"Our attempts to make Formula One greener is ruining the sport" - Bernie Ecclestone

[Alibaba99]

Exactly. V6 turbo engines are simply not relevant in hyper sports car terms.

I'm not entirely sure you know what you want. If the current F1 cars had 900bhp from a 4ltr engine people would complain that the bhp/ltr was poor and that road cars were 'better'.

The fact that the Mercedes engine is within 50bhp of the P1 engine (let alone the 918) from 40% of the capacity is mighty impressive. The engine is also working at unprecedented levels of efficiency as well (unless Merc have some clever method of using more fuel than the fuel meter allows). With a sensible capacity set by the rules v6 is the best configuration.

As an aside, Porsche have gone with a 2ltr v4 for Le Mans despite virtually complete freedom in the rules to chose whatever engine size, induction and fuel they wished. Why didn't they pick the engine from the 918 as a starting point as surely the v4 has no relevence to their road cars.

 

[alx]

I dont think they are trying to be green directly, i mean they dont have catalytic converters or other emission control tech on them, the effect is indirect as the tech trickles down, the impact will be much larger than any direct effect they could have.

Agreed, in my view it's more about F1 using green technology which will eventually trickle down to road cars, rather than actually trying to be 'green' during a race weekend.

 

[Yaayuh!]

Meanwhile Audi/VAG are sitting out and creating cars with brilliant I4, V8 and V10 engines, both excellent performing and efficient.

 

[Skeeter]

Exactly. They want the highest performing engine. So why are F1 cars using V6s?

They aren't using NA V8s because 'number of people buying small turbos' > 'number of people buying high performance V8s/10s/12s' by a factor of many.

They are specifically using V6s due to a combination of the FIA being spineless, Ferrari and Mercedes being vocal, and a few other factors.

The V8 is relevent to a few, the I4 is relevant to many. The V6 is a slightly odd middle ground relevant to nobody, but seems to have been enough of a compromise to keep most people happy enough.

 

[Spie]

They aren't using NA V8s because 'number of people buying small turbos' > 'number of people buying high performance V8s/10s/12s' by a factor of many.

They are specifically using V6s due to a combination of the FIA being spineless, Ferrari and Mercedes being vocal, and a few other factors.

The V8 is relevent to a few, the I4 is relevant to many. The V6 is a slightly odd middle ground relevant to nobody, but seems to have been enough of a compromise to keep most people happy enough.

There needs to be a disconnect between the basic configuration of a Formula 1 engine and that of a normal consumer car engine. The 2 are on different planets from each other. Yes, some technology from F1 could and has filtered down into the consumer world, but that's as far as it should go.

Looking back at the history of F1 we have had the most amazing engines for most of that time. Certainly all the major manufacturers are still in business so I really don't accept that all of a sudden we must accept these V6 turbos or nobody will make engines any more.

The problem is that year on year F1 has been subjected to a barrage of ridiculous regulations. I don't need to repeat them, they are well documented. But this year we have reduced fuel capacity, controlled fuel flow, smaller V6 engines, less downforce and harder tyres. It's not a question of just another year of silly changes. The changes this year have now made F1 a bit of a joke.

The only balls out driving is done in qualifying and during the race drivers are more focussed on endurance than being the fastest on the track. It's boring in the extreme.

It's crystal clear that the FIA are responsible for F1s falling popularity over the years by introducing ever more stringent regulations designed to slow the cars down. This year they have done an exceptional job and in doing so have alienated a sizeable proportion of fans, many of whom have been following F1 all their lives.

 

[mark66]

...This year they have done an exceptional job and in doing so have alienated a sizeable proportion fans, many of whom have been following F1 all their lives.

It will certainly be interesting to see what the attendance of the traditionally sold out races will be like this year and the next, especially once people have experienced the new cars and their sounds.

I also wonder if the lure of a less dominated and closer title race will do more to keep / attract new viewers than the changes to the sport loosing existing?

 

[Skeeter]

There needs to be a disconnect between the basic configuration of a Formula 1 engine and that of a normal consumer car engine. The 2 are on different planets from each other. Yes, some technology from F1 could and has filtered down into the consumer world, but that's as far as it should go.

