The Hybrid/NA Engine Debate (moved from Future Rule Changes)

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Well yes. But that's not a hard thing to explain when you try to make a car that has to go as fast as possible, the only road relevant thing that's left after all that is the engine. Your point seems valid until you start considering context, history etcetera. And once again, road relevance is not the same as 'having the exact same component on the race car as on the road car'. It seems to me you're confusing two different things here.

The engine is not the only remaining thing to discuss when making a vehicle road relevant. In fact, the halo discussion fits with that too, as closed roofed cars have less drag than open topped/halo cars. So not only would roofs have been more road relevant, they'd have been faster.

Also, if you made the engines less road relevant, you'd be able to open up the regs and...go faster. It's only the "only thing left to discuss" because it's been regulated that way.

Nobody has suggested "having the exact same components", so I'm not confused at all.

[Peter Mallett]

SPRINKLES. You would think that because you are technology driven. If you were sport driven you would see that the point is to be as quick as you can within a set of rules. If those rules are far too expensive for real racers to compete you lose the reason for being there.

The recent fastest Nurburgring lap by Porsche was nothing less than fantastic and you probably think it has massive validity. Well it doesn't. It was achieved with a car that was not running to any homologated regs, and it was not achieved in a race. Hence it was not a world lap record.

So to go back to the point. If we can produce an engine to give good horsepower burning 100 litres for a 200 mile race it is a win-win.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The engine is not the only remaining thing to discuss when making a vehicle road relevant. In fact, the halo discussion fits with that too, as closed roofed cars have less drag than open topped/halo cars. So not only would roofs have been more road relevant, they'd have been faster.

Also, if you made the engines less road relevant, you'd be able to open up the regs and...go faster. It's only the "only thing left to discuss" because it's been regulated that way.

I'm struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Any car, whether racing or road, will have an engine (or 'motor'). How that equates to cars having roofs or not, I can't figure out. Open topped cars have more drag. Well, yeah. Everyone knows that. Nobody is going to enter F1 to try and find that out will they?

The problem here is that you can't just ignore historical context. You bring up the halo, but the problem is that F1 cars are open topped because F1 cars are open topped. There is no logical reason. It evolved that way over the past 70 years or so. It's the same reason why F1 eclipses any other motorsport; it's famous for being famous. Also, why do you keep going on about going faster? F1 rules are NOT designed to make F1 cars go fast, they're designed to make F1 cars go as slow as the organizers deem safe. Second time I've had to explain that.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

SPRINKLES. You would think that because you are technology driven. If you were sport driven you would see that the point is to be as quick as you can within a set of rules. If those rules are far too expensive for real racers to compete you lose the reason for being there.

But what are 'real' racers?

The recent fastest Nurburgring lap by Porsche was nothing less than fantastic and you probably think it has massive validity. Well it doesn't. It was achieved with a car that was not running to any homologated regs, and it was not achieved in a race. Hence it was not a world lap record.

I don't care for it. I enjoyed the onboard footage for a bit and then moved on.

So to go back to the point. If we can produce an engine to give good horsepower burning 100 litres for a 200 mile race it is a win-win.

And we can. But we can also build a better one that can go even further for less fuel. Which manufacturers can advertise. Which is why they are in the sport. This is just going round in circles, I've already answered this twice now. But I'll try once again, with a real life example.


Does anyone remember A1GP? I do, I've seen both iterations race live quite a few times. They were specifically designed to be cheap but fast, look good and have great noise. And they did. The tie-in to countries running it like a world cup was pretty smart and worked well to drum up enthusiasm at first. There were decent teams and drivers and even some decent racing! But then... it just died. Because in the end, nobody really cared. Sponsors didn't care, fans didn't either after the new shine went off. No matter how awesome that big loud NA engine was, it wasn't F1. A few years later someone else tried again with Superleague Formula, which had a big V12 that sounded even better. Tried to tie in with Football clubs this time. Nobody cared for that either. I did, because I love a big loud NA racing engine. But in the end, very very few people do.

