Tue
Sep 07 2010

F1 set for radical changes in 2013

Alan Henry
The entire complexion of the F1 business is set to change significantly from 2013.

Not only will there be a new concord agreement governing the commercial rights income distribution from such lucrative areas as television coverage contracts, trackside advertising and corporate hospitality, but also bold new technical rules, which will change the grand prix landscape for good.



As the teams head for Monza and this coming weekend’s Italian Grand Prix, a number of think tanks have been set up to consider various propositions. The latest concept is for a 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbocharged engine to become standard.

Couple this with ground effect aerodynamics, a fuel flow limitation and a possible limit of five engineers per season per driver and you’ve got a recipe for the most deep-rooted technical changes since turbocharged engines were introduced first time round in 1977.

How ironic that a technical development, which originally occurred by an accident of rule interpretation, should now be seen as the sport’s way forward.

Back in 1966, when the 3.0-litre F1 engine regulations were implemented, the FIA was concerned that there would be insufficient new power units to go round. So, as an interim measure, a provision was left in the regulations to allow 1.5-litre supercharged engines to be used.

Nobody took up the option until 1977 when Renault arrived with its exhaust-driven turbocharged engine, which was nodded through and accepted, despite the fact a turbocharger is not a supercharger.

But the distinction was conveniently blurred for the benefit of Renault’s acceptance into the F1 fold, even though Cosworth co-founder Keith Duckworth – the architect of the Ford Cosworth DFV – would bend your ear for half an hour on the iniquity of the turbo on any occasion that you weren’t quick enough to escape. Keith was right, of course, but his mantra was repetitive, to say the least.

Still, at the end of the day, it should be a cheaper solution than high-revving naturally aspirated engines. As Nobuhiko Kawamoto, the legendary engineer who rose to become Honda’s president, once told Bernie Ecclestone “boost is cheaper than revs". From 2013 we should find out whether he was right.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Alan Henry

Our F1 expert has been covering the sport since Lewis Hamilton's father was a teenager (do the maths yourselves on that one), and writing for Autocar since 1994.

Comments

Steve A Steele September 6, 2010 10:23 AM

When does Bernie's deal run out? Does it ever? Does he have permanent rights to the TV etc.?

bentleyboy September 6, 2010 10:51 AM

Steve A Steele September 6, 2010 10:23 AM

When does Bernie's deal run out? Does it ever? Does he have permanent rights to the TV etc.?

FOR EVER AND EVER, EVER AND EVER. EVER AND EVER. EVER AND EVER. EVER AND EVER Amen. All worship at his great worshipfulness Bernie.

topcat924 September 6, 2010 11:32 AM

"despite the fact a turbocharger is not a supercharger."

Yes it is. A super charger is any device that increases the pressure of the air entering the engine.  A Turbocharger is a turbine driven supercharger.

shiakas September 6, 2010 11:40 AM

This isn't bold enough. If you want to get car manufacturers involved in F1 then there should be more promise of technology transfer to road cars. How about this: (1) Limit the total fuel a car can use per race to something insanely low (50 liters) then penalize anyone that goes over it with time or weigh. (2) Ban aerodynamic development, its meaningless to road cars. (3) Use the budget saved from aerodynamics to develop energy storage technology (batteries, supercapacitors) which teams should be free to use in any way they want.

eseaton September 6, 2010 11:54 AM

If I wanted to listen to a swarm of bees, I would buy a hive.  

I reckon between a third and a half of the pleasure and excitement of watching F1, particularly when it is not a great race, is acoustic.  

So the appeal, for me at least, will drop proportionately.  

Leslie Brook September 6, 2010 1:12 PM

Yet more changes  to "improve" F1 and cut costs. I don't think it's possible to effectively reduce costs. Restricting the number of engines isn't the answer. Engines as items are relatively "cheap" in real terms. They're just metal and machining time. The real cost is in development. Limit the teams to `X' number of engines and they spend a fortune in development to improve the durability/performance compromise. Ground effects? I thought everyone agreed that aerodynamics were not the answer. Fat tyres and big simple N/A engines please. Formula 5000 anyone?

thebaldgit September 6, 2010 1:49 PM

Been expecting these changes for a while, so they are what has been talked about,  not surprised by the engine configuration as that is what is going to be put into other sports such as rally and touring car.  The small capacity turbo engines being much more in line with future road car engines.

