Starting next year, F1’s technical regulations will freeze engine development. This is the first time this kind of stricture’s been imposed since the inception of the World Drivers Championship. For many fans, this move represents an unconscionable about-face that goes against the F1’s basic ethos; they accuse the sport’s regulators of turning their backs on F1’s traditional role as motorsport’s technological pinnacle. And yet, the rules may end-up helping the sport– and not just by increasing competitiveness. The regulations may make it easier for the major players to justify their gigantic investment in the F1 circus.
Since the day when Gold Leaf Cigarette branding first adorned the Lotus 49, advertising sponsorship quickly became F1’s driving force, steering the sport’s modern progression. Today, the financial balance has shifted. The money provided by major automobile manufacturers has become the F1 team’s lifeblood (excluding the endangered privateers). As carmakers like BMW, Mercedes and Renault continue to pour phenomenal sums of capital into the sport, as Toyota joins the hunt (spending a reported $393m on their 2006 campaign), the demand for a return on investment beyond halo-polishing corporate glamor is bound to become ever-more pressing.
From an automobile manufacturers’ point-of-view, F1’s value has also created value through its contribution to the company’s technological research and development. Obviously, it’s a bit of a stretch to connect F1 with the “race on Sunday, sell on Monday” philosophy, but the sport has contributed a great deal to the advancement of basic automotive technology– from aerodynamics to turbos to paddle shift gearboxes. And yet recent developments in F1 racing engine technology– creative as they are– have little applicability to the manufacturers’ bread and butter, their road car lines.
The regulations of the past few decades have collectively funneled engine development down a very narrow path. Limited to naturally aspirated engines and already possessing the pneumatically-actuated valve trains and variable-geometry intake systems crucial to performance, teams in the last 10 years have focused primarily on increasing engine power by way of increasing engine speed. Past-formula V10 power plants red-lined at around 18k rpm.
The formula change for 2006 mandated a reduction in engine capacity from 3.0 to 2.4 liters and a change in configuration from a V10 to a V8 (also doing away with variable-length intake trumpets). Essentially stripped of 20% of their cylinders and displacement, teams under the new formula pushed ahead with the rise in engine operating speeds. V8 engines run in competition during the 2006 season registered over 21k rpm, with higher speeds certainly explored during test sessions.
While engine speeds never reached the 25k rpm level predicted by some commentators before the season, the observed increase represents drastically higher loads on engine components and much higher risk of failure. These increasingly delicate machines are short-lived, lasting only 1400km in normal usage.
These achievements– while significant in terms of performance gains on the track– are almost completely inapplicable to the modern commercial automotive market. Increasing demands for more fuel-efficient cars have risen in tandem with the constant consumer desire for higher performance. F1 engineers provide their teams with horsepower aplenty, but they’ve not been “encouraged” by the sport’s technical regulations to develop their drive trains in ways that satisfy the need for fuel efficiency.
Max Mosley, president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), recent comments to the sporting press have finally brought us long-awaited evidence of the “greening” of the sport. Mosley envisions three distinct, overlapping sets of regulations, two of which should emerge by the 2010 season. First, in 2009, they’ll introduce “energy-recovery and re-use from braking.” Then, in 2010, teams must work on “recovery and re-use of excess heat or waste heat from the engines.” In the longer term, Mosley wants “a completely new F1 engine reflecting the industry tendency which is to have a downsized, turbo-charged engine.” That’s right; the Turbo’s back.
Technical details and my enthusiasm for forced-induction aside, F1 must undertake this challenge to remain relevant. Fueled by manufacturer money and beholden to it, teams have recently produced little of value in terms of technology. They have, of course, remained an advertising powerhouse, but their technological contribution has diminished significantly. The continued good fortunes of the sport depend on its relevance to the products that earn so much for the manufacturers. Each of the sets of regulations above corresponds to road-relevant approaches to vehicle performance and fuel economy and consequently are very attractive to manufacturers.
