Whiting predicts era of excitement for F1 with new 2014 engines
Innovation
Posted By: James Allen  |  26 Jun 2013   |  2:56 pm GMT  |  101 comments

Formula 1 race director Charlie Whiting believes the sport is set to enter a new era of excitement when it introduces 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged engines next season.

Whiting was speaking on the opening day of the FIA Sport Conference Week, hosted by our own James Allen, which looks at the vision for motorsport over the coming years as well as the challenges facing the sport in terms of safety, sustainability and affordability.

Whiting highlighted that fuel efficiency will be key, with 2014 cars requiring around 50kg less fuel than this year to complete a race distance.


“We have new powertrain coming in 2014, with all sorts of energy recovery devices, which will I think bring the power up to a little over what we have at the moment,” said Whiting.

“The cornerstone of this new power unit is that cars will only be able to use 100kg of fuel for a race. There is also a fuel flow limit that will be checked and verified by the FIA fuel flow meter which will be fitted in all cars’ fuel tanks.

“Currently the fuel used is about 140 or 150kg and that will come down to the 100kg mark. That is a significant difference.

“Efficiency is the key thing. There’s no limit to the amount of fuel a team can put in a car but there is a limit to how much they can use in a race. It is a significant change to the efficiency of the car.”

Whiting also said that engine technology has moved on significantly since Formula 1’s last turbo era in the 1980s so the engines will be safer, with the risk of fire no greater than it is now.

“You will not see any more fires than we see now,” he said. “Things are much safer than they ever were in the past. The technology has come on in leaps and bounds and it is the most efficient way of developing the required power and that, alongside the energy recovery, means we will see some amazing machines out there.”

The conference also discussed how if motorsport is to prosper, it must increase its relevance to the general public while retaining the emotion that has hooked core fans of the sport.

FIA deputy president for Sport Graham Stoker said: “A healthy grassroots motor sport culture is necessary. We need new blood and this has to be tackled with vigour. If we show that motor sport brings positive social change that’s a real step forward.”

Vicky Chandhok, president of the Federation of Motorsport Clubs of India (FMSCI) said that India has focused on increasing involvement in all forms of motorsport, and this has see a 40% year-on-year- increase in events.

“We have taken a conscious decision that as well as hardcore rallying, racing and autocross, we will have time speed distance rallying, plenty of karting and family outing events,” he said. “That whole batch then starts developing the sport in the sense of spectators and sponsors.

“This is working quite well for us. It has increased our events greatly. We have had a 40 per cent year- on-year increase, we now have 368 motor sport events. In a country like ours, that had only 100 events a year or two ago, I think we’re doing something right.”

Meanwhile, Maria de Villota pointed to the positive step in the development of the FIA Women in Motorsport Commission. If [Williams F1 development driver] Susie Wolff gets
a superlicence that would be good,” she said. “We need girls to want to be like Susie; if there is no one involved at that level girls will think it’s not possible to do it.”

And Alejandro Agag, promoter of the Formula E championship, added that the electric-powered series would be able to fulfill a role of opening up motorsport to new generations.

“Formula E has the chance to talk to new fans but those fans want real racing as well and the way we deliver that racing will be decisive,” he said. “Cars are not as relevant to kids these days, as they have smart phones and tablets – so to make it more relevant we need to give them motor sport through those devices.”

Featured Innovation
INNOVATION BRIEFING
technical innovation from tata COMMUNICATIONS
Previous
Next
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!
1

Round the corner and take out the group ahead of you, until the plane stalls out and things get a little zero-g.

Please note that the following points should be heeded when punching:

. If you have enough space at home, it’s best to choose the full size

swing with a lot of features.

