The FIA is eager to reverse Formula 1’s long-running trend towards heavier cars. It intends to begin doing so in 2026 – but not before they hit a new high next year.
The minimum weight limit for the 2025 season will be set at a record high: The milestone 800 kilogram mark will finally be reached.The F1 rules have been heading in this direction for a long time, to the concern of drivers, who have increasingly warned about the negative effect too much weight has on their cars’ handling and, ultimately, the quality of racing.
The largest single increase in F1’s minimum weight limit over the last 15 years occured in 2014, when F1 introduced its current V6 hybrid turbo power units. The addition of batteries and two motor generator units, plus the turbos on the engines, created a much heavier new generation of cars.
So while the FIA hopes to start reducing the weight of F1 cars in two years’ time, can it realistically expect to make a significant difference as long as hybrids remain part of the formula?
F1’s minimum weight limit, 1995-2025
NB. Separate minimum weight limits were enforced for turbocharged and normally-aspirated cars in 1987 and 1988.
2009: KERS
When the FIA first permitted teams to introduce hybrid power, in the form of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems, in 2009, no additional allowance was made in the technical regulations for the extra weight. Therefore while some teams used them, others chose not to, and still others only ran them on one car if there was a significant weight difference between its two drivers.
In 2010 the FIA increased the weight limit by 15kg to encourage more teams to use the devices. However all the teams decided between them not to run KERS, partly in order to save money. That changed in 2011, but only after the FIA put the weight limit up by another 20kg.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2014: V6 hybrid turbos
Despite the rise in the weight limit, several teams found it difficult to make their cars light enough. Some drivers pushed their diets to extremes in a bid to save precious grams. Adrian Sutil said he stopped eating for two days at one point. Jean-Eric Vergne was taken to hospital after the season-opening race as he weakened himself too much in a bid to save weight.
Teams were given another 12kg to play with the following year, pushing the minimum weight limit above 700kg for the first time. But although the dry weight of the cars had increased, the new power units also led to the introduction of a limit on fuel consumption, initially set at 100kg. As the new engines were more efficient than those they replaced, cars went to the grid carry a considerably lower fuel weight than they had previously.
2017: Wider cars
Both these changes meant cars would get heavier, and the minimum weight limit was again adjusted to account for it. Another expected change was also factored into this: The FIA was keen to introduce its new ‘Halo’ head protection device, but this was postponed for a year.
As the new cars increased drag the maximum fuel allowance increased to 105kg this year and again to 110kg in 2019.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2018: Halo
“The teams were given 10 kilos of weight in 2017 for the Halo, but [Halo] was not adopted,” he said. “The reality was that that weight [increase] was consumed by all the teams even without the Halo because the weight prediction for 2017 was very inaccurate.
“If you remember we had bigger tyres, more bodywork, there were many pressures on weight coming from the 2017 regulations which consumed all that that allowance. So another five kilos was added [for] the Halo for 2018. But this is much less than the weight impact on the car.”
Halo increased the cars’ weight by much more than the 7kg it added. The structures necessary to integrate and support it added roughly the same amount again. What’s more, much of the weight is high up on the car, not as close to its centre of gravity as designers would like.
Another 6kg was added to the minimum weight limit in 2020 and again in 2021. These were for various reasons, including to discourage engine builders from using expensive and exotic weight-saving materials, and to add an extra fuel flow meter to the cars to ensure legality.
2022: Ground effect
Why, then, did the cars become so much heavier? Part of the reason was F1’s move from 13-inch to 18-inch wheels, which added especially undesirable unsprung mass at each of the cars’ four corners. The FIA also increased the use of standardised parts which were cheaper – but heavier – than their bespoke counterparts.
However significant improvements to the safety standards of the cars also contributed to the higher weight limit. This was chiefly in reaction to the fatal crash of Formula 2 driver Anthoine Hubert in 2019 and Romain Grosjean’s shocking fireball shunt at Bahrain in 2020. F1 introduced tougher crash tests and required the use of more anti-intrusion panels.
