F1 cars will be “two to three seconds slower” in 2014

2014 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

FIA race director Charlie Whiting expects F1 cars to lap more slowly next year despite having slightly more power.

“I think lap times will probably be two to three seconds slower than they are currently,” Whiting told the JA on F1 podcast.

Formula One engines will be downsized from the current V8 units next year: “We’ve got the new power train coming: a 1.6-litre V6 with all sorts of energy saving and energy converting devices which will, I think, bring the power to a little over what we have right now.”

“But it’s very, very complex and the torque management will be very complicated.”

“I think the efficiency is the key thing,” he added. “Just to be absolutely clear, though, you won’t see cars running out of fuel because there’s no limit on the amount of fuel a team can put in the car. There’s a limit to how much they can use during the race.”

“There are significant changes to the wing designs in order to reduce the drag,” said Whiting. “The drag is the thing that had to be reduced to make the fuel consumption work and as you know the cornerstone for this new power unit is only using 100 kilos of fuel for the race.”

“And there’s also a fuel flow limit which will be verified and check by the FIA fuel flow meter which all cars will fit inside their fuel tanks.”

Whiting also pointed out that the new penalty points system being introduced next year could mean drivers facing race bans in one season due to infractions committed the previous year:

“Drivers will be awarded points, or penalised, depending on the severity of the incident. The table we have at the moment drivers are given one, two or three points depending on the severity of the incident concerned. If they accumulate 12 points in a 12-month period they will lose their licence for one race. And this will be a 12-month period so if you get three points in June, say, they will last until the following June, then they’ll come off your licence.”

2014 F1 season

Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Image © McLaren/Hoch Zwei

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

149 comments on “F1 cars will be “two to three seconds slower” in 2014”

  1. “Just to be absolutely clear, though, you won’t see cars running out of fuel because there’s no limit on the amount of fuel a team can put in the car. There’s a limit to how much they can use during the race.”


    1. Maximum fuel flow limit. You’re only allowed to use 100kg of fuel during any one hour of the race.

      1. Not sure. The fuel flow limit is brought up separately. I am confused :)

        1. @mike-dee I think what they’re saying is, you can have as big a fuel tank as you want and have as much fuel in the car as you’d like, but you won’t be allowed to use more than 100kg of fuel per any 60 minute span during the race.

          1. @magnificent-geoffrey
            It definitely sounds like it’s 100kg for the whole race, not per hour.

          2. @metallion
            It’s 100 kg per hour. At least that’s what F1 2014 Tech Regs say.

          3. Yes, regarding the fuel flow to the engine, which varies during the race. This doesn’t mean total consumption allowed during a race, which is 100kg.

          4. As @metallion mentions, its a maximum of 100 kg that can be used for any race. And on top of that there’s a fuel flow maximum to prevent the engine from having high peaks and then be turned down

        2. As I understand the fuel flow limit and the 100kg usage limit are separate issues. The 100kg limit is how much fuel can be used during the race, not how much can be used per hour. The fuel flow limit is probably how much fuel can be fed to the engine per hour. I got confused too though by the same sentence quoted by @wsrgo . I don’t understand how it makes any sense that they’d be able to put however much fuel they want in the car but they can still only use a certain amount. Sure, they might not run out of fuel, but what happens if they then use more than 100kg?

          1. @metallion Penalty after the race?

          2. @metallion OK, now I am confused!

            I was going by what the BBC were claiming the other day (left-hand box out).

          3. @magnificent-geoffrey

            Per BBC box: “No more than 100kg (about 140 litres) of fuel in a race; max fuel-flow rate of 100kg per hour.”

            So two different restrictions as races typically last longer than an hour. Let’s ignore the maximum fuel flow for now. If you are only allowed to use 100 kg, no team is going to put more than 100 kg in the tank (plus I guess the 1 litre for the fuel sample). Anything else would be stupid as the extra weight slows down the car.

            So in fact they might well run out of fuel. Hence, I am confused by Whiting’s statement.

          4. I think the confusion comes in thinking that how can you achieve a maximum fuel flow rate of 100kg per hour when you are limited to using less than 100kg of fuel and the race lasts longer than an hour.

            The thing you’re forgetting is that the engine is only using its peak fuel rate while the driver has the throttle fully open. For a significant part of the lap, the engine won’t be at peak fuel rate. They don’t just run the entire race with the throttle fully open the whole time!

          5. @mike-dee @magnificent-geoffrey @metallion
            Here are 2014 technical regulations.

