How to fix F1?

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

The people in the business tend to live in a bubble and perhaps need to tell the world more about the incredible achievements they are responsible for.The vast increase in the efficiency of the ICE in the current era needs to be brought into the consciousness of the general public.The recent climate change protests in London could be the thin end of the wedge as far as motorsport is concerned and it would be a sound move to spread the word that F1 is leading the way in developing better ways to propel vehicles.

But that would go against the meme being sold that electric is the one and only future

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Who’s Steve Johnson?

I remember him being called Steve Johnson. I think it was Alan Jones who started it and it stuck, even when he drove in CART.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Does this help?

https://www.sjphoto.com/

Stephen Johnson? Now that's just confusing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Stephen Johnson? Now that's just confusing.

OT: If you want confusion - when my parents went to register my brother's birth, they were asked if they were spelling with a 'ph' or 'v'. They hadn't considered this, but after a few moments thought, told the registrar 'ph'.
The certificate was completed, and only a few days later did they realise that the middle name had been entered as 'Stephan'.
So to this day - his middle name is Stephan, pronounced Steven!!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

OT: If you want confusion - when my parents went to register my brother's birth, they were asked if they were spelling with a 'ph' or 'v'. They hadn't considered this, but after a few moments thought, told the registrar 'ph'.
The certificate was completed, and only a few days later did they realise that the middle name had been entered as 'Stephan'.
So to this day - his middle name is Stephan, pronounced Steven!!

Sometimes, you just can't win.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

The people in the business tend to live in a bubble and perhaps need to tell the world more about the incredible achievements they are responsible for.The vast increase in the efficiency of the ICE in the current era needs to be brought into the consciousness of the general public.

the improvements in thermal efficiency is fantastic but is it really a message the general public cares about?

anecdotally speaking, the growing number of SUVs and trucks on the road and in production suggests to me people dont really care about the amount of gas they burn or the price they pay for it (in N.America at least).

and, as Apex pointed out, those that do care only care about an all electric future.

or from a more cynical point of view, does advertising their improvements in thermal efficiency just highlight how inefficient their road cars are and have been for decades? they might as well just be telling people to go buy electric instead.

[ApexTurtle]

I don't think that last part is true though. It's no surprise electric cars are marketed as being the fastest accelerating cars you can buy. People like you and me might wonder what the top speed is and how long you can drive at that speed before the batteries overheat or die, but the average joe only sees a youtube video of a Tesla winning a drag race against a Mustang or whatever

It's the same reason you often hear people talking about how efficient an electric motor is. Because it's a decent number, but only part of the equation. The other part, the VERY inefficient storage of electricity, just doesn't get mentioned.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the improvements in thermal efficiency is fantastic but is it really a message the general public cares about?

See comments below...

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anecdotally speaking, the growing number of SUVs and trucks on the road and in production suggests to me people dont really care about the amount of gas they burn or the price they pay for it (in N.America at least).

Agree

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and, as Apex pointed out, those that do care only care about an all electric future.

Again... agree

Originally Posted by chillibowl

or from a more cynical point of view, does advertising their improvements in thermal efficiency just highlight how inefficient their road cars are and have been for decades? they might as well just be telling people to go buy electric instead.

Yes... actual efficiency numbers may not impress. They may have assumed they were higher than they actually are. Given how we have decades of "new and improved" gas engines, I can imagine uneducated perception of efficiency being VERY high. Actual numbers will trigger thoughts of... Holy crap these things waste energy!!!

I think the positive story is density of energy storage of fossil fuels. But the problem is this value probably hasn't changed a great deal since the first use of refined fossil fuels (or other combustion process fuels) many decades ago. So it's old news.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

It's the same reason you often hear people talking about how efficient an electric motor is. Because it's a decent number, but only part of the equation. The other part, the VERY inefficient storage of electricity, just doesn't get mentioned.

IMHO... Stuff like generation, transmission and storage... Those are problems for "someone else" to solve for the future. But buying electric today allows "me" to do my part. If that makes sense. To be honest, I don't particularly disagree with the conflict here and the dirty secrets of clean energy... as I expect over time the quality of hidden dirt will get smaller and smaller. Some believe it's already perfect. Others maybe know that it is likely to continue to improve while the status quo is likely close to the end of it's cycle of improvements.