A further 2kg will be added to the minimum weight limit next year. This is being done so that the driver weight allowance can increase to 82kg. The allowance was introduced in 2019 in order to reduce the disadvantage taller drivers encounter from being heavier than their rivals.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2026: ‘Nimble’ cars?
But while the FIA tries to make cars lighter, the hybrid engines are about to become even heavier. The minimum weight of the power unit alone will rise from 151kg to 185kg in 2026. That 34kg hike makes the FIA’s plan for an overall weight reduction of 30kg look even more challenging.
As long as car manufacturers desire a hybrid engine formula, the days of ultra-light F1 cars appear to be a thing of the past. And as F1 has successfully attracted Audi, Ford and Honda (back) for 2026, that appetite clearly exists.
But the negative effects of the rise in weight are clear to see. At the British Grand Prix Jenson Button was reacquainted with the Williams from his debut season 24 years ago. The FW22 weighed 600kg, exactly one-quarter less than one of next year’s cars.
Button is in no doubt that the rise in weight is largely down to the hybrids and believes it is a key reason why current cars don’t race well.
“So it means that these guys have had to strap on so much downforce, so much power to be quicker than what the cars were back then, which puts a lot of load into the tyres, which means we struggle with tyres a little bit.
“I’ve loved the we’re pushing technology and that’s what Formula 1 is all about. But when you see those cars go around and you hear them go round it puts a massive grin on your face.”
Clearly, not all of the rise in car weights over the past 15 years resulted from the introduction of hybrid power units. But a significant amount of it has. And while the necessity of the changes made for safety reasons can’t be reasonably disputed, especially in the light of Grosjean’s crash, these were in part needed in response to the rising weight caused by the introduction of hybrids. Reversing much of that is going to be difficult.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Formula 1
- “We can win with Lewis”: Why Leclerc abandoned his late gamble on soft tyres
- ‘Not the be-all-and-end-all’? Piastri’s pre-race complacency was his undoing
- 2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix weekend F1 driver ratings
- Tsunoda won’t “try to be a hero” in qualifying again after Imola crash
- Norris “didn’t expect Red Bull to be as quick as they were”
MacLeod (@macleod)
21st August 2024, 7:52
I am afraid F1 isn’t free to develop technology to get their cars lighter. So much safety devices who are standard which can’t be developed to get lighter.
Why are the engines in 2026 34kg heavier while removing a heavy part from it? While the cars get smaller it seems they use matrials cheap so heavier….
The new generation batteries are much smaller why not use those to get more power but made the pack smaller so lighter you want innovation lets the teams devel their own pack with the rule that the weight must be halved……
Jere (@jerejj)
21st August 2024, 9:30
Actually, reduced downforce means teams will be able to use lighter (& cheaper) materials, which has an additional positive impact on the overall weight alongside all other areas that each alone reduces weight, to a smaller or greater extent.
Simon
21st August 2024, 17:37
Thank you for your analysis (as usual) of the obvious (as usual)
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:49
Simon, it’s not obvious because it depends on how the downforce obligation is reduced. If it’s still necessary to maximise downforce, then the expensive light materials continue to be mandatory.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:45
@macleod Safety devices can be developed to be lighter. For example, the Halo mandated for 2026 will be 2 kg lighter than the version currently on the cars.
John Cousins (@drone)
21st August 2024, 8:30
Batteries are definitely part of the problem here. The energy density of current battery tech is still astronomically low compared to liquid hydrocarbons. Even when you take the better efficiency of propelling a car electrically vs through combustion. Right now, it takes (for example) a Tesla with an entire floor full of batteries to compete with a car carrying 60L of fuel. That’s a Tesla vs a modern Diesel or direct injected production gasoline engine. When you than compare Electric to a modern F1 internal combustion engine running turbulent jet ignition and coupled with incredibly lean Air Fuel ratios, Electric falls even further behind. You can only gather so much energy from the rear axle of an F1 car before you’re locking the rear axle… This limited energy collection was being supplemented by the MGU-H (which is brilliant) but now banned. If you removed the batteries completely, you could still run the MGU-H as just a “GU-H” and direct the recovered heat energy via control electronics directly to the crank… Ditch the batteries altogether and have a much lighter, more compact, efficient, powerful and agile vehicle.
