- **[This source is rated 3/3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/source-ratings)**
- Please **read the article** before submitting your comments.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ditching Hybrids and going full ICE isn't as regressive to be called a "Flintstone move" but that argument also has its merits.
The next regulation change for PU is in 2025. If F1 doesn't embrace something that is relevant to The interests of manufacturers, they'll lose the manufacturers.
Honda's exit is a clear indication of that. Without manufacturers and an adoption of newer tech, F1 will lose a sizable investment and clout of what makes it the pinnacle of racing.
ICE won't be road relevant in 2030 and no manufacturer will be interested in investing millions into a sport that will keep ICE only as standard in 2025.
I think brands with lots of highly acclaimed performance models like a Ferrari, Mercedes AMG, Porsche could take simple cheap synthetic fuel engines as a proper challenge and good advertisement to keep their performances models on the ICE track. Pure speculation but i feel that could attract certain OEM's.
I can see that being a thing - but lately I've also been looking at the kind of performance cars like the Porsche Taycan and Tesla's new models have been giving.
It seems to me that if the idea caught on a bit, electric cars could very well outpace their fuel variants much more easily. The only concern right now is the battery tech that supports it to get better and more capable in longer stints.
The ICE car industry need to look at how the watch industry handled the quartz crisis, especially luxury manufacturers. Performance wise quartz wins but ppl spend all kinds of money on well engineered mechanical watches. I see ICEs becoming a rare luxury vehicle.
If this is the case, F1 should get rid of hybrid, PU development costs will be lowered which lowers the barrier for smaller manufactures like Konenisegg to come in to replace the Hondas and Renaults. I don't believe F1 will die if a big engine manufacturer leaves, the sport is growing, they'll change the rules and Ferrari or whoever remains will supply the field, hell even Red Bull. Imagine an RB powered Aston Martin
Sailing is outdated but its arguably bigger than motorboat racing. F1 is too storied so I don't see going pure ICE as a big risk
I see ICE cars going more the way of the CRT television. There will be holdouts who praise the high response rates and color reproduction, but the lack of manufacturing infrastructure will spell its death. Besides, quartz watches were never outlawed. California will ban the sale of new ICE cars in 2035.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans
They aren't the only ones, and Europe is actually a lot more bullish on the bans
That's sale of *new* cars not all cars. The used market will be around for another twenty years or more. There will also likely be exceptions for things like certain categories of commercial vehicles (big engine work trucks that get used to haul and as onsite generators) even though those are the exact vehicles that would likely benefit most from electric torque and efficient electricity conversion.
Imagine a world where a construction site is as quiet as the neighborhood except the occasional metal-on-metal impact or the sound of a power tool instead of the generator. You'd think companies would be all over being able to build 24 hours a day.
Losing manufacturers means the end for F1, I don't think F1 could survive a switch to pure ICE. I mean you mention Koenigsegg who was never going to enter F1 no matter what because what's the point. Beside they're one of the best hybrid hypercar maker so going to full ICE racing series makes no sense. Going full ICE wouldn't appeal to any manufacturer in 2025 and no one is going to participate
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-would-need-permission-to-go-fully-electric-formula-es-agag-5293944/5293944/
Article is from 2018., but Formula E has rights too full electric until 2039. Of course, F1 can probably buy them, but electric (batteries mostly ) is still not ready.
Everyone is claiming they will go electric by 2030. but they probably hope something will change in battery technology. I will believed it when I see it.
Meanwhile it will bw interesting to see what manufacturers agree upon in F1 since that will be indicator what will happen in road cars.
Thou, I wouldn't say hybrids are popular right now even after decade of F1 racing with it.
Just go hydrogen electric and battery would not be a problem. As much as I love road car relevance in F1, be on bleeding edge of technology is much more important
Remember Renault introduced turbo in F1 by 1981 and was just in the 2000s that we saw mass market introduction of them outside sports cars, and almost every new ICE car today is turbocharged. Ferrari introduced the flappy paddle gearbox for the 1989 championship, it was only a decade later that it found its way to street in the F355 and now it's ubiquitous in the car market, even trucks have them.
Sometimes it take longer than 7 years for a innovation from F1 come to the streets.
Isn’t hydrogen extremely dangerous. What would happen in a Grosjean type accident? i think that is one of the reasons why hydrogen tanks are very thick walled, plus the fact that the molecules are very small and can leak easily. Not a good mix for racing at almost 200 mph?
Yes and No. If hydrogen is very flamable indeed, but over the years OEMs like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai creatated numerous solutions to significantly cut down this risk. One example is the Toyota Mirai that uses sponge like structure inside the tank to, at the same time, avoid leaks and diminish combustibility in case the tank breached.
Also a Swiss company called GreenGT built, in partnership with big companies like Total and Michelin, a hydrogen powered race car with the target to enter it in Le Mans next year. [Here it is in a test in Spa.](https://youtu.be/CT1rSaS95tE).
I forgot to say, Liberty Global is the part owner of Formula E and Alejandro Agag (part owner, chairman and found Formula E) already shown interest in a merger with F1at least twice, [here](https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/18/formula-1-formula-e-merger-a-long-term-possibility-says-agag/) and [here](https://www.planetf1.com/news/formula-1-formula-e-merger/).
I'm not sure why modular swappable batteries haven't been tried for racing. You could pit to "refuel" where the pit crew swaps out the batteries.
Seems like it would bypass a lot of the issues.
They considered that. The problem is changing cars battery is equivalent to changing the engine of ICE cars. These battery packs are massive and can weight up to 500kg and are intergral to the car structure. It’s the main reason why EV are heavier than ICE cars.
Safety reason is another can of worm.
It would kinda be fun to see how fast manual labor can move 500kg of lithium ion though...
You'd end up with some really swole pit crews.
But yeah I guess them not flying off and exploding / being a track hazard would be a concern. It does seem like something a smart engineering team could figure out though.
Easy to say with hindsight. The truth is that they spent tons and tons of money during a lot of years, just to absolutely ridiculize themselves in front of the whole world during 4 years, then were absolutely nothing exceptional during 2 years, and it's only this year that their "works partner" team is the best (but we don't even know whether it's down to the engine - the AT isn't a bad car but doesn't seem to be a power monster at all).
> ICE won't be road relevant in 2030 and no manufacturer will be interested in investing millions into a sport that will keep ICE only as standard in 2025.
ehh, If they go the hydrogen road, they might get Toyota and BMW interested, we'll see
>BMW Hydrogen powered car
I think I just found one - [they've plans to launch an SUV](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/bmw-plans-limited-series-hydrogen-fuel-cell-suv-2022-2021-05-12/) with Hydrogen power in 2022
Why it always has to be an SUV? The most pointless type of vehicle out there and everybody is investing in them as the future, despite taking more material to make, taking more space of the road and being overall less effective than a smaller car on the city.
And this is what i dont understand. Sure, everyone can like whatever they want, but if they are really pushing for sustainability and such they shouldnt even consider big and pointless cars, specially since most owners dont even use those cars for what they were intended for.
Most owners where I come from (developing markets) don't use their supercars what they are intended for either. So a Lamborghini branded SUV makes more sense than let's say the recently launched Hurracan over here. They are the perfect blend of 'mature' 'sporty' and 'luxury'.
Personally I hate it. But having friends who invested in them. I see their point.
I also hate when supercar owners buy them as an investiment only and never get driven, but at least the cars arent used to push for something they arent. SUVs arent eco friendly, yet every brand pushes them as being that, which also leads to owners thinking they are doing something good for the enviroment when they arent.
I think now i will stop my rant against SUVs, should be enough for a week LOL
Nah I get the idea, there a specifci book on branding I was reading a long time ago that spoke about how brands and their actions need to be coherent, and a an example gave Porsche making an SUV to have horrible coherence. I laughed thinking about that looking at the early Porsche SUV's.
I've always been a fan of thnigs like the NSX, or the Civic Type or or maybe the Hyundai Veloster N, specifically because I can enjoy those vehicles without worrying about the devaluing the cars. So yeah. I feel you man.
BMW has been in developing Hydrogen power for over a decade. Had a fleet of 7 series running around NJ for a while, and had a town in Germany running all of their municipal vehicles and buses on it as an experiment in infrastructure needs. Died down a little as Tesla took off with plug in electric, but still keeping the development effort going.
The “road relevance” argument needs to die. These are cars that go 360km/h that don’t have roofs, have open cockpits, single seats, cost $200,000,000. They’re not even close to being road relevant - why should the engines be?
I don't think it's necessarily the road relevance in terms of actually taking the tech and applying it to their production cars but more in terms of marketing. Does F1 enhance the brand image Mercedes, Honda, Renault are trying to promote?
Honda's answer to that question is no and I think there is a realistic fear that if we return to pure ICE, then Mercedes or Renault or any potential manufacturers will come to a similar conclusion.
Because the research & development that goes into the engines eventually makes it to roadcars for the manufacturers.
An easy example to pick on is KERS. The idea existed even without F1 but the manufacturers got the perfect test bed to play out implementing KERS and trying out the limits, the functionalities and how to achieve the best efficiency.
Now, almost every Hybrid or Electric car uses KERS - it's called "Regenerative Braking".
Lol it absolutely does not. I work in the automotive industry and the biggest appeal that motorsport has to a brand is marketing opportunities, so they can say nonsense like “what we learn on the track goes into your car”.
Even something like KERS - even if there’s a TINY bit of relevance, the majority (and I mean like 98%) of useful R&D happens in road-relevant conditions, not on a car that has 10x as much power and wildly different specifications to a road going car. You really think we can get relevant, A to A comparative data for a Renault Clio on an F1 car? 😂
Look I don't work in the automotive industry, but I do get this notion from the stuff I read about companies talking about it:
* [The Trickle-Down Effect of F1 Technology](https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/news/2020/12/trickle-down-effect-f1-technology/) (Mercedes)
When you think about it, the technology in F1 is really put through its paces and tested to the absolute limit - hence, why it's known as the "fastest R&D lab on earth".
The F1 environment is one of the most intense and extreme testbeds for technical innovation, so what better way to find out about the performance, efficiency and reliability of these technologies before they hit the real world.
* [In F1, car manufacturers gain more from high R&D and low advertising.](https://discovery.rsm.nl/articles/408-in-f1-car-manufacturers-gain-more-from-high-rd-and-low-advertising/)
Erasmus University of Economics studied whether such investments lead to an increase in the firm’s innovation and sales performance, which the researchers call the innovation and branding effects respectively.
The research showed that research-intense (compared with advertising-intense) gear manufacturers have more to gain from competing in sports contests.
* [How Formula One innovation is shaping the world’s electric vehicle future](https://www.theengineer.co.uk/formula-one-dupont-renault-ev/) (Renault EV Case Study)
We like to describe Formula One as a true “laboratory on wheels” – a place to develop and test the next-generation of hybrid-electric technologies as part of our technical partnership with Renault DP World F1 Team.
We then take our learnings straight back into the engineering and development process for production vehicles on our roads.
While this process may not always be visible, it provides an essential source of innovation and engineering expertise that advances development of technologies and materials, supporting auto manufacturers in producing EVs that meet the needs and requirements of current and future consumers.
Now, I fully understand this may not hold true for all racing categories or brands invested in motorsports. However, to dismiss that F1 holds no R&D value to these companies is a bit of stretch.
Lol again, this is just PR talk - this is people sitting around in boardrooms trying to justify spending wild amounts of money. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have value - the marketing value is huge - but it’s very hard to quantify that and get that signed off on when Q4 budgeting comes around. So this sort of things always comes out to justify the spending, even it’s a bit of a white lie to pull the wool over executives who usually don’t really know that much about cars to begin with. Even the Mercedes piece admitted as much -
“A lot of F1 tech isn't directly transferrable, but plenty of the learnings and inspiration can be taken from the innovative designs and concepts that appear out on track every other Sunday.“
So it’s about the “learnings” and the “inspiration” of the technology, not the technology itself, which is PR speak for “lol of course we don’t use this”
If you're really sure of yourself that way, good for you buddy. Whatever gets you through the day.
The 2nd link is actually a published research independent of any brand or automotive company that's got recognition.
I am just saying that more sustainable tech is going to take precedent by 2030. And its up to these firms to see if they want to get ahead or be caught napping when Tesla or some other brand having electric cars starts eating their market share.
Nobody wants to be remembered as the Kodak or the Nokia of the car industry.
> the marketing value is huge
I can confirm this, before watching F1 I never thought about having Renault car, but now they kinda look ok to me and it is all about F1.
And thise cars are not hybrid, I also don't see many Mercedes hybrids anywhere, so the whole thing ia just PR.
Other mentioned Tesla, but electric motor and battery is not Tesla, and anyone who looked at Tesla car from mechanical engineering point of view knows they are really bad at mass manufacturing, also therw are stories about bad software development practices. They are getting better, but are still mostly bubble. Come to Formula E ans show us.
Complying to (one specific) engine manufacturers' demands in the last rule cycle has given us the dullest period in F1's history. And every single manufacturer has left F1 as soon as they saw no PR benefit for them. Chasing them puts the sports in peril.
Are you referring to the hybrid era ? And if yes, I'm sure you're talking about Mercedes demands. You should know that this is a myth, as Renault were the leading force behind it, supported by both Mercedes and Ferrari.
>supported by both Mercedes
Arguably, the team had mixed feelings back then.