Richard

[coppice]

Little Leaf has twigged what we need - root and branch reform ....

[P38 in workshop]

I believe we need to be seen to be doing something to counter the protests we are seeing about climate change and publicising the recent improvements has to be helpful.I have zero interest in watching a bunch of spec cars in Formula E and anybody who tells me that the racing is close and exciting may not understand that this is what happens with identical cars.


In the UK we have an environment where it is seen as a good thing to impose taxes and restrict activities if they are seen as detrimental to the environmental good.I have in the past had to ask local newspapers to remind their readers who want Formula 1 banned for ecological reasons that they have offset carbon emissions for more than twenty years.If we can't counter the arguments from this direction we may anticipate efforts to block television coverage and any kind of promotion of the activity.While a part of me resents a bunch of unemployed vegetarians holding sway,the fact is that they have the time and inclination to rail against anything they feel is damaging the environment.If anybody dislikes the description I have applied then please explain how they find the time to save the world and earn a living.


If we can't fend off the pressure groups-we won't have much of a race series to watch in future years.Which is why I advocate making a fuss about how much more efficient the ICE has become.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the improvements in thermal efficiency is fantastic but is it really a message the general public cares about?

anecdotally speaking, the growing number of SUVs and trucks on the road and in production suggests to me people dont really care about the amount of gas they burn or the price they pay for it (in N.America at least).

and, as Apex pointed out, those that do care only care about an all electric future.

or from a more cynical point of view, does advertising their improvements in thermal efficiency just highlight how inefficient their road cars are and have been for decades? they might as well just be telling people to go buy electric instead.

I personally don't think people care what their car is powered by as long as it's simple. I have a co-worker who says he'll never drive an electric car, even if it charged in 5 minutes because he loves engines too much. Dude drives a 1.6 Litre diesel Hyundai. It's hardly a Flat 6 Porsche.

In general, people don't care. When electric is as easy and cheap as petrol, we'll move to that.

----

Motorsport is a completely different box of frogs, and I don't see why we're determined to make it road relevant. Sailing lost its world relevance a long time ago, and continues as a successful sport. The same could be argued for cycling (although I understand the counter-arguments), show jumping, horse racing etc.

If motorsport is struggling to maintain road relevance, then the answer is to embrace road irrelevance.

[ApexTurtle]

But who's going to pay for that?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

But who's going to pay for that?

Who pays for every other series, and who paid for F1 for the decades before it decided it needed to be road relevant? Who pays for sailing?

If the budgets are so monumentally high that a combination of wealthy enthusiasts and sponsors cannot cover the budget, then that is a problem with high budgets. The answer to this is not to attempt to cover these high budgets, but to deal with the high budgets.

[ApexTurtle]

But high budgets are inherent to high level motorsports. In high level sailing, budgets go upwards of 100 million, usually covered by either a very rich man personally or by manufacturers. Of cars and otherwise. Also some big sponsors. F1 has almost no big sponsors left, besides the manufacturers themselves.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

But high budgets are inherent to high level motorsports. In high level sailing, budgets go upwards of 100 million, usually covered by either a very rich man personally or by manufacturers. Of cars and otherwise. Also some big sponsors. F1 has almost no big sponsors left, besides the manufacturers themselves.

I disagree with the bold part. High budgets are not inherent to high-level motorsports. F1 had a long period of time where it had too many cars to fit on the grid. LMP1 may have just priced itself out, but it spent a long time being healthy with a couple of manufacturers and a lot of privateers. IndyCar and IMSA have managed to keep a lid on things.

Your sailing point is absolutely spot on, and is exactly my point. They cover the budget through a wealthy enthusiast and sponsors. F1 has no sponsors.

So if the sport has no sponsors, and the budgets are too high to be covered by the money coming in, then the problem appears to be budgets and sponsors. Arguing that the cars have to be road relevant is just a way of arguing that road car manufacturers are required due to the massive budgets.

If the cars aren't road relevant then you get the freedom to lower costs quite dramaticaly, and then the problems start solving themselves.

