Some drivers will run out of fuel in 2014 – Sutil

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Adrian Sutil, Force India, Hungaroring, 2013In the round-up: Adrian Sutil warns F1’s new engine formula could lead to drivers running out of fuel in the closing stages of races next year.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Adrian Sutil (Motorsport Monday)

“I expect [to see] some cars at the beginning rolling out with one lap to go without fuel on board, so it opens up some opportunities.”

Mercedes warned against all-out title bid (Autosport)

Toto Wolff: “We cannot be confident, it would be the wrong approach to say we have found the golden key now.”

Tyres will make or break Force India’s season – Mallya (ESPN)

“The change in tyres after Silverstone has certainly made a difference, but we need to come up the curve and get to know the tyres better, but otherwise it is a good car, the drivers are happy and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be continuing with our form.”

The Finishing Line – with Toro Rosso?s Daniel Ricciardo (F1)

“The last time I lost my temper was…
DR: After the race at the Nurburgring (this year). I started very high up on the grid, and then – nothing. I was very frustrated.”

The long shadow of the 1960s (MotorSport)

“One of the things that made all these drivers so deeply memorable is that they raced regularly in different types of cars. They weren?t pampered, highly-paid superstars restricted by contract and culture to a single category or team. They raced every weekend in different cars because they loved the sport and also needed to earn a living. This very diversity gave these drivers a grand patina, sadly lacking in today?s specialised age, which has cast a very long, agreeable shadow sure to last for many years to come.”

F1 goes back to the future with turbo-charged ‘teapot’ (CNN)

“While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.”

How Much Can CNN Get Wrong About F1 Engines, Physics In One Article? (Jalopnik)

“Of course, turbo engines are much more efficient, since they ‘run on their own exhaust steam.’ That would make them basically like, I don’t know, perpetual motion locomotives? That is very efficient.”

Tweets

https://twitter.com/CStubberfield/status/366892189797728256

Snapshot

Renault Megane Renaultsport Red Bull Racing RB8, 2013

Renault have released their latest Red Bull-inspired creation. The Renault Megane Renaultsport Red Bull Racing RB8 is a souped-up version of the standard Megane with added Red Bull stickers.

Just 30 of the ??28,245 machines will be sold in the UK. Curiously it runs on Bridgestone tyres.

Comment of the day

Nick has no time for the view that the new engine formula will damage Formula One:

You think a smaller engine formula is going to kill F1? Irrelevance is what could kill F1 in a few years.

Just do a look around of current auto manufactures building V12 engines. Take a look at what kind of cars they?re driving in the WRC, WTCC or national cups.

I’d much prefer to see the current drivers in 1979 cars, but it’s not going to happen, much like I’ll never see a 400 bhp Ferrari in Group B rally.
Nick (@Npf1)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris Monk, Ciaran, Omarr-Pepper, Jonathan, Camo8723, David Knutson and Sevrige!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ronnie Peterson scored his final Formula One win 35 years ago today at the Osterreichring. He lost his life just a few weeks later following a crash at Monza.

His Austrian Grand Prix victory came in a race run in two parts due to an early accident and worsening rain. Patrick Depailler claimed second place ahead of Gilles Villeneuve’s Ferrari.

Here’s the start of the race including Peterson’s team mate Mario Andretti crashing out:

Image ?? Force India

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

132 comments on Some drivers will run out of fuel in 2014 – Sutil

  1. I love the chronology in the last two links Keith ;)

    • Seriously though the description of turbo engines in that is ridiculous – I understood the basic principles of a turbo engine when I was 6 (and I promise you that is not an overstatement).

      • marsianwalrus (@einariliyev) said on 13th August 2013, 0:32

        it’s not the lack of knowledge that is appalling (although powered by the ‘belt’ was a bit ridiculous), but the lack of research quality that went into this article. i mean people get paid for this – it would’ve taken them maybe 10 minutes to read up the information and present it in non-idiotic manner.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 1:39

        I suspect this is the result of internet plagiarism involving a language translator,perpetrated by two intern jounalists whose only real interest is fashion, or maybe they entered sports journalism via aquatic ballet. Anyway it provided me some of the best laughs I have had this year, suddenly the blond bimbo from Fox news (USA) looks almost capable of intelligent thought processes. My apologies to FemF1Fanatics who must be anguished to see 2 females authoring what should have been a mysoginist satirical TV sketch not a news article.

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 13th August 2013, 3:03

        @vettel1 I was able to control my laughter till the very end of the sentence . The part that cracked me up was “steam” .Seriously LOL hahahaha.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 13th August 2013, 7:32

      What were they thinking about?

      • Mike Dee (@mike-dee) said on 13th August 2013, 14:18

        My take at making this sentence right:

        If you change

        “While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.”

        to

        “While a standard engine supercharger is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine supercharger runs on its own the engine’s exhaust steam gases, making it more energy efficient.”

        it actually makes sense. Although it hasn’t got anything to do with the change F1 is experiencing.

        @jcost

    • I think they’ve actually removed that description from the article – what an embarrassment haha!

    • Yappy said on 14th August 2013, 0:06

      I would say the CNN article on Formula E is just as good. Apparently the electric car started with the movie Tron. I always thought it was in the 1890’s for some reason. I also did not know that a vehicle with two wheels is considered a car. The link to the Formula E is in the F1 engine article.