[ASCII Man]

The tie in with football clubs and countries were daft, also they barely had anything in terms of marketing done to promote the sport so ofcourse nobody cared.
Putting that failure on the type of engines used is pretty silly, to be honest.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

The tie in with football clubs and countries were daft, also they barely had anything in terms of marketing done to promote the sport so ofcourse nobody cared.
Putting that failure on the type of engines used is pretty silly, to be honest.

I'm not doing that though. Whatever engines they used, they would have failed I reckon. But in both championships the fact that they used a big noisy NA engine was very directly used in the marketing.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I'm struggling to see the point you're trying to make.

Not sure why you're struggling. I mean, I do know why you're struggling - you're ignoring what people are saying. But I wrote it out and everything.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I find it very odd that we have these arguments over road relevance, but it only ever centres around one specific component. Why does the PU have to be road relevant, whilst we have open wheels, open cockpits, mad aerodynamics, cars that only work in very specific conditions after a team of engineers spent an hour prepping it, etc.

I realise you're purposely being difficult by saying things like "history!" because F1 cars have always been open top, but F1 cars have never had hybrids and yet we have those. F1 cars have never had head protection. Now we have it. This history argument to argue for hybrids due to road relevance is a strawman at best.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm. Well going back to the point made concerning that alterntve series. That is also irrelevant since it was set up as a different championship that had nothing to do with Formula One.

Have to say that generally I'm learning quite a lot here. So please keep the.discussion going. Whether our position is for or against a certain type of drivetrain the technical info is very interesting.

[Greem]

Slight aside for a moment...

I think one of the most instructive points here is that we, a load of die-hard enthusiasts with literally hundreds (if not thousands!) of years of watching F1 between us, still can't agree on one fundamental thing:

What F1 is, or even we think it's supposed to be.

If we can't get close to an agreement on that, imagine what the turmoil must be within F1 itself as it struggles to reinvent itself to keep it attractive to the existing audience, at the same time as bringing in new casual viewers/spectators to turn them into followers, while ensuring that the existing status quo remains in terms of the money milking machine that it is (once was?).

The drivetrain is but a tiny part of that!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Greem

If we can't get close to an agreement on that, imagine what the turmoil must be within F1 itself as it struggles to reinvent itself to keep it attractive to the existing audience, at the same time as bringing in new casual viewers/spectators to turn them into followers, while ensuring that the existing status quo remains in terms of the money milking machine that it is (once was?).

The drivetrain is but a tiny part of that!

When it comes to the drivetrain and technical regulations, I honestly don't believe there's much turmoil. It's now just a case of "this is what Mercedes and Renault want, so that's what we're doing". The drivetrain issue has done absolutely nothing to improve the sport for the viewer but has raised costs and locked in who can even provide the drivetrains and all at the demand of manufacturers.

There's not much turmoil there - they got exactly what they wanted. Ok, they may have had to compromise between themselves a tiny bit, but other than manufacturer boardrooms, I highly doubt anyone has ever said "Do you know what F1 needs? Small turbo engines that are really quiet and super expensive!"

This sort of attitude can be seen in other advances too. Halo didn't have much turmoil, because they refused to even entertain other ideas.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

But we can also build a better one that can go even further for less fuel. Which manufacturers can advertise.

Are you sure?

Do you really think the average Mercedes E63 AMG, Honda NSX or Civic Type R, Renault Megane RS or Ferrari 812 Superfast buyer cares even one iota about how much fuel their unnecessarily large-engined car burns? I am 100% certain they do not. Surely the mere act of purchasing a $150,000 2 tonne Mercedes "superwagon" with a four litre twin turbo V8 engine shows how sustainability is of no consideration to the purchaser of such a vehicle?

The very act of going of going out for a backroads blast in their sports sedan or super GT flies in the face of enviromental conciousness. They are literally burning up finite resources for nothing more than their own personal selfish entertainment while taking their Ferrari 488 or their "humble" Megane RS (which is three times as powerful as the most economical Megane, with no good reason for being so) out for a unncessary drive in the countryside.

Buyers of economical Toyota Prius or Ford Fiesta 1.0 who care about maximum efficiency and treading lightly on the planet almost certainly have no interest whatsoever in Formula One.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

"Do you know what F1 needs? Small turbo engines that are really quiet and super expensive!"

To be fair, I do not believe they anticipated they would be *so* quiet. Such is the effectiveness of the MGUH as a muffler.

