Did F1 need a greener engine formula?

[n_anirudh]

Yes it did need to have a "greener" formula.

F1, rather Honda did try with their earth dreams livery which was a) foolish as they spent lots of $$ and wound up 2 years later b) used it when KERS was not even implemented.

Personally, harnessing waste energy is a great idea and I hope more road cars use it. Why F1? Coz it has a wider reach and people will now be interested in understanding about it and will possibly be implemented more widely.

[thedutchguy]

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.

I agree that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport with new technology and I would welcome lighter, more advanced engines. These new engines however, are not the pinnacle of technology. For starters the new power trains are MUCH heavier than the outgoing V8's. The V8's had a mandatory minimum weight of 95 kg, something which all engine manufacturers easily achieved, so they could have been lighter still. The new power trains weigh in at a mandatory minimum of 145 kg. That's 50 kg more than the outgoing power train, excluding the extra radiators and inter coolers. The result? The minimum weight of the cars has been increased and teams struggle to make that much increased minimum at the moment. So much for progress.

Furthermore, getting about 600 bhp from a 1.6 liter turbo engine isn't all that impressive at all. For a few thousand euro's you can buy a turbo kit which will extract nearly the same power from a 1 liter sportbike engine. The most impressive aspect of the new ICE engines is perhaps their efficiency. Which is nice from an engineering standpoint, but adds nothing to the spectacle.

Kinetic energy recovery isn't new of groundbreaking as well, although the size of the energy store is larger and the rate at which the cells are charged and discharged are a lot higher than in road cars, making the impact on performance larger. Again, hybrid cars have been on the road since the end of last century. There's nothing new here.

The most innovative aspect of the new engines is perhaps the MGU-H, the electrical motor connected to the turbo which acts both to reduce lag and to generate energy when the turbo is spinning at full speed. Also the integration of all three components is new and obviously challenging. Does this make the new engines 'the pinnacle of technology'? If you're looking for the most efficient racing engine, yes. But if you're looking for the all-out best racing engine for Formula cars that run 300km races? I'm not sure.

I think that a 2.4 liter V8 or 3 liter V10 which - without the rev limiter - runs at 20.000+ rpm producing well over 750 / 1000 hp is still pretty advanced, but that's just me...

[FoxHound]

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

To you, but not to millions of others.
Put it this way, did F1 need to race in front of Americans? Or Russians? No. But they do to expand their audience.
What is patronising, if you don't mind me saying, is using 7 year old engine(V8) that burns fuel for downforce and is passed off as a "cutting edge" racing series.

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

Why look it and make such a sweeping statement after 1 race?
Every time there is a rule change, the gap to the midfield increases.

[FoxHound]

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.

Jean Todt.
Erik Boullier.
Martin Whitmarsh.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/f1 ... -rages-on/

That's just one article. It even tells you why they thought change was necessary. But please, Google is your friend.....

[autogyro]

Fabrication, fabrication, fabrication.
F1 is fabricated for media benefits.
Simple.
Many decades ago F1 stopped being the pinnacle of performance motoring.
For at least the last generation regulations have been primarily to 'reduce' performance not allow developments to increase it.
If all the available technology had been applied to F1 the tracks would be in hyper space.
Motor heads simply like the noise which has one long term effect, it makes you deaf.
The green issue in F1 is solely one of maintaining credibility and media interest it is yet another marketing illusion.
REAL fuel saving hybrid and electrical development would be in another league to the current emaciated sport we now see.
F1 is definitely on borrowed time and I do not see Bernie being in it for much longer.
When he goes the scavengers will break it up.

[thedutchguy]

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.

Jean Todt.
Erik Boullier.
Martin Whitmarsh.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/f1 ... -rages-on/

That's just one article. It even tells you why they thought change was necessary. But please, Google is your friend.....

That's actually a great article (from 2011, at a time when there was talk of a 4-cylinder engine) and nice to read with what we know today. It doesn't prove your point however, the word dinosaur isn't mentioned, neither anything along those lines.

What I do read is that Todt and the car companies pushed really for the smaller engines and that Boullier and Whitmarsh agree that new engines are needed TO KEEP THE CAR COMPANIES HAPPY. At the same time, both argue that the engine need to sound great.

Some quotes from the article by Martin Whitmarsh

I think the traditionalist who believes we need large-capacity, normally-aspirated engines has to accept that they may not be attractive to car companies in this day and age.

The important issue for F1 is that we find a formula which is attractive to the car industry. We should have a model that averages [involvement from] three to five manufacturers, and inevitably they will rotate.

We have to accept, respect and not despise the fact that the manufacturers are here to sell cars. If F1 is to be the ideal platform for product exposure and differentiation of their brand we need a formula that is relevant to them and to the needs of society.

We’ve got to ensure that F1 continues as the technical pinnacle of motor sport. It has to be technically advanced, relevant, entertaining and differentiated. It’s not an easy task, but we have to work hard to achieve that.

