Fernando Alonso, McLaren, Shanghai International Circuit, 2018

No fuel flow limit, higher revs: F1 plans spectacular 2021 engines

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Restrictions on F1 engine performance will be eased under proposed changes to the formula from 2021 designed to allow drivers to push flat-out all the time.

The FIA confirmed its proposed 2021 engine following a meeting of the Formula One Strategy Group and F1 Commission in Paris today. As previously indicated F1 will use a 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrid but will drop the MGU-H, which recovers energy from waste heat. The plans announced today are based on the Paris Proposal which was presented in October last year.

RaceFans has learned further details of the proposal for F1’s 2021 engine regulations. These include an increased rev limit, which will rise from 15,000rpm to 18,000rpm. The fuel flow rate, currently limited to 100kg per hour, will also be removed in 2021.

These two changes are likely to lead to a significant increase in the race start weight of F1 cars. They could have to carry as much as 50kg more fuel meaning they will start races weighing over 960kg unless in-race refuelling, which has been banned since 2010, is permitted again.

RaceFans also understands F1 intends to review limits on how many engine components drivers may use during a season and the penalties associated with him, following complaints from fans.

Among its other goals for the 2021 engine are to reduce unit costs for customers. Beyond 2021 measures are being considered to correct variations in performance between engines.

F1 2021 article
F1 2021: Liberty’s masterplan for Formula One’s future uncovered
The FIA intends to finalise the 2021 engine regulations by the end of next month.

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

97 comments on “No fuel flow limit, higher revs: F1 plans spectacular 2021 engines”

  1. Starting the race weighing nearly a ton sounds bad. Shorter and lighter chassis perhaps ough to be on the agenda too

    1. +1
      The cars are far too long at the moment

      1. +500 kilos

        The cars already look like heavy single-seat stretch-limos. Great for aero, awkward for the non-parking lot tracks.

      1. Yeah I don’t think it is a given that the cars will weigh that much. They will be completely overhauled cars from the ground up for 2021, so I think there is ‘tons,’ pardon the pun, of opportunity for them to reduce weight, especially if, for example, they’ll be starting with that much more fuel, which I think is also debatable.

    2. That will be tough with the rules though. Their feet have to be behind the front suspension, and with everything that currently needs to be attached behind the driver, I don’t see an easy way to shorten the cars.

    3. The cars are actually quite light. F1 cars are designed and build to be super light so they can put more weight into them in the form of ballast. More ballast allows you to control and fine tune a car for each track and each condition, like rain. But, the FIA mandates a minimum weight, which all the cars are well under. The extra weight the new fuel regs will bring is a concern to the designers, because of the overall weight of the car but also because they will lose ballast weight which they can control. Ballast is so important some cars are said to be overweight, but what is really happening is the designers won’t decrease the ballast weight to make the car hit the minimum weights, that’s how much they need the ability to move weight around, it works. The FIA set a weight minimum which I think had something to do with safety. Think of it this way, if one team can make a car 200 Kg less than everyone else, they will win until others make their cars equally less safe, the FIA won’t go for that.

      1. Think of it this way, if one team can make a car 200 Kg less than everyone else, they will win until others make their cars equally less safe, the FIA won’t go for that.

        The ‘chapman clause’

      2. i do not have a degree in engineering yet i cannot understand how a heavier car is safer. more weight equals higher mass acceleration in an accident with higher g-loads. i get a feeling re-fueling will be back sooner or later also. heavy cars are uninteresting to watch. and drive i would presume.

    4. @strontium, well, people are getting what they demanded – they demanded noisier, and therefore more wasteful, engines and demanded that the drivers must push more, and that will inevitably push up fuel usage, however you try to cut it. How unsurprising that constant childlike screaming that wasn’t thought through is now leading to unintended consequences?

