Did F1 need a greener engine formula?

[bhall]

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?

It's not necessarily a bad thing. But, holy hell, is it ever insulting.

[Richard]

It's about as sincere as those old green stripes on the Bridgestone tyres to demonstrate F1's green agenda.

It'd be more honest to say "This is an exciting technology that means we'll squeeze more performance from every drop of fuel"

[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.

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

Denial is a powerful thing.

[stephenwh]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the testing ban did close up the field, as did the homologated v8's - DRS was an invention of the Technical Working Group (with staff from the teams), and the racing was closer before Pirelli, in fact the 2009 changes worked great, especially in 2010...unlimited testing and unlimited engine development would create the situation we used to have - and F1 has moved on from that, and while you think it is a bad thing there are other people that appreciate the closer racing...so if you think your opinion is gospel, I don't know what to tell you - there are other perspectives than yours...

[GitanesBlondes]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the testing ban did close up the field, as did the homologated v8's - DRS was an invention of the Technical Working Group (with staff from the teams), and the racing was closer before Pirelli, in fact the 2009 changes worked great, especially in 2010...unlimited testing and unlimited engine development would create the situation we used to have - and F1 has moved on from that, and while you think it is a bad thing there are other people that appreciate the closer racing...so if you think your opinion is gospel, I don't know what to tell you - there are other perspectives than yours...

...unless you consider that Formula 1 was never meant to be some egalitarian paradise, which is the real point that gets lost on most people. If you wanted close racing, there were many race series out there that could have been pursued as a fan.

What created the situation you moan about was aerodynamics. It's why MotoGP doesn't have the problem F1 has with close racing. Dirty air coming off a motorcycle is minimal. I find it interesting that most people who want close racing do not watch MotoGP...yesterday's race in Qatar had more close racing between Valentino Rossi and Marc Marquez than anything I've seen out of F1 in a long time. Hitting the button to enable DRS is not close racing just because they happen to be in close proximity to each other.

You're also mistaking some of what I've said as opinion...it's not...I'm simply discussing the historical context of F1. You had closer racing in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s when the wings were still non-existent or rudimentary. That's to say nothing of the ground effects era which saw very little difficulty in cars following one another. It's simple, if you want potentially closer racing, you eliminate front, and rear wings, and all appendages.

If you start restricting everything, then it goes against the entire spirit of F1 as it existed for close to 6 decades.

But as I said before...a slower car can't race closely with a faster car...what an amazing concept. Fun tip for you, if you want to know what can happen to open-wheel racing when the focus becomes all about providing some quasi-socialist paradise for people who think it can't possibly be racing if someone runs away with the race...check out what happened to CART.

[xpensive]

It's about as sincere as those old green stripes on the Bridgestone tyres to demonstrate F1's green agenda.

It'd be more honest to say "This is an exciting technology that means we'll squeeze more performance from every drop of fuel"

It might have been so had it involved an element of development and competition, but that argument becomes rather hollow when the amount of squeeze is sanctioned and regulated in a fashion worthy the old Soviet Union central committee, this way it's just a "green" token or alibi to con those who don't follow Formula 1 very close and/or understand the technology anyway.

"0.3 liter per lap, that's what you are allowed and expected to reclaim."

[diffuser]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the testing ban did close up the field, as did the homologated v8's - DRS was an invention of the Technical Working Group (with staff from the teams), and the racing was closer before Pirelli, in fact the 2009 changes worked great, especially in 2010...unlimited testing and unlimited engine development would create the situation we used to have - and F1 has moved on from that, and while you think it is a bad thing there are other people that appreciate the closer racing...so if you think your opinion is gospel, I don't know what to tell you - there are other perspectives than yours...

I like where you're coming from.

Testing ban -> needed to keep costs down. ( I think is a good thing, but not a complete ban)
DRS -> needed to be able to pass. Aerowash was making it impossible to follow cars by less than 2 seconds.
Pirelli Tires -> was someone's idea of creating wet races in the dry. Sad....
engine development -> I like engine development unfortunately there is a price to pay for that.