  2. MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 13th August 2013, 0:24

    I guess Adrian is telling his team to be prepared for him to run out in Australia haha

    The CNN article killed me, so did the doping one I saw on Motorsport.com website…

  3. Rybo (@rybo) said on 13th August 2013, 0:38

    I doubt people will run out of fuel during the race. Maybe during practice, but I feel the teams will gather enough data to see how far they can go flat out and when they need to conserve.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 1:43

      Pit radio, “Good first lap Lewis, now try and conserve fuel but keep 2 seconds ahead of Vettel”

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 13th August 2013, 3:43

      @rybo indeed. They might need to slow down a lot to save fuel or whatever, but that happens now already. I cannot see why teams with such a vast experience, and with months of preparations, would run out of fuel just like that…

      • Rybo (@rybo) said on 13th August 2013, 3:49

        I think that teams might get too clever. Try to under fuel and then get caught out, but lets hope no one is that foolish…

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 13th August 2013, 10:25

      I’m also confused why so many see this as a problem. They should have enough tools in the cockpit to manage fuel efficiently – or are there some new regulations on engine settings like mix too?
      Only thing I’d see as a problem is that the gearbox isn’t optimized for each track so they might lose some efficiency there.
      But still – eg. Renault claims they are 35% more efficient than last year. Now they fill in around 130 – 150 kg for one race. so for 2014 it should be between 85 and 98 kg so still below the 100 kg – close but still enough margin.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 13th August 2013, 12:15

      Wonder if a Caterham or Marussia will gamble on a long safetycar period and be a little faster.

  4. Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 0:42

    I will never read a CNN Motorsports related article ever again.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 1:45

      Laughter really is the best medecine, for your healths sake you should read them all.

      • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 13th August 2013, 9:55

        I have to say I couldn’t make up my mind whether to laugh or cry at that article! OK, it was a really funny description, reminiscent of the description I read (can’t remember where, it was something like Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy) of why squirrels don’t get electrocuted when they run along power lines. It was also very much like a Stephen Fry technology description.

        On the other hand, how the hell that got through the editors etc. is beyond me. Surely someone at CNN has a vague idea of how ICEs work?!?!

  5. Deej92 (@deej92) said on 13th August 2013, 0:46

    That’s the only big worry about 2014, for me at least – fuel saving. Hopefully it won’t dominate the racing. The other changes are welcome though because, as the COTD says, F1 should be more relevant. I am personally really looking forward to seeing how the cars will look.

    • Njack (@njack) said on 13th August 2013, 4:58

      F1 has not been road industry relevant since 1993 at the latest and next years regulations won’t change that.

      The Volkswagen XL-1 and the Tesla Model S are already providing what is needed for fuel economy and electrical cars.

      All F1 is doing is attempting a PR blitz by making the sport seem greener.

      And manufacturers not using V12 engines in cars is due more to strict emissions regulations than the market.

      And for COTD, citing WRC and WTCC yet ignoring GT racing, V8 supercars, NASCAR, Le Mans and associated series?

      Le Mans had V8, V10, V6, Flat-6 engines this year across its four classes with engine displacements from 3.4L to 8.0L.

      If the leading story from the 2014 Australian GP is how many cars ran out of fuel in the last 2 laps F1 will be a laughing-stock.

      • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 7:31

        What would you say happened in 1994 and was KERS invented by then? I’m sure F1 paved the way for other series and some new supercars with that.

        Most of the series you mentioned are spec series. Rally cars have always been based on cheaper cars than Gt cars, apart from Group B maybe. I don’t think a Impreza WRC ever cost as much as a 911. V8 supercars take place in an unique market as well, since Holden and Ford Australia don’t really exsist outside of Australia.

        As for Le Mans, remember how many people loathed Audi’s decision to go for a Diesel engine? Or the E-tron? Everyone loves them now, but it is not as if endurance racing hasn’t seen a greener theme in its prototype engines. Historically they have always had more open regulations as well, which I do have to applaud le mans for.

        Thing is, everyone was going to run out of fuel in 2010 too (remember Virgin finishing races with a tank which was too small?) and everyone was going to blow up their tyres and engines in 2005. F1 never was laughingstock then either.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 13th August 2013, 12:49

        And for COTD, citing WRC and WTCC yet ignoring GT racing, V8 supercars, NASCAR, Le Mans and associated series?

        I did think that was odd. Why pick two series where they never have had (for the most part) and never will have big engines due to the base cars being smaller, non-performance models.

        • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 19:38

          They have downsized cars and engines because those non-performance models have. Gran Turismo cars have had to deal much less with downsizing, because they are Gran Turismos. The average racing fan, however, is less likely to end up buying a V12 Ferrari in their lifetime, than a in-line 4 sedan or hot hatch.

          As for the other remark, I was sleepy on a train and I derp’d before. Still, V8 Supercars is pretty unattached to the global car market, since its audience is overwhelmingly Australian and the cars/brands are aimed towards that country. Australia has an unique car market, with the infamous ‘Utes’ being a prime example.

          NASCAR is also mostly aimed at the US and is hardly road relevant. I mentioned WRC and WTCC as they’re road relevant, which I’d like F1 to be as well.

          As for the ban on driver’s aids in 1994, I’m quite sure less prominent developments have found their way on to production cars. It’s not as if every Renault is fitted with active suspension these days.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 14th August 2013, 3:09

            The average racing fan, however, is less likely to end up buying a V12 Ferrari in their lifetime, than a in-line 4 sedan or hot hatch.

            Are they much less likely too than they were in the past though? Hasn’t this always been the case? I have nothing against the change to engines, but it seems that people want F1 to be more road relevant than it ever was historically. Why? To the extent that it attracts manufacturers, a certain amount of kudos and money, then that’s fine. But F1 doesn’t need to go out of its way to be a tool for road-relevancy. Other series will always be far better at that if they try anyway.