We need great-sounding engines, it’s a core asset of our sport. But there’s no reason why you can’t have forward-looking technology and a great sound. I personally feel we’ve got to seek a compromise. If it were my call I’d probably go for a turbocharged V6. I think more and more cars are going to be turbocharged.

We’ve got to have high revs. A vee engine suits the structure of an F1 car and we’ve got to have that unique sound. It might be different from today’s cars but I think it can still be fantastic.”

In hindsight, they definitly have done everyting to please the car companies and their marketing machines, but imo they haven't delivered for the fans.

[FoxHound]

That's actually a great article (from 2011, at a time when there was talk of a 4-cylinder engine) and nice to read with what we know today. It doesn't prove your point however, the word dinosaur isn't mentioned, neither anything along those lines.

It didn't??

We’ve got to ensure that F1 continues as the technical pinnacle of motor sport. It has to be technically advanced, relevant, entertaining and differentiated. It’s not an easy task, but we have to work hard to achieve that.”

How is a 7 year old V8 relevant, technically advanced or help F1 be the pinncale of motorsport?
The point is quite clear. The old engines where indeed old.
I'm not a proponent of the V6 turbo sound. I'm not defending or suggesting it is better than the V8 in that sense let me be clear again.
I am however, a proponent of change. Especially when it is designed to attract new manufacturers to the sport, make itself more relevant to the green lobby(Yes yes we all dislike them but they do have their points) and be very highly technically advanced.

Just have a look at the technical threads on the V6 turbos....awash with fantastic posts, ideas and explanations.
Now go have a look at the V8 engine threads......the interest just died man.

The article I posted is very clear why they did it. F1 needed to change.

Oh and as for the Dinosaur comment...Old = Need for change = Outdated = long in the tooth = Dinosaur
TOMAYTO/TOMAHTO

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Lets not forget, F1 teams wanted to introduce energy recovery systems in the late 90s but the FIA banned them from doing so.

[alexx_88]

What technology transfer can happen from a highly-regulated formula where even the top teams spend only 100-150m on R&D (for the whole car) to a basically unregulated car market where each top manufacturer spends billions every year? And that's without taking into consideration the F1 engine freeze in 5 years and the fact that all main innovation avenues have been blocked by the very tight regulations. I don't see manufacturers timing their development and testing to what the F1 rules tell them. That's not how innovation happens.

I really think they have missed the bigger picture. Green F1 is commercially viable only if the average Joe still associates it with the pinnacle of motorsport. And average Joe won't go to read regulations, nor take the time to understand why these engines produce less power than they did 10 years ago. He'll just hear that they don't sound like racing engines anymore, but more like his neighbor's 1.2 VW and see cars following each other on evenly-matched engines, since that's what the freeze will bring. But, by the time the engine freeze comes into play, we'll probably already see a reduction in track attendance figures, a reduction in TV viewership and less money paid by the sponsors because of this. When I went to my first F1 race, in 2011, I could hear the cars from a mile away and you could feel your whole body vibrate as the cars approached and I could pass that excitement to all the people I was speaking to afterwards. I even convinced my dad and uncle, casual F1 fans, to come the next year. Yes, die-hard fans will still go, but we are not the one paying the bills of the F1 circus travelling around the globe.

F1 more road-relevant will attract more manufacturers and make the current ones stay. Renault was winning and getting immense publicity, Mercedes came in because of a supposed budget cap, but found themselves spending huge amounts of money to prepare the new formula. We'll gain Honda, but we lost Cosworth. Is it really worth it?

[iotar__]

Of course it's about marketing and appearance but I'm sure mentioning night-races or other amusing examples of used energy for 100th time will change society's perception of what's green once everybody reads this thread. Seconds later V12 engine will be back in F1.

Not technology transfer again. It's a minor element, marketing is much more important. As for what can it be (apart from many known examples from the past), when they got KERS and in a season or two reduced its weight in half that was probably because they missed already made units from multibillion open budget (not open, regulated by cost) industry. Apples to oranges, so everyone can pretend to be right.

Asking if F1 has to be "green" is the same as asking if McLaren/Porsche super cars have to be "hybrids" (just drive slower and use less fuel). This is a direction of car industry/$$ and no sentiment to nineties will change it. Whether it has to be "green" forever (F1) is a different matter, meaning ideas don't have to be right. BTW average Joes don't buy Porsche 918 yet they put hybrid into it (or in Le Mans). 1st random link (I like public and customers distinction, public is Top Gear crowd ):

Citing an “overwhelming response from the public and customers,” Porsche said on Wednesday that it intended to move its ultrapowerful and gorgeously styled 918 Spyder plug-in hybrid from concept to production model. The decision complements a second, more modest environmentally themed test program announced on Monday that would put three battery-operated versions of the popular Boxster into what the company calls “field tests.”