      1. Louder won’t be less efficient in lap time, but removing the H will be.

      2. Bitter much? Go watch Formula E and leave F1 to the purists ‘anon’

        1. purists? bring back front engine cars with the better sounding straight 8s and no wings then

      3. anon – you hit the nail on the head… and obviously formula e is the future. it appears f1 will lose the manufacturers and become a petrol-head series like in the sixties and seventies. while the rest of the world evolves and finds other things to do on Sundays.

    5. If they get back shorter and lighter chassis, then driver weights will act as a massive differentiator again. That was just a disastrous situation for taller and bigger drivers who were a few tenths off per lap just because of their genes. I don’t think there’s any problem with a slightly heavier car, as the teams will always find the optimum weight to fuel ratio and be quick nonetheless.

      Overall, I think it’s good rule changes. They’re letting engine manufacturers have a little flexibility on fuel efficiency vs peak power, and opening up an avenue of fuel strategy in races as well. Cars might start heavier, but have a little in reserve to push hard during the race and alternatively cars could start lighter to be mighty fast during the opening stints.

      Regarding the dropping of the MGU-H, I’m not entirely sure if moving backwards technology-wise is the smartest thing to do. They should just take Mercedes’ MGU-H and provide it to all the teams on the grid (similar to how they did for Mclaren’s ECU). It would keep costs in check, without having to abandon the technology altogether.

      1. @todfod Wasn’t minimum driver weight just set to 80kg starting from next year?

        1. There should be BMI not minimum, weight, a shorter guy would have to be overweight if minimum is 80kg.

          1. @illusive of course, I wrote it badly!

        2. @spoutnik
          I thought it was 2018. But I just googled it, an you’re right, its supposed to be implemented in 2019.

          80kgs for driver + seat. Car weight is 660kg. Minimum weight of driver + car is 740kgs

      2. digitalrurouni
        18th April 2018, 16:04

        Agreed on the MGU-H. Glad about the increase of rev limits and removal of the fuel limits. They really should reduce the wheelbase a bit. I like the cars looking wide and low but they are far TOO long!

    6. I totally agree…the longer wheel base, frankly, looks very odd….

  2. I suppose if they’re aiming for increased road-relevance, a heavier, bloated car makes sense. Maybe they should add massive touchscreens too.

    Hybrid motors are an ugly stopgap in the overall progression of automobile technology, not a technical pinnacle.

    1. They’ll have to switch the safety car over to some giant, ugly, unibody CUV as well.

      1. Dear god I hope not.

        1. I don’t know, Americans seem to be obsessed with those monstrosities lately…

    2. @knewman I’ve been thinking that about hybrids for some time. they’ll be full electric soon enough – why doesn’t f1 lead the way for once?

      Also, the constant weight gain of F1 cars is a real downside of the sport for me. in 1987 the minimum weight was 500kg – it’s not as though weight saving technology has regressed in the last 30 years, but even last year mercedes were struggling to get down to the 700kg limit. it beggars belief.

      1. @frood19 The limit last season was 728 kg to be precise, not 700 kg.

        1. @jerejj good point. even more ridiculous that they couldn’t ‘make weight’.

      2. @frood19 The technology just isn’t here yet, IMHO. Chemical batteries are another stopgap technology. The electric motor is very clearly superior to ICE in terms of efficiency and power delivery, but batteries are a terrible way to store the energy needed to power them. Energy storage is the final piece of the puzzle that we have yet to find, not just for automobiles but for the world.

        1. My current laptop and smart phone batteries have improved significantly in the last decade or so, come to think of it if they hadnt hadnt improved our phones would still be rubbish and we wouldnt have drones either

    3. Well, recovery of energy IS the pinnacle. Doesn’t matter if it’s hybrid or not.

  3. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
    17th April 2018, 20:05

    960kg is far too heavy. They should not be more than 500kg with driver fully laden at start of the race.

    1. @peppermint-lemon ”They should not be more than 500kg with driver fully laden at start of the race.”
      – That’d be very difficult to achieve, though, as even in the mid-2000s the minimum overall weight was significantly higher than your suggested number despite the sport featuring these things: in-race refuelling (smaller fuel tanks than these days), smaller/narrower tyres, engines without any extra items like these days, etc., so easier said than done.