  6. Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 13th August 2013, 1:27

    Lucky for Merc Toto isn’t running the team. How can you seriously suggest not fighting for a championship HALFWAY through a season. With 3 races to go maybe, but they have to get it through their skulls that they may not be running at the front next year. If a title is within reach you surely have to go for it. Anyway consistency doesn’t mean diddly squat if you are being consistently bad!

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 13th August 2013, 12:18

      He wants to avoid a clash with the board of Mercedes that’s why he’s telling this to the press. And maybe also going for underdog.

    • Krizz (@krizz) said on 13th August 2013, 14:36

      I don’t know if what Toto says, is the right direction for Mercedes. Toto sounds like BMW back in ’08 and I think Mercedes is doing even better this year than BMW was doing five years ago. Remember BMW wanted to concentrate on 2009 and then they failed massively. I hope Mercedes will learn from what BMW did back then and draw the right conclusion at the right moment.

    • This article has worried me somewhat.
      As many have mentioned, it seems silly to me that Toto thinks 2014 is far better to focus on, yes it’s true that developing early will give them an advantage, but if they do not develop and push RBR then surely RBR can slow down the development rate, cruise to the title and shift their focus to 2014 just as Mercedes would do, equalling out the advantage? Ferrari seem out of contention and Lotus do not look quick enough in Quali to fight them over the course of the season.
      The sensible thing to do in my eyes is keep up the rate of development on 2013 for now, especially through Spa and Monza and come to a decision later on, if they can consistently outscore RBR in the next few races, then they’d be stupid to pass up this chance.
      Many have mentioned BMW in 2008, I can see this happening all over again.

  7. Dizzy said on 13th August 2013, 2:20

    Don’t think the fuel situation will be any different next year to whats in always been.
    Teams will run the cars on the edge with regards to getting to the end, We’ll see some drivers having to save fuel towards the end & will see some cars have to stop on the slow down lap.

    I think much, If not all of the concerns about how the V6 turbo’s we get next year are going to kill f1 or whatever will prove totally unfounded.
    They will sound good, They will race good & fuel saving/running out of fuel won’t be an issue.

    • Spinmastermic (@spinmastermic) said on 13th August 2013, 3:37

      I can just imagine an F1 car park at the first corner of every GP just after the finishing line, with all the drivers walking back up the pitlane at the end of a race. RIP victory laps.

      • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 13th August 2013, 4:58

        On the edge yes but only in terms of working out how much fuel they can use a lap. The drivers will not be on the limit ever, races will be slower than now because they wont have as much fuel to burn and f1 now is already slower than the refueling era without even considering v10s. If it keeps going like this f1 will eventually be fancy lawn mower racing.

        Everyone one says we need these regulations because lemans is flourishing well theres a big difference in lemans the drivers actually push in the race. They often even beat their qualifying time 2 things f1 cannot and will not be able to boast this year or next.

        It’s a good thing gp 2 races are shorter so people wont realise immediately how much slower f1 is compared to the “lesser” series’.

      • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 6:21

        I’m not exactly sure of the rules regarding driving back to the pits after the race. After qualifying a driver incurs the draconian penalty of exclusion from the session, and although I thought a driver should also make it back to the pits on his own strength after the race, I’ve never seen a penalty for it, so the FIA seems to condone it.

        With fuel more critical next year, it would indeed make sense for drivers to cut their engine after crossing the finish line. But I think after one race of all cars being parked at the first corner, the FIA will ‘clarify’ the rules to prevent it from happening again.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 6:42

          @adrianmorse, we could see opportunity for glory seeking non point scoring teams and drivers if fuel management becomes to onerous, imagine a Marussia mid-race passing 1 car after the other, then leading the race for ten laps before retiring with a fuel “problem”.

          • vjanik said on 13th August 2013, 13:21

            that will not be possible because the engines are limited in the amount of fuel per second it is able to take in.

            i dont understand the discussion around running out of fuel. unless the teams make an error like Marussia did by not having enough of a fuel tank, then there should be no problem. the new regs will ensure that less fuel is used in the GP, but that will be managed by a limit on the fuel intake (not bay giving the teams less fuel for the race). The teams will know exactly how much fuel they will use up for any given track. The teams with better fuel consumption will be able to run lighter. this of course happens even now but to a lesser extent.

            This is something that we as fans will not notice. the only thing we will notice is a different engine sound and slower lap times. But if the racing is exciting than thats ok by me.

  8. wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 13th August 2013, 2:53

    The Renault Megane’s a real beauty…

  9. Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 13th August 2013, 3:41

    This news on fuel conservation is more worrying than the tyre conservation . At least there are certain cars or drivers who can conserve tyres . But what happens if say , next year , the ferrari have better fuel consumption ( historically impossible but we never know for sure ) than any other engine thus enabling them to run away with the championship . Same goes for any other engine . The driver ability to dictate the outcome of the race will be significantly lowered a few notches . We all hope these things don’t happen , but they are serious concerns .The moaning of slow races are bound to get only louder,I believe. On the other hand ,the more interesting thing which I am looking forward is the ‘surprise team’ . We never know who will be on top , for all we know Force India or Williams may dominate for a few flyaway races before the big boys catch up . This may lead to an unpredictable albeit exciting championship .So all might not be lost in 2014 .

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 6:53

      @hamilfan, 1 point of interest will be the balance between drag for downforce and less drag so as to burn less fuel and go faster on the straights, it will a lot more critical than it is now and could lead to cars with very different strengths and weaknesses.

    • Matthijs (@matthijs) said on 13th August 2013, 7:18

      I don’t really see it that way. With the tyre conservation a driver is asked to drive the car at (let’s say) 80% for the majority of the race. When conserving fuel a driver can still go flat out for a long part of the race, only with a very lean fuel mix. So the driver drives the car for 100%, the engine is just not that powerful.

