F1 planning new ‘active aero’ for 2025 cars to slash fuel consumption

2025 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 is planning to introduce ‘active aerodynamics’ to its cars in order to reduce fuel consumption by a third from 2025.

Speaking to RaceFans in an exclusive interview, F1’s chief technical officer Pat Symonds outlined the sport’s ambitious target for its future engine regulations.

Formula 1 announced two years ago it will become a “net zero” producer of carbon by 2030. Reducing how much fuel its engines consume will help achieve that.

At the same time, Symonds also intends to address the rising weight of F1 cars. The minimum weight limit has increased by more than 17% over the last eight years, reaching 752kg this year. That excludes the maximum 110kg of fuel each car may use in a race.

Symonds indicated that limit could be reduced to less than 75kg from 2025 by introducing synthetic fuels which produce more energy per kilogram than conventional petrol.

“We’re fighting for mass in Formula 1,” he explained. “The cars are very, very heavy.

“You could say, in a qualifying lap, does it matter you’re carrying 2kg of fuel instead of 7.5kg of fuel? It’s not the end of the world.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“But if you’re starting a race with 100kg of fuel because your energy density is only half, then you’ve still got a heavy car. So I think it does matter.”

Pat Symonds, Singapore, 2019
F1 has “really got to have active aerodynamics”, says Symonds
Symonds’ aim for F1’s new regulations is to retain current levels of car performance while slashing fuel consumption.

“When I set out what we want to do with this car I said, if you go right to the top level, I want the same performance from the car and I want to use two-thirds of the fuel,” he explained.

“I said I want the same speed, I want roughly the same lap time, I want roughly the same acceleration, I want roughly the same braking capability and I want roughly the same cornering capability.”

As well as embracing new fuel technology, Symonds believes the greater use of active aerodynamics is essential to reduce consumption. F1 cars already have moveable rear wings, which drivers can trigger in specific zones during qualifying and when within a second of another car during races.

“You don’t have to be an engineer to realise that one of the reasons we use quite a lot of fuel on these cars is because they’re high-drag,” he said. “So the first thing you’ve got to do – apart from the fact you’re moving into much more hybridisation, a lot more like electrification on the car – you’ve got to get some drag out of it.

“So there will certainly be some drag reduction. But with that drag reduction comes a downforce reduction so then you can’t go around the corners so fast. So that leads you to say that you’ve really got to have active aerodynamics on the car.”

Read more details of F1’s next rules revolution in the new edition of the RacingLines column coming later today on RaceFans

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2025 F1 season

Browse all 2025 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

70 comments on “F1 planning new ‘active aero’ for 2025 cars to slash fuel consumption”

  1. So the answer to “Is DRS going away?” is Never. Instead they are expanding its use. Just like ground effect… banned but going to come back in 2022.

    1. Not really, the DRS issue is that one car has it and the other don’t producing big artificial difference in speed. Those moveable parts will probably mean similar adjustment for teams on given part of track.
      It would be interesting to hear what is the expected effect on car’s ability to follow each other. It might become more difficult to follow in slow corners (max downforce and disturbed air), similar in medium speed and easier in fast corners and straight (as they might not need full downforce, reducing the bad air). On the other hand, we might see the apparition of clean and dirty air modes.

      Technology is definitely there and as a fan following F1 as much for innovation than racing, this could be very interesting indeed if implemented properly (simplify surfaces to allow for downforce range but limit the dirty air produced, ensure systems are reliable to avoid high speed failures, don’t increase min weight for those systems otherwise it negates part of the interest).

    2. Groundeffect was banned because it was dangerous to race with it. That effect was done with skirts just reversed hovercraft.. when those skirts were damaged the effect was greatly lost and during racing the cars would fly of the track.
      This groundeffect they are planning is without the skirts removing most of the aero so in theory you can stay behind it more easier.

