F1 keeps faith with hybrid – but noisier, cheaper, high-revving engines on the cards
Innovation
Ross Brawn
Posted By: James Allen  |  31 Oct 2017   |  3:42 pm GMT  |  257 comments

THe first proper road map for the future direction of F1 under the management of Liberty Media and the FIA was laid out today, as the outline Formula 1 engine of the future was revealed.

THe power unit from 2021 onwards will retain the 1.6 litre V6 architecture, will still be hybrid, but the troublesome (for some) MGU-H, harnessing heat energy from the turbo, will be dispensed with while the kinetic energy regeneration will be beefed up and feature driver manual control, for tactical racing.

Fans who miss the loud, high revving engines of the past will have to wait to hear what an extra 3,000 rpm will mean to the experience of hearing F1 in the flesh.

The plan is for the FIA to publish the definition of the 2021 power unit at the end of this year.
According to a joint statement from the FIA and F1: “In order to uphold the objective of cost reduction, work will continue over the next 12 months to define certain elements of the Power Unit, but the design and development of the complete Power Unit will not be possible until all the information is released at the end of 2018. This aims to ensure that manufacturers continue to work on the current specification Power Unit.

During the remaining part of 2017 and 2018, the FIA and F1 will also work with the teams to establish power unit test and development restrictions as well as other cost containment measures.”

THe only details given today were as follows:

• 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
• 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
• Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
• Removal of the MGUH
• More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
• Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
• Standard energy store and control electronics
• High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
• Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

Ross Brawn

Ross Brawn, F1’s managing Director, Motorsports noted that the view of fans had been taken into account as well as manufacturers looking to enter F1 in future, such as Porsche.

He highlighted the spirit of collaboration between Liberty Media and the FIA as the basis for a carefully considered approach, with which the teams and manufacturers can collaborate: “The 2021 power unit is an example of the future way the FIA as regulators, F1 as commercial right holders, the teams and the manufacturers as stakeholders will work together for the common good of the sport,” he said.

“The proposal presented today was the outcome of a series of meeting which took place during 2017 with the current teams participating in the FIA Formula 1 World Championship and the manufacturers who showed their interest to be part of the pinnacle of motor sport.

“Also, we’ve carefully listened to what the fans think about the current PU and what they would like to see in the near future with the objective to define a set of regulations which will provide a powertrain that is simpler, cheaper and noisier and will create the conditions to facilitate new manufacturers to enter Formula 1 as powertrain suppliers and to reach a more levelled field in the sport.”


What do you think of this development? Are you happy that F1 will be on the right track with this plan for engines? Leave your comments in the section below

Featured Innovation
INNOVATION BRIEFING
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, you must be logged in to post a comment.

257 comments

by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
1

So the 3000 rpm will make the 2021 engines rev as almost as much as the V8 from 2008 till 2013.
Have the teams, Liberty and FIA discussed the weight of the car? Is there an news about this topic. Having lighter cars could help the show, ea faster lap time, drivers throwing cars around the corner.

2

No this change will make the cars even heavier still and slower with removing MGU-H.

I'm not sure about all of this. Why can't the hybrid stuff be totally ditched? A 1000hp ICE engine would be lighter than the current and it would sound good and what about a supercharger? Flames look good too.

The proposal requires a brand new engine anyhow. F1 already has 4 engine suppliers which is more than either NASCAR or IndyCar has.

3

As far as I'm aware at least 2 of the current engine manufacturers in F1, and 1 interested in joining, made it clear they expected there to be a 'hybrid' engine for it to be relevant to their business and thus worth the cost of being in F1, so a standard ICE wasn't really an option.
Also people keep talking about the "sound" of the egnines, well I don't know about in person but on the TV I think they sound pretty good, and more varied due to the different sounds and power stages of different engines. Also given everyone is still having to wear ear defenders and stopping talking as cars pass they're not exactly quiet, do we want technologically advanced cars and good racing, or just loud bangers that go fast?!
I may be in a minority but I like the advancements and these new rules that expand the MGU-K to allow for larger battery capacity, storing multiple laps of energy, and manual driver deployment instead of software deployment should make for some great attempted overtakes and defenses and showing which drivers understand how to think tactically. Also it could in theory allow for the removal of the DRS if people can get several laps electric boost power in one go.

4

Whoops I dunno but if not for few dumb mistakes by Ferrari that they're right their and Red Bull too.

Doing nothing just might be better.

5

Mercedes and Ferrari are against this. Renault seem to be 50/50. And Honda made no comment.

3 of them say removing the MGU-H means a new engine design. That's why making the engine simpler still might have about as much chance of maintaining the current manufacturers as the other plan. Who cares if we maintain them? Because people like Imor still has to say Chevy so they pay them for Indy Car engines. Even if Liberty thinks that will bring in new manufacturers it's not likely to happen.

Maybe just a standardised MGU-H would help a lot. The cars now are very fast. They don't have that high RPM sound but it's not that bad.

Sneezing in one standardised part at time and making the fuel and lubricants standard would tighten the up the racing. 3 or 4 guys got a chance to win the WDC next year.

6

IndyCar anyone? Includes "Push to Pass," just add prescribed Aero bits...Ovals?

7

F1 sort of has this. I think it's in the engine mode. You can lower the lap times to have more power on demand to pass or defend with.

8

Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions

I find this disappointing... It is attempting to establish a centralised governance of innovation. I'm want extremes in my sports!

9

Wanting extremes are OK, but don't expect closely competitive racing. When one team gets it really right, it will take a while for the others to figure out how to close the gap. Makes the actual racing less exciting. Remember the CanAm in the late 60's and 70's, Ferrari in the Brawn era ?

10

Not the worst result, but I personally feel a little let down by the missed opportunities here.

Only 3,000 RPM extra feels a little weak given the potential of these engines, and removing the MGU-h is going to offset some of the (potential) power gains.

Aggressive restrictions on internal and external parameters also feel like it is going to reduce opportunities for development and, much like with the current chassis regs, mean that all of the budget will be focused onto small areas, like suspension on the current cars.

Similar engines to now, with + 8,000 RMP limit, a second turbo, optional MGU-k, optional layout. Powerful, simple(r), Porsche can make one.

Just me?

11

No not just you. I doesn't really matter what is done. The teams that spend the most will run up front.

12

The MGU-H's function is very similar to what a twin turbo would do (reduce turbo lag), I wonder if removing it and keeping single stage turbos is an effort to make the power band narrower and the cars more twitchy as a result. I would quite like to see an ned to fuel flow limitations, it would allow far more open strategies come race day and some crazy setting for qualifying.

13

The future of the ICE or what is left of it is it's highbridization with the smallest ICE possible and with the highest efficiency possible.
the manufacturers are not interested in high revving high fuel consumption and laud engines.

14

“only 3000rpm extra feels a little weak” ... well it’s really an extra 6000 since the current engines barely crack 12000rpm even though the current limit is 15000.
It’s going to take a lot of extra fuel to reach 18000rpm.

I agree with you that this is the open bid in the negotiations.

15

Putting refueling back in might help out or no batteries mean more fuel.

16

@axel knutt.....I have already asked the question as to why the stated RPM was not expressed as a max figure ? Normally RPM is stated as a max not discussed as an add on ? Something doesn't sound right and it would be great if it could be cleared up.

17

My theory is that they arent going to increase the max RPM. increasing max RPM right now, with no other rule changes, would have exactly 0 effect because with current fuel flow they cant reach 15,000.

I think they specifically, carefully, stated an increase of 3,000 RPM higher "running speed", because they can achieve that without amending the max RPM at all, just give them enough fuel flow to hit 15,000 rather than the 12,000 they are currently peaking at.

18

Follow up thought.

These engine regs are near enough EXACTLY what Red Bull wanted, and completely against what Mercedes and Ferrari were pushing for.

Prediction:

We will end up with 2021 engine regulations that don't really follow what was announced here, at all. This was just the FIA/FOM making their opening bid.

Perhaps Ferrari and Mercedes were throwing their weight around in the negotiations more than the FIA / FOM were happy with. This announcement is their low-ball offer to set the start point for negotiation back up to where they want to end up.

Get ready to see standardised MGU-H added back into the mix, with a second Turbo as an option.

I can't see them throwing away the efficiency gains that the MGU-H provides, but they still don't want it to be a performance differentiator. I suspect Mercedes were being asked to provide theirs as the spec and they refused, hence the announcement getting rid of it completely, suspecting Mercedes would yield a little to keep a technology they are already putting on their road cars.

I also don't see how a more powerful KERS will be practicable without an MGU-H, to store 'several laps of charge' the battery would be huge, and heavy! without additional dynamic recovery and deployment.

19

Neither do I unless the KERS is applied to all four wheels.

Let Honda build that MGU-H and that would liven things up.

20

It's not just the MGUH, but how the ICE, turbine and compressor all work as one power plant for maximum efficiency. Getting rid of compounded turbo charging and tightening the fuel regulations will force all makes down a very similar, cheaper path.

21

I’m pretty sure the + 3,000 rpm limit is on top of the current 15,000 rpm level (making for a top limit of 18k rpm). You weren’t suggesting a 23,000 rpm limit were you? Ouch Bang! Personally, I don’t believe turbos and high rpms are homogenous. This is ably demonstrated by the fact that the current PUs do not rev past circa 11,500 so they don’t even reach today’s prescribed limit let alone another 3k. However, the removal of the MGU-H might make a difference, but I’m interested to know how they are going to conquer turbo-lag without it. Turbo builders get their grunt low down - no need for scream.

22

One way is using turbo super charging.

23

Exactly what I was thinking. Current engines don't even hit the existing limit; how is an extra 3k going to change anything? They're going to have to allow NA or supercharged if they what more noise.

24

Interesting suggestion I saw elsewhere, I think Matt Somers, standardise the entire ERS package, keep the MGU-K, and H, so everyone gets in 2021 a Merc level ERS system. Then I'd add to that no fuel flow restriction, no rev limit (naturally limited by combustion, but different layouts might have advantages) and the number of Turbos, the layout of the engine etc are all open as long as it's a 1.6.

25

I agree with your saying, except maybe for the rpm's.
I remember having read quite a long time ago that above 18.000 rpm with regular fuels, the combustion in the cylinder had a hard time keeping up with the piston speed ! That meant a significant drop in efficiency.
Going above 18,000 rpm also meant using exotic materials, which is not the way present rules go.
And that was with atmospheric engines only ...

26

Hopefully this will mean lightercars.
Reduce the weight by 50kg. Keep power over 1000bhp. Get f1 cars back not champ cars that we have now.

27

Taking off MGU-H is a guaranteed loss of power. The power (Not the energy) that one can get from regenerative braking (KERS) is limited, the lighter the car, the lesser the power. Yes, in energy store can help you to collect it for a long time and release it instantly.

Mercedes have managed to yield thermal efficiency of 50% with the help of MGU-H. Sadly, the sport is going backwards in terms of thermal efficiency.

28

Why sadly? Nobody cares!

29

clearly some do.

30

Mark, they could do with losing a few pounds, but they are still lighter than Indycars.

31

... but a lot heavier than a few years ago. Remember the Colin Chapman maxim...

32

I do. F1 apparently doesn't.

Where in the recent past high-tech meant getting the job done in the most economical way, with the fewest components and at the lowest cost, now high-tech means saving a bit of fuel even if it means adding massive amount of cost, complexity and waste to the mix.

That's what happens when hippies infiltrate F1.

33

@LukeC - agreed 100%...

That said, I'd like to know if there is any real transfer of hybrid technology to the road car divisions of Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda.

It would be the only justification for the hippies...

34

I doubt it. If anything, the mgu-h is more relevant to roadcar tech than the mgu-k.

35

Direction seems to be correct. I have 1 more suggestion

Get rid of DRS and transfer the control technology to K-ERS deployment.

Not sure if this will reduce overtakes in the races though. It would be good if we see some restrictions on the aerodynamics part of the design to allow close racing. But I have no idea if this is possible.

Any expert opinions on this?

36

I'll chime in with a non-expert opinion, agree with removing DRS, there is nothing satisfying about a DRS overtake, ever.

Also agree to an extent on aero, I think there need to be more options on rake and diffuser, free aero gains for any budget, but also there is a desperate need for reduced complexity on the front wings so cars can follow each other.

The 2005 - 2008 front wings, entirely inside the front wheels, removes the ability of the front wing to signifcantly influence airflow over the front tyres. Surely, and happy to be corrected, this means the cars have increased drag in clean air conditions, and means that the slipstream effect is significantly more beneficial.

Should also mean that following other cars will not reduce down-force as dramatically as the front wing is not performing as complex or critical a role.