The smart chaps such as Tombazis and Brawn on the FIA and FOM technical panels should be permitted to draft rules to their liking!

Letting teams and mfg set their own rules (as is the case) is the worst idea possible.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Buyers of economical Toyota Prius or Ford Fiesta 1.0 who care about maximum efficiency and treading lightly on the planet almost certainly have no interest whatsoever in Formula One.

Well, my next car will most likely be a 1L Ecoboost Fiesta (I don't see why I should spend more money to travel at the same speed on the way to work). I have an interest in F1 (and other motorsports), but I don't see why my road car has to link to F1. They are vehicles designed for different environments, and if I was a millionaire wanting a track toy, then I'd pay attention to performance vehicles and potentially how the manufacturer does on the track.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Buyers of economical Toyota Prius or Ford Fiesta 1.0 who care about maximum efficiency and treading lightly on the planet almost certainly have no interest whatsoever in Formula One.

Are you sure?


Contrary to your statement, I know of quite a few Prius and Fiesta owners who are bigtime F1 fans.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

But what are 'real' racers?

That's an easy question! Such team owners and team managers such as:

Enzo Ferrari
Jack Brabham
Soichiro Honda
Ken Tyrrell
Colin Chapman
Frank Williams
Ron Dennis
Christian Horner
Alain Prost
Niki Lauda

Toto Wolff? Hmmm.... Not so much.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

At no point did anyone think their Renault Laguna had F1 tech though.

Well the Honda NSX sportscar had titanium conrods, just like a Honda F1 engine. So I guess that is technology transfer.

A return to simple engines (see video) with principles that every car enthusiast can understand: ram air effect, a humble oiled panel filter, fat cams (any car enthusiast can understand this), strong valvesprings, big valves (ditto), forged pistons, forged rods (any car enthusiast can understand this), tuned-length extractors (just like you would order for your own car) = job done: https://youtu.be/C-2YdVn4n90?t=8m29s

The execution in F1 is obviously better, but the principles are the same as what you would use to tune your humble mass produced S2000 or NSX that can run to a rather more cost effective 180,000 miles between rebuilds.

Surely that is not such a bad thing?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

This history argument to argue for hybrids due to road relevance is a strawman at best.

And that's your strawman. By your other posts I can already see you've made up your mind anyway, manufacturers are evil. Can't really discuss anything with someone who doesn't use logical arguments but rather emotional ones.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Greem

Slight aside for a moment...

I think one of the most instructive points here is that we, a load of die-hard enthusiasts with literally hundreds (if not thousands!) of years of watching F1 between us, still can't agree on one fundamental thing:

What F1 is, or even we think it's supposed to be.

If we can't get close to an agreement on that, imagine what the turmoil must be within F1 itself as it struggles to reinvent itself to keep it attractive to the existing audience, at the same time as bringing in new casual viewers/spectators to turn them into followers, while ensuring that the existing status quo remains in terms of the money milking machine that it is (once was?).

The drivetrain is but a tiny part of that!

This is indeed true, and it's one of the reasons people think they can just come in and argue about 'this is what F1 is supposed to be' without having to give a foundational argument. Then again this whole thing started off with someone actually trying to argue hybrid engines are less economical or 'green' than NA engines. Maybe this made certain people believe I'm arguing on behalf of a manufacturer or something

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

And that's your strawman. By your other posts I can already see you've made up your mind anyway, manufacturers are evil. Can't really discuss anything with someone who doesn't use logical arguments but rather emotional ones.

Funny, that's exactly the stance you took when I pointed out a Le Mans stint length regulation was poorly worded and was going to cause problems. You said I'd already made up my mind and was anti-ACO. In reality, I wasn't, I was just reading what the rule said. For those with a short memory, after being told I was wrong many times and simply beating an anti-ACO drum, it turned out I was right all along. History does have a way of repeating itself, doesn't it?

Why do we need road relevance? If we do need it, why does it only apply to engines? Why are aerodynamics and tyres not road relevant? And suspension? Historical reason? Why are engines immune to the historical argument? Why do we have the engine regulations we currently do? Who was it that demanded the regulations? Who benefits from the current regulations? Who suffers from the current regulations? What do the current regulations add to the sport? What do the current regulations detract from the sport?

