The future of Formula 1
After lengthy and sometimes acrimonious negotiations, the FIA and the Grand Prix Manufacturer's Association have come to an agreement on the contentious issue of Formula 1 engine regulations for the future.To all intents and purposes, the FIA has won the game, proving once again that the inexorable march of motorsports bureaucracy is more than a match for the world's automakers. Here are the key points:
- no changes to the current engines will be allowed after this year's Chinese Grand Prix. These will be the engines used in 2007 and beyond
- 2008 will see the introduction of a 19,000 rpm rev limit
- starting in 2009, regulations will promote fuel-efficiency, including energy recovery and re-use (i.e., regenerative braking systems)
- down the road, the GPMA, the FIA and engine suppliers will work to define possible new rules that allow a performance advantage to be gained by means of more efficient use of energy. (Alternative powerplants are a possibility.)
The fuel efficiency/energy recovery regulations are to be finalized by the end of the year. One thing's for sure - it will be interesting!
[Source: FIA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jason 5:46PM (8/09/2006)
Wow, what is wrong with FIA??? Useless...
Reply
MSH 6:37PM (8/09/2006)
Sounds OK to me, anything that promotes the development of fuel-saving technology is a good thing. It's pretty clear that just making the cars faster isn't really helping the quality of the racing. I actually wish they'd go back to the 1 tire/race rule, helping to develop more long-lasting performance rubber (and lowering grip levels, which as evidenced by the Hungaroring race last weekend can make for some entertaining racing).
We've only got so much of these resources to go around, might as well do something to make them last longer so future generations can enjoy motorsports too.
Reply
chewy 7:26PM (8/09/2006)
The best way to improve efficiency for F1. Is to give them a bigger tank, (150 liters) but prohibit refueling, if you run out of fuel than you lose. The more efficient engine you build, the less fuel you will need to carry, the quicker you car is. That would be much better, than trying to make a hybrid out of an F1 car.
Reply
naggs 7:29PM (8/09/2006)
the rev limit is good to hear, at some point it stops being relavant to streetcars, even 19k is more than double what a streetcar can do.
going fast and saving fuel just dont go hand in hand. hopefully they will come up with some creative ways to force economy into racing. maybe a spec fuel cell and limit the number of pitstops?
Reply
Quills R. Optional 2:16AM (8/10/2006)
Oh no! F1 has gone hybrid. Does that mean that we can expect F1 cars that handle like a Prius? Should be entertaining!
Reply
Noah Joseph 3:46AM (8/10/2006)
This is an aweful development. I hope it goes the way o the FIA's rediculous tire rule from last year. What I wonder is about changing engine suppliers. If a team can't further develop their own engines, what if they purchased them from a new supplier? Wouldn't the new supplier be able to develop an engine from scrap and pull ahead of the game?
Reply
Andy 3:55AM (8/10/2006)
If the energy recovery takes the form of braking, it'll be interesting hearing the team radio to the driver: "brake harder the next few corners!"
Reply
sp 9:14AM (8/10/2006)
"energy recovery" = Hybrid systems... I wonder why article doesnt mention that?
Reply
amp 9:41AM (8/10/2006)
I’ll have to disagree with the lower grip comment. I think what F1 needs to do is change the source of the grip from aerodynamics to mechanical. These cars are technical marvels, but the races have degenerated in to a parade where the outcome is determined not on track, but in the pits.
An F1 car is designed to provide minimum lap times in clean air. As soon as a car gets in to the dirty air of a car in front of it, it looses a good portion of its grip, which makes it hard to pass, even if the trailing car is lapping the track faster than the car in front of it. This leads to very little passing, or even worse, dangerous, bone-headed passing maneuvers.
Shifting the source of the grip from aero to mechanical would up the entertainment factor of the races dramatically. It might even make them safer for the drivers. I really don’t care how the FIA forces the shift, whether it’s through limiting downforce, or going back to racing slicks, but either way, it would make for some better racing.
Reply
MikeW 9:43AM (8/10/2006)
Oh no, only double the revs of NASCAR.
Reply
James 10:09AM (8/10/2006)
What I don't get is that they are lowering the costs to get more teams in, but then they hold an open call for people to take the last spot and only one team is selected. The current agreement states that there will only be 20 cars (2 per team) and there have been NO talks to up that number. With ProDrive taking the last spot, WHAT NEW TEAMS ARE THEY EXPECTING TO COME IN!!!
They had 22 applictions for 1 spot, I think people are quite fine with the costs of F1 right now. I think it's astronomical compared to other series, but 23 perspective teams didn't think it was.
Reply
Q-Tip 1:34PM (8/10/2006)
First of all energy recovery does not necessarily mean hybrid, check out BMW's steam regeneration system for example. For high performance cars the point of energy recovery systems is to convert waste heat, and kinetic energy, into energy to drive engine ancilliaries like hydraulic, water, fuel and oil pumps to free up power for acceleration.
An F1 hybrid may be possible but I suspect the weight of a battery pack is too large with respect to its performance penalty and will be for the foreseeable future.
Diesel F1 cars, or F1 cars with CVTs and other such sytems would be interesting. Imposing a fuel limit and going to a LeMans style laps completed in a time period would allow for both openness in allowed technology which has been the hallmark of F1 until relatively recently and place an effective cap on speed since a fast car that used up too much fuel wouldn't be able to finish the race.
Reply
MikeW 9:58PM (8/10/2006)
CVTs are banned in F1
Reply
T 12:18AM (8/11/2006)
There are some good ideas in here (no refueling during the race, decreasing the amount of aero).
What about lowering the octane of the fuel used? I'm sure it's well over 100 now. Why not take it down by 3 units/year, all the way down to 91 or 92? It'd slow the cars down and you'd have better applications from the racetrack to the showroom.
Reply