Looking back at the history of F1 we have had the most amazing engines for most of that time. Certainly all the major manufacturers are still in business so I really don't accept that all of a sudden we must accept these V6 turbos or nobody will make engines any more.

The problem is that year on year F1 has been subjected to a barrage of ridiculous regulations. I don't need to repeat them, they are well documented. But this year we have reduced fuel capacity, controlled fuel flow, smaller V6 engines, less downforce and harder tyres. It's not a question of just another year of silly changes. The changes this year have now made F1 a bit of a joke.

The only balls out driving is done in qualifying and during the race drivers are more focussed on endurance than being the fastest on the track. It's boring in the extreme.

It's crystal clear that the FIA are responsible for F1s falling popularity over the years by introducing ever more stringent regulations designed to slow the cars down. This year they have done an exceptional job and in doing so have alienated a sizeable proportion fans, many of whom have been following F1 all their lives.

I'm not going to dispute that the FIA are a damaging force to F1. They have done a pretty good job of destroying WRC, WTCC and FIA GT. Killing F1 wouldn't be that much of a step.

But saying that F1 engines and road engines should be completely disconnected is wrong in a world where people only want to make F1 engines if there is a connection to their road engines.

Sure, we would all love a world where a load of independent engine manufacturers produce high revving NA engines solely to sell to F1 teams, but the simple fact is we don't. Even your beloved Ferrari's involvement in F1 has always hung off the connection to their road cars, it's just that for most of the time they have been fortunate enough to have an F1 engine format that fits with their ethos (multi cylinder high revving NA). Now they don't, but they are still here, because they know the strength that being on an F1 grid brings to their brand. The scale of manufacturers welcoming the new rules outweighs those that don't.

The new engines have lost something, I'm totally with you on that. I'm going to 2 races live this year and will severely miss the NA shreek. But its happened. If you can find other things about F1 to enjoy then good, but if not then you likely won't be alone in turning your back. However, constantly coming up with suggestions that are nothing more than a pointless excersise in pining for a world that doesn't exist is simply a waste of your time. The F1 you think 'should' exist, simply wouldn't.

 

[Westyfield2]

Agreeing with Bernie makes me feel sick. But he's right.

 

[Alibaba99]

Looking back at the history of F1 we have had the most amazing engines for most of that time. Certainly all the major manufacturers are still in business so I really don't accept that all of a sudden we must accept these V6 turbos or nobody will make engines any more.

Renault have already stated that there was no meaningful development left in the v8s and would have pulled out. Honda are only coming in because of the new regs. So yes, we would have been left with 2 engine manufacturers. I doubt anyone else would have come in, in that situation.

The problem is that year on year F1 has been subjected to a barrage of ridiculous regulations. I don't need to repeat them, they are well documented. But this year we have reduced fuel capacity, controlled fuel flow, smaller V6 engines, less downforce and harder tyres. It's not a question of just another year of silly changes. The changes this year have now made F1 a bit of a joke.

Fuel restrictions. Had that before, the sport survived.

Reduction in down force, has happened almost year on year. Ground affect skirts, fans, double rear wings, wings directly connected to the suspension uprights. All gone.

Reducing speed. Again has happened frequently. Boost caps, holes in the airboxes of the 3.5ltr engines. This is required as the circuits can only provide a fixed level of safety. The cars must be kept within these limits. Unless, of course, the only circuits with sufficient run off are in the Middle East and require the Hubble telescope to view the cars.

The fuel flow cap is required because of the boost, and it forces the manufacturers to be creative in developing the most power. The Merc ICE is already developing around 100bhp than was expected for the level of fuel it is receiving, and total power isn't far short of the 3ltr v10s, for vastly less fuel usage.

 

[Spie]

I'm not much for Youtube compilations, but this nearly brought tears to my eyes. This is how I want to remember Formula 1 ...

 

[Jono8]

Vettel said they sounded **** as well

 

[V F]

I'm not much for Youtube compilations, but this nearly brought tears to my eyes. This is how I want to remember Formula 1 ...