When you start answering these, it doesn't paint a particularly rosy picture.

PS - I like manufacturers. However, unlike yourself, I don't see the world as black and white, and things I like can be open to criticism. Exactly the same as I said in the previous ACO argument. Spoiler alert - I was right.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Funny, that's exactly the stance you took when I pointed out a Le Mans stint length regulation was poorly worded and was going to cause problems. You said I'd already made up my mind and was anti-ACO. In reality, I wasn't, I was just reading what the rule said.

I mean it's kind of childish to bring that up isn't it
And you were not even correct, because in the end they didn't apply the rule as it was written. But again, different story.

Anyway once again all of this is irrelevant in this thread, you keep moving the goalposts. Post some of your questions again in the actual future rules discussion and someone might be inclined to answer them.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I mean it's kind of childish to bring that up isn't it

Nope, just reminding you that you've tried the tactic before of attempting to discredit someone by claiming they've made their mind up. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Anyway once again all of this is irrelevant in this thread, you keep moving the goalposts. Post some of your questions again in the actual future rules discussion and someone might be inclined to answer them.

That's a negative - this is a debate on the current engine regulations. My (and other peoples) posts on why we have these regulations were already split off into this thread by the moderators, so as not to hi-jack the Future Regulations thread. If you're not happy where they are, then I'm sure the staff will move them for you.

My stance regarding these regs has been the same since the topic began. They don't bring anything to the sport and are there to support a political and business agenda that has a detrimental impact to the series as a sport, as well as compromising the stability of the series as a business.

[ASCII Man]

Don't feed the troll, Akrapovic.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

still can't agree on one fundamental thing:

What F1 is, or even we think it's supposed to be.

This, exactly, and agreed.

My point previously about Liberty Media's view of what F1 is meant to be, is that their opinion carries so much weight at the moment. So shouldn't we tailor our arguments slightly to consider their view - otherwise our efforts are futile.

I'm not saying that NA would be wrong for F1 (or forced air - not sure why the thread is NA/hybrid?), but that any argument for a move back to that form has to consider the likelihood that, no matter how good the argument is, it won't happen unless Liberty and the PU makers agree.

Any argument for use of a certain engine type has to consider what F1 is, not what we want it to be, and currently it's a hybrid championship with an aspiration for road-relevance in the PU.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not saying that NA would be wrong for F1 (or forced air - not sure why the thread is NA/hybrid?), but that any argument for a move back to that form has to consider the likelihood that, no matter how good the argument is, it won't happen unless Liberty and the PU makers agree.

It'll never happen without Mercedes and Renault leaving. The PU makers now write the PU rules (which is the opposite of how a series should run), and they've positioned the rules so they have all the power (good pun that). They'll never give that up until they decide to leave.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Any argument for use of a certain engine type has to consider what F1 is, not what we want it to be, and currently it's a hybrid championship with an aspiration for road-relevance in the PU.

I think you can have the discussion on engines and what F1 should be, not just what it is. Really, we'll be having that discussion if Mercedes or Renault (or both) get into financial issues and leave. F1 is in that position where it's boxed itself into the corner and relies on a very small amount of companies to produce very expensive units. So just one manufacturer leaving forces a complete rethink of the direction the sport is taking.

Put simply, the current situation isn't sustainable, and that's how the current PU manufacturers like it. When Renault left in the 90s, Mecachrome were able to continue selling engines because it was possible to design and build the engines, and sell them for profit. Now, that isn't possible.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

My point previously about Liberty Media's view of what F1 is meant to be, is that their opinion carries so much weight at the moment. So shouldn't we tailor our arguments slightly to consider their view - otherwise our efforts are futile.

I don't know if any of you were watching Goodwood FOS this afternoon, but they had a very short interview with Ross Brawn.


And during that he admitted that it is a conundrum that they are having to face currently, and there main problem at this time is trying to both please the traditional enthusiasts (I don't consider a lot of the "fans" to be true enthusiasts of F1, rather they are followers of certain drivers) and to entice and encourage new, possibly younger, enthusiasts.


In the few words that time permitted, it sounded as though nothing is yet resolved.