CBF1 - How does F1 let innovation thrive without stifling the rest of the sport?

[Mighty AU]

https://youtu.be/PuVLGkZah4A

[Mighty AU]

Well damn I was hoping that at least one other person would post in this thread, given how a lot of people on the Internet like to share their brilliant idea that Formula 1 should go mostly or completely unregulated. Well anyways here’s my thoughts on regulation in Formula 1 if someone wants to Internet fight me:

I certainly agree with what Chain Bear F1 says, and indeed had the same thoughts before I even saw the video. Regulations do serve a very important purpose for several reasons. Eg at the moment, the front wings are relatively unregulated. Teams use this to their advantage by designing very complicated front wings to generate vortices, which marginally improve aerodynamics over simpler wings, but those vortices also create very dirty air behind the cars, making it much harder for cars behind to overtake even with DRS. Which is why the rules for front wings are being tightened next year. This extra regulation being introduced next year will actually help make the sport more exciting, by promoting closer and more competitive racing. Who would say no to that?

Similarly, regulations regarding the engines also serve a very important purpose in helping to keep costs down. If the engines were unregulated, the cost to design a competitive would skyrocket, and perhaps only Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes would remain in Formula 1 while everyone else jumps ship. And if only three teams compete (and if eg the might of Mercedes’ R&D budget mean their unregulated engines are significantly faster than Ferrari and Red Bull), then not only would races be much more boring than now and cause fans to leave, sponsors would also leave given the reduced interest in the sport, and Formula 1 might even die. This is pretty much exactly what happened to Group A touring cars.

That’s not to say that the engine regulations are perfect at the moment. In response to the relevance vs excitement question regarding engine configuration, Formula 1 has taken the relevance approach by using 1.6L V6s as opposed to continuing with V10s and V12s. The idea is that would attract more makers and teams to join the sport than otherwise, as V10s and V12s aren’t really relevant in road cars anymore, but V6s are. But I don’t think it’s attracted enough extra makers, and there’s a huge disparity in performance between the front of the grid and the rear of the grid.

Chain Bear F1 touches on regulating the effects as opposed to the designs. Although it’s not exactly in the spirit of Formula 1, I do think it is worth considering the idea of limiting peak power and RPM, eg 900bhp and 15,000RPM, as opposed to enforcing a specific configuration and method of aspiration. If all the teams have a power ceiling they can target, I believe that every team can feasibly reach that performance ceiling, and then the matter of engine design becomes one of minimising fuel consumption (especially if re-fuelling isn’t allowed, therefore teams would want their cars to run with as little fuel as necessary, reducing weight) and maximising the effectiveness of the hybrid drivetrain, as opposed to squeezing out marginally more horsepower than every other team. If engine configuration was free but with the aforementioned restrictions (900bhp maximum power and 15,000 maximum RPM), then I believe that the relevance vs excitement question can be answered with ‘why not have both?’. I obviously can’t tell what would happen, but eg I can imagine a scenario where eg Ferrari may run 900bhp V12s, while a team like Renault may run 900bhp turbocharged V6s. Ferrari is being exciting but also relevant for Ferrari customers, while Renault is simultaneously being relevant for their customers.

[Strontboer]

To be honest I disagree with the current engine design being one to keep costs down. As far as I know the last 2 generations of engines have been the most expensive yet, also to maintain. Also due to the extremely complex nature of the hybrid engine a lot of car company's are left out as they simply don't have the technology yet where as every car company has experience with N/A power, be it V8 10 or V12.

The engines are also that much more complex and expensive because rules limit replacement parts. Back in the old days you'd have a brand spanking new engine for qualifying, and another one for the race. I believe that this is much cheaper then developing engines that have to last longer.

Then all this bullshit about being more fuel efficient, who gives a FUCK. Yeah let's develop this really fuel efficient F1 car. Great, send 400 V8 Diesel lorry's to set up the event!

In the end, F1 is a sport for spectators. And all the spectators want that V10-v12 sound back, why are they pushing this vacuum-sounding 1.6l v6 so hard?

[Mighty AU]

I don’t think the purpose of having the 1.6L V6 hybrids was to reduce costs, it was more of a matter of making F1 relevant to the 2010’s and up to 2021 (as I mentioned above, the FIA chose to answer the relevance vs excitement question with relevance, probably to attract teams and sponsorships). Costs are controlled by limiting the number of things which teams can research and develop. But of course, the hybrid drivetrains meant even more things to splash R&D cash on. 2021 should see tighter competition, not only through the aerodynamic changes being introduced next year, but also as FIA is eliminating the MGU-H in 2021.

I think the engine longevity rules are great for innovation. Innovation is what F1 is about after all. If there’s one thing that absolutely warrants R&D expenditure, it should be in making engines last more races. Because that kind of research may eventually find its way into other motorsport categories or even road cars. Likewise, the fuel efficiency stipulations are good too. Did you know that the 2017 Mercedes F1 engine was the first petrol engine to ever exceed 50% thermal efficiency? You can thank the fuel flow regulations for encouraging that innovation.

Maybe the FIA could be more open-minded to different engine configurations. But the regulations regarding engine longevity and fuel efficiency are properly good regulations that are in the spirit of Formula 1.