Heh!

Spa 2009, it gives me goosebumps. Loved the sound of that blasting through the house. Whew, whew, whew, whew up through Eau Rouge. It's going to be dire this year.

You wont hear squat for the trees.

 

[jaybee]

The problem is...F1 doesn't know what it wants to be anymore. It used to be about going as fast as possible around a track in a car (be it 4 wheels or 6). Over the years rules mainly came in firstly primarily for safety, and then to try to keep things "fair" and "competitive". The more and more rules and policies brought in unfortunately creates a situation of exponential rulings and policy to cater for every situation. It's like a disease. A rule for a rule for a rule for a rule...
With so many regulations came even more of a crack down on spenditure and a so called greener F1 whilst at the same time through the naughties trying to keep in touch with providing good racing for fans by again, changing the rules.

It's this love affair with the rules which has morphed F1 into what it has now become. Lost. It has lost its identity.

Go back to the 80s... engines were all about making huge power. It was exciting. It was on the edge. It was noisy. It felt derestricted, analogue, manual input. Week on week putting out the best machine and driving effort you could. Fast forward to now and it's almost too strategic and green to the point where we have teams capping power to get through the race and season, teams not qualifying due to added stress on the tyres and engines etc etc.

What would happen if next season they said rules are "put a car on the grid that goes as fast as possible around a track" with no restrictions? Would the richer teams really dominate? Look at Brawn winning from nowhere. Mainly due to one idea that worked so well...the blown diffuser. If teams are allowed to innovate unrestricted, who knows what could happen. That feels more like F1 to me regardless of what they look and sound like. It's about the speed primarily. The pinnacle of motorsport and a demo in how to go as fast as possible around a track. If they sound silent so be it. If they sound like a jet fighter so be it.

I think if everything was unrestricted, racing would still naturally be competitive because there are still hard restrictions in place due to the laws of physics and the tracks used as to what can be built to go fast around a track in a typical 60 odd lap race. Obviously the size of said vehicle would be restricted so as to fit them all on the track.

Madness? Yes. Unrealistic? Yes. Have I lost interest in F1? Yes.

 

[MissChief]

What you have is the racing teams like McLaren and William s being unable to compete with the manufacturers who can throw hundreds of millions for three or four seasons before either winning and deciding there's nothing to learn or not winning and leaving because it's very expensive to compete and even more so to win. Your formula sounds great on paper but would inevitably result in the team with the deepest pockets winning and winning regularly. You all say 'back in the day' like it was some golden time in F1. it wasn't. Races would regularly finish with half the field having retired and with cars in the points scoring positions being lapped. Actual close finishes between two cars were an absolute rarity which is why we remember them. It happened that the winner was 30 seconds, sometimes even a minute ahead of second place and the fifth place car had been lapped. No one would watch it if it were like that now. Viewers dropped when Schumacher was dominating and beginning to tail off during 'the Vettel years'.

1984 British GP. Three cars on the lead lap. Second place for Derek Warwick. Only 42 seconds behind Niki Lauda. Enthralling. Really keeps you glued to the screen.

1988 British GP: 1 12 Ayrton Senna McLaren-Honda 65 1:33:16.367
2 5 Nigel Mansell Williams-Judd 65 + 23.344
3 19 Alessandro Nannini Benetton-Ford 65 + 51.214
4 15 Maurício Gugelmin March-Judd 65 + 1:11.378
5 1 Nelson Piquet Lotus-Honda 65 + 1:20.835

Everyone else was a lap down. Amazing racing there.

1980? THREE cars on the lead lap at the end of the race. Eleven cars retired. Nearly half the field. Must have been amazing to watch. Something you would discuss endlessly in the school playground. The 'golden era' was, in my humble opinion, **** for spectacle and for 'racing'. But it's OK because the cars were fast and and made a very loud noise.


With regard to engines, an inline four cylinder engine would have required some sort of cradle or frame to be used in an F1 car. The V6 can still be used as a stressed member of the chassis.

