YOUR FREE COPY WITH OUR COMPLIMENTS F1: The future€¦ · a three-part article about the future of F1, advocating, among quite a few other things, 1400bhp Formula 1 engines. In fact,

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

F1: The futureHow Formula 1 will change this decade

YOUR FREE COPYWITH OUR COMPLIMENTS

CoverALT_F1DigiDec19_GH_EVOLUTION.indd 1 24/12/2019 09:56

moog.com/motorsport

Moog Controls If any problems arise concerning this document, please contact Oyster Studios on +44 (0)1582 761212.

Publication: Race Car Engineering

Insert Date: December 2019

Copy Date: 25-11-19

Ad Size: A4

Booking Ref: Moog

Job Number: 5038

File Name: Moog_Motorsports_RaceCarEng_A4

Last Updated: 24-11-19

Proof Stage: 1

Approved by:

Moog_Industrial

moogintheuk

moog-in-the-uk

Moog high-performance motion control solutions and components have been at the forefront of sub-miniature actuation systems in motorsport since 1982. Over the intervening years, Moog has continuously developed its range of leading products and systems for actuation in many motorsport sectors including Formula 1, World Rally Championship (WRC), Moto GP, Touring Cars, and Le Mans hyper car prototypes.

Today, Moog also offers customised simulation and test motion control solutions with combined motion mechanism, control loading system, complete software package, cockpit and a dedicated operator workstation.

Visit moog.com/motorsport

MINIATURE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS FOR GLOBAL MOTORSPORT

MotionControlVideo

FORMULA 1, F1, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trade marks of Formula One Licensing BV, a Formula 1 company. All rights reserved.

WRCFORMULA 1 HYPER CARWEC SIM & TEST TIER 2

Miniature Servo Valves and Controllers | Power Assisted Steering Valves | Actuators | Fuel and Oil Pressure Regulating Valves | Brushed and Brushless Motors | Brake System Failsafe Switching Valves | Cartridge Direct Drive Valve (DDV) | Miniature Hydraulic Power Units | Precision Ball Screws | Integrated Motorsport Systems | Driver Simulation and Test Systems

CLUTCH CONTROL | DIFFERENTIAL CONTROL | REAR BRAKE PRESSURE LIMITING | THROTTLE ACTUATION | POWER ASSISTED STEERING | ACTIVE RIDE HEIGHT CONTROL | TURBOCHARGER WASTE-GATE CONTROL | GEARBOX ACTUATION | DAMPER CONTROL | REAR WING ACTUATION | INLET TRUMPET CONTROL

Moog_Motorsports_RaceCarEng_A4.indd 1 18/11/2019 10:35Untitled-278 1 18/11/2019 11:33

CONTENTS

Formula 1, as we know it, is set for some dramatic changes over the next few years. In 2021 we will see a completely new set of technical, sporting and fi nancial regulations which include some of the biggest changes seen in F1’s recent history. These regulations not only aim to improve the show, but also

to retain technical innovation whilst securing the sustainability of the sport. The latter will be achieved through new fi nancial regulations where, for the fi rst time ever, teams will lose championship points if they break these spending rules. Could this open the door for smaller, new teams to enter the Formula 1 club again?

The most encouraging aspect of these new regulations, however, is that they have been derived from facts and fi gures, rather than based on an opinion. A monumental amount of research has gone into developing overtaking models, aerodynamic simulations and doing fi nancial studies. And even with the regulations now released, the FIA together with Formula 1 are determined to continuously evolve the rules as and when new issues arise. Never before have the rule-makers been this open, honest and sensible. It is this engineering approach that has encouraged me to believe in these rules and therefore the rule-makers. Even if 2021 doesn’t go to plan, Formula 1 is willing to change, which can only be good news.

Another aspect F1 needs to change to keep up with today’s world is its eco message. The fundamental problem facing the world today is that the Earth only has a fi nite amount of resources. What we need to do is use the resources as effi ciently and sustainably as possible – and F1 is a specialist in effi ciency. For decades, engineers have been maximising the performance of their racecars whilst adhering to restricted amounts of power, energy and budget as stipulated by the regulations. So F1, and motorsport as a whole, is the perfect testing platform for developing new technologies that could help save our planet. This has been recognised by F1 which has committed to making all race events sustainable in 2025 and the sport net zero by 2030. A fantastic ambition and it will be fascinating to see if this will be achieved.

In this supplement, Racecar analyses the short and long term future landscape of Formula 1. The latest 2021 rules are scrutinised while Peter Wright reveals his thoughts on how F1 could improve, while we also delve into the possible changes for 2025.

GEMMA HATTONDeputy Editor

4 The philosophy of F1 Peter Wright on how Formula 1 should aim to improve itself

14 Formula 1 2021 regulationsTech details and the thinking behind F1’s exciting new rules package

22 Powering towards 2025What sort of power units might F1 cars be packing in fi ve years time?

Formula for the future

FUTURE FORMULA 1 www.racecar-engineering.com 3

F1DigiDec19.indb 3 18/12/2019 15:25

http://www.racecar-engineering.com

FORMULA 1 – RULES AND REGULATIONS

With environmental pressure building and the danger of a dwindling pool of race fans just how will Formula 1 survive in the future? Prompted by two very different Swedes our technical consultant has formulated his own ideasBy PETER WRIGHT

Future tense

F1DigiDec19.indb 4 18/12/2019 15:25


It looked like some sort of dark, Scandi April Fool joke. First there was Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl who refuses to attend school while politicians

refuse to do something about a future that holds few prospects for her, and in April toured Europe by train to berate politicians and the Pontiff for their inertia in doing anything about climate change. Then, shortly afterwards, Swedish racing driver Stefan Johansson wrote a three-part article about the future of F1, advocating, among quite a few other things, 1400bhp Formula 1 engines.

In fact, Johansson’s article was a fine, courageous and timely piece, reviewing very broadly the whole of F1’s potential future in

respect of economics, technologies, relevance, regulated competition, sporting issues, entertainment and, of course, its effect on the rest of motorsport. Inevitably it was from the viewpoint of a driver, but Johansson is also a commentator and has had a broad experience in motorsport, so should be listened to. That said, it doesn’t mean I agree with him. I’m not qualified to write about the economics, so will try and stick to the technical and sporting matters, and, with over 55 years as a fan, the question of whether motorsport, and Formula 1 in particular, is entertaining.

Of course, one cannot ignore the economics totally. When I started off in F1 in the late 1960s motorsport, including F1, was funded

by someone putting on an event, encouraging competitors to turn up to compete by offering starting money plus the promise of prize-money, and the promoter hoped enough fans would show up to pay for the show. If all involved: promoter, entrants, teams, car constructors, drivers and fans went home satisfied, the event was repeated the following year. No one became very rich and a few rich individuals became poorer. Few constructors were industry- or state-supported, and even if so, it did not guarantee dominance. It was a good business for those who loved motorsport.

Two interrelated things changed this reasonably sustainable status quo: television and sponsorship. TV vastly widened the

F1DigiDec19.indb 5 18/12/2019 15:25


6 www.racecar-engineering.com FUTURE FORMULA 1


audience and, as we now know so well, if you can get people’s attention you can influence them and persuade them to buy stuff. Sponsorship put brands on to prime time TV without the need for commercials. But, as any snake oil salesman knows, to gain and hold attention you have to entertain people.

That’s entertainmentWith more than half the world living in cities and another quarter in suburbs, people turn to entertainment to ‘take them out of themselves’; to relieve the stress and often boredom of modern work and living. Music, films, video gaming, and sports provide the bulk of entertainment, and in total make up around a $1trillion a year business. Of this, Formula 1 is around 0.3 per cent, while video gaming is now 15 per cent and rising fast. The competition for bums on seats and eyes on screens is intense. Motorsport is finding it ever tougher to compete for the attention of young people, who are showing a declining interest in cars.

Cars have had a number of bad reputation hits recently, being held up as a major contributor to both global warming and the toxic air in cities. Whether vehicles will be able to be fossil-fuel powered, or even permitted in cities in the future, remains to be resolved politically, economically, and technically, but the passion for them and their ability to go fast is waning; while the numbers watching motorsport are declining.

