Is F1 falling apart?

I have been following F1 since about 1961. In all that time I have never paid any attention, much less been in awe of the technology being employed by the teams. Breathtaking advances in engine design, ECUs, tire technology, or the number of wings, flip-ups, bargeboards, endplates, and halos have added one scintilla excitement to any race I have watched. The number of fans who look at an F1 car and struck breathless while contemplating the number of kilojoules in the batteries buried under the drives seat is de minimus. The tech weenies at F1 and the FIA need to get over themselves and realize that the greatest threat to the future of the pinnacle of motorsport is cost. And the quickest way to mitigate against the cost is to back off the astronomical heights of technology they believe is necessary to define great racing. And, the last I knew, F1 is supposed to be great racing.

 

No new F1 manufacturers before 2026 rule change Formula 1 boss Ross Brawn has conceded no new power unit manufacturers will enter the series until rules change in 2026, adding options for the new format are wide open

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/149814/no-new-f1-manufacturers-before-2026-rule-change

 

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/149822/wolff-aero-test-handicap-rule-not-baseball-bat-move

Mercedes Formula 1 boss Toto Wolff accepts revised aerodynamic testing restrictions for 2022 as the first form of success handicapping, contrasting it with the "baseball bat" approach of reversed grids.

The Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions (ATR) regulations have been adjusted with a sliding scale that gives less windtunnel time and CFD usage to the teams at the top of the previous year's world constructors' championship table, with more afforded to those at the bottom.

Wolff said Mercedes accepted the change as it was designed to help close the field up over the long term, rather than to specifically handicap the winning team.

"I am a fan of the meritocracy of F1, the best man and best machine wins," said Wolff when asked by Autosport.

"And this is how it always was, no gimmicky stuff like in some other sports, where the show people have added components that have diluted the sport.

"I hate any kind of balance of performance. It becomes a political game and a political world championship, and has no place in F1.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

"What has been introduced with the new ATR is a possibility for the lowered ranked teams to slowly creep back in terms of development scope to where the leading teams are.

"It's tiny percentages every year so that's not going to make a big difference from one year to the other, but it's going to balance the field out after a few years."

Wolff pointed out that even a team like Mercedes could benefit if it slipped down the order.

"I believe that if you're not good enough to win any more, then you have equal opportunity," he said. "You're second or third, you have more scope again than the world champion.

"I think it was done as a fine adjustment, not with a baseball bat. The reverse grids would have been a baseball bat."

 

Amen

 

In my opinion, the manufacturers are there for one reason only, technology gain and that was based on governments criteria of zero carbon emissions. The future back then was hybrid and was in its infancy, so what better way to gain valuable technology and expose engineers to be creative, go motor racing. The likes of Newey etc are fast disappearing with vast offices of dedicated people now constantly pushing the boundaries.

The trouble is that governments and environmentalists have moved the goal posts yet again and hybrid is dead. All electric is earmarked for F! in less than 25 years time, we are just all being played by stealthy changes in the vain hope nobody will have noticed how different cars sound [yes thats important for me] in less than 10 years.

I am in the camp, stick your striaght four or V6's where the sun doesnt shine, i dont subscribe to any pay per view, buy F1 magazines or anything to do withe F1 merchandise anymore. I'll watch highlights if i can stay awake.

All these adaptions are comical really, can you see fans at a tennis tournament being happy whereby the favourite to win has to use a minature table tennis racket and the other guy a shovel.

 

Er, no.

Some of the fans (like me) are interested in the noise--which of late is simply poor.

The piercing noise of the V12 (or V10) was the intake and exhaust systems in perfect harmony with each other. One needs that synchrony in order for the engine to breath at high RPMs and make power. The 20K RPMs only helped the show.

Many of the remaining lap records are from the 2004 period where 3.0 V10 ruled the roost.

It would be interesting to witness these modern blown engines at 50% thermal efficiencies and their rules race against a V10 from 2004 in a modern chassis with modern aerodynamics. It would be a LOT more interesting than watching the current show.

It would ALSO be interesting to get rid of pit lane speed limiters (now that press has been banned from the pits) and let the boys race in and out.

 

The V10s went from 650 HP to 1000 HP over 6 years of development, where do you think they would be now if they had another 6 years of development?

 

At present, there is no battery technology that can support 1000 HP for a race distance and weight less than 500 Kilos. Not even close.

 

Hence Formulae E series - precursor to F!,

why 1000 bhp

Best

tony

 

Well said. I do learn alot here and like many here I have deep connections in the sport that I communicate with and see personally. William and Bas are 2 of the super fans with knowledge here. Many fans here are equally as smart as well. I learn alot here. Yes with pain at times LOL

 

Haven't we been saying this for years now, at least as long as the new PU came around? And some people around here (in this thread) pushed back at our reticence for the new formula.

"Get with the program" they would tell us. And we're like, yeah but, the cars are ugly, the PU's are too complicated, and they sound like crap.

So all I can say to the other side is, told you so, told you so, told you so.

-F

 

The PU's are too complex, the sound sucks, the cars are ugly, and the aero is too dependent on "clean air".

F1 has lost viewership and the fan experience at the track needs improvement.

There are several areas that are "wrong" about F1. And I don't like to complain. I was happy as pig in slop for the decades leading up to the new formula.

-F

 

I wonder if the Freevalve camless head that Koenigsegg use could work on an F1 V10s from back in the day. Taking away the cams and reducing that mass that high from center of gravity would help not even getting into the infinite valve timing ability. Then run the engine on bio-ethanol from algae that Koenigsegg can do too...runs cooler, no pre-detonation, and higher power.

