Did F1 need a greener engine formula?

[stephenwh]

You guys have no idea how happy it makes me that people in here are questioning the virtue of this moronic formula.

If only the F1 media could be honest about this whole thing, would the sport have been better off possibly.

Forget the "green" marketing BS term, and let's just focus on efficiency. If F1 were really interested in seeing how efficiency as it pertains to engines could be improved, two things would have to be done in my opinion. The first would be to take away the engine development freeze. You cannot possibly make a more efficient engine if you opt to freeze the development, even in a piecemeal manner as the FIA is doing. That is the exact inverse of what auto manufacturers do. No matter how small the evolution of any auto manufacturers engine progresses, the fact is the engines do progress in terms of design, as well as efficiency over time. It is in their best interest to do this, because if they did not, their engines would stagnate, and not meet the consumer demands required - better fuel economy.

F1 opts to cut fuel usage by 30% via these shiny new power units, and then in their infinite wisdom, decides to freeze the engine development over time! Imagine how f*cking stupid you have to be to tout these supposed, increased efficiency engines, and then set the rules so they eventually become stagnant? The best part is the media and the fans eat up this "new and improved" F1 without even noticing how self-serving the entire thing is. I am starting to truly believe that in order to be in charge of the FIA, you have to attend a series of courses in order to become a highly functioning idiot...or maybe there is an implicit bargain made where you have to champion contradictory and asinine things in order to meet the best standards and practices of what the job of FIA President calls for.

If you are an auto manufacturer, why would you even get involved with this formula? Not only do you have to spend lots of money to design the engines, you don't even get to develop them.

Side note: Does anyone remember the last formula that actually had a ton of participation from auto manufacturers on the engine side of things? If you guessed the 3.5L formula of 1989-1994, you guessed correctly! Sadly I have no prizes to give out for this other than to commend you on a job well done.

This leads to me second point. Here's the trick for getting auto manufacturers involved...open the engine formula up completely. That's an easy sell to the boards because it is nothing more than a R&D opportunity put to practice in the best testing facility in existence - racing.

But the FIA deemed it worthy to make this new formula as unattractive as possible.

Oh I am sure a few esteemed posters are frantically pointing at the Honda entry for 2015 as a sign that this formula does really work.

I've no doubt that Honda's engine is nothing more than a destroked IndyCar engine with the recovery systems bolted on...sort of like what Cosworth used to do with all of their engines...stroke...destroke...and so on. After how badly Honda got burned with their last F1 experience, I'd be really, really, skeptical of why they are getting involved with this formula at all.

Completely - totally - 100% disagree. The FIA wanted a 4 cylinder engine, and Ferrari threatened to quit over it, so the formula we have now is a collaboration between the teams and the FIA. It was a comprise - not a mandate from the FIA - so using your logic everyone in the FIA *and* Ferrari are idiots The restricted development of engines, is left over from the era of unlimited spending to increase RPM and have special qualifying engines...the spending was out of control, that is why the homologation process is in place...

[Holm86]

...
It was a no-brainer that the new engine had to be a hybrid.
...

I could hardly disagree more, hybrids might be of interest to LMP and the likes, but in F1 it's simply out of context.

The FIA might as well make air-bags mandatory, just as relevant.

As long as its not fully electric I think its pretty damn cool to have an electrically aided ICE which gives 160 hp extra for 33.3 sec a lap. Energy which is usually just wasted into heat. And the ERS system is much cooler than the old KERS system IMO. The KERS system was more of a gimmick where as the ERS is fully integrated in the PU.

[stephenwh]

Not only that - KERS produced the Williams flyweel version, and spawned this company: http://www.williamshybridpower.com/ so the tech has already been applied outside of F1, which means the formula does what it states that it does, impact society.

[GitanesBlondes]

Completely - totally - 100% disagree. The FIA wanted a 4 cylinder engine, and Ferrari threatened to quit over it, so the formula we have now is a collaboration between the teams and the FIA. It was a comprise - not a mandate from the FIA - so using your logic everyone in the FIA *and* Ferrari are idiots The restricted development of engines, is left over from the era of unlimited spending to increase RPM and have special qualifying engines...the spending was out of control, that is why the homologation process is in place...

Spending was out of control, and continues to remain out of control due to aerodynamics. The engines being a huge cost problem was more BS peddled so F1 didn't have to actually address the entire sport's addiction to cheap parlor tricks with aerodynamics....and also why they have yet to revisit the ill-advised flat-bottom rule of 1983.