  4. under proposed changes to the formula from 2021 designed to allow drivers to push flat-out all the time.

    They can still not ‘push flat out’ and will have to manage fuel (maybe even more). The reason to ‘manage’ is NOT the lack of Revs; or the lower of Fuel Flow; or the MGU-H (quite the opposite). The reason for the fuel management is the limited amount of starting fuel, and because the PU need to last an eternity.
    With higher revs/fuel flow and no MGU-H they will use a lot more fuel (maybe 50% as stated) and thus there will be more of an incentive to save some weight at the start by carrying less fuel.

    Rather than cutting the MGU-H I had hoped (and still hope) they would offer a standardised MGU-H for teams which do not want to spend the money on developing one.
    The only downside would be the lack of engine noise overpowered by the moaning of F1 ‘fans’.

    1. Yeah as I have opined elsewhere, I don’t think Liberty nor anybody within F1 really thinks that it would be a race full of quali laps, as there are other things to conserve, but I think the intention is that we should no longer hear on the radio that a driver is running to a delta time, and not actually racing in the pinnacle of racing, due to fuel conservation. In other words, I envision that a driver, when it is appropriate to race due to circumstance, and tire states etc etc, will not have to hold back due to fuel concerns. ie. Of course this doesn’t mean all drivers will be driving full out at all times. Just that at any and all times, when it is necessary to race someone, they can, and will not have to worry about fuel.

      1. Not to mention that teams will still underfuel the car – anticipating SC periods etc – to have a lower starting weight, just as they did when we still had the V8 engines. As you say, there is just so much to gain from not pushing all the time.

      2. Gavin Campbell
        18th April 2018, 16:59

        I’m not sure I really know of a series where drivers/riders don’t pace themselves. Be it to keep tyres alive, fuel, engine temps or just their brains/fitness together.

        I can already see this wont create flat out racing as you will still have to manage Fuel because you simply wont put 150 Kg in the car to start.

        Also the fuel flow limit was designed to stop teams creating monsterous qualifying modes – these current engines kick out 1,000 Bhp without touching the rev limit.

    2. And the tyres, much more than anything else, they cannot race because the tyres don’t allow them to do so

      1. Yes Yes and also they can’t race because they Keep crashing into each other-wait, it’s the other way round

    3. Why woudl you carry the max fuel and be so much slower, vs. fuel less and go faster ?

    4. You want flat-out racing, bring back refueling and indestructible tires.

      1. I don’t think indestructible tires are feasible anymore. Remember how the W01 used to chew them up?

        Could 2006 Michelins stand today’s loads?

        1. 2005 Michelins could not last 1 corner at Indy, best they stay away from F1.

        2. @faulty They make the tyres wear out on purpose. Pretty sure they can fix that if they wanted too.

          Michelin had the same issues when they started. Rubble everywhere Vettel complainin gthat he was getting pummeled by bits of rubber. Later races the track stayed a lot cleaner

      2. @grat Refuelling was detrimental to on-track overtaking.
        @faulty I don’t recall the W01 (2010 Mercedes) being that hard on the tyres. W04, on the other hand, was but was the same actually the case with the W01 as well?

  5. Yes on dropping fuel flow ban. Allows slower teams to burn more fuel to make up for differences in engine performance. And dropping the engine components allows for more updates thru the season, so the later races dont force a reversed grid, or artifically slowing cars down so components have to last thru the season (What is this racing or Walmart?)

  6. Hopefully this means refuelling back, not only will that be a quick way to lower weights and lap times but from personal experience I think it would bring back a lot of viewers based on conversations I’ve had with people who stopped watching a while ago.

    Not so sure on the rev limit, I would question the point of any limit since they rarely go near them anyway.

    1. They now rarely go near the rev limit because fuel flow is constant above 10,500 rpm; there is no power to be gained by running the engine at higher revs. Eliminating the fuel flow limit will allow the engines to produce more power at the upper limit, so they will run to those revs.