Batteries are literally ballast F1 has been forced to carry due to attracting manufacturers of hybrid or electric vehicles. IF…. and it’s a big IF… We could capture carbon and produce synthetic hydrocarbons economically and close to being carbon neutral.. It probably would be the silver bullet. No digging up lithium and cobalt. Lighter cars reducing wear and tear on the roads… Quick refuelling and long range from a high energy density liquid. Seems like a good thing to aim for over batteries… Which to my knowledge.. can’t be recycled effectively and can only be “repurposed” to extend their useful life before becoming landfill. The more they seem to push batteries, the more unstable they become. So many articles about the next big battery breakthrough… But it’s not actually happening… China is spending staggering amounts on battery tech but the improvement is minimal. F1 wouldn’t be drop in the ocean in comparison. (for battery development compared to Chinese OEMs)
MichaelN
21st August 2024, 10:23
Recycling batteries no longer fit for use in vehicles is not impossible, but the current situation is still far from ideal. The EU is phasing in recycling directives that will require certain percentages of used batteries to be recycled and will prohibit the sale of new batteries that don’t include certain percentages of recycled materials. Current estimates suggest that about 70% of the weight of a battery can be recycled. It’s nothing near that now, though.
The biggest BEV proponents of course suggest this will increase, but as you note, you can’t linearly predict technological advances. Battery tech is not changing as fast as claimed either. And that’s okay, but the hype can sometimes oversell what is actually possible.
JimG (@jimg)
21st August 2024, 15:50
You’ve just described a perpetual motion machine.
You’d need at least a small energy store to save the energy of braking for the next acceleration.
matiascasali (@matiascasali)
21st August 2024, 16:46
An F1 battery weights 20-25kg, i don’t think that the weight of them are the problem. Yes, the car weights a 25% more than they used to, but how much bigger are the cars now, and mostly for aerodinamic reasons?
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
21st August 2024, 18:26
batteries, substructures to safely secure the batteries, especially from the pilot himself.
Batteries don’t work in sprint cars, they cost more than they are worth, a reserve fuel supply is all that is required.
Wanna make cars faster, bring back refueling and ditch the less efficient battery technology, because it belongs on golf carts or ebikes.
PB
21st August 2024, 8:56
Both.
Hybrid engines, drivetrain, energy recovery, battery packs and motors. (Batteries alone 26kg).
Wider cars = more mass.
Titanium Halo = more mass.
Weight raise + ballast rules to nullify driver weight = more mass.
PB
21st August 2024, 8:57
Wider tyres = more mass.
DRS = more mass.
The cars are fast, so who cares.
Jere (@jerejj)
21st August 2024, 9:27
PB DRS has zero impact on weight, meaning the increase from 620 to 640 between 2010 & ’11 had nothing to do with the DRS introduction, but was solely about the KERS return, with technical regulation otherwise being fully stable.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:52
@jerejj A DRS flap does add weight to the car, because the mechanisms to make the flap move are needed.
Matt (@hollidog)
21st August 2024, 10:00
The cars are faster over a single lap, but generally slower over a race distance.
2004 Hungarian GP:
Pole: 1:19.146
Race time: 1:35:26.131 (70 laps no SC)
2024 Hungarian GP:
Pole: 1:15.227
Race time: 1:38:01.989 (70 laps no SC)
Not a true apples to apples comparison as obviously there was refuelling back then, but 3 minutes is a lot of time.
MichaelN
21st August 2024, 10:26
The big difference is in tyres. Race and qualifying times were often quite similar back then. Now they’re way off, because Pirelli makes poor tyres that have to be nursed around.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
21st August 2024, 18:29
they are slower because of the tire formula, faster because they have turbos and better aero than a decade ago. Also track conditions change. And some of the tracks are so new that teams are naturally going to gain a second or two through each recurring visit.
