Did F1 need a greener engine formula?

[Vettel Maggot]

The problem is the cars where viewed as dinosaurs.

By who exactly? I keep hearing this but I am confused who actually had this opinion? Wannabe F1 engineers or actual joe public? The majority of people I don't think would have had that opinion. I'd rather go to a track full of roaring dinosaurs than what I saw in Melbourne at the weekend.

[FoxHound]

Most people dont like change, I get that.
I recall full well people saying that the end was nigh when the V8s came along.
Didn't take long for the angry fans to become disappointed, then apathetic, and then believers.

[Vettel Maggot]

You didn't answer my question as to who thought the cars were 'dinosaurs'.

This is different, the V8s still retained some of the drama and sound.

[SectorOne]

You really wondering why races are held at night? It's to align the race broadcast times to maximise the TV viewers in the main european markets. Its win-win for F1, they get more viewers so they can raise the hosting fee while the circuit owners cop the energy costs for the lights.

so why do we only have 3 night races? Singapore, Abu and now Bahrain.

Why not Malaysia, Shanghai, Suzuka?

[Sulman]

You're right. Like I said before, I'm not against innovation. F1 at the leading edge of technology is fine with me, but as long as it's used to serve F1, not to sell an image.

My beef with the current regulations is not that F1 portrays a green image (true or not), but that in doing so it takes away the excitement that I think should go with F1, both in sound and speed. It's bizar to me that F1 has willingly entered an era where engines sound like crap and drivers need to lift and coast during races to make it to the end. Even the 24 hours of Le Mans is basically a 24 hour sprint race these days, but a 90 minute F1 race must be so 'green' that drivers need to drive five seconds below their ultimate pace to make it to the end? Ridiculous.

I agree with the sportscar problem. They're even greener but they are driven harder; that is problematic to me. It was in the tyre nonsense of '12-13, too.

[WhiteBlue]

If you're an engineer, I'm the Easter Bunny.

Your ad hominem attacks do not make you a better easter bunny. They simply show that you have not understood why we study history. We should learn from the past. The thing that we can learn in the context of this thread is that all trends have been experienced before. There have been times of road relevance and times when racing has strayed very far away from the issues that were at the mind of motor manufacturers.

I do not mind that some people have no historic perspective, they are simply poorer for those deficits. For me F1 is only an extension of GP racing and it has been badly managed at times. Motor sport ethos has not seen its highest days under the guidance of Bernie Ecclestone and the way he has shaped the top racing fomula for show rather than sport. In my view the FiA has provided an invaluable corrective with the new formula. I'm immensely proud and very happy that Todt has almost single handedly achieved this paradigm shift.

[WhiteBlue]

I share the frustration of fuel saving. But its nothing new.

It was at some time. When we had processional races basically consisting of three or four sprints between refuelling there were very few voices that were concerned with the task of managing fuel to the end of the race. I remember that people
mainly expected that a refuelling stop would bring back more of the art of race craft and would bring the best out of some drivers - like Button for instance. This has indeed happened and now we have a bunch of lead shoe enthusiasts who are not satisfied unless the cars are permanently pushed to the limit.

This thinking is very short sighted in my view. Race pace has always been different to qualifying with its pedal to the metal attitude and experience. Hence I don't mind at all if there is a bit of strategic thinking involved and a bit of race craft to run a GP. I would be much more concerned if the rules would prevent flat out racing in qualifying and we have actually had a number of those problems over the years.

So why don't we all sit back and try to enjoy the show?

[Vettel Maggot]

If you're an engineer, I'm the Easter Bunny.

Your ad hominem attacks do not make you a better easter bunny. They simply show that you have not understood why we study history. We should learn from the past. The thing that we can learn in the context of this thread is that all trends have been experienced before. There have been times of road relevance and times when racing has strayed very far away from the issues that were at the mind of motor manufacturers.

I do not mind that some people have no historic perspective, they are simply poorer for those deficits. For me F1 is only an extension of GP racing and it has been badly managed at times. Motor sport ethos has not seen its highest days under the guidance of Bernie Ecclestone and the way he has shaped the top racing fomula for show rather than sport. In my view the FiA has provided an invaluable corrective with the new formula. I'm immensely proud and very happy that Todt has almost single handedly achieved this paradigm shift.

Oh dear God, where to start?

Your not a politician are you?

[Jersey Tom]

Did F1 need a greener engine formula? No, absolutely not. IMO that they sell it as such is almost patronizing.

[Primus]

I think it was great marketing move to advertise greener F1.
Younger generations have grown up with this green "bug" and I guess are target audience in long term for F1. Also what I'm noticing more and more in my country is almost hatred towards cars in general from younger generations.

