Formula 1: Refuelling to return in 2017

Skeeter said:
Because of the regulation limiting them to only being allowed to harvest 2MJ through the MGUK per lap. They have to make the other 2MJ (they can discharge 4MJ per lap) through harvesting from the MGUH on the turbo, which they are struggling with.

The Porsche LMP1 happily harvests 8MJ per lap through unrestricted harvesting of kinetic and heat energy. The Toyota gets 6MJ (maybe 8 this year, can't remember) through kinetic alone as its an NA engine. Audi pull 4 and they aren't even trying.
Click to expand...

But the LMP cars are a lot heavier and do longer laps?

I'm sure I read that Porsche can't harvest anything near their full quota in a lap of Silverstone...
 
Thats quite possible, as I doubt they would want to publicise falling short. But the higher the Energy classes in LMP1 the less petrol (or diesel) you are allowed, so they won't be claiming they are too much higher than their true potential.

But the 2MJ harvest/4MJ discharge through a 160bhp motor in F1 cars is still waaaaay below where Hybrid motorsport technology is. The Porsche has 400bhp of electrical power alone. The Nissan was going to have 1250bhp combined before they hit issues with the rear axle. F1 had 80bhp electric motors in 2009, and looks like it will still be running just 160bhp ones in 2019. Hell, the 911 GT3 RSR Hybrid that kick started Hybrids in endurance racing was running a pair of 80bhp motors in 2010, a year when F1 decided KERS was to 'complicated' for them :rolleyes:!

F1 is making a pathetic effort with ERS/Hybrid, demonstrated by their complete failure to promote it, the embarresment they seem to display about using it, and the fact they are completely ignoring it when talking about power increases. Its mainly due to F1 being run by dinosaurs and cavemen.

ERS is such a simple solution. They could just let them use twice as powerful motors on the same batteries and harvesting regulations and all the cars would get an extra 160bhp just like that. With Toto saying they are already over 800bhp with the current engines, if you add that increase in you pretty much have your '1000bhp' figure right there.

Screwing about wasting time on ICE engines, undoing all the hard work they have put in for efficiency is not the solution. There is so much more that can be done with the ERS but F1 just refuses to accept its the way forward.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
What are you on about? The top 10 grid positions are decided in Q3 not Q2 :confused:

And the ERS systems that are twice as powerful as the ones in F1 cars that will do the Le Mans 24 Hours in a couple of weeks answers your first point :p. ERS technology is way ahead of where F1 has regulated itself at.
Click to expand...

The tyres from fastest lap in q2 are used as 1st / grid set in the race, thats what I was thinking about.

Im not sure that rule really works that well.

Sorry but the tech obviousely is not in place otherwise what you are suggesting is that multiple race teams are using sub optimal ers systems due to
all the charging / usage errors we hear about during every race weekend. If it was so bullet proof all the problems just would not be happening up and down the grid

Edit - you also didnt comment on why I think F1 inparticular (until their version of ers is more bullet proof) should have the power increase in the ice and not the ers ( even if within this set of rules they put a date in, lets say 2018 or 19, when the ratio of power fron the ice vs the ers is swapped over). There HAS to be something fundamental as to why no team has adapted an LMS model of ers in F1, if they are so reliable etc, whether its weight / size, harder to "detune" for less power requirements

None of the engine manufacturers mentioned in relation to LMP1 above are in F1 ( sorry if Ive missed/ forgotten a relative) - is it possible to buy an ers from a third party and fit it to a lets say Honda engine, from a practical / contractual and rules point of view - in F1 I havent heard even a hint of this being an option?
 
Last edited:
The F1 power units meet the ACO LMP1 Hybrid regulations. You could put any of the current F1 engines into an LMP1 chassis and compete at Le Mans.

But while the F1 engine format can be considered a '5th way' of interpreting the ACO rules (Audi, Porsche, Toyota and Nissan all have different variations of power unit) it is the slowest, due to all the additional regulations the FIA have applied to the F1 rules. The FIA do not want F1 to be a technology arms race (understandably as they need to control costs) but are also rather shy about using hybrids, so the rules they have imposed on F1 mandate a very conservative ERS system that is a long way off what is technically possible at the current time.

So yes, I am saying F1 teams are using sub-optimal ERS systems because the FIA have applied such tight regulations. I can guarantee the F1 PUs would be more reliable and faster if the manufactures had more freedom in what they can do. Also, almost every issue with ERS in F1 seems to be caused by packaging and heat issues which is an issue unique to F1.

As for buying a bolt on ERS, no this isn't possible any more. The PU is considered a single package, and the components are all very closely interlinked with each other. The old KERS on the V8s was a bolt on as it was quite litterally an electric motor bolted to the crank shaft.
 
