How to fix F1?

[Mike Harte]

To partly illustrate the road relevance of the PU technology, it has been established and acknowledged that Mercedes were able to leap frog both Renault and Ferrari for the simple reason that they had been developing similar technology for their road going vehicles prior to the new rules being introduced.

And when the new rules were established, Mercedes transferred some of the road vehicle engineers involved in that technology to the F1 engine establishment. This was the main reason that Mercedes was ready to roll out the new PUs in 2013, when Renault and Ferrari had to request the FIA to grant a further year's extension to their introduction because Renault in particular were nowhere near ready.

It also needs to be noted that Renault initially demanded that the new ICE be a straight 4 cylinder which is what they mainly used for their road cars. Ferrari kicked back at this because they don't use 4 pots blocks, and eventually the compromise became the V6.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Excellent post! Thank you for your thoughts Richard.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I think I disagree with you fairly strongly on one point though: I do not think FE is leading in any way.

I don't want to get dragged into the question of... is electric the future, and the relevance of Elon Musk as that is a totally different topic...

I will say we may not be far apart as you think. When I say "road relevancy" or "leading" I am mostly focusing on perceived technical relevancy and by leading I mean they advertise themselves as an all electric series and eschew "old" or "legacy" technology, while F1 tries to keep feet planted in both the past and the future, so they will always lag behind FE from a "marketing" battle perspective (assuming the target demographics are those who care about these topics)

I don't really follow FE much at all, but you could totally convince me that the technology in FE may not cross over (or be ahead of) current production electric cars. I wouldn't be shocked if the "actual" road relevancy is quite low. I suspect some of the control systems stuff is maybe the closest. But perception IS reality from a marketing perspective and that is all they care about. Even if they try to pump up their "technical teams" involvements in the car.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

To partly illustrate the road relevance of the PU technology, it has been established and acknowledged that Mercedes were able to leap frog both Renault and Ferrari for the simple reason that they had been developing similar technology for their road going vehicles prior to the new rules being introduced.

And when the new rules were established, Mercedes transferred some of the road vehicle engineers involved in that technology to the F1 engine establishment. This was the main reason that Mercedes was ready to roll out the new PUs in 2013, when Renault and Ferrari had to request the FIA to grant a further year's extension to their introduction because Renault in particular were nowhere near ready.

It also needs to be noted that Renault initially demanded that the new ICE be a straight 4 cylinder which is what they mainly used for their road cars. Ferrari kicked back at this because they don't use 4 pots blocks, and eventually the compromise became the V6.

I can't disagree with any of that.

My main comment is that I can imagine that this gave Mercedes a "head start". I suspect where they (and others) have refined these solutions... has likely gone beyond what we may see in production vehicles. I would love to be proven wrong on this as I think there is likely some really cool stuff going on with respect to the combustion process in F1 power units today. I just doubt that much of that is ready for general demands of production cars that have to operate in a wide range of conditions with relatively wide levels of fuel quality. Even then, if put into production cars, they wouldn't have some of the limitations imposed via the F1 regulations (such as restrictions on injector and spark component count, location, etc.) There are a slew of good ideas discussed in some other technical forums that couldn't work in F1 due to the current technical restrictions but might work in production cars. Solutions have become F1 specific.

I think F1 (and WEC) shows today what can be done if you can control most of the operating conditions (such as custom fuels). I am mostly talking about aggressive lean burn solutions.

Richard

[Adam43]

I think I am mainly going to repeat some of the points above. I enjoyed reading

Road relevance? I see no reason why F1 needs to be road relevant fundamentally, but it does help to attract those manufacturers.
But it is, at least from a drivetrain, very relevant. Even if those exact parts don't make it to road cars the principles of efficiency (even it is seen more as power sometimes) is hugely important. More so the working practices, the development, the dead ends, the philosophy is relevant to this engineering. I'd love to be see that being promoted and explained to the people who watch.

As for electric. This is a topic that just does not work for discussions. It isn't anywhere near black or white. The solutions here are different depending on application, the rationale is complex and the needs of the consumer varies. It can be perfect for someone, it can not work for another. However the argument quickly gets to all or nothing. I will say that from the perspective of the driveline EV are a hoot to drive. Saying this does not mean I've given up on the good old combustion engine. I still love to drive cars from any era including my newbie and appreciate them all. I do not need to justify my love of something by hating something else.

[coppice]

Any relevance F1 has had to road cars has been tenuous , at best. Most of its 'innovations '- wings, ground effect, turbos - have their origins in other formulae. Road relevance is in focus now only because major manufacturers are the only people with enough resource to make their absurdly complex and expensive engines - oops, 'power units' . The PU in the back of Lewis 's Merc has no more relevance to the typical road car than the Ford funded DFV did in 1967 - and nor should it.