Entertainment must still be emotional – passion, fear, laughter, anger, excitement – and, while motorsport has exploited passion for the motor car, it is losing influence. It is the passion stirred by the exploits of other people that entertains. Fans of football (soccer and American), rugby, baseball etc. are moved from joy to tears by what happens to their heroes on and off the field. The only motorsport

personality that approaches generating that sort of passion today is Valentino Rossi. The personalities of racing drivers have been isolated from the fans. There is now so much perfection in how they and their vehicles perform, there is little to be in awe of.

This is a magazine for engineers, and so I won’t go off into a discussion about racing driver personalities, but it is still worth noting that since Michael Schumacher stopped racing in F1 attendance and interest in Germany has fallen away to the extent that a German GP is no longer economically viable. This is in spite of a German multi-world champion in Sebastian Vettel, and a supremely successful German car in the Mercedes. Neither of the latter is now able to provoke the required passion.

From an engineering perspective, what contribution does or could the car and the way it is operated make towards the entertainment provided? Sports become popular entertainment when they test and demonstrate an individual’s skills, strength, endurance and ability, either alone or as part of a group or team, to vanquish others in a regulated competitive endeavour. Since the Romans raced chariots popular sport has provoked the passions of people. So why is F1 and much of the rest of motorsport failing to do so now, except perhaps for the participants themselves? Which is maybe why those same participants are not successfully sorting out the problem.

I believe there are two basic problems with motorsport as a sport: firstly, the way the cars

Motorsport is finding it ever tougher to compete for the attention of younger people, who are showing a declining interest in cars

Even junior categories such as Formula 3 suffer from the effects of too much aero dependence, leading to too little passing

Rookie Nikita Mazepin was able to turn in some decent laps at Barcelona. Does this prove the Mercedes is too easy to drive fast?

Former driver Stefan Johansson has presented a raft of suggestions as to how he would improve F1

F1DigiDec19.indb 6 18/12/2019 15:26



Neither from the edge of the track or the sofa at home is it really possible to see that the Formula 1 drivers do anything extraordinary

are operated has become too optimised and too physically easy. It is too perfect to either tax the drivers in controlling them at the limit, or to do so for two hours. Neither from the track-side or the sofa is it possible to see that the drivers do anything extraordinary, or even that a car is operating in a realm much beyond normal experience: 1000bhp, 200+mph, 5g – where? Lewis Hamilton hardly has to apply opposite lock and doesn’t break a sweat when he gets out of the car after leading from lights to flag.

Helmut Marko recently summed it up after Russian driver Nikita Mazepin led the test days’ times in Barcelona after the Spanish Grand Prix. ‘That a second-class F2 driver is fast right off the bat in the Mercedes shows how superior it is.’ Mazepin, on his first day in a Formula 1 car, drove a lap that was right up there with the top regular F1 drivers the week before, and completed almost two GP distances in the day.

Technical overkillWhat has happened to racecar driving at the highest level? Fifty years ago, F1 teams were generally less than 50 people, with maybe five to ten in the design department driving drawing boards and slide rules. In the late 1980s, design and development departments started growing, with engineering graduates recruited to run wind tunnels, test rigs, and computers. Today, 30 years later, teams are 500 to 1200 strong, and equipped with the latest CAD, CFD, FEA, wind tunnels, hardware-in-the-loop test rigs, 6-axis motion simulators, and unlimited computing power and speed.

Every part of the car – ICE , turbines and compressors, the electrical energy systems, gearboxes, multi-channel data systems,

aerodynamic details (which are checked three times: CFD, wind tunnel and on track) – and tyres are now optimised using computer codes developed by aerospace.

Universities are churning out smart engineers who have been brought up with these tools. How the driver should manage tyres, fuel, electrical energy and the race overall is simulated and optimised in real-time and controlled tightly. It is not surprising that the only excitement occurs when things go wrong, and that doesn’t happen very often in the well-funded, well-organised teams. The teams and drivers strive for the optimum and the result is never going to be exciting to watch.

The reality is that this cat is well and truly out of the bag and has disappeared over the horizon. Make radical changes to the cars, 300 or 1500bhp, zero aerodynamic downforce and skinny tyres, and it would be the same.

The engineers and drivers would optimise everything because that yields the fastest lap time and is the way to win races.

The second problem is that the drivers, even the most skilled racers, are unable to engage closely with their opponents, with the victor eventually emerging ahead. A friend who follows F3 closely commented to me recently that there are plenty of really good drivers emerging from the cut and thrust of karting who are very quick in a single seater. Unfortunately, they cannot demonstrate their skills as the cars prevent them from racing.

The root causes of this stem from the same era as the first issue: the 1980s. It was then that FISA, as the governing body was then called, eventually banned ground effect by eliminating skirts and mandating flat bottoms. Downforce was drastically reduced, to be replaced by 1000bhp turbocharged engines and wide, sticky tyres. Cars were not nice to drive as engineers stiffened suspensions to try and control the long, wide, flat underside of the car. Driver skill was paramount in these years of Nelson Piquet, Keke Rosberg, Niki Lauda, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell.

They battled within half a second of each other and whether they overtook did not matter, as the driving was exciting. Then gradually, over the decade from 1985 to 1995, the engineers tamed the flat bottoms with ever more sophisticated aerodynamics, developed in CFD and 60 per cent wind tunnels, and complex suspension systems to control the geometry between floor and road. Sidepods were cut back, front wings gained elements, end plates were developed that controlled vortices to guide the air around the tyres, the radiator intakes and the edges of the floor. These devices became more effective as ever-expanding aero departments got on top of the technology, and Data derived from Jabby Crombac’s lap charts shows average number of position changes per race from 1955 until 2005

Average number of overtaking manoeuvres per race

Ave

rage

num

ber

of o

vert

akin

g m

anoe

uvre

s

Year

The aero approach in the sidepod area can be fiendishly complex. This is the Mercedes at the Barcelona test

F1DigiDec19.indb 7 18/12/2019 15:26



a new set of technical regulations for the period of 2026 to 2030 and beyond this.

In 2025 Greta Thunburg and her striking school friends will be in their 20s. Global ‘natural’ disasters may have convinced the population of the world that she is right and it will have turned on the politicians who do not do something about the state of the planet while there is still time. How will Formula 1 and motorsport fit into this scenario? This is the issue that, by itself, will have the most influence on the motor industry and the future of our sport.

While discussing what sort of racing car might fulfil society’s and the fans’ requirements for the second half of the next decade, I should make a few points about Johansson’s proposals.

The powertrain should be discussed last, once the rest of the racecar/tyre package is defined. The key element is the aerodynamics and I totally agree with what Johansson says about this … as far as he goes.

Downforce plays no useful role in the automotive world and it has had a major negative effect on motor racing. Get rid of it! Jimmy Clark, in the wingless Lotus 49 (450bhp) is far more entertaining and apparently skilful than Lewis Hamilton in a Mercedes W10, and there was nothing inhibiting overtaking and close racing. Regulatory control of bodywork

the flow was optimised in pitch, roll, yaw, and with steering angle. From 1985 to 1995, average position changes per race reduced by a factor of four. This is the problem we have today.

What they could not do so well was to combine optimised performance with tolerance to disturbances. The wake of a preceding car reduces the energy of the free-flow and introduces vortices and eddies that upset these devices. The loss of downforce behind another car means that it cannot overtake unless the following car has a 1.5 to 2 seconds per lap speed advantage. Drivers soon learned that to try and do so was liable to damage their tyres, leading to an overall loss of race performance. Better to wait, falling back 1 to 1.5 seconds for something to happen to the car ahead, or for a strategic advantage arising from pit stops. Result: boring racing.

DRS was introduced to help the car behind make up for the debilitating loss of performance, and Pirelli was asked to introduce degrading tyre choices, to open up strategic opportunities. The banning of skirts generated the need for all these vanes and vortex generators, in-wash and out-wash devices that make the flow so sensitive to turbulence. The addition of flat bottoms increases the sensitivity of the car to its attitude. The clever aerodynamicists, with their

teraflop-hungry tools, have recovered all and more of the downforce, and so we are back to the same sensitivity to the energy loss behind another racecar. This particular cat could be put back in the bag; F1 has caught the cat and is wrestling with it, but it isn’t going to be easy to get it back in the sack without getting severely scratched, 2021-concepts, India-Juliet-Kilo-or-whatever notwithstanding.