2

F1 is over. first refueling was eliminated and so was the excitement of soft tires, light fuel loads, multiple pit stops and when they hit the line at the end of pit road… instant 20,000 rpm gear bangin excitement. you can’t lie those cars of the v10 v8 era were mechanical technology at its finest. if you attended ANY event with v8 or v10 F1 car, the moment you heard that motor you never forgot it, you smiled from ear to ear and never watched any other form of racing with any interest again. i used to watch every race start to finish.. now with the new format i could hardly stand to watch… it is so much like nascar everyone just drives around worried about tires and fuel load.

you have now removed the last thing that kept me coming back…. the sound of a 20000 rpm motor and semi auto gearbox.

maybe the should change the name to T1 and everyone drives a tesla

thanks for all the great years of racing… because now it is just motoring

3

guys…f1 has become really boring these days mainly because they are getting slower and slower by each year.. we,ll never see lap records being broken ever again…f1 suppose tobe all about expensiveness but it has become cheaper and cheaper these days..i just want to see the old very powerful 3.0litre v10 20,000rpm engines..they are just so amazing ..with the new v6 next year producing a low 700hp i think its gonna suck…f1 is all about fast ,top speed,lap records not some dumb tire and fuel efficiency…the cars of next year will be 3-5 seconds slower..and thats gonna suck.

4

A lot of F1 fans are drawn to that sound of the engine!! I think crowds will start to drop off as they soon realise its not so much of a wow factor! Think of an FA/18 Hornet blasting with 38,000 horse power twin turbo fan engines overhead! You are drawn to it because of the ‘RAW POWER’! if it was as quiet as a mouse, no one would give a shit. I understand that we live in an environment where efficiency is the way forward but there is no doubt, that a v6 engine sounds pretty average.

5

Surprised by how everyone going on about loss of power and wanting to see drivers at the limit. The truth is if you turn off the driver aids like traction control; NONE of the drivers would be able to drive them. Lets not even talk about wet races. F1 has been as much about competing at thinking, innovating, access to resource and yes money. If you enjoy primitive machines where the person predominantly determines outcomes the F1 is not for you. Face it; the sport is no longer about the likes of Tyrell building cars in sheds and still competing.

I enjoy winning through innovation as much as through so called superior talent. Who can forget the Brawn diffuser allowing a journeyman like Button to look like a genius. How about Schumi and the team using the last lap to do a drive through penalty to win a race. What class!

The regs for next year are about curtailing over powered machines as they have been since the original lethal turbo era. I’m anxious to see what the engineers come up with.

And yes in an age when gas guzzlers are ethically wrong; it is right to limit it’s consumption, force energy recovery and introduce an electric powered series.

Thank god there are visionaries controlling the sport and not nostalgic fossils.

6

For someone who doesn’t know that traction control is prohibited in Formula 1 you are awfully loud mouthed about them.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8710/fia.html

“9.3 Traction control

No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver.

Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.”

For someone who does seem to ignore, that not only was Brawn GP one of _three_ teams starting with double diffusers, but also that “journeyman” Button has beaten Hamilton on a regular basis, you are being awfully noisy about things you don’t seem to have a clue about.

But I do second you regarding new technologies, especially the turbo. Turbos open a whole new range of possibilities. Imagine one day Formula-1 could get rid of DRS in favor of a boost button that everyone is free to use for limited time per race, which just relaxes the fuel flow limiter and doesn’t bear the “unfair advantage” of 1″-second-behind-anyone” DRS-detection points.

7

So what is launch control then?

And I didn’t compare Button to any driver. Are you implying he raced against Lewis only through out his career? He’s not exactly beating the rookie in the team now is he.

8

The headline of this article shocked me, because it marked the first time in recent memory I have found myself in agreement with Charlie. That is, until I re-read it and realised it DIDN’T say:

WHITING PREDICTS PERIOD OF EXCREMENT FOR F1 WITH NEW 2014 ENGINES

9

So if I understand it correctly, the fuel cell will be capable of holding >100Kg of fuel yet they are only allowed to use 100 Kg of fuel. If that is correct, I wonder how that will work. Will a car be penalised for using say 105Kg? What sort of penalty?

Maybe I interpreted what Charlie said incorrectly.

10

As I understand it (and as always I may be wrong) currently teams can start with as much fuel as the fuel cells can hold.

I agree that it sounds like that might change next year, but either way the intrinsic penalty from starting with more fuel on board comes in the form of increased lap times, which is obviously something the teams try to avoid.