Did you know that Mario Illien said once that for the cost of engines in the frozen V8 spec, he could build 100 V10's for the same cost in the year 2000? True story, one of the basic principles in economics is that the more you produce of something, the less it costs over time due to the increased negotiating power of buying supplies in bulk. Sort of like why when things are scarce, they tend to cost far more than those that can be found in abundance. So now we are down to 5 engines per year per car? My, what do you think costs will be in that situation, more, less, or equal to the V8 era?

As I have already mentioned, with regards to engines, the 3.5L formula was the greatest formula the sport ever had because it saw incredible diversity that we've never seen since. Auto manufacturers all have different aims, and to force them all to make the same exact engine is an exercise in stupidity.

Even with the 5 year engine freeze, did spending decrease? Of course not because of how much it costs to one keep those large staffs employed, and two because of how much it costs to refine aerodynamics.

Mosley wanted the 4 cylinder engine, and anything he wanted essentially was a mandate from the FIA. Sure a compromise was reached with 6 cylinders, but it just showed how spineless Todt really is. Either way Ferrari made two huge mistakes in not vetoing the engines outright, and not vetoing the in-season testing ban.

[stephenwh]

Yeah I guess I am just never going to understand where you are coming from...for starters, it is the teams that don't want to reduce aero, not the FIA. In fact for 2014 there was another comprise with the FIA on the aero, the original proposal had less aero than what we have now - the compromise - but still: the loss of the rear beam wing, narrower front wing, single exhaust to take away blown diffusers...I really can't believe that you make the statement that "The engines being a huge cost problem was more BS peddled so F1 didn't have to actually address the entire sport's addiction to cheap parlor tricks with aerodynamics" - that is not even based on reality it is just what appears to be your personal conspiracy theory...the FIA has been pushing to reduce aero, with the teams resisting...I mean I could go on, but your theories are so far out there I am not sure what good it would do...

The testing ban is part of what made F1 more competitive and less processional, I don't know why anyone would want unlimited testing back, Ferrari would just test around the clock and we would get 2004 all over again....

[flyboy2160]

Not only that - KERS produced the Williams flyweel version, and spawned this company: http://www.williamshybridpower.com/ so the tech has already been applied outside of F1, which means the formula does what it states that it does, impact society.

I don't think this is true. Although Williams has patented some aspect of an energy flywheel, these flywheels were initially developed outside of motorsport well prior to Williams' work.

If anything, Williams has adapted prior engineering, including, as I recall, the Raytheon composite flywheel system for satellites. Raytheon spun that business off. I saw pictures of the Raytheon flywheel when I was there. I recall an engineer saying "And the spin off-company is going to put them in racing cars!!!"

I'm with the group that thinks F1 almost always takes technical advances from other fields. F1 didn't originate composite structures or disk brakes or even carbon-carbon brakes. It borrowed heavily from aerospace. I'm not trying to denigrate F1 engineering, but it simply doesn't do leading edge technical and scientific development comparable to, say, a hypersonic ramjet-scramjet engine.

p.s. And while I'm at it, I'll slam Jackie Stewart for saying that F1 cars represent the most advanced engineering in the world.

[Sulman]

I remember Eddie Jordan in 1995 complaining that testing was the one money sink he really could not justify in Formula One.

It was very tough for the smaller teams.

[stephenwh]

Not only that - KERS produced the Williams flyweel version, and spawned this company: http://www.williamshybridpower.com/ so the tech has already been applied outside of F1, which means the formula does what it states that it does, impact society.

I don't think this is true. Although Williams has patented some aspect of an energy flywheel, these flywheels were initially developed outside of motorsport well prior to Williams' work.

If anything, Williams has adapted prior engineering, including, as I recall, the Raytheon composite flywheel system for satellites. Raytheon spun that business off. I saw pictures of the Raytheon flywheel when I was there. I recall an engineer saying "And the spin off-company is going to put them in racing cars!!!"

I'm with the group that thinks F1 almost always takes technical advances from other fields. F1 didn't originate composite structures or disk brakes or even carbon-carbon brakes. It borrowed heavily from aerospace. I'm not trying to denigrate F1 engineering, but it simply doesn't do leading edge technical and scientific development comparable to, say, a hypersonic ramjet-scramjet engine.

p.s. And while I'm at it, I'll slam Jackie Stewart for saying that F1 cars represent the most advanced engineering in the world.

