Red Bull team principal Christian Horner is concerned about the rising weight of Formula One cars.
The minimum weight specified by the rules is set to rise from 702kg to 722kg next year and that could rise further with the introduction of the Halo safety device.
“And that of course adds to the characteristic of making the car a little lazier than a lighter car.”
Part of the rise in weight next year is a result of the larger tyres which are intended to cope with higher levels of downforce. Horner believes that is a trade-off worth making.
“By adding downforce and load back onto the car you’re going to give the driver a harder time. You’re going to give him much more of a work-out. The drivers have been crying out for cars that are more challenging to drive. The cars that we have at the moment, it’s been discussed whether they’re too easy to drive.”
“I think by making cars edgier, making them quicker, you’ll get a bigger variance of drivers, teams will get better value for money out of their drivers, they’ll have to start going to the gym again.”
“So I think it’s a positive thing that we’ve got regulation change but, yes, the cars are a little bit on the heavy side. It’d be nice to get, somehow, 100 kilos out of them.”
72defender (@72defender)
15th April 2016, 10:05
I agree with Christian and believe the sport should be trying to go the other way. It the aim of the governing bodies are to tie it in to road relevancy, then put an emphasis on designing lighter cars, decreased fuel consumption and ultimately quicker races.
Jake
16th April 2016, 4:18
You can’t have all of that.
markp
15th April 2016, 10:08
Interesting point but he does not offer a solution only says somehow. How could they make the cars lighter and not force drivers to be an unhealthy weight? With far more downforce drivers are probably going to have to bulk up a little adding further weight.
A few years ago Brundle said that during each stint in Chine cars lost 1.5kg per tyre so 6kg. Currently they are fuelled with around 95kg, in their final stint they may have something like 5kg of fuel left at the end and the tyres are 6kg less, so from the start of the race to the end they are around 101kg less, at this point they have to weigh 702 kg so start the race at around 803kg. (I know I have generalised here but you get the gist?)
Todfod (@todfod)
15th April 2016, 10:10
I’m not sure, but wouldn’t lighter cars require more downforce? Is this more aero propganda?
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 10:24
Nope. Other way round. The heavier your car, the more downforce you need.
Generally speaking, sub 100km/h corners you won’t see much difference. 100km/h corners and over you’ll see a noticeable difference :).
Sonics (@sonicslv)
15th April 2016, 12:04
@todfod Like @thef1engineer said, but it’s only half of the story. More weight means more mechanical grip but also means more momentum and centrifugal force on cornering. So in corners you need more downforce but on straight you actually can cope with less. On theory, heavier cars will have easier time following behind other cars but they will struggle more on following in the high speed corners.
socksolid (@socksolid)
15th April 2016, 15:57
Also more mass means the car accelerates slower, is slower to react track undulations and driver inputs and needs bigger brakes. Heavier and longer wheelbase car is of course more stable to drive.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
15th April 2016, 17:32
“So I think it’s a positive thing that we’ve got regulation change but, yes, the cars are a little bit on the heavy side. It’d be nice to get, somehow, 100 kilos out of them.”
100 kg battery…. I love these engine but the cars would be cheaper, quicker, lighter and more attractive without the battery.
Andy (@andybantam)
15th April 2016, 23:14
@peartree
I was just about to post something similar.
Red Bull have made no secret that they dislike the fact they can’t get a decent engine under these regulations, now they want a lighter car. Getting a customer spec engine addresses both points.
These engines are just too good, so I feel they’ll have to wait quite a long time for that to happen. Waiting for the engine performance to converge naturally will probably be quicker.
Kingshark (@kingshark)
15th April 2016, 10:17
Not if it comes at the expense of starving the drivers.
Nevertheless, the cars have definitely “grown” over the past 12 years or so. There’s not much difference in width or height, but the cars were about half a meter shorter in 2004 compared to what they are today. Likewise of course, 100 kg lighter.
Back in 2004 the cars were about 4.5 meters long, nowadays they are about 5.0 m long. To give an illustration, this is a top-view comparison between the 2004 Ferrari and the 2016 Ferrari.
http://i.imgur.com/RHXdFEC.png
A lot of people don’t realize just how much bigger and more massive the cars have gotten since the new hybrid regulations. Perhaps this contributes to the cars looking slower?