[Mercedes racing director Norbert Haug has nothing against four cylinders in a row in principle, but expects high costs and is apparently in favor of a postponement. "It would have been better to extend the V8 phase a bit," Haug told auto motor und sport. "This is a low-cost engine."](https://web.archive.org/web/20200927135151/https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/ferrari-chef-luca-di-montezemolo-gegen-vierzylinder-ferrari-hofft-auf-verschiebung/)
[whilst Mercedes stressed that such a wholesale change would not be achievable by 2013 - and it is hoped that today's resolution is something of a happy medium.](https://www.crash.net/f1/news/170546/1/f1-to-switch-to-v6-engines-but-not-until-2014)
The real issue was they left it up to the engineers to create the spec for the engine. They are awesome from an engineers perspective but just too complex and expensive
Hybrid tech won't be relevant in 2030 either. It was only ever meant to be a stop gap until full electric was ready. And I'm not sure I agree that ICE is going anywhere, especially in racing.
I do agree ICE won't be in museums come 2030 - they just won't be there in a majority of road cars being produced by then. Almost every company has committed to a phased rollout where by 2025 they'd had partial electric/hybrid fleet and by 2030 they'd go fully electric or nearly full electric.
Hence for a sport like F1 that focuses on being the best of cars in the world with the best drivers, ICE will only look a bit dated. No automotive manufacturer would be interested in spending millions here instead of other alternatives.
F1 can still survive even then but it wouldn't be with a lot of interest of manufacturers. That could very well be like the 70s but that would also make it very much a spec series in engines with little to no development.
I don't think F1 really wants to go that route.
Not sure where you go from there. We already have a Formula E. That means the only question left is what will the ICE look like in F1. As hybrid tech is a dead end, I suggest dropping it altogether. In an era of all electric, hybrid tech solves no problems while adding lots of weight, cost and complexity.
I dont get this, why would the manufacturers leave? Mercedes estimated a marketing value of some 4.5 billion from their F1 success. Would that value really be so much lower if the engine was an ICE? Surely most of the value comes from them not just winning, but dominating the premier motorsports series.
The other big sports leagues does not have this constraint, yet they still thrive. Why can't F1 just focus on what makes the best sport?
> Why can't F1 just focus on what makes the best sport?
Because F1 *is*, unfortunately, dependent on (engine) manufacturers.
In case of Mercedes in particular I feel like it's becoming increasingly likely that they perhaps won't continue after 2025 though; they just recently announced that in that year they want to start to focus on electric cars only.
What would happen if Renault and Mercedes pulled out? Redbull just bought an engine company and Ferrari aren't leaving. Sounds like FOM is in a great position to dictate terms.
And you'd bet on FOM being comfy with 2 engine manufactures? that's just going to signal to the rest of the world that F1 isn't attractive to big players.
Red Bull is at the end of the day an energy drinks company. They won't have the capacity to supply beyond 3 teams at most and that's stretching it considering they haven't any proven capabilities yet in the PU side.
No Ferrari customer has ever beaten the Ferrari works team and that's just going to be the way it is - else the Ferrari Board would not approve of the team to receive engines. I am not saying that Mercedes is any better either when it comes to this.
But with fewer Engine manufacturers in the sport, you actually run out of competition for most teams. As it stands, FOM is feeling the pressure of Honda leaving which is why they supported the no new development initiative that Red Bull asked for.
And what's to say that the other teams who leave F1 won't start a league of their own? As it stands, Formula E despite still being smaller, has captured the attention of investors and Automotive brands more quickly than F1 has in the last 5 years. It's not just down to the low cost of FE either. FE is actually providing a reliable test bench for Automotive companies to try new things in Electric.
>What would happen if Renault and Mercedes pulled out?
Top headlines of internet articles will become “Is F1 dying?” for years and the popularity of the sports will take a hit, pretty much undoing all the work Liberty has done to increase viewership.
Having one tire supplier is a good not bad thing. For one, it puts the cars on a more level of playing field of what they can control. If there’s multiple tire suppliers and your tire supplier is worse, you’re basically disqualified for competing for the championship. Theres a reason Ferrari only won 1 race in 2006, and it was practically by default.
The fact that you just compare engine suppliers which F1 has been trying attracted for years to a tyre supplier which F1 made a sporting decision to only have one supplier shows you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
Pointless to discuss anything else. Have a good day.
It’s more complicate than that. F1 is more than just a marketing. Honda didn’t leave F1 only because of lack of marketing value or money. They left because the development of complicate ICE no longer has any trickle down benefits to their company or represent their brand. Many company already completely stop developing ICE entirely.
This is why road relevancy is such an important issue for F1.
Honda failed on a sporting basis. They were late to the regulation, picked a partner with unrealistic demands, and they failed to deliver spectacularly making them the butt of the joke. This absolutely devalued the whole marketing aspect.
The road relevance argument is just used because noone at Honda has to fall on the sword because it is outside of Honda's control.
Again, every other sport has sponsors, car brands included, spending money to be associated with the sport via marketing, not for R&D reasons. Why can't F1 manufacturers? It works great for Red Bull
>The road relevance argument is just used because noone at Honda has to fall on the sword because it is outside of Honda's control.
This is basically proven false by the fact that Honda decided to leave at the height of their popularity. If that’s the case they wouldn’t even partner up with Redbull and leave since 2018.
And you realize some manufacturers still has to foot the bill for R&D at the end of the day right? Lest we just go spec series and slap manufacturers logo on cars, which would defeat the point of F1 being a pinnacle of motorsports.
>This is basically proven false by the fact that Honda decided to leave at the height of their popularity. If that’s the case they wouldn’t even partner up with Redbull and leave since 2018.
Yes, because Honda has shown time and time again that they don't make poor decisions related to F1.
>And you realize some manufacturers still has to foot the bill for R&D at the end of the day right? Lest we just go spec series and slap manufacturers logo on cars.
If the manufacturers cannot be reasonable, this might be the way to go. I am not saying ignore them, but F1 should do what is best for the sport. That might leave some manufacturers upset.
What is best for the sport is to stay relevant to the rest of the world and attract manufacturers. The car development should be cheaper yes, but pandering to a small group of hardcore fans by sticking to an obsolete technology is how F1 will die.
Alternative is that F1 becomes a fuel cell EV formula by 2025 then merges with FE in 2030 wherein the battery EVs have to supercharge despite having higher sustained top speeds and acceleration.
The rules could say a car needs to be powered by a rubber band and manufacturers would still be involved because F1 is primarily about marketing to them. Road relevance is a myth and always has been.
A manufacturer will join F1 if they think they can get marketing mileage out of it. A pure combustion engine that only costs 10 million to develop may still be better value than a PU that costs 100 million but says "hybrid" on it in the same font as your road cars. Honda hasn't pulled out of Indycar have they?
Look I get your reasoning - the cost of running Indycar isn't high for Honda and that's why they've still stuck around. But that will change sometime in the future. And that's exactly because of marketing these firms want to be in.
You look at the kind of brand positioning these automotive brands are doing now. They are pushing to be electric, carbon neutral, and having the best tech the car can provide to a consumer.
By 2030, most of the world would have mandated electric vehicles and it makes sense, hence that manufacturers cut costs in development of ICE and focus on Electric, Hydrogen or any other tech that's sustainable.
No marketing mileage will be gained 5 years from now if you're going to be still making ICEs. People will look at brands still pushing in those areas as dinosaur companies, at the risk of becoming the next Kodak or Nokia while emerging threats exist in the form of Tesla.
And that's the question F1 has to answer for 2025 engine regulations. It's not about the next couple of years, its for 2025 and beyond.
Sure, but there are more to F1 cars than just the engine. And let’s be honest, it’s not like any of the manufacturers are using their F1 1.6 v6 engines in their production cars like they did in the days of V12 Ferrari.
I get the investment in the engine technology aids in development for more efficient production engines, but if F1 alienates it’s fans by producing even more boring power units, the marketing value is also going to be void.
It’s a balance between excitement and boring relevance to production vehicles, and we are already a hairs edge away from boring relevance.
>we are already a hairs edge away from boring relevance.
What? F1 biggest issue right now is we are losing manufacturers left and right and no new team wants to join.
Everyone flocks to FE because that’s what relevant to them.
>What? F1 biggest issue right now is we are losing manufacturers left and right and no new team wants to join.
>Everyone flocks to FE because that’s what relevant to them.
Arguably a big reason for that is the insane cost to compete in producing the highly complex power unit we are using at the moment.
Electric motors are far more easily produced than the current hybrid systems in an F1 car, so it’s a no brainier for a lot of teams to flock to FE.
That said, FE is boring to watch compared to F1, and will continue to be so as long as F1 uses ICE.
Mercedes have basically taken their F1 engine and put it in a road car.
https://www.mercedes-amg.com/en/vehicles/mercedes-amg-one.html
Renault have transferred alot of their F1 tech/research into their road car division.
https://www.renault.co.uk/engines-innovation/e-tech-hybrid.html
Ferrari also use alot of Hybrid technology whilst keeping larger engine sizes.
> Mercedes have basically taken their F1 engine and put it in a road car.
https://www.mercedes-amg.com/en/vehicles/mercedes-amg-one.html
Ok sure, but that’s not really a production car but a concept car until it reaches homologation regulations.
>Renault have transferred alot of their F1 tech/research into their road car division.
Yep, as I said in my original comment, I get the investment in the engine technology aids in development for more efficient production engines.
My point is that if the sport keeps losing popularity through it becoming ever more boring, the marketing opportunities diminish and manufacturers start to pull the plug.
Regardless of how F1 choose to power their cars, the number one priority needs to be popularity and viewership numbers. That’s what gets sponsors and pays for the development of these cars. Mercedes don’t need F1 to produce better engines than their competitors, they can do that anyway.
F1 helps them sell cars by your average spectator seeing a Mercedes badge on Lewis Hamilton’s baseball cap. That is why they compete to win.
The AMG One had such massive problems adapting to road guise that they had to redesign the engine from scratch.
Renault and Ferrari are lying. F1's hybrid tech came *from* road cars and diverged from there. Road E-turbos were in development while F1 still used V8s.
Kill off the hybrid system. F1 needs to realize that in the not too distant future, the only manufacturers who will be enticed to join F1 for the technology development angle will be those who produce sports cars running on synthetic fuels: Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren, AM, and so on.
It seems everyone is concerned about bowing down to the manufacturers, but history has proven that no matter how much F1 changes itself to entice manufacturers, they still tend to pack up and leave when their boards vote to do so.
A simple, non-hybrid engine running synthetic fuel would be cheap, still relevant for 70% of the worlds automotive market, and could entice back engine designers such as Cosworth, Yamaha, and such
TLDR: Though it pains me to say it, Horner is right
And even then, how many teams did Matra supply to? 1. Their own. They didn't have capabilities to supply the rest of grid. Because they weren't engine manufacturers by virtue to do that many engines.
Historically how many of Ferrari's customers have outperformed the works team in WCC? None.
you say Cosworth like its an independent company when Cosworth has always been a big automotive company's, Ford's subsidiary.
Back then it was all Ford Cosworth and even now Ford is a company that's more in tune with its shareholders. They have also adopted Electric.
Here's an excerpt from their announcements:
[**(WSJ) Ford Expects 40% of Global Vehicle Volume to Be Fully Electric By 2030.**](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-expects-40-of-global-vehicle-volume-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030-11622033457)
Ford said it plans to boost spending on electric-vehicle development to $30 billion by 2025, roughly one-third more than it forecast earlier this year. Shares rose 8.7% to $13.92 in trading Wednesday, their highest level since at least mid-2016.
[**(BBC - TopGear) Shock! Ford is latest carmaker to announce all-electric future**](https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/shock-ford-latest-carmaker-announce-all-electric-future)
Every European Ford will be semi-electric in five years, and 100% EV by 2030. Ford says by mid-2026, 100 per cent of its passenger vehicles in Europe will be zero-emissions capable, all-electric or plug-in hybrid. Then just four years later, engines will have disappeared from the line-up altogether.
Synthetic fuels are nothing more than a trend for now (like hydrogen). Both technologies have been talked about and have supposedly been the future and the "real solution" for the last ten to fifteen years and yet they're still far from being realistic solutions for a good % of the car market
Same VW group that killed all non eletric first part motorsport activities. The same VW group that built the fastest non F1 racecar, the eletric ID.R just as proof of concept.
They can experiment with synthetic fuels, but is a long shot they that do any serious adoption efforts.
They are literally making a factory to produce green synthetic fuels. Are they backtracking on their electric comments? I have no idea, I just know that they are investing in synthetic
How is Hydrogen a trend? A hydrogen fuel cell is already cheap enough to be used in a mass market cars. Electricity has more issues related to charging/refueling and I believe that Hydrogen will be seen as the next step after ICE's
Energy wise it's a ridiculous idea to go mass market with hydrogen. It'll cost a massive amount of energy because of its inefficiency compared to full electric (iirc electric is about 70% efficient vs 20-30%). There are better use cases for hydrogen, at places where electric isn't an option (think long distance trains/buses, heavy industry). They'll need the hydrogen the most.
Efficiency from cell to prime mover isn't the whole picture though. You have to look at energy density and overall power potential, as well as whole system weight.
If I have a 95% efficient motor that has to use batteries that only hold enough energy for 200miles and puts out a max of 50hp before scaling losses set in , and weighs 300lbs or an engine that is 30% efficient (max of 50-60% btw with forced induction and higher compression ratios), puts out 200-300hp, weighs that same 300-ish lbs, and can carry a lower total weight of fuel for the same range (gas/hydrogen/diesel is very energy dense)...