11

I understand that sometimes, you have to move on with the time and new technology, but this is a sport and they take away the things that make it special, like loud and powerful engines, fat tyres, pushing to the limit etc.

So basicaly, for each GP, the 22 cars will save in total around 1100 litres of fuel. The fuel for road cars is around £1.4 per litre, then the F1 fuel might be around £2-£3 per litre. That is a saving of about £3500 per GP.

I know there will be other benefits in the future for road cars, but still. It doesn’t seem to be worth the bother for £3500 a GP in saving fuel.

I guess we will see how will turn up.

12

If you can make every car on the planet use 30% less fuel over the next say 10 years as a direct result of these technologies championed in F1 that would be an amazing achievement and buy time to help us find alternative energy sources for our everyday transport. It’s not about saving a few liters of fuel on a GP weekend.

13

An electric car has just reached 204mph and we already have fully electric road and racing cars.

Koenigsegg already tested a car with internal combustion engine for 3 years with a “free valve system” which has fuel consumption reduced by up to 20%. When it’s going to be fully optimized they expect to have 30% fuel reduction, 30% more torque and 30% more power and 50% less emisions.

Car manufacturers already are developing these technologies without being part of F1. Do you think Audi and Ford and not doing anything? You think the only car manufacturers are Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes? Lets get serious now!

14

Reading through the comments, it is as though Daily Wail reading neanderthal men are due to be castrated by lentil eating feminists, having just found out that European immigrant travelers cause house price cancer.

This is the loss of 2 cylinders, not 2 testicles…

Notable that since the Renault engine sound was released, many of the words used to criticize it (not just here, but every where I have read comments) are pretty much the same words as people have used to favorably describe current and past engines. For example I have seen comments that say these new engine “scream”, while other comments say these engine don’t “scream” like the current ones do. No consistency at all.

On top of that, most fans watch on TV. You can not hear the engine properly on TV at all. Any one who has witnessed an F1 engine live will know that TV gives you about 10% of the actual sound. Further, you don’t hear an F1 engine as such, you more feel them, which cant ever happen via TV. What we are really seeing is a conservative (with a small c) reaction to the most scary thing of all: change. Well, history tells us that people get over that very quickly. For example, I don’t see any more complaints about big wide ugly front wings any more. Same with KERS, refueling, and so on. Always the same.

I’ve seen this routine before, repeated over and over again. Literally every time there is a significant regulation change we get comment threads just like this. Yet the sport lives on, and grows. No regulation change has ever significantly lost the sport fans, in fact most work out just fine. TV ratings and race attendance are pretty much locked in to national driver success, not engine spec. People care about drivers and teams, not obscure specifications. Fans will still watch.

15

I was more excited about the engines when there was no development ban.

16

This is what Gary Anderson had to say.

“For any engineer, the challenge of any new regulation is great. So the new V6 turbo with increased electrical power is a great challenge. But taking it further than just being an engineer, I believe the change was made to make it look like F1 is a bit more ‘green’. I don’t think they needed to change the engine package to do that. It could have done that in lots of other ways. But when you put in control criteria, such as the fuel limit for next year, you end up with the potential that people will drive around saving fuel and that lots of things will happen during the race that the viewer and commentator have no idea about. And we are opening up that door. If you think this year’s confusing – wait until next year”.

Doesn’t sound too good 🙁

17

I think you missed the fuel econemy point there, it’s not about the fuel the new F1 engines save but the knock on effect. Imagine if all the cars throughout the world used 30% less fuel, that would be a massive. Putting less strain on limited energy reserves, cutting global emissions of CO2, and giving the world more time to develope alternative formsof energy to run our transport from.

This is the legacy of the new powertrains, not a saving of 50 liters per car per race.

18

F1’s not really about the fans anymore…..actually has it ever been 😉

19

Amen, its about money. If you don’t like it don’t watch. But don’t expect it to be the like the past, foolish and pointless nostalgia.

20

We are all dreaming but none of them seem to be coming true.

21

I really don’t know why people are grumbling about the races right now?!? Besides the last two races, we’re in a stretch of about two and a half years of ‘the best’ racing.