      1. One of the primary dangers of ground effects was that if the car spun and went sideways the effect was lost which was very dangerous so they said. Not having skirts wouldn’t change that scenario. Ground effect only works when the car is travelling forwards. Many years ago automatic movable wings were introduced and immediately banned because of the potential dangers of a failure. Now Pat Symonds seems to think that it is OK now. Confidence in technology? They seem to think that the fans forget these things or is it just Pat Symonds who forgets?

        1. Patrick as if they aren’t well aware of what has been tried before and what and why it did or didn’t work. You think they need fans in their armchairs guiding them? My understanding is that the vastly more researched ground effects they have developed for next year onwards has skirts that are attached to the suspension underneath so that any change to the cars behaviour still keeps the air sealed under the car. I have no doubt whatsoever they’ve come a long long way from the technology of ‘many years ago’ and know far more about what they are doing with what will be vastly different cars borne of leaps of advancement in computer modelling and wind tunnel work etc that have the luxury of now. I’m surprised you’d even word it as you have.

    3. @kichi-leung Soon we will have moveable front wing..

      1. someone or something
        7th April 2021, 9:52

        2009 has called, it wants its idea back.

        1. Hopefully not

    4. Coventry Climax
      7th April 2021, 11:48

      Personally, I don’t give a hoot whether it stays or goes. What I do care about however, is that all these gadgets are FIA operated, so to speak, instead of driver operated. It’s in this light that I usually say ‘get rid of it, ASAP please’.
      What I don’t understand is why he mentions ‘active’, where spring or stiffness (‘passive’) operated moveable parts reduce just as much drag, while maintaining a constant amount of downforce. This was banned as well by the FIA, setting limits for the amount of movement a (any?) surface/wing may make under a given amount of stress. I don’t actually recall why that was banned, but it introduces no significant new points of failure and is certainly not electronics dependent. It is also the most light-weight solution.
      With cars spinning, crashing and/or going upside down, any type of aero-surface either stops working at all or works in the opposite direction, so there’s no (easy, and certainly no light-weight) solutions to that. Meaning that this type of safety argument is somehow pointless.
      Also, with the word ‘active’ I can see the FIA starting to mouthwater already with the thought of setting all sorts of rules around it, like when, where, how long and under what conditions ‘it’ may be activated, and it’s precisely that, which we want to get rid of.

  2. They might as well bring back other innovations like fuel freezing while they’re at it.

  3. Currently the teams have to balance the aero between maximum downforce for the corners and minimum drag for the straights. That’s why they race with tiny wings on Monza and big wings in Monaco. If this proposal will become reality, will this means that all teams will drive with maximum downforce wings on every circuit, only to (de)activate it on the straights? I am not saying it is a bad thing (I haven’t decided yet) but we will lose a important setup factor.

    1. @matthijs I don’t envision it that way, and of course we will hear more later, but no I don’t see why they would find it desirable to run Monaco wings on Monza high speed corners. I think they would still want to do similar wing shapes and angles as now based on the track style, but keeping in mind also they are moving away from so much wing downforce anyway.

      No I’m envisioning/assuming what he’s talking about is perhaps an opening front and rear wing that all cars will open every time they’re on the medium and long straights, no matter how close or far they are to the car in front and when they are alone too. Equal for everyone for every lap so it’s not about an unfair speed differential for only certain cars that apply by being within 1 second like with how DRS is used. It’s a fuel reduction goal, not a pass promoting goal. In the Monaco/Monza comparison nothing will change in the amount of relative downforce they’ll want for the vastly different requirements the two tracks corners will always need.

      1. The Lesmo corners in Monza are tricky because of the ultralow downforce (and that’s why the DRS zones are not that powerful).
        If you can have maximum downforce in Lesmos and variante Ascari and “DRS open” level of downforce in the straights you have to go for it, there are maybe 0,5-1 seconds in this corners.

        1. @doctorlovesexy DRS is relatively ineffective in Monza because of the skinny rear wings for reduced drag.

          1. @doctorlovesexy I should’ve included Mexico too, but because of air density rather than skinny rear wings.