            5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

            I can’t see anything about the amount of fuel allowed per race and I went through the whole thing, paying attention to the “Article 6: Fuel”. Maybe I’m just tired and I’m missing something.

          6. @maroonjack
            i couldn’t find anything either about the amount of fuel allowed per race, but Whiting clearly states it, separately from the fuel flow issue and it’s also mentioned in the BBC article that @magnificent-geoffrey linked. @keithcollantine also mentions the maximum amount being 100kg for the race in his comment further down.

          7. @maroonjack @metallion

            It’ll be in the sporting regulations rather than the technical regulations. Hence why they say the cars can carry as much fuel as they like – if it was a restriction in the technical regs, then it would mandate the specific dimensions on the fuel tank itself. Things like how much fuel they can use, how many tyres they’re allowed, and that sort of thing, all fall under the Sporting Regulations.

          8. @mazdachris
            I was suspecting the same, I was going to check them but they’ve not been published on the FIA website yet.

          9. I understand the fuel flow issue. Maybe for the non-technical reader it would be better to say 27.8 grams per second than 100 kg per hour even though the two are the same.

        3. @mike-dee
          Perhaps some teams could put a bit more fuel in the car if there was a risk of running out of fuel as it could be better to take a penalty for using too much fuel than stopping on track. I don’t really like the thought of this though. Either run out of fuel or take a penalty if you want to finish the race.

        4. And he wanted to be clear… I’m confused too.

      2. 100Kg max per race but some teams (I think Honda wasn’t it) may put extra in the tank to pre-presurise their systems…there’s nothing limiting the team from putting 200Kgs in their tanks other than it would be stupid to carry the extra weight.

        The flow rate is a different issue. As I understand it it’s not that a car can’t use more than 100Kgs of fuel in a 1 hour period but that the flow rate at any point in time is restricted to that level. More fuel now clearly mean more power but cars won’t be allowed to push in enough fuel , even for 1 second, that would end up consuming 200Kgs if kep up for an hour…did that make sense? They’re not taking an average, they’re narrowing the pipe so to speak

        1. As the fuel flow is restricted to that level at any point in time, it also means that a car can’t use more than 100kg of fuel in a 1 hour period. Of course, during a 1 hour period, the actual fuel flow will vary meaning the average will be less than 100kg/h. If a race generally takes about 1.5 hours, that would mean, unless I’m very much mistaken, an average of about 66 litres per hour.

    2. A better way would have been

      there’s no limit on the amount of fuel a team can put in the car. There’s a limit to how much they can use at a particular time . Fuel flow (per sec) or flow rate .

    3. Classic FIA over-complication.

      Fans WANT to see cars running out of fuel and they WANT to see engines blowing up. It all adds to the spice.

      The idea that a winner would be penalised hours after the race for breaching a fuel flow regulation or 100Kg per hour (or per race?) rule that even fans seem to fail to understand just stinks of the same old FIA :(.

      1. @joshgeake

        Can you imagine the uproar if cars start running out of fuel “for the show”?

        The British GP and how popular it was is an example of what people want not being the same as what they say they want.

        1. They’re not going to run out of fuel for the show, that’s a daft idea.

      2. How is a car trundling to a halt with no visible issues going to enhance the show, unless it’s Vettel?

    4. Ben (@scuderia29)
      3rd July 2013, 16:09

      It sounds like rather than cars running out of fuel and grinding to a hault or driving slowly, instead they will just have a points penalty for using too much (if they happen to miscalculate how much fuel they were going to use) which i think i a terrible idea. Also the idea of these penalty point carrying over to the next year is the worst idea i have ever heard :S

      1. The penalty points need to be carried over to the next year! If not, we will get drivers with very few penalty points pushing the boundaries a lot more than normal, because if they get a penalty point, it doesn’t matter, as they will be wiped at the end of the race.

    5. “Just to be absolutely clear, though, you won’t see cars running out of fuel because there’s no limit on the amount of fuel a team can put in the car. There’s a limit to how much they can use during the race.”

      It’s like saying, “you won’t see yourself running out of cash because there’s no limit on the amount of cash you can put in your wallet. There’s a limit to how much you can earn during your service.”

  2. What a small amount of difference.

    It’s almost like Formula 1 cars are still going to be the pinnacle of racing technology next year after all…

    1. Blasphemy! It’s all Bernie’s fault! F1 should have V34 engines and tyres that last 15 years, a fuel limit of 20 kgs so we get more pitstops and they should drive 70s/80s/90s F1 cars.