A new approachThe key question is whether there is a set of technical regulations to give us a car such that the best drivers in the world can entertain us. Stefan Johansson suggests this. Powertrain: 1400bhp; open cycle; open fuel; open energy recovery. Tyres: open to competition; 18-plus inch rims. Weight: reduced by 150-200kg. Aero: limit to 30 per cent of current level; standard front wing and no DRS. Electronics: standard; reduced or no driver adjustments. Communications: pit to home base; no. Overtaking: push to pass. Such a car would make most racing drivers very happy!

But they are too late for 2021 to 2025. It looks as if it will be business just about as usual for these five years. What state F1 and motorsport will be in at the end of that period is anyone’s guess, but let us suppose we still need

The wake of a preceding racecar reduces the energy of the free- flow and introduces vortices and eddies that upset aero devices


Overtaking action is rare in Formula 1 these days, even with the help of DRS. Since the banning of ground effects in the early 1980s the aero has worked against the following car

F1DigiDec19.indb 8 18/12/2019 15:26


POWER UP WITH ANTARES 8

T +44 (0) 1954 253 600 E [email protected]

www.cosworth.com/products/antares-8

- Single box solution for any race vehicle

- One box solution for engine and chassis, logging and control combined

- Advanced wide-ranging strategies including gear control, fly-by-wire and traction control

- Support for Auto-Coding utilising MATLAB® and Simulink®

- Highly developed security and locking options

- Wide range of specified variants for a full range of applications

- 200kHz logging for Cylinder Pressure measurement on up to 8 cylinders at 22,000RPM (on selected variants)

ANTARES 8 - THE LATEST IN RACE ECU TECHNOLOGY

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cosworth.com/products/antares-8


change to 18inch wheels will present expensive new problems. There is no need for the better braking that larger wheels would enable. Yet this change is happening in 2021.

There should be no need for three tyre specifications for each event, or for mandatory


ride and handling as anyone who drives on them on British, potholed and tram-lined roads will attest’. The 13in wheels and tyres currently used on a Formula 1 car have been developed over decades as part of a sophisticated suspension system, and so a fashion-driven

can easily establish a small window that determines the permitted lift/downforce figure.

The consequences of zero downforce? Overtaking, with no need for DRS or push to pass; less drag, less power and less fuel consumption for a given velocity; less damage to bodywork with the associated performance loss; less cost – CFD, wind tunnel, bodywork, people – less effective performance from spend/budget, and therefore more equality.

Weight and seeThen there’s weight. Currently in Formula 1 it’s 743kg minimum empty, but including driver, of which 75kg is the driver and their safety equipment, and about 40kg the safety features of the car. To reduce the 630kg that is left by 150 to 200kg (24 to 32 per cent) is a tall order and expensive. Leaving out the hybrid system would save 40 to 50kg, which would be a start – this would be up to the supporting motor industry.

As for the rubber, in the past tyre competition has been very expensive due to the demand for extensive testing by the tyre manufacturers. It also splits the grid into two or more races. I don’t believe anyone, except possibly Michelin, really wants this.

As for 18plus-inch wheels, I have no particular feelings about this other than that I hate them on the road. As the late John Miles used to say: ‘They are rubbish, terrible for both

Downforce plays no useful role in the automotive world and it has had a major negative effect on motor racing. Get rid of it!

The 1968 season saw both sponsorship and wings introduced into Formula 1, sowing the seeds of many of its current problems. This is a recent picture of a Lotus 49 from that year

Our writer sees no advantage in switching to 18in wheels, saying this will just mean added expense for the Formula 1 teams

F1DigiDec19.indb 10 18/12/2019 15:26


Untitled-61 1 30/06/2016 13:22

Untitled-323 1 07/10/2019 14:15


tyre changes during a grand prix, but that is more of a sporting matter.

Then there is the electronics and communications. We are in the age of electronics and computers, and road cars are ever more dependent upon them. They are a part of engineering, and it would be difficult to strip F1 cars of data and controls systems.

Whether the team needs to communicate with both its driver on track and its home base during an event is really a sporting matter, but there are safety and cost issues relating to failures, which makes communication desirable.

Which brings us to the powertrain. Once the weight, aerodynamics and the tyres are determined, and a top speed that impresses fans selected, but one that does not obsolete circuits – Johansson’s 250mph/400km/h top speed would present some problems – maximum power can then be selected. Without downforce and with sensible width tyres, around 700 to 800bhp would probably be adequate.

Road relevanceIf the motor industry can financially and socially still be interested in F1 in 2025 for the purpose of selling its products, then relevance is likely to be important. A non-fossil fuel, i.e. synthetic, plus ICE and energy recovery is likely to be the formula – some variation on what we have now.

If entertainment is all that matters, then a fire-spitting, ear-popping, high revving ICE will be needed. Something like a 2.4-litre, 18,000rpm, V8 should do, and that could easily be reinvented at low cost to make up for the lack of industry funding. Whether they would last seven or more events, I don’t know.

Incidentally, is it possible that the sound of a high revving, normally-aspirated V8, V10 or V12 was the only thing that made F1 exciting over the last few decades? Having watched some of a video of the amazing, electric VW ID.R taking the EV record for the Nurburgring, slower only than a Porsche 919, I suspect so.

Choosing a pathIt is between these two scenarios that I believe the discussion will rage. The real issue is relevance versus entertainment. Johansson suggests that the thermodynamic cycle and energy source should be free, to encourage the motor industry to work with the clever people in motorsport and come up with the best solution for both racing and for road transport. Unfortunately, then the cost would become prohibitive, as every manufacturer would have to explore every potential solution to find the winning specification.

Clever people in the motor industry have, of course, already looked deeply at this. The Formula 1 powertrain regulations today tie down almost every dimension of the ICE, simply to prevent the level of development necessary to determine the optimum bore/stroke ratio, valve included angles, crankshaft

journal diameter etc. Opening up the formula would explode the R&D necessary, and I doubt the industry could afford or indeed would be interested in this at a time when they are investing so heavily in their own futures.

Will such a car, and the racing that is arranged for it, capture and hold the attention of enough people to fulfil the objectives of the rights holder, the teams, and a few manufacturers? I have grave concerns about whether motor racing will be able to compete with other more human-intimate sports, films and video games. For sure motorsport will hold an attraction for those who can participate, those with the resources and time to drive racing cars, old and new, and to campaign them at some self-funded level and frequency. Some of this activity is already televised and attracts a large number of visitors, but nothing like to the level necessary to sustain the F1 commercial interests. Combining races into a wider event, with concerts etc. providing a broader experience, and making GPs into a real ‘grand prix’, with seriously large prizes for the winners, can only help attract the large number of people that high-level motorsport needs.

However, to provide real sustained entertainment to a large number of people, they themselves need to participate. Video games provide the opportunity to race in comfort,

safety and at low-cost. Racing yourself or your mate is one thing, racing Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen would be quite another. Once the games developers truly allow a player to participate in real-time, in an actual event, I believe motorsport would engage with the generation that has been brought up with the personal computer. Just watching F1 will not be interesting or entertaining enough. Real-time, real-event racing games have been predicted for years, but the technology to make it work is not trivial. It requires total cooperation between event participants, the gaming industry, and reliable, high-speed networks. It is all becoming possible.

Future formula When we fully realise that we have been conned into believing that we can sustain a growth rate that doubles the consumption of the Earth’s resources every 20 years, and the consequential trashing of the planet and its atmosphere, and we wonder why we were so stupid as to not do something about it while we still could, (science tells us that this is the next decade). We will formulate a way forward for Formula 1 and the rest of motorsport that will be acceptable to society and allow us to continue to enjoy the human and technical challenges it offers, while fuelling our passion for the sport.

Without downforce and with sensible width tyres, around 700 to 800bhp would be adequate

Should direct communications with the driver and with mission control back at the factory be banned from Formula 1?