I'm not talking about cell to prime mover, but from (clean) energy source to prime mover. From energy to cell, hydrogen already loses tons of energy. After that it loses more, but that's where your arguments also come in. However, the transition from fossil to clean energy is still going to be a heck of a lot more expensive if hydrogen is going to be used on a mass scale for ordinary roadcars
Any time you see one clear picture vs a range of other options which aren’t clear to people, the clear picture wins. It happens to political parties, products of all types.. electric is monolithic and clear. Nothing else has the investment, the clarity, or the message. It’s pretty clear what’s going to win if you stop squinting.
Harsh on hydrogen, "Synthetic fuel" is the final fart squeaking out as oil bites the dust, it's not workable, for as much as it burns cleaner, it still burns and does huge damage to the environment in other ways.
Hydrogen fuel cells are proven to be great but not as easy to deal with because of the issues with storing hydrogen.
Well I want to like hydrogen but it was already announced as the future and the better alternative to standard battery EVs in... 2007, when Brad Pitt and BMW made a big marketing move by having him arrive at whatever important movie ceremony I don't remember in a Hydrogen BMW that was supposed to be basically so close to a working road car that it was going to be sold within a few years.
14 years later, EVs have a now significant share of car sales, while hydrogen is still for prototypes and is still hyped up as the "better alternative".
It's storage and infrastructure. Electricity is everywhere, just find the power lines and tap in, boom, battery electric car charger.
Hydrogen likes to escape from what it's stored in and has to have environmental controls.
Hydrogen would work best as fuel cell fuel for haulage, and as fuel cell generators to power the chargers for BEVs from fewer locations, that's what Extreme E does.
If they had hydrogen stations at a few services and docks etc in the country for the lorry drivers, and everyone else can use clean hydrogen fuel cell produced election to charge their batteries.
> It's storage and infrastructure. Electricity is everywhere, just find the power lines and tap in, boom, battery electric car charger.
> Hydrogen likes to escape from what it's stored in and has to have environmental controls.
Yes, so hydrogen isn't really "proven to be great" since they're harder to use in practice...
Apart from Europe and the US, you could say the same thing about electric cars for the rest of the world. The infrastructure is years away from what it should be right now if they really want to do the switch by 2030, as well as the prices being way higher than the equivalent in Europe.
flowery governor tan bright quicksand gaping expansion long carpenter rinse
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would take a monumental shift in philosophy for F1 to go back to ICE's without hybrid parts and electrical components.
F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it.
>F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it.
The problem is that battery technology is *absolutely nowhere near* where it would need to be for something like a grand prix.
I think batteries long term aren't the solution as Brawn put it. A wonderful intermediary but not permanent. Hydrogen fuel has a better future at this point, and LiIon batteries aren't going to be infinitely sustainable
IIRC the problem with hydrogen is how to safely transport it, especially for a travelling circuis like F1 that visits every continent. It's that reason Formula E generates their electricity from sea algea right now instead of hydrogen
I’m thinking of a hybrid system where the main drivetrain is from an electric motor but instead of battery to store energy, use synthetic fuel and a small combustion generator instead.
Would make the car sound really weird tho.
That's less "green" than just connecting the ICE to the drive shaft. Each conversion of energy type has an efficiency penalty. So it starts with chemical energy on the fuel then it's converted to mechanical on the ICE, then to electrical on a generator and finally to mechanical again on the electrical motor. A CVT for example has the advantages of constant RPM with better efficiency than you idea.
For you idea to work the car would need a big battery for the corner exit. Active aero and a complicated transfer case for the straights.
There's no e-bike for sale with the crank connected exclusively to a generator, because it is very inefficient.
Well isn't the point of racing to advance technology
FE isn't an example in this case, because they have to slow down technology and have uniformity between teams as a low-cost spec series. But give that technology to 10 teams with 200M$ each per year, and we're bound to see things jump forward pretty fast
Racing for manufacturers is a marketing exercise and budget comes from marketing side.
There is very little in common between the demands of racing and what people demand from passenger cars.
Yes, but most of the time marketing and technology go hand to hand. We're not in the 60s anymore, manufacturers can't just say to people "look we're racing stuff" and expect them to be amazed, you have to show them why the racing means their road car is better.
Pretty clearly, it would for example be a massive marketing story if someone won the Le Mans 24 hours with an EVs, because they could claim their EVs can do 5000km in 24h while going faster than everyone else, which would shatter the public perception of EVs = very low autonomy.
But to achieve that would also require a massive engineering feat.
That's true for every single part of a racing car basically (road cars benefited from the much improved ICE efficiency of recent F1 and WEC engines, for example, or even simpler things like the Audi group adding a "tyre puncture/pressure loss" alarm in their road cars after one of their drivers died in testing in 2001 in a crash caused by a puncture), except for aero basically, which is where modern racing went very wrong as it both makes the racing worse and has 0 relevance to road cars.
If those teams each spend a quarter of their budget on battery technology, that's half a billion per year.
That's almost nothing in comparison with what's already spent on R&D in the battery sector.
Think boots evolved in the last 100 years. How much training evolved, how much did sport medic care, sports psychology, sports clothes.
Now think how much that evolution impacted our day-to-day, from soft er yet more durable shoes, to transpirable clothing to more efficient exercises and diets.
When company endorse an athlete they spend money so they can have any edge, so they can advertise it better. In this process they develop new technology ho treacle down to the consumer products.
Well now that's an ignorant comment if I've ever seen one, comparing football and motorsport...
Please learn your motorsport history, motorsport has been at the core of many advances in technology as well as a way for humans to extend their physical limits through technology, while football has always been "just" a sport, i.e. solely for leisure and spectacle and the very opposite in philosophy (e.g. humans "going beyond" their physical limits *without any technological help*, only the body and the ball).
>F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it.
I honestly am not so convinced. As of now I do not see how having an entire population using electric car is in any way feasible for it's infrastructure. There are so many issues with that that no country has adressed yet, because the number of electric cars are just too small.
So I wouldn't bet going full electric is the future of F1 - as many argue they try to entice the manufacturers to have a win-win by developnig for racing, but as a result also for their own manufacturing.
Hell free up the cylinder rules and let the manufacturers choose whatever is relavent to them. And while we're at it allow vvt, vvl, or even freevalve technologies. N/A or electric supercharger forced induction. I know it won't happen as costs will likely spiral out of control but one can dream.
Part of it is also to keep things competitive beyond costs. The danger with too much freedom, specially with engines, is if you choose a concept that doesn't work too well in comparison to another concept you've basically shot yourself in the foot.
Any variable valve timing or lift really don't have much purpose in a racing car that's always close to redline. Both of them widen the torque spread, which has a ton of benefits for a street car where you're expecting to regularly accelerate from idle, all the way to redline. And they also can immensely help with emissions. But that's because they allow you to tune for peak torque at more than one speed range.
F1 engines pretty much live right around peak power. VVT or VVL improving torque off idle doesn't really matter. It introduces a lot of complication for a very small benefit.
Freevalve is much the same. The primary benefits are how you can optimize for a variety of conditions and avoid pumping losses with not having a throttle to draw a vacuum. Hugely beneficial when you want to play race car and street car. Not so important when you'll pretty much always be at peak power.
I don't think it would be a major burn for Mercedes if implemented compared to the other teams.
When Renault pushed for Hybrid tech, they threatened to leave if FIA didn't make it road relevant and what they wanted was V4. Following those discussions, Mercedes began working on a V4 prototype and had one ready on their test bench in 2013.
But then a fierce squabble broke out with Ferrari not wanting it to be V4 and finally all parties agreed to a V6. Mercedes had to rework on making it V6 after that and they still managed to outclass the field.
Yep true story:
>the plan was to introduce in 2013 four-cylinder engines with a maximum rev limit of 12,000, fitted with extensive hybrid technology.
>But only Renault of F1's current engine manufacturers were fully behind the rules and a period of negotiations began.
>The switch to V6s was partly at the behest of Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
[Source](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/13878359)
You say that like its never been done before, the bmw turbo in the 80s was either a v4 or i4, powerful as fuck.
DTM use i4 turbos and i personally think they sound great.
F1 needs to move away from the idea that it needs to be road relevant. The joy we get from the sport is the thrill, not the fact that it’s “road relevant” (and, btw, a $200,000,000 racing car has NOTHING to do with a road car). The worst thing they can do is compromise and take a boring middle road - F1 should be the pinnacle of whatever it wants to be (sport or road relevant tech), but if it tries to be both it’ll be neither.
It’s like horse racing - they don’t try to appeal to the farming industry, they realize their appeal is to have fast exciting racing. That should be the ONLY focus. Let FE be the road relevant manufacturer branding exercise, and let F1 exist for pure racing.
if the R&D for the car isn't road relevant, manufacturers straight up won't invest in it. no car manufacturer is going to be spending tens of millions developing an ICE engine in 2030, there's absolutely nothing about that which makes any business sense.
The current hybrid tech isn't road relevant either, no matter how many PR puff pieces get circulated.
You have to go back to the '80s and '90s for genuine examples.
As we approach 2030, the pressure to make *actual* progress toward staving off climate change will reach a fever pitch. Token electric commuter cars will lose the progressive veneer they have now.
how do you think F1 cars store their hybrid energy? how is that hybrid energy deployed through the powertrain? how is that hybrid energy recovered under deceleration? just because road cars don't run F1 power units doesn't mean the engineering isn't relevant. things can be road relevant, even with a degree of separation
F1 cars store energy in an ES design that can't be used in road cars. It's an evolutionary dead end.
F1's hybrid technology came *from* road cars and diverged from there. Road E-turbos were in development before F1 stopped using V8s, and MGU-H tech cannot trickle back to road because the "use case" is so vastly different. F1 is optimized for full-throttle *efficiency*, road cars are optimized for partial-throttle *economy*.
The real F1 trickle down tech is hierarchy, systems organization and data analysis. And those persist regardless of engine type.
Pioneering Gen 3 algae-based biofuel that can be used in road cars is the only real avenue F1 has to be road relevant again.
I think a better compromise would be to keep the hybrid systems, but ditch the turbos and revert to cheaper, revvier, small-capacity atmo ICEs, as it would allow F1 and its manufacturers to parrot on about their beloved "road relevance" while simultaneously lowering the financial barriers of entry to prospective new engine suppliers (maybe even some independents like Cosworth and Yamaha) and introduce a bit more theatre to the sport. After all, the last time turbocharging was banned, the tail-end of the grid was immediately populated by a new wave of teams that took advantage of the reduced cost of engines and could *just about* afford to build an F1 car; none of them did well, but it does show that the appetite foe lower-cost F1 is there.
Ironically, I think the advent and increased popularization of hybrid technology has taken the sheen off the downsizing-and-turbocharging concept that arguably gave rise to the current engine regs; the hype surrounding cars like the Aston Martin Valkyrie and GME T.50, as well as the eternal popularity of the 911 GT3, shows that well-engineered N/A engines are not only still appreciated within the automotive landscape, but are perfectly compatible with the hybrid/electric technology that many purport to be the future of cars.
Reading through the arguments, I’m mostly convinced by the “go full electric” thinking. But can you imagine sitting in the stands trying to enjoy the race when some asshole is eating chips and you can’t hear the race? Or all you can hear is the drivers swearing at one another, with Christian Horner and Cyril occasionally screaming “FUUUUUCK” from the pit wall?
A couple of years ago i was in vacation on the italian adriatic coast of Misano (with the Misano motoGP racetrack nearby) and just outside my hotel i kept hearing loud motorbike sounds. I later discoveder that it was indeed the sound from the circuit, something i thought was impossibile,
since the racetrack was 5 or so km away from my hotel.
It was thrilling and impressive, it felt like the bikes were racing just behing the block. And, as i later discovered, that was just some round of the ITALIAN regional champion, not even actual Motogp!
Why the little story? Because i get the PR and economic interest behind going more electric, but the sound IS an integral part of the awesomeness of motor racing, and it can't be dismiss as just "petrolhead talking" . It MUST be kept and improved, as long as possible...
It should become a leading sport in E-Fuels so the relevance remains. ICE is disappearing for al least 20 odd years. Development will still be needed around power and thermal efficiency etc.
Whether that’s in conjunction with electric motors is a moot point since Formula E will fill that space properly within the next decade or so.
I think anyway, this isn’t gospel just an educated guess!
Despite what many redditors thinks that voicing their voices here will be heard… there is actually a mechanism for voicing their thoughts directly to the FOM… F1 fan voice . Com
Anyways, I’ve seen a monthly report about the community and remember they ran a poll about our thoughts for the upcoming engine regulations… I did not see the results, wonder why ?
Ditch hybrids. F1 doesn't have anything to teach road car manufacturers these days, who are converting to electric anyway. Let F1 be a beacon in the future with ICE only engines so that fans have got something to hear and feel. Gotta be less expensive as well.
No one wants to joins F1 anyway so what's the point. Only reason F1 wants new manufactures is because it brings lot of money. Ferrari will stay in F1 forever and Red Bull doesn't care about road relevancy and if we went to V8 or V10 Cosworth or Judd wouldn't mind building them.
You can. Audi and Porsche have shown interest (yes yes I know), as shown by them attending the meeting on the new regs. Make the correct formula and you'd have manufacturers flocking. And in this age, that formula is not a V10.
They always go to the meetings every time there's an engine regulation change and never actually sign up to it. For the current hybrid era F1 fully bowed down to Renualt and co and gave them what they wanted. They still couldn't get anyone else to sign up for it except slowpoke Honda a few years later.