      From the 2018 Technical Regulations:

      5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

      Solving for Q @ 10500 rpm, Q (kg/h) = 0.009(10500) + 5.5 =100 kg/h, which is the maximum rate.

      That’s why they don’t rev to the 15,000 rpm limit; there’s no more fuel available above 10,500 rpm. Removing the fuel flow limit will significantly increase engine power, as horsepower is torque over time.

    2. @glynh, No no no, refueling just makes pit stops the focus to gain position.

    3. Refueling is a total disaster and was HORRIBLE for F1. When we had it, often there was no on-track action at all for entire races.

      1. +44Kg Fuel Stop

    4. I think people forget how much refuelling damaged overtaking. Drivers would hang back till the driver with lighter fuel made a pit stop, and voila… they gained a position. I think the smartest regulation change made in the past decade was the ban on refuelling. It improved racing more than anything else.

      1. Agreed. It’s not as simple as being unpredictable.

      2. @todfod I don’t think the problem was with refuelling. We had decades where that worked fine.

        It went wrong when they decided to make the starting fuel load a bit of a lottery to introduce an element of surprise. Indeed then cars started on different fuel loads and the following driver could simply wait.

        Plus the aero didn’t allow overtaking at all. At some point a car needed to be over 2 seconds faster to be able to overtake. So the only time for overtaking they had was the pit stops. They couldn’t overtake in between stops anyway.

        1. @patrickl

          Even currently, the aero doesn’t lend itself well to overtaking. Which is why refueling will bring back the same problems. I agree that the different teams starting with different fuel loads was a blunder as teams would hang back till the car in front made a pit stop. But if you introduce refueling that’s part and parcel of what it comes with it. The only way that they can remove this problem is by making sure everyone starts on the same fuel load, which is exactly what we get in the non-refueling era… A full tank.

    5. I don’t have a problem with in-race refuelling provided there is a mandatory minimum stopping time, e.g. 16 seconds. This should be enough time to change the tyres, refuel the car, remove the hose, check everything is safe, and then give the driver the green light to go.

      1. Why on earth would you want that? If I want to see save car maintenance I go to my local garage…

        1. @drycrust

          Minimum pit stop time would allow driver briefs, instead of having computers telling the engineers to tell the drivers which buttons to press on the wheel and how fast to drive over the radio.
          Getting rid of pit comms would make a massive difference to the racing and unpredictability, they could then stop for ice cream for all I’d care

    6. @glynh Although other have brought it up already here it is from me as well: In-race refuelling was detrimental to on-track overtaking, so I wouldn’t bring it back to F1. Furthermore, it wouldn’t automatically lower the lap times. Weight, yes, but lap times are an entirely different matter.

      1. @jerejj I don’t actually mind how much the cars weigh to be honest but as a general rule lighter is faster and more importantly it means that they can, theoretically, drive as fast on the first lap as the last.

        I grew up watching refuelling and it added an extra bit of excitement and strategy for me, yes overtaking could happen in the pits but they have to change tyres anyway and the flip side is slower cars can heavily fuel and jump ahead meaning they have to be overtaken on the track again. It just adds more unpredictability.

        Although there’s a lot of vocal critics of refuelling (with valid reasons) in general conversations everyone I know that I discuss F1 with, and that’s not an exaggeration, liked it and got excited when it was mentioned bringing it back a few years ago.

      2. @jerejj

        what if you banned pit-comms therefore banning software help, then give the driver a good old fashioned fuel meter and let him decide. Hell he can turn the engine on and off mid-corner like Jim Clark did to save his car. Today Jim would have been pre-warned and instructed how to drive, as well being asked to select alternative running modes

    7. I totally agree bring refueling back but they have to use a can like in other sports this would be affordable for every team.
      Also they should separate pit stops if you want to add fuel then you cant change tires at the same time.
      This would make F1 much more predictable . Atm after the first tire change you know who is going to win.
      but with the addition of refueling its a whole new ballgame starting on a heavy load or a light load would be the first choice.

