Environmental news
Motorsport Development UK
Motorsport industry
Motorsport technology
Sporting regulations and results

Author: Ian Bamsey

Source: Race Engine Technology

Publication Date: 28^th November 2008

It started out as a conversation about the Team McLaren Mercedes video in which Martin Whitmarsh previews the Singapore night race that took place in late September. The video (look for Whitmarsh + Singapore on You Tube) in which the team CEO, fielding questions in a McLaren Technology Centre raceshop bay, gives some deadpan answers while around him mechanics occasionally drop spanners, fire up the odd power tool and so forth; he presses on regardless. The one that ends with a wider angle view, revealing Hamilton’s McLaren-Mercedes now resplendent with a fine set of headlamps strung out across the front wing…

Readers who don’t follow racing that turns right as well as left or requires more than two wheels need to understand that the first ever Formula One Grand Prix run at night was floodlit to the extent that the downtown Singapore street circuit dazzled for its entire 3.149 miles. Consultant Editor Paul Weighell remarked: "I had comments over the Grand Prix weekend from various people that next years KERS ‘savings’ were already blown away in the 3.6 megawatt of lighting at Singapore".

Which took us onto the subject of forthcoming Formula One powertrain regulations and the letter Max Mosley sent to the teams back at the British Grand Prix in July (Musings RET 033). Paul said: “I had argued with Max over the preceding two years that a fuel cap was required but until July he seemed to argue in favour of KERS alone. I thought however that to escape possible future European Union legislation and enhance our image he might have to reduce the use of Formula One fuel voluntarily. Adding just KERS has no net effect on racing fuel consumption as the energy saved is all ploughed back into additional performance. I am very pleased to see he listened to me at last (or more likely to everyone else but me!)"

I said: "I will believe the fuel cap when it happens. When I was International Racing News Editor for Motoring News in London, Bernie told me that he was disappointed the rag no longer waited until news was officially confirmed before announcing it. So far as Race Engine Technology and the Formula One engine regulations are concerned, I am with Bernie. The FIA seems to change its mind every six months. To which Paul replied: “If a written statement from Max is not an official statement of FIA future policy direction then what is? There are changes of mind, of course and I don’t know how you cope with those as some don’t happen for months or years…"

Then came news from team insiders that the fast approaching October 3 deadline for their proposals regarding fuel saving measures from 2011 onwards (as called for by the Silverstone letter) had apparently boiled down to a choice imposed upon them by the FIA. That choice was between developing more efficient engines around a significant fuel cut (initially 20% rising to 50%) or else retaining the existing ones and developing from the current homologated specification to eventually run ten or even 20 races without attention. Although the teams had been told that they could collectively make their own proposals for 2011, the feeling was that in practice they had these two options handed down from the FIA and in practice the governing body would consider nothing else.

The option to look to significantly longer life rather than more fuel efficient engines was a surprise. As Paul said, ‘there are changes of mind’… This possibility was presumably a reaction to the way the global economic situation had deteriorated since July; a short term means to save struggling car manufacturers the additional cost burden of designing and developing brand new Formula One engines?

But Paul pointed out the bigger picture. "Recently, despite enormous pressure from the car industry and governments in car producing countries, the European Parliament’s environment committee pledged overwhelming support for the European Commission proposal that the average new car sold in Europe should emit no more than 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre by 2012 as well as paving the way for a longer term proposal for 2020. This unexpected agreement completely overturned an alternate industry backed proposal to both weaken the 2012 target and postpone it until 2015."

"If the Formula One teams ignore a fuel cap and at the same time the EU applies a big energy cutting axe across European car sellers then Formula One may be seen as ignoring the general mood of fuel conservation and sponsors could leave. So far Max has led EU limits (the 5.75% bio fuel component for example) but given the bullish mood the EU is in since its win over the car makers’ proposals on carbon dioxide, the teams had better make some serious long term inroads in carbon dioxide/fuel use improvements or risk being painted into a corner.

"If the EU really gets to work on carbon dioxide legislation then racing will suffer and I think Max sensibly wants to head that off before it is forced on us all. The Singapore lights and half a dozen or more Jumbo jets of gear for a major race is an environmental marketing disaster that cannot be painted over with a few green stripes on the tyres!"

Paul added: "Of course, it is a crazy world where Max tries to lower development costs at the same time that the car makers are boosting spending on fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide reduction. Teams should be allowed to take advantage of the new environmental money and also contribute to that research. That is happening withMax’s beloved KERS but it’s a one legged solution and may fall over as a result...