How to fix F1? Stop pretending that the engine in the Red Bull is related to a Honda Civic.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

If motorsport is struggling to maintain road relevance, then the answer is to embrace road irrelevance.

i dont disagree with you but i think completely ignoring road relevance also has its pitfalls.

rather, the amount of time and money spent on an F1 car's aero solution has little to no bearing on the development of the average commuter road car...so should we celebrate that F1 has pursued a road irrelevant technology even when we know the tech is not great for racing?

i suppose what i am saying is that the primary goal of any racing technology should be based on what effect it has on the racing.

if its road relevant then great and let the ad hacks have at it. if its not who cares because the car company can still buy whatever type of ad they want during a commercial break anyways.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i dont disagree with you but i think completely ignoring road relevance also has its pitfalls.

rather, the amount of time and money spent on an F1 car's aero solution has little to no bearing on the development of the average commuter road car...so should we celebrate that F1 has pursued a road irrelevant technology even when we know the tech is not great for racing?

i suppose what i am saying is that the primary goal of any racing technology should be based on what effect it has on the racing.

if its road relevant then great and let the ad hacks have at it. if its not who cares because the car company can still buy whatever type of ad they want during a commercial break anyways.

I'd prefer to look at the opportunities road irrelevance opens up. Engines are a good example, and an easy one to use. In the 90s you could have a V8, V10 or V12 (probably a V6 as well, but it wouldn't be any good). Because these were easy to build it meant you could buy 5 different types of old Ford Cosworth blocks, a Judd, a Yamaha sticker for your HART etc. This alone allowed small teams to stick around at the back of the grid. You were never going to be hasseling the points scorers, but you could compete.

When F1 decided engines had to be road relevant, they immediately made it impossible for small engine builders to compete. It's now completely impossible for anyone to buy a cheap engine. So now the barrier to entry is massive for any team.

Aero is for sure a big thing that needs dealt with, but the engines are the number 1 issue F1 has IMO. And then you have morons like Tott Wolff saying engines are too cheap, which is another part of the same problem - the lock out of engines has given huge amounts of power to a small group, who are able to control the grid through budgets.

Aero has become expensive on its own. Engines are expensive by mandate.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Who pays for every other series, and who paid for F1 for the decades before it decided it needed to be road relevant? Who pays for sailing?

If the budgets are so monumentally high that a combination of wealthy enthusiasts and sponsors cannot cover the budget, then that is a problem with high budgets. The answer to this is not to attempt to cover these high budgets, but to deal with the high budgets.

I broadly agree with this. As to the relevancy question... It seems "road relevancy" exists just to keep the manufactures involved in the sport in the way they are currently involved. That could change. It's just that F1 is afraid to make that change for fear it might go sideways and then all the cards come tumbling down.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

But high budgets are inherent to high level motorsports. In high level sailing, budgets go upwards of 100 million, usually covered by either a very rich man personally or by manufacturers. Of cars and otherwise. Also some big sponsors. F1 has almost no big sponsors left, besides the manufacturers themselves.

I think that ultimately points out that relevancy to current products is not required for sponsorship dollars to be large. So whoever is dumping large dollars into America's Cup boat racing is not doing it because they make sail boats, but because they want their names on the sides of those boats. Of course as I say earlier, the budget is as large as the perceived value (correct demographic eyeball count is watching) of the series. If the world was badminton crazy who know what the development cost of custom rackets might be!

I was giving Stefan Johansson (or Steve Johnson as apparently his close friends call him) a hard time about some of his solutions. But one thing I do agree with his that he seems to not be a fan of road relevancy (as currently implemented) and how manufactures use that to drive the technical direction of the sport. It would be interesting to divorce F1 from road relevancy. If it doesn't then it can only sort of play in the same space as Formula E. And probably would loose that battle as it is following vs. leading. Being that road relevancy is not driven by the sport, but by economics and other factors that are out of their control.

Maybe F1 needs to become a modern version of horse racing and do so unapologetically. However that is a 180 turn from how it works now. It may also raise the question of... Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsports? But Steve Johnson (trying to be his friend) also says (and I agree... as I am a suck-up) that the sport doesn't know what it is. It probably can't change until it gets over it's identity crisis. I am rambling now.

Anyhow... One thing the sport doesn't like is drastic change. Everything seems to be slight tweaks done over the span of many years.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As to the relevancy question... It seems "road relevancy" exists just to keep the manufactures involved in the sport in the way they are currently involved. That could change. It's just that F1 is afraid to make that change for fear it might go sideways and then all the cards come tumbling down.

Maybe F1 needs to become a modern version of horse racing and do so unapologetically. However that is a 180 turn from how it works now. It may also raise the question of... Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsports?

