Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Max Mosley is looking to the F1 teams to make proposals on how they can cut the fuel consumption of their cars and therefore improve the image of F1 in the eyes of an increasingly environmentally conscious world.  At the moment, the power produced by F1 engines is effectively capped by the formula governing engine size (2.4L) configuration (V8), maximum engine speed (19,000rpm) and restrictions on the air intake, fuel and other systems, all of which work to limit how quickly fuel (the fuel itself is also standardised) can be burned and therefore, how much power can be produced.

A radical approach to improve fuel consumption may be to scrap these rules making the engine capacity and configuration free, but to limit how much fuel a team can use in a race weekend.  A starting point could be to take the average amount of fuel used per car at this year’s races and cut that by, say, 20%.  Each year the fuel limit could be further cut as the cars’ fuel efficiency improves.

The removal of the engine formula would leave the teams free to decide on what engine size and configuration they want to use and opens up opportunities for creative thinking on how to produce a competitive level of performance.  We could see small capacity turbocharged engines taking on bigger capacity multi-cylinder engines, rotaries, and who knows what else.  This would build in some technical interest and make F1 a showcase for environmental developments in internal combustion engines once again.

It would also make the teams’ strategies for the whole race weekends more interesting.  Lots of practice and qualifying laps means less fuel available for the race; fewer non-race laps allows more freedom in the race.

Not only would this open up the engines to more innovation and change, but that innovation could be directly applicable to the mainstream automotive industry.  This could lead to F1 becoming a test-bed for the road cars of the future once again.

If this change was also combined with a removal of the restrictions on transmissions then even more freedom could be granted to the designers.  How about a single speed engine driving through a CVT transmission?  The engine could be optimised very tightly around its operating speed giving an improvement in efficiency.

 

Excellent idea, but I am sure the argument from the teams and governing bodies will relate to cost.

One of the key spectacles of F1 is supposed to be close racing.  In recent seasons we have seen an improvement in this due to the rule changes, but give them such a radical change, it will probably fracture the grid in to small pieces.  The richer teams will of course be quicker and someone will dominate intially doing the "sport" no favors.

Certainly the idea of giving them a fuel quota is a good one, just stick to using existing technology.

With the gargantuan F1 circus flitting from continent to continent for the majority of every year, controlling the amount of fuel used at the racetracks themselves is window dressing of the most cynical kind. No doubt there will be some spurious agrument about the technology filtering down to production cars which might be true if you're a Ferrari buyer but unlikely to affect the MPG of your Laguna.

andy.linley@tiscali.co.uk:

We could see small capacity turbocharged engines taking on bigger capacity multi-cylinder engines, rotaries, and who knows what else.

Although a fuel use formula may initially generate the diversity of engine type and size suggested above, I suspect that there would only be 1 perhaps 2 ideal answers to the problem and that within a very short time all the computers would be generating similar designs.

There is also Mr Mosely in the background with the Sword of Damocles. Picking a team at random, should, Maclaren Mercedes say, develop a new engine that provided 50BHP more than anyone else and used 10% less fuel, how long would it take him to change the rules to outlaw that engine type or fill the car with ballast to negate the advantage.

Any of you guys remember the mid-80s fuel processions where they drove around conserving fuel? Never again! It's racing, it should be about driving flat out.

When are people going to stop contemplating thier proverbials and enjoy life. Oil is going to run out, it's inescapable. Let's have some fun while we still have it!

 

Sounds great if it were ever to come true except for this bit.

 "The removal of the engine formula would leave the teams free to decide on what engine size and configuration they want to use and opens up opportunities for creative thinking on how to produce a competitive level of performance.  We could see small capacity turbocharged engines taking on bigger capacity multi-cylinder engines, rotaries, and who knows what else."

This would mean Teams with huge budgets such as Ferrari and Mclaren would have a big advantage and they would be miles ahead of the rest of the field, and all of the development that has been done over the past years to make Formula 1 close, would of been a complete waste of time. All because of team budgets and if the FIA were to put a budget barrier on so the teams aren't allowed to spend vast amounts of money, all the bigger teams would no doubt protest against the idea and that would be scrapped.

For example Ferrari's budget is around 250,000,000 dollars, were as Force indians budget is around 50,000,000 dollars.

andy.linley@tiscali.co.uk:

therefore improve the image of F1 in the eyes of an increasingly environmentally conscious world

What a complete load of bollocks. I mean, who decides to take a trip to the F1 to sample the economical side, loud noise, huge gas output and horrendous consumtion of flammable liquids (sounds like a stag party)........................

What is the world coming to if we have to sacrifise everything so that Prince charles can get just a couple more miles out of his Aston Vanquish????????

Soon we will be watching BTCC and the only cars allowed to compete will be toyota Prius's and Honda Civic Hybrid cars................... hmmmmmmmm, exciting much?

I don't get the point of eco mentalists. They have no jobs, (some), so therefore they drive about in the most vile cars, like VW campers and such. They are hardly what I would call eco friendly, so I have a plan.................

Instead of the eco plonkers taking out their anger at F1, they should bloody well get a bike and then complain, because unless they do that, they are all bloody hypocrites...... 

Exellent arguments all and nice to see people rationally thinking about issues such as environment versus pure motor sport fun. However it may interest people to know that f1 has been a carbon neutral sport since 1997. http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/01/7272 I know carbon neutral does not reduce actual emissions, but it is a step forwards and helps answer the point above. In fact I heard that Wimboldon this year generated a larger carbon footprint than the whole 2007 F1 season. Have nothing to back that up but it is an interesting thought.

Many good points in the various replies, but I still feel that the key to spectacle and interesting technological developments in motorsport, as elsewhere, is in freedom to innovate rather than restriction.

Having worked as an engineer in the automotive component industry, both motorsport and high volume, I’m well aware that motorsport teams spend the disproportionate amounts of money trying to eke out a small advantage within tight regulations, not when they’re being creative with something entirely new.

As an example, one of the components I was involved with about ten years ago was a ceramic reinforced brake calliper for use in Indy Cars (as a component actually far, far cheaper and more durable than the carbon discs and pads used in F1). As part of a drive to cut costs the FIA decided to ban composite materials for components like brake callipers so they imposed an arbitrary stiffness limit on the materials used for them, slightly above the typical stiffness of most aluminium alloys. (This also had the unwanted side effect of outlawing cast iron callipers - the cheapest material option of all.) The effect was that some of the teams started to spend huge amounts developing special aluminium alloys that got close to the artificial stiffness limit set by the FIA – the complete opposite of the original intention.

F1 and other forms motorsport seem to be going through a protracted period where genuine innovation is actively discouraged (except for bizarre aerodynamic aids that have very little relevance to road cars and actually make overtaking more difficult). Simple and effective innovations seem to be rapidly outlawed (remember Jordan’s clever use of driveshafts and LSDs between the front wheels of their F1 cars and Renault’s mass damper?) so the teams are encouraged to spend huge amounts to get tiny advantages within the restrictive rules.

I’m not in favour of total deregulation, but why not give the engine builders some creative freedom and limit the power produced by the fuel they use rather than the engine that burns it? (oh, and I always thought that the fuel saving processions in the 80s were due to fuel stops being banned and the cars having to carry a full race worth of fuel)