The Mercedes-Ilmor and Bishop rotary valve experiment from back in the day was cool. Wish we would go back to n/a engines and not this lame force induction crap.

 

Of course F1 tried turbos before, and they subsequently dropped them. And the period that eventually followed (1990's) was some of the best racing and best cars in F1 ever. Dropping turbos wasn't a step backwards.

Over the last decade, F1 tried some things, some things worked out, some didn't. But being a slave to a technology, whether it's hybrid tech, turbos, active suspension, or whatever, at the expense of the fan experience is utterly ridiculous.

-F

 

I would suggest that at close to 300hp/litre, the V10s were near their maximum thermal efficiency then, and there wouldn't be much to gain.
The only way up would be to increase the revs to absorb more fuel mixture per minute, but the calorific value of each explosion wouldn't go much higher.
I have heard very high rpm quoted (16,000 ?) but I don't know if they are true.

On a turbo engine, you have a higher calorific value because you already feed the engine with a pre-compressed fuel mixture (depending on how you set the pop-off valve) between -say- 2 and 4 bars, which means you have a bigger bang per rev. To increase power on a turbo engine, you just set the intake pressure higher by adjusting the pop-off valve, without affecting much the revs. Something the Porsche racing drivers used to play with during races to adjust their power on demand.
Since you have a higher calorific value, you also obtain a higher thermal efficiency. Unrestricted turbo engines already achieve 600hp/litre on the bench without problem, but 1000hp/litre has been obtained on some occasion, and not even by professional engine builders.
A 1000cc Suzuki turbo motorcycle engine did show more than 1000hp on the bench a few years ago.

FYI. BRM completely missed the boat in 1965, when the engine rules went from 1500cc to 3000cc. They tested one of their 1500cc engine with a supercharger (not a turbo) on the bench and read 1500hp. Tony Rudd didn't believe it and instead started designing the ill-fated NA H-16 engine that was a complete flop.
Nobody took notice, but the days of the naturally aspirated engine in F1 were already numbered then, years before Renault brought their "Yellow Kettle" 1.5L turbo.

 

That's why electric power is a non-starter at the moment. Until they have solved the (big) issues of energy storage and range.

The first question a Tesla salesman asks is: "How many miles you do every day?"
That sets the tone: long distance runs are out of the question because of the limited range.

That's why hybrid technology will be around for a while, IMO.

 

This was the 90s, and this is now, 30 years further down the line.

The FIA got frightened of the power the turbos were giving at the time.

 

Force induction will always bring more calorific value by feeding more fuel mixture in the combustion chamber, thus giving more power output for the same capacity.

In a turbo, it combines that with wasted energy recovery (exhaust); do you want to lose that ?

 

I find it more impressive to get as much hp out of n/a than to simply increase horsepower via forced induction. If they want to use anything like a turbo just use a turbine to make electricity to drive electric motors to at least make it interesting.

 

A turbine isn't very fuel efficient. A turbo uses lost energy, so it's a win-win situation.
But I undersand you choice.

 

+1

 

For sure, and generally, turbos are a great way to produce power.

The point is, at some point in time F1 had turbos and as great as they are, at a latter point in time, F1 decided to go another direction. And after that perhaps for a period of time it seemed like a step backward, but really it was just a step towards a new, and presumably better formula (are 90's V12's better than 80's V6's?, IDK).

A move towards a simpler PU might seem like a step backwards, especially in a technology driven league. But sometimes mixing things up and resetting is required in motor sports.

I suggest a hybrid system, NA engine with electric motor. So you'd get the coolness of the NA engine (cool design, sound, better hp/l #'s, etc.) and you'd get the connection with what's going on in the auto industry and ability to engage DRS. And it's not so insanely complex that small teams can't afford to development it.

And as you said yourself, hybrid is likely a part of our automotive future.

-F

 

Yeah fuel efficiency doesn't matter to me. I want pit stops with refueling. It's about smiles per gallon for me, not miles per gallon.

Ethanol gets worse MPG than gasoline, but it makes more power and runs lower temps and you can make it from algae so I prefer that.

 

Whatever happens, I will keep following F1, simply because I like it.
The rules cannot please everyone, and there are bound to be people frustrated by the decisions the FIA makes in future.
In my mind, there is a logic evolution, and I think we miss out when we don't observe it.

What some people want, it seems, is the sexy noise of a multi-cylinder NA engine, and they reject the present hybrid formula on that ground.
The constructors' departure from F1 could announce the end of the present hybrid power unit; that has to be envisaged too.

Personally, I love turbos in everyday life, and I wouldn't buy a car without one!
I bought the first turbo car available in UK, a left-hand drive BMW 2002 turbo, a special import. BMW wouldn't give me a warranty!
It blew its cylinder head out of the block one day; it went almost through through the hood when the engine exploded!

 

I saw F1 when there was no refuelling, but no fuel limit either.
If your engine wasn't fuel efficient enough, you were handicaped by carrying more weight.
That concentrated the engineers' mind.

I used methanol on race bike engines for years. Yes, lower temps but lower calorific value too.
Methanol used to eat the fuel lines like acid and clog the carburator if not flushed after each race.

I don't know if the ethanol they now put in petrol (5%) is the same.
It will go to 15% in a couple of years, approved by the government.
I think the oil companies go that way to keep the price of fuel down, but it may reduce the mileage.
I worked for SHELL for a while, and you would be surprised of the tricks oil companies try on the motorists.