Well it is true. WilliamsF1 worked on flywheel KERS for F1. --> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89633

[GitanesBlondes]

Yeah I guess I am just never going to understand where you are coming from...for starters, it is the teams that don't want to reduce aero, not the FIA. In fact for 2014 there was another comprise with the FIA on the aero, the original proposal had less aero than what we have now - the compromise - but still: the loss of the rear beam wing, narrower front wing, single exhaust to take away blown diffusers...I really can't believe that you make the statement that "The engines being a huge cost problem was more BS peddled so F1 didn't have to actually address the entire sport's addiction to cheap parlor tricks with aerodynamics" - that is not even based on reality it is just what appears to be your personal conspiracy theory...the FIA has been pushing to reduce aero, with the teams resisting...I mean I could go on, but your theories are so far out there I am not sure what good it would do...

The testing ban is part of what made F1 more competitive and less processional, I don't know why anyone would want unlimited testing back, Ferrari would just test around the clock and we would get 2004 all over again....

The testing ban had nothing to do with F1 being less processional. You can thank cheap gimmicks like DRS and silly putty tires that disintegrate under any stress.

And besides people need to stop using the word "processional" as a negative connotation when it relates to F1. Grand Prix racing historically has always been a processional endeavor. If you took a number of different cars and had them accelerate down a several miles long stretch, you would find that the slower cars wind up trailing the faster cars...and it turns into a procession of sorts. Welcome to grand prix racing.

Besides the FIA can do whatever it wants...remember how Max used to operate?

Just throw around phrases like "for safety" or "bringing the sport into disrepute" and you can ram anything you want down the throat of the teams.

[xpensive]

...
It was a no-brainer that the new engine had to be a hybrid.
...

I could hardly disagree more, hybrids might be of interest to LMP and the likes, but in F1 it's simply out of context.

The FIA might as well make air-bags mandatory, just as relevant.

As long as its not fully electric I think its pretty damn cool to have an electrically aided ICE which gives 160 hp extra for 33.3 sec a lap. Energy which is usually just wasted into heat. And the ERS system is much cooler than the old KERS system IMO. The KERS system was more of a gimmick where as the ERS is fully integrated in the PU.

160 Hp (120 kW) for 33s is some 1.1 kWh or the equivalent of 0.11 liter of gasoline, about 0,3 liter with a 35% efficiency.

In addition, it is all regulated and no development is allowed.

Cool indeed.

[stephenwh]

Yeah I guess I am just never going to understand where you are coming from...for starters, it is the teams that don't want to reduce aero, not the FIA. In fact for 2014 there was another comprise with the FIA on the aero, the original proposal had less aero than what we have now - the compromise - but still: the loss of the rear beam wing, narrower front wing, single exhaust to take away blown diffusers...I really can't believe that you make the statement that "The engines being a huge cost problem was more BS peddled so F1 didn't have to actually address the entire sport's addiction to cheap parlor tricks with aerodynamics" - that is not even based on reality it is just what appears to be your personal conspiracy theory...the FIA has been pushing to reduce aero, with the teams resisting...I mean I could go on, but your theories are so far out there I am not sure what good it would do...

The testing ban is part of what made F1 more competitive and less processional, I don't know why anyone would want unlimited testing back, Ferrari would just test around the clock and we would get 2004 all over again....

The testing ban had nothing to do with F1 being less processional. You can thank cheap gimmicks like DRS and silly putty tires that disintegrate under any stress.

And besides people need to stop using the word "processional" as a negative connotation when it relates to F1. Grand Prix racing historically has always been a processional endeavor. If you took a number of different cars and had them accelerate down a several miles long stretch, you would find that the slower cars wind up trailing the faster cars...and it turns into a procession of sorts. Welcome to grand prix racing.

Besides the FIA can do whatever it wants...remember how Max used to operate?

Just throw around phrases like "for safety" or "bringing the sport into disrepute" and you can ram anything you want down the throat of the teams.

We are going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with every single thing you have written. All of it.

[bhall]

(An oldie, but a favorite.)

[Sulman]

The paddock largesse argument is rather thin. It offers no answer as to whether pursuing more efficiency in the engine formula is worthwhile, anymore than noting that the teams fly around the world to race.

[Tim.Wright]

The paddock largesse argument is rather thin. It offers no answer as to whether pursuing more efficiency in the engine formula is worthwhile, anymore than noting that the teams fly around the world to race.

Its shows pretty clearly where the sport's priorities lie. The "green" formula is purely to attract more commercial partners, end of story.

[Sulman]

The paddock largesse argument is rather thin. It offers no answer as to whether pursuing more efficiency in the engine formula is worthwhile, anymore than noting that the teams fly around the world to race.

Its shows pretty clearly where the sport's priorities lie. The "green" formula is purely to attract more commercial partners, end of story.

Why is this a bad thing?