For example, this lap from Schumacher is done with race fuel onboard and is rather slow and would’ve put him 14th on the grid in 2016, yet it looks fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZh7pejgae0
The fact that the 2004 car is half a meter shorter and more slender might have something to do with it appearing so much faster, especially through some of the corners.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 10:33
A lot of an F1 car “looking” fast comes from the wing dimensions.
If the front wing was much narrower such that it’s span was in-board of the front tyres and simpler, and the rear wing much lower and wider, the 2016 cars would “look” much faster.
Things which are “tall” and “wide” generally do not “look” fast. Things which are “narrow” and “low” generally do.
Mark G (@)
15th April 2016, 14:13
I also think today’s cameras, but in particularly the camera angles FOM use have a huge part to play in why the cars don’t look quick on TV anymore.
The live on-boards always makes things look quick, but we rarely get to see them these days. Last year in Monaco when Verstappen crashed into the back of Grosjean was one of the best moments in terms of the footage, due to the fact we were on-board with Max at the time of the crash.
In that clip of Michael Schumacher there are a couple of high camera angles (not helicopter high) used that display the car going through a corner fully, especially just prior to starting the lap. You get a real sense of speed. These days we get footage flicking between angles during corners, and at the start of the straight in Melbourne we get a rubbish angle showing cars from ground level going away from the camera. You lose all sense of acceleration and movement in general.
The other point to note is that the cameras used to look like they were struggling to keep up with the pace of cars, but the high level of programming and higher frame rates mean the cameras not only follow, but anticipate where a car is going. It has the effect of making the cars looks like they’re travelling slower.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
15th April 2016, 17:35
@kingshark Yes.
Jake
15th April 2016, 23:38
It looks “faster” or in my opinion more accurately in looks more on the ragged edge, because the tracks used to be bumpier and the cars would suddenly jolt around the imperfections on the road. Another thing, though not at that particular track, is that there are asphalt runoffs everywhere now which take away from the danger. Also the new Tilke-droms are ridiculously wide so the speed of the cars is not translated to the camera.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 10:28
The weight in the cars mainly comes from the batteries, electric motors, associated wiring and the fuel.
If you want weight out of the cars, it’s any combination of that lot that have to go.
Assuming we don’t want refuelling back, it’s the hybrid systems that are up for the chop.
markp
15th April 2016, 10:37
Ah that’s Horners game, in a roundabout way he is trying to get rid of the hybrid engines? There’s no other way really to shed 100kg.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 10:56
Exactly. You don’t have to read too far beyond the headlines ;).
It would seem that at least a simplification of these hybrid engines is on the table. A lot of the comments RE: the weight of the cars, the driver’s wanting to push, a look at the fuel rules, that mandate from the FIA/FOM, all this sort of stuff, all points towards a change of power unit architecture.
If I were to hazard a guess, I’d suggest the MGU-H will be the component we see dropped. Remembering the whole point of these engines is manufacturers R&D for road cars, if we look across to Audi, they’re bringing out a range of cars running electric turbo’s which DO NOT harvest off the exhaust gases. Instead, their T/C spools up directly off the batteries which have been charged via the braking system. According to them, in a road car, this is a more efficient way of doing things.
Also bearing in mind that a conventional set of sequential-twin-turbo’s is a much better cheaper, lighter way of doing essentially the same thing, I think all signs are pointing to this particular MGU being put to one side, IMO.
Jake
16th April 2016, 4:23
I don’t see why the manufacturers would agree to that. The MGUH is what makes these engine special and gives it that crazy high power and efficiency. If they want to decrease the weight they should dramatically decrease battery size and ditch the MGUK.
AndrewW
15th April 2016, 13:09
Spot on.
Phil-F1-21
15th April 2016, 19:47
Very interesting and quite clear which is good to someone like me!
Sonics (@sonicslv)
15th April 2016, 12:08
@thef1engineer What I want to see is the weight limit is reduced gradually over time because current battery technology is too heavy. This way F1 can lead the development of better, lighter battery (or other hybrid components) that will have massive practical use. Suddenly reduce the limit by 100kg is definitely bad though, but maybe we can reduce it by 5-10kg every year?