Coventry Climax
21st August 2024, 10:08
Those who understand the difference between ‘are fast’ and ‘are good cars to race around a circuit’ care. A lot.
Asd
21st August 2024, 10:47
“Wider cars = more mass.”
No, that’s nonsense!!! “Wider cars” is just a slogan. When the maximum “width of the cars” changes – what really changes is how wide apart the wheels can be. Making the car wider means just lengthening the suspension rods at the chassis mounting points.
There was no increase in sidepod width in 2017, just as there was no decrease in sidepod width in 1998 when the cars were made narrow.
Suspension rods in F1 are made of carbon fiber composites, so that’s just a couple of kilos max, if that.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
22nd August 2024, 3:45
Narrow cars increase available track width for overtaking.
But when combined with long cars they look out of proportion and are difficult to rotate around corners (making overtaking more difficult).
Jeanrien (@jeanrien)
21st August 2024, 12:27
Isn’t it part of the loop, adding mass for safety which causes added safety concerns as the energy to dissipate gets greater as the mass increases…
BasCB (@bascb)
21st August 2024, 13:23
Well, sure. But the issue is that with the Hybrid engines when they were introduced, and now again, the MINIMUM weight for those blocks were raised by the FIA (yes, it makes sense, since that both takes out a safety/breakdown risk AND limits motivation to use lighter materials as well as the absolute minimum wall strenghts etc) mostly for cost reasons and partly to level the playing field.
So if they introduce naturally aspirated engines again, there would also still be weight Minimums to those engines for exactly the same reasons (sure, they would certainly be lower total weight than the current complete hybrid powertrains, but maybe not as light as we now imagine they might be). That would be both for safety (not wanting teams/manufacturers to go to possibly unsafe limits) and for cost reasons.
The same goes for the higher weights for safety reasons and standard components. Those will have minimum weights and will most likely only take up larger parts of the cars in the future. It’s cheaper to build slightly heavier parts while keeping them safe to use, and safer parts to protect drivers, fuel tanks, as well as monitoring and sensors will all add more and more weight over time instead of going down regardless of what powertrain is used.
Also, it’s not really true that cars “need to be longer” for the hybrid system, those super long gearboxes are actually largely empty spacers because the longer floors generate more downforce than a shorter floor (and with only ICE engines the fuel tank would take up a lot of the room now occupied by the hybrid component).
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
21st August 2024, 18:31
they shouldn’t return to N/A engines if they are going to ethanol based fuel, it should be supercharged or turbocharged.
Frankly each team should be able to configure their engine the way they want and let it sort out on the track, just limit fuel flow rate.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
22nd August 2024, 3:47
And budget cap.
Back to engineering efficiency: team which produces the fastest car within $X.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
21st August 2024, 9:21
With cost caps, and car specifications so tightly restricted in other ways, I wonder if there’s a case for removing weight limits altogether. Some teams already struggle getting down to the current limit, so it’s not as though we’d suddenly see cars getting tens of kilos lighter, but it might at least encourage teams to innovate (safely) in order to shed weight.
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
21st August 2024, 10:20
This and absolutely this @red-andy – I have been saying this for a long time, remove the minimum weight from the car overall, safety will not be compromised as it is all heavily regulated, remove the 2m width requirement too – ridiculously wide.
notagrumpyfan
21st August 2024, 10:21
That makes too much sense for F1 to consider. I’d only leave the minimum driver+seat weight.
Also the hybrid components should be unrestricted. Let the engineers decide how much recovery and how much battery is needed to get to optimal racing set up.
BasCB (@bascb)
21st August 2024, 13:31
While i like your idea there @Red-andy, and in general are in favour of cutting the rules book more to make it simpler and just give a budget, mandate safety aspects and commonly sourced (safety) components, and a strict energy use (as in added before races either in fuel or in charging) limit with the current aero limits in place too.