F1 is so insular, as is most of the racing press , that nobody seems to notice the Olympic standard irony in spouting recycled PR guff about the F1 engine's marvellous efficiency whilst not raising an eyebrow over an F1 car's consumption of a dozen new tyres in 90 minutes .

And let's not forget that more than 30 years ago , smaller F1 engines than today's not only sounded wonderful, but also were more powerful. Bit thirstier though... if not as dipsomaniac as the V16 BRM from another 30 years earlier . Its 550bhp from 1.5 litre was none too shabby either -on the rare occasions when it was firing on all 16 anyway .

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

the sport doesn't know what it is. It probably can't change until it gets over it's identity crisis.
Richard

Those few words are spot on but the problem goes further, the fans don't know what they want it to be either. Look at the millions upon millions of words written on the subject and it is clear the fans have not got any idea of what they want and will never agree on what it should be. They do not understand what good racing is because the majority have a myopic view that F1 is motor sport and no other racing exists.

[coppice]

Absolutely - I am sure I am not the only one who, shortly after finding out that somebody apparently shares my interest , realises that all he or she does is watch F1 on telly . The sheer ignorance of the many and diverse disciplines of motor sport never ceases to amaze me. As Simon Taylor , I think it was, put it - F1 used to be at the top of the motorsport pyramid , but now it is a free standing pyramid of its own.



I deprecate the word 'fan ' too- it denotes a near hysterical adulation of the actors in the F1 soap opera . If you have seen such 'stars' struggling on a wet November Saturday at Croft in a Formula Renault race then you don't need a change of underwear if you encounter them in an F1 paddock . If , that is , any civilians like me could actually walk round a paddock any more ... As I am not a Poundshop sleb , nor a grime artist, media pundit or footballer it is now forbidden territory .

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

As for electric. This is a topic that just does not work for discussions. It isn't anywhere near black or white. The solutions here are different depending on application, the rationale is complex and the needs of the consumer varies. It can be perfect for someone, it can not work for another. However the argument quickly gets to all or nothing.

It is a difficult topic here for the reasons you mention.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I will say that from the perspective of the driveline EV are a hoot to drive. Saying this does not mean I've given up on the good old combustion engine. I still love to drive cars from any era including my newbie and appreciate them all. I do not need to justify my love of something by hating something else.

Agree. A few months ago a close friend bought a Tesla Model 3 (dual motor AWS) and let me drive it. A full throttle launch from a standstill left me totally gobsmacked. There is a lot to like about that level of acceleration.

But at the same time I am doing a slow resto-mod of a Porsche 914 with plans to put in a 3.2L Porsche flat six with an aggressively open induction system and no sound padding in the interior cabin. Nothing quite like the sound of both the induction and exhaust noises from a flat six as it screams up to redline right behind your head.

Sorry for the off topic.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And when the new rules were established, Mercedes transferred some of the road vehicle engineers involved in that technology to the F1 engine establishment. This was the main reason that Mercedes was ready to roll out the new PUs in 2013, when Renault and Ferrari had to request the FIA to grant a further year's extension to their introduction because Renault in particular were nowhere near ready.

so in a sense then the road car division was leading the push to transfer tech to the F1 team and not the other way around...in this case anyways.

i think this raises an interesting side question then...is a racing environment still the best place to develop new technologies? imo, we (or the teams) certainly operate under this impression but does this assumption hold water in the modern industrial environment.

top down vs more collaborative approaches to design, F1 operates publicly and that may tend to favour a more conservative design philosophy (no one wants to go bang in public), costs of competing in F1 pulls money away from research etc?

just thinking about the engines...Merc have built a wonderful engine but for the most part, it is too expensive to place in anything other than a hypercar and/or the ideas behind it may prove too costly to transfer down to road cars/not cost effective (why pay 10k or whatever more for a better engine option if its going to take 10 years to save that much on gas costs).

compared to Toyota, without an F1 program, who have apparently built themselves an engine boasting 40% thermal efficiency (not far off from Merc's F1's stated peak) and they will have that engine ready for their entire range of road cars within a few years.

i have no idea what the future tech will be but to me its clear that the world needs more immediate and practical solutions so im inclined to think that the road relevancy in F1 is potentially counter productive in achieving that need.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i think this raises an interesting side question then...is a racing environment still the best place to develop new technologies? imo, we (or the teams) certainly operate under this impression but does this assumption hold water in the modern industrial environment.....

......just thinking about the engines...Merc have built a wonderful engine but for the most part, it is too expensive to place in anything other than a hypercar and/or the ideas behind it may prove too costly to transfer down to road cars/not cost effective (why pay 10k or whatever more for a better engine option if its going to take 10 years to save that much on gas costs).

I think that as far as Mercedes are concerned, these developments are a two way process, and in this case it was technology that they were developing for road going vehicles that went to the racing division. I'm sure that ideas also flow the other way, too.