F1DigiDec19.indb 13 18/12/2019 15:26



FORMULA 1 – 2021 REGULATIONS

After many months of speculation the definitive technical, sporting and financial Formula 1 regulations

for 2021 and beyond have now been released. But what will all this mean for the F1 teams and for the

quality of the show? Racecar investigatesBy GEMMA HATTON

Tomorrow’s world

‘We don’t think that speed is a key parameter for the spectacle, race-ability is the main target’

F1DigiDec19.indb 14 18/12/2019 15:25



The time for speculation is over. The F1 2021 technical, sporting and financial regulations have now been released and include some of the biggest

changes seen in F1’s recent history. The objectives behind this new batch of

rules was to create a competitive grid filled with financially sustainable teams whose cars could battle out on track, whilst showcasing road relevant and eco-friendly technologies. A tough ask for the FIA, but one that has been supported by a wealth of research and experience from both F1 and the teams. In fact, this collaborative effort has made the research into the 2021 regulations the most in-depth to date.

Thinking capBut what have they come up with? Well the biggest change is undoubtedly the cost cap. Each team only has $175m to play with for 21 races +/- $1m for each race above or below that. As expected, there are several exclusions to this including marketing costs, driver salaries, FIA entry fee and super licence costs, as detailed in November’s Racecar (V29N11).

‘The financial regulations are a dramatic change for F1,’ says Ross Brawn, managing director of motosports at Formula 1. ‘I think the

crucial thing about the financial regulations now is that they are part of the FIA regulations so the sanctions of breaching the financial regs will incur sporting penalties depending on the severity of the breach. Whereas before we had the resource restriction agreement which was a gentlemen’s agreement with the teams. Well there’s not many gentlemen in the paddock, I’m afraid, and that was a failure.

‘But this time if you breach the financial regulations you will be losing your championship, so it has serious consequences,’ Brawn adds. ‘There are a number of exclusions; we’ve tried to really capture the areas where they can spend money and gain a competitive advantage so we’ve tried to control some of those. We’ve got a very strong team of financial experts within the FIA and F1 and we’ve also sourced outside support with Deloitte and they will continue to help introduce and develop these regulations. They’ve been pretty well thought out, but they will need development like any new regulations. So, I fully expect that we’re going to have challenges in the future but its absolutely essential that we have control on the finances and how much we spend in Formula 1. I think it’s a turning point in F1, but it won’t be a smooth road.’

The specifics of these financial regulations are to be finalised by December 2019 and by 30 June 2020 the teams can voluntarily submit their 2019 data as a sort of practice run. By 31 March 2021 teams can again voluntarily submit their 2020 financial data as a ‘soft introduction’ to help the FIA and Formula 1 iron out any issues, and so won’t incur any penalties. But, by 31 March 2022, teams will have to submit their financial data and will be subject to both financial and sporting penalties.

Frantic FridayFrom a sporting point of view, the regulations are conceptually similar to 2019, although there are some changes. These include increasing the maximum number of grands prix to 25 and also compressing the current four-day race weekend format into three days.

‘Our promoters rely on a three-day race weekend, so we’re changing the format of a Friday so that all the activities that used to take place on a Thursday will now be on a Friday,’ says Brawn. ‘For example, scrutineering will take place on Friday morning and there will be two practice sessions, possibly shorter, on Friday afternoon. We will still get pretty close to the same amount of track time, but we’ll

The 2021 regulations will mean a sleeker racecar, while they also address the costs of Formula 1

F1DigiDec19.indb 15 18/12/2019 15:25




make it more effi cient. The teams have been very cooperative and have given strong feedback that they can come to a race meeting one day later, so that’s been the objective.’

Of course, this will completely change the way the Formula 1 teams approach practice sessions. Currently, FP1 is for testing aero items and other new parts, while the track rubbers in. By FP2 the track is in good condition, and the timing of FP2 is usually similar to that of the race which means ambient and track temperatures will be most representative. This is why you see all the teams complete high fuel long runs during FP2 as it is the best time to understand the performance and degradation of the diff erent tyre compounds. Squeezing both FP1 and FP2 into an afternoon means that the most representative temperatures will be during FP1, where the track will be green and have less grip. While in FP2, ambient and track temperatures will drop off , but the track will be rubbered in. Therefore, neither FP1 or FP2 will have race-representative conditions, which will make it impossible for the teams to fully understand the behaviour of the tyres, leading to more variability in the race itself.

Reference specAlso new for 2021 is a ‘Reference Specifi cation’ which will ensure that the confi guration the car is scrutineered in on a Friday will be what is raced on a Sunday. This means that teams won’t be able to run with diff erent bits of bodywork during the race, but they can test new parts on a Friday. ‘The idea behind this is to stop the necessity of building lots of parts,’ Brawn says. ‘Currently, if you want to take a new front wing to a track, you test it and if it works you need to make several for both drivers and have spares. Suddenly you’ve a huge expense and you’re fl ying parts in at the last minute to satisfy that need. So there’s some sensible housekeeping being done on how we operate over the weekend to take a lot of strain off the teams.’

There will also be a stronger curfew, reducing the number of hours a team can work over a grand prix weekend to try and lessen the workload on personnel. Meanwhile, further limitations will be implemented on the number of dyno hours the power unit manufacturers can use and there will be further restrictions on wind tunnel time and CFD simulations in an attempt to reduce costs.

‘That’s been one of the success stories of F1 in the past few years; the aero restrictions that’s been placed on the teams that have reduced the time they can spend in the wind tunnel and how many CFD simulations they can do,’ Brawn says. ‘To address the comment that there will be a massive rush [for aero development] before the 2021 cost cap comes in, I think we need to remember that the most fundamental change with this car is the aerodynamics and that’s the area that is most controlled under the existing regs. So there will be no increase in the eff ort the teams will put into aero testing because they can’t, the ATP [Aerodynamic Testing Period] controls how much work they can do in the wind tunnel [and CFD] so they won’t be able to exceed those limits. They’ll have to balance that time between their existing car and the new car, as they do every year.’

This segues nicely into the biggest technical changes for 2021; aerodynamics. To fully understand the reasoning behind these changes, we fi rst need to turn the clock back

to 2009. You may remember that there was a complete overhaul of the regulations in that year to improve overtaking. The idea was that the new racecars would generate around 60 per cent of the downforce that the 2008 cars did. However, the teams worked hard to recover this loss of downforce and this was achieved through exploiting the outwash eff ect of components such as the front wing end plates and bargeboards. By the start of the new season, the teams had already recovered this lost downforce, but the consequence was large, with wide wakes which made overtaking more diffi cult; completely negating the objectives of the regulations. The FIA has continuously tweaked the regulations ever since to try and combat this overtaking problem, but for 2021 it is hitting it head on.

Flow conditioningCurrently, all the aerodynamic elements you see on a Formula 1 car are not only generating downforce but also conditioning the fl ow. The latter is arguably more important because directing clean, laminar airfl ow to aerodynamic components is the most effi cient way of maximising the aerodynamic performance. Therefore, the turbulent, chaotic air generated by the front wing and wheels needs to be pushed as far away from the racecar as is possible. That’s why you will see complex arrangements of winglets and elements

make it more effi cient. The teams have been very cooperative and have given strong feedback that they can come to a race meeting one day later, so that’s been the objective.’

The outwashing effect of the elements on the wings, bargeboards and underfl oor contribute to a large mushroom shape wake which makes following another car diffi cult in corners. The phenomenon can be seen here on this pressure coeffi cient CFD simulation of a 2018 F1 car

Currently all the aerodynamic elements you see on a Formula 1 car are not only generating downforce but also conditioning the fl ow

F1DigiDec19.indb 16 18/12/2019 15:25



sidepod. Ground eff ect is a way of modifying the airfl ow underneath the racecar to create an area of low pressure due to its close proximity to the ground. This will be achieved by the two venturi tunnels, which are eff ectively a narrow tube, or tunnel, that join together two wider sections of tunnel. In this case, the front of the underfl oor and the large diff user.

The low pressure created at the narrowest section of these tunnels will accelerate the fl ow in accordance with Bernouill’s principle. Accelerating this fl ow creates suction, which

surrounding the bargeboard area and the front of the underfl oor on Formula 1 cars.