      1. @npf1 And six wheels. On each side of the car.

        1. @magnificent-geoffrey

          And a cannon. We must have a cannon.

          1. We shall petition the FIA!

          2. Imagine the complaints from the other teams when Red Bull turn up with a laser instead!

    2. You just summed up every YouTube comment ever about f1. haha

  3. I think i’ve read the limit is 100kg of fuel per hour, is it possible?

    1. It is a maximum flow rate, you cannot use maximum flow rate, which will be under acceleration in low gears, continuously. And you will be using minimum fuel rate during braking, etc.

  4. I doubt they will be that much slower.

    1. I guess they could be at the start of the season when teams might err on the side of caution with the whole engine/drivetrain and possibly not using all of their more fancy aero ideas, but I would be surprised if they don’t get quickly back up to speed.

      We might also see bigger differences at some tracks and see them be very close to this years times on others, dependant on whether its a track where they accellerate/brake a lot or rely on running full throttle through fast corners. The new cars could be better under acceleration, and possibly on the straigths – less drag – but a tad slower in the high aero corners.

    2. Yes, Charlie is being pessimistic.

  5. I wonder if F1 cars will reach a time when they might be slower than race cars from other racing categories.

    1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
      3rd July 2013, 11:35

      I do worry about that.

    2. Soon we won’t see a difference between formation and first lap.

    3. Well they are, in a straight line. Or on water. Or on a rally course.

      However, I think yes, it’s important that F1 remain the pinnacle around a modern F1 track.
      But I suspect we are a long way from that problem.

      1. Or on ovals …

    4. I think that soon we will start to see several races per season ending at the 2-hr mark.

    5. The FIA wouldnt allow that to happen.

      1. yes, they would not allow that by probably reducing the number of laps per race at some slow tracks.

        1. How does that stop cars fom getting slower?

    6. I Love the Pope
      3rd July 2013, 14:15

      Aren’t Indycars already faster? And NASCAR around ovals?

      In addition, LeMans probably represents the pinnacle of motor sport now. F1 has slid into soap opera quality entertainment.

    7. Would you rather see cars that are faster than those any other racing category, but which a trained chimpanzee could win World Championships with … or would you rather see slightly slower cars that demand genuine skill to drive so that the twenty-two men driving them are heralded as the twenty-two best drivers in the world?

      1. I Love the Pope
        3rd July 2013, 21:47

        Well, Susie Wolff will probably be driving one. And Max Chilton.

        So the best 22 men in the world? Hardly. Maybe the best 5 or 6.

        1. On one hand, I see where you’re going re: Chilton.

          On the other, you’re being massively unfair on Wolff, who has never competed in F1 machinery, so I can only assume its thinly-veiled sexism…

          1. It’s more likely a comment on the use of the phrase “twenty-two men”. Susie Wolff would be excluded from that group, without any implication of sexism.

            Although I admit putting her in the same category as Max Chilton could be seen as a little insulting…

          2. Cearly you are unaware of how poor her results in DTM are. Assuming that somebody saying Wolff is bad is sexist just because she is a woman sounds, well, kinda sexist.

      2. It really, really shouldnt have to be one or the other.

    8. I believe some LMP1 cars, re: Audi and Yota, are turning lap times within 1s of F1 lap times.

      1. thatscienceguy
        3rd July 2013, 15:49

        Let’s look at some facts. For as close to all-out speed, let’s use quali laps:
        2012 LMP1 Pole – 1:48.273 (Alex Wurz, Toyota)
        2012 F1 Pole – 1:35.121 (Nico Rosberg, Mercedes)

        2012 LMP1 Pole – 1:45.814 (Allan McNish, Audi)
        2012 F1 Pole – 1:32.422 (Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull)

        Sao Paulo
        LMP1 – 1:22.363 (Wurz, Toyota)
        F1 – 1:12.458 (Hamilton, McLaren)

        LMP1 – 1:43.663 (Treluyer, Audi)
        F1 – 1:51.746 (Alonso, Ferrari)

        Spa Francorchamps
        LMP1 – 2:01.579
        F1 – 1:47.573

        So F1 is substantially quicker than LMP1, don’t know where you got 1s difference from, you’re not even close to being right. It’s pretty consistently about 12 seconds difference. Even when it’s very wet for F1 and dry for LMP1 (Silverstone), F1 is barely slower than the LMPs.

        I’m all for a robust discussion, but please let’s keep something resembling facts here.