Richard,

I picked out just a part of your post, as it got me wondering where the 'road relevancy' of F1 came from. A quick Google search led me to an article from 2017, which seems to suggest the relevancy only exists as a requirement from engine manufacturers for there to be a wider application of technology.

To those who look at the technical side, they would obviously see that the relevancy between an engine built for F1 and a road-going equivalent is very minuscule.
For the more casual observer or less technical fan, it is also obvious that a Formula One car is so far removed from a road going car that the similarities are again minuscule.

F1 is beginning to recognise this (at least Brawn seems to) with the comment - 'The automotive world is going off on a different direction now, with fuel cell cars, electric cars, autonomous driving - and that's not F1. How do we find the relevant path for the future?'

Which leaves the question of what path does F1 take? A potential lies in the description of F1 that is provided by Wikipedia:

'the highest class of single-seater auto racing sanctioned by the (FIA). [] Drivers must hold [] the highest class of racing licence. []The races must run on [] the highest grade-rating [tracks] issued by the FIA.'

Running a championship to this requirement alone would be relatively simple to achieve, except for one thing that is also recognised by the Wikipedia article:
'Formula One has a significant economic and job-creation effect and its financial and political battles are widely reported. Its high profile and popularity have created a major merchandising environment, which has resulted in large investments from sponsors and budgets'

I'm not saying I have the answer, and if it was that easy then it would already be done, but F1 will always struggle to be all things to all people. As long as the money talks, then it will be what the financial backers require it to be.
F1 should, in my opinion, be about the highest class of everything in 'formula' motor-sport. That is technology, drivers, tracks, facilities, safety etc. Money (or lack of) will always force a compromise somewhere.

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

To those who look at the technical side, they would obviously see that the relevancy between an engine built for F1 and a road-going equivalent is very minuscule..

I do not think this is true, in fact rather the opposite. Smaller turbo engines are extremely relevant, as is extracting as much performance from a drop of fuel as possible. Mercedes made a big hoopla about achieving 50% thermal efficiency with their F1 engine for a reason And then of course there's the hybrid part which is relevant even to electric cars. There is far more innovation and development going in electrification in F1 (and previously LMP1) than FE.

Some people seem to think that 'road relevant' means that actual parts of the racing car need to be directly translatable to an equivalent road car part. This is not the case, when manufacturers talk about road relevance they mean the technology behind the parts will benefit road cars. And make no mistake, despite all the hype electric cars will not replace the venerable combustion engine any time soon. Manufacturers know this too.

[Richard C]

First, let me say... I am enjoying the discussion.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

To those who look at the technical side, they would obviously see that the relevancy between an engine built for F1 and a road-going equivalent is very minuscule.
For the more casual observer or less technical fan, it is also obvious that a Formula One car is so far removed from a road going car that the similarities are again minuscule.

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I do not think this is true, in fact rather the opposite.

So without quoting ApexTurtle's entire quote, I agree with his point. The road relevancy is tied to the power units and it is about efficient turbo engines and/or hybrid solutions. All of that is very relevant to today. It's not about if the exact same technology in F1 has relevancy in production car (it's probably very unlikely that the current high efficiency lean burning tricks that are employed today will show up in road cars, but who knows?) It's more about showing "similar" engines side by side in advertisements with taglines like "F1 technology in your car today!" even if that is actually likely a stretch.

But things are changing quickly. What will tomorrow look like? Can manufactures show F1 cars and power units side by side with the cars of tomorrow? I am doubtful.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

F1 is beginning to recognise this (at least Brawn seems to) with the comment - 'The automotive world is going off on a different direction now, with fuel cell cars, electric cars, autonomous driving - and that's not F1. How do we find the relevant path for the future?'

Which leaves the question of what path does F1 take?

Sorry to quote myself, but I tried to address this question in my earlier post...

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It would be interesting to divorce F1 from road relevancy. If it doesn't then it can only sort of play in the same space as Formula E. And probably would loose that battle as it is following vs. leading.

My point being that road relevancy is not something the sport controls. So surrendering control means... Duh! you are not in the drivers seat. While any business operates at the whims of the marketplace, at least you can choose and craft the products you try to sell or target specific markets. If F1 lets its "product" direction be controlled by outside forces, then it may be pushed into directions it doesn't like or bumps up against competing it otherwise ignored. Such as Formula E. Formula E is likely to always remain ahead of F1 from a "road relevancy" perspective, so F1 will likely continue to produce an inferior product by that measure. Hence my comment about purposefully moving away from road relevancy.

