Stoffel Vandoorne, Mercedes, Yas Marina, 2020

Electrification and lower-carbon fuels are right direction for F1 – Mercedes

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Mercedes believes Formula 1’s advances in hybrid powertrain technology and lower carbon fuels will bring benefits for the development of its road cars.

Ola Källenius, chairman of the Daimler group board and head of Mercedes-Benz, said that technology developed by their High Performance Powertrain research and development division for its F1 programme would help the group move towards the Paris Accords climate change goals.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re going in line with the Paris agreement step by step towards the decarbonised world,” said Källenius.

The Daimler head previously worked on Mercedes’ F1 programme early in the sport’s move towards hybrid engines.

“I was in Formula 1 when we developed the first [Kinetic Energy Recovery] system. I was running HPP in Brixworth and we were talking to innovative companies for battery technologies.

Källenius worked on Mercedes’ early F1 hybrids
“That very first hybrid system, the power of that compared to the weight, compared to what we could do with the road car side, was mindboggling. Here we are 10 years later and we have moved that on by factors and factors.”

Källenius said the competitive environment of F1 makes for an ideal inspiration for their research, which has real-world applications. “To put these technologies under the ultimate stress test and in what is a fantastic and exciting spectacle that also creates emotion around the brand is the best of both worlds, really.

“It is fascination, emotion and it is hardcore technology. We believe that pushing electrification and going beyond what we’re doing today in Formula 1 can help us on the road car side. And in fact, AMG is going to get boost hybrids across the whole fleet soon inspired by Formula 1 next to the almost crazy Project One car that we’re putting on the road.”

The Daimler group announced its ‘Ambition 2039’ plan in 2019, aiming to have a completely carbon neutral passenger vehicle fleet within two decades, as well as moving from oil-derived diesel to biogas-to-liquid and ultimately hydrogen in its bus and truck fleets. It then followed this with an ‘Electric First’ strategy aimed at moving towards battery electric solutions before 2030.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Formula 1 has announced it will work on synthetic and biofuel solutions with manufacturers, giving the combustion engine a possible stay of execution. Synthetic petrol, made of hydrogen formed from water using renewably-sourced electricity and carbon reclaimed from the air, can be carbon-neutral when used in existing combustion engines.

Mercedes Project One, 2020
Mercedes’ “almost crazy” Project One hypercar
“Research into lower-carbon fuels or no-carbon fuels, synthetic fuels, will also play a role,” said Källenius. “Because even if we go electric soon – and we will have a very large part of our fleet all-electric in 2030 and beyond – there will be a car parc of hundreds of millions, a couple of billion vehicles, that we also need to work on decarbonisation.

“Formula 1 can play a role in experimenting with lower carbon fuels. So technologically, it’s very relevant. It’s not something of the past, it’s something of the future.”

Mercedes’ factory F1 team, which achieved a three-star environmental accreditation from the FIA last year, will also move towards carbon neutrality. “We’re going to turn the team into CO2 neutral, work on our logistics and do all the other things that you expect of an innovative, forward looking company that’s also on the cards,” said Källenius.

“So Mercedes is a brand of two sides: Fascination and technical substance. And that is a good description of Formula 1 as well, that’s what we think it makes sense.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

50 comments on “Electrification and lower-carbon fuels are right direction for F1 – Mercedes”

  1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    8th January 2021, 8:15

    Mercedes have dominated the sport for quite a while. If we give them what they want, they’ll just dominate even more.

    They have plenty of money to spend and F1 can be their laboratory, but what about the health of the sport?

    Their ‘right direction’ won’t help other teams join the sport and become competitive. F1 has reached a fork in the road and must decide where its top priority lies.

  2. “Formula 1 can play a role in experimenting with lower carbon fuels. So technologically, it’s very relevant.

    There isn’t any point for an F1 fuel supplier to even think about producing a “better” fuel for F1 until the rules allow teams to use that fuel in a race. Say for example a fuel supplier wanted to supply a team with Butanol (C4H9OH), well that isn’t allowed so regardless of how feasible it might be, the rules don’t allow it. If the rules don’t allow it then one can argue it shouldn’t be tax deductible, so officially no fuel supplier would be interested.
    If F1 wants teams to experiment with fuels other than 95 octane petrol then the rules need to allow them to experiment with them.

  3. Synthetic petrol, made of hydrogen formed from water using renewably-sourced electricity and carbon reclaimed from the air, can be carbon-neutral when used in existing combustion engines.