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 13th August 2013, 7:44

        So the driver drives the car for 100%, the engine is just not that powerful.

        That will depend on the engine used which is going to shake up the order a bit . But I think these manufacturers will be trying hard to be the superior one . Again , as Newey says , heat dissipation is going to be another factor .

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th August 2013, 17:45

      @hamilfan

      At least there are certain cars or drivers who can conserve tyres . But what happens if say , next year , the ferrari have better fuel consumption ( historically impossible but we never know for sure ) than any other engine thus enabling them to run away with the championship . Same goes for any other engine . The driver ability to dictate the outcome of the race will be significantly lowered a few notches .

      Definitely not, racing drivers have been well-versed in fuel-saving for years, in F1 and other categories. It happens in current races, it’s not uncommon to hear drivers being told to ‘lift and coast’ to save fuel – one notable example this year was with Lewis Hamilton in Malaysia.

      And some drivers are better than others at saving fuel without losing time. It’s definitely something the driver has some influence over.

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 14th August 2013, 6:15

        @Keith Collantine Fair point . However ,I don’t think that every driver will be in his comfort zone while fuel saving (and will not be able to produce good races ) . Fuel saving for half a leg of a race has happened before ,but from the first few laps on wards , I don’t think so . We as fans may not be able to see even the small window we get today where the driver and the machine operate at their absolute limits . I hope they find a way to circumvent all of this .

  10. Rally Man (@rally-man) said on 13th August 2013, 3:56

    Oh god I was so hoping you didn’t link CNN’s “article” on F1 *facepalm*. People, stay away from CNN or Fox News (LOL, news), stick with BBC news or something along those lines.

  11. MrGuy037 (@mrguy037) said on 13th August 2013, 4:41

    Funnily enough, Ferrari did make a 400 hp car for group B, the 288 GTO. It never saw competition, but some group B Ferrari 308s did, in 1983, but with only around 300 hp. Still, don’t trust Ferrari to not do something way out in left field. http://jalopnik.com/340215/ferrari-308-group-b-michelotto

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th August 2013, 6:55

      Lancia Stratos ?

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 7:18

      I was referring to the 288 gto because it is considered one of the best/beautiful rally cars to have never participated in a rally. Group b was far too dangerous and rally changed dramatically.

      We could go back to 900 bhp v10s, and while it probably would warm my heart, as much as seeing a new gto for rally, it’s out of sync with what’s going on in the automotive world.

  12. AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 7:06

    It’s interesting to note (in this otherwise barren time for F1 news) that the fuel-saving debate could be quite similar to the tyre degradation debate we’ve been having for the past couple of year. Defending fuel saving, one could say that fuel saving has always been part of Formula 1. I think however, that I would side with the This-Level-of-Fuel-Saving-is-Too-Much camp.

    In Indycar, there is quite a lot of fuel saving, too, but at least there you have the option of making an extra pit stop and putting in some really fast laps. In next year’s Formula 1, it could be that even before the race has started, a driver is resigned to lifting-and-coasting for 300+km, and knowing he will go backwards in the race compared to his more fuel-efficient rivals.

    The latter scenario could arise in case one engine (say, the Mercedes) has very high power output, enabling its drivers to qualify on the front row, but poor efficiency compared to another engine (the Renault, for example), in which case a lot of frustrating afternoons are in store again for fans of the former engine, except at Monaco. I hope I’m wrong, though, and that by the end of next year we won’t be celebrating Vettel’s fifth consecutive title…

    • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 13th August 2013, 7:34

      The differences in fuel economy between teams could be a deciding factor for better or worse. Mostly for worse would be my guess. I suppose I’m also in the too much fuel saving camp.

      Also, since the teams can put in more fuel than what they are allowed to use during a race, how many race results will be changed after the race by way of penalty, demotion or disqualification for using more fuel than what the regs allow? Having results changed post race very frequently due to fuel regs infractions would be a farce.

      The new engines don’t bother me at all and it is a worthy concept to make them as fuel efficient as possible, as long as the fuel saving does not completely ruin the racing. I wish there were some answers forthcoming on how the fuel regs will be managed and what the possible discipline for infractions will be.

    • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 13th August 2013, 7:36

      @adrianmorse Agree mate , though I am more interested in vettel’s 4th supposed title than his possibility of a 5th . Not celebrating if he wins of course .

      On a serious note , next year is likely to be an engine-centric year . Which means all the teams using one engine are going to be a little at the front . It would be erratic to assume it is Mercedes just because of the resources they have . That’s what makes the start of 2014 an exciting affair . Warning : Be prepared for a year of Brawnish dominance ( I just hope for the good god it’s not a Vettel year like 2011 ,then f1 can be named v1 :-P )

  13. BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 7:24

    Happy birthday to the whole team of F1Fanatics who celebrate one today! Chris Monk, @Ciaran, @Omarr-Pepper, @Jonathan, @Camo8723, David Knutson and @Sevrige

  14. andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th August 2013, 9:12

    An excellent little article by MotorSport on F1 and stuff in the 1960s. Go read it.

    One of the things that made all these drivers so deeply memorable is that they raced regularly in different types of cars. They weren’t pampered, highly-paid superstars restricted by contract and culture to a single category or team. They raced every weekend in different cars because they loved the sport and also needed to earn a living. This very diversity gave these drivers a grand patina, sadly lacking in today’s specialised age, which has cast a very long, agreeable shadow sure to last for many years to come.

    I think this highlights one of the problems I have with F1 today: Formula 1 has created the idea that their drivers are heroes, each and every one of them. As a result, a lot of F1 fans think that getting a driver’s autograph is like catching Michael Jackson’s sweat on a handkerchief. What has happened in those fifty years time?