But we cannot ignore that part of the reason for the heavier weight is also a safety aspect – i.e. which is why they put a MINIMUM weight on the powertrain – to avoid any teams/manufacturers going for avenues to make their parts/engines lighter at the potential risk of being more unsafe (although an aspect of manufacturer levelling to avoid embarrassment might also be a factor there).
SteveR (@stever)
21st August 2024, 15:33
Please explain how removing an engine minimum weight reduces safety. The materials for the engine are already specified, so no beryllium is allowed, the number of engines is restricted, so they have to last for specified times. Back in the earlier turbo era V-6 twin turbo cars met the 600 kg minimum, engines in the V-10 era got down to under 100 kg. Why this constant increase in weight?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:53
@stever It reduces experiments into obscure materials with unknown safety implications.
BasCB (@bascb)
22nd August 2024, 15:44
Exactly as @alianora-la-canta writes, if there is no minimum weight, manufacturers will try material specs, wall thicknesses etc all to reduce the weight of the block to try and get it lower.
Jere (@jerejj)
21st August 2024, 9:25
Again, the 1996 season was the last for 595 kg as the car+driver minimum, & 2003 the last for 600, with 691 in 2014, 728 (initially 722, though) in 2017, 734 in 2018, & 743 (740 initially) in 2019.
However, many increases over this period essentially happened because of FIA’s excessive indecisiveness in choosing a figure & sticking with it, especially for the current technical regulation cycle’s first season, with ironically the 2026 minimum equivalent of 768 kg being the original choice, followed by separate increases to 775, 790, 792, & 795 before 798.
I’ve also struggled to understand the contradictory behavior of not increasing the limit for 2009 because of KERS, but doing so in 2020 for a fuel sensor, & the separate driver limit for next season, even though the same amounts should be equally achievable, given how little amounts are in question.
Btw, the 2010 increase was solely about the fuel tank size increase after the in-race refuelling ban, & while 800 kg might be the minimum requirement for next season, this amount has already been reached & exceeded before, given several teams ran at least a few kg above 800 for a large portion of 2022, as well as Alpine early this season & Williams further into.
2026 cars will definitely be lighter, given how many different areas each reduce weight physically.
All these combined will have a much greater impact on the overall weight than the increased battery size.
As for the title question, V6 turbos were essentially only to blame in 2014.
Simon
21st August 2024, 17:38
Thank you for your analysis (as usual) of the obvious (as usual)
spoutnik (@spoutnik)
21st August 2024, 18:50
That is unnecessary, better spend your time trying to add what you think lacks in this comment and start a proper discussion instead.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:55
Simon, none of that was obvious, lots of people on this site will have found at least some of the information Jere provided was new to them.
juan fanger (@juan-fanger)
21st August 2024, 9:47
Bring back the high-profile tyres. The wheels were much lighter and the cars looked proper. And the suspension was better.
Yeah, I know, they didn’t match Pirelli’s marketing hype.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 9:56
@juan-fanger The problem is that Pirelli doesn’t want to make 13″ tyres because few road cars use that size. It’s not clear whether anyone else would do either, let alone anyone who the FIA would accept as being sufficiently pliable to its demands.
BasCB (@bascb)
22nd August 2024, 15:46
It also means that there is even LESS data for Pirelli to go on – at least with the 18″ tyres they have SOME imput from other racing series as well as road vehicles to validate what they see up front since the tyres will be at least somewhat similar in construction.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
21st August 2024, 10:10
Your classic populist friend suggests : A V10 engine with KERS (latest technology), simple aero architecture, a proper tire war (Michelin vs. Bridgestone and no Pirelli), wider cars of the pre-1998 era and No DRS.
