Teams differ over “questionable” new engine rules

2014 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Adrian Newey, Red Bull, Bahrain International Circuit, 2014The merits of F1’s new rules were a focus of disagreement between top team staff during today’s press conference in Bahrain, during which Adrian Newey described them as “questionable”.

Against a backdrop of debate over how the new rules have changed the sport and Ferrari’s lobbying for changes to the regulations just two races into the season, Red Bull’s chief technical officer gave a critique of the switch to V6 turbo engines and energy recovery systems.

Newey, whose cars have won the last four constructors’ championships, began by questioning whether the new cars do represent the step forwards in terms of efficiency and environmentallypositive technologies they have been portrayed as.

“When you get into things like batteries then an electric car is only green if it gets its power from a green source,” said Newey. “If it gets its power from a coal-fired power station then clearly it’s not green at all.”

“A hybrid car, which is effectively what the Formula One regulations are, then a lot of energy goes into manufacturing those batteries and into the cars which is why they’re so expensive.

“Whether that then gives you a negative or a positive carbon footprint or not depends on the duty cycle of the car – how many miles does it do, is it cruising along the motorway at constant speed or stop-starting in a city. So this concept that a hybrid car is automatically green is a gross simplification.”

Newey argued there were “other ways” the cars could have been made more energy efficient.

“You can make it lighter, you can make it more aerodynamic, both of which are things that Formula One is good at. For instance the cars are 10% heavier this year – a result, directly, of the hybrid content.

“So I think technically, to be perfectly honest, it’s slightly questionable. From a sporting point of view, to me, efficiency, strategy etc, economy of driving, is very well placed for sports cars, which is a slightly different way of going racing. Formula One should be about excitement. It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every single lap.”

‘Danger F1 would become irrelevant’

But Williams’ chief technical office Pat Symonds said it had been necessary for Formula One to adopt the new engine rules to reflect developments in road car manufacturing.

“The road car industry – rightly or wrongly – has to hit CO2 per kilometre targets and those are very difficult targets to meet,” said Symonds. “And they will have to employ technologies such as we are using in Formula One.”

“So we are moving things forward, we are more relevant than we used to be and I think that’s very important. I think there was a great danger – and I mentioned this in one of these press conferences last year – that we would become irrelevant. We would become the focus of gas-guzzling and not having social responsibility. And I think it was really important that we did move away from that.”

Bob Fernley, Force India, Bahrain International Circuit, 2014Force India’s deputy team principal Bob Fernley endorsed that view, adding: “one thing that is important is that Honda are coming in next year and it’s the first time we’ve had another major motor manufacturer coming back into Formula One for a long long time, so that’s a tick in the box that says that actually Formula One has got it right”.

Ferrari has begun a PR offensive against the sport’s new rules, claiming they are widely disliked by fans. However Fernley pointed out the new cars are visibly harder to drive, which makes for a more exciting spectacle.

“I think that it’s great that we’re seeing cars that are difficult to drive, that are on the limit, that are breaking away at the rear end, which is something that we’ve not done for a long, long time, so I think the show is good.”

Mercedes’ executive director for technical Paddy Lowe refuted the claim the change in technology has drastically altered the quality of racing:

“From our perspective, the racing is just as it was. I don’t understand either the stories about economy drives, etc… Formula One has always been a formula in which you had to manage your fuel through the race.

“For us, that’s not different, so there are good stories around fuel saving whilst maintain the spectacle and I think we should be talking more about that.”

Doing a Ratner

Start, Albert Park, 2014Several of the team representatives warned about the dangers of those in charge of Formula One being too critical of its own product in public. Symonds used the example of Gerald Ratner, the British businessman who destroyed the value of his jewellery chain by describing its products as “total crap”.

“I think as a business we should focus on the positives,” said Symonds.

“Many people from the UK will remember a guy called Ratner who basically killed his business by negative comments on it. I think we should be positive. We’ve done something good and we should tell the world about it.”

While Newey warned “the spectators and the television viewers are going to vote with their feet”, Symonds insisted the sport has far more pressing concerns than altering its recently-devised new rules package.

“I have found it disappointing that there are so many negative comments about the new formula,” he said. “We’ve had two races, that’s not much of a sample.”

“I think the racing could improve but I don’t think that’s to do with power units and things like that. I think there are lots of other things.

“The tyres have changed very significantly this year but I think the thing that Formula One really needs to face up to is costs, it is costs that is going to kill Formula One and that should be the most important thing on our agenda right now.”