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 12:52
We can certainly try. That’s the aim, but how long it’ll actually take, we can only guess. Obviously we have our targets.
The real question is, can we get the hybrid systems weight OUT of the cars fast enough that it keeps the sport happy. My honest feeling on that is no, and that something is going to have to give come 2020, maybe before if the EU get excited and decide to stick their ore in.
Should that become the case, the MGU on the exhaust is the obvious candidate for review.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
15th April 2016, 17:47
@thef1engineer I want refuelling. The cars these days pit anyway so why not, endurance cars pit every 30 minutes.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 19:04
I don’t have a problem with refuelling IF, and it’s a big IF, IF we don’t have tyre changes. You can’t have refuelling AND tyre changes in the same race. It’s one or the other.
If Pirelli can give us 1 grippy, durable tyre to complete the entire race distance, refuelling can work.
In practice and testing, you’ll often here “we can’t be sure on times because we don’t know the fuel loads or engine modes” etc etc, so there is some merit in the idea, it’s just finding a method of keeping the fuel load/flow/quantity etc secret.
Alonso (@alonshow)
16th April 2016, 0:22
I’m sure Pirelli or any other supplier can provide durable tyres which last 300 km. and then some. That doesn’t even sound like a challenge.
What I don’t see is the problem in having both tyre changes and refuelling. It’s been done for a lot of years and it seemed to work fine, right? (I don’t know much about the sport, I might be missing something here).
Jake
15th April 2016, 23:47
Refueling ruins racing, though. Nobody risks a pass on track when they can do it in the pits.
Alonso (@alonshow)
16th April 2016, 13:38
Sorry, I’m not following you here. What difference does it make to add refuelling to the pit stop? Drivers pass each other in the pit lane anyway, with or without refuelling…
Alonso (@alonshow)
16th April 2016, 13:40
Clarification: Of course, I’m asking about the difference it makes in the sense of overtaking on or off the track. The differences it makes in other aspects are quite obvious.
GeeMac (@geemac)
15th April 2016, 10:36
Wow, I actually agree with Christian Horner. I think that’s a first.
I’ve been banging on about the needless increase in minimum weights for years and years now, glad someone on the inside has realised it is getting out of control. Yes the hybrid powertrains are heavier than normally aspirated engines, but the teams have been able to build the cars light and run ballast since 2014, there is no need for an increase in the minimum weight next season.
markp
15th April 2016, 11:07
I think as per previous points Horner does not mean just reduce the limit they are already light and they add ballast, instead to get lighter he is wanting the hybrid part of the PU dropped.
GeeMac (@geemac)
15th April 2016, 13:40
The article doesn’t say that and he didn’t allude to that I the team principal’s press conference in China. Any source for that other than his general hatred of engines that don’t power RBR to championship dominance?
markp
15th April 2016, 14:53
No evidence and of course that may not be true and we can take it as he said it. It’s a theory that I do feel is reasonable to assume, how else can cars lose 100kg, can only see by ditching the hybrid, which appears to be a Red Bull agenda.
Solo (@solo)
11th June 2016, 9:55
He clearly mentioned the batteries as a problem while saying this so it’s obvious what his intentions are and is not really about the weight but about trying to find things to accuse the PU’s he so wishes were gone.
So obviously he is trying to guide the opinion of the uneducated by mentioning batteries but nothing about ballast. Just look how many ignorant people talk about the weight of the power units above you and driver weight while completely ignoring that the cars are actually quite a lot lighter than minimum weight anyway and their current weight is actually nothing but ballast to meet regulations.
Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll)
15th April 2016, 10:38
how does more aero make the cars more edgy?
what people relate most to skill are the clips of Senna throttle controlling a wild and slippery car, NOT the sticking to the road like glue, red bulls
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
15th April 2016, 17:50
@dr-jekyll It doesn’t. Only the g’s are going to exhaust the drivers but as you said Senna almost collapsed after driving the lower downforce f1 cars not the paddle shift power steering full electronics cars.
MG421982 (@)
15th April 2016, 11:00
Hey, Horner, wake up… the cars JUST GOT HEAVIER… so, I don’t see lighter F1 cars earlier than 2021… unless these guys who make the rules are kinda stupid or they just change the rules to justify their pay-check. Could be that this “heavier cars” rule follows the “street-relevant” trend so, there’s a possibility we might not see 600kgs F1 cars at all. We all know that street cars are bigger, heavier and more powerful with each generation. Also, could be that they decided to impose the “heavier cars” rule in order to slow down the performance.