    This development excites me. A small scale pilot plant is already functioning in Switzerland.
    It would be great if F1 could be the first to introduce this.
    It doesn’t really matter in F1 if it’s still more expensive than fossil fuel alternatives. That’s what F1 has always done: be a front runner to test the technical viability when the economical viability might still be far away.

    1. Has it really? I thought it was about racing round a track, not a test bed for SUVs. When did big production run cars ever get active suspension, 1300 bhp engines that last a lap, tyres that last 5, ground effect, carbon fibre, halo’s, drive by wire la la etc la la.
      F1 has never been a test bed for road cars, rather sometimes a development in f1 cascades down to production cars but that way round. Not ‘lets get f1 to ramp up tech in erm…what are we being fined for again…? Oh yeh right, you sort electric motors out please f1, let us know when its done, or your sport is haha’

      1. development in f1 cascades down to production cars

        Glad you agree, @tonymansell.
        Now you only need to convince the other part of you.

        1. I certainly dont agree @coldfly , you’re missing the point. Its not a test bed for production cars, it develops technology for f1 that sometimes trickles down to production cars. You are saying the opposite and whilst Mercedes and company cap doffers may agree with you, its certainly the cart before the horse historically. Does this help the other part of you?

          1. Not only that, but more tech has gone from production cars to F1 than has gone the other way.

          2. you’re missing the point.

            Or you missed the sarcasm in my reply, @tonymansell.

            And it seems you also missed to notice my remark on economical viability; road cars do not include such innovations.
            And either “cascading down” or “trickling down” you seem to still agree ;)

    2. @coldfly hydrogen is not a real option for cars. It just can’t be made with any logical wheel to barrel being better than oil.

      1. You’re probably right @maxv.

        The synthetic fuel I’m referring to though is not (pure) hydrogen but a Hydrocarbon product (like other fuels) created through solar power and carbon capture. I’ll see if I can share a link.

        And whereas pure hydrogen is not easily used as a combustion or fuel cell fuel, there are some options for (green) ammonia. It does not require the low-temperatures/high-temperatures to transport. This is unlikely a combustion fuel, but a process where the H and N are split at the end of the cycle. And there are solutions to use the nitrogen.
        But this requires a lot more research and development.

      2. There wasnt any sarcasm, but heres a tip, If there is, be better sarcastic. Classic argument of Internet 2.0 ‘ I wasn’t being serious’.

        Oh boy

    3. Coventry Climax
      9th January 2021, 15:05

      “That’s what F1 has always done: be a front runner to test the technical viability when the economical viability might still be far away.”
      How long ago did you start watching, @Coldfly?

  4. Lets get this right, they want to sell more cars in the rich West, they have no desire or requirement to decarbonise the planet or they would dump electric and go full on for synthetic fuels. Most of the world is not Europe and the US in either population or land mass and will never afford or want 40k superminis that do 135 miles .

    Brilliant, boring, bean counters they are; F1 follows these pied pipers at its peril.

  5. Bio fuels are a total scam. Other race series have used them and subsequently walked away.

    Hybrids are about the most unexciting cars, from a fans perspective, F1 has ever used.

    1. Thinking biofuels are a scam is pretty silly.
      Other race series have used them for decades and still do. Some in part, some in full.

      Can’t argue with your opinion on hybrids though, but the only practical way to get rid of them now is to use a sustainable ‘carbon neutral’ fuel such as… You know…. Biofuel.

      1. Yes he calls them a scam and doesn’t say why, silly and non substantiated. I think bio is the way to go but id dump the hybrid, lock stock and barrel.

        Think back 2 decades when diesel was the preferred choice of governments and legislatures. If f1 had been the same lapdogs to a couple of car manufacturers then as it is now we may have had the horror of diesel f1 cars. Read diesel read hybrid.

        Any race series that has dumped noise, rally, touring cars and now f1 has only ever achieved one thing, losing fans.

      2. Biofuels can’t be made in high volume to support replacing gasoline or diesel. They are niche type solutions, viable in some countries, like Brazil, that have a good natural location to support the crops. Apart from that it being used in F1 will just be virtue signaling and marketing. They love that in F1, so it will be done. We can drive around all the middle east circuits flying the circus accros the world on kerosene.. But we drive on flowers, we all good!