  7. Silly me, but I think that fuel management reveals as much the driver’s abilities than tyres, brakes, engine, gear management, sometimes even more than flatting out.
    If cars could run on 100% all the time, I think there would be less room for driver to express themselves.
    Some fans fear that F1 become a global Nascar, but little driver interference – due to “flat-outting” – gives us a pasteurized competition.
    On the golden eras – oh, old times of mine youth – drivers/champions clearly distinguished themselves by how well they could manage the car, and do more than the car would – without overdriving.
    Can one really differentiate driving styles on the last F1 champions?

    1. @gus maia Good point and I don’t think they will be running 100% all the time anyway. I think the wording is intended that at all times the drivers will not be limited by fuel if the opportunity to race someone approaches. We needn’t be hearing them speak of running delta lap times just for the sake of conservation of fuel, in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing.

      So I take your excellent point about drivers having less room to express themselves, but how much can they do that when they are stuck running to delta times while conserving so much more all at once than they ever had to in the past? I think one of the bigger differences to bygone days is that so much more was in the drivers’ hands to decide and to control. Nowadays the computer models and the pit crews tell the drivers how they can drive a race. And when they aren’t getting enough info at times, they get all frustrated on the radio. They’re dependent on radio comm while things are so overly complex, especially for me the finicky tire operating temps that are a real issue to actual racing.

    2. The way I see it is when drivers can push all race their input on the result will increase. Some drivers can go faster than others and being on the limit increases the change of mistakes.

      But I am not really a fan of 1k kg cars

  8. Imho a 5 kg increase covers may be the weight increase for 2018, so not enough to allow flat out racing, because we did not see that last year or the years before.

    1. Oops. Should have posted this under the other article about 2019.

  9. So the cars will be even longer and even heavier to contain the extra fuel. Bugger.
    But they’ll still be under-fuelled to be competitive in the early laps, and hope for a safety car to save them like has happened ever since 2010 and the drivers won’t be able to push anyway. Bugger.
    And the tyres will still be designed to go off, unless of course you drive to preserve them so you won’t be able to push all the time anyway. Bugger.
    And then some fans will still clamour for push-all-the-way flat-out racing that refuelling brings so that will happen and we’ll never see wheel-to-wheel action ever again. Triple bugger.

    We’re finally getting some competition in the current era and they want to bugger it up again. Buggers.

    1. @juan-fanger, Bugger indeed, but I notice your glass is half empty, you need a top-up. :-)

      1. Thanks for the motivational message @hohum. My glass was half full just a few short hours ago, after a couple of great races ;-)

  10. IIRC, back in 2009 when KERS was new it made cars that ran with it some 20 – 30kg heavier than those that did not.

    If the FIA wants to lower the weight of the cars then they drop ERS entirely.

    1. F1 Engineer
      18th April 2018, 8:17

      Wrong, kers cars weighed exactly the same as non kers cars. The kers cars just exchanged ballast for kers, but they had the same minimum weight.

  11. as long as they keep the max allowed amount of fuel, the flow limit gone isn’t a bad thing.

    not so sure about that with mgu-h gone though

  12. I really hope that they allow 5-6 power units a season. The problem isn’t the fuel flow limit or the fuel capacity (most teams run underweight anyways), but the number of engine components allowed. Remember Brazil last year? With no worries about engine life, teams are far more willing to push to the limit.

    1. Good point, higher fuel flow + higher revs but will anyone actually push the engine to the higher revs and / or burn max fuel flow at the expense of engine wear. Even now with the 15,000 limit no-one really revs all the way to that limit.

      1. +1 Great point

  13. Does this mean the environmental push is out the window? Seems more of the power will come from petroleum, the first time this will be the case since the introduction of KERS.

