2011 "Eco-Friendly F1"

  • Thread starter Thread starter GT4 genius
  • 71 comments
  • 3,699 views

Are the purposed plans good for F1 aswell as the enviroment?

  • Yes, I like my countries weather the way it is!

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • No, I dont like polar bears!

    Votes: 13 50.0%

  • Total voters
    26
Messages
1,883
Ireland
Ireland
Messages
GT4genius or GTP_...
Do you believe the purposed rules for F1 in 2011 will be a good or bad thing. Discuss!!
Just incase you didnt hear about them, the were launched at the end of June and here are the main ones:
1 1.3-1.5 litre, 4 cylinder engine.

2 no RPM or boost limit

3 energy recovery from the exhaust

4 brake energy recovery, front and rear axle

5 Pump-legal bio-fuel

6 FIA specified and supplied undertray and possibly other aero compoents

7 50% 2007 downforce

8 adjustable, regulated wings and cooling

9 auto downforce adjustment when following another car

10 over 50% reduction in fuel consumed.
 
I don't see those changes making much difference to the environment, but if "adjustable aerodynamics" means adjustable while on the move, and if they decide to let the teams design their own aerodynamic bits, that sounds good to me. Should make innovation more visible again. The auto downforce adjust when following a car and reduction in downforce in general might make for closer racing too. On the flipside, whenever there's a major rule shift like this, one of the big money teams are always sure to buy the right formula and dominate for a few seasons. By the time the small teams have just about caught up, the FIA will move the goalposts again...

Weren't the 1.5 litre turbos that F1 ran in the '80s thirstier than the 3.0 or 3.5 (forget which) normally aspirated engines of the era? Going to be tough improving consumption by 50% with that configuration, I would have thought. Then again, that large downforce reduction in itself might improve consumption, as would adjusting the downforce to minimum on the straights and maximum in the corners...
 
I like the idea of the downforce adjustment when following a car and the improved fuel economy. I think it will be pretty cool to see the constructors trying to get more power with better economy, though it may be better with even less restrictions on the engine.
 
IMO I like the idea of keeping environment cleaner, but I'm worried all these changes will make cars a lot slower. I'm used to seeing F1's fly by, entering and exiting the corners at insane speeds. Now even though new F1's won't be slow, it will definitely won't be as fast as todays F1's. If this is all about environment then it's a big B.S. Let's look other kind of racing events like "Drag Racing", "Nascar" their not the most environmentally friendly. So I don't know I'm just giving my 2 cents. Perhaps it will all be good. I guess with time we'll see.
 
I wonder if they would allow diesel engines? The Audi R10 has been so dominant in the ALMS but still too many Americans think that diesel is only for big trucks. Would be nice to see more diesel powered race cars.

So with the requirement of brake energy recovery does that mean they will be hybrid bio-fuel/electric?

As for the pole I don't think any changes to the race cars will have any affect at all on the environment. Now if you made every single support vehicle 50% more efficient and they all traveled via commercial flights and all their operations were made carbon neutral (and really carbon neutral not this carbon trading scam) then maybe, just maybe it could make about .001% difference in the environment.
 
Is this a joke? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.
 
Is this a joke?

I think I need to get a new BS-detector...apparently, there is a proposal for what he's saying:

Link...

GP.com Article
The inside story on the latest 2011 proposals

The World Motorsport Council has been hearing today about the latest ideas for the rules for the FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 2011 onwards. It is important to point out that everything that is included in these proposals is open to discussion and that the manufacturers are playing an important role in the development of the regulations. The thaw in relations between the parties involved appears to bearing fruit and there is a promise of some fascinating new concepts.