Peter Cavellini September 6, 2010 2:16 PM

Well!, why the hell not?, engine tech nowadays liberates huge amounts of power and torque from small capacity engines, surely it'll be cheaper and hopefully more teams will be able too survive more than a year in F1?, i'm sure his Bernieness wouldn't have rubber stamped this consoltation if he didn't think it was for the good of his Empire, would he?.

Lanciaman September 6, 2010 2:55 PM

I suppose that strategy-wise it could be quite interesting; do you turn the boost right up and win if your engine lasts, or do you turn it down and hope everybody else goes bang?

   It won`t help the spectacle though; the only way to do that is to get rid of aerodynamic grip.

matt n September 6, 2010 7:30 PM

I recently attended the Spa Grand Prix.  It was quite amazing how much the aural drama if the F1 cars increased the enjoyment of watching the racing.  The Turbocharged GP3 cars made a dull drone which gave no impression of speed or power.  The normally aspirated GP2 cars sounded great but the F1 cars sounded just fantastic (although perhaps not quite as fantastic as the old 3 litre cars).

For me the sound of the contempory F1 cars is something that is truely unique in the world of motorsport and is, in my opion, the highlight of attending a race.  

At many circuits the cars don't actually look like they are travelling that fast but the sound gives you some appreciation of their speed.

I'm tired of this constant debate about making F1 relevant to production vehicles.  Are the public nieve enought to think the engine in their Clio will be a relative of a turbocharged F1 engine?

F1 is a technological proving ground for racing cars, not road cars.  The manufactures know this and the fans know this.  Perhaps there are bean counters within the manufactures that do not understand this.  Why should we change F1 to suit these people... could we not find some bean counters that understand what is amazing about a >30 m/s mean piston speed?

Kostia September 7, 2010 8:12 AM

How radical will this be for formula 1 Alan? I mean could it be radical enough to change the sport completely. Bernie will not allow for that. Or just an evolution?

matt n agreed but I think the formula 1 cars will have high revving turbocharged engines regardless.

Not as high revving as they are right now so it won't be as thrilling.

Can't wait to see what the changes bring, it could potentially make the sport completely different.

superstevie September 7, 2010 8:41 AM

"(2) Ban aerodynamic development, its meaningless to road cars."

I wouldn't say it was meaningless. Better aerodynamics on a road car can mean better fuel economy

BadgerChap September 7, 2010 11:44 AM

Cut budgets dramatically.  Then throw away 95% of the technical rulebook.

Current costs are due to the rulebook being tighter than a gnats crotchet.  This makes everyone build pretty much the same car and then the rich teams can make up the extra seconds-per-lap by throwing vast amounts of cash at the details.  

I say let creativity rule the day.  Salary apart, design creativity is free.  We could then have a field full of exciting, hyper-fast cars bristling with creative ideas and with the smaller teams being able to 'think' their way further up the grid.  Why limit anything (so longer as driver safety is maintained)??

testcase September 7, 2010 1:15 PM

for a radical change in F1, there needs to be a couple of 19 year old girls joining as drivers, perhaps an all girl team.

talking of F1 sounds, i have only watched F1 on the TV sadly, but the best impression of sound i got from the cars was not from the expensive equalised engineered sound feed from the broadcast of the BBC but from a recent youtube mobile phone video clip of the start of the spa GP where Massa cheated on the grid, when all the cars launch off the line the noise is immense, you hear that on TV, as i guess the roar distorts and overloads the mobile phone microphone, which actually makes it sound impressive. unlike the muted levels of TV.

david RS September 8, 2010 6:21 PM

Turbos : no thanks!

4 pots : no thanks!

Less aero, no carbon brakes.

No radio, no telemetry.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - cover 15.2.12

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>