I'd also like to comment on technology transfer that was mentioned a page or 2 ago. As I see it it's symbiotic relationship between road cars and F1. Most if not almost all transfer of technology went from road cars to F1, but manufacturers got a lot of experience from using it in extreme conditions in F1. That knowledge helps to improve the same technology in future generation of the product. So in my view is win-win.

There's a lot of people complaining about the lack of sound. I'm on the fence here. I loved the raw power screaming beast but I also love hearing tires and especially I love how drivers have to earn their money now on the track by showing some skill in handling the cars. I'd put it this way ... yes, we lost the screaming sound but we got quite a lot for the price "we payed".

If F1 doesn't change with the times it would just become a retro series of cars that "used to be". And that would make it lose it's current position, audience,teams and money.

[xpensive]

...
As an engineer I'm not at all interested in the sterile years since the last turbo era.
...

Well, engineers come in all shapes and forms, don't they?

Did F1 need a greener engine formula? No, absolutely not. IMO that they sell it as such is almost patronizing.

I'm very happy to admit that I agree with you on this one JT.

[CBeck113]

This green tint has nothing to do with the environment, but a few have gotten pretty close in a few answers: Formula 1 is a product which must be sold, and this is the latest sales pitch. Nothing more, so don't bother looking for a deeper purpose.

What I do find interesting is the chance to hear everything else happening in/on/around the car, not just the engine.

[Powershift]

This is not a "greener" engine formula, it is a more technologically advanced engine formula, that also happens to use less fuel. Given the choice any race team would choose a smaller, lighter, more powerful and more fuel efficient engine and that is why the Turbo's dominated the NA's in the 80's. Last years 2.4L V8's were basically upgraded Cosworth DFV's from the late 60's with pneumatic valve train. How could F1 be considered the "pinnacle" of open wheel racing when even Indycar's 2013 engines were more advanced? That would be like NASCAR advertising itself as the pinnacle of stock car racing when everyone knows the V8 super cars and DTM are far more advanced.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

I do not mind that some people have no historic perspective, they are simply poorer for those deficits. For me F1 is only an extension of GP racing and it has been badly managed at times. Motor sport ethos has not seen its highest days under the guidance of Bernie Ecclestone and the way he has shaped the top racing fomula for show rather than sport. In my view the FiA has provided an invaluable corrective with the new formula. I'm immensely proud and very happy that Todt has almost single handedly achieved this paradigm shift.

WOW! MUCH SUPERIORITY! SUCH HISTORY! WOW! MUCH KNOW RACING!

I do not mind people who actually know better to pull a card like that, though the choice of words is a bit rude. But seriously, you are not in the position to do that

For starters, it's YOUR vision F1 is just like an extended GP series. It's quite clear it's not and that it has an unique and overlooking position on any other kind of motor racing. At least until it doesn't get killed. Only thing comparable is Le Mans, and that's quite some way away from simply GP racing

Then, your main argument is historic perspective. WTF you mean by history? Was it at any time the top priority to save fuel and be road relevant? Did F1 at any time shaped it's history according to social pressures or agendas? Except for now, no. Or at most it was limited to some minor aspects. It always aimed to be the fastest around a track and period. Glamour, the show and all that came as a result. The only time this took place is now. That means your vision of history is the poor as f*ck one actually

Plus, as inevitable when you are thinking politically when you shouldn't, you are contradicting yourself a lot. What we have now is nothing but aimed for the show, for the looks, the image and the secondary interests rather than sport. This kind of slowing down, limiting regulations that pleases MANUFACTURERS, locks innovation and make faux cost reductions (cheap for the big players, increasingly impossible for all the rest) was supported by the likes of Briatore. It caters for making it easier for the established teams by decreasing competition and opportunities of innovation so that there is not much effort going on. It changes the focus of sport and racing to "social issues", faking a necessity and making faux statements to the society, so that ACTUALLY it can serve PRIMARILY marketing interests and MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR OUTSIDERS. It's called diversion!