When a Formula 1 car is behind another on a straight, this outwashing eff ect means that the wake of the lead car fl ows around the following car. With the lead car eff ectively punching a hole through the air, the following car then travels through less air, experiences less drag, increases in speed and can capitalise on this additional boost with an overtake, otherwise known as a tow or slipstream.

The problems come in the corners, where this outwashing of the wakes directs this dirty air onto the following car, reducing its aerodynamic performance, making it almost impossible to overtake. For 2021 the aero regulations aim to not only reduce the size of the wakes, but also suck this turbulent air inboard and then eject it up and over the car behind. In this way, cars should be able to follow each other closely through the corners.

Teardrop wakeInitial simulations suggest that this is indeed the case, but there is a side eff ect on the straights: the wake now comes onto the following car in a teardrop shape. This means that the following car will not experience a reduction in drag and so the slipstream will no longer be as eff ective. On the other hand, if the so called ‘mushroom’ wake is being ejected higher over the following car then there may still be a hole behind the lead car for the slipstream to work. This is why

DRS remains for 2021, because it could be the case that the tow is less eff ective, so the cars will need to utilise it for overtaking.

One of the philosophies the FIA and F1 have used to reduce the wakes is to exploit the ground eff ect of the underfl oor. The underfl oor is the most effi cient downforce-generating device and currently produces around 60 per cent of a Formula 1 car’s total downforce.

For 2021 the current fl at fl oor and diff user set-up will be replaced with two venturi tunnels and a long diff user starting at the front of the

DRS remains for 2021, because it could be the case that the tow is less effective, so cars will need

to use it for overtaking

Note how the 2021 regs are designed to suck the wheel wakes inboard and maintain them along the sides of the car, rather than outwashing them

These quirky winglets will sit above the front wheels to help reduce the wheel wakes, while also guiding the airfl ow inboard

F1DigiDec19.indb 17 18/12/2019 15:25




increases downforce. This will also help to draw in the wheel wakes inboard of the car and along, with the revised wing, eject the turbulent air higher up and over the following car.

‘The research has been focussed on reducing the wakes to improve the performance of the following cars,’ says Nikolas Tombazis, head of single seaters at the FIA. ‘We’ve also seeked to simplify the cars, the final shapes and sensitivities in some areas, leading to lower performance differentials. So we hope that with these new aero regulations the difference between the fastest and the slowest cars will be smaller than it is currently.

‘We’ve simplified the front wing to create weaker vortices around it to give less opportunities for the teams to control the wake of the front wheel,’ Tombazis adds. ‘There are no bargeboards, as currently these are massively complicated. The [2021] cars are fundamentally a ground effect car, with a long diffuser starting from the front of the sidepod going underneath and finishing at the very back. That is fundamental for the flow structures that we have been trying to achieve with this. Some areas of the car are going to be prescribed because we felt that if we didn’t restrict those shapes then we would end up with teams potentially finding ways to overcome the key objectives [of the regulations].’

Follow closelyThe initial results of the RANS simulations can be seen in Figure 1. The black line shows the loss of downforce experienced by the following car at increasing distances behind the lead car. Currently, a following racecar only has around half of the downforce of the lead car, when it is one car length behind. Even at seven car lengths behind, the following car still only has 79 per cent of the lead car’s downforce. For 2021, however, at one car length behind, the following car will have 31 per cent more downforce than in 2019, achieving almost maximum downforce at seven car lengths.

However, these simulations are based on a concept which has not yet been optimised by the full force of an F1 team. Therefore, as teams continue their hunt for downforce this could increase the wakes and consequently reduce the downforce available for the following car.

‘When teams do their aero development clearly this number will reduce a little bit but we still expect a huge chunk more performance available to the following car compared to the lead car,’ Tombazis says. ‘The simulations so far show that cars will be following much more closely and will be able to attack more.’

Another tactic to try and control the Formula 1 teams’ aerodynamic development is to define the legality volumes by CAD. ‘We have introduced a coordinate system, so a lot of legality of the cars will take place on CAD,’ says Tombazis. ‘We will simultaneously be taking scans of the cars and comparing these scans to

Above and left: Venturi tunnels and the large diffuser will create an area of low pressure to help accelerate flow under the racecar to increase suction and therefore downforce

Figure 1: The FIA’s aero studies show there’s a big

improvement in the following car downforce numbers

F1DigiDec19.indb 18 18/12/2019 15:25



the CAD shapes to ensure the cars are legal in all aspects of the regulations.’

With such tight control you may be wondering how on earth we’ll be able to tell the cars apart? Well the FIA has assured us that there are numerous areas of diff erentiation, including the nose, front wing and end plates, engine air intake, sidepod inlet and overall shape, brake ducts and rear wing end plates. So visually the cars should still be quite diff erent.

Power addressingThe power unit was originally pitched as another big change for 2021, however this is now not the case. ‘It’s true, we did start with

more ambitious plans to change the engine and in a way I’m glad we didn’t because I think it has enabled us to change our focus,’ Brawn says. ‘We’ve all seen the increasing concerns of the environmental impact of the things we do and I think refocusing the engine suppliers on how we contribute to the solution we need to fi nd for the future is very important. I think all the manufacturers know it’s not a single answer; electric cars are one part of the solution, but also fi nding fuels which are sustainable and renewable is another part. There are a billion fuel powered cars on the planet and we’re not going to get rid of them in two years, so we have to fi nd other solutions and I think F1 can

be a really strong fi gurehead in that. So, in a way I’m glad we didn’t change the engines that much because we’re now [giving] the power unit suppliers [the opportunity] to provide solutions to that problem.’

The 2021 power unit is, then, largely carried over from the current regulations, along with the MGU-K and the MGU-H, but with many more cost-driven initiatives. These include simplifying particular components, restricting the use of exotic materials and introducing some non-exclusivity clauses which prevent teams from purchasing turbochargers from suppliers which are exclusive to that team.

The fuel system will be much more prescribed with standard high pressure and primer pumps, piping, fuel fl ow meter, collector and several internal components. The fuel itself will have double the renewable content, at 20 per cent, and for 2022 onwards the FIA has committed to an ambitious roadmap to increase renewable fuels, which the power unit and fuel suppliers will work together to achieve.

‘The reason we kept the same power unit in the end was also to do with the fact that we have the most effi cient engine on the planet in terms of what percentage of energy consumed as fuel actually gets transmitted to the wheels,’ says Tombazis. ‘So we felt that any change we would have made would have taken a step backwards and that is the wrong direction to go.’

Safety driveSafety has been another focus of the 2021 regulations. A rubber membrane will be incorporated into the carbon lay-up of some components in an attempt to try and contain the sharp debris resulting from any bodywork damage. The frontal energy absorption of the nosecone will be increased by using a longer nose, while the side strength of the chassis will be improved, along with a more comprehensive side impact structure. The headrest and how it is attached to the chassis will also be improved and some parts will now be tethered to the rear of the car to avoid detachment during an accident.

The result of the standardising of the power unit, along with the increased safety, plus the move to 18in wheels, is an increase in the racecar’s minimum weight from 743kg to 768kg. ‘This is not an attractive element of the 2021 car, but it is a consequence of the safety and the hybrid power system we have implemented, which is essential,’ says Brawn. ‘We did look at if there were any signifi cant ways of reducing the weight of the car and we haven’t found any that wouldn’t have been a massive reversal of where we are today.’

This weight increase will mean that the cars will be approximately 3.0 to 3.5s slower per lap than currently. ‘We don’t think that [speed] is a key parameter of the spectacle, race-ability is the main target, so we haven’t been focusing on the overall level of performance,’ Tombazis says.

Another tactic to try and control the teams’ aero development

is to defi ne the legality volumes by CAD

CFD simulations show the car’s wake is not only reduced but is being ejected up and over the following car. Below: Rear wing end plates remain a free area

F1DigiDec19.indb 19 18/12/2019 15:25


Tel: +44 (0)1844 216 057 Web: www.primarydesigns.co.uk Email: [email protected]

Suppliers to championship winning Formula 1 teams and world record breaking supercar manufacturers. Our knowledge of exhaust design, alongside our expertise in the welding and

fabrication of thin wall exotic alloys makes us the ideal partner to design and build high-performance racing exhausts for an extensive range of motorsport applications.