  4. I don’t think active aero is a bad idea at all. However, it’s all going to be in the details.

    Having movable aerodynamic parts to optimise downforce and drag throughout the lap is a logical idea. You need downforce to get around the corners quickly, but on the straight all our is doing is reducing performance and wasting fuel. You don’t fix the brakes in position and make the engine overcome it just so the car sales down quickly enough for the corners.

    The key is implementation, though. The DRS rear wing is a great idea, but the implementation makes it a push-to-pass gimmick. I will reserve judgement until I see the details.

    1. Good point made there @drmouse. While i kind of dig cars that automatically change their wings constantly on the track based on team simulation/optimization (and maybe allowing a few settings that are driver controlled, like “fuel saving/i.e. low drag mode, overtake/running in dirty air mode, qualifying/top performance mode, tyre conservation mode, race start mode and SC / pitlane mode), it would be quite a step from the current idea of having everything having to be operated by the driver.

      It will defenitely need a good middle way to work but at the same time be about the driver being the one driving and not just being part of a semi-automatical road rocket.

      1. @bascb, They could operate the aero a la Mercedes DAS, pull the wheel back for less drag, forward for max.

        1. I like that idea @hohum, would feel quite intuitive once they get used to it, and we could even try and get a camera or sensor on it, so that the TV viewers were able to get information about it too.

  5. Formula 1 is planning to introduce ‘active aerodynamics’ to its cars in order to reduce fuel consumption by a third from 2025.

    From the story (and logic) the fuel reduction is only in a small part linked to ‘active aerodynamics’ and mostly a result of more energy dense (synthetic) fuels.

  6. Cool.

    That could mean the aero team jobs could get way more complex. They would need to make a car that works well with two different aero configurations at the same time. That’s awesome!

    Imagine the potential on track battles if one car has a better low drag , but another car has a better high downforce set up.

    Bring it on

  7. Even though this sounds like “the future”, it’s going back to 40-ish years ago. I don’t like the idea of cars with active suspension, let alone active aero. These complex systems make racing more simplistic. We lose different car design approaches and the art of finding the right balance, everyone will use the same philosophy. It’ll also make cars too easy to drive (even compared to this what we have at the moment). We don’t need the fastest cars, but the cars that create good racing and allow more skilled drivers to be faster than lesser talents. This way you eliminate most challenges both drivers and car designers are facing. Racing venues F1 favors are already like that, never pushing these cars and drivers to their limits. The only thing constantly on the limit here are the tires, but that’s the subject nobody (from the organization) ever dares to touch.

    1. Some one is thinking “you can’t eliminate tyre changes, the’re part of the DNA of F1”

  8. RocketTankski
    7th April 2021, 9:07

    What’s really needed here is giant biplane wings, six wheels, and a large fan on the back.

    1. NO, not big but tiny biplane wings.

  9. Good to know he’s going to address the minimum car+driver weight thing. For now, what I hope is it’d stay the same for at least two consecutive seasons as the last occasion this happened was 2015-2016.
    Re the maximum fuel allowance per race: Also positive news, although I never really understood the increase from 105 kg to 110 for 2019. The 5 kg rise from 100 to 105 for 2017 was justified because of technical regulation changes, but 105-110 seemed like only for the sake of it, so I share a similar view to Otmar at the time. It didn’t even make any difference to the outcome, so the limit should’ve remained at 105.
    Active aerodynamics, active suspension, etc., I’d also be okay with these types of things.

    1. I think the extra fuel allows engine performance between teams to converge.

      For e.g. Merc may be the most efficient engine and covers the 305 km race distance with no lift-and-coast while using 100kg of fuel. Renault may be most inefficient and need to use significant lift-and-coast to cover the 305 km within the 100 kg fuel limit.

      If limit is increased to 110 kg, Renault will benefit significantly more as it will be able to eliminate all lift-and-coast while Merc may benefit only marginally (via use of richer fuel mixtures). Hence, the two teams performance will converge.

    2. Good to know he’s going to address the minimum car+driver weight thing.

      Unfortunately, they only seem to reduce the weight of the starting fuel; no mention of empty car weight.

      1. @coldfly
        ”Symonds also intends to address the rising weight of F1 cars. The minimum weight limit has increased by more than 17% over the last eight years, reaching 752kg this year.”

        1. That’s why I wrote ‘seems’, @jerejj.
          Those are 2 separate sentences and by the authors rather than quotes.

          Symonds only talks about less kgs of fuel as a way to make the cars lighter (besides his comments about active aero).

          1. @coldfly True, he directly only referred to the maximum fuel allowance rather than overall weight. Having roughly 75 kg as the max limit instead of 110 would allow for smaller tanks that would subsequently reduce the overall car weight defined without fuel on board, so at least something good in his idea.

          2. would allow for smaller tanks that would subsequently reduce the overall car weight

            smart thinking, @jerejj ;)

  10. Nice exclusive, but the key explanations are missing; like what active aero is exactly, and why the desperate need to get the weight down. It’s not like this development will get the cost down.

    1. why the desperate need to get the weight down.

      better racing – faster and more manoeuvrable.

      1. … and less fuel, aiming towards carbon neutrality will be tricky with these monsters.

      2. @coldfly The minimum car+driver weight doesn’t impact the quality of racing. Aero and tyres do, but not weight. Racing wasn’t any better with lighter cars back in the days of in-race refuelling, for example, nor even after that.

        1. @jerejj Exactly, it’s really just a myth

          1. @jerejj @balue Are you two sure about that? It seems to me the drivers have been lamenting the weighty cars for several years and would prefer them more nimble. I don’t think it is as cut and dry as you claim. Extreme example then, you think they wouldn’t care, fuel saving aside, if the cars weighed another couple of hundred kgs? Cars lumbering around corners, slow to accelerate? Harder to slow down? I doubt it. I think they want light, nimble, quick cars they can throw around the track. ‘Racing wasn’t any better’ is a very vague and broad statement to make in trying to attribute whenever it is you are talking about to strictly car weight.

          2. @robbie Of course drivers would want them lighter but that has no significant impact on the quality of the racing.

            A complicated active aero and limited fuel challenge will likely spread the field between the haves and have-nots more than anything.

            Iif F1 really think they will attract viewers with a ‘green sticker’ more than what close racing will do, they are seriously mistaken. I’m surprised even Symonds seems to have swallowed the kool-aid on this one.

          3. @balue I disagree with your assertion that the field will be spread and that they think going green is meant to attract audience. I find your line of thinking to be incorrect and very assumption based.

          4. @balue is totally on point with this, @robbie

            The car mass doesn’t directly affect the racing quality – if heavier cars were worse for racing, how can we explain every other racing series with heavier cars that has better racing?
            The drivers want lighter cars because they are more nimble and fun to drive. It’s got nothing to do with racing or competitiveness.
            Without any doubt whatsoever – they most influential factors regarding racing quality are aero performance/dirty air and team expenditure/resources.

            As for ‘going green’ – that just marketing. It won’t improve either F1 or the racing, but it will look and give off a (subjectively) better image.

          5. S Racing ‘quality’ is a subjective term, as is your opinion of what defines ‘better racing’ in heavier cars. This is F1 we are talking about, and I would suggest that drivers having more fun driving more nimble cars is a recipe for better racing and competitiveness. Surely no teams or drivers in F1 have ever fought for heavier cars and I’d say there’s a good reason for that. If you’re trying to convince me weight doesn’t matter to the racing by some personal definition you have of that, you won’t. Sure competitiveness would be there if the cars all weighed 200 kgs more and all things were equal, but come on…what is it you are trying to argue here…that that wouldn’t matter?

          6. No, it’s not a myth, lighter cars can change direction faster, especially mid-corner, attack left- jink to right, confuse the leader.

          7. @robbie
            I don’t think racing quality is entirely subjective.
            We all know a good race when we see one, and equally we all know a boring procession when it happens.
            Any car mass can create either scenario, regardless of how much fun the drivers are having.