        1. It doesn’t have to crop produced synthetic fuel, in fact thats another eco dead end but like anything you need unreasonable men to drive change. As Henry Ford posited, if you asked the people what they wanted thy would say faster horses. For people read Govts, they are only capable of looking at the next least worst solution. We need a step change but I REPEAT it is not F1s job to provide a teat for the planet to reduce carbon. The only, only thing, f1 could do to reduce carbon is to stop racing. So stop it or stop using f1 as a cause of and A SOLUTION TO THE WORLDS PROBLEMS*

          *Homer Simpson

          1. @tonymansell you say that, but if indeed they created a synthetic fuel produced from renewable energy which worked in existing ICE engines in a commercially scalable and viable manner… well indeed that would make a huge impact.

            We all wouldn’t need to buy new cars (which is a huge drain on resources), we could just hang onto our existing cars (or buy second hand ones, instead of new) and decarbonise daily transportation.

            That’s a real solution; rather than digging more stuff out the ground to make more cars.

      3. Hiland (@flyingferrarim)
        8th January 2021, 15:41

        Indycar has been using ethanol based fuels for ages and the specific fuel they use is a bi-product of corn. I believe they used a 100% ethanol for one season and then played with adding various mixtures of gasoline into it. I think they, for a time, ran 98% ethanol and 2% racing gasoline. I believe they are now running 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline as they changed the formula a few years ago. I think the reason behind mixing in gasoline was the octane rating and fuel mileage. It requires more ethanol (in volume) to go 100 miles than lets say your typical 85 octane gasoline (aka more energy in gasoline than ethanol).

  6. Stephen Higgins
    8th January 2021, 12:22

    Are they taking that Hypercar to Le Mans ??

  7. I can get behind the argument that F1 can be used to speed up the development of cleaner engine technology through competition, but that is completely undermined by the rules specifying what those solutions will be. For example sticking with rules stating you have to build a hybrid V6 means you’re forcing teams to stick with what was the best idea of 2014,2012? when the decision was made. You’re missing out on a whole decade of technology advances.

    We have the budget cap now, we have rules stating manufacturers have to supply teams if needed, so why can’t we tear up the rule book and let a real technology war happen. Just set a rule that you’re allowed a max of 90kg of fuel for a race other than that anything goes.

    If this results in one engine dominating the sport, well so what. Its happened before, the Cosworth DFV was in pretty much every car in the 70’s, you could even argue its happening now with the Mercedes

    1. Because its a ‘formula’ series not the gum ball rally or wacky races

      1. @tonymansell The point that @yossarian was trying to make, I think, was that the “Formula” is whatever we choose it to be. Right now the people in charge have chosen to make the formula very descriptive, essentially telling the competitors how to solve problems instead of setting limitations and allow them to come up with their own solutions.

        The formula have changed over the years, naturally, generally by adding more limitations and describing in more detail how components must be designed. That is not the way to go if you want innovative companies and race engineers to stay interested, and without those F1 might as well just use gokarts or road cars. Many of the rules was introduced with the argument that it would cut down on unnecessary expenses, but now a budget cap has been put in place so why also keep all the other attempts at cutting cost? The 2021 technical rule book covers 138 pages (without appendices) – the entire rulebook for the 1961 season fits on a single sheet of A4 paper. Maybe something in between is the way to go? Make a decision what F1 is about, then define the main limitations and add safety standards. Then let anyone who wants to compete go at it, finding their own solutions within the set limitations – including the budget.

        1. Thanks Robert, exactly my point.

          Also @tonymansell this wouldn’t be new for F1. At the end of the 80’s we had Turbo V6’s, naturally aspirated V8′ and in-line 4’s all racing against each other. possible because the “formula” was prescribed simply as:
          1500 cc with compressor or 3500 cc without a compressor.
          Maximum fuel consumption 155 l/race
          Maximum charging pressure 2.5 bar

          If you go back further you do get some wacky races stuff, like the ’71 Lotus Pratt-Whitney gas turbine car.

          1. @yossarian I don’t think the budgets have been set high enough for an engine “war.” An engine war would take up the teams’ whole budgets as they have been set, or a big chunk, and they have been set at the levels they have for a reason, that being sustainability. Oh I get the point about just letting them do a free-for-all with the regs as long as they are within the budget, but I think it is a catch22. There wouldn’t be the money for said engine cart blanche. Increase the budget to accommodate such a technology war, and you’ve put F1 right back into unsustainability.

