Technical Changes 2016 vs. 2017

You are playing with nostalgia here ...

Motorsport has to be relevant to those who pay for it: sponsors, constructors, car manufacturers, etc...Those are the ones who pay for it and dictate its evolution.

F1 is based on cars, and there is a constant changes in that field; F1 cannot escape that.

Should we have frozen the rules in 1958, and still have front-engine cars? Or should we have stopped evolution with the Cosworth-powered Lotus 49? Would you like to see historic cars deciding the Championship? Where do we stop?

 

Yes, but driving around slow to save fuel, etc. is not all out good racing!

 

It's a different sort of racing, but there is still some skill involved.

 

Not that much William!

 

To be honest, the fuel saving isn't very apparent to me. When you see Hamilton stating from the last row in a GP and overtaking most of the field to finish 2nd (I hope I am right), you don't see much fuel saving there!
Nor when you see Verstappen scything through the field after a 1st lap spin.
Those were not exactly economy drive to me.
Sure, the fuel limit must dictate the power available, and they also play with the energy recovery system too ( longer braking distances mean more energy recovered, perhaps?), but it doesn't look to me that the hybrid formula hampers any action on the track.
I personally blame the excessive aero and the tyre rules more than the hybrid formula.

 

Interesting observations by Ross Brawn on the direction of future F1 engine formulae.
Brawn calls on F1 to change engine path - F1i.com

 

It's good for Ross Brawn to say that, but the future engine formula will still have to involve the manufacturers, or they will lose interest.

The manufacturers won't be interested in going backwards and use old technology, I think, and they more or less finance F1 at the moment.

Of course, we could have simpler engines, and going back to what it was 20 years ago, but Renault, Honda, Mercedes won't certainly be interested. I don't know about Ferrari.

F1 could go back to the 80s, with Ferrari against the "garagists" with customer engines.

If we restrain the engines, what about the aero, the tyres, the brakes, etc...

Would that still be the pinnacle of motor racing, or Indycar 2 ?

 

You make some valid points, but if we are moving toward a Formula E type engine formula you might as well call F1 FU. No interest in watching silent race cars.

 

The interest will come, and future generations will not have noisy combustion engines to relate to.
Electric is all they will know!

 

Casual watchers don't really care.

Personally I'm hoping that the extra mechanical grip from the wider tyres allows a little more or taking action with less reliance on pure aero grip. Remembering that margins are so tight, it'll be the team who best interprets the new rules that emerge on top. I wouldn't dismiss McLaren or Redbull in being able to catch up with Mercedes but I'm just hoping for some closer racing in 2017 featuring more than just 2 silver cars.

 

This works well in sports car racing, there is something other-worldly about watching a near silent Audi blast through the Porsche Curves in the middle of a Le Mans night, the contrast with the slower ( much much slower) noisy cars is breathtaking. The silence exaggerates the speed rather than dilutes it in that context.

Conversely, I've absolutly no interest in formula E.

 

One observation was always that Hamilton seamed to be much better with his fuel consumption than other drivers, even when leading he was using less fuel than either his team mate or competitors. There's a skill in the lift&coast, as much as there is with energy recovery so you have the power when needed. Not as exciting as white knuckle overtaking battles, but just another dynamic that modern drivers have to excel at.

 

The way it is formatted at the moment, Formula E is not the best platform to promote an electric formula, IMO.

I don't see FE as a viable alternative to F1 at the moment, but if the technical regulations were changed, and they moved away from the specs series framework, it could have a future.

Formula 1 itself only survives because of traditions that nobody dares to challenge.
But FE starts with a blank sheet of paper, so there is hope of improvement later in the day.

At the moment, it's the sponsors and the TV channels that dictate our sports.
The supporters, the paying public and the TV viewers are completely ignored.

 

That's what I am saying; it's a different skill. You have to think ahead.

 

It's hard for me to "play with nostalgia" because I'm a new racing fan. I love racing for what it is - a very simple competition to see who is fastest.

At the lowest levels, the formula are largely unchanged from what they have been for decades - Formula Ford as an example; karting as another. Neither of these have any real relevance to road cars. FF borrows engines from road cars yes, but they don't really add to the evolution. Yes the cars are safer and more advanced now, but they are basically the same - well balanced, open wheel, low HP and low grip. Karts are faster and more extreme now, but they hold even less relevance to road cars.

It is a distinctly new idea in F1 that the cars must be relevant to the road. As you point out, this is dictated by the manufacturers currently. It is not an inherent trait in racing IMO. We will see what the sponsors say here in the years to come. They should want the spectacle that generates the most fans to see their sponsorship; which should be the best show, not necessarily the most cutting edge hybrid tech.