I have a feeling that the technology may have been under development for their commercial road going vehicles, and not necessarily for their car division. Fuel costs are an ever more pressing concern for truck and van users, and if the operators, especially the multi vehicle ones, need to pay a "slight" premium for different type of PU that provides more bangs for their bucks, i.e. less fuel overheads on high mileage vehicles, then they will pay it. This is the same as with the airline industry where, rather than keep older less fuel efficient planes on the fleet, they are ditching them comparatively early and replacing them with the latest fuel efficient models.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Fair enough. Did Tesla start out as a producer of electric vehicles?

Yeah. 2003 was the initial startup. Musk became Chairman in 2004 and CEO in 2008. The first Tesla production car was the original Roadster, which was 2008. Formula E was presented by Todt to funders in 2011.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Yeah. 2003 was the initial startup. Musk became Chairman in 2004 and CEO in 2008. The first Tesla production car was the original Roadster, which was 2008. Formula E was presented by Todt to funders in 2011.

Thanks for that.

[wnut]

F1 had better start getting it right, this is clearly not sustainable:

https://f1i.com/news/338237-mclaren-...s-in-2018.html

McLaren runs up record 96 million pound loss in 2018.

[wnut]

… and Williams shows a profit!

https://www.pitpass.com/64295/Willia...eason-on-track

Villeneuve's view

https://f1i.com/news/337596-williams...illeneuve.html

"But if the company made so much money, it's because it didn't spend enough on its racing team.

"The president doesn't want to win in F1, he just wants to make as much money as possible for shareholders. That’s all that matters…"

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 had better start getting it right, this is clearly not sustainable:

https://f1i.com/news/338237-mclaren-...s-in-2018.html

McLaren runs up record 96 million pound loss in 2018.

F1 does not need to guarantee financial solvency for mediocre teams.

[JacobP]

For at least the last 30 years we have been hearing heated debates about how to "fix" Formula 1. Dozens of actions have been taken to "fix" it, and yet F1 has the same problem issues from 30 years ago. Meanwhile, in these past 30-40 years it became a massively profitable business, generating hundreds of millions in net revenue every year. So maybe it should be left alone.

[ApexTurtle]

I think after today's race we can be sure the tyres decide everything. I will just it put it forward to anyone: is that what we want? Is that what F1 should be, dictated by Pirelli?

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I think after today's race we can be sure the tyres decide everything.

This post sure makes a whole lot of sense. Pirelli decided that Mercedes should qualify 1-2, and finish the same way.

[Akrapovic]

Everyone has the same Pirellis. Tyres decide less now than they did in the Bridgestone v Michelin days.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Everyone has the same Pirellis.

But not everyone has the same car. Hence my point. Your strategy is dictated by the tyres and the rules around them. Leclerc was forced to start on the mediums by a rule that serves very little purpose as far as I can see. He was also forced to switch to a different compound by another rule that makes very little sense in my mind. The entire race is dictated by how slow everyone can go to save the tyres. Vettel speeds up a bit, gets too close to Hamilton, has to drop back as to not wear his precious tyres too much. Hamilton speeds up a bit, Bottas responds, gap stabilizes after a lap or three and nothing happens.

Cars are forced to slow down, tyres cool down, the race is then dictated by whoever can get their tyres up to temperature the quickest. It's all tyres all the time. It's all the commentators can talk about. It's mental.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I think after today's race we can be sure the tyres decide everything. I will just it put it forward to anyone: is that what we want? Is that what F1 should be, dictated by Pirelli?

Pirelli have already been awarded a contract extension, 2020 through 2023. So nothing can be done about that, not any time soon.

https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/pi...-2023/4303669/

[Casper]

Tyres have always been a prime factor, the difference these days is because there is minute scrutiny of everything and Pirelli are the sole supplier they get forensically criticised and in days gone by that was simply impossible. Tyres always fell apart, we had one lap specials and during the race when a tyre did not work it was always accepted as a part of the process of racing, tyres simply went off and no more discussion was entered into.

[S griffin]

It was much better when tyres weren't manufactured to be bad. That's why the tyre war was good, it meant they were more on the limit, without trying to 'fix it'

[chillibowl]

i think we all have different recollections of what the tire war eras were like.

personally i cant see a valid reason to allow Ferrari or Merc to enter into a bespoke tire arrangement. the current economics realities mean this would only drive up costs which only they could afford.

the rest of the field already struggles enough with their budgets imo.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by Casper

Tyres have always been a prime factor, the difference these days is because there is minute scrutiny of everything and Pirelli are the sole supplier they get forensically criticised and in days gone by that was simply impossible. Tyres always fell apart, we had one lap specials and during the race when a tyre did not work it was always accepted as a part of the process of racing, tyres simply went off and no more discussion was entered into.

The difference is they are designed to fail now. They are also supposed to 'spice up the action'. Whatever that means. Has all the tinkering with the tyre regulations since about 2010 ever accomplished anything?