            And since you’ve theorized a 90kg fuel limit for a race I think what would happen is that all teams would end up with a similar solution anyway. It’s not like a V8 or a V10 would be a fuel saver like a current pu, so I think that ultimately the teams would all end up with similar solutions for their pu or engine anyway. Particularly because of the budget caps. So your example of the end of the 80’s doesn’t exactly translate, as they weren’t restricted by budget back then, let alone heavily restricted, as I have suggested above they would be due to the amount of money from the budget that would be required to play in an engine war.

          2. As tech has advanced so has the prescription. Its kind of obvious when the tech is in its infancy you only have a few rules but as it advances you have more. OR, you kill the sport. Just think of the connotations of a carte blanche a la pre war or the 50s, even up to the late 80s. Once you get a computer and an unlimited budget you get the death of f1. See right now for proof, even with a formula the compettion is dead. ‘the race for 3rd in the constructors’; SERIOUSLY, thats it ?!

          3. @robbie
            The point of a budget isn’t to spend it all in one place to reach perfection in that area at the expense of other areas. It is to spread resources where they need to be to produce the best overall outcome.
            If there is less money to build an engine, then it will merely be less perfect. It won’t cease to exist at all.
            Give Mercedes a $1Billion or just $10M, they’ll still come up with a good engine – one will just be less developed and refined than the other on day 1 of it’s usage cycle.
            Do we really want to see absolute perfection on Day 1 of a 10+ year technical regulation cycle?

            The current issues aren’t simply a result of over-regulation – they are the result of the specific set of regulations. Many would argue – the wrong regulations for F1.
            A different set of constraints would inevitably lead to a different outcome.

          4. S I don’t buy into your idea, I don’t think it will happen whatsoever, and I’m sure Liberty, Brawn, and the teams will collectively come up with the best solution that makes the most sense for them, and as I say I’m sure it won’t be what you are suggesting.

          5. @robbie
            I don’t think it will happen either – but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible or a good idea.
            All I’m doing is pointing out that F1 doesn’t need an infinite amount of money to change engine regulations, they only need to sacrifice technical perfection at the beginning of the regulatory cycle.
            That’s ultimately what development is about – developing progressively over time. Not starting the first race with a product that is already perfected.

            And you pinpoint F1’s exact problem with engines – that they now come up with a single ‘solution’ that is a compromise of what each party wants, and keep it in place for too long until it’s totally obsolete.
            Gone are the days of an ‘engine formula’ where engine designers had freedom to innovate – we now only see an ‘engine specification’ – prescribed in great detail.

          6. S I’m pretty sure teams will always strive to be perfect out of the box and prefer not to have to spend their race weekends suffering dnf after dnf. I doubt that is what fans want either, and your concept sounds more like a measure to ensure variety or a mixing up of the usual order of things, and I don’t see the need for that kind of thinking once the new F1 is up and running in earnest and we will get our action and variety from the drivers in cars that will be able to race closely. I don’t think what F1 needs now is to make it all about a pu war.

            What you call F1’s exact problem with engines, that being a single solution, is a route they decided to go several F1 generations ago, and is not a problem at all. One way to term it might be to call it a compromise, but nonetheless it is what all the teams agreed, and the current owners of F1 didn’t have a say. Now they will continue with this type of technology except that they have shown themselves to be much more inclusive, making decisions with all teams in mind, not what BE did by leaving the power with only the top teams.

            I’m sure the next formula for the engines/pu(s) will be something as they have already hinted…hybrid technology but that will be less complicated and expensive such that new teams will not be scared off from considering entering. My gut tells me there is much more appetite to see drivers vs drivers rather than drivers vs disadvantaged drivers in dirty air, or engine maker vs engine maker struggling to finish races.

        2. Coventry Climax
          9th January 2021, 15:37

          Fully agree, except for the fact that the example of 90 kg of fuel is undermining the thesis.
          I think that should read an x amount of theoretical (intrinsic) kWh.
          There’s a theoretical maximum amount of energy you can get from a certain amount (kg’s) of ethanol, a max from gasoline and a max from well, whatever.
          If the ‘Formula’ were to define the max of kWh’s, the maximum environmental load in whatever unit(s), etc, that would drive efficiency and keep a level playground.

  8. As the link text says, it’s a possible “stay of execution”, nothing more.
    If I look to the engine in current road Mercedes cars: +400bhp from a 2l 4 cylinder is a great number. Very good engine!
    But it pales completely to an BEV.