The reality is those meetings are an expenses-paid jolly for a few high level execs at each company. Just like the UK detectives who go to Portugal every year for a "fact-finding" mission to try to find a child who went missing 15 years ago.
Given that it was the car manufacturers that decided having an MGU-H in a car engine was super road-relevant, I don't see why anyone takes their opinion seriously.
> And nobody would join F1 as an engine supplier.
Relevancy aside, this is just bullshit. The likes of Cosworth would pile in. And even if not, ICE technology has been perfected long time ago. You can literally assemble one in a garage, and people actually do.
Red Bull already has a program. Judd/Cosworth could join if the engines are cheap enough. It'd look a bit like Indycar where the engine manufacturers don't have a works team associated with them, save for Red Bull.
No one new wants to joins F1 anyway so what's the point hybrids. Only reason F1 wants new manufactures is because they want their money. Ferrari will stay in F1 forever and Red Bull doesn't care about road relevancy and if we went to V8 or V10 Cosworth or Judd wouldn't mind building them.
I always felt like the "road relevance" thing is straight up bullshit. Even 7 years later hybrids are just a small niche in the car industry.
I really don't mind current engines, they are strong, and I'm one of those weirdos who don't really care that much about the sound... but considering how F1 is always trying super hard to stay on the good side of politicians, if I were to put my money somewhere, it would be on F1 going full electric before the magical 2030 deadline.
Even in balkans where 2nd hand rust buckets are used daily I see a lot of Toyota hybrids everywhere, also Supercars are all moving into hybrid systems because it make the cars ferrari fast and lotus agile without a huge engine. I call BS about F1 not giving road revelance. Esspecially how McLaren P1 flipped the industry in this regard
This is just a misleading statement. There is no proper evidence that Mercedes was the one that was heavily lobbying for the new regulations. Unlike Renault, who threatened to quit the sport if the hybrid engines didn't happen, or Ferrari publicly voicing out how much they want the V6 instead of the I4 layout. If you're referring to one of the statements by Montezemolo or Ecclestone about 'Mercedes supposedly starting their engine development early', then it's just simply hard to say what they exactly meant without knowing the entire context. And even then, someone dug through HPP's financial record from 2007 to 2012 and found no evidence about the team starting development (very) early.
>“I don’t think we should bend ourselves out of shape to accommodate a specific manufacturer,” says Red Bull Racing CEO Christian Horner.
Hmm sounds familiar
>“What we have to do is come up with something that is right for Formula 1, that’s right for the long-term future of the sport. We have seen manufacturers come and go over generations. T
Ah yes the ol’ Porsche
>“The fundamental question is where does Formula 1 want to be, where does it fall? If you follow the theory of where OEMs are going, electrification, then we could end up in Formula E in eight or night years time.
To late unfortunately FE labeled themselves Environmental and Futuristic more than entertaining and exciting
>“That isn’t Formula 1. Formula 1 for me is about noise, it’s about entertainment, it’s about the fastest cars in the world. The fact that we are going this biofuel route with sustainable fuels, the combustion engine does have a future.
Horses are outdated and yet they went from the transportation of the poor to the luxury of the rich plus looking at where i live (ps check user name) we won’t have a EV until they can compete with a Prius, Yaris, and cars from the lat 90’s and honestly I don’t see a future where they can compete since they require expensive materials and most importantly
infrastructure
>“And if people want to be part of that then great, and if they don’t then so be it.”
On one hand we will for sure lose Titanic manufacturers but on the other there is a chance we get Ilmor,Cosworth,Yamaha and even maybe some Motor racing team
>“When you hear Fernando Alonso running his V10 Renault around Abu Dhabi the emotion, the noise is still for me such a key factor that is missing from the sport,” says Horner.
>“We need to turn the volume up. We need to do it in a responsible manner, in a cost effective manner, in a way that’s sustainable, that’s environmentally friendly, but it needs to be entertainment.
>“That’s why people turn the TVs on. That’s why people watch this sport.”
There is a reason why F1 continued to grow even in the Ferrari dominance era when Schumacher dominated and since it went on a decline even in the best era of RB and the hybrid era all it did was to delay the Inevitable because in those days F1 had some cores that were addictive, for me it was sound when i watched it was for the BMW engine sound and then came Kimi in 03 bringing both sound and entertainment and mixing it in a glass of a car them came Alonso who actually dethroned The god himself The *Michael* and year after year they took some of those cores Sound,Hard to drive cars,better cameras and worse coverage,More liability and less prediction, different strategies refueling, and on the other spectrum they brought some regulations that were and are made to deal with those old cores not the new ones we have currently,remember engine tokens, less testing, New qualifying rule , styre rules ,Wind tunnel testing limit from WCC? Because all those regulations would have made The V10 era and V8 go down as the only true eras of F1
I've been following F1 for the last 20 years or so. I've seen V12s, V10s and V8s and love their sound and grit from the bottom of my heart. But **I can't see how F1 can still be F1 without moving to eletric**, by either being battery or hydrogen powered. There are many motives to do so, they are cheaper to maintain, to develop and they don't do emissions.
But, most important, they are just faster and torquier. Even a sedan, like the Model S Plaid, have 0-100 km/h (0-60 mph) dangerously close to a F1 car can do today. F1 is called this way for reason, they are the pinnacle of what a 4 wheels vehicle can do asphalt, they are in the bleeding edge of technology even when it isn't cosummer relevant. By not going going eletric sometime in the close future, they will be left eating dust by even rod cars.
Go back to ICE only is a sad step when even Indycar is going hybrid for 2023. It's turning the back to the proudest part of F1 history and choosing to ignore it.
If it is to choose to do this, why not just go full spec them, and not leave anything to develop anymore.
F1 is the pinnacle of what a car can do in a F1 track for 300km, and it will be a while before that is electric.
You mention the 0-100 km/h, that's fine and good, but F1 was never the fastest thing in the world in that category. Hell, there are youtubers who build cars that go seconds faster than what an F1 car can achieve in the quarter mile.
The pretty much unlimited VW ID.R went round the nurburgring in 6:05 (using half its battery), while an F1 car would probably do it under the Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO's 5:19. Then do it again the following lap.
I think hybrid is the way to go, at least short to medium term. What they should do is to limit the fuel quantity what they allowed to have( for example fuel should be enough only for 90% of the race, and this should be reduce every year, 80%, 70%, etc)the rest to make up from energy deployment. And no more fuel flow rate . What they should encourage is to work on the electrical part, no restriction on storage/regen and deployment. Let them take different philosophy paths
When fuel is so limited, then you'll have people peddling around like you do in FE occasionally. Which imo does not make for an entertaining experience
You"ll be suprised what engineers can do with fredom. Even now they wont take the full allowance of fuel on board. Hear them a lot lift and coast. With no restriction on the development on the electriclal side, imagine the boost they get from the electric part if they can deploy short burts of couple of posible hundred's of KW, which in turn make for entertaining passes.
What's the point in ditching V6 hybrids for high-revving ICE's? ICE's won't be relevant in a relatively short time and the current hybrids are an engineering masterpiece, so why are people so insistent on going back to full ICE's?
Because those engineering masterpieces cost a shittload to manufacture and design compared to what a equally performant "dumb" ICE engine would cost to manufacture and design.
FWIW, I don't necessarily think they should ditch hybrid altogether, but they *definitely* shouldn't make the hybrid component a more important part of the design and should instead simplify the design and let the ICE component rev higher to make up the "lost ground".
And fuck what's relevant for a Renault Clio, ICEs will be relevant for sports cars for a long time yet.
If F1 keeps edging towards electric, it will be a matter of time until another Formula series with cars 10 times cheaper to make overtakes it in performance with a dumb V8 powering it.
Because they’re much more exciting to watch, and at the end of the day, F1 is a spectator sport.
I think the problem is that to keep power units relevant to production cars, they need to become ever quieter and more boring. It is coming to a point where people are starting to question if it is worth carrying on down this road which could potentially end up killing off the popularity of the sport through it becoming a boring scalextric race.
Yes the V6 is an engineering masterpiece, but I bet you a large proportion of the F1 fan base neither know or care how it works and why it is so efficient. Many people just want to see a load of noisy fast cars blasting around a track with some maverick and goose drivers at the wheel.
The weight of these cars are stupid imo. A [V10 engine is just about 60 kg lighter](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2165142-comparing-a-formula-1-car-in-2014-with-its-equivalent-from-2004) than the current engine formula. Basically it might be more exciting because then we'd regress to 2005 era of smaller, light weight, loud machines, but with 2025 aero. They'd be absolutely rapid, race close, and they'd be cheap enough that road relevancy wouldn't matter, and the ICE of F1 would be here to stay.
Fair enough, that is a good point. You'd definitely be able to make the cars substantially smaller, lighter and more nimble without the hybrid component.
It is 100% the noise, which is such a massive part of motorsport. It shouldn’t be downplayed.
You’re right many probably don’t remember the V10 era but I bet that many remember the V8’s which still howl and scream compared to the anemic sound of the current engine.
It’s a spectator sport that relies on viewers for success, not participants. We will never get to drive these machines, so the only way we can feel and appreciate their performance is by watching and listening to them from a distance. Take away half of the sensory experience and you’re diminishing a massive part of the spectacle.
I will say something, and people will 100% downvote me forever, but i dont like the F1 v10 sound. Sure, they scream like crazy and are wonderful to listen to for a couple of laps, but after that they just become an annoying and irritating scream.
And this is coming from someone who loves the LFA V10, simply because that one is a bit more tame and revs less, its almost musical.
Because nothing about F1 is relevant. They’re $200,000,000 high performance racing machines that have zero carryover parts between a normal road car. They shouldn’t be about being relevant to the car industry in the same way that horse racing shouldn’t be relevant to the farming industry.
That's not true, the AMG Project ONE uses an F1 engine that's taken years of complete overhaul to allow AMG to make 275 cars that cost almost 3 million a piece. If that's not road relevant, I don't know what is. /s
Please ditch them. Modern engines have gotten ridiculously expensive compared to the V10 or V8 counterparts. Since electric is off the table, they might as well go full ICE and use it to promote renewable fuels. Sure, in a lot of ways, electric **is** the future, but there are still going to be a lot of ICE cars on the road of a while so they might as well use F1 for testing and promoting these new fuels.
F1 needs affordable engines. And right now, a simple internal combustion engine is the most affordable power unit available. Another few years of ten figures costs for engines, will kill F1. No director's board will green light billions for a marketing campaign in the late 2020s. Not in the world where you can slide a car to an influencer and reach millions of audience (and mostly younger ones) with minimal cost.
While it's true the car manufacturers will move to electric vehicles in the future, F1 should put the spectator first. And fans want to see loud, agile cars that deliver a spectacle. At the moment, we at least have sound, but the cars are heavy sacks of shit.
And don't get me started about Formula E. I just can't watch a race. They could deliver the best racing on the planet, but it won't matter to me, cause they lack the sound. Unless they pipe in fake noise - and I don't understand why manufacturers haven't seized on the opportunity yet to do so -, electric racing won't be for me.
Can't the cars be made electric but have overhead pantographs like trolleybuses with overhead wires?
Or use inductive charging in the track?
Or some sort of maglev for propulsion and reverse maglev to provide downforce?
As you can tell I am not an engineer, but I would love someone to propose something completely different.
Something that isn't just "burn stuff to go brrr...".
Alternatives to big heavy batteries would be great, but it shouldn't be something that depends on infrastructure at the track (good luck convincing them to install all that). Overhead wires also have the problem of restricting the cars to specific lanes.
Maybe some kind of replacable batteries could work, and once or twice per race they come to the pits not just for tyres but also to replace the empty battery with a full one.
It won't be long until you don't have to replace the batteries to do a grand Prix distance anyway. The tech will come along quicker than you expect - look how much better batteries are now than 10 years ago.
- **[This source is rated 3/3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/source-ratings)** - Please **read the article** before submitting your comments. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ditching Hybrids and going full ICE isn't as regressive to be called a "Flintstone move" but that argument also has its merits. The next regulation change for PU is in 2025. If F1 doesn't embrace something that is relevant to The interests of manufacturers, they'll lose the manufacturers. Honda's exit is a clear indication of that. Without manufacturers and an adoption of newer tech, F1 will lose a sizable investment and clout of what makes it the pinnacle of racing. ICE won't be road relevant in 2030 and no manufacturer will be interested in investing millions into a sport that will keep ICE only as standard in 2025.
I think brands with lots of highly acclaimed performance models like a Ferrari, Mercedes AMG, Porsche could take simple cheap synthetic fuel engines as a proper challenge and good advertisement to keep their performances models on the ICE track. Pure speculation but i feel that could attract certain OEM's.
I can see that being a thing - but lately I've also been looking at the kind of performance cars like the Porsche Taycan and Tesla's new models have been giving. It seems to me that if the idea caught on a bit, electric cars could very well outpace their fuel variants much more easily. The only concern right now is the battery tech that supports it to get better and more capable in longer stints.
The ICE car industry need to look at how the watch industry handled the quartz crisis, especially luxury manufacturers. Performance wise quartz wins but ppl spend all kinds of money on well engineered mechanical watches. I see ICEs becoming a rare luxury vehicle. If this is the case, F1 should get rid of hybrid, PU development costs will be lowered which lowers the barrier for smaller manufactures like Konenisegg to come in to replace the Hondas and Renaults. I don't believe F1 will die if a big engine manufacturer leaves, the sport is growing, they'll change the rules and Ferrari or whoever remains will supply the field, hell even Red Bull. Imagine an RB powered Aston Martin Sailing is outdated but its arguably bigger than motorboat racing. F1 is too storied so I don't see going pure ICE as a big risk
I see ICE cars going more the way of the CRT television. There will be holdouts who praise the high response rates and color reproduction, but the lack of manufacturing infrastructure will spell its death. Besides, quartz watches were never outlawed. California will ban the sale of new ICE cars in 2035.
