Force India believes that the selfishness of the big teams makes it useless to the Group Strategy

force-india-critica-grupo-de-estrategia-

The proposal that Force India a few months made for that in the Formula 1 is adopting a system by which, the equipment that so wish, they could base their design work on the Computational Fluid Dynamic (DCF), it was rejected recently by the Strategy Group.

The FIA is now controlling the amount of work that is used in the wind tunnel and the Computational Fluid Dynamic, something typified by regulation. But Force India wanted to develop a system by which, the teams that would like to reduce the use of the wind tunnel for the benefit of the computer simulation, they could do it.

In this way, the costs would be substantially reduced and, given that the DCF has advanced measurably in the past few years, the teams modest could be equally competitive. But the Strategy Group, formed by Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren, Williams and Force India has voted against it with the sole support of the team that proposed.

in this regard, Bob Fernley, deputy Team Leader, has been very critical of the attitude of the rest of the teams. “I Think this shows the flaws of the Strategy Group. It has proposed a program to benefit all of F1, and have been rejected, only by pure interest, a development that we become a leading exponent of this technology. It was a proposal that was very detailed and had merit. The concept was to be able to progress with DCF if you wanted to do it, and allowed it to do all over the world. The only reason why I have voted against it to protect the advantage they currently have. It is to deny progress,”, said Fernley on statements gathered by Motorsport.

The computer simulation has greatly evolved in the last decade but, to be able to face up is definitely the wind tunnel, need a boost, according to Fernley, the Formula 1 does not want to give.

we Know that the technology DCF current does not give the results that gives the wind tunnel, and we propose to move forward more. Those teams who wish to take the risk to do so, especially those who do not have their own wind tunnel, they could have taken this path.”

“What we were trying to do with our proposal was to give an opportunity for F1 to move forward with that simulation technology, which is a much more cost-effective and for another, more relevant to the future that the wind tunnels, that with the time will be obsolete. What we have done is to delay that process.”

To Fernley, the cause of that refusal has been that the faster ones have a higher budget and wind tunnel itself and not interested in giving facilities to the teams with fewer resources in order to preserve its dominant position.

“you have to remember that the factory equipment they have money to be able to upgrade their wind tunnels and have spent millions to improve its efficiency, so that can use that efficiency to make more time for DCF under the current formula. And, in doing so, they have an advantage”.

in Addition, Manor proposed to allow a greater number of hours of use of the wind tunnel to the teams that work with scales to 50%, because these simulations are less efficient than in the wind tunnels with scale models to 60% of the actual scale that only a few teams have. Only Force India supported the regulatory change.

“What Manor said is that if you work with a tunnel from the 50% you are at a disadvantage, because it is less precise, so, what might those teams have a 10% more of time of use of the wind tunnel? I Think that was a proposal just and reasonable and that would help teams like Manor in order to progress“.

“A team like Manor does not have a voice. They can propose things to the Group Strategy and five teams voted against it, with no more reason than to protect their own interests. we Want the sport to be competitive. There are moments in there that allow for some flexibility and I don’t think that is a proposal that is illogical“.