More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Marbot]

How about selling less cars? Surely that would help a bit?

Agree with chillibowl. It's the message that is being put across that matters, and then the changes will happen.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

whats the energy expenditure of millions of TV's world wide turned on at the same time?

at best its only ever going to be about the appearance of eco-friendliness unless watching that race/event causes people to rethink how they set up their homes/reorganize their own lives. thats where the true change will come from and not how much energy F1 consumes.

if F1 promotes that (without actually doing anything about it) is that so wrong?

The problem is very simple. F1 wants to, and needs to, cut costs. The introduction of a new, additional, 'green' development path will go against this.

[chillibowl]

admittedly the new engine path will in the short term increase costs but imo in the long run, and particularly, if the major elements of a RRA are expanded on then the true cost savings (thus increased profits) will come from reduced consumption and thats the real green path.

obviously everyone likes more profit so the problem as i see it is finding a way to convince the big teams that giving up their money advantage at the risk of losing their competitive advantage is the real problem.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The problem is very simple. F1 wants to, and needs to, cut costs. The introduction of a new, additional, 'green' development path will go against this.

But everyone agrees that the current F1 engines are technological dinosaurs. They have their routes from the late eighties, when turbo engines were banned!

Sure, there were V12s and V10s back then, but it's all the same basic technology.

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The problem is very simple. F1 wants to, and needs to, cut costs. The introduction of a new, additional, 'green' development path will go against this.

If you look at it from a 'whole of life cost' point of view there may be a big expense up front with developing the new technologies but there can be savings down the track which end up costing less overall.

Then if the tech can then be fed into road cars, the money from that makes it even less of an expense in the long term. Then there is the 'money can't buy' goodwill from developing the newest and latest green solutions for automobiles which a) brings in sponsorship and b) sells road cars.

[numbersix]

I think Bernie, even in his dotage, continues to accept that sponsors are only there because of TV coverage, and TV coverage is only willing to pay for something their viewers enjoy watching.

The TV coverage of most motor racing is dire. Not enough cameras mean long shots down the straights giving no impression of speed, replays of incidents only show the last half, or the aftermath, and lunatic commentators have a remit to scream down the microphone every time they see a whiff of smoke and over-exaggerate the possible consequences.

Bernie and Co. are doing their damnedest to try to keep TV audiences amused and somehow I don't see that happening when F1 cars are eventually reduced to solar-powered electric trikes raced by vegetarians on a budget of Tesco vouchers.

NASCAR is more popular than ever, and I don't see them putting wind turbines all over the bonnets (sorry, hoods), the US TV coverage is vast and sponsors are everywhere. They even make cartoons of it.

F1 is either the pinnacle of Motorsport, or it's a watered down sop to all those who profess to be green but won't get rid of their cars and still go on holiday in very large jet aircraft.

For my money the Safety Car is one of the best sounds at any of the Grands Prix, and if it becomes the only decent sound then the Grand Prix will become Prix Pauvre very quickly.

Fans rule.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But everyone agrees that the current F1 engines are technological dinosaurs. They have their routes from the late eighties, when turbo engines were banned!

Sure, there were V12s and V10s back then, but it's all the same basic technology.

If this is being done because F1 is in need of technological modernisation, then surely running cars without anti-lock braking, active diffs, DSC etc... [all of which were banned circa 20 years ago] is also technologically jurassic... and dangerous as well !

The overwhelming majority of F1 viewers don't know or care what type of engine is in the back of an F1 car. I imagine also that they wouldn't be overly impressed if F1 fuel consumption doubled from the current 3mpg to 6mpg (!) And at a time when fuel/emissions frugality is associated with diesel powered road cars, continuing with gasoline is surely also Neanderthal.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The vast majority of an F1 team's development budget goes into refining a very constrained aero envelope - and as we've discussed elsewhere, that's resulted in a projectile with a Cd worse than a truck... which isn't very road relevant.

Teams cannot be blamed for pursuing the solution that is the optimum with the current regulations. In fact, such is their reason of existence!
If regulations would limit energy consumption and allow - for example - covered wheel, ground effects and movable aerodynamics, the teams' focus would be shifted to drag reduction.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

If this is being done because F1 is in need of technological modernisation, then surely running cars without anti-lock braking, active diffs, DSC etc... [all of which were banned circa 20 years ago] is also technologically jurassic... and dangerous as well !

MotoGP has gone down the traction control route, and now, without any shadow of a doubt, wishes that it hadn't. The sporting spectacle has been diminished drastically because of the addition of just one control device.

Yes, the bikes would be far more dangerous without it, so who's going to back-track on that particular regulation?

Originally Posted by davyboy

The overwhelming majority of F1 viewers don't know or care what type of engine is in the back of an F1 car. I imagine also that they wouldn't be overly impressed if F1 fuel consumption doubled from the current 3mpg to 6mpg (!) And at a time when fuel/emissions frugality is associated with diesel powered road cars, continuing with gasoline is surely also Neanderthal.