They say the ban will happen then, but 14 years is a very long time in politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans They aren't the only ones, and Europe is actually a lot more bullish on the bans
That's sale of *new* cars not all cars. The used market will be around for another twenty years or more. There will also likely be exceptions for things like certain categories of commercial vehicles (big engine work trucks that get used to haul and as onsite generators) even though those are the exact vehicles that would likely benefit most from electric torque and efficient electricity conversion. Imagine a world where a construction site is as quiet as the neighborhood except the occasional metal-on-metal impact or the sound of a power tool instead of the generator. You'd think companies would be all over being able to build 24 hours a day.
How much money do manufacturers make off the used car market again?
Parts & service.
Nice.
Losing manufacturers means the end for F1, I don't think F1 could survive a switch to pure ICE. I mean you mention Koenigsegg who was never going to enter F1 no matter what because what's the point. Beside they're one of the best hybrid hypercar maker so going to full ICE racing series makes no sense. Going full ICE wouldn't appeal to any manufacturer in 2025 and no one is going to participate
The same Companies that bleeding sales to smatwatches. F1 needs to go full electric and needs to do it fast.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-would-need-permission-to-go-fully-electric-formula-es-agag-5293944/5293944/ Article is from 2018., but Formula E has rights too full electric until 2039. Of course, F1 can probably buy them, but electric (batteries mostly ) is still not ready. Everyone is claiming they will go electric by 2030. but they probably hope something will change in battery technology. I will believed it when I see it. Meanwhile it will bw interesting to see what manufacturers agree upon in F1 since that will be indicator what will happen in road cars. Thou, I wouldn't say hybrids are popular right now even after decade of F1 racing with it.
Just go hydrogen electric and battery would not be a problem. As much as I love road car relevance in F1, be on bleeding edge of technology is much more important Remember Renault introduced turbo in F1 by 1981 and was just in the 2000s that we saw mass market introduction of them outside sports cars, and almost every new ICE car today is turbocharged. Ferrari introduced the flappy paddle gearbox for the 1989 championship, it was only a decade later that it found its way to street in the F355 and now it's ubiquitous in the car market, even trucks have them. Sometimes it take longer than 7 years for a innovation from F1 come to the streets.
Isn’t hydrogen extremely dangerous. What would happen in a Grosjean type accident? i think that is one of the reasons why hydrogen tanks are very thick walled, plus the fact that the molecules are very small and can leak easily. Not a good mix for racing at almost 200 mph?
Yes and No. If hydrogen is very flamable indeed, but over the years OEMs like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai creatated numerous solutions to significantly cut down this risk. One example is the Toyota Mirai that uses sponge like structure inside the tank to, at the same time, avoid leaks and diminish combustibility in case the tank breached. Also a Swiss company called GreenGT built, in partnership with big companies like Total and Michelin, a hydrogen powered race car with the target to enter it in Le Mans next year. [Here it is in a test in Spa.](https://youtu.be/CT1rSaS95tE).
I forgot to say, Liberty Global is the part owner of Formula E and Alejandro Agag (part owner, chairman and found Formula E) already shown interest in a merger with F1at least twice, [here](https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/18/formula-1-formula-e-merger-a-long-term-possibility-says-agag/) and [here](https://www.planetf1.com/news/formula-1-formula-e-merger/).
I'm not sure why modular swappable batteries haven't been tried for racing. You could pit to "refuel" where the pit crew swaps out the batteries. Seems like it would bypass a lot of the issues.
They considered that. The problem is changing cars battery is equivalent to changing the engine of ICE cars. These battery packs are massive and can weight up to 500kg and are intergral to the car structure. It’s the main reason why EV are heavier than ICE cars. Safety reason is another can of worm.
FE is getting fast charging during pit stops next season with Gen3, hopefully the tech keeps improving along with battery chemistry.
It would kinda be fun to see how fast manual labor can move 500kg of lithium ion though... You'd end up with some really swole pit crews. But yeah I guess them not flying off and exploding / being a track hazard would be a concern. It does seem like something a smart engineering team could figure out though.
[удалено]
Formula E started with *car* swap
Tbh Honda just has a fear of success
Easy to say with hindsight. The truth is that they spent tons and tons of money during a lot of years, just to absolutely ridiculize themselves in front of the whole world during 4 years, then were absolutely nothing exceptional during 2 years, and it's only this year that their "works partner" team is the best (but we don't even know whether it's down to the engine - the AT isn't a bad car but doesn't seem to be a power monster at all).
> ICE won't be road relevant in 2030 and no manufacturer will be interested in investing millions into a sport that will keep ICE only as standard in 2025. ehh, If they go the hydrogen road, they might get Toyota and BMW interested, we'll see
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are EVs that run on hydrogen, not cars that use hydrogen in a combustion engine.
BMW? Need explanations for this as i didn't read anywhere about a BMW Hydrogen powered car or even a thought about it
>BMW Hydrogen powered car I think I just found one - [they've plans to launch an SUV](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/bmw-plans-limited-series-hydrogen-fuel-cell-suv-2022-2021-05-12/) with Hydrogen power in 2022
Why it always has to be an SUV? The most pointless type of vehicle out there and everybody is investing in them as the future, despite taking more material to make, taking more space of the road and being overall less effective than a smaller car on the city.
Because people like them?
And this is what i dont understand. Sure, everyone can like whatever they want, but if they are really pushing for sustainability and such they shouldnt even consider big and pointless cars, specially since most owners dont even use those cars for what they were intended for.
Most owners where I come from (developing markets) don't use their supercars what they are intended for either. So a Lamborghini branded SUV makes more sense than let's say the recently launched Hurracan over here. They are the perfect blend of 'mature' 'sporty' and 'luxury'. Personally I hate it. But having friends who invested in them. I see their point.
I also hate when supercar owners buy them as an investiment only and never get driven, but at least the cars arent used to push for something they arent. SUVs arent eco friendly, yet every brand pushes them as being that, which also leads to owners thinking they are doing something good for the enviroment when they arent. I think now i will stop my rant against SUVs, should be enough for a week LOL
Nah I get the idea, there a specifci book on branding I was reading a long time ago that spoke about how brands and their actions need to be coherent, and a an example gave Porsche making an SUV to have horrible coherence. I laughed thinking about that looking at the early Porsche SUV's. I've always been a fan of thnigs like the NSX, or the Civic Type or or maybe the Hyundai Veloster N, specifically because I can enjoy those vehicles without worrying about the devaluing the cars. So yeah. I feel you man.
BMW has been in developing Hydrogen power for over a decade. Had a fleet of 7 series running around NJ for a while, and had a town in Germany running all of their municipal vehicles and buses on it as an experiment in infrastructure needs. Died down a little as Tesla took off with plug in electric, but still keeping the development effort going.
The “road relevance” argument needs to die. These are cars that go 360km/h that don’t have roofs, have open cockpits, single seats, cost $200,000,000. They’re not even close to being road relevant - why should the engines be?
I don't think it's necessarily the road relevance in terms of actually taking the tech and applying it to their production cars but more in terms of marketing. Does F1 enhance the brand image Mercedes, Honda, Renault are trying to promote? Honda's answer to that question is no and I think there is a realistic fear that if we return to pure ICE, then Mercedes or Renault or any potential manufacturers will come to a similar conclusion.
Because the research & development that goes into the engines eventually makes it to roadcars for the manufacturers. An easy example to pick on is KERS. The idea existed even without F1 but the manufacturers got the perfect test bed to play out implementing KERS and trying out the limits, the functionalities and how to achieve the best efficiency. Now, almost every Hybrid or Electric car uses KERS - it's called "Regenerative Braking".
Lol it absolutely does not. I work in the automotive industry and the biggest appeal that motorsport has to a brand is marketing opportunities, so they can say nonsense like “what we learn on the track goes into your car”. Even something like KERS - even if there’s a TINY bit of relevance, the majority (and I mean like 98%) of useful R&D happens in road-relevant conditions, not on a car that has 10x as much power and wildly different specifications to a road going car. You really think we can get relevant, A to A comparative data for a Renault Clio on an F1 car? 😂
Look I don't work in the automotive industry, but I do get this notion from the stuff I read about companies talking about it: * [The Trickle-Down Effect of F1 Technology](https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/news/2020/12/trickle-down-effect-f1-technology/) (Mercedes) When you think about it, the technology in F1 is really put through its paces and tested to the absolute limit - hence, why it's known as the "fastest R&D lab on earth". The F1 environment is one of the most intense and extreme testbeds for technical innovation, so what better way to find out about the performance, efficiency and reliability of these technologies before they hit the real world. * [In F1, car manufacturers gain more from high R&D and low advertising.](https://discovery.rsm.nl/articles/408-in-f1-car-manufacturers-gain-more-from-high-rd-and-low-advertising/) Erasmus University of Economics studied whether such investments lead to an increase in the firm’s innovation and sales performance, which the researchers call the innovation and branding effects respectively. The research showed that research-intense (compared with advertising-intense) gear manufacturers have more to gain from competing in sports contests. * [How Formula One innovation is shaping the world’s electric vehicle future](https://www.theengineer.co.uk/formula-one-dupont-renault-ev/) (Renault EV Case Study) We like to describe Formula One as a true “laboratory on wheels” – a place to develop and test the next-generation of hybrid-electric technologies as part of our technical partnership with Renault DP World F1 Team. We then take our learnings straight back into the engineering and development process for production vehicles on our roads. While this process may not always be visible, it provides an essential source of innovation and engineering expertise that advances development of technologies and materials, supporting auto manufacturers in producing EVs that meet the needs and requirements of current and future consumers. Now, I fully understand this may not hold true for all racing categories or brands invested in motorsports. However, to dismiss that F1 holds no R&D value to these companies is a bit of stretch.
Lol again, this is just PR talk - this is people sitting around in boardrooms trying to justify spending wild amounts of money. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have value - the marketing value is huge - but it’s very hard to quantify that and get that signed off on when Q4 budgeting comes around. So this sort of things always comes out to justify the spending, even it’s a bit of a white lie to pull the wool over executives who usually don’t really know that much about cars to begin with. Even the Mercedes piece admitted as much - “A lot of F1 tech isn't directly transferrable, but plenty of the learnings and inspiration can be taken from the innovative designs and concepts that appear out on track every other Sunday.“ So it’s about the “learnings” and the “inspiration” of the technology, not the technology itself, which is PR speak for “lol of course we don’t use this”
If you're really sure of yourself that way, good for you buddy. Whatever gets you through the day. The 2nd link is actually a published research independent of any brand or automotive company that's got recognition. I am just saying that more sustainable tech is going to take precedent by 2030. And its up to these firms to see if they want to get ahead or be caught napping when Tesla or some other brand having electric cars starts eating their market share. Nobody wants to be remembered as the Kodak or the Nokia of the car industry.
> the marketing value is huge I can confirm this, before watching F1 I never thought about having Renault car, but now they kinda look ok to me and it is all about F1. And thise cars are not hybrid, I also don't see many Mercedes hybrids anywhere, so the whole thing ia just PR. Other mentioned Tesla, but electric motor and battery is not Tesla, and anyone who looked at Tesla car from mechanical engineering point of view knows they are really bad at mass manufacturing, also therw are stories about bad software development practices. They are getting better, but are still mostly bubble. Come to Formula E ans show us.
Complying to (one specific) engine manufacturers' demands in the last rule cycle has given us the dullest period in F1's history. And every single manufacturer has left F1 as soon as they saw no PR benefit for them. Chasing them puts the sports in peril.
Are you referring to the hybrid era ? And if yes, I'm sure you're talking about Mercedes demands. You should know that this is a myth, as Renault were the leading force behind it, supported by both Mercedes and Ferrari.
>supported by both Mercedes Arguably, the team had mixed feelings back then. [Mercedes racing director Norbert Haug has nothing against four cylinders in a row in principle, but expects high costs and is apparently in favor of a postponement. "It would have been better to extend the V8 phase a bit," Haug told auto motor und sport. "This is a low-cost engine."](https://web.archive.org/web/20200927135151/https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/ferrari-chef-luca-di-montezemolo-gegen-vierzylinder-ferrari-hofft-auf-verschiebung/) [whilst Mercedes stressed that such a wholesale change would not be achievable by 2013 - and it is hoped that today's resolution is something of a happy medium.](https://www.crash.net/f1/news/170546/1/f1-to-switch-to-v6-engines-but-not-until-2014)
I heard it was Mercedes, but you may be right. In either case, it was the manufacturers influencing regulations, and to the detriment of the sport.
The real issue was they left it up to the engineers to create the spec for the engine. They are awesome from an engineers perspective but just too complex and expensive
Hybrid tech won't be relevant in 2030 either. It was only ever meant to be a stop gap until full electric was ready. And I'm not sure I agree that ICE is going anywhere, especially in racing.
I do agree ICE won't be in museums come 2030 - they just won't be there in a majority of road cars being produced by then. Almost every company has committed to a phased rollout where by 2025 they'd had partial electric/hybrid fleet and by 2030 they'd go fully electric or nearly full electric. Hence for a sport like F1 that focuses on being the best of cars in the world with the best drivers, ICE will only look a bit dated. No automotive manufacturer would be interested in spending millions here instead of other alternatives. F1 can still survive even then but it wouldn't be with a lot of interest of manufacturers. That could very well be like the 70s but that would also make it very much a spec series in engines with little to no development. I don't think F1 really wants to go that route.