FrankJH said:
Sorry but the tech obviousely is not in place otherwise what you are suggesting is that multiple race teams are using sub optimal ers systems due to
all the charging / usage errors we hear about during every race weekend. If it was so bullet proof all the problems just would not be happening up and down the grid
Click to expand...

That's because in F1 small and light is king, and they're obsessed with finding a way of trimming back every last detail - heck, weight was one of the reasons McLaren put forward for changing the colour of the car!

With WEC the goal is in finishing the race as fast as possible. F1 currently seems to be make a car that can go as fast as possible and then iron out the kinks that will follow. Honda have encapsulated that.

Remember most of Renault's numerous issues this year have been of a mechanical nature, not ERS failures.
 
JRS said:
You could certainly turn up....'compete' is a prettty strong word :D
Click to expand...

Yep, which is my point. The result is a heavily regulated, sub-optimal PU that would flounder misserably compared to the current LMP1 cars.

But, if you wanted to take an F1 engine and make it competitive in LMP1 you could quite easily, by simply... dun dun duuuun.... increasing the ERS elements!
 
Skeeter said:
The F1 power units meet the ACO LMP1 Hybrid regulations. You could put any of the current F1 engines into an LMP1 chassis and compete at Le Mans.

But while the F1 engine format can be considered a '5th way' of interpreting the ACO rules (Audi, Porsche, Toyota and Nissan all have different variations of power unit) it is the slowest, due to all the additional regulations the FIA have applied to the F1 rules. The FIA do not want F1 to be a technology arms race (understandably as they need to control costs) but are also rather shy about using hybrids, so the rules they have imposed on F1 mandate a very conservative ERS system that is a long way off what is technically possible at the current time.

So yes, I am saying F1 teams are using sub-optimal ERS systems because the FIA have applied such tight regulations. I can guarantee the F1 PUs would be more reliable and faster if the manufactures had more freedom in what they can do. Also, almost every issue with ERS in F1 seems to be caused by packaging and heat issues which is an issue unique to F1.

As for buying a bolt on ERS, no this isn't possible any more. The PU is considered a single package, and the components are all very closely interlinked with each other. The old KERS on the V8s was a bolt on as it was quite litterally an electric motor bolted to the crank shaft.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this - I think the FIA are being even more difficult than normal after all from the failures point of view there are three different parts which are (I believe anyway) counted separately - and yet the supply of the same is counted as one PU, surely this is being awkward for awkward sake?

If its JUST about price then.......ok it would be a fair and just argument IF F1 were the only sport using these, but surely if they were able to adapt somehow to using identical units that are being in LMP the price shrinks rapidly for everyone - not immediately but in the medium term.

Then take into account that F1 doesn't allow full power LMP devices should not only become cheaper still but potentially even smaller as well.

Surely FIA are better off saying everyone has to adapt to using a 3MJ LMP1 device for the next 3 years (lets say) , the increase in MJ to compensate for the size /weight addition. Cost would become less relevant wouldn't it?

IF the FIA allowed it - how easy would it be for Merc, Ferrari, Honda etc to adapt one of the four layouts? I remember last year when the Merc F1 layout was big news because of how they did it, but from what I saw it was still only the basics - without the innards of each of the three units of the PU being discussed in detail? IE would it take another 3 years involving a complete engine /PU redesign - or is there a huge amount of lets say Porsche' s design that is known about so it would actually take significantly less.


I know F1 is all about size and weight - but if every car had to carry the same size /weight of device it becomes an equalizing factor.
 
There is definitely an element of simply being awkward about the FIA rules. Allowing 4MJ discharge but only allowing 2MJ to be harvested through the MGUK puts a hell of a lot of pressure on the MGUH systems to deliver the extra energy, and then the turbo thats attached to is also heavily regulated.

The Audi, Toyota and Nissan units would not work in F1 as they are based around pretty massive ICE's which would be prohibitively heavy and large. But the Porsche is an interesting one. It uses a (relatively) tiny 2 litre turbocharged V4 ICE which is then paired with massively powerful electric motors that produce over 400bhp on their own. That is the most closely aligned to how F1 have set out their rules, and they are in the 8MJ category in WEC. So in the Porsche you have something not that far removed from what's in the back of F1 cars, but capable of delivering almost 3x the ERS power using twice the recovered energy. That suggests that making big gains in F1 ERS is very easily possible. The FIA just have zero interest in doing so.
 
Graeme Lowden adds his voice to those wondering what the heck the strategy group are spouting:

F1 Strategy Group has 'no strategy', claims Manor team

Manor sporting director Graeme Lowdon believes Formula 1's Strategy Group is failing to address fundamental questions in its attempt to overhaul F1.

While plans are in place to ensure cars are five to six seconds quicker than at present come 2017, there are also moves afoot behind the scenes to bring in customer or franchise cars.

Manor would appear to be a prime target to adopt such a proposal given it is a team still trying to find its financial feet again after emerging from the brink of extinction earlier this year.