    I think for one the supply in drivers has increased massively. In the 1960s, sadly racing drivers came with an expiration date, so only a few people had the guts, the money and the permission from their loved ones to go racing. I guess this element is less of an issue nowadays because of the sport becoming safer and safer. It doesn’t mean I want to go back to unsafe cars (please no!)… I believe Sir Stirling said that he’s happy to have raced in a time that motorsports was still very dangerous, and I think I can relate to that.

    Secondly, F1 and all motorsports have become a professional ‘sport': all top drivers, in F1, GP2, WRC, MotoGP, they are all top fit. Unfortunately the professionalization of sport has also resulted in the realization that if F1 drivers want to be at the top of their abilities, they can’t go out and drive a weekend in sportscars or rally. That’s sad.

    Also the sport’s policy of getting bigger and bigger doesn’t help. F1 is a show, and any show needs superstars. The drivers’ parade lap on the back of a lorry, which unfolds before every single GP, is probably the summit of sadness: F1 drivers, showed to the filthy peasants from their golden cage, basically screaming “yes, we know it’s super-sad, but we’ll do anything to pretend there still is a connection between drivers and fans.”

    If we want to see a current driver driving in all sorts of motorsports divisions, there will have to be a ‘pioneer’, a driver who is willing to do a year of sportscars alongside his F1 campaign. Say Kovalainen, driving both at Caterham’s F1 team ánd the team’s LMP2 outings. It would be great marketing and hopefully if there is a pioneer, others will follow suit. It would also get rid of the idea that Formula 1 drivers are immortal gods, because they are reachable. It’s a first step, because as the article says it will take decades before anything like the idea of the 1960s can be established.

    • The drivers’ parade lap … is probably the summit of sadness

      Absolutely. Especially because of the miserable attitude of the drivers who cannot force themselves to act friendly towards the fans for a couple of minutes.

      I believe Sir Stirling said that he’s happy to have raced in a time that motorsports was still very dangerous, and I think I can relate to that

      To take part in something glamorous and dangerous, AND yet live to a ripe old age is a very attractive combination. No surprise he’s happy with that combination.

      I guess one might still be able to find types of motorsports that are very dangerous, if that’s what is necessary for their ultimate happiness.

      • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 12:40

        Thing is, you’re being hoarded on to the back of a truck and get to wave at people. Even if you had the most fan-centric 22 drivers in the world, I doubt the parade lap would be any better.

        F1 needs to find a way to open up drivers to people without clotting up the pit lane or paddock. Fine them double of a missed press conference if they don’t show up and start them in GP3 and GP2. Basically, teams and circuits have protected the drivers from the fans so well, I think it would take a complete generation of drivers to un-scare them.

        I remember the Marlboro Masters of F3 in 2000 having Ferrari over for a demonstration; I got an autograph and pat on my 10 year old head from Rubens, but Michael was surrounded by bodyguards.

        • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th August 2013, 17:13

          @npf1

          I remember the Marlboro Masters of F3 in 2000 having Ferrari over for a demonstration; I got an autograph and pat on my 10 year old head from Rubens,

          Aww, that’s really sweet! :)

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 12:21

      @andae23,

      If we want to see a current driver driving in all sorts of motorsports divisions

      This is something I’d really like to see. I don’t think driving other cars should have a negative effect impact on a driver’s ability to drive F1 cars; perhaps they have a few hours less of targeted fitness training, but driving F1 cars is not that physical anyway.

      Also, I think it would make commercial sense. I think I wasn’t the only one who rekindled his interest in Indycars when Barrichello made the switch two years ago (not to forget Mansell!), and I will keeping a closer eye on WEC next year with Webber driving a Porsche. So, if you are reading this Toto Wolff, please field Hamilton and Rosberg in DTM a couple of times per year.

      • The problem extends far beyond F1, as teams in other series often refuse to let their drivers participate in other races.
        When, for example, did you last see any of the drivers for the manufacturer works teams at Le Mans drive in anything other than their designated LMP car, save for the odd publicity stunt? Audi are not going to let their drivers risk their necks in another series when they are so dependent on those drivers for their own efforts.

  15. Pamela Anderson to head GT team, that is news! lol

  16. Agree with that COTD 100%. *moan moan moan V6 turbo moan moan moan*

    It’ll be fine, you won’t even notice after 2 races.. You’ll definitely notice when F1 isn’t around because it refused to move away from V12 1000bhp petrol engines

    • Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1) said on 13th August 2013, 10:47

      ok lol. But you are telling me you wouldn’t won’t to see a V12 Turbo petrol engine ;-)

    • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 11:43

      It’ll be fine, you won’t even notice after 2 races..

      We’ll all notice when the cars are coasting around to save fuel from lap 12 onward. This season has been bad enough, what with the (supposed) best drivers in the world literally coasting around Monaco like it was a Sunday drive to the supermarket. I’m not too optimistic for next year but hopefully I’ll be proved wrong (for the first time ever!!).

      • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 12:42

        So you were not around for the end of the sport in 1994, 1998, 2005 or 2009?

        • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 14:21

          -The 1994 regs actually improved racing as fewer driver aids meant more skill and craft was required to succeed. Other changes for for safety following Senna’s death.
          -1998 was mainly safety measures.
          -Reg changes for 2005 slip my mind so I won’t comment.

          I absolutely hated the 2009 regs but I’ve learnt to live with them like many others.
          I guess you’re alluding to F1’s current popularity and how reg changes in the past haven’t hindered the sports growth. You might be right and maybe I’m fretting needlessly, but you can only test the tolerance of F1 fans so far before we realise that the sport we’re watching now isn’t an nth of what it was ten years ago. I see next years regs as regressive.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 14:27

            Why? Do you not agree that F1 engines should be well engineered and efficient?