"Confusingly for some Max seems determined to tread a very narrow path between telling teams to use less fuel in order to defend Formula One against ‘profligate use of fuel’ claims and also defending Formula One’s right to waste electrical energy wholesale. He said to me yesterday after I questioned the perception of saving fuel versus wasting electricity at Singapore: ‘If our critics really think that 3.6 megawatts of lighting for a few hours should outweigh the benefit of a vastly increased television audience, all of whom will be exposed next year to the technology of KERS (thus creating demand for something which is not yet properly understood), they are really beyond hope. We just have to get on with what needs to be done.’"

Paul added: "I put it to Max that KERS is a great idea and one hopes that in due course Formula One energy recovery will become unlimited and extend to every oscillation of the dampers. However, KERS could easily be developed without the FIA and Formula One at all by carmakers simply reacting to forthcoming legislation on carbon dioxide limits and therein lies KERS’ fundamental weakness as a tool to protect racing from the slings and arrows of direct legislation and the linked ill of increased public awareness of energy waste.

"Racing needs a second line of defence and by mandating perhaps a 5% reduction in energy use across all of its own activities, in car and out, we can at least look as if we are taking some of the pain. 5% is both possible and cost reducing in its own right and is entirely consistent with Max’s comment that: ‘Formula One cannot afford to be profligate in its use of fuel.’"

"Which is but two steps from the wider view that: ‘Formula One cannot afford to be seen as profligate in its use of energy.’"

"In reply to this Max told me: ‘KERS will be developed far more quickly because of Formula One. If you ask any of the leading researchers, there has been a huge boost to the development of batteries, capacitors and electric motors because of Formula One. Also, Formula One is looking at a rival technology (flywheels), which has so far been ignored by the manufacturers. There is nothing like competition to accelerate development, particularly competition between the major car companies."

Then, in the wake of further deterioration of the global economic situation October 3 came around, followed by an Extraordinary meeting of the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council four days later. The official news from that meeting was succinct: ‘The FIA President (Max Mosley) (has) authority to negotiate with the Formula One Teams Association the introduction of radical measures to achieve a substantial reduction of costs … from 2010. Failing agreement with FOTA, the FIA will impose the necessary measures to achieve this goal’.

That was it. Until a day later Ecclestone waded in (via London’s The Times newspaper) with a suggestion for a spec engine, from a common source, which each manufacturer could badge as its own. Happily the cries of indignation from the manufacturers drowned discussion along the lines of adopting long life V8s for the long term. In fact, extraordinarily, this very day after its Extraordinary meeting the FIA issued a press release giving the comments on ‘F1’s EnvironmentalFuture’ from the leaders of three of the ten teams. Those comments promise a new formula rather than a spec formula for the engine – at some stage in the not too distant future.

Ross Brawn, technical leader of FOTA and Honda’s Team Principal was quoted as saying: "Honda has been developing more efficient and lower emission products for decades and the application of fuel efficient and alternative fuel technologies has been intrinsic to our automotive product development. The involvement of Formula One in research into engines, electronics and the forthcoming regenerative braking systems will drive such developments forward and speed up the introduction of environmental technologies, which will filter back to mass production…"

Adam Parr, CEO of independent team Williams was not one to shirk from the challenge of a new engine formula. He remarked: "A very interesting area for the future is a complete rethink of the engine. We would like to see some radical thinking about the next generation F1 powertrain. We would like to see it incorporating not just energy efficiency but also much lower costs for reproduction, which is a sustainability issue in its own right."

The third comment embraced by the FIA came from BMW Sauber F1 Team Principal Dr Mario Theissen. He said: "In the future my expectation is that the powertrain will change from what we have today with the combustion engine and the gearbox to a complex unit incorporating a smaller combustion engine, an electric motor/generator, an electric storage unit, control electronics and probably a very different type of transmission. The true innovation will lie in the adaptation of these individual components and the integration into a more efficient powertrain. I think Formula One can take the lead in that."

So it would seem that the teams want a new formula, for new engines running under an appropriate fuel cap but at the same time those in charge of running the sport are acutely aware of the current financial climate. What is needed urgently is a definition of the next engine formula, even if the year of its implementation cannot yet be confirmed. That way the Formula One engine manufacturers will be able to assign talented engineers to relevant research, rather than lose them altogether. The time will come for the new engines and the manufacturers will need to be prepared for that, even if in the short term the FIA finds means to save them money.

As we went to press on October 15, Max Mosley had just made the following comment to Paul: "The overall picture is changing, in that we really have got to get costs down dramatically and this may mean either a standard engine or some compromise with the manufacturers which will result in a comparable reduction in costs. We will probably stick to the original plan of a new hi-tech engine for 2013. The cost per unit will have to be low and, I suspect, the development costs capped. All of this is the subject of urgent discussions with the teams, particularly the manufacturers. The landscape is changing constantly."

Added to the database on 28^th November 2008