The potential for a great leap forward is obvious. F1’s designers and engineers will be given a new, wide-open development path, one with plenty of room for innovation– as it should be. Given the current crudeness of the technologies in question, and assuming that the FIA wields its regulatory power with some skill, the sky’s the limit. No question: Mosley’s on the right track.
Hopefully after the engine freeze is lifted, teams are given more freedom to produce an engine. On top of the rumoured return for turbo engines, there is wide speculation that for 2009, some sort of hybrid systems will start to be used.
“energy-recovery and re-use from braking.” is exactly what regenerative braking on Toyota’s, Ford’s, and GM’s upcoming hybrid system does.
Even more interesting, “recovery and re-use of excess heat or waste heat from the engines.” in real world terms refers to things such as exhaust heat recovery systems, that Toyota already has on a few vehicles. Engine heat recovery systems would take that a step further.
If this speculation proves to be correct, then Toyota, dare I say without jumping to conclusions, stands to be at an advantage with their hybrid experience.
And of course, for 2007 and 2008, aerodynamics, chassis and gearboxes are the key factor in increasing performance.
In the old turbo cars, running pretty much on straight toluene, the exhaust usd to be used to heat up the fuel tank.
Would I be correct in thinking that most current turbo technology deelopments (vane-control, etc.) come from large-scale diesel applications?
BTW, if you’re the sort of person who goes around punching spotted owls for fun, you can brew your own race gas with toluene.
theres some much money in F1 that restrictions in regards to engines being imposed , has me on the edge of my seat.These teams could find a way to move an object with a potato and a 9 volt battery.
The enginneers behind the front running teams gotta be best of the best.I could really see hybrid powerplant technology shift over from this series to every-day applications,if thats the route they take.
If these teams are to produce in the future with corporate money/sponsership on the line with the intent to forward practical designs ( hybrid powerplants ) contributions will have to be made or see their budgets fall heavily.
I personally have my fingers crossed that Max Mosely sticks to his guns.In the long haul we would all benefit.
I second Brendan’s comment… toluene is automotive heroin.
The $14/gal. tag at Sherwin-Williams has me looking for a new dealer, however.
I wish they could make the pneumatic/electric valve actuators really work in street car applications too. They work fine in F1 but they don’t have to solve the problem of the actuators failing if not used daily-thing..
Ughhhh, I have a bad feeling about this. It just seems like a big publicity stunt. The turbos coming back can’t be a good thing, I’m sorry to say. I would hope that they just give the teams carte blanche in regards to the cars just giving a limit on displacement. This would allow each team to give their car as much character as their road cars linking them in some meaningful way. Even something as small as Audi and their R10, my understanding is that Audi spent the most money and that’s how they were able to win, not necessarily because the diesels are any better even when considering the rules advantage, but because it links the race car to their cars. Audi is slowly putting the engine in it’s bigger cars to drive home the point. Simply put F1 lacks character and the more rule changes they make the more they rob it of the character it has left. There is no point in trying to limit a manufacturer’s spending because in the end the one with the bigger pockets is still going to have an edge because they can hire a greater number of engineers to find any edge they can get.
Hmm, that would be interesting indeed Aatos. Closest thing to that currently that I know of would be the electrically-driven intake variable valve timing on the Lexus 4.6L V8.
Some commenters have lamented the “meddling” of the FIA, fearing that it means a watered-down F1. Much to the contrary – in the long term, we’ll lose some of the characteristic smells and sounds of the sport, but that’s just minutia.
The chance that’s offered by a new development path is what F1 is all about. While I risk sounding like a broken record, innovation is that name of the game. Formula racing is first and foremost what the name implies – a formula series. As teams have gotten better and better at producing speed, the FIA has in turn gotten ever more clever at stopping them. This is a balance the sport should be wary of losing.
But all of the regulations themselves aside, this is the first fundamentally new technology that has been written into the regulations in quite some time. As I see it, the technologies addressed by Mosley are in their infancy, just as aerodynamic devices and turbo engines were at one time – whereas current technologies are well-understood and tightly controlled, the same is not possible for something so new.
Regulations evolve to match technology – in this case, so little is known about the potential of these systems that the advancement curve should be quite steep.
So PR stunt or not, Mosley’s delusion or not, this is what F1 is all about.
I believe you’re on the money, Mitch – literally speaking. Consider how many cars, and at what level of cost, use V10 engines, versus how many more cars, as well as trucks, use V8; that should indicate, right there, where development which could be channeled back into the street should go. Additionally, many people think that using turbos is either passe, or ill-considered. However, when you talk to someone such as Garrett Engine Boosting Systems technical director Martin Verschoor, you become very aware of how sophisticated modern turbocharging systems are, and can be. Formula 1’s contribution to the technology of street cars needs to become something more than just paddle-shifters on the steering stalk.
Johnson, the Lexus VVT-IE looks interesting, but it still uses camshaft. This would be so nice, if they could get it to work. But if they do manage to perfect it, it’s going to to be closer to revolution than evolution on internal combustion engines.
Back in the day, Honda and BMW were generating upwards of 1,500 bhp from a 1,200 cc engine via turbocharging.
With today’s V-8’s making 750 bhp from 2.4 liters unsupercharged, Max’s idea seems a little loopy.
With todays’s engine management controls, they could easily get upwards of 2,000 bhp from that same 1.2 liters.
I still say they should ban pneumatic valvetrains as a way to make the technology more relevant to road cars. No one has even tried to apply this tech to road car engines yet, and it’s been in F1 for a decade. That tells me it’s not a viable solution for your Camry.
It does sound like a publicity stunt and a Toyota-engineered (paid) coup to become relevant in the sport. The past rules to make things competitive have resulted in a races where starting off pole and some gas strategy is all that matters. It’s not about engineering or speed anymore.
Question:
In trying to push the RPM limit with current engine rules and regulations, isn’t there an associated development of engineering that can be applied to make an everyday car engine more durable, smoother, and more efficient?
Just asking.
wstansfi
I think any time engineers are sufficiently challenged there are benefits to ‘everyday’ engineering. Unfortunately, the marketing guy steps in here and makes you think you need it (it’s his job). Using the space program analogy: Tang and Tempurpedic. Even the use of carbon fiber is/was a truly under-utilized innovation in modern production cars, but when did carbon fiber dash trim become useful?
High RPM motors exist for academia or rules. Spinning an engine to 20K rpms would never be the first approach to making more horspower. It exists only because the rules limit displacement.
wordson:
November 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I second Brendan’s comment… toluene is automotive heroin.
The $14/gal. tag at Sherwin-Williams has me looking for a new dealer, however.
Thats cheaper than regular unleaded in the UK.
Oh man dual turbocharged V10 engines at 18,000 RPM :droooool:
I can’t watch F1 anymore due to my stupid cable company, but I still do follow it. I think the sport has come to a point of “micro innovation” As been said before, all the machines now are essentially the same, same body shape, same engine layout, same tires, suspension layouts, materials etc. Its all becuase of safety issues of course, but with the tracks being designed for high speed crashes, I think lifting some of the rules and bans will lead to more obviously innovated machines, and of course you know that safety is always the first thing in mind for the developers. And that was one long run on sentance.
I wish they never got rid of the V10, the sounds they make are just amazing.
I believe the article misses the point.
It isn’t as though particular technologies can be co-developed for F1 and the street, it is that the competitive, pressure packed cauldron that is F1 allows engineers to think “outside the box” to come up with solutions IMMEDIATELY when a problem crops up. It’s nice to believe that the tech used for racing can find its way to the street, and maybe someday it will, but how will you accomplish thish by the current regulations, or by future regulations stating a SPECIFIC technology has to be used? Why not give a set of performance parameters and allow the engineers come up with the best solution?