        1. BJ (@beejis60)
          4th July 2013, 7:41

          Allan McNish quote from earlier this season. Surprised to see the disparity tbh. I guess that’s what I get for taking Kevin’s articles as they are and not doing my own research.

          1. BJ (@beejis60)
            4th July 2013, 7:41

            Excuse me, Keith*

        2. This is only taking into account pole position times. The gap is about 25% smaller when the race fastest laps are considered, at least when it comes to Silverstone: 1:33.401 FL by Webber in the F1 race this year, 1:42.767 FL by Allan McNish in the WEC race earlier this year.

  6. There’s a limit to how much they can use during the race.

    Is that limit raised/lowered according to the race venue? Or is it going to be the same, whether it’s for Monaco or Monza?

    1. @timothykatz According to the announcement on Friday it will be 100kg per race, there was nothing about altering it for different tracks.

      1. So I presume we will see a lot of penalties for excessive fuel consumption after each race. Doesn’t sound too good.

        1. @gilles The fuel flow is going to be controlled by an FIA standard filter, so you won’t be able to exceed the 100kg per hour rate to begin with.

        2. No I don’t think so. The maximum fuel per race is 100Kg. The teams will make judicious use of engine maps/fuel maps/throttle maps etc during the race in order to run the engine at the optimum as the weight decreases. Some teams will gamble on say 90kgs and leaning out the mixture as the race progresses and some will have to have a the full 100kgs, also leaning out the mixture as the race progresses. The same as today, just a lower maximum allowance. I imagine the engine/fuel configuration could be something like full power/top fuel mix early on to help carry the weight with the the maps being turned down progressively as the cars get lighter so that on the final lap they’re running on fumes.

          1. Exactly. The whole point of the regulations is to encourage fuel efficiency.

        3. Maybe at the start of the season we will see a bit more cars either running heavy fuel and overusing or even have to stop for lack of fuel (or rather run very slowly to save fuel), because teams will not be completely sure how it works out.

          But I think that by about the 4-5th race they will have all figured it out and will manage from the friday data.

  7. BTW don’t forget that the 2014 engine regulations were designed with consultation from the engine manufacturer’s & that the new regulations are the biggest reason Honda are coming back.

    Its no coincidence that Indycar have ended up with similar engine’s (V6 Turbo’s) having like the FIA consulted with engine manufacturer’s to come up with the engine regulations.

  8. Well, it’s not utterly disastrous, but is this going to do the reputation of efficient technology any good?

    When you consider that the current cars usually can’t get within 2 seconds of the 2004 lap records, how bad is cutting-edge, “green” technology going to look when it can’t even get within 5 seconds of the relatively ancient technology from 10 years ago?

    1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
      3rd July 2013, 11:37

      No rules back then. Did Ferrari gag Bernie from 2000-2004?

    2. I don’t think people will look at it that way. A lot of Mansell’s lap records from 1992 stood until the early 2000s as well and people hardly ever thought F1 was going backwards, technology wise, then. Besides, music groups and fans still congratulate themselves on going to a certain chart position, while the sales are down on 10/20 years ago. Casual fans will not really care.

      The FIA would do good to erase lap records whenever a massive rules change is in order. The 2014 changes aren’t only about being green, it’s also another go from the FIA to slow the cars down. They’ve been trying to do so since 1994, that also has a major influence on lap times.

    3. If you cut rules the cars will go much quicker yes.

      But it’s a formula that the teams have to work to. F1 has always been about the battle between the rule makers and the engineers.

    4. Horror! In reality the cars were a lot slower in 2009 as well, but that was quickly gained back, in part by the DDD as well as by exhaust blowing and flex wings. The teams will find things to improve with the new formula as well. And that is exactly the idea of a rule change – to force the engineers to use their minds and come up with new things to make the cars go round faster.

  9. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I’m glad. I mean, that’s only a small difference really. No bigger than the difference between a Red Bull and a Caterham, and the latter is still very much a Formula 1 car. But good also because the cars actually have more power, so to be slower around the track means they must have lower grip/downforce. Which means they’ll be harder to drive, and have more of a tendency to move around under the drivers. Especially since the new engines will have a much better torque curve, delivering a much bigger kick of power coming out of corners. So while we clearly aren’t going to see anyone challenging lap records (though when was the last time that happened anyway?), we should get more dramatic racing with more mistakes and drivers working harder. Well that’s just great, in my book!

    1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
      3rd July 2013, 11:38

      Don’t worry, Bernie and the FIA will do their upmost to spoil the excitement ;-)

      1. Of course, because Bernie does not want to get any revenue from F1 and actually lose his money, lose the teams’ money and bankrupt the sport. Now that would be good for Bernie’s evil, all-consuming wallet.

