F1's engine conundrum

Theoretically the F1 engine spec is set in stone until 2020. Yet the debate about what happens then has started early. The sport's brave new world put in place at the turn of the year coincided with a starting gun being fired for wrangling over whither, and more to the point whether, the current hybrid power units.

F1's debate about the future of its engines has started early
Photo: Octane Photography

The resultant conundrum brings us quickly to a core debate. Does F1's technology not matter much so long as the racing is good? Or should F1, to coin the phrase, also be about 'improving the breed'? In other words, should it provide a test bed for road car manufacturers, as it virtually always has at least to some extent?

If it is the latter, then as things stand the disconnect is becoming clear. As the redoubtable Dieter Rencken observed when visiting last year's Geneva International Motor Show, while F1 references were thin on the ground any number of manufacturers were at pains to flaunt their connection with the new-ish all-electric motorsport category, Formula E.

They're voting with their feet too. "In 2016/7, the number of manufacturers represented on FE grids (Renault, DS, Audi, VW, NEXTEV, Mahindra, Jaguar, with Nissan possibly joining off the back of alliance partner Renault) could outnumber automotive brands currently in F1 by eight to five, if, that is, one views McLaren-Honda as two entities," noted Rencken.

New Motorsport Week article: F1's engine conundrum - what will power the future of the sport?

Photo: Octane Photography

Everything is up for grabs it seems since Liberty established its power over F1. Not surprising given its clear mandate for change, and that most in and around the sport are rather hankering for said change.

And it applies, fervently, to the debate over the future of F1's engines, even though that one theoretically is set until 2020. But things are bringing it into immediate focus, and it sits in close proximity to a core question of what F1 wants to be - pleasing the road car industry or pleasing itself? And could it please the road car industry of the near future even if it wanted to?

In my latest for Motorsport Week I outline the key considerations. You can read my piece here: https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/14044

New Grand Prix Times article: The engine cost deal - too good to be true?

F1 hasn't been short of things to fall out about lately; even among them the matter of the prevailing engine spec has been likely most divisive of all. And whatever else you thought of it the costs of the current power units were doing a lot to strangle the life out of the sport.

Photo: Octane Photography

Very loosely speaking the sport's governors wanted to bring the prices down, perhaps even fundamentally alter the engine regs, while the manufacturers that supply the engines were resisting on both fronts. Yet after months of no budging - nor the remotest sign of the possibility of budging - on either side suddenly reports landed last week saying that a solution had been reached, and - gulp - it was all remarkably sensible. How un-F1.

But the saying goes, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. And does that apply here? In my latest article for Grand Prix Times I explore the matter. You can have a read here: http://www.grandprixtimes.com/news/id/11159

And if you've not been on the Grand Prix Times site in the past few days then you won't know that it's had something of a re-vamp. Not only does it have a new look it also now covers many motorsport series beyond F1 - WEC, Indycar, GP2 and others. Do check it out.

New Motor Verso article: Why F1 has (mostly) got it right on engines

Photo: Octane Photography

F1's current spec of engines has been quite the subject of debate pretty much since their inception. Or since before. The sport it seems has struggled to love the hybrid units with their strict fuel limits and indeed talk of introducing a rather dumbed down equivalent of them has risen lately.

Yet for Motor Verso I outline why - despite the problems; despite the self-disgust - the sport has actually got a lot right with its current engines. That even though some change is necessary F1 also risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater with too much change. And that the recent Mexican Grand Prix gave the units the perfect stage to show what they can do.

You can have a read of it via this link: http://www.motorverso.com/f1-mostly-got-right-engines/

Do check out the Motor Verso site too; you'll find motoring news, car reviews and features - the team on the site carry out week-long test drives of the latest cars - as well as photos and videos of the machines.

Final thoughts on 2014: Slings and Silver Arrows

Some years ago Frank Williams was asked during one of this game's periodic rounds of introspection whether he still considered F1 a sport. 'Between two and four on a Sunday afternoon this is a sport' he said, 'the rest of the time, quite honestly, it's just commerce.'

Whizzing forward to today this may evoke a pang of recognition. In this 2014 season just passed, on the track F1 just about got it right. The problem was that in virtually everything else it got it wrong. And would that it were merely commerce - instead outside of the two hours on Sunday afternoons what we got was politicking, intrigue, dispute, selfishness and the sport drifting unaltered in its grotesque and deformed state, seemingly unable to resolve on a remedy. Its future unclear, and eliciting rather a lot of trepidation. Too many people have been harmed by F1's warped ways already. The risk of many more joining them is real.