            10 years ago the cars lined up and then drove around in the starting order for an hour and a half before the guy that was on pole became the winner. That was better than the sport is today? And why? You’re saying that ten years ago the sport was better, but in what respect? Less competitive? More expensive? Less technologically advanced? used artificial gimmicky grooved tyres to slow the cars down?

            You might have arose tinted view of F1 ten years ago but I don’t. I remember how dull it was. I remember having to sit through five minute ad breaks during the race. I remember that Ferrari had an unfair advantage over the rest of the grid. I remember hearing people talk about F1 being the most boring motorsport on the planet, and how it would likely just disappear within the next decade.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 14:28

            Also – regressive isn’t the word you are looking for. If you think F1 was better in the past then regressive would be a positive thing.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 16:31

            Why? Do you not agree that F1 engines should be well engineered and efficient?

            If it means having fundamentally slower cars the answer is no.

            10 years ago the cars lined up and then drove around in the starting order for an hour and a half before the guy that was on pole became the winner. That was better than the sport is today? And why?

            Let’s be honest, the reason cars overtake nowadays has nothing whatsoever to do with modern regs and everything to do with DRS and gimmicky tyres. If F1 had introduced the current crop of comic book peripherals ten years ago, F1 would’ve been an overtaking festival!!

            You might have arose tinted view of F1 ten years ago but I don’t.

            I think it’s you that has a rose tinted view of modern F1. I definitely won’t look back at this era as being a golden one, the races are artificial in every sense. There weren’t tons of overtakes per race ten years back, but at least you knew that every overtake was completed purely via the drivers own skill and wit, as opposed to modern F1 where you basically get within one second and push a button…yeah, that’s not what I deem elite racing.

            I remember how dull it was. I remember having to sit through five minute ad breaks during the race. I remember that Ferrari had an unfair advantage over the rest of the grid.

            A team always has an advantage over their competitors, name me a sport where that isn’t the case. As for sitting through ad breaks I don’t see how a V6 engine will change that! :P

            My use of regressive – Isn’t going from a 2.4-litre V8 engine to a 1.6-litre V6 a backward step? It won’t be if the cars are faster but from what we’ve been told that won’t be the case. New fuel regs mean yet more fuel conservation so I don’t see how drivers having to what the fuel gauge for half the race with result in a more exciting formula; efficient/efficiency are just words used to convince people that slower is better.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 16:36

            *drivers having to watch the fuel gauge for half the race willresult

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 16:51

            No, going from a 2.4l V8 to a 1.6l V6 isn’t regressive, unless you’re playing Top Trumps and engine displacement or number of cylinders is your chosen category. In terms of power, the new powertrain will be about 50hp more powerful than the old powertrain and will have a much higher level of torque. Effectively the cars will be significantly more powerful while also being 35% more efficient. It’s one of those instances where it’s possible to have your cake and eat it. Made possible purely by virtue of the fact that the old engine formula was decades out of date, and the old engines pathetically inefficient by modern standards. It’s only a retrograde step if you know literally nothing about engines whatsoever.

            With regards to overtaking, then yes to a certain extent you’re right and I agree – I don’t like DRS. I think tyres which degrade rapidly give you everything you need in order to generate good racing. What DRS does is removes the ability of a driver to defend against another. But this current aero setup gives closer racing anyway. You say about getting within one second, but ten years ago even that was virtually impossible because the cars couldn’t run that close thanks to dirty air. Is F1 perfect as it is right now? Absolutely not. Is it better than it was ten years ago? Without a doubt.

            Every single time there are changes to the rules, the doomsayers will come out and claim that it’s terrible, ruining the sport, blah blah blah. Ten years ago people were predicting that rule changes for 2004 which limited a car to one engine per weekend were going to ruin the sport. They said we’d have drivers cruising around trying not to hurt the engine, refusing to go out in practice sessions, and that we’d have engines blowing up left right and centre. They were wrong then, just as the doomsayers today are wrong in suggesting that 2014 is going to be a disaster. F1 will still be the pinnacle of motorsport, it’ll still have the fastest cars in the world, and we’ll all still tune in every week to see it. And in 2020 or whenever the next big rule change comes in, we’ll have yet another wave of doomsayers telling us how it’ll be the death of F1. It won’t. Trust me.

          • @mazdachris +1000000 – thank you for going against the doomsday tide. I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 18:11

            @mazdachris

            No, going from a 2.4l V8 to a 1.6l V6 isn’t regressive, unless you’re playing Top Trumps and engine displacement or number of cylinders is your chosen category. In terms of power, the new powertrain will be about 50hp more powerful than the old powertrain and will have a much higher level of torque. Effectively the cars will be significantly more powerful while also being 35% more efficient. It’s one of those instances where it’s possible to have your cake and eat it. Made possible purely by virtue of the fact that the old engine formula was decades out of date, and the old engines pathetically inefficient by modern standards. It’s only a retrograde step if you know literally nothing about engines whatsoever.

            In the words of Rubinho – All I’m hearing is a load of blah blah 35% more efficient blah blah made possible by blah blah. Answer me this simple question: Will next years cars be faster or slower than this years crop, yes or no?
            If next years lap times are slower then it’s a step backwards as far as I’m concerned.

            I’m not part of the doomsday crew, I’m just pointing out the fact that F1 cars are slower today then they were 10 years ago and the 2014 regs will do nothing to remedy this shameful reality.

          • wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 13th August 2013, 18:20

            @hellotraverse Gone are the days of 10 yrs ago. The financial situation in Europe is different now and there’s no sense denying it. If you believe that F1 should adopt 4 litre engines in this age, I would ask you to make the financial situation better. If you can’t do that, but still can’t bear watching 1.6 litre engines in action..please stop watching F1.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 18:33

            @wsrgo
            At this rate a lot of people will stop watching F1.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 18:51

            @hellotraverse

            Over the duration of a race they’ll be about the same, if not slightly faster thanks to more durable tyres and higher speeds down the straights. That’s just in the first season of new rules as well. Give it a couple of years and they’ll surpass the speeds of the 09-13 cars. And the point you made was specifically about the engines, saying they were a step backwards, which isn’t in any way true. Not in terms of efficiency, not technogically, and not in terms of power. The lap times are being affected by aero changes, making the wings smaller and relocating the exhausts to stop diffuser blowing. Even then, already teams are reporting that their designs for next year are going to be close to current downforce levels.

            Your principle moan was that drivers would have to spend races conserving fuel. As I’ve pointed out, that’s not going to happen.

          • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 19:44

            In 1994 the sport died because of the ban on driver’s aids, in 1998 because of the grooved tyres, in 2005 because of the two-race lifespan (2006 I should have mentioned because of the switch to V8s) and in 2009 because of the new aero regulations.

            My point being; doom was cast over the sport many times, still it prevails. The more you gloom about what could happen, the more you are setting yourself up for a disappointment.

          • @hellotraverse

            Answer me this simple question: Will next years cars be faster or slower than this years crop, yes or no?

            I will answer that that in terms of outright qualifying speed, initially yes. However, that has absolutely nothing (I repeat, nothing) to do with the new engines – in actual fact that aspect will make the cars faster.

            What will slow the cars down is having smaller front wings, no beam wing, lower noses and one central exhaust who’s vertical placement is severely restricted.

            In race trim though once any fuel issues have been ironed out (which I’m sure will happen fairly swiftly I’d imagine the cars will actually be faster due to the new harder tyres and better powertrain optimisation meaning they have to carry less weight around at the start of the race. As has been said, +35% thermal efficiency and -1/3 cubic capacity yet greater power and markedly greater torque will equate too a far better engine that shouldn’t come up against too many troubles with regards to fuel usage (current cars use 130-150kg, so 100kg for a 35% more efficient engine won’t really be a problem).

            So actually I think the new engines are the best thing that could’ve happened to F1 at the moment with all the recent gimmicky introductions (I think DRS in its current form is bordering on terrible and the tyres are too dominant in most cases, so 2014 should be a welcome change as long as they don’t become Bridgestones – I always remember Schumacher being told on the radio in Indy 500 that his tyres were good for well over 100 laps which is too much). The sound shouldn’t be a drastic shock either – I actually think if we factor in the fact the sound recordings that have been released were from the test bench the sound may actually be better than the current engines apart from on downshift and in the high extremities.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 20:35

            @mazdachris @npf1 & @vettel1
            I love you guys, you’re all so well informed, even if your engine arguments are a little incipient. I guess only time will tell, hopefully hell will freeze over and I’ll be proved wrong!

          • @hellotraverse I’m well informed by my memory actually – I haven’t researched anything about the engines really since the details became readily available! So allow for a degree of inaccuracy in any value I state as it may be out by a few percent/kilograms etc. ;)

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 13:56

        We’ll all notice when the cars are coasting around to save fuel from lap 12 onward

        well, those V12s would probably have trouble even finishing a lap at that rate then @hellotraverse!

        I think everyone is far too dramatical on “wow BIG engines”. If you want to go big, look at a supertanker’s engine. Oh, and that also uses VERY big batteries for peak power.

  17. venom (@venom) said on 13th August 2013, 10:44

    Having Fuel regulations is like asking Usain Bolt to starve for the entire weekend leading to his sprint..

    completely pointless in my opinion..it seems to contradict the very definition of a motor race as we have come to know.

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 12:45

      It’s more like telling a US basketball player to drink only 1 gallon of Gatorade per week instead of the 4 or 5 he could. Or asking Usain Bolt to stick to a reasonable food budget per week.

    • PeterH said on 13th August 2013, 19:01

      fuel limitations didn’t hurt the group c world sportscars in the 80s, in fact through the group c days sportscar racing grew in popularity.
      nobody ever once complained about the fuel limitations making it ‘not a motor race’.

      you say it contradicts the very definition of a motor race, but what is the definition of a motor race?
      nobody ever said a motor race has to be about unrestricted fuel use, in fact there has been plenty of instances through its history where motor races have included limitations with regards to fuel.

  18. Laminator (@laminator) said on 13th August 2013, 11:07

    One interesting thing to note, is that the 2014 turbo engines will have a longer stroke than the current engines. Even with the 15000 rpm rev limit, the piston speed in the V6 (25.85mps) would be higher than the V8 (23.88mps). Thus in relation to the engine geometry the lower rev limit in the 2014 is not unduly conservative.

  19. Metallion (@metallion) said on 13th August 2013, 12:04

    Damn, they’ve removed the explanation of how “standard” engines and turbo engines work from the CNN article. Fortunately, they didn’t rob their readers of the knowledge of how turbo engines can grip onto steep angles.

  20. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 12:26

    I don’t see why next year the cars would be any more likely to run out of fuel than they are this year. The engine formula is built around maximising efficiency, absolutely, but there’s no restriction on the size of the fuel tank. There are only two reasons why you’d see them running out of fuel:
    1 – The teams under-fuel the car as they do now, in order to minimise weight, but try to pinch too much and end up running out
    2 – the engine ends up being more thirsty than the teams anticipated, meaning that they have an embarrassing ‘virgin gp’ style situation where the fuel capacity of the car isn’t sufficient for the car to complete the race.