2014 F1 season

Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Images © Red Bull/Getty, Force India, Daimler/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.

Posted on Categories 2014 F1 seasonTags , , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 91 comments on “Teams differ over “questionable” new engine rules”

    1. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
      4th April 2014, 23:08

      I’ve been saying this all along, look up how and where lithium is mined and refined for use in these batteries, and you’ll quickly realize that its more damaging to the environment than burning fossil fuels. Then you have the waste to deal with when you’re done with the batteries. Much more toxic than CO/CO2 emissions. But it’s a feel good story I guess.

      1. The internal combustion engine has not much room left to improve in terms of efficiency unless they will switch to diesel. Batteries are currently expensive and do involve a lot of CO2 emissions, however their development is at a much earlier stage than ICEs and there is still room for improvement. As before the only area of improvement in F1 was aerodynamic alteration, I think now is in fact more exiting to have mechanical/electrical areas which can be improved as well. People who relied on aerodynamics do not surprise me to complain of the new rules. I personally think that the driver rather than the team has more input now than ever before with struggling to keep the back on track, 30 sec boosts to be distributed around the track and fuel/tyre savings. I would love red bull and Ferrari to give a fight to the Mercs rather than moaning. It’s like a talented singer saying I can’t sing this song, so let’s change the melody.

      2. @braketurnaccelerate, you and Newey have a point, but the public perception is that hybrid is green, and it’s the direction the automotive industry is moving. Hence, F1 becomes road car relevant by taking the hybrid approach as well. Also, if we accept that many road cars in the forseeable future will use hybrid technology, then the development of these technologies will make these cars more efficient, so F1 is in fact contributing to a ‘greener world’.

      3. It’s the ostrich syndrome, burying ones head and pretending nothing is there. the only way to go truly green is if the cars are racing with a sail and wind as power source, anything else is just creative accounting. Batteries in their present guise are not the best medium for storing energy from an environmental point of view, and they do require special handling once they are spent. Looking at the complete life-cycle of the present hybrid road tech, they are anything but green.

        1. drew (@the-speedster)
          10th April 2014, 18:29

          I completly agree with both you and newey. But let’s not forget about the other and potentialy deadly problem, the lower nose. Any one who watched the bahrain gp will what I’m talking about. One more thing, when I think about f1 I think of the fastest machines on the face of the earth, not quiet, low down force cars that seem like they are trying to imitate indycars

      4. And yet you neglect to include the impact of the actual production process of oil derivatives in your comparison?

        Yes, the production of lithium is potentially hugely detrimental to the environment and energy intensive, but at the same time the refining of crude oil is a pretty dirty and energy intensive process too. It’s not exactly a fair comparison if you are considering the impact of the entire production cycle for a lithium battery against just the point of use impact of a fossil fuel.

      5. Let’s also factor into the equation that at the end of its useful life, the lithium and other exotic materials can potentially be recovered and recycled. I’ve not heard of a viable way of recycling used fossil fuel. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

      6. I like this angle of thought of how green it really is. Just a random thought, couldn’t formula one have taken a new approach to go green, like using alternative fuels, or even water or compressed air to power cars, rather than follow the non-green hybrid way which the automotive industry currently uses.

        1. Alternative doesn’t mean automatically mean greener. Even the biofuels in F1 fuel are pretty questionable. Compressed air is showing no signs of surpassing EV or even internal combustion in duty cycle efficiency terms. Water isn’t an energy source.

      7. My international energy law professor also said that one year ago. He said, that key to greener world is efficiency. So 1,6 liter engines are quite good, but hybrid technologies are not that necesary – they add big costs, but final result is not worth it at all. They could’ve just introduced these engines with freedom to manufacturers to develop them during the season to be more efficient. Hybrid and electric cars are just fashion thing.

      8. Lithium batteries don’t actually have much lithium in them. I think because they have “lithium” in the name everyone thinks they are packed full of lithium. They are not. Lithium ions move around in them when they are charging or discharging. Cut them open though and you find a load of copper and aluminum foil and some graphite and some gunk smeared on the foils. There’s the electrolyte as well of course.

        They are also fairly recyclable. I think your thinking about Nickel–cadmium batteries when your talking about problems disposing of them.