        Not to mention, the FIA has been so hesitant to improve the sport. They never try anything and discard it if it doesn’t work(no tyre changes, 2005, grooved tyres) or try completely new things (DRS). Damn that evil Max Mosley Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone, the only people who have any influence on F1 whatsoever.

    2. With the minimum weight increasing quite a lot, I’m surprised the cars won’t be even slower.

      1. That’ll be offset, at least towards the start of the races, by the fact the cars will be carrying significantly less fuel. But yeah, in terms of qualifying trim, it’s a lot more weight to carry around. I guess the increased torque means that this is only really relevant int he corners – along the straights the cars will accelerate quicker and because of lower drag, should achieve higher speeds.

      2. Funny thing, but the weight is not going to be that much different really is it? – Isn’t it only about 25 kg more?
        When you take into consideration that currently the cars have about 160kg in fuel at the start, that means that we could actually see them do the first laps of the race faster or as fast as they do now!

    3. No bigger than the difference between a Red Bull and a Caterham

      How much will that difference be next year , I wonder …..

      1. @hamilfan

        Given that the rules are likely to stay very stable and only be changed in minor ways, it’s likely that the cars will be quicker. Given that the engineers will surely learn more as they do every year.

        I think, given the amount of change that’s going on, it’s prudent to be on the safe side.

        1. @mike
          I am in fact more worried of the gap between the top end and the bottom end teams in 2014 . From what ferrari are saying , the regs look very difficult to surmount . It would be interesting to see how smaller teams handle such massive technical challenges where resources are comparatively more scanty than say , a team like ferrari,red bull or so on .
          If they are whole seconds slower than the top team , we may see too many back markers . Of course, there may be some freakish brawn like team in the making too !! It’s all speculation ……

          1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
            3rd July 2013, 19:15

            If any midfield team could do a brawn, then I think force India could be the ones

    4. I hope its a strong limb, because I’m out on it beside you!

  10. GP2 will be faster than F1 at some tracks? that would be unacceptable.

    1. @sato113 Can’t see how you’re coming to that conclusion. Gp2 cars are 7-8 seconds slower on an average (at least).

      1. At monaco last year, the HRT was only a couple of seconds faster than the gp2 cars. anyway, f1 cars shouldnt even be 4-5 seconds faster than gp2, it should be more like 10!

        1. what regulation says an F1 car should be 10 seconds faster than a GP2 car

        2. @sato113 Er..why? Should it only be about speed, raw speed, and nothing else?

  11. This sounds very dull to me. The implication from what Whiting is saying is that the team that has the most efficient engine and use of fuel will win the most races. Anybody who uses more than 100 Kgs of fuel will be penalised, so even if you have the fastest car, if you use too much fuel you’ll be penalised. How exciting.

    The other observation I have is that there is no way teams will carry any more fuel than absolutely necessary. Even if they are permitted to carry as much fuel as they like (which is presumably exactly the same as now) as they can only use 100 KGs worth, that is all they will carry. They will then have to make that last during the race by driving slower, or they will run out of fuel. I can’t see a team carrying 105KGs “just in case”

    1. Well yes, if someone breaks the rules they would be penalized….

      I think both the engine designers and teams will quite well be able to handle the situation. The engines next year will use significantly less fuel anyway. And given that the engines are likely to be very similar I don’t think it’ll be a problem.

  12. To be honest I’m not bothered by this at all. You know why?

    History has shown that, even within restrictions on aero, engines, this, that, and what have you, F1 engineers have always been able to claw that lost time back.

    Short of some catastrophic alteration to the regulations, give it a few years and they will be lapping as quick as, if not quicker than today’s cars.

    I bet a round of drinks on it. Hold me to it, guys!

    1. yeah with aero and exhaust development! they cant claw back time through engine development. Over 3 years, top teams can improve their car by 3-4 seconds maybe. but these engine rules will put them back 3-4 seconds. so in 3-4 years we might have same speeds as today. follow me?

  13. With freezes in development and all, F1 hardly moved forward in the last 7 years. They are making one big step a decade…

    Sad that big step goes backwards in terms of performace. 2004 laptimes are never ever going to be beaten… how sad is that?