Diesel powered F1 cars are not going to attract petrol-heads. And you may not have noticed that a lot of European car manufacturers are now using small capacity turbo charged petrol engines to power their cars. One of the reasons being that soot emissions on diesel cars are now proving very problematic. Also, not all parts of the world are interested in diesel power.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Teams cannot be blamed for pursuing the solution that is the optimum with the current regulations. In fact, such is their reason of existence!

Well, the "Teams" are actively involved in creating those regulations, and have been for some time. The only thing they didn't like about the new turbo engines was the cost.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If regulations would limit energy consumption and allow - for example - covered wheel, ground effects and movable aerodynamics, the teams' focus would be shifted to drag reduction.

The 2014 regulations do limit energy consumption, obviously.

If you're going to cover the wheels, why not just go the 'whole hog' and have full bodywork with ground effects and then watch the fan base disappear. Or perhaps you are interested in some form of 2 hour WEC Formula?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

MotoGP has gone down the traction control route, and now, without any shadow of a doubt, wishes that it hadn't. The sporting spectacle has been diminished drastically because of the addition of just one control device.

Entertainment.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Diesel powered F1 cars are not going to attract petrol-heads.

Entertainment.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, the "Teams" are actively involved in creating those regulations, and have been for some time. The only thing they didn't like about the new turbo engines was the cost.

Cost.

If cost and entertainment are the critical elements to operating F1, then surely it would have made more sense to stick with the dinosaur technology in use at present.

Anyway, when it's all in place, the new green F1 will be a lightening rod for some current affairs programme exposé... the appeal of Bernie making Gerald Ratner-esq remarks will be great entertainment in itself

[wnut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

If cost and entertainment are the critical elements to operating F1, then surely it would have made more sense to stick with the dinosaur technology in use at present.

They are and it would have been better to stick with them from the sports' perspective.

However the gentlemen with the gold are in the auto industry and want to show case their new focus at the expense of the sport. Sadly they are getting their way. When the sport is damaged they will move on and leave it to others to pick up the pieces and try and re-establish the sport.

NASCAR makes the rules and you either play on their terms or go somewhere else.

[Félix]

You (Brit) guys don't want to know how NASCAR is really perceived over here. Sure it attracts a lot of fans and spectators, but I probably don't need to remind you they are struggling in the past few years. Whereas F1 still has some credibility for the general public around the world, NASCAR has a devoted fanbase on one side but it's perceived as prehistoric entertainment for hillbillies and inbreds by many in the general public and that makes it harder to get many sponsors interested, which in turn makes growing the sport very hard. Do you want F1 to become stuck with such a perception? Bernie's comments are still pretty funny, but if the sport persists in seeking irrelevance, it could similarly become closely associated with bald blokes of a certain age in dull-looking shirts who don't believe in global warming.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

If cost and entertainment are the critical elements to operating F1, then surely it would have made more sense to stick with the dinosaur technology in use at present.

Not if you actually want F1 to remain the 'pinnacle of motorsport'.

Originally Posted by wnut

They are and it would have been better to stick with them from the sports' perspective.

Maybe. But see above.

Originally Posted by wnut

However the gentlemen with the gold are in the auto industry and want to show case their new focus at the expense of the sport. Sadly they are getting their way. When the sport is damaged they will move on and leave it to others to pick up the pieces and try and re-establish the sport.

Without these "gentlemen with the gold", F1 might now be something no more sophisticated than the defunct Superleague series. V12 engines they had, but interest from sponsors they did not.

Originally Posted by wnut

NASCAR makes the rules and you either play on their terms or go somewhere else.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Félix

NASCAR has a devoted fanbase on one side but it's perceived as prehistoric entertainment for hillbillies and inbreds by many in the general public........

Many of us had thought that, but never had the guts to come out and say it.

Originally Posted by Félix

Bernie's comments are still pretty funny, but if the sport persists in seeking irrelevance, it could similarly become closely associated with bald blokes of a certain age in dull-looking shirts who don't believe in global warming.

That's the danger!

[321Go]

Electic power only in pitlane for 2014 postponed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104090

Disappointing. Was really looking forward to seeing this in F1.

[Marbot]

That's only going to make fuel consumption even more marginal, but there you go.

Edit: Slightly off topic. It would seem that any chance of McLaren switching to another engine in the near future are now pretty slim.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/185862/...le_future.html

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Félix

You (Brit) guys don't want to know how NASCAR is really perceived over here. Sure it attracts a lot of fans and spectators, but I probably don't need to remind you they are struggling in the past few years. Whereas F1 still has some credibility for the general public around the world, NASCAR has a devoted fanbase on one side but it's perceived as prehistoric entertainment for hillbillies and inbreds by many in the general public and that makes it harder to get many sponsors interested, which in turn makes growing the sport very hard. Do you want F1 to become stuck with such a perception? Bernie's comments are still pretty funny, but if the sport persists in seeking irrelevance, it could similarly become closely associated with bald blokes of a certain age in dull-looking shirts who don't believe in global warming.