      9. @braketurnaccelerate Me too. It takes 24 years of continuous and reliable running for a hybrid to be more environmentally friendly than a top of the class diesel… no one runs the same car for 24 years. I’m more astonished is how ignorant the sky sports F1 people are. Sky is showing ignorance and a tenacious need to defend their brand.

        1. PS: I like the new cars

      10. knoxploration
        5th April 2014, 17:14

        Correct. And Newey, as usual, was spot-on with everything he said.

      11. I think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. However, we cannot possibly claim that these cars are not greener than previous ones. They burn 135l of fuel per race instead of 200. They are slower but their energy efficiency is beyond dispute. Cost of production is a weak argument indeed. It’s the same as claiming that industrialization of the civilisation is the greatest evil in the history of mankind. Same analogy. CO2 footprint of the mankind today is pushing the ecosystem towards the brink of a disaster and regardless of that Mr. Newey thinks only about ‘bread and circuses’. He never lacks engineering ingeniousity but lack of morals is quite visible in his attitude regarding the matter.

    2. I cry — Liar Liar Pants on Fire, Adrian.

      regarding… “other ways” the cars could have been made more energy efficient.
      …“you can make it more aerodynamic, both of which are things that Formula One is good at.”

      F1 cars are quite deliberately NOT aerodynamic. They have massive great drag inducing wings
      and huge engines which largely fight against them, all in the name of higher cornering speed.

      The fans would LOVE it if F1 removed these wings and went to GP2 like ground effect dominance.
      This is the opposite direction to Newey’s biggest skills and advantage.

      So, I think you’re just complaining because the Renault engines aren’t as good, and would NEVER
      support further limitation of aero generated downforce.

      1. Your comment kinda reminded me of the time
        Newey said the new noses wouldn’t be as safe as expected, since they could dive into other cars. Every comment in this site to that article was about how wrong, biased and sore loser Newey was, only for the very first race to prove that, indeed, the new cars are more likely to dive in.

        While I honestly don’t know if Newey is right or not, I think the very best engineer of this F1 generation has earned himself the benefit of the doubt.

        1. Every comment in this site to that article was about how wrong, biased and sore loser Newey was

          You only need to glance back at the discussion at the time to realise that’s not even close to being true.

          1. Definitely a silly Exaggeration from my part.

            Definitely not all of them, but a good 50% :)

            1. I agree with you that even the most level-headed comment out of AN usually garners a storm of criticism based solely out of prejudice and not actually reading (or listening to) anything he actually said. The convenient part of this story is that Ferrari is going even farther than Newey here, so those fans can’t unload their usual vitriol on anything redbull

      2. “F1 cars are quite deliberately NOT aerodynamic.”

        Maybe that’s why he said you can make them *more* aerodynamic. How about movable aerodynamic surfaces to increase both cornering and straight-line speed?

        1. movable aero would really be fun to see, but I guess top speed
          could only then stay controlled if they dropped to 400BHP or so.

          However, he claimed F1 is very good at being aerodynamic.

          This is not true — the Cd factor for an F1 car is closer to a parachute than a family car.

          1. @boylep6 I think what he meant was F1 designers are very good at making the air do what they want it to. If they need more downforce they’ll create more downforce. If they need less drag they can reduce the drag. If you go back a long way (30s-60s) then low drag and weight was very important in grand prix racing.

          2. However, he claimed F1 is very good at being aerodynamic.

            This is not true — the Cd factor for an F1 car is closer to a parachute than a family car.

            F1 is


            in being aerodynamic.

            It simply doesn’t use aerodynamics to reduce drag (Cd) but to generate downforce.

            It’s a different use for aero, but still a masterful one.

            1. The “excellent” was supposed to be strong, not quote ;(

    3. Merc-powered teams like the new regs, RBR and Ferrari (well, LdM) don’t. Call me cynical, but it seems RBR and Ferrari (well, LdM) are just sore losers.

      1. While that may be the case, Newey is simply questioning the logic behind them, not saying they’re wrong nor that they should be changed.

        There again, one has to wonder how questionable would he said they are if RBR had the best PU.

        1. Fair point, Newey speaks a lot of sense, as he usually does.

        2. Exactly . Even if he doesn’t like it , I don’t think he would go out and speak on it if they were more successful . Talk about green technology . He would be more bothered about green sector times . His view is straightforward though , it has to be said . But all I don’t like about the new f1 is what was there in the old one . butter tyres , drs and of course the new addition double points.

          1. Double points wasn’t in the old formula – though it’s got nothing to do with the new PU :p

      2. It’s not like they could switch back to V8 engines or scrap energy recovery for the next race. Any substantial change like that would have to be introduced in 2016 at the earliest, probably later. Things will have changed a lot by then, so any non-Mercedes criticism of the new formula is not trying to change things for their benefit. Especially coming from an employee who could no longer be with Red Bull by then. Everyone is instantly cynical when it comes to anything related to Red Bull, but I think that Newey was just being sincere in his opinion. Just because his team isn’t dominating now, is he not allowed to have any genuine criticism without being called a sore loser?

        1. I called RBR sore losers, not Newey

          1. My apologies, I didn’t realize that your comment regarding your opinion of Red Bull as a whole, but excluding Adrian Newey, was totally unrelated to the article where you posted it, which is about what Newey said. Still, my reply applies in general.

    4. Oh please Red Bull, just stop your wingeing and get on with the job, yes the first complaint, was possibly needed/wanted, but by the tenth time you have said it, no-one cares, yes some of us don’t like the new rules, but you don’t have to say so every day in the weekend. The rules have been set and they are here to stay, so get your head down and start working on the problem rather than whining about it.

      1. It is not just Red Bull Whining about it though.

        1. Ferrari too. Well, Luca anyway.

          1. But when doesnt Luca whine?

            1. Neil (@neilosjames)
              5th April 2014, 3:23

              2000-2004 was the last time, I think.

              Maybe something happened in that period that made him happy with F1.

    5. To me, what makes this year’s season so exciting isn’t that the cars are green, or hybrid, or energy-efficient. It’s that with the huge amount of new regulations and technical changes, the teams managed to build cars that move at speeds higher than 320kmph with an engine smaller than the bottle of coke you get with a pizza. That, to me, is what makes it amazing. It’s engineering prowess at its maximum level; and perhaps those who don’t have an engineering background (like I do) find it boring because of those same reasons. However, I know what I like – and I’m loving everything about this season so far.

      1. Slackbladder
        5th April 2014, 6:32

        The cars are NOT green, and nether are the convoys of huge trucks and cargo plaines needed to bring you this politically correct hypocrisy from a different country every race!

        1. Peter Adams
          5th April 2014, 8:05

          these car and the convoys might not be but the tech. that comes from F1 cars will decrees the CO2 admissions in all the new cars and that’s where the green part is.

      2. the teams managed to build cars that move at speeds higher than 320kmph

        @reiter I suppose that is there due to less aero.. If you would apply similar aero on last year’s car, I bet they would give similar performance.

    6. Maybe I’ve missed something along the way, but how did it get to the point where there is this much negativity about the new formula, now that it is in place? Did nobody in F1 know what they were in for when they first starting solidifying what the new F1 would be? Nobody knew how quiet the cars would be relatively?

      I think AN makes some interesting points, as does @braketurnaccelerate about carbon footprints, but somehow I feel like staying with pure fossil fuel engines isn’t the way to go and that perhaps there is much more work that can be done surrounding the negatives of mining and disposing of lithium to improve that aspect. We certainly know what fossil fuels have done to the globe…perhaps they can work toward less toxic materials in batteries, or better disposal etc etc.

      I have far more issues with DRS and double points than I do about the lack of noise, and remain hopeful that the racing will tighten up as the season goes along. If Mercedes makes it a cakewalk this year, so be it, and next year maybe Honda can have an effect on that and the other teams will get closer after what they will have learned this year.

      AN is certainly right that the numbers will show if they have gone the right direction…people will vote with their feet and their TV remotes, and then F1 will go from there.

      1. Just wanted to add too…regarding that Ratner reference…I sure have been quite surprised at the negativity that BE spewed earlier on particularly, and that LdM keeps spewing. I guess when you’ve already got billions in the bank, maybe you don’t care, but it sure cannot help the cause when these iconic principals seem not even willing to give it some time, and yet seemingly voted for this change to begin with. Again…did nobody have a clue what the product would be like once it was actually produced and up and running? Seems startling to me.

      2. how did it get to the point where there is this much negativity about the new formula, now that it is in place?

        Because too many people did a poor job and are now looking for excuses.

        1. Added to that, you have Bernie using his favoured writers within the press to attack the new regulations which, given their association with Todt, acts as an implicit attack against Todt and the FIA itself.

          The noise question has been known about for years – according to Adam Cooper the topic was brought up in negotiations between the FIA and the teams back in 2007 when the discussions on the next generation of engines came about.
          All parties knew full well that they would be quieter – however, it was also pointed out that this would be beneficial for the track owners given that most of them have to deal with increasingly strict noise emission regulations. Look at how Spa Francorchamps has come close to losing its funding because the circuit owners were abusing the regulations on noise emissions, for example.

          Incidentally, it’s worth noting that the V8 engines were only really supposed to be a short term bodge – the original intention was that they’d effectively be a V10 engine with two cylinders cut off (Toyota certainly went down that route) that were supposed to have been phased out at the end of the 2010 season.

    7. I was just reading an article today Canadian Business during my lunch break today, and there is a group of scientists from all over the world in working a project just outside of Vancouver. The company is called General Fusion, and they are very close to completing the worlds first fully operational prototype of a Nuclear Fusion Reactor.
      You might be wondering why I am saying this on an F1 website but I do have a point in saying it.
      It is private companies like that that are responsible for finding ways of giving us clean energy, not Formula One. First and foremost, F1 is supposed to be about racing on the limit. When I say “one the limit” I mean that if the driver tried to go any faster the car would start shaking apart, if not blow up.
      A few years ago there was an article in F1 Magazine talking about different ways that Formula One technology was contributing to society. One thing I was not aware of was that F1 pioneered the modern day monitoring systems that most hospitals around the world now use. The technology that F1 uses to monitor their cars on track. If F1 wants to contribute to society, then it is that kind of technology that they should try to pass on to us, not more fuel efficient cars, as weird as that may sound.
      We all work very hard everyday of the week and we look forward to seeing these race car drivers entertain us. There should be no politics like this to distract from the spectacle of the race. I am not saying that we need to go back to the days when 2 drivers a year were killed, but we need to see them on the limit. The real limit. No fuel restrictions, no tires that brake down after only 12 laps.
      Leave the worlds energy crisis to the scientists that make it their passion. One day, for all we know, F1 cars could be powered by a completely environment friendly engine powered by a battery filled with energy from a completely clean Fusion Reactor. But the let the professional scientists worry about that, and let the racers worry about racing.

      1. There’s no better way to develop engine technology than getting three or four companies competing to produce the best engine possible (within reason of course).

      2. Slackbladder
        5th April 2014, 6:39

        I agree well said!
        It has been said that F1 cars have more in common with Jet fighters than with actual road cars, so why do they want to take a fighter Jet with wheels and turn it into a Honda you can tootle off to the shops in?!

        1. Slackbladder
          5th April 2014, 6:55

          I agree with Irejag, sorry Dave with you I disagree l want to see Ferrari battle it out with Renault and Mercedes and possibly Honda….

      3. Well, fuel restrictions are limits as well, so in that case they are driving to a limit, it just isnt the limit you are used to

      4. @irejag Very well said my friend… When jet fighters don’t try to become more ‘air-relevant’ by improving economy etc, why should F1 cars do…their aim is not to drive on the road but to race…

        1. @egorov You don’t think commercial aviation has benefited hugely from developments in military aeroplanes?

          The suggestion that an F1 car has more in common with a jet fighter than a road car is actually nonsense and is simply an analogy used to point out how complex the control systems and aerodynamics have become.

      5. I thought these rule changes were also about keeping F1 relevant to the engine manufacturers?

        Apparently this is one of the reasons Honda is coming back.

        Without the engines there is no F1, it’s that simple, isn’t it?

      6. @irejag – duhr!

        in the current economic climate, one in which the reality of climate change is finally influencing decision-making in many corporate boardrooms (outside of Australia’s rape-the-Earth fantasy land, of course), what companies from the prospective “Fortune x00” firms that F1 courts are going to be interested in pouring millions of dollars/euros/pounds annually into a motorsport formula if it is made a pariah and deemed socially and environmentally irresponsible and incompatible with the worldviews of millions of more casual fans who consume F1 content via TV?

        Follow-up question: why do you reject the explanation offered from w/in F1 by someone w/ more authority to comment on it than either of us?

        But Williams’ chief technical office Pat Symonds said it had been necessary for Formula One to adopt the new engine rules to reflect developments in road car manufacturing.

        “The road car industry – rightly or wrongly – has to hit CO2 per kilometre targets and those are very difficult targets to meet,” said Symonds. “And they will have to employ technologies such as we are using in Formula One.”