Finally something, anything, needs to be done to reduce the weight of the cars.

37

Probably a positive change in direction and focus for one part of the equation. Really hard to say about F-1 in the wider view, though. This step may be good for cost savings, more noise and maybe reliability (?) for the power unit piece of the projectile. There is more to it in this view, however.

The overall picture also needs to be addressed, where returning control of that projectile to be determined by driver input with reactions, foot and hand controls involved instead of engine power settings; minions around the world reviewing data input screens in real time, engineer coaching from the pit wall and with aero which (theoretically ?) would make it possible to put a tunnel (or tunnels) and allow a full-fledged corkscrew one or more times per lap on every track with the vehicles running upside down during that maneuver is something which is still out there somewhere which deserves consideration in this process.

Respectfully.

38

If any team (most likely Red Bull) ever construct a corkscrew to demonstrate a car running upside down, perhaps a decade or so later that might make it in to a live race track. I'm not convinced it would come across as any more than a novelty anyway and I believe there are several technical reasons that cars could not actually run on the ceiling of a tunnel too. Even if it was a realistic idea, looking at the way the Mercedes run in dirty air they might not be able to generate enough force to stick if anyone else had driven through in the last five seconds.

39

No problem.. we have Halo now, so trying the Lightning McQueen Corkscrew overtake is totally safe now!

40

You mean like Hot Wheels? What an extraordinary suggestion! Problem is, the McLaren Honda would just fall off because of insufficient velocity. Ah, of course it’s Renault next year, the good old “Tea Kettle.” Should be fun.

41

So long as the fuel-flow restrictions do not hamper running at higher revs...

42

It's probably a shaped curve to drive higher revving; 15k.

43

You're spot on.

The reality is with the current fuel flow restrictions they can get near the ceiling of the rpm range, so they all essentially cruise around for the whole race preserving fuel, in turn reducing the noise spectacle we all so dearly crave.

44

And so F1 heads ever more in the direction of a spec racing series. Sigh...

45

better that than watching the same two cars win every race for another 6 years.
Plus it puts the emphasis back on the driver’s ability ... then we could see if Lewis is any good or has just won his last 3 x WDC because he was in the dominant car.

46

Energy capture needs attention.

It should not be variable or within the control of software. It should be a fixed value of regenerated voltage captured (bias) between the recovery unit resistance and brake pads and it should recover that fixed voltage each time brakes are applied, and should not at all software controlled.

It should not be possible for the power recovery unit to impact brake bias around the lap based on preset sequence of inputs around the lap where the recovery happens at 100% at one turn and 70% at another turn, 50% at yet another turn - all autonomously without driver control.

What most don't know is that the recovery resistance can be controlled with the voltage drawn, which can easily be controlled by presets switching between values that are drawn. This in turn impacts brake bias autonomously. This automation of brake bias has to go to Ross! Tweak this please!

47

If you are on about brakes and racing you are barking up the wrong tree I’m afraid. One thing that would improve the racing is reducing the power of the brakes! Braking distances are so short that the chances of our braking someone are slim.

48

Does automated regen engagement that automates the brake bias around the lap for the driver at each turn shorten the braking or lengthen it? Exactly.

49

Sebee, you are a living racing encyclopedia, please stick to racing data. Leave the technical side to engineers.
What you suggest here above - it iy would have meant what you seem to think it means - can be translated as " let us kill some of those pilots, they are too many for the seats available anyways"

50

Agree with the concern here, and I'd apply it to the various engine modes and settings too.
If the software on braking energy recovery is effecting the overall braking force being applied, then it's a kind of ABS system.
If the software on the engine alters the amount of power delivered when the driver plants his foot to the floor, then it's a kind of traction control system.
Same thing when it comes to fuel saving too - instead of the engineer saying "we need to save fuel, change the engine mode [and then drive as normal]", I'd like to hear "we need to save fuel, [use your skill as a driver and] adapt how you're using the throttle"

51

That isn't how the brake/regen system works Bruce. The driver controls front/rear bias and on the rear axle brake force applied to the wheels is proportional to the driver's pressure on the brake pedal. When the car is harvesting energy the software automatically decreases hydraulic pressure to the brake disc to match how much extra braking force is provided by the regen. This prevents energy harvest from upsetting the brake balance of the car as the system draws different amounts and different level of extra brake force based on how charged the battery is.

52

Sorry, this is complete gibberish.
You do not draw voltage. Voltage is a measure of the electrical potential.
Perhaps you are trying to elude to current draw but I can’t figure out what you are getting at.
Secondly, brake bias is set by the driver, I have seen them adjust this throughout the racing. The only automation is the balance between regenerative breaking and physical breaks on the rear wheels. It would be impossible for the driver to do this manually.

53

So the balance between regenerative breaking and physical breaks on the rear wheels is impossible for driver to manage and it is done by software?

Are you saying that when rear disc brakes are at max and so is recovery that braking is equal to just disc brakes on max? Or that maximum pads aren't allowed to be ever used and the leftover braking force is the maximum allowed to be recovered? Clearly they are allowed to use both and combined braking force is greater than discs alone.

What happens when regeneration isn't working on the back or is engaged at a certain level on the rear, there is less braking force back there, right? And that's software controlled? So when that software controls that automaticallt as preset around the lap, it doesn't change braking bias as rear axle braking level changes?

Also, could you show me where you've seen a drive change brake bias?

And yes, amperage draw variability would dictate resistance of the recovery unit as well.

54

Here's a couple good ones for two of the top drivers on the grid:
Alonso, Japan qualifying - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDO2I_AnZeU
Hamilton, Singapore start - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u6LwveThc0

Both show the drivers making brake bias changes (on top of any deceleration caused by the MGU-K). It also shows to a very high degree, all the automated presets and modes that they use to get around the lap. Hamilton's start sequence is particularly dizzying, but still shows a lot of engineering input into allowing him to drive the car with all the modes, dials and switches. He even gets a message letting him know the clutch is at a good temperature... With all the drive-by-wire controls, there is less and less down to the driver's feel.

55

Sorry, this is complete gibberish.
The addition of regenerative braking cannot possibly result in a "combined braking force greater than discs alone" if the brakes alone can provide more braking force than is needed to lock up the wheels.

56

So if I default to a heavier front bias which would never lock rear, but have software strategically apply regen on the rear axle would that change the bias when regen is engaged?

Also, would I be able to have the regen turn off automatically if regen power drops due to axle not spinning (brake lock) essentially giving me ABS on the rear axle?

57

No, and no, just more gibberish.
Perhaps you should look into how the technology actually works and what the regulations are governing it.

58

The MGU-K electric motor is connected to the crankshaft through the timing gears. It helps turn the crankshaft, therefore producing more overall power. The MGU-K is directly connected to the rear wheels.

I don't understand why you are so resistant to the fact that MGU-K is connected to the rear wheels and it being engaged or not makes a difference on the rear axle. Plus the potential variability of the kW draw. And isn't all of this controlled by software? And can't it all be pre-set to certain values around the lap, as we know they do?

Pat, you can't just say gibberish when this exactly technology exists on road going hybrids and does this on road going hybrids. And when it clearly means time and performance gains in F1.

59

I have no problem with facts, just your interpretation of them.

60

So how should we interpret them Pat?

That regen engaged on rear wheel is not done by software?
That regen engaged or not makes a difference to rear braking?
That regen doesn't turn off the minute there is a lockup on rear wheels?
That began isn't variable depending on kW or volt-amps that are drawn?
That PU engineers wouldn't exploit this obvious area of allowed automation and guaranteed time gains?

61

Yes, it is.
Yes, it does.
Sorry, this is the sort of gibberish that makes clear you don't understand how the system works.
Yes, it is.
You got this completely backwards - they are trying to minimise time lost.

62

Sebee, imagine how much better the racing would be if the FIA implemented your suggestion......

63

haha - it wouldn't be better it would be impossible! As Jakethesnake writes the suggestion is utter gibberish and show a complete lack of understanding of how energy recovery works.

64

Please, do explain it us if you don't min JonL.

The only way that brake bias isn't software controlled is if the recovery unit is locked into a single voltage/amperage draw setting and is applied at that setting at each application of brakes.

As soon as that is variable, and as soon as the engagement of the recovery unit is variable and controlled by software you control the braking forces on the rear axle autonomously. Meaning you control/impact the braking bias front to back via rear axle braking levels.

I don't understand what is complicated about this concept and how you think F1 team wouldn't exploit this obvious area.

Have you ever turned a generator manually? Have you noticed how you need to apply more energy and you get more resistance the more power you wish to draw? Well, what if you could engage the generator to a shaft under braking, but engage it only when desired, or engage it to draw a certain amount of energy at certain parts of the track, thus applying only a certain level of resistance in addition to the disk brakes? We already know that the car is preset to do certain things around each lap in a sequence in the software, like deploy the ERS, engage recovery, etc. How simple would it be to also set the levels of desired capture under each braking point for optimal performance? I don't see how you don't realize that this is exactly what an F1 team would do as they understand ideal braking bias at each point around the track would result in significant performance gains.

65

Drivers wouldn't be so perfect under braking. Does that open passing opportunity, which is currently taken away by automation and robotics?

66

Yes, lots,of opportunities as they park up before each corner to run the sums and setup the car so it doesn’t spin off the track.

They could spend a few minutes with a crank to get the juice back in the pack too

67

Sebee. It would make no difference at all, energy recovery only takes place on the rear axle, the battle for F1 drivers is to stop the fronts locking, and with these cars they have to do that all on their own.

68

Did you forget how system brakes were an issue in 2014? Vettel and others were verbal about it. They probably spent a lot of time and effort in that area to automate and perfect, find time in the system.

69

Interesting, but what is more important is the reasoning and logic behind each of these objectives, and a recovery path if it doesn't work.
Noise was never an issue before 2014. Its part of the atmosphere not the racing on the track.
MGU-H was always questionable
MGU and rest is actually just a return to a tweeked pre-2014 KERS. Reduce tech complexity by going manual indeed!
Despite all the new technology 2014 was suppose to reduce costs/reliability - 5 year fail. Setting targets/penalties achieves neither if the basic engineering is pushed too far.
None of these issues where addressed back in 2012 and probably won't be this time either. Even with Liberty influence, FIA don't understand modern management for many subjects, least of all get it right first time with KISS.

70

Currently, I work at a Formula Student (FSAE) team. With about 25 team members usually present at the main work area, Formula 1 discussions run rampant. As FSAE's goal is simply to build a fast car with entertainment value entirely not of interest, most of the team agrees that technological advancement in Formula 1 and thus competition in that respect, should be running free. Nonetheless, races should be interesting and tense to watch, I suppose that's something we all agree on. This balance is one often discussed in Formula 1 and I feel that Liberty is walking that balance just right with these new guidelines.

For one, entertainment value will probably improve as the drivers are given more control over the hybrid system, furthermore, the fact that budget limitations allow the mid-field and backmarkers to catch up to the big teams adds to the suspense. Nonetheless, these concepts steer Formula 1 forwards rather than backwards by spurring the design of efficient, but raw, engines rather than balls to the wall monsters whose output is proportional to the team's bank account.

Very interesting!

71

Hi James

Any word on How powerfull will be the future engines?
From what you have heard so far, is that in line with Merc and Ferrari expectations?

Regards

73

@ James...whilst still in the realm of 'change for '21' i am now seeing what might be loosely termed a 'concerted effort' by the manufacturers to play hardball. Liberty will be be severely tested if this they [manu teams] proceed to dump on the context of the mooted changes. Ferrari also have the VETO in their hip pocket and Marchionne is just the sort of tough cookie to use it if he felt that he wasn't getting what he wanted. At the end of the day, as you well know, i have always held the opinion that the manufacturers call the shots and that they really do run the show. Without them there is no business in the short to mid term. Who has the most muscle here?

74

@ James....Would it be possible for you to clarify a few points with Ross Brawn? Firstly they have indicated an increase in permitted max RPM by 3000K. As they very rarely exceed 11500 ATM with a current ceiling of 15000K what exactly are they saying? Is the permitted level now 18000K and if so why didn't they actually say that? If they are effectively run at the higher RPM then the fuel flow will need to increase and that in turn will lead to a possible increase in total permitted fuel. I know that it is early days but these are very simple basic questions that could be better explained. The actual details must have already been factored in.

75

Abolish the 'fuel allowance' nonsense that is clearly hamstringing the potential of the engines and then F1 can stop pretending to be something that it isn't.

76

They would need more fuel allowance to do that and I suspect that is coming in slater update - to improve the tactical side of the racing, like manual Driver ERS deployment

77

So goodbye to DRS? Along with a nod to FE? I could live with that.

78

@ James: So all this fuel tightening on type and amount, plus removal of mgu h, indicates fom are structuring to use the 'invention' directly behind the engine. Would I be right in assuming this?
If I'm right then formula one finally has something right also. If I'm wrong formula one are in continuance of ripping the entire world off and the moon too, which needs to be made known.
Oh! Just a couple of things. There'll only be maybe three teams, possibly five, doing any serious racing when these rules come into play, whilst the rest will be left to figure things out for themselves I suppose.
So here's a pointer. Think torque reducer! One shaft in another shaft out, in-line! Outer sleeve/cylinder controlled. Rev crazy in corners, lift for fuel sanity on straights, simple.
Public usage, trucks, trains, ships boats and planes no need for batteries use hydraulics, simpler.
Never buy hybrid! It's a ripoff.
Kids mine cobalt in Congo.

79

@ james ...thanks for the response. I am still intrigued as to why they didn't spell out the max RPM allowed rather than allude to an increase only?

80

Your question is a bit challenging James. Anything is an improvement over this PU. Who are these 40% saying "not sure" or "no"? Lewis fans concerned Mercedes domination will end? Or did your article make it on the Mercedes AMG EQ Power+ Formula 1 Team (damn, that's a mouthful!) intranet and the poster asked everyone at HQ to vote NO?

I'm pleased to see the sound play key role. That's 18000 RPM red line, yes? But they are not even approaching the 15000 RPM allowed now, and more power in the ERS storage means that electric power will pull us toward high speed more in this setup, especially considering the instant torque of electric power. I'm suspicious if we'll ever get to 18000 RPM with these new V6s, even if permitted.

Then there is an issue of higher RPM means more wear, so number of available units per season needs to increase, which of course will ease these ridiculous penalties. That's obviously the only real solution here, and that's a good thing.

Finally, the weight. Bigger ERS means bigger battery. Higher revs means more fuel needed. They need to either refuel these things, or they will once again gain more weight at the start line. How much can the MGU-H weigh? Will it offset 40-50Kg of weight for bigger battery and more fuel? These things are too damn heavy already. We can't be putting on weight post 2020. Time for these F1 cars to do some treadmill cardio with me and lean out!

81

What is so difficult to understand about high technology and R&D costs?
The higher the technology, the more it costs to increase its performance. You want to limit costs?
Simple!
Convince M&F&R&H they do not need/want to win!
Else they will always find some improvement to be done AT HUGE COSTS and also find a way to hide those costs

82

Is that drawing an impression of the hipster detective from the flower power days "King .... Jason King ! ? "
With his Paisley tailoring and crush velvet suits and toggle kravats ?
Or the F1 Mclaren road car designer?

83

I think it is the late Lemmy from Moterhead!

84

The question isn't, "Do you consider this an improvement?"

It's, "Is this a sufficient improvement?"

85

Who are these 40% saying "not sure" or "no"? Lewis fans concerned Mercedes domination will end?

We are the people who appreciate the advanced tech of the current PU. It has surpassed the thermal efficiency of 50%. That's amazing considering that it does that in a racing mode. Usually, the more efficient the machine is, the further below the maximum power it operates. If F1 engines can be efficient at racing conditions imagine how less boring will the eco modes of the street cars will improve.

As for us (Lewis fans) being concerned that Merc domination will end, I can assure you that it is not the case. See, Lewis is adaptive to any change you throw at him. He was still a force to be reckoned with pre hybrid era and he has won a race in every F1 season he has competed in, I'm afraid we can't say that about Vettel, especially when he was partnered with Dan Ric.

86

@Kay-Gee: Exactly - the more standardisation there is, the less the LH haters will be able to point to car differences as the reason for his success!

87

Standardisation kills innovation! We like innovation.

88

I voted no Sebee but I'm certainly no fan of Mercedes or have much care for LH.
I just can't see any decent sound being generated by these changes. They will still sound tinny, and strange...only a louder weird sound than current engines. I'm no expert at all, so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not hopeful of much improvement reading this.

89

Luke, yeah, no point waiting to hear what they actually sound like, just decide now!

90

I think you may have it right Luke. Your instinct on no may be spot on. We've had a day to digest this official outline, and I think our concerns, well outlined by KRB here are that this change may be a non change in the end. Just like the wastegate wasn't a game changer. Or the ceramic microphones for the TV feed next year won't be a game changer.

My goodness, how can F1 go to London, unleash what happens in this video at 11 minute marker, and say...nah, we need to be politically correct. And who's complaining about it? Mercedes with their AMG V8 the #1 selling AMG engine? The Ferrari - all V8s? Both of them ship V12s still by the way. McLaren 720S has a V6, right? Nope. V8 in that puppy as well. They keep claiming V8 is irrelevant, yet all their flagship and top selling products feature a V8. Honda NSX and the V6? That car is irrelevant in the market place, and from the fact that I have seen ONE on the streets to date, clearly a failure. I've seen about 30 Lambos since I saw that NSX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnJx2DImV2w

91

I think that what you say is highly likely. More ERS power means they will use that instant torque silent electric power to accelerate. Then the turbo...well, why would you rev that to 18000 RPM? The main point of a turbo is to deliver torque and power at lower RPM. I guess they could force them to deliver a power curve that hits peak at higher RPMs, but why would anyone be motivated to do this? Would the turbo be variable or fixed? It is a feature of a turbo engine to flatten out the power curve, is it not? Hence the motivation to rev higher is minimized.

I still remember the first time I saw the Audi R10 LMP1 car in the flesh, and I was reading about it. How the drivers were saying that you get peak power at crazy low RPM, and there was no point for them to rev it higher.

MGUH will free up some sound, but I think that the higher ERS power level, will offset the need to rev higher most likely as well.

92

@ Luke...Like you i didn't vote 'yes'..I voted 'not sure'. Whilst the details appear totally sketchy i have noted that Mercedes are voicing their reluctance to accept the abolition of the MGU-H. That was to be expected as it is this area that goes a long way to assisting them in their dominant position. I am no fan of Mercedes but whilst i fully accept their engineering excellence their domination has led to one of the most boring eras that i can recall. Four years of the same old same old is too much and i lament the fact that we still have three more years before any changes are implemented. I guess that we'll have to wait and see but ATM i am sceptical.

93

Sebeem the question is, "With these proposals is F1 on the right track?"

This isn't a question of accepting Mercedes PU superiority. It's a question of whether F1 should move away from a development race series and towards a fixed engine series because of the high level of defined internal, external parameters. There will be little to no scope for clever engineers to use their skills. Personally I think that is sad for F1 and something that has not been prevalent before in F1's DNA.

You are raising concerns yourself about the details that have been released - specifically weight and impact on reliability though high RPM.

To be on the right track, the cars need to lose weight and this can be done by reducing the emphasis on reliability - 3 engines per season next year is utterly ridiculous - to make components last longer they need to be stronger which basically means heavier. Getting rid of the MGU H is good, but increasing emphasis on MGU K and higher RPM's is surely leading to less reliability.

As a suggestion maybe F1 could review grid penalties for engine issues and allow 5 units per season - something that is doable. The driver should keep their position on the grid but the constructors should get deducted a number of points depending how many units are being replaced similar to what's currently done. Instead of giving Alonso a 65 place grid penalty, deduct McLaren say 20 points from any points they score that weekend across the team.

Mercedes produced a superb engine, Ferrari have gradually caught up and they really aren't too far away now. Red Bull are also there, and hopefully McLaren next year too. The problem is we're being robbed of great races at the front because of engine penalties. Verstappen in Austin, Vettel in Malaysia - I'm not going to list them all.

For F1 to be on the right track they need to differentiate Drivers and Constructors when implementing penalties. They also need to make the engines more reliable (by making them simpler) and focus on shedding weight from the cars. However this is before we start talking about aero.

So, is F1 on the right track? Hmm I'm not so sure.

94

I'm confused, Will the regs allow a 18,000rpm rev limit, or is it just 3,000 up from the 11,500 the current PU's max out at??
That's still below the 15k current limit.
I'm not confident this will satisfy fans....

95

I think 18000 is what it sounds like. He's talking about regs and current regs allow 15, so +3 on that.

But again, bigger battery means you use that to accelerate more, and they will likely make that the method. Current PU is 160 electrical horse power if they boost that to 320, that's a lot of battery resources to accelerate out of turns. Instant Max torque on that. Perhaps down the straight they sound louder.

My prediction is that this will still not sound like even the V8+KERS and that we won't be hitting that 18K red line. I wonder if they'll even move above current 12k utilization level.

96

Is there any recording available from a manufacturer of what these PUs sound like at 15000 rpm? That would be a start.

97

@ Sebee....'3000RPM higher engine running speed'. That's what been said. Where have they said the max RPM will be 18000RPM? It may well be the case but until i actually see it i will remain unconvinced. I have also read that the 'fuel flow range' will be increased to 120KG/PH but i haven't seen any ref to the overall fuel allowances being increased. It is all very woolly ATM.

98

Sebee, yet again Sebee you completely fail to understand that not everyone agrees with you! I voted yes by the way.

99

They don't have to agree. By saying no, it is a vote for the current PU, which has so much wrong with it it has completely distorted the whole spectacle in every possible aspect you can measure.

Of course of you want V10 like me, I guess that's a no vote as well. But I'm willing to compromise.

It's been a day now since this was confirmed, and perhaps the no voters have it right. This isn't a big change really. It will also not improve the sound because I don't believe there is motivation or requirement to rev the engine higher with the more powerful ERS.
The profile of the engine will need to such that higher revs result in more power, and the whole thing of turbo is that torque and power is available at lower engine RPM.

100

Overall a step forward although I would prefer it they avoided reintroducing a silly button to trigger electrical deployment. The current style of MGU-K automatic pre-mapped deployment is fine.

101

Some good thoughts on the future configuration. An extra 3,000 rpm sounds good... but! Due to the fuel limits aren't cars running below the currently allowed 15,000 rpm? If so then what use is an extra 3,000?

102

Current cars seem fuel limited to 10,500 RPM. I assume they know this and the extra 3,000 will come from increased fuel flow allowances.

103

Indeed, the fuel is presently blocked by rule above 10.500 rpm, i.e. if you use higher revs, you have to reduce the amount of fuel injected at each cycle and power does not increase. So, cars are presently running between 10.000 and 12.000 rpm (from inboard cameras) where the efficiency is at its best.
Increasing the permitted rev's therefore has to go with an increase of the fuel allowances and the power. Those turbocharged V6's are going to have a hard time ...

104

Exactly! Teams run between 10.5-12k because that is where they get most bang for each kg of fuel they have onboard. How will the FIA make the teams want to run their engines at those levels?

105

There is a piece of the puzzle that you are missing. Teams do not want more fuel added to the cars, the cars are already too heavy. They are getting lower RPM because of the way the ICE works with the MGU-K and MGU-H. The MGU-K is not just used for harvesting energy under braking (connected to rear axle), the MGU-K is also connected to the engine via the crankshaft, allowing the unit to boost engine performance to a maximum of 160bhp. However, the technical regulations allowed the teams to harvest an unlimited amount of energy from the exhaust gases through the turbo unit and the MGU-H. What the teams are doing or trying to do (Renault and Honda) is create a timing sequence where the teams can get the following:

1. Use the inefficient ICE to drive the car.
2. Use the MGU-K to charge energy store under braking.
3. Boost engine by 160bhp of kinetic energy
4. Use the unlimited MGU-H energy to recharge battery under acceleration when MGU-K is discharging its stored energy into the crankshaft.
5. Transfer unlimited energy between the MGU-H and MGU-K to drive the engine.

That #5 is the real secret as it allows teams to essentially use more than the 160bhp of recovered energy from the MGU-K to power the car. That is where the Mercedes power unit excels. The Mercedes engine is able to get the ICE, MGU-K and MGU-H to work in perfectly union in qualifying to maximize the cars power during Q3 runs (per Force India team principal Mercedes limits that to a maximum of 4 laps/race).

That is why Toto is not going to be happy when they take his MGU-H toy away from his power unit. The Mercedes does not need or want more fuel they have spent the last two years perfecting this system's reliability so they can run a full season with a minimum number of power units (e.g. 3 next year). Renault, Honda and to a lesser extent Ferrari are still having reliability problems with it, plus I suspect the Ferrari system also needs to burn more fuel than the Mercedes.

106

@ KRB...I smell a rat here!!! The current cars rarely exceed 11/12K RPM and an increased allowance of 3K means exactly what? Are they saying that the increase is on top of the max currently employed which would retain the 15K maximum? Why didn't they say that the max RPM has been increased to 18K? To do that would mean that there would need to be an increased Fuel Flow above the 100KG/HR and that wouldn't look too good for the tree huggers and Todt. I would like to see some early clarification on this aspect which must have been a primary issue when considering the new for '21engines.

107

Huh? Where's the rat?

They already said that the max fuel flow rate would increase to 120 kg/hr. That's great, because it will make driver tactics even more important. A driver that can save fuel better during clean air running will have more punch available to execute passes.

108

@ KRB.... apart from some other sites reporting this i cannot find anywhere where Libert have officially announced the increase in 'fuel allowance' from 100KG/HR is increased to 120KG/HR. Would like to view the source.

109

@ KRB so what are the maximum permitted RPM and where can i find the official confirmation of that number?

110

@ KRB....some time has passed since i asked you for some link to the figures that you quoted? Fuel Flow inc to 120KG/HR.

111

...with a turbo too. How FIA?

112

Believe in Brawn or BiB 😉
Hybrids are the future and F1 should never go full electric. Leave that for Formula E.

113
Tornillo Amarillo

OK, it's OK, but now what about limiting aero?

114

Common sense prevails

115

Every time the rules change, the costs go up and one team dominates.

116

18000rpm, no fuel flow restriction, no fuel limit.

117

Costs must be cut to ensure a variety of teams entering. At the end of the day the most important part of any race is to see overtaking. Too much aero will always stop close racing.

118

"Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used"

Will this further tighten the oil burn as a fuel limits?

119

I believe that this has already been tightened up for '18 with a new max of 600ml per 100kms.

120

They need add only one sentence: “Lubricants, in any form, cannot be used in the combustion process.”

121

3000 extra revs: relative to _what_? The existing, farcical 15krpm limit? Or the current practical rev range given the various frustrating fuel flow and capacity regulations? Alas, I imagine the latter. James, do you have a feel for what this really means?

Either way, sounds like a step in the right direction, I guess.

Thanks,
Jan

122

This outcome has disappointed me somewhat, I guess a good point is that it won't be such a massive change it will reset the convergence between power units that's coming together now, but a 3000rpm increase from the 15000rpm now doesn't mean a lot when they are only reving to 11000rpm now. The start of the F2 race at Silverstone this year was way more epic than the start of the F1 race, that is not right! The best sounding car the whole weekend was the 2 seater passenger ride car, that is what F1 need to aim for, the sound is everything.

123

Better.

6 engines per season would be nice.

On the chassis front, now that they have a kers boost that the drivers can manually deploy, I hope they take out the intricate front wings and DRS.

124

It was rumoured that the manufacturers wanted to keep the mguh, presumably because they had spent so much on it, but it is good news that it is to be dispensed with. Removing this unit will increase the decibel count (for those interested in such things), and simplify the overall design to encourage new manufacturers.
Any news on how much weight the mguh removal will save?

125

I hope mother earth can cope with that lose of heat energy harvesting from the turbo.
What will the environmentalists think?

126

Exactly.
Regarding 'who cares'? Formula One was once called the "greatest capitalist sport in the world." Haven't heard that term much lately. Why? Because capitalism is the target of the environmental movement. It is not really the amount of air emissions. It is the philosophy of air emissions. It is a socialist philosophy that targets anything associated with production and growth. FIA and car manufacturers find it politically correct and expedient to cowtow to the so-called environmental movement than present the intellectual side of the argument.

127

Interesting view that I happen concur with. I have been told by a reputable epidemiologist that the eco facists at IARC are undertaking a literature review on the carciogenic (or otherwise) effects of benzene, an ingredient of petrol (gasolene). The review will probably concentrate on those studies which claim the largest effect and ignore those which show lesser evidence. The likely outcome if IARC history repeats itself will be a campaign against petrol engines in cars that will mirror the current attack of diesel. It's them against us! Scientists ae not to be trusted! I'd like to see the N/A V8s back in F1 just to annoy these 'scientists'!

128

Who cares? The amount that F1 contributes towards global emissions is microscopic compared to heavy industry, the airline industry, petrochemical industries, mining, logging.....

One volcanic eruption in Indonesia would probably be thousands of times what F1 has ever contributed

129

I think we should keep pushing the technology in F1, I would prefer if they could build hydrogen engines or quasi turbines, anything to break further above the 50% mark.

Obviously mkaing it fit into the roadcars.

But they should also be obliged to share their tech in creative commons after a 5 year period. MGU.H is magic right now as it is.

Signed - "the environmentalist" (closet F1 fan)

130

I think we should keep pushing the technology in F1, I would prefer if they could build hydrogen engines or quasi turbines, anything to break further above the 50% mark.

I can't stress enough how much I support this idea and how much this is part of the F1 DNA, technology advancement and being a test bed for future technologies.
We've lost our way and it seems those holding the compass have it stuck in a place with no light.

131

As much as I love for V10 or V8 to come back. Unfortunately the whole motor industry is moving away from large engine concepts. And will result in engine manufacturers leaving the sport if they no longer see relevance to what they are selling on the road. Liberty would need to sort something quickly in regards to providing a medium for non pay tv subscribers to watch F1. Not all of us want to pay Sky the privilege of funding their rubbish channels just so I can watch F1.

I really dislike the way these engines have been designed these last few years. It's too complicated, too expensive and sounds like a vacuum cleaner is the nicest way I can put it. At least F1 and FIA are trying to make changes and with Ross Brawn at the helm, we can only hope for the better.

They also need to get rid of the shark fin, t wing and the thousands of winglets on all the cars. Not sure if they are still able to back track on the halo as it's to save them from lawsuits but it doesn't belong to an open wheel F1 car. I can see new types of accidents in races happening caused by lack of vision from the halo.

Finally, hopefully Liberty are much better negotiators the Bernie was. I understand Bernie as a shrewd negotiator but all he ever did was take as much money as he can extract from the sport. Liberty needs to look at the sport in the long run and get the big teams on board to share part of their F1 pie to smaller teams. What's the point of even having Sauber always just languishing at the back? Imagine what Force India can do if they had similar budget to the bigger teams?

132

sounds promising as the whole thing was getting out of hand and none of it adds to the show.
I had to go and look at an article about the mgu-k and mgu-h as I had lost interest long ago.
They need to reign in the penalties as well.

133

My heart would wish for as few restrictions and prescriptions as possible, ideally ONLY a displacement limit and nothing else including an end to RPM and fuel limits. Let the engineers race!

BUT my head agrees with all of this - if only for cost cuts that I dream would bring back the 'garagistas'.

Well done, Ross.

PS Next please get rid of DRS (or allow it any time) and silly tire rules.

134

Done !
A long time ago... there was a series called CANAM The rules at the beginning were two !
A. the racing vehicle has to have 4 wheels
B. it has to have an engine
Period !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can-Am
Then Porsche beat the shxt out of them with some 300 HP more than the previous winning engine, that was...simple, and was ready for the next season with another 200 HP added to the engine... They changed the rules _ added fuel consumption limitations.... CANAM died shortly after, as I remember
Sounds like history repeating ?

135

What concerns me is no mention of number of engines allowed each season, one of (if not the) biggest problem with the current regulations...

136

All sounds good to me... The driver tactical thing will be interesting - possibly that is the time to drop DRS.

137

Yeah, that's the most exciting part for me.

Alonso would have loved that!

138

since they dont run to the current 15K limit now I dont see them doing so without a raised fuel limit

bit of a nothingburger

139

With less electric energy recovered, and therefore available in the race, I don't see engines revving that high. Today's engines could rev higher, but need to save fuel and last half a dozen of races. So, if they want more noise, they should bring back refueling and allow more engines to be used throughout the season. This would also reduce development costs.

140

Roughly on the right track I suppose If we really can't have normally aspirated V12s but is an extra 3000rpm enough to restore the sound ? Probably not when it's muted by a turbocharger.

Even if they restrict the internal design parameters, how much less expensive will it be, though ?

141

I like this, I think its a good compromise

1) it's not a completely new formula - the engines are finally closing up now with Ferrari almost up to Merc & Renault pushing hard (let's not mention Honda!). It means the last 4 years won't have been a waste of time, and because they aren't building something from scratch, the baseline units will already be fairly equal. I will always support these engines, they are a marvellous & impressive bit of kit, however it is time for other factors to be the key performance differentiators again - it's already happening this season as the Merc win rate has taken a dramatic dive as their engine is no longer the over-riding performance differentiator (Ferrari & Red Ball chassis and aero has managed to beat them genuinely on pace several times this year as the Merc chassis has been quick but temperamental). It will only get closer up to 2021, so the less different from now the basic architecture of the engines are, the less they will be a performance differentiator when the new spec comes in. Hopefully we can retain a balance with different teams doing different things better (the racing always suffers when one performance factor overrides everything else - e.g. the Red Bull aero, or the Ferrari custom made Bridgestone tyres for example) - the best regulations provide for one team to have an advantage in say a PU, while another is good on aero or chassis, and that makes two or more teams roughly equivalent in pace, with the strengths of each varying from track to track.

2) We'll be a bit louder without having to go back to archaic V8 or 10s that are basically 30 years out of date. It keeps the sport modern enough to be at the pinnacle, but the advent of Formula E means F1 doesn't have to be (seen to be) driving electrification so much, so can think about what will give the closest racing.

3) Much more standardisation - regulating the external design to make it easier to plug and play should take out some of the disadvantages a customer team has with integration. Similarly the standard control electronics should mean all teams have the same engine modes available, especially during qualifying.

4) Driver control over deployment - will definitely bring some extra tactics back to the racing (and hopefully will appease those that moan about engine modes and engineers controlling how quick the cars go).

5) They do need to make sure the amount of power delivered remains the same - we don't want to go back to being slower! I'd also be tempted to bring back refuelling - keep the set maximum amount of fuel the car is allowed to use, but leave it up to the teams to decide whether to deploy it over 2,3 or 4 stints. That way cars can be a bit lighter for more of the race.

Now all they need to do is sort out the tyres and the aero so cars can actually follow, whilst keeping the cars as quick as they are today! Oh, and BUDGET CAP!

142

Seems like a step in the right direction. Obviously the press release isn't going to contain much in the way of details right now, but one aspect they really need to get right going forward above all else is allocation of engines you can use in a season. Currently you're restricted to just 4 for a season, and next year it'll be down to 3. It's been very clear that most manufactures seem to struggle to make this target and instead of saving costs, it ends up costing more in trying to make them more reliable, when they end up going well over their allocation anyways. 3/4 is simply far too small and you end up with teams desperately trying to stretch them out and save mileage, which equals less track time and less action for fans watching.

So I think if the calendar stays around 20/21 races, then ideally I think 6 of each component for a season should be a more reasonable number to allocate. Not too much, not too little. A good happy medium.

143

Excellent point. I always thought that the limitation on the number of engines used (as a cost control measure) was nonsense; the marginal cost of producing an extra engine pales into insignificance compared to the development costs.

And lets not get into the penalties which inevitably derive from the ridiculous limits......

144

Not sure about removal of MGU-H. Road cars already effectively have half an MGU-H with electric motor spinning up turbo. Surely generating electricity from turbo energy is the next logical development?

145

I like the direction but I would have liked a 20,000rpm limit, implementation for 2019 and for an allowance of 10 engines per season if the pu costs are far cheaper.

146

These news rules look encouraging. I think they will provide F1 with the improvement it currently needs . Throughout this year I have become more frustrated with the unreliability shown, This is the 4th year of these current engine regulations and if anything there has been more retirements and engine changes from Honda and Renault this year than last year, to me this isn't good enough and shows that these engines are just too complex. From my understanding the primary cause for this is the MGU-H. I hope by removing the MGU-H from the turbo it improves the reliability of most teams and more importantly encourages engine manufacturers to enter the sport. I'm not sure if the sound would improve greatly if the fuel is still restricted, also standardizing too many engine parts again starts to make the engines too similar, I want to see innovation but I can see the need to cut costs. I know many people want to see NA V8s or V10s, but this isn't going to happen. I enjoy the technology shown on the F1 engines, but do sometimes wonder how the Laferrari, Mclaren P1 or new Merc project one would compare, as these cars, apart from the Mercedes, use bigger engines with hybrid tech. If F1 used hybrid tech with V10s I'm sure everyone would be much happier.

I look forward to seeing the likes of the VW group (Audi, Porsche etc), Aston Martin, Cosworth? enter the sport as either works teams or just engines. Particularly with Formula E gaining momentum this hopefully will encourage more manufacturers to look at F1. Now to see what Liberty have planned for the teams with regards finance distribution and rules.

147

When I read this, what I take out is they are asleep at the wheel.
The current limit is 15000rpm. Nobody is going near it, not even close. What good is the to go 3000 extra!?
Seems just a "marketing" list of stuff, without much thought put into it, just some beer pub talk...
I think things will move less than expected (and needed) and not all in good direction... Solutions are easy, too much marketing, exposure, etc, just screw it up...
I for one wish F1 would become smaller, maybe then the shannanings would diminish.

148

A good step but I would also like to see the turbo removed for more sound.

149

What a shame that these incredible engines will be mothballed just as all the manufacturers will have reached the point of diminishing returns. Three more years of these engines and all they will all be on par. Then they will have to go away, design new engines from scratch at huge cost just to make some more noise....
When you watch these cars now they are constantly loosing the back end and sliding as they struggle to deploy the huge power and torque. They are monstrous units and will have reached engineering maturity in a 3 more years just when most new cars coming to the market will feature MGU H and more hybrid technology. A very backward step.

150

The engineer in me agrees with you.

The racing enthusiast in me aches for more noise, and drivers free to race flat out rather than in fuel conservation mode. No development of the current PU's is going to address those issues, without rule changes.

151

aches for more noise, and drivers free to race flat out

More noise is fine if that's your thing - I don't much care either way, and unless fans are actually at the races I don't really see what difference it makes - but people say they want noise so let them have it. But racers have never driven flat out and fuel conversation has been part of racing since forever. It's always been quicker to under fuel a car and either hope for a safety car or have to short shift or lift and coast. Whatever the fuel limit teams will try and use less because it's the quickest way to run the car.

152

@ Redline...the engineer within me says that we've gone down a blind alley and these PU's have done nothing for F1. They haven't done much for road relevance either. I read one breathless announcement yesterday where it was touted that the F1 inspired tech is being introduced into a road car!!! Gee Wow. Guess which car? The Mercedes hypercar, which will probably cost somewhere in the vicinity of 2million euros +. Great road relevance eh? What we are being fed ATM is an outline,,nothing more and nothing less. I remain totally sceptical until i see the fine print.

153

Hybrids are a disaster for F1 unless you are Mercedes fan. It has become an engine formula and will remain so until 2021. No room for teams like Redbull or McLaren to compete. Ferrari and Mercedes have brought this on themselves for not pushing to slow more scope for other PU's to catch up.

154

@ WJ...how very true.

155

Enough said...

156

Even with the current engines the allowed revs are never reached. Not sure if 3K extra will solve problems. If the torque achieved at low revs is enough there no good reason to build a vulnerable engine with high revs is there?

157

At last we see the considered influence of Ross Brawn showing a positive approach to post 2021 power units. Next on the list aero and chassis design to bring back overtaking. About time too.

158

The MGU-H is certaily a very good invention and should be retained. Removing it without adding another invention would be a step backwards in terms of technological advances.
To cut cost certain high cost areas of the engine can be standised.

159

No cost reduction measure from the FIA has ever reduced the amount of money spent... "everlasting" engines mean just as many units are built but more time is spent running simulations which replay multiple races on a dyno, then stripping the engine down and examining the wear and tear under a microscope - and doing the same with actual race engines.

Taking the MGU/H out of it is less efficiency - exhaust gasses coming out faster and waste boost pressure going out of the waste gate so a step back towards noisy inefficient engines, but current engines don't get anywhere near their rev limits so what is pushing the revlimit up by 3K going to do .
Since in "motor" mode the MGU/H acts like an electric supercharger, it gets rid of turbo lag. So other electric power will need to be used to plug the gap and clever use of electrical energy will make a huge difference to driveablity . Those who don't like the importance of the ECU todays engines will be really unhappy with that.

I've said from the start of these rules that there should be no limits on how much energy can be harvested to the MGU/K and how quickly it can be gathered or put back - so there is a chance to compensate for the lost power from the MGU/H

Both liberty and the FIA need to get more engine makers into the sport. In 2006 we had Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda, Plus BMW and Toyota and Cosworth . I'm not betting on Honda sticking around, so we could be back to 3 (which means they can be demanding) unless Porsche (or VW) are temped in, or one of the former players is tempted to return. It's hard to see independent builders being able to make engines at a profit, so it's still big auto companies.

160

Good post - logical, sensible and well articulated.
Hope Ross is reading.....

161

I think the right thing is to continue to leverage energy recovery, but clearly the turbo recovery was sending the game in the wrong direction, working out clever ways to circumvent engine power limits rather than pure recovery. It will be interesting to hear about what Merc and the others got up to in a year or two's time when the tricks are past their sell-by date. I don't think we have a clue just what tricks they are all getting up to at the moment.

We are already in an era where bonus power delivery makes for interesting tactical decisions (and interesting that McLaren revealed one of their tricks was to use GPS plus throttle to guess when exactly to deploy power on the lap - until the car going better than planned stuffed that up). Can't help feel that unless a third party gets involved who has a special trick that Mercedes have got such a lead in their business that the other teams will still struggle to compete.

That we haven't got standard mount points and so on yet seems unbelievable considering the needs of the third party teams, though I'd like there to be some ability within that for different engine designs so that it isn't effectively a one block formula but allows for some different design approaches. Ideally, I would like a spec that allows for a design that can come out with different spreads of torque or power (remember that in prior days the Cosworth engine was not the most powerful but remained very useable because of its relatively broad delivery - Schumacher famously made use of it with his one gear recovery drive in his Benetton).

So we want a formula where there is still room for innovation and diversity. If we end up with different manufacturers effectively simply engineering a common engine design, with no degrees of freedom then that is not F1. What we want to avoid is the 20% difference in power, not the 5% difference in power where that 5% extra leads to some negative impacts on the rest of the car.

The other aspect that needs to be cleaned up are the aero rules. The simple change I would suggest is that the "no moveable surfaces" should be an absolute rule and there should be some very specific tolerance of detectable movement regardless of static force. If a car can be seen to deviate by more than that measured by cameras around the course, then it is penalised. It should remove trick layups of carbon fibre that are clearly designed to circumvent the principle by simply working to the test in place at the time while still able to deform on the track. That might also put paid to some of the FM aerials and overly complex front wings that simply will way too much to avoid detectable movement.

However, real F1 does need some opportunity for clever design to give an advantage, else they might as well all have a single spec formula, but we want <1% opportunities not double diffuser advantages.

Before then they need to address how they are going to deal with engine usage. People say it is unfair to penalise a driver, but if you don't penalise the driver, then you potentially gain an unfair advantage in the driver's championship by having a team prepared to blow their engine budget to allow them to run flat out rather than manage engine life. Mercedes have shown you can win the championship on the engine allocation, so why should others have an unfair advantage. Perhaps the penalty should have been in terms of points (or finishing positions to allow the penalty to match to the grid positions so the top finishers get hit harder than the also rans) rather than grid slots - you still get the race, but taking a tactical engine penalty would not pay off. Ferrari are not interested in the constructors championship so anything targeted at the constructor rather than the driver would suit them just fine.

162

Good point on the aero regs. How much do those ridiculous front wings cost to develop and manufacture?

If they are serious about cost controls, this needs to be somewhere near the top of the list.

163

I'm at a bit of a loss here.
Dumping the H but keeping a single turbo which will anyway have to be redesigned ?
Increasing the rev's ? Surely enough, they will also have to allow an increase in power to compensate for the loss of the H. But then, what about the V6 life time ?
More powerful K but still at the rear, directly on the engine ? This is going to be hard to manage on the BBW side ...
Internals : what about the signifiant progress on combustion efficiency ? Is this system going to be dumped also ?
Many worrying questions therefore.

164

Agree on the internals. One of the few real world advancements this era has seen is dramatic improvement in combustion efficiency, I really hope that isnt all going to fall by the wayside.

165

They should have a twin turbo.

166

I'm with you on this one, but it won't happen thanks to Ferrari (they already vetoed the twin turbos idea at last regulations change).
The decision shows how much they fear the manufacturers - logical step, but not very brave.
If they fail to entice the teams running the motors at full revs we will not only have the same sound but also slower cars. They still have work to do...

167

It seems to me that we will have significantly less efficient power units requiring a higher fuel load and again heavier cars for the race. Alternatively, if fuel loads remain the same we will be back in fuel saving races. Qualifying could be the contrast, using the full revs for 1 screamer lap, but I'm not sure that I want to watch extreme fuel management in the races again with little scope for the engine manufacturers or teams to develop out of the baked in inefficiencies.

At the end of the day, will this improve the racing? There may be some divergence in strategy for year 1, with potential to mix up the races. Having options for a short blast of revs or MGU-K deployment for attack or defence has a fair amount of potential for on track moves to be made.

Maybe these changes can work. But will the race pace still be faster than F2?

168

I don't see how the racing can improve significantly without them addressing the front wing dependence of the current Aero philosophy.

169

It's not just the volume of the cars, it's the pitch of the engine. They sound like old tractors. Give me the scream of a V10 any day. It's really noticeable on the classic videos they upload on Facebook.

170

On the whole this looks very good. The talk of 4 wheel drive, Ferrari veto, etc seems to have been hot air.

More revs = more noise. Will 3,000 rpm extra be enough?

MGU-H gone. Great, one less performance differentiator and reliability issue.

MGU-K. Not clear but assume the power used and/or stored will be capped. That’ll prevent a cash race, and big winners. Depends on the deployment rules, anything too gimmicky and similar to easy DRS moves would be rubbish. A bit of driver tactics is good. Wish they’d standardised it though, but a cap on power would do the same.

Standard battery pack - great.

Standard control, electronics - great.

Lack of option on engine layout - not so great, but not end of the world and I suppose it’ll stop someone stealing a march.

Single turbo - less complex, but thought it smothered more noise than twin turbos. Assume that loss of MGH-U will prevent electricity being used to spool up the turbo and reduce lag?

If it pans out then stupid grid penalties should be vastly reduced.

Fuel control - needs more detail. Should not be a large differentiator in F1. I want fuel saving banned. So do they prescribe over fueling cars at the grid i.e. find a way to give them 5 % more fuel than they can possibly burn.

Prescriptive rules - worries me, always loopholes as next to impossible to cover all these very clever people from grubbing outside the box. Wish they could use the karting rule that states - unless it specifically says so then you can’t do it.

171

The prescriptive rules on engine internals is to address the arms race on compression pre- ignition. This has been the achilles heel of the Honda’s... getting the ignition timing exactly where it’s needed.
A rule specifying ‘flat top pistons’ (except for valve cut outs) should do it.

172

Dissapointing. And sounds like yet another compromise. That's been the problem with F1 lately: too many compromises, too many competing and irreconcilable interests and philosophies and too much fuel saving.

Still, I will reserve my judgement until I see and hear these new engines in the flesh. Who knows, they might sound extreme enough to at least give the impression that they belong in the back of racing cars.

173

Very Disappointing! I thought Liberty would have pushed for a more spectacular engine formula.

The current (and proposed) Engine formula is about as exciting as going down to the Airport to watch some Boeing 737s taking off and landing. A 737 is tremendously fast, and a magnificent piece of engineering....but is it a spectacle that I'd pay a high price to watch on a Sunday? No...and neither is a 1.6L Hybrid F1 Car!

174

Great 1st step.

Next if at all possible should be cost reduction and reducing the impact of Aero to improve racing.

175

DOOMED!!!

176

@ Sars...definitely not what i'd hoped for. This is very close to what i'd call lip service more that a new beginning.

177

"A step" in the right direction! But needs to be coupled with more engine allocations so that the back end of the year is no longer a grid penalty joke!

178

@ LKFE...if you haven't seen these numbers they are interesting...

Total grid place drops YTD.....Honda 393
Renault 304
Ferrari 68
Mercedes 33
Total grid drops YTD /driver Van Doorne 218
Alonso 160
Ricciardo 65
Hulkenberg 55

It is interesting to see just how bad the renault engine actually is and how it has helped to destroy the effectiveness of teams and drivers performances.

179

Couldn't vandoorne say he could bank his points for the last race of the season. Then some maths genius could work out his grid drop total x space in between grid place and he can start 15 laps down. Hopefully declining to start the race in protest.

180
Clarks4WheelDrift

Good, more driver control over deployment, removal of the MGU-H(amilton)

Now,

1) Aero tweaks for less disruptive dirty air allowing the cars to follow closer, especially p2 to the leader in clean air. Simplify the front wings.

2) Removal of qually modes PU settings, especially Q3 boosts. More interesting qually, less predictable (last 4 year percentages! like never before) and more work for the dominant team, more emphasis on the driver making the difference in qually.

3) Customer engines that are closer to the works PU in power and software and deployment, give the minnow teams a tiny chance to compete and not always get lapped.

4) These cost savings allowing more engines per year or reduce the impact of daft grid penalties affecting that race and the races ahead.

5) Pirellis that aren't brick solid, allowing mixed strategies, as we should have next year.

6) Free to air (licence fee paid already) races and championship, for the country's home GP and another top ten races, best action tracks such as Spa, Suzuka, Monza, Brazil...

181

No.6 should be at the top of the list!

182

removal of the MGU-H(amilton)

Give it a rest mate, you are getting ridiculous.

183

Lighten up....

184

They want it cheaper but it gets more expensive every year. They want it cleaner then they start using hybrid technology which is the opposite. They say they need F1 for developing technologies for roadcars but F1 is based on rules and regulation and has limited testing capabilities so it's far from the best method. I can go on and on. If you ask me a simple design blown engine without all the high tech green fancy stuff should be enough. Provide some standardised components to further cutback costs and give more freedom in suspension. Also tyres shouldn't last this long. Average pit stops should be two.

185

I really don't care what they sound like. Why are so many automobile enthusiasts obsessed with making as much noise as possible?

I would like to see the cars more competitive, and more dependent on performance of engine, tires and suspension than aerodynamics. Cars with tons of aerodynamic downforce can't run close together and don't encourage overtaking.

One thing that folks keep forgetting is that constantly changing the rules favors the larger and richer teams that have more resources for development. If they would stick with the same formula for several years, the smaller teams would get closer to the front.

186

Your points of view about noise being relative to automobile enthusiasts are valid to you .... my points of view about it are different.
A vastly smaller % of people who buy supercars like a Ferrari or McLaren would buy a quiet hybrid model than a fire breathing, screaming model that turns heads from 500 metres away.
That's exactly what human brains were designed to do, to be different. Diversify, fail, learn and succeed through many people trying many things to fix the one problem. If everyone was the same, everything in the world would be boringly uniform.
Sound is a major part of our perception of the world around us. FE is a perfect example, it's for road car manufacturers to R&D future road car concepts, electricity boffins and children who don't like noise. That's why it's appeal to motor sport fans will never rival F1 ... or touring cars, etc etc etc.
A rock concert with sound deadening material stuffed into the 3 story high speaker stacks would be as boring as batcrap.
What good are the spectacular pyrotechnics, wailing guitars, booming bass, crashes of cymbals and incredible voices harmonising as one if it all sounds like muffled, watered down crap?
F1 cars that sound worse than MotoGP bikes are crap! The sounds of whistling turbos and screeching tyres in F1 don't interest me at all. I can get that experience from production car races at the local circuit up the road, for a mere $15 entry. But that's just my opinion.

A competition is only as even as the competitors within it. No amount of money can help a team if they have the attitude that it's okay to finish anywhere from 2nd to 10th and pick up enough points to run 3rd in the championship.
If you wish to run a Formula 1 team successfully, you better have a mega budget to compete at the pointy end with those who push everything to the limit in a bid to WIN! Every race!
Otherwise, don't b!tch and moan to the FIA and FOM (Liberty) because you don't have the cash to keep up and want the leaders nobbled.
F1's a ruthless billionaire's playground, live in it or leave for greener pastures.
If you have a budget that would allow you compete at the top in GP2 ... race there and succeed ... not at the rear end of F1 where you look silly because you are constantly failing and going broke.
If you can only run a 12 second 100 metre sprint ... don't enter a race against Usain Bolt ... it's that simple!

As for the rules staying the same and eventually the competitors will converge through gaining knowledge over the distance of time ... I have two words for you ... Mercedes Benz!
They have the biggest budget, best factory(s), biggest and happiest workforce, best management philosophies and the best, most consistent driver of the past ten-odd years. They are only in F1 to WIN ... nothing less!
The longer they have all of those things at their disposal, convergence will only ever get as close as Ferrari did this year. Merc will always push to the limit and do everything they can to get better at the same rate as the others do, the gaps may vary a little but the results will not!
This year Merc concentrated on reliability at the expense of outright speed and that is what eventually won the title for them after the Ferrari started failing mechanically ... and they did it with 4 races still remaining.
That's after 4 years of Hybrid PUs ... how long do we need to wait for the others to catch up?
Merc doesn't have the best chassis this year after the huge regulation change, truth is, they have the 3rd best chassis. Ferrari had the best chassis for the most part, until Red Bull surpassed them ... ultimately, it was the reliability of their 4 year old PU concept that won the title for Merc, again. The others still can't perfect it.
My question is: How long would it take for "convergence over time" to be the answer? 5 years? 10 years?
Smaller teams "getting closer to the front" is not winning or success ... it's progressing to nowhere, nothing more.

187

@ Jack...that was a very good post. A lot of what you've said echoes my very own thoughts. Built in advantages that can't be challenged successfully are a path to nowhere. Mercedes have gamed the business. As i've said elsewhere, upwards of $500 million and 1500 employees tasked with getting just one of two cars over the line in a winning position is almost impossible to beat. This is not the fault of Mercedes...it is the system that allowed it to occur in the very first place. These new 'ideas' of Liberty will, IMO, face very serious challenges and i would go so far as to say that they will be seriously challenged and changed from what we are being told ATM. I have for a very long time wondered how the bottom four teams can justify their inclusion and continued presence in F1.As a pragmatic businessman i simply don't understand their business model as being sustainable.

188

@Justanengineer Have you been to a race in real life?

189

100% with you on all of the above. Ok, so those actually attending a GP will notice the drop in sound but this is not perceivable on TV. People don't seem to understand that all sound on TV is compressed dynamically so although the pitch may be different the perceived volume is identical.

Aero needs to be addressed, it's all very well people wanting to ban DRS but without a reduction in aero dependancy this isn't going to happen.

190

Clearly you haven't witnessed (live) the shock & awe of a grid full of V8's / V10's / V12's at race start....

191

I have. And it was absolutely amazing.

Watching quiet racing cars is like going to a concert and the band plays elevator music -- at elevator music volume. It's just not the same as going to a loud Rock concert and getting blasted for 2 hours.

192

My first F1 race was Monza 1990, as a callow 17yr old. Senna and Prost front row. V10 vs V12. I was in the grandstands right on the grid courtesy of a girlfriend who's father was an AGIP exec.

Somehow I contrived to miss the start - the noise was so overwhelming that I had to cover my ears and instinctively ducked down. All those around me - suitably equipped with ear plugs - were quite amused.

The whole reason I got hooked on F1 was THAT start.... ok, also the tifosi track invasion at the end, with Prost second. I still get goosebumps when I think about it.

193

Adelaide 1994 as a 13 year-old is what did it for me. Happiest time of my life.

194

@ Redline...The 'power' of sound has a massive effect as well as the 'sound' of power. Many years ago i attended the Bathurst 1000 as a guest of our corporate owners, who sponsored the series, and was ensconced in the owners suite above the start line. When the order was given to start up, the combined sound of 40plus V8's hitting big revs was a thing to behold. Not only did you hear it,,,you felt it! That sensation is a powerful reminder of what the experience could be. Today it's lost and i understand why but is it necessary to 'gut the beast' so thoroughly that we lose sight of what motor racing really is supposed to be... a thrill like no other.

195

I wish I could understand why it's necessary for the power of the sound to be lost today, but I don't... And I understand the Schrodinger wave-function collapse quagmire in quantum mechanics.

196

@ Luke C ...yes, i agree. Evidently it's all to do with muons and gluons dangled on the end of a piece of string theory!!!

197

Not sure I love the push to pass idea but I guess at least that moves more control to the driver.

Bringing some competition into the gearbox market sounds like a low pain way to save some money. Smart idea there.

198

This all sounds fine but I wonder where things will be in 20 years time.. Surely the future is all electric with cars having more torque, acceleration, speeds than any race car we have ever seen. If this is the future then isn't Formula E already headed there. I honestly can't see what F1 looks like in 20 years (and what F1 fans look like). Can anyone propose a future that had F1 as the pinnacle of motor racing?

199

Sound will improve with additional 3000 rpm . we want louder engine , as loud as V10.

200

Unless they lift the 100l/hr fuel restriction won’t the extra 3000RPM only be theoretical? Wasn’t that the case in 2014 where the engines weren’t really even revving past 11-12k due to the fuel flow restriction even though they were technically limited to 15k?

201

@ devilsadvocate...IIRC the original Max was set at 12000RPM and was only changed 'in theory' to 15000RPM to suit the demands of BE and the circuit owners. That allowed them to promote the idea that the engines hadn't been totally gutted ,rev wise, from the previous 18000RPM screamers. Little did they know that they would not even operate at this level either. Nice one F1.

202

I voted Not Sure, because without knowing minimum car + driver weight, fuel capacity, max fuel flow and aero configuration it is impossible to know how the new engines will affect the racing. You may well get louder and cheaper engines under these outlines, but the racing could easily be worse than ever.

203

@ Z... a very fair assumption.

204

It's a start. Get rid of fuel restrictions period. Those no need for them , teams still need efficient engines to win, less fuel lighter car and all that , we don't need fuel restrictions, it's just enforcing lift coast cruise back off all this c#@p in a race ?
Also just a thought but is there not something we can do with the back of the cars , like a set sq footage to allow other cars to get closer ? Or something ?

205

The most essential pooing about this exercise by FIA and Liberty to revise the engine formula is simply to get more PU suppliers so that teams like Redbull and McLaren can compete against PU supplier teams (Mercs, Ferrari). To see McLaren and Redbull operate with little or zero possibility to win races for several future seasons because they have zero options with their choice of PU is not a good prospect for F1. Teams like Ferrari that ware only prepared to offer an inferior vintage of PU to other teams have brought this on themselves.

206

this reminds me of the henry ford quote 'you can have any colour as long as it's black'' now it's ''you can have any engine as long as it's a v6.''
i think there needs to be a concession for variable engine formats. ferrari and aston martin are famous for v12's. cosworth for v8's, porsche for flat 6 turbos, subaru for flat 4 turbo's etc. maybe manufacturers should be able to run any engine configuration they want that is limited to 1000bhp. any engine has to be made available to any team for $300k / engine/ per season. there would be more variety in the racing because the engines would have very different characteristics depending on the track. it lets manufacturers play to their respective strengths both in engineering and marketing. i mean - who drives a v6 ?

207

Wolff says this isn't a manufacturer vision at all...

>
"It's a vision rather than a regulation. And it's their vision rather than the manufacturers," he added.

"It is important to define all together what Formula 1 should be in 2021, not just from the point of view of the engine.

"What we have is the starting point of a dialogue rather than something we have agreed to. Certain things are right, but it's not quite there."

208

James do you think theses changes will encourage new engine suppliers and investment in start up teams?

209

I think there's a strong chance we will see Porsche in F1

Sooner or later we will probably see a Chines manufacturer (or Chinese owned) coming in, one would imagine

210

Halo will finish F1 before 2021 so it really dosent matter,

211

Continuing my theme of aero, a while back they had a go at trying to change aero to make cars able to follow better - it failed and then this year they went the other way.

They need the likes of Newey to design a set of constraints to allow powerful aero that creates minimum wake. We want stick to the ground like glue cars, but we want a car to be able to sit .25 seconds behind with only limited cost in tyres and road holding.

Ground effect was too dangerous - a lift over the kerb took away grip just when control was needed - but I can't help feeling that there is a way to force the designer of a car to minimise wake while maximising grip - perhaps a standard structure on the rear of the car. I think Brawn could access the skills to redefine that aspect of car design to allow variation but avoid designers building in airflow disruption into their designs.

Trouble is that without F1 being in the hands of accountants, companies with money to burn will always be able to go for the marginal gains - and the closer the racing, the more important the marginal gains. Still, Toyota (and Honda) prove that you can throw money at F1 and come back with nothing, so perhaps we shouldn't be so down on the teams with large bank balances rather than those who can Excel.

Actually, if you could identify budget reliably then perhaps the solution is to adjust the points formula for constructors to account for spend. I don't think you can take access to money out of Formula 1 without bastardising the sport beyond recognition given that it is a result of the combination of design, construction, operation and driving and it is that combination that makes F1 unique. If you are interested in determining the best drivers in an affordable formula, you might as well put them in a reasonably priced car and be done with it. So, while the driver's championship has to be first past the post or else it descends into farce, I think the constructor's could still run in parallel with different criteria and give the minnows something to aim for - and the fans already do this sort of adjustment in talking about Force India performance for example. BTCC does quite well with championships within championships.