    1. Traverse (@)
      3rd July 2013, 14:28

      This was precisely my fear, that top-end performance would take a big hit. Hamilton’s Silverstone pole time was 1’29.607, if you add the +3 sec performance drop expected next year, Hamilton would have only managed P16! Innovation is all fine and dandy, but for the premier racing formula to recede like this (3 seconds is a HUGE fall) for the sake of PR (y’know, we must appease the green lobbyists and save the Panda bears etc) is ridiculous. I want speed!

      1. @Traverse Unlimited POWERRRR …… ;-)

      2. @hellotraverse I want speed too and it can be achieved while also saving our little Panda bears.

        But for that you need development ! continuos development. Making engines more and more efficient, getting more and more power out of the available resources.

        If they freeze development, we’ll be stuck with old engines which will be very unefficient come year 2020 or whatever limit to the freeze is. Just like the V8s we have now. They are all capable of much more but they are not using it…

        F1 should move forward…! yes, changing powerplants will always make it backwards, but if you freeze it all you stay there ! if you don’t, you try to recover and you get there with the old means: better engines !!!!

        1. Traverse (@)
          4th July 2013, 10:00

          I agree! Development and the advancement of technologies is a vital and integral part of not only sport, but life and humanity in general. Development usually means increasing the attributes of a subject/product, not hindering them, as you’ve said yourself: “Sad that big step goes backwards in terms of performace. 2004 laptimes are never ever going to be beaten… how sad is that?”

  14. @keithcollantine Well, I’ve just done a little bit of arithmetic – all right it’s a spreadsheet – to look at the amount of fuel used per race according to the circuit guides here on the web site.
    Unsurprisingly, Monaco comes out at the lowest at 124.8 kilos of fuel for the race distance, so the cars will have to be 24% more efficient to get down to the 100 kg limit. But the real shocker is that at Catalunya, the cars appear to consume 165 kilos of fuel a the moment. So in 2014, they will have to be 65% more efficient.
    Being different engines, it’s not the overall efficiency that makes me surprised. It’s the disparity between circuits: 28% more efficient at Monaco, but 65% more efficient at Catalunya if they really are to have a limit at 100 kg of fuel per race. That seems to be such a huge disparity that it almost requires two completely different engines.
    Could they do that – run two different variants of the same engine according to the fuel efficiency need?
    NB, I wan’t able to do the calculations for COTA because there isn’t an ‘amount of fuel used per lap’ published here.

    1. I presume they could advance or retard timings and change the compression ratios and turbo pressure to achieve the same effect. They might even be able to change the cams without incurring an ‘engine change’ penalty I should think.

      Probably can’t give the FULL difference needed but you could probably get a good way to both ends of the spectrum like that.

      1. Last week it was published that anything that is changed on the engine, including turbos, will result in a 10 place grid penalty.

    2. Interesting, the comments from the team seemed to indicate that Singapore would be the most critical circuit with the 100 kg limit.

    3. Unsurprisingly, Monaco comes out at the lowest at 124.8 kilos of fuel for the race distance, so the cars will have to be 24% more efficient to get down to the 100 kg limit. But the real shocker is that at Catalunya, the cars appear to consume 165 kilos of fuel a the moment. So in 2014, they will have to be 65% more efficient.

      Monaco is 260 km when other GP’s are around 305.

      According to James Allen, this year the following tracks required the following fuel loads:

      Melbourne – 152,
      Malaysia – 153,
      Spain – 154.

      Pretty much 50% more efficiency required on most circuits, which reduced downforce, ERS and turbos are not going to make up.

    4. The Catalunya race distance is 307 km, Monaco is only 260 km.

      1. Yes, exactly. I find it rather odd that the FIA are applying a blanket fuel requirement to races of different lengths with very different “time on maximum throttle” characteristics.
        You see, after Monaco, the next race with the lowest fuel consumption seems to be Malaysia at 134.4 kilos which is still along way from the Catalunya figure or Singapore at 152.5 kilos (must be all those 90 degree corners with a quick squirt on the throttle on the way to the next one).
        @njack I’m sure James Allen’s figures are more accurate than mine. Does he publish a full list for all circuits?

    5. TV (@sukellusvene)
      3rd July 2013, 14:13

      Just correcting the maths a bit:
      24.8kg/124.8kg = ~20%
      65kg/165kg = ~39%

    6. Actually, even if 165kg is an accurate figure, 100kg is “only” 39% less fuel. Much more achievable than 65%.

      1. Yes, you’re right. Just shows I should never be left alone with Excel!

        1. Haha! *Like*

  15. Fuel flow restrictions are interesting. That’s typically a sportscar thing. Le Mans used to have a trophy for the team/car that used the least fuel (Colin Chapman won it often), and I believe fuel restriction was a mainstay of Group C racing, working as a leveler between the normally aspirated V12s and so on, and the turbocharged small-capacity engines (wankels et all). It breeds diversity and prevents a horsepower war.

    Except we have frozen engine development and a prescribed engine layout.

  16. Wow how times have changed. This is the 2004 regs change and back then they were unhappy about only being able to use one engine per weekend http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2004/3/1257.html

    1. That’s a great read. They were worried that people wouldn’t bother going out in the first practice session as it might compromise engine life! How times change.

      I wonder what we’ll think looking back at these news stories in another ten years. “hey, remember when they used to be able to run more than one engine a year!” “Remember when they ran on petrol!”

      Or indeed “remember when we didn’t live in a smouldering post-apocalyptic wasteland!” said to a slowly rotating rat on a spit inside the housing of a smashed CRT monitor. Beneath a green and foreboding sky…

    2. @racerdude7730

      Nice read. Also a funny part in the last sentence from Sam Michael: “I am sure 2004 is going to be an exciting season for the fans to watch” – yes, especially the excitement over who could possibly become world champion that year – it was only decided at the last race. Hold on.

  17. They will be faster than he said but it would take time. I think about 2016, we will reach same lap times due to improved engine and aerodynamics.

  18. So will it be lesser number of laps of Longer race duration that the fans can expect ??? I am guessing it will be former as it has to fit into the TV broadcast time window already agreed upon !!! Having said that I would’nt mind a longer race.

  19. I Love the Pope
    3rd July 2013, 14:18

    So the real life version of F-Zero is still not here, eh?

    I guess if they let Newey design that crazy batmobile Red Bull he came up with a while back, then we might be there.

  20. As if team didn´t already have enough to wory about (tyres, pit strategies, etc) now they get an added complication… Fuel flow limit. This is starting to become ridiculous. What´s next?? Solar power units to switch on to save fuel and back to petrol when needed?? Seriously, this is getting to be annoying.

    1. The 2014 engine regulations including the fuel flow restrictions were written with collaboration from teams (And engine suppliers).

  21. Do you guys not think these regulations have been well thought through!? I’ve read post after post of armchair scientist calculations of how the new engines won’t work and the cars will be running out of fuel – the racing will be boring etc.

    F1 needs this change. It makes it relevant again in an age of diminishing fossil fuels and cost effieciency. I’m sure the best engineers in the world are up to the task of this and that in setting the rules I’m pretty sure it was totally possible for this not to ruin things.

    I, for one, am looking forward to the new regs and the age of the fastest lapping track cars going almost or just as fast, much more efficiently. Change is nearly always good, it just takes some getting used to. Nothing stands the test of time unless it adapts and moves forwards.

    1. Yes, I think we’re all (secretly) perhaps looking forwards to it. It’s just that it’s not instantly easy to understand the new regulations.
      I agree that not everyone can understand the offside rule in football (soccer), but at least FIFA don’t keep changing it. The players might understand it perfectly, it would just be nice if the fans could understand it as well.
      The FIA rule changes don’t seem to be desperately clear, what with the chat about fuel flow restrictions and 100 kg per race or per hour on the previous page, and Charlie’s remarks didn’t seem to help. Maybe *he* doesn’t quite understand them either.
      I hope very much that these new regulations mean that some of the cars will actually look distinctly different to the others. As it was in the ’80s, when the Lotus looked visibly distinct from the Brabham or Ferrari. At the moment, all the cars look like near clones of each other.

  22. I feel like crying

  23. kers, drs, bubble gum tires, fuel saving, v6 engines, soon to be milk float mode when making a pit stop, penalty points I am starting to appreciate that line in the song american pie ” can’t remember if I cried the day the music died”

  24. So many rules, so many regulations. It is almost as if F1 isn’t about speed anymore, it is about regulations. Hard core racing and driving on the limit of the car are things of the past now.
    Good thing I have an interest in MotoGP. At least that is one form of puring racing. No politics, and at the end, the winner can get off the bike and celebrate his victory with his fans.

    1. Good thing I have an interest in MotoGP.

      Still has regulations though lol!


      “From 2007 onwards the FIM regulated that engines are limited a maximum fuel capacity of 21 litres in MotoGP™ class”

  25. I like how Keith used a picture of a “MClaren” when talking of slow cars. Sneaky :)

    1. Now I understand! McLaren are already running their car to comply with the 2014 rules!


  26. HA!, while Indycar is loosing up regulations a bit to get their cars faster for the 100 years of the Indy 500 thinking of breaking speed records on the track.
    F1 is doing everything it can to be slower.

    Nice Job F1, you might as well put speedbumps on the track or give speeding tickets if the drivers exceed 300 kms in a straight.

  27. People are missing the point when they worry about cars running out fuel next year or driving in constant fuel save mode.

    If you tried to run a race on 100kg of fuel on the current generation engines, then yes you would have a problem. But those engines are designed to run at the maximum potential power/weight ratio, they are designed to get the maximum out of whatever fuel is put in the tank. Efficiency isn’t important, maximum power is. Flow rate can be altered depending on how much fuel is needed for the race ahead.

    The new engines are designed specifically for fuel efficiency and a limited fuel flow. They won’t have a problem running within the fuel limitations, because that’s what they are designed to do!

  28. That McLaren in the picture’s ahead of its time – it’s two seconds slower already!

    1. Lol. Great :)

  29. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 3rd July 2013, 12:30

    said: “I think the confusion comes in thinking that how can you achieve a maximum fuel flow rate of 100kg per hour when you are limited to using less than 100kg of fuel and the race lasts longer than an hour.

    The thing you’re forgetting is that the engine is only using its peak fuel rate while the driver has the throttle fully open. For a significant part of the lap, the engine won’t be at peak fuel rate. They don’t just run the entire race with the throttle fully open the whole time!”

    Actually you do try to run all the time with the throttle wide open, and the team selects the gear ratios that are available to accomplish that to the fullest extent possible.

  30. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    3rd July 2013, 19:55

    So drivers in the WEC will be going faster in 2014 as well as not having to worry about tyre saving. Mark’s decision is looking better as every moment passes.

    1. No they won’t.

  31. My understanding is that McLaren are taking this as a personal challenge, and aim to beat the 2-3 second reduction target by at least a second, year-on-year.

    Their hope is that by the time the stupid decision to switch engine suppliers one year into a new formula pans out, they’ll be 6-7 seconds off the pace.

  32. I’m personally expecting race pace to be similar because of fuel efficiency leading to less fuel weight, although I bet quali pace will be slower on most tracks. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the new cars would be faster around tracks like Monaco, Singapore and Hungary.

    I do wonder if we are going to return to another era of engine failures before the regulations get locked down again. It just may be that this stops drivers like Vettel from just winning race after race with very few failures.

  33. so f1 is now greener than a carbon lie. so why no talk of hydrogen fuel cell , because never give a sucker a break. what has happened to f1 I’ll tell you money money money, bugger the racing greed greed greed. thank God for btcc an moto gp

  34. The fuel thing is interesting and all but, seriously *** in regards to the demerit points carrying over into the next season… Thats ridiculous… I get that they don’t want drivers to be reckless at the end of the season if they had point sto spare and all but the system is silly and should have been thought out better.

    Crazy thought: what if the number of demerits that a driver has at the end of the season is subtracted from his/her championship points? or number of demerit points at last race = # of places received as a grid penalty at last race? both ideas sound crazy, but not more crazy than having penalties carry over between seasons…

    What happens if a driver switches teams? I could see a situation where a driver gets passed over by a major team because they would be excluded from the first race of the season…

    They sure like to complicate the simple things and over simplify the critical things…

    1. @mcbride

      What if the number of demerits that a driver has at the end of the season is subtracted from his/her championship points?

      I don’t think you could make that work in a fair way because the value of a point can vary from driver to driver. A one-point penalty might make no difference to Vettel or Alonso at the end of the year but could move a midfield driver up or down one or more places in the championship.

      And of course it would open up the possibility of drivers having negative points scores, which might be undesirable.

      I could see a situation where a driver gets passed over by a major team because they would be excluded from the first race of the season.

      Well then they shouldn’t break the rules. It is supposed to be a disincentive, after all.

      1. @keithcollantine – Yeah I hear ya that they shouldn’t break the rules. I suppose that I’d be far more in agreement with that line of thinking if the stewards were just a bit more consistent. They’ve certainly been better in recent years, but I feel that they have a ways to go yet…

  35. I am surprised if the cars are just 2s slower than currently. I have expected them to be at least 3 seconds slower. Looking forward to seeing the highest top speeds in almost a decade and I hope they will keep the regs fairly stable after 2014 so we can claw back the cornering/braking deficit soon.

  36. Can anyone say to Mr. Newey that the car are already very, very ugly and they can’t get uglier?

Comments are closed.