        “So we are moving things forward, we are more relevant than we used to be and I think that’s very important. I think there was a great danger – and I mentioned this in one of these press conferences last year – that we would become irrelevant. We would become the focus of gas-guzzling and not having social responsibility. And I think it was really important that we did move away from that.”

        1. I understand what Pat Symonds is trying to say. I just don’t agree with it.
          Motor Racing has never been about social responsibility, or even environmental responsibility. The ONLY responsibility that racing has is to entertain. The amount of environmental damage done by F1 is about as small as we are as individuals on a global scale. 19 races a year is not going make or brake the Earth’s environment. Don’t misunderstand me, I love the Earth and in almost every other regard I am a very ‘green’ person, but not when it comes to racing.
          It has already been said that the creation of the batteries used in electric cars causes more damage to the Earth. So if F1 and Mercedes, and Ferrari, and Renault really wanted to make a difference, then they should be trying to implement Hydrogen Fuel Cell race cars as they are far more environmentally friendly.
          I would much rather F1 concentrate on speed and excitement so that we have something to distract us from the everyday worries of life for a few hours on the weekend.
          If it means less politics and debates like this, than I am all for F1 being full of Corporate sponsors like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Apple, Virgin, Molson-Coors, Budweiser, Sony, countless others. Who cares if Mercedes, and Renault get replaced by no name engine companies. I highly doubt that Ferrari would leave the sport, and we have been without BMW, Honda, and Toyota for years now.
          Sports like Rugby, American Football, Hockey, UFC, and Wrestling are all full of violence, but people who don’t like violence don’t watch, so why cannot F1 simply be about racing and only those who want to watch racing will watch?
          F1 can promote other Social issues such as hunger. Coca-Cola is not good for the human body, but they are still involved with a corporate coalition to develop a revolutionary way of bringing clean water to poor countries. Red Bull has Wings for Life. Apple tries to help bring innovate teaching methods to poor countries. F1 can still contribute, but it can’t pretend to be something that it is not.
          If F1 wants to contribute to a form of transportation, then should be to the field of Aeronautics.
          That is just my opinion.

          1. It may not be about social responsibility, but it is certainly about social acceptability. There is some crossover between the two, and technologies that are more environmentally harmful in their mass-produced forms are becoming increasingly stigmatised and investors know it.

      7. Agree. But there are demanding limits, like the ones concerned about the security. As for the rest, is up to the teams to choose. But, please teams, try to listen to fans first!

    8. Should be remembered that Adrian Newey has never been a fan of anything which takes away & negates the value of aerodynamics.
      He was always against KERS because packaging KERS had a negative affect on the aerodynamics due to the packaging required to fit KERS in. Much of the problems RBR have had with KERS over the years has been because Newey hasn’t allowed as much cooling as the batteries have required & because he insisted on placing them as far rearwards as possible which put additional stress on them.
      Adrian’s primary interest has always been based around aerodynamics, Any & every rule thats been introduced or talked about that has taken away aero or made aero less important in car performance is something he’s been against.

      Regardless of how green or not the new formula is, Or how much of a spectacle it is, These new regulations were necessary to keep the manufacturer’s interested in F1.
      The engine guys were never in favor of the move to V8s, They were talking about preferring turbo engines & energy recovery systems even back then.

      I know those against refuse to believe that sticking with what we had woudl have seen manufacturers lost interest & that the new formula is no more interest to them than the old one, But your wrong.
      This is what the manufacturer’s wanted & while Ferrari complain about it now, They were in the meetings & they had the power to veto the changes yet they didn’t because they knew that it was a necessary change for F1 & the other engine manufacturer’s.

      The new formula will encourage manufacturer’s back into F1, Next year we have Honda coming back (Based solely on the new formula) & over the few years I fully expect to see more showing interest & joining the party. For them this new formula is a hell of a lot easier to sell to the bosses who give them the budgets than the old ones.

      1. Slackbladder
        5th April 2014, 7:02

        So what you’ve just said is that the new less competitive slower regulations were cobbled together so that Honda would take part in F1 again? So Honda may as well have written the rules, and probably did. Face it Honda couldn’t cut it with the big boys so they bring every one down to their level of competitiveness and thats Not what l would call Racing, It’s Advertising!

      2. Regardless of how green or not the new formula is, Or how much of a spectacle it is, These new regulations were necessary to keep the manufacturer’s interested in F1.

        Is it not possible that the teams manufacture the engine themselves… I know its a huge cost, but then we can stop trying to please and woo the manufacturers (like F1 bent all the way for Audi)

    9. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      5th April 2014, 1:51

      I can understand the view that Adrian is coming from. It’s perfectly reasonable to question the costs involved and the efficiency with which these new cars are running. However, this technology is still in its infancy stages, so it will get better, more efficient, and lighter very quickly.

      The teams are smart, and will find ways to do this over time. We just need patience.

      This is what I feared may happen last year: These huge regulation changes would come into effect and some teams (even the giants) may not be able to cope, and as a result they struggle. Which then leads to knee-jerk reactions which can damage the sport beyond repair.

      Just be patient, and let these things develop over time. Rather than trying to make a quick fix.

    10. “When you get into things like batteries then an electric car is only green if it gets its power from a green source,” said Newey. “If it gets its power from a coal-fired power station then clearly it’s not green at all.”

      I share this view and can’t understand the ridiculousness of the Prius’ of the world. There are more cost effective, powerful, green solutions out there, Mazda have a car completely powered by Hydrogen, which is much more green than a coal powered electric solution. There are also advances in liquid gas, and CNG is what the truck industry views as the way forward instead of an electric hybrid solution. In Australia, did you know that trucks have to meet Euro 5 emission standards? This is in comparison to car that have to meet Euro 3 standards… This means that new trucks sold in Australia are cleaner than cars.
      In any case, I digress, as per usual. Newey is right, if F1 has done this out of the good of environment, it isn’t the right choice, if its just matching whats happening in the automotive sector, then it is now doing that. Although, as ever, how much technology on an F1 car finds its way into an everyday road car? I certainly don’t see MGU-H and MGU-K solutions used in F1 cars getting into road cars. We do see Mazda for instance using stored energy to assist with low down power, however, power on demand isn’t something the general road goer needs for travelling to and from work. Perhaps a track day car, but then again, how many of us own a track day car?

      1. @dragoll, obviously you don’t travel to and from work on multi lane highways like I95 in Florida, if you did you’d know that “power on demand” is exactly what you need to be able to change lanes when stuck behind a driver slowing down to make a phone call or whatever else it is they prefer to think about rather than driving.

        1. @hohum I don’t travel on the I95 every day, but I do travel on the West Gate Freeway every day which is a 5 lane muti lane highway, but in peak hour, power on demand is pointless when I’m travelling 15km/h and so is everyone else around me in the grid locked traffic.

          1. But when you are in stop and go traffic, that is one of the places where electrical engines are FAR more efficient, even with the cumbersome batteries we use now @dragoll.
            As for Trucks meeting higher emission standards – they also do a large part of the traveling, use far more fuel (because they tow huge loads), and they are bought in a business decision far more than personal vehicles, so it makes sense to start there.

            One thing I have to note about the hyrdogen though. Where do you take the energy from to make it and to pressurize it? Currently it suffers the same coal fueled source that electrical engines face.

      2. It should be pointed out that the vast bulk (well over 90%) of the hydrogen produced around the world comes from steam reforming of methane gas. Hydrogen may be a fairly clean fuel at the point of use, but current production processes are utterly reliant on fossil fuel sources – moreover, there are still a lot of fundamental issues with the use of hydrogen due to its low energy density which rather limits its effectiveness as a widespread fuel for now.

      3. I certainly don’t see MGU-H and MGU-K solutions used in F1 cars getting into road cars.

        That made me laugh… Well said btw, imagine BBW in road cars.. so many accidents will take place…

    11. Jonathan Sarginson
      5th April 2014, 4:21

      Maybe if there was more freedom to the rules; I think the most exciting form of motor racing right now is the WEC LMP1 category, where three different manufactures can come up with three totally different Engine/ERS configurations, all within the same formula…and they sound great too!

      1. Standard answer 1: That would be far to expensive. nobody could afford it !

      2. and they sound great too!

        Wait… hang on… what? : O
        Yes the Toyota sounds pretty neat, but the Porsche and the Audi makes practically no noise at all…

    12. The only Lithium i know about is Lithium by Nirvana. it is interesting how these new power-units may indirectly create a larger Carbon Footprint compared to the V8s. However i believe these new technologies are a step in the right direction

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        5th April 2014, 18:36

        You must not be aware of Lithium by Evanescence

    13. Jonathan Sarginson
      5th April 2014, 5:53

      …oh, and just to quieten the anti Red Bull/Newey club, the LMP1 cars are experiencing the same anomalies with their FAI Fuel Senders…

    14. Slackbladder
      5th April 2014, 6:19

      Tally as far as lam concerned:
      Pat Symonds is a twit!
      Adrean Newey talks sense.