Freezing engine specifications and limiting the technology in F1 will take AWAY this learning tool for future engineers and limit the appeal to automakers that will only use the series as nothing more than an advetising vehicle.
Comments miss the point on occasion, also.
First, co-development was never discussed, and as you point out, isn’t a viable development mechanism. Rather, the point is that F1 development will shift to include road-relevant technology. The technological advances realized by the teams will absolutely find their way into road cars, and with considerable speed (no pun intended). The technologies in question are extremely important to manufacturers and will become more so in coming years.
Second, the vast majority of F1 car development takes place in the conceptual phase of design, before the car ever rolls off of the engineers’ CAD screens. The ensuing in-season development is largely optimization. Innovation takes place in the design phase, rather than at the track. It is innovation in systems design and manufacture that is applicable to road cars – e.g. the regenerative braking technology developed for F1 cars establishes the technical foundation for a similar system for road cars. Examples of such technology might include electric motor design, battery technology, or systems-integration concepts.
Last, this is not limiting the technology in F1, period. Right now, designers can build a car of specific dimensions and with a homologated engine. Once these new regulations are in place, designers will be (while still restricted in layout and dimensions) free to integrate regenerative braking systems and waste-heat re-use into their designs. I guess I’m not so clear on how multiplying the technological options available to designers is somehow bad for the sport.
There is one point we agree on, however – the desirability of the open framework mentioned at the end of your second paragraph. Unfortunately, however, this is an unrealistic option. Nearly all of the regulations on the books currently stem from an FIA desire to limit speeds and reduce risks to drivers and fans – giving the engineers carte blanche means no such control is possible.
While the major parameters of a design are established early on, in-season development goes far beyond just optimization of systems. One of the reasons for the freeze on engine specs is that many of the top teams would develop different spec engines during the season. Honda completely changed the layout of its engine during its first season back and Toyota was toying with different layouts of its engine during their one teast year. Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, and Renault have drastically changed the specs of their engines until the two race rule made drastic changes less valuable to the teams. This engine freeze will just continue this. To a lesser extent, the same goes for the chassis and aerodynamic qualities of an F1 car.
My objection is the REQUIREMENT of regenerative braking and recycling of waste heat, as though those are the optimal systems. Regenerative braking assumes that an electric hybrid is the way to go. I would suggest the use of efficiency parameters and allow the enginners to have at it. Open it up to all kinds of solutions from hybrids, to Diesels, to full electric, to possibly, something else.
Already, technology in common use on road cars, is banned in F1. It would be ironic if any of the technologies being discussed find their way to road cars.
That’s a very valid point about restricting development to those two systems. And while I agree that the options are limited, the alternative (e.g. efficiency formula) might be too broad. The positive is this: whether it’s 2 new options or 10, it means new technology on the grid.
Aren’t you glad to see something new? I certainly am.
An efficiency formula is an interesting concept, no doubt – but I believe that it isn’t a realistic option, for safety reasons and cost concerns, among other things.
Yes, I’m glad to see something new. But I’m also very afraid.
I was a big fan of all types of racing, but I’m losing interest because of restrictive rules in many other series. NASCAR, CART, IRL, and Daytona Prototypes, are so restrictive in their rules, the manufactures lost interest and have all become de-facto spec series whether they mean to be or not. My fear is that with the freeze on engine specs, one tire supplier, and the talk of FIA supplied electronics suite for all cars, Formula 1 may well be on its way toward the same fate. I’m hoping you’re more right on this than me.
I know that F1 racing is criticized as a long parade with very little on the track action, but I find one pass in an F1 race worth a thousand passes in a NASCAR race. I mean, what can beat Alonso taking Michael on the outside of the 130R? I hope we don’t lose that.
SpawnyWhippet: petrol is currently at 85p/litre here in portsmouth, which coresponds to $6.43 for a gallon taking the exchange rate approx 2$:£ since there are 3.785 litres in a US gallon.
Heroine is still more ‘spensive!