F1 threatened to be very different in 2014
Photo: Octane Photography

Yet heading in no one really knew what to expect from this season. In no small part because F1 in 2014 hit the reset button. We've had engine regulation changes before of course; we've also had chassis changes. But rarely have they arrived together. They certainly haven't to this extent. Never before had there been such a leap between F1 seasons; such a leap into the unknown.

In effect all teams had a new and highly complex technology thrown at them - a 1.6 litre turbo internal combustion unit plus greatly increased energy recovery, combined with a 100kg fuel limit as well as a limit to the flow (even the name changed - 'power unit' rather than 'engine' being the parlance) - and were told curtly to get on with it. Moreover, as Adrian Newey pointed out, a new hybrid car on the road will have five years' testing and development behind it, and the F1 equivalent of now is 20 times more complicated than even the most complicated road hybrid. The teams had but 12 days of track testing to get it right.

Slings and Silver Arrows: Thoughts on F1 in 2014

In F1 not much is new. In a sport that prides itself on never standing still that may seem a dubious claim. But such is the expanse of its past that usually some parallel can be found therein whatever happens now. Some things are new however. And it doesn't seem exaggeration to say that more so than at any other time in the sport's long history, F1 in 2014 hit the reset button.

We've had engine regulation changes before. We've also had chassis changes. But rarely have they arrived together. They certainly haven't to this seismic extent. Never before has there been such a leap between F1 seasons; such a leap into the unknown.

In effect all teams had a new and highly complex technology thrown at them - a 1.6 litre turbo internal combustion unit plus greatly increased energy recovery, combined with a 100kg fuel limit, as well as a limit to the flow - and were told curtly to get on with it. Moreover, as Adrian Newey pointed out to Gary Anderson, a new hybrid car on the road will have five years' testing and development behind it, and the F1 equivalent of now is 20 times more complicated than even the most complicated road hybrid. Those in this game had but 12 days of track testing to get it right.

F1 teams have had plenty to be getting on with in 2014
Credit:  J.H. Sohn / CC

And there was plenty of doom mongering in advance about what could be expected in F1 2014-style. The cars would be hideously slow (perhaps lap times would slip over those of GP2); the races would be conspicuous fuel economy cruises; someone even - and with a straight face - in the early part of the round one weekend in Melbourne asked Race Director Charlie Whiting what would happen if no one finished...

We should have known better - compared with such expectations things instead in the opening four rounds have gone rather swimmingly.

New F1 Times article: The times they are a-changin' – F1's noise debate

Unless you've been living in seclusion ever since the Australian Grand Prix, you'll be aware that most of us it seems have had their say on F1's noise debate in recent days.

For F1 Times, I've outlined my views on the matter. I look at what may explain the division and why I think we have little to fear fro the new-spec F1.

Please pop over and have a read by clicking on this link: http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/08660

Melbourne Preview: Unknown pleasures

Could it be the case that no round in F1's history has represented as much of a step into the unknown as this weekend's 2014 Australian Grand Prix? Most probably.

Opening rounds of the season come armed with enough unknowns at the best of times: everyone starts from zero, there are new cars on show and testing only gives us a cryptic picture of which are working better than others. We've had rule changes before too of course, sometimes fundamental ones. But has any previous set of rule revisions between two seasons been so extensive? We've had big chassis changes on occasion; on other occasions big engine changes. But this time in unison the chassis and, particularly, the engines have altered radically. For the latter the capacity is reduced from 2.4 litres to 1.6, turbos are back, energy recovery is greatly increased, and on top of these we have a fuel, as well as a fuel flow, limit. As if to underline the distinction even the engines are no longer called engines - get used to the age of the power unit

The sun shone on Mercedes in pre-season testing
Photo: Octane Photography

If this wasn't challenging enough this highly complex and still largely new technology has been thrown wholesale at the teams in one go. Unlike, say, the banning of the turbo in the 1980s, or the race-day fuel restriction of a few years earlier, there's been no incremental introduction. And they've also only been given 12 days of pre-season testing running to eliminate the glitches (Adrian Newey pointed out that even the most complex hybrid road car has several years' worth to do the same).

What we've been able to decipher from testing is that the order of before has indeed been shuffled: a consequence of the new rules is that engines are now a differentiator, and the Mercedes power unit looks to be the best of the bunch in power, fuel economy and reliability. It also has had a rising-tide-lists-all-boats effect on all four of the teams that use it. But even of the Merc runners the works team looks a cut above in its pace and preparation - the smart money for a Melbourne triumph is on one of the Silver Arrows.