            Weight doesn’t matter to the ‘racing’ – but it does matter to other factors that people deem important.
            I’ve seen some great truck races, and they weigh 5500kg or more each. Same goes for GT/Touring car races, at 1000-1500kg each. Equally, I’ve seen plenty of dud go-kart ‘races’ and they weigh only 75kg plus driver.
            And F1? Well, they’ve produced more boring processions over the last 35 years than I care to remember – certainly outnumbering the ‘good’ racing by at least 10:1.
            Not just because of weight though – there are many other factors.

          8. @hohum We’ve seen enough Ricciardo’s signature ‘dummy pass’ to know there’s plenty fast direction change as it is. Or Brundle’s trackside comments for that matter. I guess a lot of this has to do with downforce and power as much as weight.

            But what matters most is for cars to be close to begin with, and with costly and advanced active aero, fuel effeciency etc, that is less likely.

        2. @coldfly The minimum car+driver weight doesn’t impact the quality of racing.

          I wasn’t referring to racing action (overtakes etc), but the basic ‘racing’ of going fast around a circuit.
          That’s why I described it as “faster and more manoeuvrable” to make that clear (but clearly not clear enough).

    2. Coventry Climax
      7th April 2021, 12:16

      To the above commenters saying weight has no influence on racing: There was a certain Colin Chapman, founder of Lotus cars, who saw ‘the light’. His adagio of ‘add lightness’ became rather famous. The word ‘nimble’ is indeed key factor. Can you image the famous Hakkinen overtake on Schumacher at Spa in 2000, with a backmarker in the middle? You can’t do that with heavyweights.
      Have you guys ever watched a Caterham race? I know, it’s a spec race, but the cars weigh next to nothing, consequently they get more out of every BHP they carry, and they have the aerodynamics of a good size refrigerator, but nimble as hell. Cost just a fraction of an F1 car too. But the racing they produce is absolutely priceless.
      Next comparison: aircraft. Ever wondered why fighters are nimble, where carriers aren’t?

      1. It’s all relative – Chapman wanted his cars to be lighter and more nimble than his competitors.
        If they are all the same, nothing is gained or lost. Everyone meets the minimum weight easily now.

        A better example might be when the original Mini was competing against much bigger and heavier cars in the 60’s and 70’s.

        1. Also, this is based on all else being equal. If you make a car lighter but keep everything else the same, the car will perform better. So, taking an extreme example, if you replace a steel chassis with an aluminium or carbon fibre one but manage to keep everything else the same, the car will perform better. If you reduce the car weight by replacing the 3l V8 with a little 1l mini engine, though*…

          * That said, I saw one car a performance would have been improved by that swap. It was a Mini (real one, not the BMW thing) which had a Land Rover V8 engine. It was certainly light and powerful, but undrivable. The owner told me it was OK to drive, as long as the road was bone dry and you drive like you were on ice. Point being, it actually performed better with the original 1275cc engine… I may have gone a little off track here, although I think I’ve kept a wheel just about on the kerb so shouldn’t get penalised for it lol.

  11. Very interesting, I think Adrian Newey will be absolutely delighted with these ideas.

    Separately on the weight front, those huge batteries are adding a significant anchor to the cars. While I can’t comment on the engines required, I think this is why F1 is getting excited about Hydrogen. A quick search reveals the energy in 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of hydrogen gas is about the same as the energy in 1 gallon (6.2 pounds, 2.8 kilograms) of gasoline. Because hydrogen has a low volumetric energy density, it is stored onboard a vehicle as a compressed gas to achieve the driving range of conventional vehicles.

    1. You have effectively answered your own question – it is precisely because the volumetric energy density of hydrogen is so poor.

      Even in liquid form, hydrogen has a quarter of the volumetric energy density of a conventional fuel, such as petrol. If you used liquid hydrogen fuel on the current cars, the current estimates are that you would need about 300 litres of hydrogen, plus the equipment to keep it stored safely in the car at low temperatures.