Primary Designs are leaders in the design and manufacture of world-class high performance exhausts

http://www.primarydesigns.co.uk



Brawn agrees: ‘To put that into perspective that’s the performance of a 2016 car,’ he says. ‘Remember from 2016 to 2017 there was a huge increase in downforce. It’s worth thinking back on that experience. It was done for reasons that I don’t understand because the huge increase in downforce was to make the cars go faster and make F1 better but all we’ve done is actually make it worse because the cars can’t race each other. It’s an example of rules that haven’t been thought through. The cars are very quick now but they’re not raceable and the reality is that the performance of these new cars are going to be where we were in 2016, which I don’t think anyone was complaining about.’

Frozen tooMoving rearwards, the transmission has been a key focus area for cost reduction. This was originally going to be achieved through a tender. However, the FIA has now decided to instead freeze the transmission spec for several years, with teams allowed to do a complete re-design every five years.

‘We have analysed the cost that teams incur and have found that a large proportion of costs is really the R&D that gets carried out from one year to the next for marginal gains which we don’t feel add anything to the sport,’ says Tombazis. ‘So we have created rules that freeze the transmission spec for a number of years. Teams will still be able to use their own designs but will have to keep the transmission within certain volumes. In this way we feel that the transmission as a performance differentiator between cars will not play a significant role.’

Another area that’s been simplified is the suspension. Hydraulic suspension is now banned, along with inerters, while the inboard elements of the suspension such as the springs and dampers will be far simpler. Restrictions on kinematics will also be in place and the outboard suspension points will now be inside the volume of the wheel rim.

Of course, the new, larger, 18in wheels and tyres will have a significant effect on the suspension design. Especially as the tyres will be low-profile so there will be much less suspension travel within the tyre itself,

therefore more suspension travel will have to be incorporated elsewhere in the system.

Regarding tyres, there was lots of hype earlier in the year about Formula 1 doing away with the tyre blankets for 2021. However, this has been postponed until the end of 2022, although the number of blankets and temperatures will be reduced for cost savings. Meanwhile, the construction and compound of the tyres themselves will be completely redesigned for 2021. The testing programme for this has already started with several of the Formula 1 teams running 18in wheels, and this will continue throughout 2020.

‘In fairness to Pirelli, they have had so many diverse inputs to what has been demanded from them,’ Brawn says. ‘They have been struggling to have clarity on what they should focus on. For a long time everyone was telling them we need tyres with high degradation and lots of pit stops, which created tyres that were thermally fragile so the drivers couldn’t push. Now with the FIA, teams and drivers we’ve had a much better process to try and identify what we need to aim for. We still want to have a reasonable number of pit stops, but we’re

changing the objectives for Pirelli and giving more clarity on what F1 really needs and I think they’ve been responding quite well.’

Brake clauseIn terms of brakes, the larger wheels can accommodate a larger disc, which will increase from 278mm diameter to 330mm. The geometry of the discs will be simpler with fewer ventilation holes of larger diameter. Again, a standard brake system was expected to come in for 2021, but this will be delayed until 2023.

Talking of standardisation, for the first time ever in the technical regulations components are now classified into five different categories. 1) Listed Team Components (LTC) – made by each team; 2) Standard Supply Components

(SSC) – single supplier chosen via tender, currently wheel rims, brake discs and tyre blankets; 3) Prescribed Design Components (PDC) – design is owned by the FIA but teams can manufacture it themselves; 4) Transferable Components (TRC) – parts that can be transferred from one team to another such as the transmission; 5) Open Source Components (OSC) – parts where teams submit their designs to a server and a rival team can make a component based on that design.

‘[Open Source Components], are not critical areas of the car,’ says Tombazis. ‘These are relatively small details that teams spend a lot of resource on trying to redesign each year for maybe a little packaging advantage or weight advantage, so we don’t feel we’re altering any DNA aspect of F1 by making these components more widely spread across the grid.’

Golden rules?Whether you agree or disagree with the finer details of the 2021 regulations, overall you have to commend the effort that has gone on behind the scenes to try and establish a set of regulations that will improve the race-ability

of the Formula 1 cars and hence, hopefully, improve the show. Also encouraging is the fact that F1 and the FIA will continue to refine and develop these rules with every new piece of information, data or study that is conducted.

‘One of the things which we have built collectively over the last two years is a lot of simulation models to understand how cars race each other and what the important elements are,’ concludes Brawn. ‘The governance has to be a better balance of stability for the teams, with the ability to make developments when they’re really essential. The priority of F1 and the FIA is to make the sport as great as possible, we don’t have any other objectives, so when it comes to changes that are going to happen in the future, it’s all with those principles in mind.’


The 2021 cars will feature 18in wheels. Covers will also be used so teams will no longer be able to blow air through the rims for tyre heating, or to force the wheel wakes outboard

The construction and compound of the tyres will be completely redesigned for 2021

F1DigiDec19.indb 21 18/12/2019 15:25



FORMULA 1 – 2025 POWER UNITS

Major power unit changes in F1 are now on hold for a few years but the shape these new rules will take is still a hot topic in the paddock – we asked Formula 1’s movers and shakers what they would dearly wish to see in the 2025 engine regulationsBy SAM COLLINS

The power of dreams

‘We are in motor racing for two reasons: firstly marketing and secondly technical development’

F1DigiDec19.indb 22 18/12/2019 15:25



F1DigiDec19.indb 23 18/12/2019 15:25




It was all going to change in 2021. Alongside the massive aerodynamic and chassis rule changes Formula 1 was meant to be introducing a completely new power unit;

but that will now not happen. Instead, the current power units will be largely carried over to 2021, with some minor cost reduction tweaks including simplifying certain components and restricting materials. Yet the revolution has not been cancelled, merely delayed.

Early in 2019 F1’s chief technical offi cer, Pat Symonds, revealed that completely new power units would be introduced in 2025. Right now the discussions are starting on this, but there are some varied opinions in the paddock about what should be in the new regulations, and simply by asking a selection of team bosses and technical staff what they would like to see you end up with a very long wish list.

Racing Point technical director Andy Green is clear about what he thinks is needed. ‘I think what we have now is an incredible piece of engineering in the back of the car, but it could just be too incredible. I think what we have is potentially something where the technology bar of the power unit is just way too high and I think I would like to see something that is just slightly simpler. I think I’d never say no to more horsepower, the sport can’t have enough horsepower. We need to make the cars harder to drive. I think more power coming from a simpler power unit is what it should be.’

Even though the current power units have reached previously unthinkable levels of effi ciency and are now producing in the range of 1000bhp, more power is something that is a common theme in the paddock. ‘More power would be great. Less expensive would be outstanding,’ chief executive of McLaren Racing Zak Brown says. ‘I don’t know that it’s achievable but if we could have some diversity in the engine itself and not be limited to a certain amount of cylinders, things of that nature, I think that would maybe spice up the show too.’

Search engineYet while there seems to be a hunger for more power there is also a note of caution from some quarters. ‘The romantic in me says let’s go back to loud noise, high revs, normally aspirated,’ says Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner. ‘To have a normally-aspirated, high-revving V10 or V12 engine would be a wonderful thing to have back in Formula 1, but unfortunately I think they are rather outdated now. We have now got a period of stability with the engines, so it’s important that Formula 1 makes the right decision for the future. Obviously the automotive sector is moving an awful lot at the moment and what technologies are going to be relevant then? Because when that engine comes in in 2025 that’s going to have to be for a fi ve- to ten-year period, so we are actually talking up to 2035, which is a long way down the pipeline.’