The plot thickens: What we learned in Jerez

We know. We're constantly reminded. But we never learn.

Yes, F1 and pre-season testing. We have no excuse to not be at one with all of the usual disclaimers regarding interpreting it and its lap times. We don't know the respective programmes, fuel loads, state of the tyres and the like, all of which can skew a car's behaviour as well as what the stopwatch shows by several seconds and make who's actually looking good and who's not a particular riddle. And this is at the best of times: add in that in this the 2014 variety there's reason to think that such interpretation is significantly more complex even than is ordinarily so.

The F1 fraternity gathered in Jerez
Photo: Octane Photography

This time there's an added expanse of obfuscation provided by the fact that between seasons we've had perhaps the most significant simultaneous shift of engine and chassis regulations that the sport has ever faced. As a consequence everyone returns to base camp; previous years' pecking orders therefore count for not much. There may also be more scope for variation in the testing programmes as teams explore the new and uncharted landscape. And you can add to the disclaimers of the previous paragraph that now too there's a proscribed 100kg per hour fuel flow limit in the book of regs, a limit which might not necessarily be heeded in testing. This time more than most, you might be better served seeking to predict the world championship outcome by reading tea leaves than by poring over a pre-season test.

Further thoughts on the Brazilian Grand Prix

Set for a turbo charge
The Brazilian Grand Prix wasn't short on farewells as mentioned. And among the most prominent of these was that it was the scene of the final bow of the current engine spec: V8 2.4 litre units which are to be replaced by V6 1.6 litre turbo hybrids next campaign.

This got rather a lot of ceremony: tributes in the TV coverage throughout the weekend ('let's listen to these engines one last time' seemed a common refrain), references on the internet to 'the glorious V8 era' as well as even some teams revving their units until they went pop, or very nearly pop, after the Interlagos race. But I for one refrained from offering a fond send off.

V6 turbo units are to return to F1 in 2014
Credit: Morio / CC

Partly this is down to the engines being got rid of; I can't say I have much love for the 2.4 litre V8 engines. Although towards the end they did have the virtue that they already existed, and were subject to a development freeze, in an age wherein most F1 cars weren't big on spare cash, as Martin Brundle commented the engines are also 'gutless', and their spec seemed to evolve only in a ham-fisted attempt to control costs.

Further, I am an unashamed enthusiast for the turbo units that await next year. The new engines are absolutely in keeping with a key part of F1 (and for a lot of motor sport more generally), that it improves the breed. The turbos with ERS and the like is exactly the sort of things the car industry is looking to develop right now and for the immediate future, with V8s precisely what they are not looking to. To quote Ross Brawn: 'We're not going to get manufacturers to come in with the V8 normally aspirated engine that we have now. No-one's interested. We've got to create fresh opportunities for new manufacturers to come in because who's going to come in and build a V8 18,000rpm engine? The new engine gives a fresh opportunity and it's a more relevant specification for manufacturers.'

Why F1 needs a turbo charge: New engine regulations for 2014

F1's blueprint for the future is in place, finally.

On Wednesday last week the FIA rubber-stamped new engine regulations to be introduced for the 2014 season, previously hammered out by the teams. This means that the current 2.4 litre V8 units are on the way out, and will be replaced by 1.6 litre V6 turbos with more liberalised energy-recovery systems and using around 35% less fuel, while generating the same level of power as now. I'm going to don my tin hat and say that it's about time too.

Renault's V6 turbo engine from 1980
Credit: m duchesne

The changes have been criticised widely, right from their initial suggestion, and this will no doubt continue until the things are used in anger in the opening round of the 2014 season. Bernie Ecclestone has been particularly vocal, many F1 circuits are apparently threatening to decamp to the Indycar series, and F1 fans' forums also invariably betray extensive hostility to the new regulations. The main concerns are the loss of the high-revving scream of the current F1 engines which has an appeal in itself, as well as that the concentration on conservation and efficiency instead of excess is against what F1 'should be about'.

But no man is an island entirely of itself, and such a view I feel disregards that F1 does not and cannot exist inside a bubble. F1, like everything, can only proceed with the permission of the society around it. Its ticket sales, support, investment, sponsorship and regulatory framework in which it can operate all come from society more widely, and without these F1 could not survive.