FIA now wants to pull a WRC on F1. They will use as many "socially relevant/pleasant to the general public" excuses as necessary to secure the category to 2 ou 3 main players. That means easing it for the players by making rules suited to them, while making it harder for the others with the excuse of making it easier, cheaper and greener for everyone

You make it so that your technical regulation suits perfectly the structure of the "chosen" teams, their technical and production abilities and their marketing needs. This regulation is obviously cheaper FOR THEM, as they have all the tools to comply to it (like huge factories/know how that already know hybrids) and the marketing return for that specific image they will portray is big and guaranteed. It also can be sold as green, because no average Joe will think about development costs, battery costs or how irrelevant that is. Being "green", it gains social support and makes it LOOK like it's a good intentioned regulation (instead of the actual lobby driven, anti sport interest)

The other teams have to comply with it as if they were going to be benefited, but in reality the rules are out of their reach (Cosworth comes to mind), end up being MORE EXPENSIVE because they have to outsource and buy more complex technology at higher costs and has ZERO RETURN to them. Who cares if Sauber has a fuel saving engine? People and sponsors only come to them for the racing and for track results. Marketing and commercially wise, they can't profit over that. Unlike the chosen teams, who can sell cars and engines and so can profit on this technology and the marketing that goes along

Rules are locked out so that no one can find innovative ways out of it, guaranteeing the good results for the chosen teams and limiting expenditure FOR THEM (they don't have to spend millions on a possible loop hole or innovation). You also make it so that the technical rules benefit maximizing the dominance of those teams, both by making them impossible to different teams to catch up and by making them privilege "naturally" savings of parts (limiting the ERS comes to mind, as well as the fuel flow). That is so that THOSE TEAMS have less expenditure and an easier time competing, after all it's not really about the sport anymore

WRC did this by first cutting "expensive" races. Some of them very traditional and high audience ones. If it didn't lined FIAs pocket, it went out. Cost cutting was the excuse. Then they changed technical rules that benefited the main players (Citroen and Ford) and made others get behind and leave (Subaru and Mitsubishi), in the name of "cost cutting" again. Then they cut tires suppliers to Pirelli monopoly, starting the process of reducing costs and easing up FOR THE 2 CHOSEN TEAMS. Marketing interest in WRC felt, as one of the main sponsors couldn't be there anymore (Michelin) and the other (Pirelli) didn't need to invest anything. Less money to other teams in the end, less costs but much less marketing opportunities and financial return

By that time only 3 manufacturers were officially involved at WRC and newcomers quickly left, even if reasonably successful. Final blow: mandate "downsized" cars in the name of being "green" that also must be homologated at the start of the season and not changed during it (to "reduce costs"). Most companies don't have cars that size that are interesting to display as a marketing tool at all, or are too weak to provide a good basis for a race car. Some don't even have them at all on their lineup (Subaru and Mistubishi). Citroen on the other hand has a perfect car for that purpouse and profits much more marketing it than a mid sized model. Ford has a similar situation. VW can afford being the new kid on an unwelcomed place, every other one is OUT. AND NO ONE WANTS TO GET IN

The homologation makes it so that the only 2 companies being actually good to win races guarantee no one has a chance, and they save a lot by not having to develop the cars. LITERALLY NO ONE ELSE CAN OR WANTS TO COMPETE

Do you consider this sport over the show? Really? That is "good management"? Will F1 follow WRC and become a Mercedes/Renault playground with maybe only 4 teams being ANY good? Let's remember the gap to the midfield INCREASED this year. Merc can open 5 seconds a lap to a midfield team if they want now

So why don't we all sit back and try to enjoy the show?

The show is so bad. If it wasn't for Bottas crashing and having to take positions back, the race would have been extremely boring. Saving too much fuel (irony, having to save further fuel on a fuel efficient engine) and the lack of good sound made it average. The only good part of the new formula is the lesser downforce, but lack of a proper engine and maybe better tires killed it. When drivers and teams learn how to tame the extra low RPM force, there will be zero fun left

And let me assure you: pro drivers will adapt to even the most extreme circumstances given practice. Maybe they won't be breaking time records, but won't be sliding all over the place like not very good amateurs like now

Oh dear God, where to start?

Your not a politician are you?

If he (or she, don't know) isn't, he sure has the soul of one

Did F1 need a greener engine formula? No, absolutely not. IMO that they sell it as such is almost patronizing.

Perfect word choice. Then again, we are in quite a patronizing stage at humanity and governments. In Europe it's the newest "cool" trend for instance, I will not even bother to explain so I don't derail the topic. The sport being eurocentric, I guess that had quite an influence

...
As an engineer I'm not at all interested in the sterile years since the last turbo era.
...

Well, engineers come in all shapes and forms, don't they?

Classy as always xpensive!

[Sombrero]

Not at all.

1) the WEC is the perfect serie for new hybrid powertrain

2) the next frontier is the weight not hybrid powertrain : Think about a F-1 2000ccm atmo (any architecture) with no recovery system min. 500 kg. They would have the same performance and the same fuel consumption than the current 2014 F-1 car that are too expensive, too complex and much too heavy.

Difficult time ahead for F-1...