Maybe let F1 become a modern version of Harness racing? Just using highly optimized technology from our recent past. And without trying to obsess over looking forward to the future? Note... I still am for re-introducing stuff like active suspension, etc. I am not proposing we do stone age stuff that is equivalent to high powered Formula Ford. Or as I like to call it... professional vintage racing.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A potential lies in the description of F1 that is provided by Wikipedia:

'the highest class of single-seater auto racing sanctioned by the (FIA). [] Drivers must hold [] the highest class of racing licence. []The races must run on [] the highest grade-rating [tracks] issued by the FIA.'

As I said earlier... F1 has an identity crisis. I have no conflict with the Wikipedia definition, but really all that says it that it is the pinnacle of motorsports. I haven't looked at the entire article see what else it says, but that sliver ignores that it is also a business. My point being that economic realities can't be ignored. Which you talk about here...

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Running a championship to this requirement alone would be relatively simple to achieve, except for one thing that is also recognised by the Wikipedia article:
'Formula One has a significant economic and job-creation effect and its financial and political battles are widely reported. Its high profile and popularity have created a major merchandising environment, which has resulted in large investments from sponsors and budgets'

I take that quote more about the drama around running the sport given the economic impacts. With a key part being that there is a LARGE interest in maintaining the status quo. If you design and build gearboxes, you are likely not interested in rules that adopt a standard gearbox.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not saying I have the answer, and if it was that easy then it would already be done, but F1 will always struggle to be all things to all people. As long as the money talks, then it will be what the financial backers require it to be.

Agree. It could be changed, but it would require some real bravery upon someone like Liberty to put a stake in the sand. But the odds are against that given they are in it for the money and not the love of the sport.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

F1 should, in my opinion, be about the highest class of everything in 'formula' motor-sport. That is technology, drivers, tracks, facilities, safety etc. Money (or lack of) will always force a compromise somewhere.

If a perfect world I would agree. The last sentence however is where it gets complex and is the root of the problems of today (IMHO).

The cars could already be leagues ahead of the current technology that we see today. Active suspension, active aero, exotic materials, etc. All of that is doable today, but has been outlawed because of the economics. I would say we can't afford "moon shot" level efforts (budgets) to build F1 cars. They have to be dialed back to a level that makes financial sense for enough participants to make it interesting to watch.

Richard

[ApexTurtle]

Excellent post! Thank you for your thoughts Richard.

I think I disagree with you fairly strongly on one point though: I do not think FE is leading in any way. FE only exists because there is a religion mostly created by Elon Musk that has as its core tenant one simple mantra: electric propulsion is 'the future'. It doesn't matter that that statement is mostly meaningless. Enough people have bought into that that it makes FE a viable championship. And manufacturers want to be seen associating with those people, because they're easy targets. Those people will buy electric cars because they have convinced themselves they need to. Manufacturers like that kind of gullible money.

FE's battery technology was already outdated before the new car came out, the electric motors are obviously from the stone age and the car itself only looks somewhat 'futuristic' despite being completely bland underneath. Fitting though, I suppose

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Excellent post! Thank you for your thoughts Richard.

I think I disagree with you fairly strongly on one point though: I do not think FE is leading in any way. FE only exists because there is a religion mostly created by Elon Musk that has as its core tenant one simple mantra: electric propulsion is 'the future'. It doesn't matter that that statement is mostly meaningless. Enough people have bought into that that it makes FE a viable championship. And manufacturers want to be seen associating with those people, because they're easy targets. Those people will buy electric cars because they have convinced themselves they need to. Manufacturers like that kind of gullible money.

FE's battery technology was already outdated before the new car came out, the electric motors are obviously from the stone age and the car itself only looks somewhat 'futuristic' despite being completely bland underneath. Fitting though, I suppose

I thought FE started before Elon Musk created Tesla?

[ApexTurtle]

Not even close. Musk took control of Tesla in 2008. FE didn't start until 2014.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

Not even close. Musk took control of Tesla in 2008. FE didn't start until 2014.

Fair enough. Did Tesla start out as a producer of electric vehicles?