Robbie (@robbie)
15th April 2016, 19:16
Hmm…couple of things on that…I don’t think Horner is saying this has to happen immediately, just that they should start trending back to lighter cars.
Secondly, my understanding here in Canada (read North America) is that cars are indeed getting lighter not heavier as federal regulations are insisting that car makers meet new stricter guidelines for fuel economy. Each manufacturer has to meet an overall ‘fleet rate’ across their mix of vehicles that shows their cars are more fuel efficient. To that end one of the more glaring examples is that Ford, with their pickup trucks that are hugely popular both in Canada and the US, are now made with a great amount of aluminum so they have literally reduced their weight by 700 lbs. for this current generation of trucks upon their latest restyle.
MacLeod (@macleod)
15th April 2016, 12:17
ONLY introduce this when driver weight limit is fixed on 85kg so bigger drivers can drive the same car. (with ballast for the lighter drivers if they want to focus on 600Kg max and minimum)Otherwise forget this Horner. Car should be minimum 900kg (incl. everything car, driver and fuel) even then the cars will be faster.
markp
15th April 2016, 12:46
Lighter drivers to get ballast but it leads to them having an advantage as they can put it lower down in the car. THe answer is simple, drivers should all be the same weight when standing on the scales so lighter drivers have to wear a fat suit.
faulty (@faulty)
15th April 2016, 17:17
@thef1engineer
Ok, cars must be heavy because of the hybrid PUs; but must they be longer too? I’m thinking, a longer and more massive car is good at straight-line speed and thus it needs stuff like DRS to “put on a show” and make passes on other cars…aren’t we feeding back a loop here? Can’t a stubby sort of car have more trouble efficently transfering its weight around corners, wouldn’t that create a challenge to drivers and the opportunity for mistakes and corrections?
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
15th April 2016, 19:19
The size of the cars comes from the safety reg’s. The crash structure on the rear of the gearbox for example is massive, but necessarily so to pass the FIA’s crash tests.
Getting the weight out of the cars is a good thing. It improves the braking, it improves the acceleration, it improves the cornering, it improves the fuel economy, it improves everything.
Not really. That would simply be designed out in the suspension and brake balance adjustment. Most issues these days we can “design out” fairly early-on.
If you want driver mistakes/corrections, power/weight ratio and small tyre contact patch would be what you’re after ;).
faulty (@faulty)
16th April 2016, 5:23
Thanks for the reply, it makes things clearer.
1.- Moar Powah
2.- Ondulating tracks
3.- ??
4.- Profit!
Solo (@solo)
11th June 2016, 10:02
Don’t let Honrner’s drivel misguide you. Cars do not need to be heavy because of the Pu’s. The cars are quite a lot lighter than minimum weight and they make the weight by adding ballast. They can easily be 10kg-20kg lighter in the next race if they wanted and nothing would have changed on the cars other than the ballast.
The batteries on the PU’s for example are currently a lot lighter than they were in 2014 when they first made this engines and yet their weight is still the same. The reason is simply ballast to meet minimum weight regulations.
Horner is simply trying to twist the truth so he can throw nails at the PU’s since he dislikes them for obvious reasons.
Ian Bond (@ianbond001)
15th April 2016, 17:26
Finally he has a point worth listening to!!!
Robbie (@robbie)
15th April 2016, 19:29
Surely this ultra-successful man has more to him than you are giving him credit for, no?
Solo (@solo)
11th June 2016, 10:03
No his point is nothing but hidden agenda and his only twisting the truth here. It’s exactly what you expect from a little weasel like him.
Djangles LeVaughn (@royal-spark)
16th April 2016, 19:31
Unless either drivers are replaced by self-driving A.I, energy recovry is scrapped or graphene is somehow made cheap and easy to manufacturer, F1 cars will never be as light as they were in the past.
Not long before they’re fatter than latter day Group-C cars.
Solo (@solo)
11th June 2016, 10:04
Yes they can be. Just remove ballast. There you go. Problem is that not everyone will be on same exact weight.