"Trying to be all things to all people"

http://thoughtleadership-vs.blogspot...ll-people.html

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Edit: Slightly off topic. It would seem that any chance of McLaren switching to another engine in the near future are now pretty slim.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/185862/...le_future.html

shame, i had this vision of mclaren purchasing cosworth and taking the engine 'in house' and everyone living happily ever after

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Not if you actually want F1 to remain the 'pinnacle of motorsport'.

Is that from a commercial perspective or a technological one ? If the former, then replacing the current power plants with what's proposed will at best have no effect and at worst a negative one. If the latter, then one could argue that as a result of current technical restrictions in the regulations, F1 cars are actually less technically sophisticated than road cars of 10 years ago !

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Is that from a commercial perspective or a technological one ? If the former, then replacing the current power plants with what's proposed will at best have no effect and at worst a negative one. If the latter, then one could argue that as a result of current technical restrictions in the regulations, F1 cars are actually less technically sophisticated than road cars of 10 years ago !

Sponsors are not attracted to the current power plants. They have an image of being inefficient, which isn't actually true for that type of engine setup, and of being 'old hat' with regard to technology.

F1 cars are technically superior to road cars for the things that F1 cars are currently able to use. If you want ABS brakes, that's fine, but don't start complaining about drivers not being able to overtake into braking areas when another skill that separates the merely good from the very best is gone.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Félix

You (Brit) guys don't want to know how NASCAR is really perceived over here. Sure it attracts a lot of fans and spectators, but I probably don't need to remind you they are struggling in the past few years. Whereas F1 still has some credibility for the general public around the world, NASCAR has a devoted fanbase on one side but it's perceived as prehistoric entertainment for hillbillies and inbreds by many in the general public and that makes it harder to get many sponsors interested, which in turn makes growing the sport very hard. Do you want F1 to become stuck with such a perception? Bernie's comments are still pretty funny, but if the sport persists in seeking irrelevance, it could similarly become closely associated with bald blokes of a certain age in dull-looking shirts who don't believe in global warming.

NASCAR was at least able to attract a lot of the sponsors from CART as it imploded, rather than have them go to the IRL, which has always struggled for sponsors money.

I think one thing that could contribute to F1 becoming irrelevant is the number of races and the long season. After a while I can see the fair weather/casual F1 fan becoming jaded.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Is that from a commercial perspective or a technological one ? If the former, then replacing the current power plants with what's proposed will at best have no effect and at worst a negative one. If the latter, then one could argue that as a result of current technical restrictions in the regulations, F1 cars are actually less technically sophisticated than road cars of 10 years ago !

This is interesting technology

Lotus active suspension 1987 Detroit GP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTURKAhFBJA
this is interesting, but banned. (Watch the tech blow into pitot tube and the whole car re-act)

The new engines are nothing new, every last piece of them has been done to death.
Do something interesting, ban poppet valves - just for the hell of it, and and let us see what happens.

The electronics are the current cutting edge technology, but they are running spec engine management.
KERS is limited to 70 kw and batteries, so you can't develop new systems.

All we are left with is commerce and the show - it is just not cutting edge tech anymore.

[wolfhound]

LMP1 appears to have a more open set of regs by allowing different types of energy recovery and larger amounts than F1.

The teams and the FIA like limits as it means no team is likely to have a major breakthrough that will set every other team back into 107% qualifying territory.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

LMP1 appears to have a more open set of regs by allowing different types of energy recovery and larger amounts than F1.

The teams and the FIA like limits as it means no team is likely to have a major breakthrough that will set every other team back into 107% qualifying territory.

Which makes F1 boring from a technology point of view, cheap, but boring.
Eveyone chasing the latest vane or tab on the front wing!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Which makes F1 boring from a technology point of view, cheap, but boring.
Eveyone chasing the latest vane or tab on the front wing!

F1 is pretty much a spec series.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

This is interesting technology

Lotus active suspension 1987 Detroit GP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTURKAhFBJA
this is interesting, but banned. (Watch the tech blow into pitot tube and the whole car re-act)

The new engines are nothing new, every last piece of them has been done to death.
Do something interesting, ban poppet valves - just for the hell of it, and and let us see what happens.

The electronics are the current cutting edge technology, but they are running spec engine management.
KERS is limited to 70 kw and batteries, so you can't develop new systems.

All we are left with is commerce and the show - it is just not cutting edge tech anymore.

Your right it's complete crap so let's turn off the TV ..