Lowdon, though, has suggested to AUTOSPORT the Strategy Group is failing in its duty to come up with clear and concise plans.

"From what I have seen there is no strategy that has ever been articulated out of the Strategy Group," said Lowdon.

"A strategy is first analysing, then setting goals and objectives, then working out how you are going to operate and creating a plan that can be followed.

"What the Strategy Group appear to be doing is cherry-picking bits of ideas, whether it's refuelling, customer cars, franchise cars, or whatever.

"Refuelling and customer cars are not strategies. A strategy articulates a road map of how you are going to get somewhere.

"To my mind, they are ignoring one of the most fundamental things, and that is, what is the overall strategy for Formula 1? What is it we are trying to do?

"I would hope the growth strategy for Formula 1 is something that could be articulated to everybody so people can understand how it is growing.

"Any large international company will tell you defining and evaluating strategies is fundamental to running their business. It's difficult as it takes time and effort."

ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

While Lowdon can at least appreciate the cost savings in heading down the route of customer cars, he feels such a plan is not being properly thought through.


"Will a customer car be cheaper for someone to buy? Well, yes, obviously," he said.

"Is it a good or a bad thing? You can only really judge that by assessing whether the sport will grow. It's the same with the franchise idea.

"It's all about asking the right questions, and at the moment I'm not sure the right questions are being asked.

"With customer cars, or something else like that, it is inherently going to mean some sort of two-tier formula.

"Is that what the fans want? Somebody prove that is the case, or evaluate the strategy and say 'this is the best strategy for Formula 1'.

"In my view there is an awful lot of effort being made in trying to answer questions, but maybe the questions are wrong.

"One of the worst things you can do is pose the wrong question and get everybody busy trying to solve the wrong problem."
Click to expand...

www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119204

Pretty much my view. The Strategy Group are asking and answering the wrong questions.
 
So skipping through, Lowden is really asking whether being a customer will allow him to compete on the cheap. Whereas his promise is right (romance and hope is what F1 has breathed for decades and that hasn't changed) you struggle to see in this era how that would work even a little bit.

We're not in 1999 talking about a team with a tuning-house project engine threatening to take it to the world's top teams for the title. Now you need an engine costing probably over $100,000,000 to develop and race just to be competing for points... and even then we've got just one team winning consistently.

Customer cars are never going to do that, as Sauber proved in 2004 I think it was. It will allow F1 to fill out the grid, but we'll still have a two-horse race between Mercedes and occasionally Ferrari, until something changes, and even then we'll have some other team winning consistently.

The F1 world is too evolved now. Customers are dead. Manufacturers aren't willing to take the risk. And those who do are severely hampered by the rules.
 
2014 was the first time an engine manufacturer team won the WCC since 2008.

'Customer' teams have won 5 out of the last 6 WCCs and WDCs.

I'd argue its the other way. Every team in F1 should be a customer, able to buy an engine from whoever they chose, a chassis from whoever they chose, put them together and compete.
 
It could be argued that Red Bull weren't a Customer team as such as they received engines for free?

I also read that last season the cost of the Engines for customer teams (Marussia + Caterham at least, perhaps even FI and Sauber too) swallowed up to 90% of what the FIA gave them as their cut of the money raised. At that level of expenditure I'm not surprised that Marussia and Caterham didn't compete and folded. F1's business model is fundamentally wrong but because the top teams are rich compared to the bottom teams they still carry on with the 'I'm alright Jack so everything's OK!' attitude. I'd imagine they'd be dinging a different tune when they have to run third cars.
 
Skeeter said:
2014 was the first time an engine manufacturer team won the WCC since 2008.

'Customer' teams have won 5 out of the last 6 WCCs and WDCs.

I'd argue its the other way. Every team in F1 should be a customer, able to buy an engine from whoever they chose, a chassis from whoever they chose, put them together and compete.
Click to expand...

Red Bull are a works team in all but name and you know it.

I wouldn't disagree that every team shouldn't be a customer team (as a spectator), but you've zero chance of even challenging for a win if you don't have a manufacturer behind you as things stand.
 
Red Bull are a customer team. They may pay £0 for their engines, but they still 'buy' them in rather than manufacture them themselves.

Edit: When RBR won in 2010 didn't Renault still own the Renault F1 Team? Either way their engines didn't become free until the Infiniti title sponsorship in 2013.
 
Last edited:
Fuel is a simple fix, instead of telling teams they have a max of 100kg and letting them short fuel the car to make it lighter in hope of a safety car, make it mandatory that all cars have to start the race with 100kg of fuel on board.

If they want to get lighter they have to race it off, but still balance how hard they push the car with how quick the tyres could drop off. Do you race slower to save the tyres but carry a weight penalty, or try and race to reduce the weight but have to take an extra pit stop.

Still promotes efficiency as engine systems/recovery that use less fuel can be on the power for longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom