolab had a contract with Force India to the end of 2009. However, in August Aerolab stopped working with Force India… We have subsequently engaged Aerolab on a three-year contract to supply wind tunnel services. The wind tunnel model was designed exclusively for us by FondTech. ‘In the terms of our contract with them we have to supply them with chassis surfaces, suspension geometry, details of the Cosworth engine installation, radiator installation, Xtrac gearbox installation and also front, rear and side impact structures. All of this has been supplied by our design team and is unique to our own design and makes the model unique. ‘FondTech have designed
The front wing end plate of the initial T127 wind tunnel model was a copy of the Force India VJM02 design (top) but, by the time the Lotus ran for the first time on track, it had been extensively developed (bottom)
of yesterday) 7.5 per cent below the level we were expecting to start with a month ago. What’s more, that level (which I gave as target) is just a point of reference using a 2009 car which, on average, has been the slowest (passing the Q1 with at least one car only five times out of 16 in dry qualifications). This is only to give you guys an idea of the
Some of the pictures sent
to Gascoyne were also sent out with a press release published by Racecar Engineering, amongst others. Force India staff immediately recognised their tyres, which were marked, and started to look for other elements of the design. The media also picked up on the visual similarity between the model
“Invent as little as possible, unless time and costs dictate otherwise”
mountain we still need to climb…’ The VJM02 was clearly a
reference point for the team of aerodynamicists at Aerolab. Gascoyne requested pictures
of the initial model and, as Aerolab had not received the proper 2010-spec tyres from Bridgestone, it was decided for the photos the model would be fitted with Force India’s wheels. Those wheels were then used for initial tunnel tests.
34
www.racecar-engineering.com • May 2012
in the pictures and the VJM02, prompting Gascoyne to email Aerolab for clarification. He then passed on the information he received to Tony Fernandes in an email: ‘At the start of the project I approached Jean Claude Migeot to enquire about the supply of wind tunnel services. Jean Claude owns two wind tunnels in Italy, one run by a company called FondTech, and the other by a company called Aerolab.
the first iteration bodywork, based on their experience and recent expertise. As most of the designers have recently been working on the Force India project, this expertise naturally is based on their development work. However, at no time have any design, drawings or other form of IP been used directly to the design of our car, only the design expertise of the designers. We have had the complete assurance from FondTech that this is the case, and any issue Force India have should be directed at FondTech, not Lotus. In this respect, it is no different from an employee moving from one team to another. That employee cannot take physical designs from one team to another, but is free to use the skill and experience he has gained for his new team. In this case, we have effectively employed around 40 wind tunnel staff at one go. ‘In summary, I can confirm
that Lotus have had absolutely no access to any information that could possibly infringe the IP rights of Force India, and I am happy for any relevant authority to fully audit the team to ensure this is the case. I have been informed by both FondTech
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100