    As much as some people here don’t want to hear it: that is where the future of road cars is. The next 5 years we’ll have a tsunami of BEV cars. In Norway already +50% of new registrations in 2020 were electric cars. And plugin hybrid is for a small fraction of drivers the best of both worlds, but for most drivers the worst of both worlds. (weight, cost, complexity, maintenance, …)
    Due to regulations most new cars across Europe will BEV within 5 years.
    For example, in Belgium 60% of new cars are company cars. Politicians are seriously considering to mandate that all company cars have to be BEV or hydrogen cars in 2026.

    So where does that leave F1?
    The story that F1 is the development bed for new car technologies is not true now (due to F1 regulations that limit what can be done in F1) and will be even less in the future (due to regulations for road cars). For how long does Formula E have the sole rights to EV racing?

    I think it’s better to give F1 fans what they want: nice V8’s or screaming V10’s and don’t pretend F1 is in any way related to new development of road going cars

  9. There’s name for the whole Paris Accord thing, it’s thinking past the sale. The sale in this case is that CO2 is a disaster for everything, when was the last time a true cost-benefit analysis was carried out? That aside, the claim that CO2 is causing dangerous warming isn’t supported by the most persuasive evidence available, sea level rise due to melting ice and thermal expansion of the oceans. This is the gauge at the southern end of Manhattan Island, it’s been operating for well over 100 years, or before a significant rise in man-made CO2 that started c1950.

    There are another 350+ similar stations around the oceans of the planet, they all show a steady rise that shows no link to increasing levels of CO2. The source data can be viewed also at NOAA who are the foremost authority on the subject, the above link does however include the Mauna Loa CO2 data for clarity.

    One day the ‘climate crisis’ will be seen for what it is, a myth, but I’m not sure how this will come about, so deep is the demon gas message embedded in the popular narrative.

    I do however think electric power is a good way of lowering emissions in high density traffic, nothing wrong with that. Hybrids are the answer, with smart roadside systems that force vehicles onto electric only in appropriate city streets. Trouble is, Boris wants to ban hybrids also, bad move.

    1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
      8th January 2021, 16:57

      Climate change is not a myth. The link you provide shows a combination of sea level rise and ground sink. This make s it poor evidence. Plus other factors other than global warming affect sea level. Its not a direct correlation.

      The fact of the matter is global temperature levels are rising faster than at any point in the earths history that we know of. The evidence is overwhelming

      Beside CO2 isn’t the only enemy created by combustion engine emissions. Some kill people.,busiest%20roads%2C%20the%20South%20Circular.

      Hybrids are way more polluting than you realise.

      I know you love your combustion engined car. I do too. I’m a petrol head and even I know the future is electric.

  10. You’re probably right @maxv.

    The synthetic fuel I’m referring to though is not (pure) hydrogen, but a hydrocarbon product (like other fuels) created through solar power and carbon capture. I’ll see if I can share a link.

    And whereas pure hydrogen is not easily used as a combustion or fuel cell fuel, there are some options for green ammonia. It does not require the low-temperatures/high-pressure to transport.
    This is unlikely a combustion fuel, but a process where the H and N are split at the end of the cycle. But this requires a lot more research and development.

    1. This was supposed to be an answer to @maxv‘s comment above.

      Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air (ScienceDaily)
      “ETH researchers have developed a solar plant to produce synthetic liquid fuels that release as much CO2 during their combustion as previously extracted from the air for their production.”

      1. @coldfly thats very interesting. If they can scale that up it will be very promising. Harnessing the free energy from the sun is definitely under rated so far.

  11. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk Manhattan Island is a giant lump of granite and one of the most stable parts of the US Eastern seaboard. Yes the entire earth’s crust is constantly on the move for a variety of reasons, notably isostatic rebound from the glacial era. Absolute values are not however the critical factor here, it’s lack of response to CO2 rising that indicates negligible impact on temperature. Check the other 350 stations if you don’t believe me.

    I highlighted the advantages of hybrids that could have helped with the CNN reported tragic death of a young girl by reducing locally high particulate and NOx levels. Your link about pollution levels is irrelevant since I propose electric drive in high traffic density areas.

    In actual fact I love riding my bicycle more than driving my car. For city stuff I would commend the electric bike as a viable commuter vehicle, you should try one, great fun.