There is no way to go back to the way racing was in the past, it just cannot and will never be replicated; get over it.

Going forward, with the extreme solution delivery techniques that are used now means that there is always going to be the limiting factor!

Right now, it is the tires.

In the future, it will be something else.

One can see why the addition of the increased complexity, and therefore technological component of the show, continues to cause the yet tedious repetition of dissatisfaction, from the dissatisfied class.

Th onset of new sets of specifications and constraints is the new format of the sport, constantly evolving, overcoming new sets of constraints in the obsession to be the team that maximizes the end result.

That is what the sport is, now.

It is a bit different, but it is good.

Hopefully the new engines can enable an exit of the most contrived aspects of the formula, first and foremost, the DRS. With the other limiting factors bring a high degree of variability over the entire course of the race, let alone weekend, DRS has served its purpose and should now be put out to pasture for a year, to see how it is, without it.

I am hoping to the the black flower with a fully functioning gizmo this weekend.

22

If it sounds bad but is much faster I can dig that.

Other than that it’ll be pure overhyped marketing.

BTW since when did Mr. Whiting started promoting F1, smells fishy.

And what about the sound boosters?

After listening to the Renault turbo sample I ticked ‘NO’ on the box.

23

Whiting…? After last weeks tribunal decision is he still in F1…? Having said that, I have sensitive ears & a quieter engine would work for me, not that I could afford tickets beyond the parking lot. 🙂

24

So much complaining about F1 being watered down because the cars are not driven on the limit due to conservation of tires, fuel, engines, blah blah blah…

First thing: there is NOTHING new about race pace being compromised due to conservation. Period.

Second thing: 99.9% of F1 fans watch all the races on television. On TV there is absolutely no way to visually tell the difference in car speed between a 1:30 qualifying lap and a 1:40 race lap. If you didn’t know the lap times or saw the onboard data I guarantee you would have NO idea how fast the cars were actually going.

In other words, there is no way the overwhelming majority of F1 fans are having their experience negatively compromised by slower lap times during the races.

25

“NOTHING new about race pace being compromised due to conservation.”

I agree, however, the conservation didn’t preclude extending the car for some reasonable periods of time. In the past, although conservation was necessary, it was always worth the risk to go up to the limit and battle for some laps to gain track position or to push the car for a number of laps to chase a car down.

This seems to have disappeared in this years racing. Cars seem to push for the first 2 laps, because that is when the biggest track position gains can be achieved, and then after that it is not worth pushing because the risk dramatically outweighs the potential reward.

Re your point regarding not being able to discern the difference in the lap times between a 100 second lap, and a 90 second lap, if it was an in car view, I bet I could, but big deal. I agree that visually it is somewhat similar, but it is the racing that I see as being different and that has receded dramatically.

If F1 does not improve the risk / reward ratio for pushing cars to the limit, then I’m afraid it will be dumbed down to a mathematical equation. It will be sad if that’s what “Formula” ends up meaning.

26

“Cars are not as relevant to kids these days, as they have smart phones and tablets”

Really? I have a smart phone. I like technology. I still love motor racing. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The marketing of the sport is what needs to be relevant. Make it exciting, and available on youtube, smartphones and tablets, for a reasonable price, and kids/teenagers will watch it and grow up into paying race fans.

Why isn’t this happening? It’s almost like there is some correlation between uncaring fatcat owners milking the sport for all it’s worth, and the lack of engagement with core and upcoming audiences. But surely thats not the case?!

As for all the naysayers complaining; it’s never going to be perfect, and F1 has been through many different era’s with many different limitations. If it’s not for you any more then fine, but there seem to be a lot of people who are ‘done with F1’, yet who still have an awful lot to say about it.

27

The manufacturers would not contemplate building prohibitvely expensive new engines, the cars would be slower and less powerful than those in the outgoing formula, and GP racing “would be reduced to an unimportant contest carrying no prestige whatsoever.”