The initial ideas of turbo-diesel engines have been dropped - as we suggested they would be. This was because of lack of support amongst the manufacturers. The move is now towards much smaller 4-cylinder engines with between 1.3-litre and 1.5-litre displacement. These will be turbocharged. Back in the 1980s Formula 1 built 1.5-litre turbos that were capable of producing an astonishing 1500hp but the engines being discussed today would be much less powerful because of greater control on the electronics and, most importantly, on the fuels that will be used. Efficiency will be the key to the new engines with F1 path-finding and changing perceptions for the automotive industry.

That at least is the plan.

"Savings on fuel that will send out a super message," says Tony Purnell, the former boss of Jaguar Racing who is working on the new rules for the F1. "The engines will also have small electric-assist elements which we hope will make them sexy for the fans. There is no chance of the engines producing the same sort of horsepower because they will not have to push the cars down the straights with the downforce generating devices that we have today. We are going to be working with the fuel companies because no-one wants a fuel race of any kind. The engines we imagine in 2011 will be quite different because they will be designed for efficiency with the electrical-assist features built in."

Purnell says that the engines will probably only be producing around 400 horsepower but will feature push-to-pass buttons that will unleash regenerative energy created by the cars. This will produce "considerable" extra power.

"It would be a maximum of 250 extra horsepower," says Purnell. "But you won't get it for long. Or you can have a little extra power for a longer time. That will create new strategic elements in the racing."

The latest ideas on aerodynamics include active front and rear wings on the cars, so that they will change angle as they go down the straights, creating less drag and thus allowing the cars to go faster.

"Today all the cars contain multiple motion-control systems," says Purnell. "They are all safety-critical. Nowadays F1 teams know how to design safety critical systems and know how to look after fail-safe features. They are commonplace in F1 and are not fundamentally dangerous. The level of sophistocation is much more advanced than when F1 first tried movable wings in the 1960s and active suspension systems in the 1980s. That was pioneering stuff and the sophistocation was not there. I am quite relaxed about the idea in F1."

Another key element in the new proposals is that the FIA will produce its own underbodies which teams will have to bolt to their cars.

"The main downforce-generating element on an F1 car is the underside," says Purnell. "By removing that we will equalise the cars somewhat and it will mean that aero gains from the top surfaces would be only second order gains At the moment you might spend $5m to gain 4% more downforce, in the future if you spent the same amount the gains would be about of tenth of that.

"What we are reallly [sic] trying to is to put in rules that will improve the show. That means different things to different people but we get the impression that fans want to see closer racing and overtaking. Active aerodynamics and active balance control is the way to do that. At the moment the balance goes to pot when you are in the wake of another car. If we are able to change the aero balance of a car that is in turbulence behind another car, the drivers will be more confident to overtake."

To achieve this the FIA is proposing a system of turbulence sensors which will react when a car is in the wake of another vehicle and will lower the ride-height and changed the pitch of the car to give it downforce. It will then be able to get into the slipstream of the car in front.

"What we are trying to create is a formula to make good racing as well as very sophistocated [sic] cars that will have some benefit for production cars and not cost too much. In F1 money is spent if money is there but we can attempt to make the money spent less rewarding in terms of lap times."

The latest set of proposals are just that. There is much talking still to be done but the signs are that the FIA is moving towards creating a F1 that will be more spectacular than it is today, with more interesting technologies and more actual racing.

And that cannot be a bad thing.

"I don't mind people not agreeing with what we are doing," says Purnell, "but I find it difficult being criticised for what we are trying to do."

Note: One of the "premier" web F1 sites can't use a free spell-checker, apparently.

In any case, I wouldn't be completely against a series like this, but it should not be called Formula One. It sounds like we'll get a bunch of cookie-cutter cars -- since there will too much control by the FIA in terms of design and technology, not to mention direct control of the internals of engine control devices -- which means F1 cars in 4 years will be like NASCAR's ridiculous-looking (and not at all like a stock car) "Car of Tomorrow". Of course, we're already getting cars that look nearly identical, since the FIA is very strict about how each dimension and plane is determined, leaving little room for stylistic creativity.