212

@james

Do we have any clarity if Ferrari can veto this? Does their veto have an expiry date?

213

@ Croft...obviously i'm not james, hahaha, I'm better looking, but i have read where Ferrari are already reminding FOM/Liberty that that piece of paper in their hip pocket is the Veto document and they will use it if due cause is raised. Secondly i believe that the 'veto' arrangement is only valid until the current Concorde expires in 2020. It has been rumored that it will not be reinstated after that time but then again Ferrari may use their continued participation to enforce another Veto being implemented for the period of contract. I'm sure that it would be forcibly challenged if that was the case. Hope that this helps in the absence of a definitive answer.

214

FWLIW:
Let's start off with the good - Certainly steps in the right direction(s).
...but not going nearly far enough!

Pardon me while I jump on some of my favourite hobby-horses again. (I'll skip over the whole iniquity of money distribution for the mo' - oops!)
"Engine" - You want interesting for the fans, interest from manufacturers, and maybe cheaper? Do away with the engine formula completely! You get so much fuel (of a fully standardised formula) allocated for a race distance, now get on with it!
"Car" - In effect the cars need to have FAR LESS AERO. No bodywork wings/winglets of any sort. Front and rear wings may be single element only. If there really must be more 'aero' then let it be ground effect derived. Standardise as many mechanical and systems components as possible where this won't stifle apparent innovation. As long as the car passes the mandated crash tests the teams are free to do their worst. (Less aero, less cost)
"Driver" Pick a mandated minimum weight for a fully kitted driver + seat to even out the effect of build. The rest of the car is up to the designer.

215

This is step backwards IMO, the MGU-H is a great invention to recover energy from the turbo, instead of wasting it out of a wasteful waste-gate. I don't think this is being done to save costs, more likely to increase noise and appease the Neanderthals that just want to watch something big and noisy.

Costs are never saved by rule changes but by rule stability, soon all the manufacturers would have got to grips with the current rules, costs would have come down and reliability gone up. Now billions more will be spent on the next engine arms race to make a less efficient version of what we have now. Lunacy!

216

The Mgu- h is a fancy and expensive Dynamo the like of which you probably had on your bicycle to power your lights as a kid. Except instead of running off of the wheel, it runs off of the turbine.

Plus it's heavy and muffles the sound.

217

and muffles the sound

How does the Mgu-h muffle the sound (I'm not saying you are wrong , just trying to understand it)? Isn't the turbocharger the thing which muffles the sound?

218

Both the turbocharger and the mgu- h muffle the sound. But without the mgu-h more energy will go to the turbocharger and wastegate thus making it louder.

219

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

220

Getting rid of the fuel flow restriction will also remove the contentious issue of using oil burn as a fuel.

221

F1 should be about striving for cutting edge designs.
Heat recovery from the turbo made engines more efficient. The best engines are now 50% efficient. The best V8 was about 28%. Why go backwards?
Noise is wasted energy so they are saying “let’s waste some energy and make it louder so people will damage their hearing or need ear defenders”. Does not make any sense.
Saving money - No! Development has already been done on this type of engine. It will cost a great deal of money to make the proposed changes.
Nothing wrong with the sound of a hybrid engine. At the track it allows you to talk to people and does not damage the ear drums.
This is all because two engine companies have not done a good enough job.

222

I fully concur ! And I think fuel limitations should be raised a bit to avoid economy racing. Weight penalty of additional fuel should suffice.

223
Clarks4WheelDrift

Cutting edge meaning it is so complex that a P3 failure means a team of the best engineers and mechanics in the world cannot get the car out of the garage hours later for qually! Not good.

Plus in 2014, 2015, 2016 it was ALL other engine PU manufacturers including Ferrari that have not done a good enough job. You can also argue this for Ferrari's failures and Merc's dominance hidden by managing gaps and sandbagging at places in 2017. The puzzle is all those Merc customer cars, with IDENTICAL engines, almost always getting lapped since the didtant memory of Massa's Williams Austria pole years ago.

You know Liberty and Ross are looking at increasing competition as Toto is already whinging and not happy about it...

224

If you want to watch engines being more fuel efficient F1 is not the place. People go to Grand Prix to see something they don't see everyday, something dramatic and exciting.

Attaching a fancy Dynamo to the turbine might save a bit of fuel, but it also adds weigh, cost and dulls the spectacle. Something for nothing does not obtain, as per usual.

225

Designs refers to what specifically? They made ABS, Traction Control etc transferred it to road cars and then reverted to the previous formula. This would be a similar move and could give them a new area of design to improve. Everyone is fascinated by the technology of F1 but where do people want these revolutions to come from if any specific area? Engine design? aerodynamics? composites? automation? software? New carbon fiber replacement that is more efficient to produce? and then at what cost? with all the technology the drivers input has been diminished which is why they have reverted in the past or banned innovations. Difficult questions to answer, do the manufactures decide they want to pursue a design do the regulations dictate what they are able to pursue? F1 can be a paradox quite often fuel efficient race cars etc... Glad I don't have to figure this out. Maybe follow the words of Colin Chapman- "Simplify, then add lightness." Although the trend has been the exact opposite. I think the lines between driver and technology and innovation have been and will continue to be blurred.

226

@ Four years in and two engine suppliers/builders have a grip on the series that does not allow for fair and equitable racing. yes, Mercedes and Ferrari [latterly] have done a better job but has it done anything for competitive racing? Maybe in the latter few months but who's to say that Mercedes won't come on even stronger over the next three seasons? I would not be betting against that. There has to be a better way of going racing than what we've had to put up with.

227

Interesting stuff. I think as fans this is about as good as we could have hoped for, lets be honest they were never going to go back to 3l V10s were they.

I think losing the MGU-H is a good thing, it seemed overly complicated for limited additional performance. MGU-K is limited by the batteries at the moment I believe. However the way electric cars are taking off, battery technology will be a huge industry and I expect to see leaps taken in the coming years in terms of more bang per kg.

Higher revving would be good for sound but I don't know if it will happen, they don't even hit the rev limit they have at the moment, turbo engines work by maximising the power of each bang rather than the number of bangs. Higher revs just means the turbo has to operate over a larger range of speeds so becomes compromised (I know the turbos they use are ridiculously complicated and have virtually no lag but the theory still applies).

I think manual control of the power boost is a good thing. It adds another element to driving and may let us get rid of DRS (if you are clearly faster and can save up a couple of laps worth of battery while still following closely then the battery should give enough additional shove down a straight).

I wish they would get rid of the fuel flow limitation. I've said it a million times, give them a maximum amount of fuel for the race (keep it at 100kg) and let them use it how they want. They can do what they like in qualifying / practice.

I don't know if I like the proposed standardisation of parts, it would be very easy to slip into a "badged engine" formula, engine should be a performance differentiator but it shouldn't be the be all and end all and it shouldn't be so difficult for someone to catch up. Its taken Ferrari and Renault 3 years to get close to being on par with Mercedes, and Honda have had 3 and are still no closer, that's ridiculous.

My other suggestion. Why does it have to be a V6? Why cant they chose however many cylinders they want? That would be a huge boost for the sound. All the engines sound the same on the TV, in person there are subtle differences (I have noticed the Merc seems louder than the others).

228

Nosier cars doesn't make for great racing. Just noiser racing and only if you are at track which most of us aren't. I want regulation changes for following another car with ease and overtaking easier with not a relience on only DRS. Make that happen and cheaper engines so all teams can compete and I will be happy.

229

Surely if you get rid of the mgh h the engine will be a lot less efficient and require more fuel hence even more weight.

230

I would like to see more freedom in the basic architecture of the ICE. Why must they all be V6? Why can't Ferrari build a V12 and Honda an inline 4 but all 1.6l?

231

Just to pick up on the volume issue. I'm really glad that there is little in the way of direct volume increasing steps besides higher RPM.
This whole volume issue is a red herring and shows how up their own *&%es the F1 universe is. At best only a portion of the on-track spectators care about this, which leaves the vast majority of the spectators (those at home- 95%?) who don't care one little bit about the volume of the cars, and if they did, just turn down the sycophantic commentary a decibel or two relative to the track noise feed...

232

I'm rather curious about the aero rules.
I hope they limit the front wing to 3 horizontal elements, the rear to 2, and no other appendices. I also think it was a mistake to allow barge boards again.
'Cleaning' up the front wing and removing the barge boards, should improve the wake so other cars can follow better. A limited amount of ground effect should also help.

I think the PU suggestion is interesting, especially raising the fuel flow for higher revs, although by 2021 the 4 current manufacturers should all be on top of MGUH, so canceling such an efficient technology would be a shame.
However, I can understand that it is a deterrent to other PU suppliers. Considering that, I'd rather they standardize it but I'm not sure how 'easy' it would be to add/implement.

233

Hey James Allen, a suggestion for polls/technical articles:
List (table) the major parts of the current and suggested PU regs, where folks can vote for either, or a 3rd alternative.
When the aero regs are known, do the same and then collate the results.
Perhaps a few technical articles explaining the pros and cons of the voter polls compared to the current/suggested regs, would be enlightening.
Cheers

234

There are three major and probably irreconcilible problems with F1. One is the FIA who have completely lost their way, two is Liberty who are only in it for the money and three, the sport has been taken over as the plaything of the big car manufacturers who now have far too much influence. If the status quo remains, significant improvement for consumers does not seem a likely outcome. What we have is still of value to those not losing interest due to lack of FTA coverage. Things ain't what they used to be but who knows maybe even the naysayers like me will have a change of heart and start handing over money to Liberty to buy streaming or whatever.

235

Not sure why we need noisy cars so much. Noise is wasted energy, and if F1 is going to stay at the "pinnacle of motorsport," then we should not care so much about sound.

236

I voted No.
My love for F1 grew through watching brilliant engineers use their innovative skills to design and build the most extreme open wheel racing cars on the planet.
THAT was F1... that’s where it got it’s nickname ... the pinnacle!
The more it is dumped down and has 20 replicants on the grid, it’s become the basecamp ... halfway up the hill ... nowhere near the top of the mountain.

Hybrid tech is extreme in every sense, granted. One of those extremes is weight. A disgusting word in the design offices of a race car constructor.
A Formula 1 car should be designed to be as light as possible with the power to weight ratio flying of the computer screen and up into the stratosphere.
Needing “batteries” (which is essentially what energy storage is) means dead weight. That’s great for ballast but it’s horrible for power and speed.
It’s obvious that these hybrids could push a car to 400 kph on long straights if they could cool them more efficiently. To do that they would need double the area to house bigger radiators and more air ducting.
Add “batteries”, heavy electrical components, hundreds of metres of wiring, bigger radiators, more ducting and you instantly need more power to push it all. It’s Catch 22! Not to mention that it then requires a man the size of a jockey to drive it because he can’t weigh more than 65kg! That discriminates against great drivers who are taller and heavier. As hi-tech as it is, the hybrid package really is ludicrous in F1!

Allow a more open set of parameters such as open slather on engine type and you instantly hand the situation back to engineers and boffins.
Can you imagine a diesel turbo up against a V10, V6 twin turbo, V8 turbo, Hydrogen engine, etc etc etc.
Pick one, find a manufacturer who wants to develop it and design your chassis around it and your choice of driver. Even if he is 6 foot 2 tall and weighs 80kg.

One huge thing that is now missing from F1 is the mystique about what will roll off the transporters at the first test of every season.
At present, other than the colour and design of liveries, we see extremely similar looking aero on all cars, with similar suspension, same PUs, weird front wings that look like Da Vinci designed them while he was upside down and full of cheap red wine. Those front wings cost more money than a small house and when they all hit the track together it’s the same old song ... follow the leader!
It’s just my humble opinion but money shouldn’t be a factor in F1. If you can’t afford it, race in a category where you can.
Budget caps attract teams that want to be in F1 for the wrong reasons. Glitz and glamour ... not innovation, competition and success.
If you’re there, you should commit to finding like-minded companies to partner with and collectively spending a massive budget ... and more if necessary.
Allow unfettered engineering genius’ to run free and we eventually find ground-breaking technologies which astound us and attract us to them like moths in a trance around a flame.
Continue to dumb these people down and make them work within extremely tight boundaries and inevitably, (sadly), all you end up with is very similar concepts because there’s very little room for true and purposeful innovation.
That’s what the lesser categories are for!

237

@ Jack... another very good post.

238

Only half jokingly, what’s wrong with a 900 bhp Formula Ford? No wings, no diffusers, no DRS, no KERS, no MGU-H, tires at competitors’ discretion. Engine? Ban pneumatic valvetrains. Max displacement normally aspirated: 2 liters. Max displacement supercharged, turbocharged, or both: 750cc. Permit two-strokes. Number and layout of cylinders? At competitors’ discretion. Permit front engines and front wheel drive.