    1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
      8th January 2021, 17:51

      Although I love the rumble of a V8 or the wail of a V10, my only car is an EV. I have an electric bike and solar panels and use green electric only to heat my house. Yes agree with you hybrids running on electric in cities would reduce harmful emissions, but cities are only going to get bigger and denser. No need for a combustion engine at all methinks.

      Beside hybrids are only a stepping stone to full electric. I manage with an EV that only has a 95 mile range. Soon there will be EV’s with 300-400 mile ranges. What advantage does a hybrid have over one of those?
      In fact hybrids have to carry a battery and a combustion engine, this alone makes them way less efficient that a pure EV.

      I think we can get somewhere near agreement on everything except the barmy or should I say balmy notion that global warming is a myth. Its a dangerous assumption and almost certainly wrong. Basic science shows how more carbon in the atmosphere will make it warmer. If the evidence isn’t strong enough for you to believe it, just wait a few more decades. Of course by then it might be too late, because a green house gas worse than carbon dioxide might cause more of a problem. Methane.

      Anyway a Happy New Year Electrical Bike riding from me. Hopefully a better world waits for us to ride them in!

      1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk I’ll have to believe it when I see it that ‘soon there will be EV’s with 300-400 mile ranges’, but hey if it happens I’d happily jump on board. For now I’m skeptical that a manufacturer’s claims are actually for real life usage of a vehicle rather than in perfect lab conditions. From what I can gather as soon as one needs heating or air conditioning in their car, that greatly diminishes the range. Then there’s the recharge availability and the time it takes. In no way am I saying this because I’m a climate change denier whatsoever. I just simply could not use an EV right now as the practicality is simply not there yet for my purposes. That you can manage with the current technology is great.

        1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
          8th January 2021, 22:40

          There are already EVs with verified ranges over 300 miles!

          Having the air con or heating on does NOT greatly diminish range. My EV loses about 3% if I switch everything on.

          Watch some up to date editions of fully charged on YouTube. You’d be surprised at just how good the latest EVs are and those coming in the next few years.

          Admittedly the charging infrastructure isn’t great. It can be a faff if you go long distance every day, but most EV owners find an overnight charge is all they need. So no time wasted at filling stations.

          I’m happy to put up with the occasional inconvenience for a saving of £1800 a year on fuel, tax, servicing costs. I could not afford to go back to an ICE car.

          Do some research. Who knows your next car may be an EV. They are great to drive!

          1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk Fair comment. From what I have gleaned, most non-Tesla EV cars have been a disappointment in terms of range. I’m sure much depends on the individuals’ expectations and experience with whatever brand, driven under whatever weather conditions, etc.

            I fully appreciate the very latest greatest versions are likely better, but I also know they are nonetheless still far away in terms of practicality for me. And if for every person such as yourself, there is a person that simply needs the range and the quick fill up and go, I see more and more efficient and green powered ICE’s in better and better hybrid vehicles as a viable option along with ever evolving full EVs and other solutions.

  12. They need to take note of Formula E’s failure. Don’t go too far into the electric realm.

  13. János Henkelmann
    8th January 2021, 23:55

    I don’t care what powers them.

    I want them to be loud and fast.

  14. With technology developing as quickly as it is, maybe it is time to pause and get the next generation of PU’s right.

    To me, it seems that the current generation of PU’s are converging in terms of performance and there’s every likelihood that the competitive difference may end up being something other than the PU come 2022.

    Given the lack of interest from manufacturers, or new manufacturers, entering the sport, clearly there needs to be a change/simplification to the current formula and regulations.

    I personally would have no real issue in maintaining the status quo for the current regulations for a longer period provided some extensive work and collaboration with ALL manufacturers occurs to encourage greater participation with a simpler but more wide ranging set of regulations.

    F1 possibly only has one chance to get this right, if it takes 5 years to do that, rather than forcing through something unworkable that favours just 1 manufacturer I’m OK with that. Let’s not rush this.

  15. Mercedes have been the worst thing ever for the sport I wish they would go away.

    The sport should be appealing to manufacturers or brands in the primary business of selling sports cars or supercars, not a manufacturer trying to justify their investment by putting the technology they develop into their road cars.

    Having championships fought between Aston Martin and McLaren or RBR and Alpine would not diminish the sport in any way.

    1. Dean F, so, presumably you’re also expelling Ferrari given you seem to have no place for them either?

      1. Where did I say that?

Comments are closed.