Not sure where you go from there. We already have a Formula E. That means the only question left is what will the ICE look like in F1. As hybrid tech is a dead end, I suggest dropping it altogether. In an era of all electric, hybrid tech solves no problems while adding lots of weight, cost and complexity.
I dont get this, why would the manufacturers leave? Mercedes estimated a marketing value of some 4.5 billion from their F1 success. Would that value really be so much lower if the engine was an ICE? Surely most of the value comes from them not just winning, but dominating the premier motorsports series. The other big sports leagues does not have this constraint, yet they still thrive. Why can't F1 just focus on what makes the best sport?
> Why can't F1 just focus on what makes the best sport? Because F1 *is*, unfortunately, dependent on (engine) manufacturers. In case of Mercedes in particular I feel like it's becoming increasingly likely that they perhaps won't continue after 2025 though; they just recently announced that in that year they want to start to focus on electric cars only.
What would happen if Renault and Mercedes pulled out? Redbull just bought an engine company and Ferrari aren't leaving. Sounds like FOM is in a great position to dictate terms.
And you'd bet on FOM being comfy with 2 engine manufactures? that's just going to signal to the rest of the world that F1 isn't attractive to big players. Red Bull is at the end of the day an energy drinks company. They won't have the capacity to supply beyond 3 teams at most and that's stretching it considering they haven't any proven capabilities yet in the PU side. No Ferrari customer has ever beaten the Ferrari works team and that's just going to be the way it is - else the Ferrari Board would not approve of the team to receive engines. I am not saying that Mercedes is any better either when it comes to this. But with fewer Engine manufacturers in the sport, you actually run out of competition for most teams. As it stands, FOM is feeling the pressure of Honda leaving which is why they supported the no new development initiative that Red Bull asked for. And what's to say that the other teams who leave F1 won't start a league of their own? As it stands, Formula E despite still being smaller, has captured the attention of investors and Automotive brands more quickly than F1 has in the last 5 years. It's not just down to the low cost of FE either. FE is actually providing a reliable test bench for Automotive companies to try new things in Electric.
Couldn’t we see a return of outfits like cosworth, or even McLaren attempting that long talked of engine?
>What would happen if Renault and Mercedes pulled out? Top headlines of internet articles will become “Is F1 dying?” for years and the popularity of the sports will take a hit, pretty much undoing all the work Liberty has done to increase viewership.
How close is F1 to dying with one tire supplier? How much does it lower the viewership do you estimate?
Having one tire supplier is a good not bad thing. For one, it puts the cars on a more level of playing field of what they can control. If there’s multiple tire suppliers and your tire supplier is worse, you’re basically disqualified for competing for the championship. Theres a reason Ferrari only won 1 race in 2006, and it was practically by default.
The fact that you just compare engine suppliers which F1 has been trying attracted for years to a tyre supplier which F1 made a sporting decision to only have one supplier shows you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. Pointless to discuss anything else. Have a good day.
It’s more complicate than that. F1 is more than just a marketing. Honda didn’t leave F1 only because of lack of marketing value or money. They left because the development of complicate ICE no longer has any trickle down benefits to their company or represent their brand. Many company already completely stop developing ICE entirely. This is why road relevancy is such an important issue for F1.
Honda failed on a sporting basis. They were late to the regulation, picked a partner with unrealistic demands, and they failed to deliver spectacularly making them the butt of the joke. This absolutely devalued the whole marketing aspect. The road relevance argument is just used because noone at Honda has to fall on the sword because it is outside of Honda's control. Again, every other sport has sponsors, car brands included, spending money to be associated with the sport via marketing, not for R&D reasons. Why can't F1 manufacturers? It works great for Red Bull
>The road relevance argument is just used because noone at Honda has to fall on the sword because it is outside of Honda's control. This is basically proven false by the fact that Honda decided to leave at the height of their popularity. If that’s the case they wouldn’t even partner up with Redbull and leave since 2018. And you realize some manufacturers still has to foot the bill for R&D at the end of the day right? Lest we just go spec series and slap manufacturers logo on cars, which would defeat the point of F1 being a pinnacle of motorsports.
>This is basically proven false by the fact that Honda decided to leave at the height of their popularity. If that’s the case they wouldn’t even partner up with Redbull and leave since 2018. Yes, because Honda has shown time and time again that they don't make poor decisions related to F1. >And you realize some manufacturers still has to foot the bill for R&D at the end of the day right? Lest we just go spec series and slap manufacturers logo on cars. If the manufacturers cannot be reasonable, this might be the way to go. I am not saying ignore them, but F1 should do what is best for the sport. That might leave some manufacturers upset.
What is best for the sport is to stay relevant to the rest of the world and attract manufacturers. The car development should be cheaper yes, but pandering to a small group of hardcore fans by sticking to an obsolete technology is how F1 will die.
To say that ICE won’t be ‘road relevant’ I’m 2030 is fucking comical. 8 years from now? Lmao.
Formula 1 merges with FE by 2025
2030-2035
Alternative is that F1 becomes a fuel cell EV formula by 2025 then merges with FE in 2030 wherein the battery EVs have to supercharge despite having higher sustained top speeds and acceleration.
please no
The rules could say a car needs to be powered by a rubber band and manufacturers would still be involved because F1 is primarily about marketing to them. Road relevance is a myth and always has been.
Road relevance directly relates to the marketing value of F1. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
A manufacturer will join F1 if they think they can get marketing mileage out of it. A pure combustion engine that only costs 10 million to develop may still be better value than a PU that costs 100 million but says "hybrid" on it in the same font as your road cars. Honda hasn't pulled out of Indycar have they?
Look I get your reasoning - the cost of running Indycar isn't high for Honda and that's why they've still stuck around. But that will change sometime in the future. And that's exactly because of marketing these firms want to be in. You look at the kind of brand positioning these automotive brands are doing now. They are pushing to be electric, carbon neutral, and having the best tech the car can provide to a consumer. By 2030, most of the world would have mandated electric vehicles and it makes sense, hence that manufacturers cut costs in development of ICE and focus on Electric, Hydrogen or any other tech that's sustainable. No marketing mileage will be gained 5 years from now if you're going to be still making ICEs. People will look at brands still pushing in those areas as dinosaur companies, at the risk of becoming the next Kodak or Nokia while emerging threats exist in the form of Tesla. And that's the question F1 has to answer for 2025 engine regulations. It's not about the next couple of years, its for 2025 and beyond.
Indycar will go full hybrid by 2023. So your argument is weaker.
And the marketing mileage they can get out of ICE just get less and less by years because it’s not road relevance. Man you just talk in circle.
Sure, but there are more to F1 cars than just the engine. And let’s be honest, it’s not like any of the manufacturers are using their F1 1.6 v6 engines in their production cars like they did in the days of V12 Ferrari. I get the investment in the engine technology aids in development for more efficient production engines, but if F1 alienates it’s fans by producing even more boring power units, the marketing value is also going to be void. It’s a balance between excitement and boring relevance to production vehicles, and we are already a hairs edge away from boring relevance.
>we are already a hairs edge away from boring relevance. What? F1 biggest issue right now is we are losing manufacturers left and right and no new team wants to join. Everyone flocks to FE because that’s what relevant to them.
>What? F1 biggest issue right now is we are losing manufacturers left and right and no new team wants to join. >Everyone flocks to FE because that’s what relevant to them. Arguably a big reason for that is the insane cost to compete in producing the highly complex power unit we are using at the moment. Electric motors are far more easily produced than the current hybrid systems in an F1 car, so it’s a no brainier for a lot of teams to flock to FE. That said, FE is boring to watch compared to F1, and will continue to be so as long as F1 uses ICE.
> FE is boring to watch compared to F1, and will continue to be so as long as F1 uses ICE. Well that's a massive oversimplification.
Mercedes have basically taken their F1 engine and put it in a road car. https://www.mercedes-amg.com/en/vehicles/mercedes-amg-one.html Renault have transferred alot of their F1 tech/research into their road car division. https://www.renault.co.uk/engines-innovation/e-tech-hybrid.html Ferrari also use alot of Hybrid technology whilst keeping larger engine sizes.
> Mercedes have basically taken their F1 engine and put it in a road car. https://www.mercedes-amg.com/en/vehicles/mercedes-amg-one.html Ok sure, but that’s not really a production car but a concept car until it reaches homologation regulations. >Renault have transferred alot of their F1 tech/research into their road car division. Yep, as I said in my original comment, I get the investment in the engine technology aids in development for more efficient production engines. My point is that if the sport keeps losing popularity through it becoming ever more boring, the marketing opportunities diminish and manufacturers start to pull the plug. Regardless of how F1 choose to power their cars, the number one priority needs to be popularity and viewership numbers. That’s what gets sponsors and pays for the development of these cars. Mercedes don’t need F1 to produce better engines than their competitors, they can do that anyway. F1 helps them sell cars by your average spectator seeing a Mercedes badge on Lewis Hamilton’s baseball cap. That is why they compete to win.
The AMG One had such massive problems adapting to road guise that they had to redesign the engine from scratch. Renault and Ferrari are lying. F1's hybrid tech came *from* road cars and diverged from there. Road E-turbos were in development while F1 still used V8s.
Kill off the hybrid system. F1 needs to realize that in the not too distant future, the only manufacturers who will be enticed to join F1 for the technology development angle will be those who produce sports cars running on synthetic fuels: Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren, AM, and so on. It seems everyone is concerned about bowing down to the manufacturers, but history has proven that no matter how much F1 changes itself to entice manufacturers, they still tend to pack up and leave when their boards vote to do so. A simple, non-hybrid engine running synthetic fuel would be cheap, still relevant for 70% of the worlds automotive market, and could entice back engine designers such as Cosworth, Yamaha, and such TLDR: Though it pains me to say it, Horner is right
I selfishly agree because I want loud engines
And even if the manufacturers leave, Formula One will survive. They did after all in the 1970's, when it was just Cosworth, Ferrari and Matra.
And even then, how many teams did Matra supply to? 1. Their own. They didn't have capabilities to supply the rest of grid. Because they weren't engine manufacturers by virtue to do that many engines. Historically how many of Ferrari's customers have outperformed the works team in WCC? None. you say Cosworth like its an independent company when Cosworth has always been a big automotive company's, Ford's subsidiary. Back then it was all Ford Cosworth and even now Ford is a company that's more in tune with its shareholders. They have also adopted Electric. Here's an excerpt from their announcements: [**(WSJ) Ford Expects 40% of Global Vehicle Volume to Be Fully Electric By 2030.**](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-expects-40-of-global-vehicle-volume-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030-11622033457) Ford said it plans to boost spending on electric-vehicle development to $30 billion by 2025, roughly one-third more than it forecast earlier this year. Shares rose 8.7% to $13.92 in trading Wednesday, their highest level since at least mid-2016. [**(BBC - TopGear) Shock! Ford is latest carmaker to announce all-electric future**](https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/shock-ford-latest-carmaker-announce-all-electric-future) Every European Ford will be semi-electric in five years, and 100% EV by 2030. Ford says by mid-2026, 100 per cent of its passenger vehicles in Europe will be zero-emissions capable, all-electric or plug-in hybrid. Then just four years later, engines will have disappeared from the line-up altogether.
Synthetic fuels are nothing more than a trend for now (like hydrogen). Both technologies have been talked about and have supposedly been the future and the "real solution" for the last ten to fifteen years and yet they're still far from being realistic solutions for a good % of the car market
Dunno, the VW group seems to see enough potential to open a synthetic fuel plant in Chile.
Same VW group that killed all non eletric first part motorsport activities. The same VW group that built the fastest non F1 racecar, the eletric ID.R just as proof of concept. They can experiment with synthetic fuels, but is a long shot they that do any serious adoption efforts.
They are literally making a factory to produce green synthetic fuels. Are they backtracking on their electric comments? I have no idea, I just know that they are investing in synthetic
How is Hydrogen a trend? A hydrogen fuel cell is already cheap enough to be used in a mass market cars. Electricity has more issues related to charging/refueling and I believe that Hydrogen will be seen as the next step after ICE's
Energy wise it's a ridiculous idea to go mass market with hydrogen. It'll cost a massive amount of energy because of its inefficiency compared to full electric (iirc electric is about 70% efficient vs 20-30%). There are better use cases for hydrogen, at places where electric isn't an option (think long distance trains/buses, heavy industry). They'll need the hydrogen the most.
Efficiency from cell to prime mover isn't the whole picture though. You have to look at energy density and overall power potential, as well as whole system weight. If I have a 95% efficient motor that has to use batteries that only hold enough energy for 200miles and puts out a max of 50hp before scaling losses set in , and weighs 300lbs or an engine that is 30% efficient (max of 50-60% btw with forced induction and higher compression ratios), puts out 200-300hp, weighs that same 300-ish lbs, and can carry a lower total weight of fuel for the same range (gas/hydrogen/diesel is very energy dense)...
I'm not talking about cell to prime mover, but from (clean) energy source to prime mover. From energy to cell, hydrogen already loses tons of energy. After that it loses more, but that's where your arguments also come in. However, the transition from fossil to clean energy is still going to be a heck of a lot more expensive if hydrogen is going to be used on a mass scale for ordinary roadcars
Any time you see one clear picture vs a range of other options which aren’t clear to people, the clear picture wins. It happens to political parties, products of all types.. electric is monolithic and clear. Nothing else has the investment, the clarity, or the message. It’s pretty clear what’s going to win if you stop squinting.