I think F1 has 3 major challenges

1- Parity
I'd like to see that the F1 midfielders and bottom feeders aren't always the same teams. We still have a long way to go.
Parity is closely tied to costs. It must be crazy to be a Caterham in f1, when your car is 4 seconds off the pace. Got
wonder why you bother showing up.

2- Relevance
I don't know how many years from now but the internal combustion engine will cease to be the primary propulsion in
vehicles. So you might as well get ahead of it.


3- Politics
There is no unified voice. Bernie sounds off like a drunk Speaking ill of F1 so do many others from many f1 teams.
Usually for no other reason but to advance their cause. This whole engine Sound thing is a good example, the more you
keep talking about it the more it will stay in the news and be an irritant. It's done, the sound is what it is....STFU!!
Another is the Red Bull Fuel thing. Now I agree with Bernie that I'm not sure why we need to measure the fuel 2 ways
(especially considering the the sensor issues). Probably the smart thing to do was to table the sensors for this year
while using the senors to get the kinks out this year. FIA choose to go ahead and everyone agreed to it, so STFU. Now
during the last race Merc was told to turn down their peak fuel usage and they did. Not RB, they needed to defy FIA.
It's the whole tire thing again from 2013. Now Dietrich Mateschitz says "Red Bull may quit F1". He spent all this money
to bring F1 back to Austria and he says he gonna quit??? Right. The problem isn't that your engine sucks, it is the fuel
sensor.

Did they need to get greener? No, not this year or next but they did have to do it soon.

[stephenwh]

Pretty fair and lucid analysis. I would add the replacement or retirement of Bernie and the transition to a new head of the commercial side of the sport. As much as some people would love to see Bernie never retire, it has to happen at some point; and the transition will be important. I fear it might take more than one person to replace him, which will create a lot of confusion...

[Richard]

It's simple, if you want potentially closer racing, you eliminate front, and rear wings, and all appendages.

If you start restricting everything, then it goes against the entire spirit of F1 as it existed for close to 6 decades.

So which one is it? The first or second statement?

[GitanesBlondes]

It's simple, if you want potentially closer racing, you eliminate front, and rear wings, and all appendages.

If you start restricting everything, then it goes against the entire spirit of F1 as it existed for close to 6 decades.

So which one is it? The first or second statement?

Nice try Richard, there was a qualifier in there you missed though.

[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.

Why is this a bad thing?

Well its dishonest almost to the point of fraud for a start.

[Sulman]

Well its dishonest almost to the point of fraud for a start.

Bit hyperbolic, Tim. It's just a set of rules. They're not cheating anybody.

[Tim.Wright]

I'm not talking about the rules and the teams.

I'm talking about the sport as a whole, using its "green" image to bring in hundereds of millions of investor money and then pissing it up the wall in the most wasteful way possible.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the waste per se but I hate that at the same time the sport is trying to claim it is a "green" organisisation with an interest in working for the good of the world.

[xpensive]

It's simple, if you want potentially closer racing, you eliminate front, and rear wings, and all appendages.

If you start restricting everything, then it goes against the entire spirit of F1 as it existed for close to 6 decades.

So which one is it? The first or second statement?

You only need to eliminate that ghoulish front wing, establish a flat-bottom, as long as there is car to measure, and the rest will follow. There will be no use for a rear wing, real suspension should return automatically and you can free everything else.

[Earnard Beccelstone]

It takes 10 years of use for a sun-powered panel to recover the pollution originating from its production.

Not sure what you mean by "pollution", but energy life cycle parity for photovoltaics is typically estimated at around 3 to 4 years +/- about 12 months given climatic conditions (quicker in Australia, slower in Holland for example).

That's based on a 30-year lifespan and includes fabrication, production, installation and infrastructure costs.

US DoE fact sheet: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf