2014 regulations: F1's engine revolution | Hacker News Reader

2014 regulations: F1's engine revolution

f1technical.net

77 pointsantr104 comments

I find it sad that people are so obsessed right now with small engines. Small engine does not necessarily mean good efficiency. For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency.

That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the most efficient way to spend their fuel. For instance, maybe hydraulic or nematic energy systems are better than electric. Let them try that. Maybe someone want's to do an all electric car with a diesel generator onboard for power, let them try that. Maybe someone want's to try going at it with hydrogen generator / electric combo. Let them try that too.

Millions of dollars are spent on F1, and all that money is being wasted on fiddling with exhaust positioning, rather then trying new and innovative technologies. The "Prius" layout is old news, there are better solutions to efficiency.

You can reword the most efficient cars by allocating an artificially low amount of fuel per race, and then holding cars in the pits for additional "penalty" time for each liter of fuel they take in over the baseline. That way the most competitive car would be the fastest car with the best fuel economy.

They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars.

I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the same bore-center measure as the original small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40 inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly). Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the vehicle.

It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911 Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any innovative technologies.

I never intended to use the Corvette as an example of technical innovation. If you read my original post, you will see that I simply used it as an example of showing that smaller engine does NOT equal a more efficient engine by default.

I do agree with the fact that the C5 V8 layout is quite old, though the actual engine was designed from scratch in 1997. It has it's problems, but it's a far more reliable engine then it's competitors. For instance, that same friend I mentioned recently had BMW purchase his 2008 M3 from him because at 76k miles the entire engine seized due to lack of lubrication to the main bearings. I know because I was the attorney representing him :) This is not an isolated event either, the previous generation of the M3 engine was recalled for the same issue, and this generation is going to be as well, as it's a significant issue. I ride a BMW K1200R bike, so I am not by any means a BMW hater, BTW. I am just pointing out that sometimes more complicated engines are not necessarily more economical or better.

That goes for the leaf spring suspension on the C5 as well. The "leaf spring" suspension in the C5 shares absolutely nothing with the leaf springs in a pickup truck. The C5 has a transverse leaf spring that springs both sides of the axels. It's a genius solution that saves on weight overall weight and significantly reduces unsprung weight. [1] Leaf spring, the way it's implemented in the C5, is superior to a coil spring, regardless of the stigma that the name "leaf spring" carries with it. And what's so wring with balsa wood?

So, to make my self clear, I am not arguing that F1 lacks innovation, it lacks diversity of ideas.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

I disagree. It does not lack a diversity of ideas. You have many different teams attacking the same problem, and achieving very different results. One thing to understand is that F1 is very driven by politics. Those politics take a toll on innovation. Go back to the year 1993, and the Williams-Renault team was able to dominate the field with their technologically advanced car. It featured an adjustable suspension that would allow the driver to take the turns much faster. Making the lead driver for the team (Alain Prost) much faster than other (better) drivers (like Ayrton Senna). The technology was banned due to a mix of inner-politics and protests by other teams.

Even with all of the things that go down, we still get rules that push for engineering efforts like the KERS system. Which is making its way into other racing series (the ideas and technologies, not the actual system).

That generation M3 required very strict oil change intervals with a specific oil that BMW strongly recommended. Due to the clearance in the main bearings. Not to say that this isn't bothersome, but that it is not a regular engine. Not like BMW has not been in any engine fiasco. They had a very notorious issue with Nikasil and quick degradation of the cylinder bores.

The engine in the C5 started to be developed in the late 80's. It was part of the push to day view the LT-series. The LS-series was GM's answer to the increasing CAFE standards. As it is a more efficient engine.

The point about smaller engines not being more efficient is correct. Size of engine does not imply efficiency. But from a pure fuel consumption point of view, the smaller engine will consume less fuel than the bigger one. Just like it takes less water to fill a bucket than to fill a pool.

I know you did not try and make the C5 an example of innovation. It was just amusing (for me personally) that a C5 owner was making claims of great fuel economy and at the same time criticizing F1 for a lack of diversity of ideas (as you so eloquently put it).

The K1200R is a fine bike, though. Drive safe.

What's new in NASCAR these days?

While I don't follow either NASCAR or F1 it's my impression that NASCAR has much less focus on technology development. They strive to keep all the cars technically identical, so that races are close and are won or lost almost entirely on the basis of driver and crew skills.

F1 I think is much more about who can innovate technically within some parameter limits (of course in addition to having skilled drivers/crew).

They do focus on technology, but the rules are strict, and hardly ever change a lot. The basic ideas behind the Cup series has not changed much in a long time. But the implementations are quite amazing. Just look at the engines themselves. Or the safety improvements they have developed over the years. Plus, NASCAR is about being good at cheating and being great at not being caught.

They finally have Fuel Injection.

In which specific area?

Are there any trends in efficiency regulations that compare to Formula 1?

Yes, the engines are always being pushed towards higher efficiency. They do lack any sort of innovation when compared to the KERS system, though. But the NASCAR Cup car V8 is just an amazing piece of machinery. It operates at 7K RPM and above for extended periods of time, and until 2013, had to use a carburetor. Which is mind blowing, given the amount of issues that such fuel system would bring into such scenario.

Not in the racing itself. However nascar has been pushing to modernize it's race tracks with things like Solar Panels.

Unleaded fuel.

The problem with race-level fuel restriction is you get drivers managing their pace over the course of the race, which can lead to strategies that people find boring. Or worse, the fastest driver running out of fuel just before the end. It was one of the complaints about Group C prototype racing, although that turned out alright over all, with some help from the comparatively long race format.

The "best" system would be to use a fuel flow restriction — X g/s of fuel, with the usual restrictions on fuel composition. The designer's job is then to extract the max usable power from the chemical energy in the fuel. This would make for really exciting development and diversity, and make F1 development a true laboratory for other transportation and power production contexts.

It would also be prohibitively expensive and probably result in one manufacturer in a walkover for a while, until others could switch architectures. Experimenting with different architectures is a huge money pit, and is why the prescriptions for 10 and 8 cylinders were in the last couple sets of regulations. Just working out the competitiveness of V12 vs V10 vs V8 was getting unreasonable, let alone dealing with different hybrid setups on top of that.

It is also my understanding that the accuracy of fuel flow meters has not been considered good enough to provide adequate parity in a racing environment, when fractions of a percent can mean the difference between winning and losing.

The new F1 rules do include fuel flow metering, although it is based on kg/h and I don't know what kind of spiking is permissible. The regulations are as detailed as they are, with specifications for power transfer among components, etc. to spare teams the expense of experimenting there and to give them targets to optimize for. See jdietrich's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583

It is pretty discouraging with respect to the purity of the formula, but it's kind of a fact of life. And I think the development of turbocompounding and pre-spooling turbos with electrically stored energy to avoid lag is really exciting, and the future of combustion power on the road.

I believe spiking the fuel rate is not permitted - the 100 kg/h flow restriction is well above the overall consumption limit (100 kg of fuel for a 1.5-2 hr race).

You're describing a different racing series, perhaps one that doesn't exist yet. Fuel efficiency isn't the top priority for F1 so they'll only partially optimize for it. Other factors they have to consider:

- revenue

- exciting races (=> more revenue)

- somewhat competitive backmarker teams (=> exciting races => more revenue)

- "reasonable costs", so backmarker teams can sort of keep up with the Ferraris, McLarens etc (=> exciting races ...)

- possibility of lots of overtaking maneuvers (=> exciting races ... )

- cutting edge tech (of course, but have to keep races exciting)

- fuel efficiency (ok, sure, why not?)

So, it's optimized for revenue, like most things in life :) Fair point.

For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency.

Not to be rude, but this is only happening if your friend drives in a very different style to you.

I have an e90 BMW 3 Series (not an M3), and I get much better economy than those numbers - even in the city with stop/start driving.

The way to drive makes a huge difference. For example, the official economy figures for the Corvette[1] and the M3[2] are roughly the same.

[1] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520

[2] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865

The Corvette is a significantly lighter vehicle due to its fiberglass body.

I consistently got 19mpg or less in my 335i. They've improved the mileage a bit in newer versions, but not much. An M3 would be worse of course.

It's not all that different, 3,245 lb for the C5 vs 3,483 lb for the M3. This is why I used it as a counterpoint example.

Corvettes are known for getting unusually high mpg on the highway. I always understood the primary factors to be light weight and tall gearing. V8 Silverados don't get great highway mileage, right?

Of course not, but for that matter nor do the V6 Silverados, or any pickup trucks in general. That has to do with wight and aerodynamic form factor, or lack there of.

The Corvette does have a very tall 6th gear, which allows the engine to cruise at very low RPM. It does have enough torque to overtake on 6th, though. :)

The high gearing/high torque thing is a fair point.

(V8) M3s are notorious (or lauded, depending on your point of view) for being rev-hungry.

You should look into flashing your ECU. In additon to substantial power increases, there is a dramatic improvement in MPG. I can cite 35 MPG in a E60 535i (+200lbs over an E90 335i) on highway trips when in 'fuel economy mode'.

Hard to compare a naturally aspirated motor to a turbo like your friend's M3. When a turbo in a 4 cyl spools up (x rpm) it will drain a lot of fuel.. maybe like a V8. However it still can be driven like a standard naturally aspirated 4 cyl motor consuming far less fuel than a V8. There are just too many variables involved to even compare from ECU to pumps to heavy foot etc.

I was actually comparing in that example the V8 M3 from 2008. But point taken on the driving style, that plays a role as well.

I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race.

I think the article mentioned exactly that: To enforce this focus, the 2014 regulations limit the total fuel consumption for an entire race at 100kg with a maximum fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. This means that for a 90 minute race, the average fuel flow can only average around 66kg/h, while at the Singaporean GP, which often lasts close to two hours, it will have to be around 50kg/h.

The article said the 2014 regulations will limit fuel consumption to 100kg per race, which looks to be about 140 liters. Agreed that you'll get more interesting results by setting the parameters of the race rather than dictating a design.

Increasing fuel efficiency is not the only goal. They also want to keep costs down without reducing the sporting interest. Restricting for formula severely reduces the incentive to spend huge sums of money, which not all of the teams have, while also keep the competition tight.

> My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP.

That'll do it.

I probably found a good portion of the gear heads like myself on here -- I wanted to reach out for your support in my campaign! I'm the ONLY female racing driver in the world in pro development for INDYCAR -- I'm signing with a top team in 2014, and recently launched my CHASING INDY campaign, and would love your support!

www.ChasingIndy.com

Thank you!

You're not the first. There have been several women in indy before you, and there is at least one, Simona Di-something-or-other, who is already in the series. Coming on a tech website with your blatantly false spam isn't the way to make fans.

Can somebody explain how these 1.6L V6 engines have far more power than my 3.0L V6 car, and as much as many V10 and V12 super cars? All I can figure from the article is the high RPM and the turbo.

The high RPM and turbocharging are the main reasons. For the same displacement, an engine running twice as fast can theoretically generate twice as much horsepower. Likewise, an engine pressurized at 3 bar can produce three times more power. In reality, there are losses due to greater friction at higher RPM. Also, compressing air heats it up. If the air is too hot, it can cause the fuel to detonate prematurely. Still, the gains are impressive.

The root reason for the massive difference in performance is that F1 engines have a very different set of constraints. Performance is favored over almost everything else. The budget is astronomical. The engines don't have to be optimized for mass production. They only have to run on a very specific blend of fuel. They don't have to pass emissions tests. They only have to last a few thousand miles, and it's fine if they require crazy amounts of monitoring and maintenance. A narrow power band is acceptable. And of course, they can fail in dangerous ways.

A side note: production engines can still generate ridiculous power in small displacement, but manufacturers usually don't have a reason to optimize for that. In the late 80s, Japan passed a law restricting beginner motorcycle riders to 250cc bikes. Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, and Yamaha all built the most ridiculous 250cc sportbikes they could engineer. Some revved up to 19,000 RPM and produced over 50 horsepower[1].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR250

Compression ratio and operating RPM mostly.

Compression ratio (the 'squish' in an engine's 'suck,squish,bang,blow' cycle) is >~14:1. Dynamic compression (once you factor in the compression of air caused by the turbo) is much higher. This is largely due to running a higher octane fuel which keeps preignition at bay. Your typical road car has around a 9:1 compression ratio.

Secondly, peak operating RPM is triple the average road car. Horsepower is '(torque * RPM) / 5252'. With the engine spinning at nearly 21,000 RPM, the neglible torque from the small displacement starts to add up. Again, your average road car sees about 6,500 RPM.

Lastly, for comparison, the best road cars rarely see over 120hp/liter in normally aspirated form. And 250hp/liter on 93 octane is about the limit on well tuned turbo cars.

This is largely simplified, as quite a bit of engineering is needed to get even above road car values.

Insanely high RPM (18k+), crazy turbos, innovative valves, super high compression ratios. Plus each motor only had to last maybe 1000 miles, and they get essentially rebuilt every time they run.

Actually, the engines (and gearboxes, for that matter) don't get rebuilt. Breaking the FIA seal means they might as well replace the engine with a fresh one, since the same penalties apply.

You answered your own question.

Even without exotic engineering highly-boosted turbocharged 2.0L street-car I4s can put out upwards of 500 horsepower at 7-8000 RPM. Formula One builders take things to the next level by building more advanced rotating parts and using pneumatic valve springs to allow the engine to spin all the way up to 15,000RPM with an almost linear increase in horsepower as they travel up the powerband.

> Even without exotic engineering highly-boosted turbocharged 2.0L street-car I4s can put out upwards of 500 horsepower at 7-8000 RPM.

I'll call bullshit on that. After whatever you've done to a stock 4-cylinder motor to make it output 500 horsepower, you've got a racing engine, with all that entails. It's not properly a "street car" part anymore. :)

Not really, depending on the engine. Some engines are built sturdily enough that they can make that power without anything other than bolt-on modifications. For example, the Saab B204L turbo engines make 185 HP stock. Just by changing the mapping in the ECU, you can raise that to 225 or so. Add a new exhaust and intercooler, you're up to 280. Bigger turbo, now you can hit 300-330. Bigger fuel injectors, now you can hit 400. Keep adding more air (bigger turbo) and more fuel (bigger injectors) for as long as the engine can take it. I think the record is currently around 700 HP, which may have been done on an engine with aftermarket pistons, but still, 400HP or more is possible with only bolt-on modifications, no rebuilding of the engine internals.

That's impressive. How many miles would you expect to get out of a B204L motor making 400HP, assuming you were just keeping it on the street?

The magic bullet is the Turbo. Turbo helps push ridiculous amounts of pressure (psi) via compression into the motor (increasing compression ratio) to create a nice big bang to spin it really fast.

But like anything that burns brighter, the wick shortens faster. So these motors won't stand more then few hours of operation vs a consumer car that is made to withstand few years.

Look at rotor engines. Those were great small 1.3L motors with huge power outputs. Obviously not as reliable as piston motors. However I always wonder why humanity complicated motors and created so many moving pieces when all we had to do is build an electric motor from the start.. a magnet wrapped around a coil under current. Less moving pieces, less things that can go wrong and longer life span.

Nethertheless one cannot beat the jet like sound of F1 piston engine under full power smashing down the straight!

The key aspect is longevity.

While engines on road going cars have to handle hundreds of thousands of Km, F1 engines only need to last a few thousands.

Based on that fact and lower tolerances they can push several metrics that are key to the power output of the engine such as RPM a lot further than the automotive industry.

Can your engine run at 15,000 rpm?

Also your engine has to last the lifetime of the car. F1 drivers are allowed 8 engines a season.

Obviously totally different design goals.

Exactly. F1 cars do not take well to sitting idle for more than a minute or two, they need to be moving. They are designed to last only a few hours at peak performance before their next maintenance session.

It's much the same way my k1200r is pushing out 180HP from a 1.2 liter normally aspirated engine. RPM + flow. Most supersport bikes have even more HP on tap from a smaller engine. The key, however, is torque, that's what you want to look at. For instance, though my k1200r may have 180HP, it wouldn't do a very good job pushing around your 4 door car because it has only about 100 ftlb of torque. Torque is the rotational force of the engine.

Also, the F1 engine doesn't have to last more than a few hours. This means you can put a lot more stress on the parts.

Have a look at the power outputs of turbo engines beck in the 80's. These new engines are tame in comparison.

Why not bite the bullet and go electric only?

They can be really fast, money is not a problem and it's where we need inovation the most.

Way ahead of you: Formula E (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Formula_E_Championship) 2014-15 will be the inaugural season

I do not think Formula E will ever amount to much more than an interesting side show. As soon as the technology in Formula E is mature enough, I fully expect it to be folded into F1. Where they will go all Electric, or balance of performance rules will be put in place to allow electric and internal combustion will compete against each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Formula_E_Championship

> electric only?

Boring.

There's something viscerally exciting about a reciprocating engine - the sound, the smell, the vibration, the brutishness of it.

I once got a ride in a P-51. There's just something indescribable about that V12 Merlin catching, and then digging in when the throttle is opened wide.

There's a reason for the title of this book: "Sigh for a Merlin".

Have you ever driven an electric sports car? Instant maximum torque at any speed.

Yeah, though I wasn't so lucky, I also love the sound and smell of a combustion engine. But I think that's generational, not something inherently more exiting. But I guess I'll have to wait and see what my grandchildren have to say.

Sorry, dude. I'll drive an electric car to work, but I'm not going to the electric car races.

As for generational, I've always been sorry that steam locomotives went off the rails before I was born. Diesel electric locomotives are boring.

Fair enough, you have a point there. Steam locomotives are awesome to this day.

No, not boring.

Because you can now hear the tyres, you can hear how good the driver is.

Should be entering with the concept of drivers literally switching cars mid-way through the race due to the current battery power.

Current battery energy density is too low for even moderate length races (30 minutes)

Formula E drivers, for instance, have to swap cars when the batteries run out.

yep formula e may with some luck become a great tech challenge.

Great to see teams like Andretti Autosport at the forefront of the series reppin' USA!

So they'll be a mid-pack team with an owner that goes whining to the officials anytime something doesn't work to his benefit?

Not exactly the "reppin'" I'd like to see for the USA in world motorsport.

I don't follow F1, but this sounds pretty exciting. Hopefully the multiple variables introduced here will produce innovation that will flow down into normal production hybrid vehicles.

Actually, normal production hybrid vehicles have innovations that are banned in F1. Specifically, continuously variable transmissions. F1 rules that specify 8 forward gears and 1 reverse gear are written to make sure that CVTs can't be used.

The new regulations certainly step up the engineering game, going into uncharted territories. I'm not sure that as a motorsport spectator I like these changes, though; there's something about the sound of the V8s or their predecessor V10s, revving at 20k RPM. It's a large part of what makes motorsport exciting. Compared to that, a 15k RPM 1.6L V6 seems pretty dull, regardless to how well it performs.

I wish they got away from such tight regulation of the technology, and let the teams really experiment. I'd like to see the F1 engine rules shortened to two rules.

1. Competitors have a total of XX GGE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent) of fuel per 100km of race distance. 2. Competitors may not use a device that prevents unusual risks to other drivers, spectators, or race officials.

Done. End of rule book.

The fuel mileage limit will encourage teams to optimize for effciency...beyond that let them have at it.

Then you don't have a motor racing formula, just a spending contest.

If you look at the technical regulations in F1, they have two main aims - ensuring driver and spectator safety, and controlling costs to maintain competitive racing.

Most of the current technical regulations are just special cases of your rule 2. Moveable aerodynamic devices are banned to prevent sudden loss of mid-corner traction (causing the car to violently roll off into the grandstands). Many of the dimensional restrictions are there to prevent the use of ground effect, for similar reasons. Wheel tethers reduce the chance of a wheel flying off and killing a spectator (something that has happened in several motorsport formulae). Restrictions on fuel composition prevent teams from using explosive fuels or oxidizers. Limits on wing sizes and aspect ratios restrict downforce, to ensure that the drivers aren't subject to intolerable g-forces.

The culture of F1 is based around a belief that there is no such thing as the spirit of the law, only the letter. Devious loopholes are applauded for their ingenuity and characterise most development in the modern sport. On the other hand, many people in the sport remember the dark days, when driver fatalities were just part of the sport. Teams and drivers understand that in the absence of regulation, the Nash equilibrium inevitably entails dead drivers and dead spectators.

The F1 rulebook isn't an external imposition on the sport, it is a document that is designed by mutual agreement between Bernie, FOTA, the FIA and the GPDA. Every word of it has been hard fought and represents the least-worst compromise between those various interests.

Unrestricted racing is a trope that is often raised by outsiders to motorsport, but the reality is that without the technical regulations, there is no racing at all, just a contest to see who can spend the most, with a mortuary full of charred and mangled drivers as collateral damage.

Yes, because of course the current regulations are doing SO well at keeping the cost of F1 down.

I should point out that there was a time (not, coincidentally, imo, arguable the greatest period in F1 history) when the constructors were given substantially more leeway - look at the golden age when some builds came out with mid-engined vehicles for instance, real innovation at the time, or other innovative layouts like the Tyrell P34 6-wheeler, or the fan cars, or the turbine cars that ran at Indianapolis (not F1, but close, and many F1 cars were entered at Indy in those days).

This is a documentary on the human cost of those pre-regulation years "Grand Prix: The Killer Years": http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z8v18

Unfortunately the content doesn't really go into much detail on how things changed but focuses more on the events leading to the changes. I'm not a motor racing enthusiast but still found it interesting viewing.

It's called formula 1 for a reason. No rules would lead to dull competitions and bankruptcies. There has been times with less rules and it does not work.

1. Cars would be clued to the road with massive downforce and it would look like they are on track in turns. Very boring races without overtakes. Races would be determined in time trials.

2. Building competitive car would be even more expensive than it is now. There would be only few competitive teams, some years maybe only one.

3. Several teams would eventually drop out because racing would be too expensive.

I'm not sure if your response is serious or sarcasm. Your points 1 & 3 encapsulate everything wrong with present day Formula 1.

This is not sarcasm. These are still problems with F1. The reason why these rules are needed is because F1 racing has been in the constant "getting out of hand" state since 80's.

Some races from the ground effect era 1977 to 1982 were ridiculous. Wing-profiled sidepods sealed to the ground by sliding lexan skirts. It took gigantic amount of rules changes to cover all loopholes.

You would like the Le Mans Prototype Rules. they are using something similar, except they are limited to how much fuel can be used over one lap.

Yes, essentially...even Le Mans is a bit too restricted for my tastes.

The main problem with that is building something that is sustainable. They tried a formula similar to yours back in late 80s called Group C. It was incredible cars and incredible racing but became so absurdly expensive no one could afford it.

I would like the rules to be more open as well. The Hybrid Systems for LMPs have to be homologated at the start of the year which prevents development of them during the year. Also the Hybrid systems are limited to only being able to collect certain amount of energy.

The problem is the people paying the bills on LMP projects are the ones that have the say on the rules. And the people paying the bills dont want the costs to get out of hand. Which admittedly if they went to a more unlimited rules package could happen.

No. Group C was done in by Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone because it was threatening Formula One. The costs became prohibitive not because of competition between teams, but because of new rules that favoured the manufacturers by making F1 engines (which were very expensive) all but required if you wanted to stay competitive. And after the privateer teams were gone, there was no real reason for the bigger teams to compete with each other in Group C when they could do so in F1 with the same engines: an outcome which very nicely lined Bernie's pockets.

You could easily keep costs under control by adding a claiming rule - e.g. allow the team that comes last to buy the winner's car for some fixed price, $500k, say.

They do have a cost capped formula intended for Privateers called LMP2. its cost capped where the manufacturer can only sell the car for a certain price.

Including spare parts (engines, wings, whatever), expertise, manuals, design documents? Or just the car? I can't possibly see how this could work.

Not to mention that when Factory LMP programs have sold customer cars there are pretty strict restrictions. From my understanding When Audi sold R8 LMPs as Customer cars. they put pretty strict restrictions on them. They could not start the engine with out a Audi Sport Engineer present. Even now that those cars have made it into the hands of collectors, Audi does not allow them to plug into the engine management system.

I think the innovation is going to come from the Sports Car Racing side. The engines are more or less unrestricted, the only limit on them is fuel consumption per lap. I've always liked the Prototypes more than F1 though. It seems like all the F1 teams more or less converge on how to design a car and they all look more or less alike. Whereas with LMPs there are multiple answers to the question of how to build a car and make it go fast and be efficient and last for 24 hours.

I think it is more that the regulations are so tight that the differences in designs between teams aren't immediately noticeable unless they are explained in depth.

Good to see F1 fulfilling some real purpose, rather than just entertainment.

Indeed. All that stuff they've done in the past is just rubbish on modern vehicles. Who needs more that 2 valves per cyclinder anyway or disc brakes or...

Well, I recall an interview with a Williams engineer saying that (in the mid 2000's, I think) the state of Formula-1 technology was so advanced and geared to its own brand of racing that, by the time it would eventually get to road vehicles, it would be too late, there would be other stuff outside of F-1 developed already.

No need to be sarky. Okay, well, good to see F1 directly optimizing towards something of real value, rather than relying on incidental outcomes.

So many regulations. You can't have that, and that. No, you can't have that either. I wonder what kind of engines the F1 engineers could come up with if they would enjoy the freedom to pursue more exotic designs.

They would come up with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010

Adrian Newey (needs no introduction if you are an F1 fan, look up his accomplishments if you are not) did exactly what you are talking about with the RB X2010 and the car is incredible to say the least.

Much like my sibling comment says, a no-regulations formula league would be financially un-viable for all but a few teams. As it is, F1 is struggling considerably to balance development and testing costs with keeping the smaller teams in business. And those back-half teams are still driving very uncompetitive cars compared to the big 3 or 4 teams - we're talking 2+ seconds off the pace per lap.

You'd probably have a car that is so incredibly fast that a driver could stay conscious driving it, and so expensive that no team could afford to build it, and a league so lopsided that no viewers would watch it.

At the end of the day, F1 is in the entertainment business and they want to build a league of competitive teams so that viewers will keep their advertising dollars flowing. The best way to keep them competitive is with rules that ensure they stay within touch of one another. That being said, I think F1 still has a lot of work to do.

I'm hoping that the turbocharging system makes it into production vehicles. Being able to utilize the energy wasted by the exhaust system is a big boost (pun very intended) in efficiency. If the turbine is able to always spin at a given RPM, then it can generate enough electricity to forgo the alternator, maybe the mechanical water pump and A/C compressor (replaced by electric ones), and power an electric power steering motor. This would also help in packaging.

I really hope this opens up the competition. The last couple of years have been a little one-sided given Red Bull's dominance and while this has not been strictly due to engines (Red Bull uses the same Renault engines as many of the other F1 teams) it would be nice to make them work just a little harder to win the title.

Ha, if I had anything to say about it, I'd outlaw anything on an F1 car that had a transistor of any sort in it, except for safety equipment.

No radios, no software engine management, no data collection. Auld Skool driver skill.

And the fact that the engine development freeze has been lifted (for a few years anyway) is equally exciting.

F1 is going the wrong direction.

Why do you feel that way?

I, at least, want to see fast cars. I don't care about any of the green stuff. It's a sport.

They are still going to be ridiculously fast cars.

Further on this, most people who don't really keep up with racing don't realize just how fast F1 cars.

Here's[1] a fantastic overlay of a very famous corner at Spa. FIA GT cars are not slow cars[2] but the differences are tremendous.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5dhhpSHCw [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_GT_Championship [BONUS IN CAR FOOTAGE] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0

I'd like to see that comparison between a F1 car and LMP1 car. considering that the LMP1 actually produces more downforce than a F1 car it should be interesting.

I do not think it is about being green. If anything, it is about keeping some kind of connection between the tech used in F1 and what eventually ends up in production cars. For example, Honda will be returning to F1 in 2015 to make engines for McLaren. Producing a few V10s for a constructor has no real tie to their core business, but a turbo V6 is very much in line with what their consumers are interested in.

Is it really about green? I thought it was more about enforcing cars that cost less to maintain throughout the course of a season. They have been heading that way for a long time, restricting teams to a set number of engines and gear boxes per season.

Its about attracting manufacturers with using engines which closer match the engines they sell in road cars. Ok, they happen to be greener, but add in the dev costs and these engines are more expensive.

They limit speed to save the lives of the drivers. They are capable of building much faster and more dangerous cars now but they don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com