      Gaseous hydrogen is being tried at Le Mans, but that project is years behind schedule and the performance of the car has been revised down quite a bit. As an attention grabbing exercise, it may work – but it looks like there is very little interest right now in expanding that.

      1. Also, remember that hydrogen is not best used to just replace petrol. Feeding existing ICEs with hydrogen is wasteful. The best way to use it is in a fuel cell, generating electricity and using that to power motors. This would attract the ire of the “more loudz” crew, though, who tend to make even more noise than the old V8s etc ever dreamed of.

    2. Coventry Climax
      7th April 2021, 12:17

      @Ben: No he won’t, not when it’s ‘active’. Active means electronically operated, and Newey is an aero guy. There’s no real challenge for him there.

      1. Coventry Climax The moveable areodynamic parts will allow the cars to have one aerodynamic configuration in the corners, and another on the straights (possibly multiple other configurations on top of that if they choose to use them). Of course there will be a huge amount of aerodynamic work that goes into maximising the benefit of active aero, which I’m sure will be appealing to the likes of Newey.

  12. Hmmmm… Active aero does sound like it could make racing interesting and with the reduction of fuel capacity and still wanting the same lap times. This could bring about some interesting designs, what would be better would be if the teams were given a few mandatory specifications, like the front/rear wings (as in the number of planes they are allowed), PU and fuel usage, allowable wake and maximum vehicle size and left the teams to get on with it, that would bring about some very interesting designs.

  13. Robert Mckay
    7th April 2021, 9:37

    Can we, um, not just get the new cars in first and see if their new aero results in better racing like has been promised for what feels like a thousand years now, before messing with the aero again?

    1. It seems the logical thing to do, but apparently they are afraid people will turn away from F1 in disgust when they realize how much fuel the cars are using.

  14. Active aero sounds like a lovely idea, though often F1 turned a good idea into a disastrous gimmick. Active aero is not an industry standard but I’d be very keen to see polymorphic cars in the future. Hopefully it is done in a way that promotes fair and close racing, along with cutting-edge engineering.

  15. Transformers R US. Road relevance of moveable aero defeats me but I guess thats only a stick thats waved to keep hybrid in F1. Easy way to reduce weight is chuck out the batteries but that wont happen now i guess, shame as biofuel seems to be a good way of ridding of F1 of these much hayted power units. Just for the record though, NASCAR’s weigh 1.5 tonnes, min. 750kg is ludicrous but in context not so much.

  16. What happened to keeping the rules stable to save money and improve convergence?

    I think there’s a new engine coming up in 2025. So let’s change the chassis as well? Just to be safe, in case someone is already working on the engine and can build a buffer that lasts for 5 years?

    And one has to make all those changes on a very tight budget.

    For some reason, Bernie’s old ways of coming up with solutions and letting others pay the bill is not getting along well with the new “let’s improve the show and reduce costs”.

    Somebody will have to compromise.

    1. + 1. Active aero sounds expensive to me and does not sound conducive to reducing costs. Surely this is something teams could spend huge sums on to gain a small advantage.

      1. I think you are over-thinking this, active aero is simple, it’s just like DRS on every wing, all aeroplanes use flaps to adjust lift/drag, all sailboats adjust their sails for the same reason, it’s not rocket science.

  17. andrew hewitt
    7th April 2021, 11:09

    call me old school if you like , but is this what racing and formula one is all about ?? surely we want smaller lighter cars , a decent combustion engine on sustainable fuels , bin the complex heavy electrics , heavily restrict aerodynamics . i dont care if the cars are a few seconds slower ! im not interested in watching 20 overdeveloped computer controlled ‘spaceships’ racing around , dont make them too complex . i still believe f1 should be a sport about the best driver , accepted most likely in the best car !, but let the drivers skill be as far as possible be the deciding factor …
    the fact we have only 4 engine manufacturers , so called B teams and distant backmarkers is just a sad reflection that F1 has gone wrong.