As described in Mark Whitelock’s excellent book on the era, thus spoke Autosport and British racing intrests generally upon the announcement of the 1.5 litre F1. Yet we all know that F1 became primarily a British industry because developments proved to be far different than those doomsaying critics prophesied. Clark, Chapman, Lotus, G. Hill, Surtees, Stewart – all came to prominence during the “mini-F1” period. BRM became a winner and consistent competitor. Tire and suspension technology advanced during the era. The formula saw monocoque chassis construction firmly esetablished in race car design. Honda came into the sport, the first passenger car manufacturer to do so, Ferrari aside, since Mercedes left the sport a few years before.

I could go on, but you get the point. We have been down this road before. History tells us that the cars and the racing will be better, more spectacular, and will spur more innovations, than pessimism over change predicts things will be. Any team that has simply gotten on with the job of getting ready for the new formula, as Ferrari did for 1961, should prevail – as Ferrari did in 1961.

What team that will be this time remains to be seen. If Williams and McLaren dominate in the way that Lotus and BRM did in the 1.5 era, I suspect that many of the complaints we’re hearing now will melt away as if they had never been.

28

Mind you, I would prefer adopting the old 1.5 regs (with no wings on the cars) using modern materials with complete engine freedom and a tire war, and races on the full ‘Ring and the LeMans 24hr course. But I dream…

29

I’m with you there, no aero but full electrical freedom, traction control, active suspension, abs and why not mass dampers too one of the best ever innovations. And unlimited KERS.

30

would whiting have attracted more interests by saying next season would see quieter engines with more fuel management as well as tyre management with drivers preserving tyres and fuel by not attacking other drivers, hoping that they’d run out of tyres or fuel at the final stages of the race?

31

Dream on Mr. Whiting… just sayin’

32

My problem with this new engine is that I don´t understand what F1 wants to accomplish.

33

Its all about cost cutting and marketing.

Engine manufactures need more relevance and exposure.

Teams need to cut costs with fuel and engine numbers.

The ‘green’ part of it is just media spin.

34

Avoiding becoming irrelevant.

35

Like modern cars, good but dreary!

36

“Irrelevant”? B S! F1 is f1— it isn’t relevant to enything, only itself. How bl—y ridulous it is to try and fool us that it should be in some way similar to road cars! That’s crazy, the reason we watch F1 is to see something that is different, is the pinacle of motor sport, sounds terific, etc., etc. Sure, have a class of motorsport that is relevant to road cars, but call it something else, don’t f— with F1!

PK.

37

Couldn’t agree more.

38

Hmmmmm…

Concorde.

SR-71

V12s

We could make a list of wonderful hardware that no longer has a place. End of day F1 is a marketing show. And it would appear that sponsors need relevance of some sort, and F1 needs to look cutting edge. What’s cutting edge about a 6L V12? It’s just brute force, and not “euro style.”

39

I can’t believe Whiting still has a job, after his role in the Tyregate fiasco.

40

Whilst understanding that F1 can’t stand still or it will loose it’s relevance and would become stale if it just stayed as it is, it seems that this latest move will take away many things, the noise being just one. There is no doubt that drivers will have to work to their fuel flow so won’t be able to drive to their maximum. This will mean that it becomes all about the car/engine and the driver will relegated to a highly competent operator. Maybe we just have to accept that motor racing has had it’s heyday. The skill and bravery has all been removed by technology. Bit like modern music, maybe, soon a short skirt will soon be the only thing you need to win! Umm, do you think Lewis would look good in a skimpy dress?

41

100% right.

Old F1 was primative. This is what made it awesome. Primative technology, safety, tracks, aero.

We have to accept where we are. Give any old F1 car to current F1 designer and he’ll shave seconds off that design on a napkin while having lunch. We’ve learned things. Can’t unlearn.

42

We can unlearn how to make useless tyres and we can unlearn how to make F1 sound like Indycar. See and hear them both at Goodwood, the Indycars don’t sound very exciting compared to a good V8/V10/V12. Still it is what it is, might just lose interest

43

+1

Can’t wait to see what happens in ten years when everybody starts complaining about the noise of V2 engines and how great those old V8s and V6 turbos were 😉

44

Little risk of that, since V-twins on open pipes sound like God’s artillery division… the quicker we get there the better I say 🙂

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation