The 2022 Formula One Thread

[flutteringwow]

Synthetic fuels. Here now.

I think the general belief with those is that they still emit the same levels of NOx as fossil fuel. This could of course just be a lobbying team angle for the electrical energy fraternity, but it seems fairly valid, on paper. Whereas a hydrogen engine emits water.

 

[Sonority]

Electric race cars, once energy storage is sorted, will simply have to be speed limited, such is their outright speed and acceleration, at least IMO.
Let alone noise, they just do not inspire folks at this moment.
Formula E being a case in point.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

Electric race cars, once energy storage is sorted, will simply have to be speed limited, such is their outright speed and acceleration, at least IMO.
Let alone noise, they just do not inspire folks at this moment.
Formula E being a case in point.

A couple of years ago, someone here posted:

“Unfortunately, to achieve the desired level of performance, a battery electric solution is not viable. Over a 305km race distance, a car will use around 105kg of fuel. This fuel has a chemical energy of 1,224kWh. If we can convert this at an efficiency of 50% then we have available 612kWh of energy. Add to that the kinetic energy we harvest under braking and we can draw on a further 20kWh, giving a total of 632kWh or about 2.27GJ.

Let's say we increase the brake harvesting by having large electric motor/generators front and rear and can then harvest five times as much energy (much bigger starts to get impractical), then we would need a battery of over 500kWh to make up the difference. That is ten times the size of a Formula E battery, and even with expected advances in technology in the near future the cells alone would weigh around 1.8 tonnes.”

 

[Richard Lines]

Good Afternoon All,

The thing is that we have all grown up in an era when there was no viable alternative to the ICE or even a perceived need for an alternative. I too love the sound of a Rover V8 or even the 2.6/ 3ltr straight 6 Rover engine or even a race tuned 80's era quattro 5 cylinder (guess which vehicles I own????).

The world is changing (literally) and, as I keep going on about, things we have all taken for granted are coming back at us big time as we have been living on borrowed time.

The synthetic fuel thing is as big a scam as hydrogen given current technologies.......

Even here the argument is based on having a vehicle that can do what a modern F1 car is capable of. Wrong approach. You need to start with a clean sheet of paper and devise a Formula that fits - oh hang on we've already done that haven't we????

Regards

Richard

 

[Mike P]

The fuel economy of the formula 1 race cars is of virtually no consequence at all in the grand scheme of things. It's the carbon footprint of all the trucks and jumbo jets shifting the whole circus around the globe that matters.

If we're worried about the environmental impact of F1 (and we should be) then there's a 101 more important things to fix first before you start worrying about a small number of race cars cars driving round a track for a couple of hours. How about more races in Europe and fewer races on boring circuits that are hours of flying time away for starters.

F1 cars do not need to be 'relevant' to road cars. Their purpose is for entertainment, pure and simple.

And we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where the teams are limited to an small number of engines per year, supposedly to keep costs down and yet they're forced to use insanely expensive hybrid engines. And when the teams need more engines grid penalties are applied, which are greatly to the detriment of the sport IMHO.

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines and let the teams have twice as many. They'll sound like proper race cars, there will be fewer grid penalties and teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Concentrate on reducing the environmental impact of the supporting logistics instead.

Rant over.

 

[flutteringwow]

The fuel economy of the formula 1 race cars is of virtually no consequence at all in the grand scheme of things. It's the carbon footprint of all the trucks and jumbo jets shifting the whole circus around the globe that matters.

If we're worried about the environmental impact of F1 (and we should be) then there's a 101 more important things to fix first before you start worrying about a small number of race cars cars driving round a track for a couple of hours. How about more races in Europe and fewer races on boring circuits that are hours of flying time away for starters.

F1 cars do not need to be 'relevant' to road cars. Their purpose is for entertainment, pure and simple.

And we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where the teams are limited to an small number of engines per year, supposedly to keep costs down and yet they're forced to use insanely expensive hybrid engines. And when the teams need more engines grid penalties are applied, which are greatly to the detriment of the sport IMHO.

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines and let the teams have twice as many. They'll sound like proper race cars, there will be fewer grid penalties and teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Concentrate on reducing the environmental impact of the supporting logistics instead.

Rant over.

I agree, but not entirely.

The fuel usage in a grand stage of any sport is of consequence as it would signify that its 'ok' to use fossil fuels at high levels for entertainment value. While many would understand like we do the minimal effect, many also wouldn't and will see it has 'well they do it so I why can't I run for my 4.0V8 Range Rover to get to work' etc. Change often happens by example.

 

[Yank]

The fuel economy of the formula 1 race cars is of virtually no consequence at all in the grand scheme of things. It's the carbon footprint of all the trucks and jumbo jets shifting the whole circus around the globe that matters.

If we're worried about the environmental impact of F1 (and we should be) then there's a 101 more important things to fix first before you start worrying about a small number of race cars cars driving round a track for a couple of hours. How about more races in Europe and fewer races on boring circuits that are hours of flying time away for starters.

F1 cars do not need to be 'relevant' to road cars. Their purpose is for entertainment, pure and simple.

And we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where the teams are limited to an small number of engines per year, supposedly to keep costs down and yet they're forced to use insanely expensive hybrid engines. And when the teams need more engines grid penalties are applied, which are greatly to the detriment of the sport IMHO.

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines and let the teams have twice as many. They'll sound like proper race cars, there will be fewer grid penalties and teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Concentrate on reducing the environmental impact of the supporting logistics instead.

Rant over.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/...ter-spa-zandvoort.3SGKJ5QvzZhXbMkGskMHMX.html

 

[IanW]

The fuel economy of the formula 1 race cars is of virtually no consequence at all in the grand scheme of things. It's the carbon footprint of all the trucks and jumbo jets shifting the whole circus around the globe that matters.

If we're worried about the environmental impact of F1 (and we should be) then there's a 101 more important things to fix first before you start worrying about a small number of race cars cars driving round a track for a couple of hours. How about more races in Europe and fewer races on boring circuits that are hours of flying time away for starters.

F1 cars do not need to be 'relevant' to road cars. Their purpose is for entertainment, pure and simple.

And we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where the teams are limited to an small number of engines per year, supposedly to keep costs down and yet they're forced to use insanely expensive hybrid engines. And when the teams need more engines grid penalties are applied, which are greatly to the detriment of the sport IMHO.

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines and let the teams have twice as many. They'll sound like proper race cars, there will be fewer grid penalties and teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Concentrate on reducing the environmental impact of the supporting logistics instead.

Rant over.

I agree with most of what you have stated. But

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines....teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Bringing back cheaper engines will have no bearing on smaller teams competitiveness and in fact it may widen the grid a bit (see my comments below). We already have a budget cap which all teams, bar Haas spend up to, so financially it has little to no bearing.

But more importantly, every time you change the rules, the teams with better idea generators and better tools and processes always move ahead again. The teams further back down the grid all have more wind tunnel time (the most effective tool for delivering vehicle performance) and yet the grid remains largely unchanged over a long period of time.

Interestingly the high performing teams like rule changes as it allows them to use their greater expertise to move ahead. And the poor performing teams like the rule changes as their head of aero will say that the current rules do not allow us to catch up whereas with a new set of rules I think that we can come up with a better solution than anyone else and move up the grid (this very rarely if ever happens!).

So if you want to see close racing, leave the rules alone and allow the weaker teams longer to catch up. The current rules offer the best opportunity for this that we have seen in a long time.

 

[tones]

The fuel economy of the formula 1 race cars is of virtually no consequence at all in the grand scheme of things. It's the carbon footprint of all the trucks and jumbo jets shifting the whole circus around the globe that matters.

I'm afraid I can't remember the precise figure but it goes something like this - a London-Tokyo Jumbo jet flight consumes more fuel than does the entire F1 grid in a season, practice included.

 

[Mike P]

I'm afraid I can't remember the precise figure but it goes something like this - a London-Tokyo Jumbo jet flight consumes more fuel than does the entire F1 grid in a season, practice included.

Hybrid engines in F1 cars have bugger all to do with real fuel saving. It's about marketing and politics.

 

[Mike P]

I agree with most of what you have stated. But



Bringing back cheaper engines will have no bearing on smaller teams competitiveness and in fact it may widen the grid a bit (see my comments below). We already have a budget cap which all teams, bar Haas spend up to, so financially it has little to no bearing.

But more importantly, every time you change the rules, the teams with better idea generators and better tools and processes always move ahead again. The teams further back down the grid all have more wind tunnel time (the most effective tool for delivering vehicle performance) and yet the grid remains largely unchanged over a long period of time.

Interestingly the high performing teams like rule changes as it allows them to use their greater expertise to move ahead. And the poor performing teams like the rule changes as their head of aero will say that the current rules do not allow us to catch up whereas with a new set of rules I think that we can come up with a better solution than anyone else and move up the grid (this very rarely if ever happens!).

So if you want to see close racing, leave the rules alone and allow the weaker teams longer to catch up. The current rules offer the best opportunity for this that we have seen in a long time.

NA engines are a very well developed technology and I'm pretty sure that returning to NA non-hybrid engines would reduce the performance gaps between the various engine suppliers.

Surely a return to cheaper non-hybrid engines would free up more budget for the smaller teams to spend on trying to improve the performance of their cars? Either that or the budget caps would just be revised down. In either case I can only see that being a good thing for the smaller teams.

So I take your point that another rule chance would likely benefit the bigger teams in the short terms but I can only see a return to non-hybrid engines as being positive for the sport in the medium-long term.

I personally would also like to see a return to smaller, lighter and more agile cars and engines which sound exciting.

I'd also like to see less fragile tyres too but that's another topic for another day.

 

[cutting42]

NA engines are a very well developed technology and I'm pretty sure that returning to NA non-hybrid engines would reduce the performance gaps between the various engine suppliers.

Surely a return to cheaper non-hybrid engines would free up more budget for the smaller teams to spend on trying to improve the performance of their cars? Either that or the budget caps would just be revised down. In either case I can only see that being a good thing for the smaller teams.

So I take your point that another rule chance would likely benefit the bigger teams in the short terms but I can only see a return to non-hybrid engines as being positive for the sport in the medium-long term.

I personally would also like to see a return to smaller, lighter and more agile cars and engines which sound exciting.

I'd also like to see less fragile tyres too but that's another topic for another day.

Firstly, there are no big gaps in engines currently. The performance differences are in aero and mainly because we just had a big aero change and the best aerodynamicists are winning currently.

Changing to the new engine formula will benefit the big teams as Ian said, changes always do. The next engine rule change does get rid of the most (non ICE) expensive element, the MGU-H and will simplify the tech significantly.

Totally agree on a small light noisy car but the only place you will see them is in classic F1 racing

Fragile tyres were created to increase the variability between different strategies after years of bullet proof Pirelli and Bridgestone tyres that led to no overtaking as no-one needed to change tyres for a whole race. Careful what you wish for ;-)

 

[Mike P]

Firstly, there are no big gaps in engines currently. The performance differences are in aero and mainly because we just had a big aero change and the best aerodynamicists are winning currently.

Changing to the new engine formula will benefit the big teams as Ian said, changes always do. The next engine rule change does get rid of the most (non ICE) expensive element, the MGU-H and will simplify the tech significantly.

Totally agree on a small light noisy car but the only place you will see them is in classic F1 racing

Fragile tyres were created to increase the variability between different strategies after years of bullet proof Pirelli and Bridgestone tyres that led to no overtaking as no-one needed to change tyres for a whole race. Careful what you wish for ;-)

A change in engine rules benefitting the big teams would be a short term issue. I think it'd be worth it in the medium-long term.

The Pirelli tyres certainly mix things up, I can't deny that. It just all feels a bit artificial to me. I'd like to see the drivers doing less tyre management and instead pushing harder and for longer.

 

[IanW]

NA engines are a very well developed technology and I'm pretty sure that returning to NA non-hybrid engines would reduce the performance gaps between the various engine suppliers.

Surely a return to cheaper non-hybrid engines would free up more budget for the smaller teams to spend on trying to improve the performance of their cars? Either that or the budget caps would just be revised down. In either case I can only see that being a good thing for the smaller teams.

So I take your point that another rule chance would likely benefit the bigger teams in the short terms but I can only see a return to non-hybrid engines as being positive for the sport in the medium-long term.

I personally would also like to see a return to smaller, lighter and more agile cars and engines which sound exciting.

I'd also like to see less fragile tyres too but that's another topic for another day.

The hybrid powerplants are already very close.

Cheaper NA engines would free up more budget for the teams higher up the grid (who would spend that extra money more effectively in delivering performance as that is what they have always done) in the same way as it does for smaller teams for the reasons that I have stated.

So it changes nothing really other than making the weaker team weaker for a period of time.

Yes, I agree that smaller lighter cars and NA engines would be better for the sport in general and have said so many times over many years on here.

 

[RJohan]

Fuel for ICE engines and carbon footprint?

Methanol has been used for ages and could be manufactured and distributed with no carbon footprint what so ever. Ironically, Indycar previously used methanol but changed to E85 some years ago

Still, as Mike P said above, what the racing cars consume over a weekend is irrelevant. Most CO2 will be generated by the public going to and from the event, and this, of course is common to all large public events, like football or even going to the church.

 

[Yank]

Methanol has been used for ages and could be manufactured and distributed with no carbon footprint what so ever. Ironically, Indycar previously used methanol but changed to E85 some years ago

Wasn't that a safety issue with invisible flames?

 

[Richard Lines]

Bring back relatively low cost ICE engines and let the teams have twice as many. They'll sound like proper race cars, there will be fewer grid penalties and teams with lower budgets will have a much better chance.

Concentrate on reducing the environmental impact of the supporting logistics instead.

Sound like 'traditional' race cars rather than 'proper' would be more accurate.

Somebody raised the point as to how much fuel was consumed each weekend by people attending such as football and rugby fixtures in say just the UK alone. How much fuel is consumed by people going golfing over a weekend?

I'm not going to divert this thread but there a lot of uses of hydrocarbons in leisure activities.

Regards

Richard

 

[Tony Lockhart]

And in some countries this is allowed

 

[RJohan]

Someone could provide an app in the phone that connected to the system that knows where the cars are on the track. As the public, using headphones, we could then choose our preferred sound, Ferrari V12, Cosworth DFV even BRM V16, that's synced with the cars and head movements.

No, I'm not serious.

 

[peter bj]

Even more sprint races on the way ! you cannot be serious man ! seems like they are a good moneymaker ,