F1 and the FIA do very little to highlight the engines today anyway - which are truly amazing pieces of engineering, albeit boring to many fans. I hear more about "road safety" from the FIA - which again, has absolutely zero to do with racing.

We'll see what impact Liberty, and the sponsors have on F1. I'm hopeful they can find a better balance in the future.

 

Problem is that even if they add refueling, it will not stop the fuel saving strategies and lift and coast. Point in case is Indycar - they have refueling, but the winner of the 500 this year did so by fuel savings. A lot of the smaller teams, like Dale Coyne for example, can eeek out top 5 and 10 finished with better fuel strategy, not necessarily all out pace for the entire race. So there will always be some level of fuel strategy, but what refueling would do is open up the variables so that we aren't just dealing with tires and pit strategy. So I'm still all for it.

 

I don't agree. Honda, as one example, produces massive amounts of basic engines for lower levels of racing. Why wouldn't they produce such an engine for F1? It still makes them money. It still brings them great pride and publicity if their engine should win. it could open the door to more teams on the grid as well. I think there are different ways to skin this cat. I also have to believe that great engineers, and engine producers, have to get tired of hearing that their motors sound awful and that many people hate them - regardless of the amazing tech. There has to be a better balance, which I think is what Brawn is saying.

 

All true.

I would just point out that no real driver in the world would actually choose to be good at fuel saving if not forced. It's inherently against what racing is about - as they all start out racing in sprint races; trying to go as fast as possible with enough fuel to allow them to do so.

 

Don't you understand that the manufacturers are in F1 and support a hybrid formula because it showcases new technology and is a good platform to advertise the next generations of road cars?

Producing YET another atmo V8 engine just to make noise is not attractive to them. Almost any back street engine shop can do that ! Why Honda, Mercedes and else would pour money is something that is not highlighting their engineering expertise but just reproduces what has already be done?

If F1 downgrades to less technology, it risks to fall behind WEC, WRC, etc... in future; that's not what the big players want surely !!

 

Don't you understand that isn't actually the case? Tell me when the last time anyone actually spoke about the power units on an F1 broadcast? Show me an ad that portrays what you are talking about - F1 technology improving a future generation of road cars.

Who said anything about an NA V8? I said they need to find a better balance. I'll take comfort in the fact that Brawn agrees with me.

I don't know - ask Honda why they make so many 4 cylinders for racing...why they make twin turbo V6s for Indycar. Must be because they like making terrible business decisions. They compete in F1 because they want to win in the pinnacle of motorsports and show they are the best; the engine formula is the challenge to them.

It's funny you should mention the WRC. They keep raking in more and more viewers because of the racing; not because they have high tech power units.

 

Why don't the actually do a poll, which they have in the past plenty of times, asking whether actual fans really care about green issues, and go to races hoping to see less tyres, less enginess used, less fuel, and less noise, or whether they prefer noise, drama, a little unreliability thrown into the mix through development etc

Bet few vote for wheezy v6s no matter how many polar bears it claims it saves (which is all bull**** anyway as f1 fuel use travelling to races no doubt outweighs what the cars use by a long way)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVKjjc8T7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYldHoOBCzY

As for during race commentary, in the UK, both channel 4 and SKY's F1 coverage talk about the power units and how they work quite often during races!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlCi28HaQug

 

WRC is attracting more spectators for the simple reason that it is easier to follow than ever.

I don't know if you have noticed, but many rallies are now held around a centre point and a series of road loops with the specials repeated several times during the event.

That way spectators can see the cars several times on a stage instead of once, and may even travel from loop to loop to watch them from different viewing points.

Also, communications have improved, helping the spectators to follow what's actually going on. This, plus on-board cameras transmitting the driving, etc... keep the public aware during all the event, and not isolated and clueless like in the past.

Not so long ago, watching rallying meant seeing cars passing in front of you ONCE, and reading the results the next day in the paper!

WRC has invested a lot in technology and changed its format to please the public. When is F1 going to do that?

 

I don't think the level of effort to produce a marketed twin-turbo Indy V6, or developing a 4-cyl road engine for F3 is the same than for creating a state-of-the-art hybrid power unit for F1.
Honda may be struggling there at the moment, but I think they learn a lot, and that's what keeps them motivated, I think.

 

Its no coincidence that the new Honda NSX runs a twin turbo hybrid V6. They would be pushing the link to F1 technology further if the F1 engine wasnt such a relitive boat anchor.