More seriously, how can the regulations encourage variety of approach, with room for individual development of those approaches by multiple suppliers and teams? Maybe a (relatively) big, torquey 2.0 four cylinder can give and advantages at a point and squirt track like Monaco versus a V12 of the same displacement. Maybe a super- and turbocharged 750cc V8 could beat either. Or 1500cc two-stroke V6 might be a good solution.

The point is, unless it’s a spec series, the very word “formula” means there should be more than ONE solution to the challenges posed. Can that happen without ruinous costs? If it seems reasonable to try cutting off some areas from the start (banning beryllium for example), history shows that overall engine costs have increased since the FIA began restricting things like the number and layout of cylinders, maximum bore, bore center to center distance, center of gravity, number of valves and the like. That approach automatically means that the only way to gain advantage is at the extreme margins, an inherently expensive undertaking as we’ve seen.

Leave room to let someone take a completely different swing at it. They may still fail by going too complex (e.g., BRM H-16), but might succeed through ingenious simplicity (e.g., Repco-Brabham).

One last point regarding the much discussed efficiency: The pre-hybrid engines were extremely VOLUMETRICLY efficient. They were not as THERMALLY efficient. Efficiency boasting needs to be taken in the context of what KIND of efficiency is being claimed.

The criteria announced to are at least a start. Variety, obvious displays of driver control, close racing and sub $150 million (less, ideally) budgets are my overriding hopes for F1 going forward. Whether today’s announcements promote those developments, I’m not sure.

239
Tornillo Amarillo

Lowe fears if the 2021 engine plans could actually achieve the opposite of its desired effect as it denies the opportunity for regulation stability and team pace convergence. --Crash.

Oh!

240

James, on the subject of engine penalties, has anyone discussed the following idea:

Instead of grid penalties, which is confusing and can often spoil the show, why not just put penalties on Constructor points? So instead of 5, 10, etc, place grid penalties for changing engine parts, hand out points penalties of say, 2, 5, 10, etc. Negative points penalties will not apply, so if a car picks up a 10 point penalty and finishes 3rd, they only receive 5 Constructor points but if they finished 8th, they simply receive 0 points, not -6.

The advantages of this method is that it doesn't penalise the driver but it does penalise a team's potential Constructors' finishing position and prize money. It also means that a back of the grid team doesn't have to suffer the ignominy of embarrassing penalties when the fact that they are not performing well enough to score points is arguably penalty enough! I see no harm in letting those teams (e.g. McLaren Honda) do what they can to resolve their problems without throwing confusing (for the audience) penalties at them when they're already not performing.

241

On an aside - James, can you do an article on how many overtakes too place this year compared to the previous year before the regulations change? Would be curious to see the averages and if the ppl in power are looking on these stats.

242

Absolute nonsense from people you'd expect better from.
The current engines are just reaching convergence (excluding Honda) and we're gonna start all over again just as Renault and Honda get on a par with Ferrari and Mercedes. It could be so easy......more fuel, more revs and more engines per season.
And for anyone foolish enough to swallow the line about engine costs being the ultimate evil in F1 take a read of the Paddy Lowe interview with Joe saward in which he talks about Mclaren using 200+ engines a year over 15 years ago.
Why do away with the mgu-h?
Because other teams can't get it to work as well.....boo hoo.
This opening salvo suggests to me that they are gonna try and please everyone which means we'll end up with a hack job.

243

OH SNAP!

(First, make a gun cocking sound in your mind....then read this)

And so Arrivabene said Ferrari will not rule out wielding its unique and historic power of "veto" to stop changes it considers are wrong.

"At a certain point we apply our right to do a veto for good reason at that time," he said.

244

This is a follow up to my post supporting current engine development and against a regulation change.
Engines -
Recently Mercedes announced for the first time in the history of petrol engines, it’s new power unit was over 50% efficient. A remarkable achievement. The current power units produce more hp, more torque and all on much less fuel.
The best V8 was about 28% efficient.
Diesel engines in cars can be up to 35% efficient although larger types in cruise liners can be up to 60%. Unfortunately Diesel engines produce some pretty nasty exhaust gases.
The proposed power units will be a technological step backwards.
Formula 1 has always been about improving performance.
Reliability -
There is nothing inherently unreliable about the current design as shown by two manufactures. The other two just need to improve.
Cost -
Expect the cost to existing engine suppliers to increase. See my last post.
The only reason I can see in favour of the changes is that a new additional manufacturer may find it cheaper to design and supply engines to F1 teams, however, since the bulk of the existing architecture remains, the savings may be small.
The racing -
One engine manufacturer has caught up, another has almost caught up. Honda .. who knows .. maybe a bit longer.
If the idea is to make the power units. across manufacturers, to be similar in performance, the opposite could happen. Just at a time when everyone should have caught up and there is parity, there will be a regulation change. This gives the best engine manufacturer (whoever that might be) the opportunity to dominate again.

245
Joseph E. Canzona

I agree with everything but would prefer a twin turbo

246
Joseph E. Canzona

I agree with everything but would prefer a twin turbo.

247

My fave engine was and always will be the 1986 version of the V6 Turbo. Most especially the one Senna had in his Lotus Renault in the last races of 1986. The almighty scream of that thing was deafening and being within metres of the trackside guard railings, it rocked my body like an earthquake.
It was only a 1.5 litre, Twin Turbo, but unleashed 1200 BHP ... A BRUTAL BEAST by anyone’s measure!
The Quali spec versions of F1 engines in 1986 were given the nickname “greanades” because they would actually melt the cylinder walls and eventually explode from the unbelievable temperatures of combustion. They only lasted approx 4-5 minutes ... or 3 laps of Adelaide at full speed!
After watching the ‘86 season on TV, I knew I had to see and hear these things for myself, so I drove 750 km from Melbourne to Adelaide just to hear those “grenade” Quali spec engines at full noise. I’ll never forget it ... FU@#ING AWESOME!
The only thing louder and faster was the appropriately named F1 11 fighter jet which broke the sound barrier over Adelaide on the Saturday. The track is surrounded by hills and city buildings so it is like an amphitheatre. The thunderous CLAP from out of nowhere all of a sudden caused tens of thousands of people to drop to the ground in fright, me included. We were frantically looking around at each other, in shock for a few moments, petrified and wondering if was a bomb. It even smashed windows in some of the surrounding suburbs.
That was the last time the RAAF ever broke the sound barrier near a town or crowd of people, such was the outcry from the public.
On the other hand ... the crazy thing is, every single person, man woman and child that I spoke to over that 3 day weekend said they absolutely loved the awesome sound and full body “rumble” those F1 cars gave out.

That’s why I will always believe F1 cars should have those qualities ... it’s a package which delights and tantalises all of the human senses at once.
You can smell them, see them, taste the racing fuel fumes and rubber, and best of all ... you can hear them from where you stand or sit at any point on the track!

Hybrids are a very poor, hi-tech version that should stay in heavy road cars where they belong. Not in ultralight F1 cars ... EVER!!!

248

Please name ANY car company that has A Turbo Hybrid ( THERE ARE NONE ) so why the idiots on the FIA board are still demanding
These Fucking Hybrids , every Automaker still
HAS V/8 engines in production car's & Trucks ,

If the FIA is concerned about to much pollution in Formula 1 why not run Menthanol
THIS is Used by the IRL for years , so why not in
Formula 1 .

249

If Honda and Renault could meaningfully close the gap in performance, their might be a future for hybrids in F1. Did it need to be so complex? For example, Did we need fuel flow limits? If you carry more fuel because the PU is less efficient, the extra weight is sufficient penalty. As far as I can see, fuel flow limits created the perversity of burning oil as a fuel and contributed to limiting the appeal of potential PU suppliers entering F1.

250

I really miss the cheating in F1. It was part of the sport. Coming up with clever ideas and conceiling them to gain an advantage is all but gone now. Too much control. Remember the fan car? The duel wheel front? The blown diffusers? This is gone. By 2030 they will want to paint them all the same color.

251

You could not go to an F1 race without ear protection, and I have not been to one with the present engines, so I do not know how bad they sound in real life. On TV, I have always said that a few thousand extra revs would solve the problem by giving us the shriek we have been missing. Pardon the pun, but the proposed new engine reg. sounds good to me. Now, if they would just save a few Euros, and get rid a few thousand fins that create the dirty air. Maybe it could be a new "Clean Air" initiative.

252

I think they are completely missing the point in getting more restrictive with the rules changes. If we want to see a cheaper product and better racing, the solution is very simple:

1) A very hard, strictly enforced budget cap for both teams and engine, including driver salaries. (With invasive auditing by the FIA, if necessary.)

2) Near complete technical freedom, as well as freedom with respect to manufacturing and buying parts from other teams.

Teams and manufacturers would be challenged to allocate their resources most efficiently and productively and would be incentivized to take risks and innovate. Entry into F1 for new players would be much easier. We'd have a wide variety of cars and more grid shakeups from race to race, as teams with less notariety would be incentivized to design their cars to specialize on certain tracks. (We could see, for example, more Force India at Spa 2009 situations.) Manufacturers could develop any specification engine they wanted- V4, V6, V8, V10, V12, whatever they think is the best way to get the most grunt for the buck.

253

For all those saying that modern F1 engines are no longer at the cutting edge, name me ONE racing series that has more extreme engines, just one. LMS P1 are probably on a par, but that’s it. PS A n/a V8 running up to 10k rpm is not high tech and employs agricultural methods. Advanced agricultural methods but still old fashioned and inefficient. Say what you like about the current crop of motors, they are extremely efficient and powerful for their size. I think it might be pointless to consider “unlimited fuel” as it defeats the whole architecture. To have a power unit capable of such power and efficiency racing for around 10,000 kms a year whilst only (ideally) using up to 4 different PU’s and components is nothing short of extraordinary. Compare that with McLaren’s 50+ engines a year just a few years ago, and then tell me in real terms that the current PU’s are “too expensive”. As for sound, they are quieter than the first turbo era it’s true, but they can not be called quiet by any means unless you are stone deaf, plus they make such interesting noises!

254

F1 was at it's best when DFV's were being used. The 3 litre V10 engines made a great noise; the 2.4 litre ones were OK but more like bike engines due to the high revs. The current engines sound like a wet f**t !! They need to ditch fuel tank limitations as well. It is not an economy run. It is meant to be a race !! I have watched F1 since the 1970's. Liberty should ask themselves why so many people watch Historic Masters F1?? It is good entertainment. Why do you think Bernie didn't want them on the same bill as modern F1. F.Ford has more overtaking than F1. Do an Indy-car and give all teams an identical aero package. That will level the playing field !!!

255

All change of regulations cost money. Is this change better value than working to improve and perfect current power units?

I doubt it.

This F1 disease of believing change will constrain costs is delusional.

256

I voted 'No'. I am with the manufacturers on this, and they have spent millions developing this amazing technology. If F1 really must stick with hybrid technology, then I think that the proposal, which doesn't even provide for twin turbo, is pointless. Dynosaur that I am, I certainly do miss the normally aspirated 3.0l and 3.5l V10s (and in the past V12, flat 12, and V8), but definitely not the pathetic 2.4l V8s. However, hybrid it is so I think the current PU specification is fine. This year, the cars have looked great (the best in many a year actually). The racing is top notch, and getting better as Renault converge enabling RBR and hopefully McLaren to join the party. It's not broke so leave it alone. I couldn't care less about the noise or lack thereof. Cosworth and Ilmor themselves have said that, even with the revised specification, they will need major external investment to contemplate it.

257

"Take the 3 litre V10 engines out of the 2 seat demo cars and put them back in the race cars. Give the drivers enough fuel to get rid of the laughable "lift & coast" so they can at least have enough fuel to "race" each other. For dry races make all three available sets of tires mandatory to use during the race with all cars to start on new hardest available tires. Teams will need to make clever strategy decisions on when to change to the other available tire sets. V10's to be rev limited to 18000rpm and control ecu's used. Enough engines available for the season to prevent the "limited running syndrome" during Grand Prix weekends. Deduct team points after 8 or 10 engines used in a season. Abolish penalties for gearbox failures. Just think of the savings in development costs. Manufacturers already have experience building V10's so there is no need to spend massive amounts of money on development costs. Ban KERS and ERS and that saving alone will more than make up for the extra fuel used."

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation
JA ON F1 In association with...
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer

Sign up to receive the latest F1 News & Updates direct to your inbox

You have Successfully Subscribed!