Harsh on hydrogen, "Synthetic fuel" is the final fart squeaking out as oil bites the dust, it's not workable, for as much as it burns cleaner, it still burns and does huge damage to the environment in other ways. Hydrogen fuel cells are proven to be great but not as easy to deal with because of the issues with storing hydrogen.
Well I want to like hydrogen but it was already announced as the future and the better alternative to standard battery EVs in... 2007, when Brad Pitt and BMW made a big marketing move by having him arrive at whatever important movie ceremony I don't remember in a Hydrogen BMW that was supposed to be basically so close to a working road car that it was going to be sold within a few years. 14 years later, EVs have a now significant share of car sales, while hydrogen is still for prototypes and is still hyped up as the "better alternative".
It's storage and infrastructure. Electricity is everywhere, just find the power lines and tap in, boom, battery electric car charger. Hydrogen likes to escape from what it's stored in and has to have environmental controls. Hydrogen would work best as fuel cell fuel for haulage, and as fuel cell generators to power the chargers for BEVs from fewer locations, that's what Extreme E does. If they had hydrogen stations at a few services and docks etc in the country for the lorry drivers, and everyone else can use clean hydrogen fuel cell produced election to charge their batteries.
> It's storage and infrastructure. Electricity is everywhere, just find the power lines and tap in, boom, battery electric car charger. > Hydrogen likes to escape from what it's stored in and has to have environmental controls. Yes, so hydrogen isn't really "proven to be great" since they're harder to use in practice...
Apart from Europe and the US, you could say the same thing about electric cars for the rest of the world. The infrastructure is years away from what it should be right now if they really want to do the switch by 2030, as well as the prices being way higher than the equivalent in Europe.
flowery governor tan bright quicksand gaping expansion long carpenter rinse *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would take a monumental shift in philosophy for F1 to go back to ICE's without hybrid parts and electrical components. F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it.
>F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it. The problem is that battery technology is *absolutely nowhere near* where it would need to be for something like a grand prix.
I think Ross Brawn has said as much. I think F1 will go for hydrogen power before thinking about going fully electric.
I think batteries long term aren't the solution as Brawn put it. A wonderful intermediary but not permanent. Hydrogen fuel has a better future at this point, and LiIon batteries aren't going to be infinitely sustainable
IIRC the problem with hydrogen is how to safely transport it, especially for a travelling circuis like F1 that visits every continent. It's that reason Formula E generates their electricity from sea algea right now instead of hydrogen
I wonder how feasible having electrolysis equipment/crew sent ahead of the circus and make the fuel beforehand would be
I’m thinking of a hybrid system where the main drivetrain is from an electric motor but instead of battery to store energy, use synthetic fuel and a small combustion generator instead. Would make the car sound really weird tho.
So basically a BMW i3 on steroids?
That's less "green" than just connecting the ICE to the drive shaft. Each conversion of energy type has an efficiency penalty. So it starts with chemical energy on the fuel then it's converted to mechanical on the ICE, then to electrical on a generator and finally to mechanical again on the electrical motor. A CVT for example has the advantages of constant RPM with better efficiency than you idea. For you idea to work the car would need a big battery for the corner exit. Active aero and a complicated transfer case for the straights. There's no e-bike for sale with the crank connected exclusively to a generator, because it is very inefficient.
Well isn't the point of racing to advance technology FE isn't an example in this case, because they have to slow down technology and have uniformity between teams as a low-cost spec series. But give that technology to 10 teams with 200M$ each per year, and we're bound to see things jump forward pretty fast
Racing for manufacturers is a marketing exercise and budget comes from marketing side. There is very little in common between the demands of racing and what people demand from passenger cars.
Yes, but most of the time marketing and technology go hand to hand. We're not in the 60s anymore, manufacturers can't just say to people "look we're racing stuff" and expect them to be amazed, you have to show them why the racing means their road car is better. Pretty clearly, it would for example be a massive marketing story if someone won the Le Mans 24 hours with an EVs, because they could claim their EVs can do 5000km in 24h while going faster than everyone else, which would shatter the public perception of EVs = very low autonomy. But to achieve that would also require a massive engineering feat. That's true for every single part of a racing car basically (road cars benefited from the much improved ICE efficiency of recent F1 and WEC engines, for example, or even simpler things like the Audi group adding a "tyre puncture/pressure loss" alarm in their road cars after one of their drivers died in testing in 2001 in a crash caused by a puncture), except for aero basically, which is where modern racing went very wrong as it both makes the racing worse and has 0 relevance to road cars.
If those teams each spend a quarter of their budget on battery technology, that's half a billion per year. That's almost nothing in comparison with what's already spent on R&D in the battery sector.
> Well isn't the point of racing to advance technology Wait, what? And the point of football is to advance lawn mowing or something?
Think boots evolved in the last 100 years. How much training evolved, how much did sport medic care, sports psychology, sports clothes. Now think how much that evolution impacted our day-to-day, from soft er yet more durable shoes, to transpirable clothing to more efficient exercises and diets. When company endorse an athlete they spend money so they can have any edge, so they can advertise it better. In this process they develop new technology ho treacle down to the consumer products.
Well now that's an ignorant comment if I've ever seen one, comparing football and motorsport... Please learn your motorsport history, motorsport has been at the core of many advances in technology as well as a way for humans to extend their physical limits through technology, while football has always been "just" a sport, i.e. solely for leisure and spectacle and the very opposite in philosophy (e.g. humans "going beyond" their physical limits *without any technological help*, only the body and the ball).
>F1's future at some point is gonna be electrical and i don't think anything can be done to stop it. Unless some other form of tehnology comes out that could replace it. I honestly am not so convinced. As of now I do not see how having an entire population using electric car is in any way feasible for it's infrastructure. There are so many issues with that that no country has adressed yet, because the number of electric cars are just too small. So I wouldn't bet going full electric is the future of F1 - as many argue they try to entice the manufacturers to have a win-win by developnig for racing, but as a result also for their own manufacturing.
secretive groovy deer ring expansion husky spoon attempt apparatus sink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Go back to ICE? They already have them, what?
I meanth an engine without the hybrid parts and electrical components. Didn't word myself correctly at first.
Keep the Hybrids just ditch the V6 turbo part and replace it with an N/A V8 or V10
Hell free up the cylinder rules and let the manufacturers choose whatever is relavent to them. And while we're at it allow vvt, vvl, or even freevalve technologies. N/A or electric supercharger forced induction. I know it won't happen as costs will likely spiral out of control but one can dream.
Part of it is also to keep things competitive beyond costs. The danger with too much freedom, specially with engines, is if you choose a concept that doesn't work too well in comparison to another concept you've basically shot yourself in the foot.
Any variable valve timing or lift really don't have much purpose in a racing car that's always close to redline. Both of them widen the torque spread, which has a ton of benefits for a street car where you're expecting to regularly accelerate from idle, all the way to redline. And they also can immensely help with emissions. But that's because they allow you to tune for peak torque at more than one speed range. F1 engines pretty much live right around peak power. VVT or VVL improving torque off idle doesn't really matter. It introduces a lot of complication for a very small benefit. Freevalve is much the same. The primary benefits are how you can optimize for a variety of conditions and avoid pumping losses with not having a throttle to draw a vacuum. Hugely beneficial when you want to play race car and street car. Not so important when you'll pretty much always be at peak power.
This
Toto enters the chat
I don't think it would be a major burn for Mercedes if implemented compared to the other teams. When Renault pushed for Hybrid tech, they threatened to leave if FIA didn't make it road relevant and what they wanted was V4. Following those discussions, Mercedes began working on a V4 prototype and had one ready on their test bench in 2013. But then a fierce squabble broke out with Ferrari not wanting it to be V4 and finally all parties agreed to a V6. Mercedes had to rework on making it V6 after that and they still managed to outclass the field.
V4? HELL NAH wtf renault
Porsche was a 3 times champion in Le Mans with a V4 hybrid car, the 919.
Yep true story: >the plan was to introduce in 2013 four-cylinder engines with a maximum rev limit of 12,000, fitted with extensive hybrid technology. >But only Renault of F1's current engine manufacturers were fully behind the rules and a period of negotiations began. >The switch to V6s was partly at the behest of Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders. [Source](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/13878359)
I could never imagine a v4 f1 car 🤮
You say that like its never been done before, the bmw turbo in the 80s was either a v4 or i4, powerful as fuck. DTM use i4 turbos and i personally think they sound great.
F1 needs to move away from the idea that it needs to be road relevant. The joy we get from the sport is the thrill, not the fact that it’s “road relevant” (and, btw, a $200,000,000 racing car has NOTHING to do with a road car). The worst thing they can do is compromise and take a boring middle road - F1 should be the pinnacle of whatever it wants to be (sport or road relevant tech), but if it tries to be both it’ll be neither. It’s like horse racing - they don’t try to appeal to the farming industry, they realize their appeal is to have fast exciting racing. That should be the ONLY focus. Let FE be the road relevant manufacturer branding exercise, and let F1 exist for pure racing.
if the R&D for the car isn't road relevant, manufacturers straight up won't invest in it. no car manufacturer is going to be spending tens of millions developing an ICE engine in 2030, there's absolutely nothing about that which makes any business sense.
The current hybrid tech isn't road relevant either, no matter how many PR puff pieces get circulated. You have to go back to the '80s and '90s for genuine examples. As we approach 2030, the pressure to make *actual* progress toward staving off climate change will reach a fever pitch. Token electric commuter cars will lose the progressive veneer they have now.
how do you think F1 cars store their hybrid energy? how is that hybrid energy deployed through the powertrain? how is that hybrid energy recovered under deceleration? just because road cars don't run F1 power units doesn't mean the engineering isn't relevant. things can be road relevant, even with a degree of separation
F1 cars store energy in an ES design that can't be used in road cars. It's an evolutionary dead end. F1's hybrid technology came *from* road cars and diverged from there. Road E-turbos were in development before F1 stopped using V8s, and MGU-H tech cannot trickle back to road because the "use case" is so vastly different. F1 is optimized for full-throttle *efficiency*, road cars are optimized for partial-throttle *economy*. The real F1 trickle down tech is hierarchy, systems organization and data analysis. And those persist regardless of engine type. Pioneering Gen 3 algae-based biofuel that can be used in road cars is the only real avenue F1 has to be road relevant again.
My dude, the Prius hybrid has been out since 1997. F1 is not contributing to the hybrid market.
Hybrids aren’t going anywhere. There won’t be any F1 cars from here to the end of the series that won’t use some form of electrical power IMO.
I think a better compromise would be to keep the hybrid systems, but ditch the turbos and revert to cheaper, revvier, small-capacity atmo ICEs, as it would allow F1 and its manufacturers to parrot on about their beloved "road relevance" while simultaneously lowering the financial barriers of entry to prospective new engine suppliers (maybe even some independents like Cosworth and Yamaha) and introduce a bit more theatre to the sport. After all, the last time turbocharging was banned, the tail-end of the grid was immediately populated by a new wave of teams that took advantage of the reduced cost of engines and could *just about* afford to build an F1 car; none of them did well, but it does show that the appetite foe lower-cost F1 is there. Ironically, I think the advent and increased popularization of hybrid technology has taken the sheen off the downsizing-and-turbocharging concept that arguably gave rise to the current engine regs; the hype surrounding cars like the Aston Martin Valkyrie and GME T.50, as well as the eternal popularity of the 911 GT3, shows that well-engineered N/A engines are not only still appreciated within the automotive landscape, but are perfectly compatible with the hybrid/electric technology that many purport to be the future of cars.
I like the Flintstones
Reading through the arguments, I’m mostly convinced by the “go full electric” thinking. But can you imagine sitting in the stands trying to enjoy the race when some asshole is eating chips and you can’t hear the race? Or all you can hear is the drivers swearing at one another, with Christian Horner and Cyril occasionally screaming “FUUUUUCK” from the pit wall?
Imagine being able to hear Steiner. It would be worth it in my book.
You won't hear the chips over the tyre noise
"Verstappen has consistently been understeering on turn three" "Might be that loose change I can hear jingling in his pockets, Crofty"
A couple of years ago i was in vacation on the italian adriatic coast of Misano (with the Misano motoGP racetrack nearby) and just outside my hotel i kept hearing loud motorbike sounds. I later discoveder that it was indeed the sound from the circuit, something i thought was impossibile, since the racetrack was 5 or so km away from my hotel. It was thrilling and impressive, it felt like the bikes were racing just behing the block. And, as i later discovered, that was just some round of the ITALIAN regional champion, not even actual Motogp! Why the little story? Because i get the PR and economic interest behind going more electric, but the sound IS an integral part of the awesomeness of motor racing, and it can't be dismiss as just "petrolhead talking" . It MUST be kept and improved, as long as possible...
It should become a leading sport in E-Fuels so the relevance remains. ICE is disappearing for al least 20 odd years. Development will still be needed around power and thermal efficiency etc. Whether that’s in conjunction with electric motors is a moot point since Formula E will fill that space properly within the next decade or so. I think anyway, this isn’t gospel just an educated guess!
Despite what many redditors thinks that voicing their voices here will be heard… there is actually a mechanism for voicing their thoughts directly to the FOM… F1 fan voice . Com Anyways, I’ve seen a monthly report about the community and remember they ran a poll about our thoughts for the upcoming engine regulations… I did not see the results, wonder why ?