I don't mind the lack of power; that's not my issue, it's the obsessive manipulation by the governing body to control every last bit of technology that makes it seem like a feeder series for Grand Prix racing rather than the pinnacle of open-wheeled motorsport that Formula One acing is supposed to represent. If we're going to a 400-horsepower series, then give the cars tons of mechanical grip and enforce minimal aerodynamic grip. Take away traction controls and the like. And give them back slick tires that last a whole race...I kind of liked that rule in 2005, and it actually meant the tire companies provided something useful back to road-going cars.
 
Auto racing by nature is not eco-friendly, nor should it be. No matter what happens, F1 teams will always find an extra edge, so no matter what the FIA mandates, the series will still be worth watching.
 
They should all race round in electric cars.... like using the engine out of that tesla sports car and build it onto an f1 frame.... I bet it would be quick!

The race would be quieter and the pitstops would be for quick recharges but it would be interesting to watch..

Bah! keep F1 the way it is...
 
F1 can stay as polluting as it wants. If they truly want to save the environment, there are things far more polluting than F1.

I've thought about it sometime, why not remove any regulations regarding the engine, and instead force a fuel-cap for each race (similar to Group C regulations)? That way, there's room for innovation and you save some fuel.


Oh, and am I the only one who sees a problem in a car that automatically changes the suspension when following another car? I mean, if at all, the driver should do that. Automatic systems of this kind are bound to cause trouble - be it failing, or causing the driver to lose control.

I have to agree, some of these ideas sound nice - for GP2. Or some other series. But it's not F1.
 
*Puts his waders on*

I think this is a great idea in terms of what F1 should be aiming for in the future.

F1 is known for being at the forefront of motorsport technology and automotive technology in general. Semi automated gear boxes, traction control, several areas of aerodynamics and many more have all been discovered in and, if not, highly developed through competition in F1. And these have thus, made their way through to other motorsports and road cars.

Now all of these have been because they make the cars faster and more competitive which has pretty much always been the aim of performance car manufacturers aswell.

However, things are changing. Manufacturers are starting to reveal their plans for the next decade and even Ferrari is aiming to make their cars more efficient and environmentally friendly. Except these properties don't make cars faster, generally, thus F1 teams are going to develop these technologies in their cars unless forced to do so.

This is why I think the FIA are right in making F1 more environmentally friendly. F1 should always be at the forefront of technology, even if that means it needs a general push in teh right direction so that it develops relevant technology and won't be dismissed in future as an old man's sport with old ideals.
 
Is this a joke? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

Agreed. If they were serious about the environment, I mean really really serious, they'd start by banning all spectators. Any pollution and alleged global warming caused by the F1 cars is insignificant compared to what spectators create by going to the venue.
 
Then you could ban F1 with it then.
 
I don't think it will take the cars down to 400bhp. The BMW turbocharged F1 engine in the Brabham in the '80s was 1.5 litres and 4 cylinders and it made over 1000bhp in qualifying trim. So there's no reason for the new engines to be down on power compared to the current ones, unless the fuel consumption has a particularly big impact.

GT4 Genius said "no boost limit" and "energy recovery from exhaust", both of which imply turbocharging.
 
The best thing F1 can do is ban the use of wind tunnels, that'll 'help' the environment far more than any of the above things proposed.
 
The best thing F1 can do is ban the use of wind tunnels, that'll 'help' the environment far more than any of the above things proposed.
Or have all the races at one track that has multiple layouts.

Lets be serious...
 
I like exige excel's point that F1 should be usered in the direction of the main motor industry ie electric motors and bio-fuels although i would also like to see F1 being used as a sort of experiment for hydrogen fueled cars and alternative fuels.

PS: the lap times in 2011 are supposed to be as good as they will be in 2009
so we dont need to worry about it becoming slow.
 
Err... Shouldn't cars hit a certain peak this year? After all, next year is wider, shorter cars - meaning more drag.
 