    How is F1 going to survive in the Modern world if it doesn’t move towards a more sustainable future, or at least stand as a symbol of the newest green tech for cars, perhaps it’s happy to pass the baton on to Formula E.

  14. The large weight differential from the beginning to the end of the race sounds like a good thing. Will provide yet more of a challenge to the driver to adjust to a wider array of car handling.

  15. Didn’t the cars weigh as little as 750 kg fully fuelled and with driver as recently as 2009? What a ridiculous level of bloating.

    1. Ha ha – we’re approaching road car levels of weight. @hahostolze

  16. So far, I see a $40 million concession to Ferrari to stay. Other than that, it appears F1 is pretty settled on the engine format Brawn suggested in December and a $150 million spending cap. The new engine formula has been floated twice now without changes. The budget cap has also been floated twice, this time with a number. I would expect to possibly see a spec MGU-K to further reduce the cost of each engine and a relaxation of the three-engine limit. I would expect the spending cap to be bumped up a bit before this is over. Other than that, I think we’ve already seen what will be on the table for the teams to take or leave. The Column 1 and Column 2 splits for basic subsidies and prize money have already been published, though they will be defined in the agreement as percentages of FOM’s profits. Everything else including the dimensions of the cars and the aero rules can be worked out without any problems.

    I’m sure the parties are all still talking to each other (at least I hope so), but I think this has been determined to be what 8 of 10 teams find acceptable, but bear in mind that this decision is not going to be decided by a vote or by the Strategy Group. This is a business negotiation.

  17. Well most people seem agreed that a car weighing just under 1000kgs is not the way to go. Obviously many of the drivers think this plan is wrong as well. It seems that the current post 2021 plan is going to have several downsides as well as any improvements it provides.

    I think they should definitely consider a maximum fuel capacity and propose a shorter and lighter chassis design to compensate. The current cars look overlong to me anyway.

  18. I’ve always said removing the flow limit should happen. Leave a max total fuel if you want, but let the teams decide how to ration the fuel.

    If they want to turn it way up and make 1200hp for a few laps and then have to save, so be it. But it creates the potential for differences in car performance and for strategy from the drivers. Along with Brawns thoughts on saving energy for multiple laps before deploying it would make sense.

    That in itself would help with overtaking by creating performance differences. And not by artificial means even, but by pure strategy and planning an attack. I love it.

  19. None of this does any good if the sticky but ultimately bubblegum tyres can’t take the loading. This needs addressed too.

  20. Quite surprised at all the negativity on here, I think Ross Brawn has a better concept of any of this than you lot.

    All sounds good to me, next up I hope they mandate a shorter chassis and i’ll be properly excited for the look of the cars again.

    1. Totally agree.

      Few things here:
      1. Flow rate limit should be removed. As above, being able to push, knowing that doing this too much will kill the engine… I like the sound of this, Up to driver and team to use at their discretion

      2. More fuel, higher revs, same as above.

      3. Tyres that burn out. … combine this with 1 and 2, and you have a recipe for multiple different strategies. Teams like FI or Sauber may opt to go easy on their tyres, longer stints, as they don’t have the higher engine modes, vs Ferrari/Red Bull going for multiple stints on softer tyres at 1000HP+… all ending up at the finishing line together.

      This sounds awesome to me!

      If any of you doubt Ross’ commitment or technical knowledge (aside from being team principle for multiple world championships) you should read his and Adam Parr’s book “Total Competition”.

      Trust in that man, he knows what he’s talking about.

      1. @graigchq

        Tyres that burn out.

        Will almost certainly not be a thing from 2021 as Ross Brawn’s whole idea stems from cars that can race without the need for gimmicks & he considers both DRS & the high degredation tyre concept to be artificial.

    2. Agree. Ross is on the right track in my opinion.
      As some suggested I would like a ban/restriction on the in-race communication as well.

      Good luck to them with the politics side of it!

  21. SparkyAMG (@)
    18th April 2018, 12:09

    I think that some of the figures mentioned won’t be quite as extreme in reality; I don’t think we’ll see cars carry anywhere near as much as 50kg more fuel and I’d be surprised if that was the quickest way to the finish line anyway.