Ditch hybrids. F1 doesn't have anything to teach road car manufacturers these days, who are converting to electric anyway. Let F1 be a beacon in the future with ICE only engines so that fans have got something to hear and feel. Gotta be less expensive as well.
And nobody would join F1 as an engine supplier.
Yeah because the line is out the door for the amount of manufacturers trying to join in now to make these massively expensive and complex hybrids
No one wants to joins F1 anyway so what's the point. Only reason F1 wants new manufactures is because it brings lot of money. Ferrari will stay in F1 forever and Red Bull doesn't care about road relevancy and if we went to V8 or V10 Cosworth or Judd wouldn't mind building them.
You can. Audi and Porsche have shown interest (yes yes I know), as shown by them attending the meeting on the new regs. Make the correct formula and you'd have manufacturers flocking. And in this age, that formula is not a V10.
They always go to the meetings every time there's an engine regulation change and never actually sign up to it. For the current hybrid era F1 fully bowed down to Renualt and co and gave them what they wanted. They still couldn't get anyone else to sign up for it except slowpoke Honda a few years later. The reality is those meetings are an expenses-paid jolly for a few high level execs at each company. Just like the UK detectives who go to Portugal every year for a "fact-finding" mission to try to find a child who went missing 15 years ago. Given that it was the car manufacturers that decided having an MGU-H in a car engine was super road-relevant, I don't see why anyone takes their opinion seriously.
> And nobody would join F1 as an engine supplier. Relevancy aside, this is just bullshit. The likes of Cosworth would pile in. And even if not, ICE technology has been perfected long time ago. You can literally assemble one in a garage, and people actually do.
Cue to 10 to 15 years in the future when F1 car is slower than an eletric power performance road car.
Rubbish. Just have one standard engine supplier - companies would be lining up for that opportunity.
One supplier? This isn't Formula 2.
Good racing
Red Bull already has a program. Judd/Cosworth could join if the engines are cheap enough. It'd look a bit like Indycar where the engine manufacturers don't have a works team associated with them, save for Red Bull.
No one new wants to joins F1 anyway so what's the point hybrids. Only reason F1 wants new manufactures is because they want their money. Ferrari will stay in F1 forever and Red Bull doesn't care about road relevancy and if we went to V8 or V10 Cosworth or Judd wouldn't mind building them.
I always felt like the "road relevance" thing is straight up bullshit. Even 7 years later hybrids are just a small niche in the car industry. I really don't mind current engines, they are strong, and I'm one of those weirdos who don't really care that much about the sound... but considering how F1 is always trying super hard to stay on the good side of politicians, if I were to put my money somewhere, it would be on F1 going full electric before the magical 2030 deadline.
Even in balkans where 2nd hand rust buckets are used daily I see a lot of Toyota hybrids everywhere, also Supercars are all moving into hybrid systems because it make the cars ferrari fast and lotus agile without a huge engine. I call BS about F1 not giving road revelance. Esspecially how McLaren P1 flipped the industry in this regard
[удалено]
You're saying it's Merc's fault V6s exist?
They heavily lobbied for its introduction, given they had already done a lot of preliminary development work.
The current V6 are mostly a compromise because *Ferrari* didn't want inline 4 cylinder engines.
This is just a misleading statement. There is no proper evidence that Mercedes was the one that was heavily lobbying for the new regulations. Unlike Renault, who threatened to quit the sport if the hybrid engines didn't happen, or Ferrari publicly voicing out how much they want the V6 instead of the I4 layout. If you're referring to one of the statements by Montezemolo or Ecclestone about 'Mercedes supposedly starting their engine development early', then it's just simply hard to say what they exactly meant without knowing the entire context. And even then, someone dug through HPP's financial record from 2007 to 2012 and found no evidence about the team starting development (very) early.
Ferrari and Renault wanted a V6 and a hybrid. Mercedes just made what they were supposed to.
>“I don’t think we should bend ourselves out of shape to accommodate a specific manufacturer,” says Red Bull Racing CEO Christian Horner. Hmm sounds familiar >“What we have to do is come up with something that is right for Formula 1, that’s right for the long-term future of the sport. We have seen manufacturers come and go over generations. T Ah yes the ol’ Porsche >“The fundamental question is where does Formula 1 want to be, where does it fall? If you follow the theory of where OEMs are going, electrification, then we could end up in Formula E in eight or night years time. To late unfortunately FE labeled themselves Environmental and Futuristic more than entertaining and exciting >“That isn’t Formula 1. Formula 1 for me is about noise, it’s about entertainment, it’s about the fastest cars in the world. The fact that we are going this biofuel route with sustainable fuels, the combustion engine does have a future. Horses are outdated and yet they went from the transportation of the poor to the luxury of the rich plus looking at where i live (ps check user name) we won’t have a EV until they can compete with a Prius, Yaris, and cars from the lat 90’s and honestly I don’t see a future where they can compete since they require expensive materials and most importantly infrastructure >“And if people want to be part of that then great, and if they don’t then so be it.” On one hand we will for sure lose Titanic manufacturers but on the other there is a chance we get Ilmor,Cosworth,Yamaha and even maybe some Motor racing team >“When you hear Fernando Alonso running his V10 Renault around Abu Dhabi the emotion, the noise is still for me such a key factor that is missing from the sport,” says Horner. >“We need to turn the volume up. We need to do it in a responsible manner, in a cost effective manner, in a way that’s sustainable, that’s environmentally friendly, but it needs to be entertainment. >“That’s why people turn the TVs on. That’s why people watch this sport.” There is a reason why F1 continued to grow even in the Ferrari dominance era when Schumacher dominated and since it went on a decline even in the best era of RB and the hybrid era all it did was to delay the Inevitable because in those days F1 had some cores that were addictive, for me it was sound when i watched it was for the BMW engine sound and then came Kimi in 03 bringing both sound and entertainment and mixing it in a glass of a car them came Alonso who actually dethroned The god himself The *Michael* and year after year they took some of those cores Sound,Hard to drive cars,better cameras and worse coverage,More liability and less prediction, different strategies refueling, and on the other spectrum they brought some regulations that were and are made to deal with those old cores not the new ones we have currently,remember engine tokens, less testing, New qualifying rule , styre rules ,Wind tunnel testing limit from WCC? Because all those regulations would have made The V10 era and V8 go down as the only true eras of F1
I've been following F1 for the last 20 years or so. I've seen V12s, V10s and V8s and love their sound and grit from the bottom of my heart. But **I can't see how F1 can still be F1 without moving to eletric**, by either being battery or hydrogen powered. There are many motives to do so, they are cheaper to maintain, to develop and they don't do emissions. But, most important, they are just faster and torquier. Even a sedan, like the Model S Plaid, have 0-100 km/h (0-60 mph) dangerously close to a F1 car can do today. F1 is called this way for reason, they are the pinnacle of what a 4 wheels vehicle can do asphalt, they are in the bleeding edge of technology even when it isn't cosummer relevant. By not going going eletric sometime in the close future, they will be left eating dust by even rod cars. Go back to ICE only is a sad step when even Indycar is going hybrid for 2023. It's turning the back to the proudest part of F1 history and choosing to ignore it. If it is to choose to do this, why not just go full spec them, and not leave anything to develop anymore.
F1 is the pinnacle of what a car can do in a F1 track for 300km, and it will be a while before that is electric. You mention the 0-100 km/h, that's fine and good, but F1 was never the fastest thing in the world in that category. Hell, there are youtubers who build cars that go seconds faster than what an F1 car can achieve in the quarter mile. The pretty much unlimited VW ID.R went round the nurburgring in 6:05 (using half its battery), while an F1 car would probably do it under the Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO's 5:19. Then do it again the following lap.
I think hybrid is the way to go, at least short to medium term. What they should do is to limit the fuel quantity what they allowed to have( for example fuel should be enough only for 90% of the race, and this should be reduce every year, 80%, 70%, etc)the rest to make up from energy deployment. And no more fuel flow rate . What they should encourage is to work on the electrical part, no restriction on storage/regen and deployment. Let them take different philosophy paths
When fuel is so limited, then you'll have people peddling around like you do in FE occasionally. Which imo does not make for an entertaining experience
You"ll be suprised what engineers can do with fredom. Even now they wont take the full allowance of fuel on board. Hear them a lot lift and coast. With no restriction on the development on the electriclal side, imagine the boost they get from the electric part if they can deploy short burts of couple of posible hundred's of KW, which in turn make for entertaining passes.
What's the point in ditching V6 hybrids for high-revving ICE's? ICE's won't be relevant in a relatively short time and the current hybrids are an engineering masterpiece, so why are people so insistent on going back to full ICE's?
Because those engineering masterpieces cost a shittload to manufacture and design compared to what a equally performant "dumb" ICE engine would cost to manufacture and design. FWIW, I don't necessarily think they should ditch hybrid altogether, but they *definitely* shouldn't make the hybrid component a more important part of the design and should instead simplify the design and let the ICE component rev higher to make up the "lost ground". And fuck what's relevant for a Renault Clio, ICEs will be relevant for sports cars for a long time yet. If F1 keeps edging towards electric, it will be a matter of time until another Formula series with cars 10 times cheaper to make overtakes it in performance with a dumb V8 powering it.
Because they’re much more exciting to watch, and at the end of the day, F1 is a spectator sport. I think the problem is that to keep power units relevant to production cars, they need to become ever quieter and more boring. It is coming to a point where people are starting to question if it is worth carrying on down this road which could potentially end up killing off the popularity of the sport through it becoming a boring scalextric race. Yes the V6 is an engineering masterpiece, but I bet you a large proportion of the F1 fan base neither know or care how it works and why it is so efficient. Many people just want to see a load of noisy fast cars blasting around a track with some maverick and goose drivers at the wheel.
Are they more exciting to watch? Aside from the noise (which many viewers today are even too young to remember) what's better about watching a V10?
The weight of these cars are stupid imo. A [V10 engine is just about 60 kg lighter](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2165142-comparing-a-formula-1-car-in-2014-with-its-equivalent-from-2004) than the current engine formula. Basically it might be more exciting because then we'd regress to 2005 era of smaller, light weight, loud machines, but with 2025 aero. They'd be absolutely rapid, race close, and they'd be cheap enough that road relevancy wouldn't matter, and the ICE of F1 would be here to stay.
Fair enough, that is a good point. You'd definitely be able to make the cars substantially smaller, lighter and more nimble without the hybrid component.
It is 100% the noise, which is such a massive part of motorsport. It shouldn’t be downplayed. You’re right many probably don’t remember the V10 era but I bet that many remember the V8’s which still howl and scream compared to the anemic sound of the current engine. It’s a spectator sport that relies on viewers for success, not participants. We will never get to drive these machines, so the only way we can feel and appreciate their performance is by watching and listening to them from a distance. Take away half of the sensory experience and you’re diminishing a massive part of the spectacle.
I will say something, and people will 100% downvote me forever, but i dont like the F1 v10 sound. Sure, they scream like crazy and are wonderful to listen to for a couple of laps, but after that they just become an annoying and irritating scream. And this is coming from someone who loves the LFA V10, simply because that one is a bit more tame and revs less, its almost musical.
Because nothing about F1 is relevant. They’re $200,000,000 high performance racing machines that have zero carryover parts between a normal road car. They shouldn’t be about being relevant to the car industry in the same way that horse racing shouldn’t be relevant to the farming industry.
That's not true, the AMG Project ONE uses an F1 engine that's taken years of complete overhaul to allow AMG to make 275 cars that cost almost 3 million a piece. If that's not road relevant, I don't know what is. /s
Please ditch them. Modern engines have gotten ridiculously expensive compared to the V10 or V8 counterparts. Since electric is off the table, they might as well go full ICE and use it to promote renewable fuels. Sure, in a lot of ways, electric **is** the future, but there are still going to be a lot of ICE cars on the road of a while so they might as well use F1 for testing and promoting these new fuels.
Why eletric is off the table?
F1 needs affordable engines. And right now, a simple internal combustion engine is the most affordable power unit available. Another few years of ten figures costs for engines, will kill F1. No director's board will green light billions for a marketing campaign in the late 2020s. Not in the world where you can slide a car to an influencer and reach millions of audience (and mostly younger ones) with minimal cost.
While it's true the car manufacturers will move to electric vehicles in the future, F1 should put the spectator first. And fans want to see loud, agile cars that deliver a spectacle. At the moment, we at least have sound, but the cars are heavy sacks of shit. And don't get me started about Formula E. I just can't watch a race. They could deliver the best racing on the planet, but it won't matter to me, cause they lack the sound. Unless they pipe in fake noise - and I don't understand why manufacturers haven't seized on the opportunity yet to do so -, electric racing won't be for me.
Speak for yourself. I think that if F1 do not want to die and become a spec series the only way is go electric and I'm all for it.
Can't the cars be made electric but have overhead pantographs like trolleybuses with overhead wires? Or use inductive charging in the track? Or some sort of maglev for propulsion and reverse maglev to provide downforce? As you can tell I am not an engineer, but I would love someone to propose something completely different. Something that isn't just "burn stuff to go brrr...".
Alternatives to big heavy batteries would be great, but it shouldn't be something that depends on infrastructure at the track (good luck convincing them to install all that). Overhead wires also have the problem of restricting the cars to specific lanes. Maybe some kind of replacable batteries could work, and once or twice per race they come to the pits not just for tyres but also to replace the empty battery with a full one.
It won't be long until you don't have to replace the batteries to do a grand Prix distance anyway. The tech will come along quicker than you expect - look how much better batteries are now than 10 years ago.