NB : No need to worry about the manufacturers, road relevance, or sponsors. Companies like Aramco and other wealthy oil states companies will continue to fund the show. Meanwhile, the EU regulators, the green business and their lobbyists will be fed the narratives they like : synthetic fuels, net-zero fantasies…
anon
21st August 2024, 10:49
Nothing like the classic rant of “this is what the sport was like when I was younger and therefore this is what the sport must stay like”.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
21st August 2024, 14:33
anon,
It’s 50/50 in this case. It’s hard to ignore that even after 14 seasons in F1, Pirelli and despite all the FIA imposed restrictions on teams (tyre pressure, swaps, camber…) still hasn’t matched the performance Bridgestone delivered back in 2010. Some might still argue that Pirelli was asked to produce such subpar tyres, though the term “useless” cannot be even employed to describe their full wet weather tyres. I’m not going to address the rest of the issues :)
Alan Dove
21st August 2024, 20:29
This has become a cliche in and of itself now that is used to deny the fact that some things were better.
Some things are rose-tinted specs, but others not.
ECWDanSelby (@ecwdanselby)
21st August 2024, 15:40
Please stop trying to romanticise the tyre war. I really don’t need to hear Friday pressers consisting of “well, this isn’t a Bridgestone circuit, sadly”……!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 10:02
@tifoso1989 I’d remove KERS, and there’s no appetite among the tyre teams for a tyre war any more (thus, if you tried for a tyre war there’d still only be one manufacturer to choose from).
The FIA needs to stop being obsessed with blancmange tyres (I still believe that if Pirelli was given permission from the FIA to produce decent race tyres without FIA dictates, it would do so, because it manages it just fine in other racing series), and I would be open to other manufacturers being given permission to step up if they want (the lack of appetite for a war would prevent the “it’s not a [tyre manufacturer] track” issue). Lighter cars would be beneficial.
DRS should be removed in any case because it reduces imagination, makes what few overtakes remain unimaginative and encourages sorting under pure car performance lines, barring DRS trains (neither of which help the racing). No replacement for DRS should be sought as it has been unmitigated downside; the majority of good races have been despite rather than because of DRS.
Coventry Climax
21st August 2024, 10:37
For this to give a complete picture and grounds to decide on who is to blame, it lacks certain things in the timeline.
Not easy, I know, but still, things like:
– Who was FiA president when
– Who owned F1 when
– When did a more general consensus on human caused carbon polution emerge, such that it warranted F1 to take steps?
– Who decided when and for what reasons or pressures that the F1 steps taken are/were actually useful, and to what, the racing, the economics or the show?
Also, allow me to reasonably dispute the
Did he die from it or sustain massive physical damage? No, so apparently, the cars were pretty safe already before these changes.
Who was to blame for the accident? In my view, that was the nutcase that lacked the overall spatial awareness necessary for F1, who moved into another car at considerable speed, lost the car and hit the barrier. Are we going to make F1 cars safe for every future fruitcake to drive and induce any possible future freak accident?
Making sure there’s no rescue vehicles on track during a race does not require increased car weight, yet saves lives and still isn’t warranted. Actually makes me wonder if it’s about safety in the first place.
Smash some objects onto concrete from a given distance. Ignoring damage to the concrete, there’s a couple things that determine the amount of possible damage to the object: speed, weight, structural strength and energy absorption.
Compare the damage between a feather and an egg, even when thrown at the same speed.
I’m not going into the mathematical formulas for this, but F1’s gotten into a self induced spiral with the weight.
Lastly, the racing hasn’t gotten any better for it, with the exception of when unpredictablility struck, which is probably the reason why they search for artificial unpredicatability.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 10:12
To your questions:
FIA presidents: Mosley 1991-2009, Todt 2010-2021, Sulayem 2022-present
Owners: Bernie Ecclestone 1981-2006 (formalised 2001), CVC 2006-2016, Liberty 2016-present
Consensus on climate change: Late 1990s. The FIA realised it had waited too long in 2003 and tried to force changes (yes, the two-race engine for 2004 was partly motivated by sustainability issues), but didn’t get all the changes it wanted until 2014 due to resistance from pretty much everyone else.
Grosjean’s crash highlighted weaknesses in the current safety systems. It was only a fraction off being a lot worse, and other factors already added unnecessary difficulty to Grosjean’s situation. (For example, the car is not designed to split like an egg in such a crash – the damage is meant to take a very different pattern – and without that, there would likely have been no fire at all). It is right and proper that these be addressed. Otherwise, the “fruitcake” is “everyone”.
