I seem to have mixed up some posters and have to apologise to TC.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 18#p436618
It was olefud on page one who created the theory that NA engines are more efficient.
olefud wrote:Naturally aspirated engines are more efficient than boosted engines of a given power in that the larger fuel charge of the latter, while producing more energy, wastes more energy in that the power stroke doesn’t have sufficient volume to utilize the greater energy produced.
This point sounds very convoluted to me and I plainly think the idea of an efficiency advantage of NA engines over turbocharged engines is not compatible with our experience in the real world. And that goes for racing engines as well as for road car engines.
Traditionally what we understand by efficiency is the percentage of chemical energy supplied with the fuel that is converted to motive power to the wheels. So it has to do with the conversion of fuel into power. It can't be too wrong to speak of fuel efficiency then even if the term may be used slightly different by engineers.
For the purpose of this thread - the environmental impact of 2014 regulation changes - the choice of turbo vs NA seems to be important, but is is not so if you take a deeper look. The environmental impact is not immediate because - as we all know - the race fuel consumption makes no difference to the environment - by being minuscule in comparison with the total carbon foot print of F1. But F1 has a huge impact when it comes to influencing the thinking of people regarding their behaviour in terms of making conscious consumer decisions about sustainability.
We desperately need to change some anti social behaviour that leads to an extreme over exploitation of natural resources and burdens our children and grand children with the cost of their wasteful ways. That much is obvious when you study all the reports about climate protection and how fossil energy is utilized in this world. The benefits of having access to energy , products, services and comfort is not evenly distributed over the world and over time. Some people now and in the past decades waste as if there is no tomorrow for this planet and some have nothing at all.
So F1 has a responsibility in the view of the FiA - which I share - to reduce the waste of fossil energy where it is feasible. By changing the power limitation formula from air limitation to fuel limitation F1 uses an opportunity to make a statement that it cares for the environment and values sustainability. It is only a gesture but it makes F1 accept the role model it has for the fans. One hopes that people will take the example on board and also switch to products that consume less fossil resources such as more efficient automobiles, heating systems, home appliances and cooling systems.
We can probably discuss about the efficiency of turbochargers for a long time but I feel that this role model of F1 is much more important. So the fundamental change of power limitation is the important thing that we should be addressing. There seem to be very little doubt for anybody that the FiA did the right thing with that switch.