    In regards to point two, this is very very unlikely. Never before has so much attention been given to the fuel requirements of the engines. They will have been bench tested to within an inch of their lives, and they will have calculated down to the millilitre how much fuel the engine will use under all the conditions you’re likely to see. They have specifically developed technology which makes the measurement of fuel flow more accurate than it has ever been. So to suggest that they won’t understand how much fuel the engines will use is nonsense. They’ll have a much better idea than they ever have before.

    Regarding point 1, this is very possible. But no more so than is currently the case. And even in that situation, the teams will have more control via fuel maps and boost settings in order to conserve fuel. It’ll be less “lift and coast please Lewis” and more “fuel mix 5 please Lewis” – the driver should be able to drive the car flat out, but at a reduced power level. Maybe this would be an issue for a few drivers at the start of the season, but I think it won’t take long for the teams to work out how far they can push it without harming the overall pace. The main thing is that I don’t think it’s at all likely that we’ll see many instances of drivers actually running out of fuel before the end of the race. And if they do, it’ll be because the teams tried too hard to gain an advantage by underfuelling the car, rather than some inherent problem with the technical regulations.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 13:58

      I do think there’s a slightly bigger chance at the start of next year (just as there was at the start of 2010) because of some uncertainties that remain @mazdachris.
      But otherwise I agree with you that teams are still as likely to make a gamble on fuel, and ask their driver to just manage with lower power during part of the race if their gamble does not pay off.

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 13th August 2013, 15:06

      I too agree here. Far too many people are being far to dramatic about this apparent “end of the world” scenario. I think it has something to do with the long breaks between races that let our minds wonder…

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 15:24

      @mazdachris, I agree with the point you are making, however

      but there’s no restriction on the size of the fuel tank

      I thought there was a restriction that teams can only put in 100 litres of fuel for a GP. So although teams will rarely run out of fuel, the question will be how rich they can run the engine during the GP. If running at 95% power for 305km (does anybody have any idea how closely to the limit the engines are currently run?) requires e.g. 115 litres, then drivers will have to run very lean for very long, in addition to specializing their driving style towards saving fuel, in the same manner that for the past three years their driving has been about making the tyres work and last.

      • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 15:39

        @adrianmorse There are two restrictions directly related to fuel – firstly that the maximum fuel flow at full throttle can’t exceed 100kg of fuel per hour, and secondly that you can’t use more than 100kg of fuel during the race. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t put more than 100kg into the car, just that you can’t use more than that. Inevitably you’ll end up putting in a safety margin I’d have thought, and potentially take a penalty if you had no choice but to go over.

        But I doubt this will even be an issue. Currently they’re using about 150kg of fuel for a race, and that’s slightly underfuelled for flat-out racing. In reality that’s always going to be the case – it makes more sense to underfuel the car and carry a lighter car through the race – the car ends up faster by doing this than by carrying the extra weight and going flat out. This is perhaps something people lose sight of when they see drivers moaning about going slowly – they are actually going faster by doing this. While it may seem counter-intuitive, they don’t save fuel because there are restrictions or because they are too tight to pay for a whole tank, they do it because it makes the car faster for the whole race duration.

        Anyway, this mean that the cars will be allowed to use about two thirds the fuel they’re allowed to use now. The figures for the engines suggests that the engines themselves will be about 35% more efficient than they are currently. So on that basis there’s no danger of them running out of fuel on the basis of the rules not allowing them to run enough. 100kg of fuel will likely be to take into account the circuits with the highest fuel demands, meaning most races should come in well under that. Then you also need to factor in the fact that at the start of the race they’ll be carrying at least 50kg less fuel than they will be currently, which means the cars will be quite a lot quicker as a result, and more efficient over the duration of the race.

        What I’m getting at is that only under the most extreme conditions would you be likely to see them getting marginal with the 100kg limit. In all likelihood the true figure will be safely below this, and the only danger of them running out of fuel or having to use extreme fuel saving measures will be exactly what it is at the moment – teams trying to pinch too much time by running the car as light as possible by underfuelling. Which is why I can’t see why there would be any more likelihood of it next year than there will be this year. Less, in fact, since the cars will be carrying technology which will be far more accurate at measuring how much fuel the car is using, meaning that they can play closer to the margins with a greater degree of accuracy – reducing the likelihood of stupid mistakes.

        • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 15:48

          @mazdachris, I hope you are right, and that the 100kg limit will not be too marginal. One thing though, will the minimum weight of the cars for next year not be significantly increased, in which case they will not actually be much lighter with a full tank of fuel?

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 15:59

            Yes, sorry I mean quicker relative to the current amount of fuel if it was to be put into a 2014 car. The point being that there is less difference between a fully fueled car and a car running on empty, meaning that pinching off, say, three laps of fuel is less beneficial and so there’s less incentive to do it.

            At the end of the day, I’m sure they’ll have done their maths when working out these restrictions. It’ll be based on the current levels adjusted down to take into account a reasonable improvement in fuel economy – in this case about a third. Which is totally in line with what we expect the engines will be capable of, allied with more advanced options in terms of using fuel maps and boost levels.

            I think the two things people are worried about are drivers running out of fuel, and drivers having to coast around not using the performance of the cars. Neither or these things should be more likely next year than they are this year, unless the engine manufacturers have spectacularly failed to meet the technical challenges they’ve been given.

      • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 13th August 2013, 15:50

        There is no limit to the size of the tank, at least none I could find in the latest published regs.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.

Skip to toolbar