 

[pitkin]

There was good racing at the 1988 British GP.
The end result is just that and it doesn't show the battles that were happening during the race.
Not knowing if a car was going to finish made it more interesting. Up until the end of last season, we new that in all likelihood Vettel's car was going to finish and because of that he would most likely be first or second. A higher chance of him breaking down would have made it more interesting, for me at least.
Also watching the leaders have to fight through back markers could be fun too, in those days they didn't get drive throughs for obstruction, so Arnoux or Grouillard were usually holding someone up.

 

[Skeeter]

The Brawn team had 2 years of Honda money invested in their car, the most investment in any of the 2009 cars. And as soon as the money dried up they dropped like a stone. So yes, in an unrestricted formula money would win.

 

[Spie]

The problem is...F1 doesn't know what it wants to be anymore. It used to be about going as fast as possible around a track in a car (be it 4 wheels or 6). Over the years rules mainly came in firstly primarily for safety, and then to try to keep things "fair" and "competitive". The more and more rules and policies brought in unfortunately creates a situation of exponential rulings and policy to cater for every situation. It's like a disease. A rule for a rule for a rule for a rule...
With so many regulations came even more of a crack down on spenditure and a so called greener F1 whilst at the same time through the naughties trying to keep in touch with providing good racing for fans by again, changing the rules.

It's this love affair with the rules which has morphed F1 into what it has now become. Lost. It has lost its identity.

Go back to the 80s... engines were all about making huge power. It was exciting. It was on the edge. It was noisy. It felt derestricted, analogue, manual input. Week on week putting out the best machine and driving effort you could. Fast forward to now and it's almost too strategic and green to the point where we have teams capping power to get through the race and season, teams not qualifying due to added stress on the tyres and engines etc etc.

What would happen if next season they said rules are "put a car on the grid that goes as fast as possible around a track" with no restrictions? Would the richer teams really dominate? Look at Brawn winning from nowhere. Mainly due to one idea that worked so well...the blown diffuser. If teams are allowed to innovate unrestricted, who knows what could happen. That feels more like F1 to me regardless of what they look and sound like. It's about the speed primarily. The pinnacle of motorsport and a demo in how to go as fast as possible around a track. If they sound silent so be it. If they sound like a jet fighter so be it.

I think if everything was unrestricted, racing would still naturally be competitive because there are still hard restrictions in place due to the laws of physics and the tracks used as to what can be built to go fast around a track in a typical 60 odd lap race. Obviously the size of said vehicle would be restricted so as to fit them all on the track.

Madness? Yes. Unrealistic? Yes. Have I lost interest in F1? Yes.

An excellent post that pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[this_is_gav]

The problem is...F1 doesn't know what it wants to be anymore. It used to be about going as fast as possible around a track in a car (be it 4 wheels or 6). Over the years rules mainly came in firstly primarily for safety, and then to try to keep things "fair" and "competitive". The more and more rules and policies brought in unfortunately creates a situation of exponential rulings and policy to cater for every situation. It's like a disease. A rule for a rule for a rule for a rule...
With so many regulations came even more of a crack down on spenditure and a so called greener F1 whilst at the same time through the naughties trying to keep in touch with providing good racing for fans by again, changing the rules.

It's this love affair with the rules which has morphed F1 into what it has now become. Lost. It has lost its identity.

Go back to the 80s... engines were all about making huge power. It was exciting. It was on the edge. It was noisy. It felt derestricted, analogue, manual input. Week on week putting out the best machine and driving effort you could. Fast forward to now and it's almost too strategic and green to the point where we have teams capping power to get through the race and season, teams not qualifying due to added stress on the tyres and engines etc etc.

What would happen if next season they said rules are "put a car on the grid that goes as fast as possible around a track" with no restrictions? Would the richer teams really dominate? Look at Brawn winning from nowhere. Mainly due to one idea that worked so well...the blown diffuser. If teams are allowed to innovate unrestricted, who knows what could happen. That feels more like F1 to me regardless of what they look and sound like. It's about the speed primarily. The pinnacle of motorsport and a demo in how to go as fast as possible around a track. If they sound silent so be it. If they sound like a jet fighter so be it.