  18. I really agree and been thinking what he says for a long time. F1 cars dont need to be any faster anymore, they are already too fast, making many track designs and corners completely irrelevant.
    Active aero to increase cars efficiency is great idea, only make sense to me, why not move with the flaps and flops around as they are currently needed? Currently they just leech away performance for the price of drag until the car arrives to a corner or a situation they are meant for. Sounds very complicated tho.
    Reducing weight is just a must the cars are absurdly heavy now. Slower cars dont really lose any time on F1 in slow corners anymore cuz F1 is just too heavy.

  19. Yes! Theres a lot of technology that was banned a long time ago in f1, and even though it may have made sense at the time, it shouldn’t remain that way forever. Active aero, active suspension, ground effects the whole lot. If they can help make the current cars lighter and better bring it on.

  20. I am starting to doubt that Pat Symonds is the right man for this job. He still thinks like an engineer of a F1 team. By that I mean he is searching for performance, regardless of what consequences it has for the racing.
    You can’t redruce weight, fuel consumption, the effect of dirty air and keep the same lap times all at once. It doesn’t work that way.
    While reducing weight is necessary for good racing and I think Pat Symonds is right, regarding the reduction of weight through a cut in drag and more efficient fuel, I disagree with him over the use of active aerodynamics to get there (if he is aiming at that).
    I believe more efficient aerodynamics combinded with a loss of weight can be best achieved by cutting downforce from the wings and other aero devices on the cars, which automatically means a loss in performance.
    Who cares if they are 3-5 sec slower than they were previously?! The engineers will still find a way to make the cars faster. They did so after the 1998 regulation changes and even went quicker, already in the first season, at some tracks (i.e. Montreal) compared to 1997.
    Here is an example of the development after these changes: Between ’97 and ’99 the lap times at Barcelona got slower by 5.5 sec, but within the next three years the teams got to the same level of lap times as they previously achieved with wider cars and more mechnical grip (slick tyres). As long as the regulations are open enough to allow innovative designs, there is no reason the teams wouldn’t be able to achieve that again.

    1. I agree, I think. Obviously I accept that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport but that does not mean to me, that it’s necessarily for cars to keep getting faster. This does not equate to better racing. It could just drive added costs into the sport.

  21. Rather let innovations come ahead.. everytime someone innovate you guys restrict or ban.
    Many times such innovations has good things and futuristic.
    Kers, double diffusers, das system, flexible wings…. so many developments done in the past which are becoming std now.. remove MGU restrictions let ppl regenerate as much as possible

  22. Symonds indicated that [the 110 kg fuel load] limit could be reduced to less than 75kg from 2025 by introducing synthetic fuels which produce more energy per kilogram than conventional petrol.

    The current plan from F1 seems to be that at one race the fuel load will be 110 kg of 95 Octane petrol, and then at the next race it will be 75 kg of something synthetic. Wouldn’t it be better to allow teams some time to adjust to this new fuel so they can iron out problems? Maybe some teams would like to actually race with their new fuel as well.
    Say, for example, a team wanted to run an “oil” type fuel like diesel in their engine (and assuming this fuel can be run safely on the engine they use), then what harm is it to F1 if they were allowed to do that?
    It just looks odd that on the one hand you have rules that say things like “fuel must be ignited by a spark”, “must have just one fuel injector per cylinder”, “must stay within the budget cap”, etc, and then announce plans where the technical difficulties and costs could become huge because of those rules, but changing those rules could reduce the cost and technical difficulties without compromising engine performance or safety of everyone and the cars.

    1. I doubt they plan to do anything like that – they are now working with the engine manufacturers and fuel producers on making a top notch e-fuel spec that the future engine makers can work towards.

      I guess it depends on the part “can be run safely in the engine they use” mostly @drycrust. I would expect that the current engines, with all their complexity, might not be able to run more than some 10% of the “eco fuel” stuff that they already mix in.

      But I do think they mentioned in the past that they were planning to gradually raise this amount, that was one of the things they agreed they had to all adapt their engines for to allow before the freeze from next season onwards.

Comments are closed.