    15. Did Adrian just take his turn to speak or was he answering a reporter?

    16. Intelligent comments from Newey, in stark contrast to Ferrari’s tantrums.

    17. 2 words “Carbon Footprint” unless that can be reduced are these innovations really a benefit?

      1. @funkyf1 McLaren are a carbon neutral company or so, I think I read it somewhere

    18. This why I question if formula one is a sport. These are the regulations you join a sport and go by the regs.

      To even consider a change two weeks in because a team or two have not done well with those regs or one has done particularly well is stupid.

      I can only imagine man united asking wins to be awarded 5 points because they are behind. It’s ridiculous.

      If they don’t like the sport go away and take part in another.

    19. Newey argued there were “other ways” the cars could have been made more energy efficient.

      “You can make it lighter, you can make it more aerodynamic, both of which are things that Formula One is good at.

      No Adrian. Both are things you are good at ;)

      I thought a company like Red Bull, with genius marketing strategy and campaigns would depart some knowledge to their formula 1 team about how crying, complaining and cheating reflects badly on their parent company.

    20. Jonathan Sarginson
      5th April 2014, 11:49

      …all this immature whinging and whining about the noise of the 2014 F1 cars is really becoming pathetic!…I can only imagine that all these whiners are new to F1 and/or Motorsport in General…F1 has arrived at the 21st Century…there have been many changes to F1 rules since it’s conception in the 50’s…and this is the biggest step into the future yet taken…the World Endurance Championship has been going this way for many years now, and I believe that F1 can now evolve into an amazing sport with the new regulations…the only noise I’m sick of hearing is from all you childish detractors!…

    21. Tough the F1 teams approved the 2014 rules, I have to say that I feel happy to find someone that knows exactly what f1 fans feel about it. Adrian Newey: “(…) Formula One should be about excitement. It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every single lap.”

      However, I think that teams, like Ferrari, RBR, etc, (except Merc ofc) are “using” the F1 fans arguments and critics (like fuel control, lack of noise, lack of competitiveness) to hide their difficulties and insufficiencies to race Merc level to level. What I say is, if Ferrari and RBR were more competitive they probably would be in silence. But anyway, thank you Newey for the comment. I agree 100% with you!

    22. Fascinating debate. I think just discussing it is a way to move forward for F1.

    23. Electric cars have been considered green for a very long time now.

      Only now Newey starts questioning the merits of that.

    24. New regulations have been set 2 or 3 year ago, right? And now that they’re not winning (RBR and Ferrari), it is all wrong and questionable.

      Given the regulations are set, you have to work with them and come up with the better package. Mercedes did it. The development race is there to win, and who does the best development work through out the season gets the titles.

      That’s it, work harder instead of crying (Adrian & LdM), because the titles are not won yet.

    25. Well Adrian, though your claims are probably correct and might have been able to carry some weight during the sand box phase of the new specifications you are completely ignoring the point of manufacturer relevance. Making this statement after you start losing makes you look like a sorry crybaby.

      It is much, much too late to start considering what the “greenest” (hate that phrase) format would be but you can make absolutely sure that no engine manufacturer will find the sport interesting as a testing facility for enhancing environmental load by means of car weight reduction and aero improvements. It obviously doesn’t have much relation to the power plant and the two don’t even rule out each other anyway. Except of course for the added weight from the hybrid which again is justified by the road car relevance. No matter how light you can make a race car it doesn’t help a road car much, and in fact it would carry much more relevance to put the efforts into shedding weight from hybrid plants and batteries as well as effectiveness of the energy recovery and batteries themselves.

    26. The old NA 2.4L cars revving to 18k rpm used about 160 kg of fuel per race.

      Reducing engine size and revs, you get 160 x 1.6/2.4 x 15/18 = 89 kg per race.

      They are allowed 100 kg. So actually we are going backward in fuel efficiency.

      Newey is right.

      1. Of course, they are 10% heavier and turbo boosting is shoving more mixture into the cylinders, so it’s a bit more complicated, but still not a clear winner in the fuel efficiency stakes.

    Comments are closed.