[iotar__]

So this it where all those winglets, front-back wings, coke-bottle shapes, engine mappings, paddle-clutches, floors, engine cooling and internal flow all packed into F1 came came from. I saw them every day on road cars but didn't make a connection.

Facetious comments like that work both ways - where is the cigarette lighter on an F1 car?

The point is that when technology transfer takes place it tends to be from road to track more often than the other way.

Nothing facetious about it and thanks for explaining someone else's point that wasn't made. First claim (full quote):

That is the way it's always been. Technology transfers from road cars to F1; not the other way around.

Later expanded into 99% - 1%. What facetious is this :

Honda will re-enter the sport next year under the aegis of "road relevance", despite the fact that technology already employed in this car...
...is markedly more advanced than anything seen in Formula One.

Sadly without explaining what this "more advanced than anything meant" meant. List of f-ducts, winglets, carbon fiber chassis, paddle-shift gearboxes, aero rear-view mirrors etc. was a direct answer that there were more advanced things on F1 car. Bottom line: If application, shape and development of certain technology changes it completely because of extremely high-tech/competitive environment of F1 - it's certainly not a transfer in one direction.

[MOWOG]

I could pass that excitement to all the people I was speaking to afterwards.

Therein lies the heart of the issue. In order for the sport - or any sport - to survive, current fans must convince future fans to support it. We do this when we take our kids to a baseball game or other athletic contest. I know everyone everywhere hates sales and salesmen, but we are all selling something all day, every day. The basic, fundamental, immutable first rule of sales is that selling is the transfer of emotion. It is widely understood that people buy on emotion and justify their decision later with facts, statistics, technical mumbo jumbo and the opinion of others.

If there is no emotion, there is nothing to transfer and the product, idea or belief disappears from the marketplace.This is the truth of the matter. "Green" has the emotional content of porridge.

I was at the Monaco Historics two years ago. During a break in the action, Jackie Ickx did a demonstration lap in a V-16 Auto Union Silver Arrow. Oh. my! The car only went about 20 mph all the way around, but the sound of that incredible engine could be heard for miles around, reverberating off the walls of the buildings and the surrounding hills. You want excitement? Everyone in Monaco stopped what they were doing and honed in on that sound. It rattled our teeth, it resonated in our bones, it echoed in our guts. And we loved it!

You want emotion? The whole town was wired. And it was all because of the rumble and roar of that incredible engine.

I know people here won't like this. This place revels in the minutia of arcane technical regulations, the curl of an end plate, the shape of various votexes created by shapes moving through air at high speed. And, yeah, a lot of that stuff is cool. But you know what? That is not what brings fans out to the races or causes them to tune in to the broadcast of the race. The fans, in general, could give a flying fig newton about all that technical stuff.

No, they want to be entertained. They want to be emotionally supercharged in a way that is not available to them in their everyday, humdrum lives. They want their gizzards to quake and their bones to resonate. They want to be grinning from ear to ear with raw, unchecked excitement. THAT'S what they want.

And if F1 doesn't give it to them, they will go elsewhere in search of that high. And that's the bottom line.

[turbof1]

I get that V8's aren't popular anymore with especially renault and a little bit with mercedes (ferrari would probably do murders to get V10s back into the game), but there too many limitations. The FIA should have scrapped all the limitations on recovery systems, should also scrap the fuel flow limit and finally the rev limit. Teams then could push the limits with 5 engines over an entire season, while still having to be efficient with 100kg of fuel. Succesful technology is easily dialed back to road cars.

I also hate it that engines will be gradually froozen throughout the years. It defeats the purpose of engine manufacturers being in f1. Let them develop those engines.

If you want a greener engine formula, then you should limit only what needs to be limited. If you burn 100kg at a constant pace of 100kg/h or burn it at intervals of 200kg/h and 50kg/h, both will have the same pollution.

[FoxHound]

@ Turbo

Agree there man.
No flow limit, but a 100kg fuel limit will be for all intents and purposes reaching the same end goal as we have now.....only less restriction.
No limit on energy recovery will transform the tech used from advanced to bleeding edge, that can be used as a running lab for manufacturers to test their wares.
Expensive it will be but then energy recovery is something most manufacturers spend billions on any way. Just make it available to 3 teams. Job done.

And I'm certain these engines would be far louder and sonorous if they where allowed to rev to 18/20k Rpm.

The idea to change was a good one....but once again it's regulation and restriction that hampers things.

[Just_a_fan]

As for F1 technology that transferred to road cars, I would credit racing with introducing the road going world to aluminum engine blocks and heads, double overhead cams, 4 valve per cylinder technology and 5 speed transmissions. Bear in mind that we are taking about the 50's here, when the height of American technology was the all new cast iron Chevrolet pushrod V-8 and three speed transmissions with the shifter on the steering column. Perhaps you can add "bucket seats" to that list!

Most of that stuff was seen pre-WW1 in Europe. I think F1 was second to the party as far as aluminium engines too.