Err... Shouldn't cars hit a certain peak this year? After all, next year is wider, shorter cars - meaning more drag.
But this year the engines are smaller and the revs limited.
 
They were last year as well...

This year, they're also far slower because of the uniform tyres - which should be staying next year. So same engines, same tyres, but more drag.
 
Or have all the races at one track that has multiple layouts.

Lets be serious...

My idea was serious and totally practical, wind tunnels use an unbelievable amount of energy, at least limit teams to 1 wind tunnel.
 
My idea was serious and totally practical, wind tunnels use an unbelievable amount of energy, at least limit teams to 1 wind tunnel.
But then you're beginning to stifle F1's ability to make advances in aerodynamics, something F1 has always been strong in.
 
They were last year as well...

I don't remember the cars being rev-limited last year.

But then you're beginning to stifle F1's ability to make advances in aerodynamics, something F1 has always been strong in.

I'm pretty sure they could sort out aerodynamics using computers.
 
I'm pretty sure they could sort out aerodynamics using computers.
While Computational Fluid Dynamic's has proved it's use several times and I do believe used by the teams, they wouldn't still use the wind tunnels if it was perfect. It wouldn't make sense financially or practically.

For example, the JCB Diesel Max was designed purely with the use of CFD, however, it was quite a basic concept. It was simply required to travel in a straight line on flat ground with just enough downforce to prevent take off.
 
For example, the JCB Diesel Max was designed purely with the use of CFD, however, it was quite a basic concept.

And the Aston Martin DBR9
 
Source?

Also, the DBR9 isn't neccesarily a big step into aerodynamics. A front and rear spoiler, flat floor and rear diffuser aren't rare in GT racing.

If you look at the sheer number of winglets placed on the modern F1 car you realise just how complex the aeropdynamics are.
 
That's not disputable. But as of yet, it would appear that CFD is not of the level to replace the wind tunnel in F1. That may very well change in as little as 5 years, but it's the sort of change that will be implemented by the teams without the need for new rules because of it's benefits.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
I've thought about it a bit more... And I have two more problems with this.

One is the regulated underbodys. I have a problem with regulated anyparts in F1 - you can restrict all you want, but standartized parts just aren't F1. F1, since the very first days, was about developement of superior parts. Regulated ECUs are acceptable, seeing as they're still very customizeable in terms of the engine - only difference will be a better chance of catching traction-control systems. However, underbodys play a crucial role in developing a car's downforce. It just doesn't feel right to have a base platform which everyone has to use. Now they're introducing regulated undertrays. Next stop: Identical cars. Then success-ballast.

Second problem is the push-to-pass type of power-regeneration. I'm all for regenerative brakes and exhaust-systems. However, I do not support push-to-pass systems, as they introduce a level of strategy and "I push, you push" to the race which I really, really don't like. If the systems worked like roadcar-hybrid systems, then I'm all for it - aiding the car's acceleration when it struggles out of a corner, or just a constant bit of extra oomph provided by the electronic power-system. But limited-use push-to-pass systems, I just can't see F1 with such things that scream "Spectacle! We need a spectacle!". Again - I support hybrid systems - just, if you're already going to make roadcar-influencing types of technology, do it properly with things also useable on the road - a constant small boost rather than a short burst of power down a straight.

Adjustable aero seems okay-ish, just not that great an idea - it still doesn't help with overtaking, since the only difference is less downforce down a straight - equally, for both cars, hence it's advantages when racing each other are negligible once both cars have such systems.
Auto-adjusting aero, I've said my opinion about that - I disapprove of it. Plus, it'd only lessen the chance of overtaking down the straight if you suddenly have extra downforce rather than less drag. If you already have manually-adjustable systems, then it's useless anyway - a driver will always know when he should or shouldn't change the aero. A machine, while at times more reliable and precise, just doesn't have the judgment-skills a driver has.
 
Back