Halo of 2026 will be lighter than today’s Halo, because the research that goes into lightening components is also applied to safety components by their manufacturers.
You are correct that ensuring rescue vehicles aren’t in the “hot zone” of a circuit when the cars are running can be addressed without recourse to the technical regulations. However, these are matters that can and should be addressed simultaneously (especially because the FIA is under legal settlement to do so and has been since 2017!)
The changes being done are definitely about safety. They may also involve power. These are not mutually exclusive hypotheses.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
21st August 2024, 11:03
I will mantain forever that change for 2017 was wrong on all accounts. It made cars wider, faster, heavier for the only reason of improving laptimes by the rules which is such a lame objective…
The same with the bigger rims, it made no sense. Manufacturers pushed for “road relevance”. Please, in F1?… It meant heavier tyres, stronger suspension to cope, increased cost for “marketing”.
Coventry Climax
21st August 2024, 13:04
I agree with that, for the largest part.
The fact they had to ditch the MGU-H in order to attract new PU manufacturers sort of proves they might not have had that problem in the first place, had they just stuck with ICE’s.
Then there’s the “power out of the corners argument” for hybrid. But I say that that has also deteriorated the racing.
It was a skill to deal with corners and come out the faster. With hybrid though, the coast and harvest, the push of a button power delivery and such, that all changed the dynamics of dealing with corners massively, and not for the better. It made driver quality a less important aspect of racing, or at minimum, changed the qualities teams look for significantly.
For the bigger rims, there’s two ways to look at it. Before they changed that, we saw a million slomo’s of tyres ‘flubbering’ around the rims when they drove over the curbs and such. Also radially, with the percentage-wise high tyre walls, they compress and expand with changing loads, and effectively become part of the suspension. Engineers don’t like that at all, as it’s very difficult to predict that behavior, while it is still only the four contact patches that keep the car on track. ‘Just’ having to do spring and damper calculations is much easier. On the other hand, maybe that’s part of the engineering expertise that’s supposed to be F1 skill?
As for the weight of the wheels themselves; If they had kept the same outer diameter, you would have the change in material on the outer circumference only: Magnesium where it previously was rubber. That mass difference might not be that big, as it requires a lot more rubber (and other materials) to construct a sturdy high tyre wall than it does with a lower one.
Granted though, these thoughts probably never went into the decision at all, with ‘road relevance’ and other general pressure from manufacturers prevailing anyway.
MichaelN
21st August 2024, 13:13
Pure pace wasn’t the only reason, the 2014 cars were notoriously slow in the corners. All relative of course, but still.
They wanted to bring down the speeds on the straights and increase the speed in the corners, which seems sensible for a formula where the big spending for development is in aerodynamics.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
21st August 2024, 14:09
+ 1 Very true.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
22nd August 2024, 10:15
@fer-no65 The tyre manufacturers pushed for more road relevance, and without the change the FIA might not have had a tyre supplier at all in 2011, leaving all the cars with no tyres.
DaveW (@dmw)
21st August 2024, 12:50
The article seems to say it’s not the hybrid system or batteries. Rather it’s incremental changes from disparate sources such as bigger wheels and bodywork. Batteries are part of the story but it seems that without other changes it wouldn’t have resulted in significant overall weight increase. I found this surprising. It’s a good contrast with performance road cars where huge weight increases have been accepted in exchange for the benefits of on board batteries. See for example the new BMW M5 which weighs more than a WW2 fighter. Say nothing of the Lucid and Model S etc that smoke ICE cars over a lap on the norsdschleife while weighing twice as much.
Coventry Climax
21st August 2024, 13:10
But that – your last sentence- fully ignores the difference between laptime and good racing.
MichaelN
21st August 2024, 13:20
I had to check, and if I found the right model, that thing is almost double the weight of it’s 1990s predecessors!
It’s one overweight driver shy of a Rolls-Royce Phantom, and that thing is massive.
This trend is just straight up dangerous for others; not just pedestrians, cyclists and bikers – but other car drivers as well.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
21st August 2024, 14:44
And yet, they still couldn’t break into the top 10 Nurburgring lap times for production cars.
DaveW (@dmw)
21st August 2024, 15:08
To be fair some of these faster “production cars” are like the Viper ACR or 911 variants stripped of everything including interior door handles to lose weight and which you can’t really use to take your kids to summer camp.
MichaelN
21st August 2024, 15:25
The Tesla S Plaid that did the Nürburgring time last year is also something you’re unlikely to ever see on the road, as it came with a very extensive ‘track package’ including brakes, tyres, etc.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
21st August 2024, 16:38
I’d never take my kid to a summer camp with a Porsche 919, a Mercedes AMG One, or a Lamborghini Aventador SVJ, that’s for sure. But I’d gladly roll up with a 10-year-old Giulia Quadrifoglio, which is nearly as fast as a Tesla Model S Plaid and, as MichealIn mentioned, comes with a seriously extensive track package.
G (@unklegsif)
21st August 2024, 13:25
Sorry, but even at 800Kgs, these cars are ridiculously light.
Compare to what is widely considered as one of the most sublime, lightweight “performance” cars on the market today, the Alpine A110… lauded for its lack of mass, and the subsequent dynamics that that imbues. At some 1200Kgs this is a whole 50% more than the 2025 regs will allow. Now lets see an A110, with 1000hp PU and all the technology that goes into it, and match the strength and safety features that the F1 chassis’ have in order to withstand a 67G impact (Grosjean, 202) or Verstappen in GB 2021.
Yes, it would be nice if they were lighter, and yes it would be nice if the teams were allowed to innovate more, but come on
G
Barend de Wet
21st August 2024, 13:31
Just Bring Back V10s with biofuel…
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
21st August 2024, 14:23
All cars seem to getting bigger and heavier. Just look around your local car park. It’s ridiculous and unnecessary. Batteries might be adding weight but you don’t need a
huge four wheel drive for a trip to the supermarket or to school. Not that this is that directly relevant to F1.
There obviously have been some decisions made which just make little sense. Go back to 1.8 metre cars and reduce the wheel and tyre sizes. That would help to start with. It would also help if a little less attention was paid to the whims of manufacturers, cars and tyres on road relevance. It’s time to accept that F1 is a sport so this link must be broken. It’s not the same as driving around a town or on a motorway.
If budgets have to increase a little to let F1 teams make lighter components then make this so. Maybe money could be saved by not having to travel to 24 races!
kcrossle (@kcrossle)
21st August 2024, 15:30
To help set the scale, Lotus 25 – 451kg. Lotus Elan – 680kg.
G (@unklegsif)
22nd August 2024, 9:37
Both true, however to loop back to my point earlier, both would crumble like tissue paper in a high G impact such as Grosjean 2020 or Max 2021
I don’t think anyone wants to see drivers being turned into mincemeat anymore
G
Andre
22nd August 2024, 13:53
Just looking at the graph: V6 hybrid + ground effect concept added ~100kg, but the cars are now ~200kg overweight. Where is the rest coming from?
– Bigger, more robust tyres
– Fuel (is the minimum weight with fuel or without fuel?)
– Safety (i.e. structural reinforcement, including halo)
Right? So if we would revert back to the 2014 cars, we would easily lose ~100kg. We have halo, but we are 10 years more advanced. A 2026 version of a 2014 concept would be lighter, faster, more efficient. Then take that as a starting point, and adapt it to use more ground effect. Then we regain some of the lost cornering speed.
Problem solved?
JMDan (@danmar)
22nd August 2024, 20:59
It’s not the propulsion system that’s the problem, it’s the cars. They could remove a few kilos by narrowing the tires and simplifying the aero. Why do the cars have to be increasingly faster? That’s just an F1 ego thing, isn’t it? Make the cars smaller.