And 2035 is an important year. A number of major European nations will have introduced legislation to outlaw the sale of new combustion engine only passenger cars by then, and that has led some to say that the future of F1 is as a fully electric racing category. While not going that far, Mercedes F1 CEO Toto Wolff does agree that the hybrid element might increase. ‘I think that we are in the middle of a transition of technology, at least on the road car side, and as much as we, most of us, are fans of the loud, traditional engines, it’s not where the technology goes and where the perception on sustainability goes,’ he says. ‘I believe we’ve done the right thing in keeping the regulations almost stable for the next term because it would have caused a tremendous amount of development to come up with the new formula. Also, it is not quite clear where this next generation of power unit actually should be. Listening to our chairman of Daimler, we expect 50 per cent of our fl eet to be either hybrid or electric by 2030, so I think if this is the direction technology goes, we could as well have an engine that will have a higher hybrid component, renewable energies

‘From our perspective we still believe that internal combustion engines are part of the global picture’

The 2025 power unit could have an ERS to match or exceed the potency of the one used in the Toyota LMP1

‘A normally-aspirated, high-revving V10 or V12 engine would be a wonderful thing to have back in F1, but unfortunately I think they are rather outdated’ Christian Horner

‘We could have an engine that will have a higher hybrid component, renewable energies or electricity’ Toto Wolff

‘More power would be great. Less expensive would be outstanding’

Zak Brown

‘We want to see even higher effi ciency, and green technologies used … it is developing and promoting that kind of technology that is the reason Honda is racing in F1’ Toyoharu Tanabe

‘There will be new forms of fuel coming up in the next

few years, whether you are talking about more biofuel so a different composition,

or even synthetic fuel’ Cyril Abiteboul

F1DigiDec19.indb 24 18/12/2019 15:25



proportion will go up, and maybe the technology we use to store energy will change, or how we generate electricity, but I think you have to bear in mind that the units we have now are only five-years-old. I will be very happy to keep working on this type of power unit, we so often hear people saying that the future is full electric, but people are starting to realise that we won’t get rid of internal combustion engines tomorrow, and actually it is a very efficient way to turn fuel into propelling energy, or even into electricity. I think it is fine to continue developing ICE technologies in F1, already there is a lot of technology we are using in F1 that has not yet transferred to road cars because it needs to be affordable, but it is coming.’

Road relevance It’s been said that F1’s current power units lack relevance to production cars. Regardless of whether this criticism is justified or not there is a clear desire to make the 2025 units much more relevant to production car technology.

‘For Honda that is the right direction, we want to see even higher efficiency, and green technologies used,’ Honda F1 technical director Toyoharu Tanabe says. ‘Actually it is developing and promoting that kind of technology that is the reason Honda is racing in Formula 1. So those for us are the key technology pillars of Formula 1. Actually to increase the efficiency is something we need to think about how to do, as it is really not easy. When we [came] back to Formula 1 in 2014, one per cent improvement

By 2035 a number of major European nations will have introduced legislation to outlaw the sale of new combustion engine only cars

Mercedes power unit in the Racing Point. The team’s tech director says that the current F1 PUs are simply ‘too incredible’

or electricity. Today, it’s maybe around 20 per cent, maybe that ratio is going to go to 50 per cent. As long as it’s an exciting engine, the sound is something that we need to address or at least talk about it, but I believe the hybrid component is going to increase after 2025.’

Remi Taffin, F1 engine technical director at Renault Sport, agrees. ‘I think they should be more electrified, I think there is a lot we could imagine, but I would still see a kind of power unit like we have now with a combustion engine and an ERS,’ he says. ‘I think the electrification

F1DigiDec19.indb 25 18/12/2019 15:25



high-revving, normally-aspirated engine, but still probably the way forward if we want to be relevant, not just to car makers, but to society.’

The form (or indeed formulation) that the 2025 fuel may take is actively under discussion, as the sport aims to increase its relevance to the wider industry. ‘I think it’s important to look at the fuel that we might use on the road tomorrow in road cars and we keep on working and developing new technologies towards that,’ Taffin says. ‘With the fuel it is early days, we have had some discussions about what the fuel of tomorrow should be. For example, you look at the percentage of biological components we use in the fuel, we are quite happy to increase that percentage, but we need to make sure that whatever we use is available around the world.’

It may be the case that Formula 1 does not settle on a single fuel (or a single engine configuration) and will open it up to entirely different fuels to compete against one another. ‘I think it would be a challenge to police, but in the auto industry they have been pushing hard for separation on specifications of engine oils and transmission fluids as they all want the best protection and fuel economy for their product,’ Tsurusaki says. ‘The manufacturers don’t really care about an industry standard that they have to sacrifice something for. That’s already happened with engine oil and it could happen with fuel too. There is technology that could see fuel pumps mix a specific blend tailored to your car. So you drive up to the pump which then dials into your car and delivers the perfect fuel for the engine which might be a 98.3 octane with particular additives, for example, rather than the standard 98 available now.’

One of the biggest demands from independent teams is that whatever the new


and the assumption is that everything will be all-electric, but actually a lot of them are giving a misleading statement. When they mean going all-electric they mean actually going hybrid, but I think that is a little down to media hysteria, and wanting to get that headline. The all-electric headline sounds better but it’s not reality. The reality is that you will have to have multiple things to meet global transportation demand. It’s a combination of electric and internal combustion, including diesel. So I think Formula 1 needs to retain some level of internal combustion engine otherwise what are they, Formula E? Besides, if everything went all-electric there is not enough power generation, as you have to build more power plants and there is no appetite for that in certain parts of the world, you just end up in a debate about nuclear power and things like that.’

Fuel for thoughtOne area where road relevance could be directly increased is with the type of fuel used in the cars and Renault in particular is calling for the sport to consider this with the new rules. ‘Something to be discussed is not necessarily the next generation of engine but the next generation of fuel, because we still believe that Formula 1 is about hybrid technology, not full-electric, for a number of reasons,’ Abiteboul says. ‘Clearly we need more power and sustainable power and long races, but there will be new forms of fuel coming up in the next few years, whether you are talking about more biofuel, so a different composition, or even synthetic fuel, coming from non-fossil sources, that could be attractive and that would require new development. So, probably the way forward. Less exciting, obviously, than a very

was not easy but it could be achieved, but now we are chasing gains of 0.1 per cent. We believe that it is very important for the technologies we develop in racing to be used on future road cars. Not just the technologies, though, we also use it to develop the skills and knowledge of our engineers, and that too can be shared within the company. It’s a good training place.’

Heat retention?While the current power unit regulations were instrumental in bringing Honda back into Formula 1 not all the manufacturers remain convinced that every element of the layout is right in terms of road relevance. ‘In my opinion we need to look over the next couple of years at the MGU-H and its road relevance, because it’s clearly a component that was introduced for that purpose,’ Renault F1 managing director Cyril Abiteboul says, before adding a caveat to that statement. ‘Right now, we don’t see any application on road cars but it may come. It may actually be in the pipeline of some manufacturers, so we need to be careful not to be basically in reverse in that respect. And then diversity of technology would be great, but we also need to be careful not to open up the field and create some discrepancy.’

Wider technological relevance is a major reason that many companies, not just car manufacturers, are active in Formula 1, and many are warning against any steps being taken to reduce that relevance. ‘We are not looking at it to be a commercial engine, we are looking at it as the future,’ Mobil 1’s global motorsports technology manager David Tsurusaki says. ‘From our perspective we still believe that internal combustion engines are part of the global picture. Sometimes you talk to people

‘I think Formula 1 needs to retain some level of internal combustion engine in the power unit rules, otherwise what is it, Formula E?’

Most of the F1 teams are calling for a lower cost unit. The current 1.6-litre V6 hybrid era started back in 2014 Honda says it is in Formula 1 to help develop road car technology

F1DigiDec19.indb 26 18/12/2019 15:25


MADE IN THE USAMADE FOR THE WORLD

Learn more aboutHastings Piston Rings atwww.hastingspistonrings.com.

ATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETSATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETS

2nd place is for the other guy

XP BEARINGS - Tri-metal, Copper-leadHP BEARINGS - Bi-metal, Silicon Alloy

The Science of Speed

ENGINE PARTS (UK) LTD

Race Series BearingsProvide ExceptionalPerformance andOutstandingDurability

Performance Engine Bearings

King Combined A4.indd 1 28/07/2017 15:55

Purfl eet: 01708 890494 [email protected]

See us at the Autosport Show in Birmingham

stand number E230

ENGINE PARTS FP ATB.indd 1 09/12/2019 16:22

http://www.hastingspistonrings.com


http://www.enginepartsuk.net


incremental basis year to year or every two years, it is not stopping you from developing but it is saving you the big money from when you go racing. This may sound weird but it is cheap to develop, but very expensive to race.’