I think if everything was unrestricted, racing would still naturally be competitive because there are still hard restrictions in place due to the laws of physics and the tracks used as to what can be built to go fast around a track in a typical 60 odd lap race. Obviously the size of said vehicle would be restricted so as to fit them all on the track.

Madness? Yes. Unrealistic? Yes. Have I lost interest in F1? Yes.

In the 60s they went down to 1.5L engines in the interests of cost-saving and safety. These rules and restrictions not a new thing.

F1 has never been about power. It has always been about being fastest and winning. Cooper, Lotus and Williams proved that more than most - teams taking a small, simple engine and making the car dance. They could have produced monstrously powerful engines and most cars could have had V12s in the 90s if they'd wanted to, but it's about what is quickest, not what has the highest top speed. We had a variation of V12 to V8, depending on company policy (Ferrari) through to trying to be fastest (V8s, though V10 won on balance). Don't get me wrong, I miss that variation, but at some point everyone would have ended up using the same basic engine ideas eventually (to the point where even Ferrari abandoned their basic principles). The 90s are nothing compared to the 50s and 60s, where teams had all manner of engine sizes and configurations. At some point things have to change.

F1 has been a manufacturer sport since it began. Even privateer teams like McLaren have usually won with full works deals. It was only really the late 60s to mid 70s, with most teams adopting the DFV, when we had a sustained period of customer cars winning.

 

[jaybee]

Every suggestion on how to "fix" F1 comes with pros and cons. There is no simple fix to please everyone due to how far F1 has come and what it is now perceived to be by fans, racers and the teams.

Going back to my previous post, it's about its identity. Does it want to be about the closest racing possible? Does it want to please fans even by artificial means? Does it want to be the pinnacle of motorsport technology and speed? Does it want to be green and cost less money? I'm not sure it can tick all of these boxes. Attempting to do so is why it is where it is today.

Maybe it is easier to look at what we liked about F1 in the past AND the present. For me, some of them might be:

OLDER
+ Bigger grids
+ More overtaking
+ More exciting and on the edge
+ More mechanical grip reliant racing
+ Analogue/manual feel with minimal driver aids
+ More derestricted and about speed
+ Noise
+ No compromise on speed vs cost. Speed won, i.e. Tyre wars
+ Powerful engines on the edge of reliability vs power

- Was less safe generally


NEWER
+ Safer
+ Tracks are now often very good quality and designed for F1
+ Technological advances in TV coverage

- Safer
- Politics
- Investigations more often
- Penalties more often
- Controversy on minor technical details more common
- Fuel saving and restrictions
- Tighter restrictions on car design
- Team orders ahead of out an out racing
- Saving engines and general sand bagging
- Too safe (track changes), safety cars for cars parked way off racing line, red flags in wet conditions too easily
- Too aero reliant
- DRS
- Overly complex for fans to follow

 

[Glaucus]

LOL you have some very rise tinted glasses. And its absolutely shocking anyone can make such a list with a straight face.

These are not new

Politics
- Investigations more often
- Penalties more often
Fuel saving and restrictions
Team orders ahead of out an out racing
Overly complex for fans to follow

Fuel isn't down to rules, its been about since analysts became big. The fact is regardless of rules, teams will do what is quicker and that is to run less fuel and has been for decades. there's stuff you can do to reduce the penalty of fuel weight. But you can't eliminate it. So its always a balancing act.

F1 has always been extremely political and penalty driven. Sienna is probably the most well known political and penalty incident.

Back when people were running vastly different engine and different turbo pressures, it was easy to follow technically. Or early 90's with all the electronic gizmos. Or back when we had teams running 6 wheels, ground effect etc. Or going back further chassis design and using engine as a structural member. If anything the early days were even harder as everyone was running massively different mechanicals and aero.


You also can not go back to that age, technology and safety has progressed far to much to allow such a series. If you want such a series, then you need to ban ICEs and switch to electric, the technology is immature enough to naturally limit speeds for day a decade, but even that eventually would need restricting year on year.


So yeah absolutely stupid list and shows how little you remember and how tinted those glasses are.