    That being said, F1 won’t be any better off with these new engines unless other fundamental changes are made. If we set aside all of the technology and all of the opinions of how cars should perform in 2021, the fundamental issues that affect racing and need addressing are the struggles drivers have racing each other without compromising their overall race result, and the cost of being competitive.

    We’ve seen Liberty’s proposal for the latter, and we’ve heard murmurs of front wings being simplified from 2019, but I fear that unless these cars can follow each other without burning through tyres, no amount of sound or straight line speed will make up for the lack of racing. I trust that Ross Brawn has this in mind and will propose the right thing, but whether the teams accept it remains to be seen.

  22. Removing the fuel flow & upping the rev-limit is fine (Although i’m not sure really needed) but I still think they should keep the MGU-H as it’s one of the most interesting parts of these engines & one of the areas most open to development & performance gains going forward.

  23. They aren’t going backwards, IC are the past regardless of what you hang on to it. Turbos are 100 year old technology.

    What’s bad is retaining the bureaucratic “Spec by Proxy” approach instead of going by output figures. Taking the MGU-H away was a good thing, but it’s not enough and doesn’t have any relevance to the FANS.

    Getting rid of the flow limit is good, but if there isn’t enough fuel to finish the race it’s still not going to matter. Effectively they’ve made F1 “IRL + KERS”. *KERS does nothing for the fan!*

    AGAIN, if they wanted to be manufacturer friendly you’d arrange the rules to allow the IRL spec Chevy and Honda – and 3l V8 Judd, Cosworth, PURE, whatever to run. It’s not about “manufacturer friendly” or “road car relevance”, it’s about maintaining the status quo: they can’t have a Force India actually racing a Mercedes with an engine that costs 1/10th as much.

    F1 went from being about superlatives in extremes to bureaucracy. These regs don’t enhance the spectacle, won’t make it a whole lot cheaper, won’t make it more accessible to other manufacturers, and with distance limited fuel won’t change the racing. FOM/FIA are completely under the thrall of “Too Big to Fail”.

  24. With the removal of the Fuel Flow Limit, and free reign on the turbo boost, we could see upwards of !,200 HP from the ICE without any problem or even much development, other than to make it last 10 races.
    Question then, if the limitation on getting power to the track is tyres and or driver capability, why bother with the hybrid system.? The battery and electrics are only useful to either save fuel or to provide power when the ICE doesn’t produce enough. Getting rid of the extra weight would be a designers dream.

  25. G (@unklegsif)
    19th April 2018, 15:39

    Great, so now that a highly vocal minority have got their way having whinged about noise and successfully had probably the most significant technological development in ICE of the past 30years removed from F1, now we’re going after wheelbase, on tge basis that the cars are now too heavy?

    And its also irritating when people harp on about fuel and tyre saving, like its a problem only associated with modern F1.

    Remeber Mansell blowing out on worn tyres to loose the championship?
    Remember Prost and Mansell running out of fuel on the last lap?
    They would NOT have been going ‘flat out’ at the time… they would have been driving to within what would have been calculated as the limits in order to acheive their objectives… ie the finish line…

  26. Good to get rid of that electric boat anchor that has caused all the problems and $$$$ spent to make it work and had slowed the cars down before they allowed the tractor tire they are using now. race cars are for racing not commuting. The internal combustion engine is the power plant. Period.

  27. Too much technology has driven away too much of the less-than-fanatic fan base. That’s a simple statement. The way it happens for instance, is the development of ever more advanced aerodynamics, making the cars absurdly ugly, expensively fragile, and almost uncontrollable in real passing situations. It has created the need for DRS passing to make it resemble racing, like it’s some kind of video game. That’s boring, despite the spectacular cornering speeds. Rules focused more on promoting mechanical grip, what Americans call “sticktion”, would greatly improve the racing.

Comments are closed.