Powering onAs the process of developing the regulations for the 2025 power units has only just started there is an opportunity to ensure that the rules are written in a way that satisfies all of the objectives stated here, even though some of them do seem contradictory.

‘At the end of the day I think there is still a question about what is going to be next,’ Taffin says. ‘We could argue that Formula 1 should go back to a V8 or a V10 but this simply will not happen. We have to be realistic, closer to what is going on in the wider world. I think that applies to everything, the ERS, the fuel, the ICE. What should we do for 2025? We need to take a wider look at the world and see what is happening. There are plenty of companies around, not only in the automotive industry but other areas, studying how people will travel in 10 years. I feel that [it’s up to] the FIA or F1 or us, the people in Formula 1, to start thinking like that, to start caring. It may be strange as competitors but we need to have those high level discussions, to care a lot more about the wider world.

‘We need to get together and tackle it from A to Z,’ Taffin adds. ‘It may seem unrealistic but we could have a roadmap for the next 30 years.

It could be sustainable, reasonable and good for all but this is not happening in any state in the world. You look at the world, and think of it in five or ten years time, but then ten minutes later we go to the pit wall and try to win a race. We could have that care, to have it drive us, but it’s going to be costly. But if we have a 30 year roadmap it would allow us to select an area to develop and then freeze. Incremental development could work, we need to set the goals, set the roadmap and do it all step by step, the regulations should drive us to achieve those goals. That would help in preventing us spending massive money on small things that give us just milliseconds, instead we spend all the money in areas that give a real benefit, very specific matters that will be a performance differentiator but also tackle a wider problem.’

Before we conclude, it has been quietly suggested that a proposal for further power unit downsizing has been tabled, which calls for a turbocharged 850cc engine with an extremely high (but potentially variable) compression ratio, gasoline compression ignition and variable valve timing. This would be mated to a much larger and more potent hybrid system. At present there are very few details on this.

The new regulations are likely years from taking any tangible form, but the work is only just beginning. It is clear, though, that the resulting power units will be different to what Formula 1 is using now, quite how they will differ will remain unclear for a while yet.


power unit is it needs to be affordable. But with the manufacturers calling for increased road relevance it is not clear exactly how this could be achieved. One suggestion is to follow the lead set by the 2021 chassis regulations and increase the amount of control parts used, with the electronic systems, MGUs, energy store, fuel system and even the fuel itself all candidates for standardisation.

‘We obviously don’t want Formula 1 to go to a spec fuel or to be very restrictive,’ Tsurusaki says. ‘We are in motor racing for two reasons, firstly marketing and secondly technical development. Remove the technical development then all we need to do is put up a billboard. There is a lot of commentary out there saying that the fuel used in Formula 1 is not road relevant, but we don’t agree with that at all because it does have relevance to what we will do in future. This power unit is not relevant to what is on the road today, but it features a lot of things which could be relevant in the future and it’s the same for our fuel.’

Tighter controlsAnother cost reduction could be a tighter homologation of parts in the power unit. It might be argued that this will reduce the potential R&D gains and technology transfer to production cars, but surprisingly some PU developers are in favour of it. ‘I think we could accept having only one specification of energy recovery system per year, but that is not saying we have to keep the same system for five or ten years,’ Taffin says. ‘Should we be throwing our resources away by trying to get 0.03 seconds per lap by having three different ERS specifications per year? If we worked on an

It may be the case that Formula 1 does not settle on a single fuel but will open it up to entirely different fuels competing against one another

Audi has invested heavily in developing synthetic fuels. Could this sort of tech play a role in the future of F1? Variable compression ratios could be a feature of the 2025 PUs

‘Over the next couple of years we need to look at the MGU-H and its relevance to road cars’

F1DigiDec19.indb 28 18/12/2019 15:25


Pressure Scanning

EVOLUTIONR ised

Ÿ Smallest and lightest pressure

scanners available

Ÿ High accuracy multi-channel

pressure measurement

Ÿ Absolute & Differential

measurement

Ÿ Lightweight, carbon fibre external

construction

Ÿ Integral microprocessors

Ÿ Direct digital output

Ÿ CANbus communications

Ÿ Comprehensive range of

installation accessories

For a demonstration or a quotation call

+44 (0)1264 316470 or email

[email protected]

www.EvoScann.comP16-A P64-D P8-D

P8-A


http://www.EvoScann.com

H E A D L I N E P A R T N E R S

H E A D L I N E M E D I A PA RT N E R S

S U P P O RT I N G M E D I A

S U P P O RT I N G A S S O C I AT I O N S

NetComposites

H E A D L I N E P A R T N E R S

H E A D L I N E M E D I A PA RT N E R S

S U P P O RT I N G M E D I A

S U P P O RT I N G A S S O C I AT I O N SSUPPORTING ASSOCIATIONS

HEADLINE PARTNERS

4 & 5 November 2020 | NEC, Birmingham

CONTACT US TO FIND OUT MORE T: +44 (0)20 3196 4300 | E: [email protected] www.advancedengineeringuk.com

COMPOSITES ENGINEERING

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING

Benefit from co-location with:

CONNECTED MANUFACTURING

AERO ENGINEERING

NEW FOR 2019

MEDICAL DEVICE ENGINEERING

PERFORMANCE METALS ENGINEERING

The UK’s largest annual gathering of engineering supply chain professionals

SAVE THE DATE!

15,000 engineering

professionals in attendance

500+ exhibitors

showcasing their products/services

Over 200 hours of

free-to-attend industry content

AE_2020Advert_NEWBook_A4.indd 1 16/12/2019 11:59:18


http://www.advancedengineeringuk.com

TO ORDERwww.chelseamagazines.com/CRCEXM19

+44 (0) 1858 438 443 (quote code CRCEXM19)AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

DIGITAL EDITION ALSO AVAILABLE WORLDWIDEfor tablet, smartphone and desktop. To order go to:

www.chelseamagazines.com/CRC1P910

SUBSCRIBE TO MOTORSPORT’S LEADING TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE


July 2019 • Vol 29 No 7 • www.racecar-engineering.com • UK £5.95 • US $14.50

Le Mans 2019The pitfalls of powertrain parity

F1 airflow controlWe reveal the strategies of brake heat management

Turbulent mattersIndyCar continues its CFD studies into wake patterns

Super PriusToyota fits V8 powerplant to GT300 hybrid trailblazer

Front Cover July-ACghacFINAL.indd 1

28/05/2019 11:22


• Unrivalled analysisof major events including Formula One, the World Rally Championship and the World Endurance Championship

• The latest product developments

• Features from leading industry engineers

INSIDE EACH ISSUE

Keep up to speed with the latest innovation in racecar design and get technical insight and performance analysis from the leading motorsport technology publication every month.

print or digital access


July 2019 • Vol 29 No 7 • www.racecar-engineering.com • UK £5.95 • US $14.50

Le Mans 2019The pitfalls of powertrain parity


Turbulent mattersIndyCar continues its CFD studies into wake patterns

Super PriusToyota fits V8 powerplant to GT300 hybrid trailblazer

Front Cover July-ACghacFINAL.indd 1 28/05/2019 11:22

CRCEXM19.indd 83 23/09/2019 15:39

http://www.chelseamagazines.com/CRCEXM19

http://www.chelseamagazines.com/CRC1P910




Formula 1 is the greatest challenge a manufacturer of me-

chanical components may ever be confronted with. We have

embraced this challenge and have attained the status of top

supplier with our high tech products.

At Kaiser we manufacture the Chassis-, Engine-, and Gearbox

Components our customers require.

... JUST GOOD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR US!

HIGH TECHNOLOGY FOR WINNERS

www.kaiser-wzb.de

Untitled-40 1 27/09/2018 15:15

http://www.kaiser-wzb.de

Documents

YOUR FREE COPY WITH OUR COMPLIMENTS F1: The future€¦ · a three-part article about the future of F1, advocating, among quite a few other things, 1400bhp Formula 1 engines. In fact,