205 replies to this topic

[jjcale]

Even as (in my own mind) the biggest LH fan on this forum and therefore I have enjoyed this era since 2014 more than most, I have to be objective and conclude that the decision to go to hybrid engines has turned out, with hindsight, to have been perhaps the biggest mistake made by any series in the history of motorsport, 

 

Its been a failure on every level:

• New car manufacturers being attracted to F1: Nope ... only Honda came back and now they are gone.
• Road relevant tech changing the future of motoring: Nope ... its looking been the Betamax of potential ICE replacements for roadgoing vehicles
• Spicing up the series after 4 years of domination by a single team: Nope ... we now have 6 years of domination and counting by a single team..... I now regularly fall asleep during races ... and my boy is winning!  (.... though I have to admit that these are very contented naps )

[Edit - and how could I forget ... we lost the beautiful scream of the previous engines .... which used to be my favourite thing about F1 ... the engines dont sound as bad/quiet now but its not a patch on what we used to have] 

 

[Edit 2 - how could I not remember .... the insane cost of the engines ... in an era when F1 has been supposedly focused on cutting costs]

 

Do I need to go on ... is there even one good aspect to this decision??

 

.... am I over the top .... or can you think of one other single decision by any other series that has been such a dud??

Edited by jjcale, 04 October 2020 - 22:16.

[MasterOfCoin]

Even as (in my own mind) the biggest LH fan on this forum and therefore I have enjoyed this era since 2014 more than most, I have to be objective and conclude that the decision to go to hybrid engines has turned out, with hindsight, to have been perhaps the biggest mistake made by any series in the history of motorsport, 

 

Its been a failure on every level:

• New car manufacturers being attracted to F1: Nope ... only Honda came back and now they are gone.
• Road relevant tech changing the future of motoring: Nope ... its looking been the Betamax of potential ICE replacements for roadgoing vehicles
• Spicing up the series after 4 years of domination by a single team: Nope ... we now have 6 years of domination and counting by a single team..... I now regularly fall asleep during races ... and my boy is winning!  (.... though I have to admit that these are very contented naps )

Do I need to go on ... is there even one good aspect to this decision??

 

.... am I over the top .... or can you think of one other single decision by any other series that has been such a dud??

Yes........

[Risil]

Assume we're not counting anything that happed in US open-wheel racing in the 1990s to early 2000s. I might make a case that the rapid elimination of driver aids from F1 after 1993 was an absolute disaster.

 

But staying on the other half of the topic, it hasn't gone as planned, although F1 has done a better job of retaining its core manufacturer support than Le Mans did.

[PlayboyRacer]

The 1998 regulations started the rot.

[shure]

 

.... am I over the top .... or can you think of one other single decision by any other series that has been such a dud??

[Edit - and how could I forget ... we lost the beautiful scream of the previous engines .... which used to be my favourite thing about F1 ... the engines dont sound as bad/quiet now but its not a patch on what we used to have] 

 

[Edit 2 - how could I not remember .... the insane cost of the engines ... in an era when F1 has been supposedly focused on cutting costs]

No, I don't think you are.  I think they (combined with the regulations surrounding them) have been an absolute disaster for F1.  

[jjcale]

Assume we're not counting anything that happed in US open-wheel racing in the 1990s to early 2000s. I might make a case that the rapid elimination of driver aids from F1 after 1993 was an absolute disaster.

 

But staying on the other half of the topic, it hasn't gone as planned, although F1 has done a better job of retaining its core manufacturer support than Le Mans did.

 

On both counts you have to factor in that F1 has much more capacity to absorb the effects of bad decisions than other series ... so I am not saying it was the most disastrous decision for the series - the Americans easily win that prize .... I am talking about the quality of the  decision - and analysing it  in context and the fact that it failed on so many different levels with pretty much no redeeming features .... its really a doozy.  .... any other series might have died from this one - but F1 has the most loyal fanbase so we put up with it.  

[Ben1445]

I still don’t think the original decision to move to V6Ts was inherently wrong. At the time, without the benefit of hindsight, it was arguably a pretty sound idea.

I think the failure has been inflexibility over the last five or so years more so than the technology - an inability to react seemingly at all to both the shortcomings of the formula and to seismic external industry changes. Or if it did react it did so too late and with largely ineffective measures.

The structure of power and decision making in F1 could therefore be to blame, and that largely pre-dates the decision to move to V6Ts.

I also can’t imagine the change of owners and hand over of leadership has really helped them in this instance either...

[djparky]

At the time Ecclestone argued these rules would be ruinously expensive and that has proven to be correct. Are they worst rules- no worse than grooved tyres were...or perhaps adding more aero stuff to the cars last year...

Unfortunately F1 doesn't have a privateer engines to fall back on any more so it is more dependent than ever on the manufacturers remaining.

[PayasYouRace]

Sorted your little type in the title JJ. You can sort out the punctuation in the OP yourself.

[P123]

Yes, in that it priced out the independent engine builders.

 

No, in that it is what those willing to compete in the series wanted, and they and others had input into framing the regulations.

[shure]

I still don’t think the original decision to move to V6Ts was inherently wrong. At the time, without the benefit of hindsight, it was arguably a pretty sound idea.

I think the failure has been inflexibility over the last five or so years more so than the technology - an inability to react seemingly at all to both the shortcomings of the formula and to seismic external industry changes. Or if it did react it did so too late and with largely ineffective measures.

The structure of power and decision making in F1 could therefore be to blame, and that largely pre-dates the decision to move to V6Ts.

I also can’t imagine the change of owners and hand over of leadership has really helped them in this instance either...

I'm not so sure.  I recall Martin Whitmarsh saying they had reservations  when making the decision because of the expense and complexity of the tech, which proved to be well founded.  They were also weighing up a move to more traditionalo twin-turbos but Renault threatened to pull out if the hybrids weren't chosen and the rest is history.

 

If they'd have gone the twin turbo route, with maybe a less extreme hybrid formula, we'd have had a totally different decade.  Instead they made the questionable decision of mandating tech which hadn't  even been invented yet and then coupled that with the most extreme restrictions on development and testing  that the sport had ever seen.  It was a recipe for disaster right from the start

[PayasYouRace]

Perhaps it's worth remembering that hybrids came into F1 in 2009, and certainly weren't a problem for the years 2011-2013.

 

The V6T's have been a bit of a failure, but not as big as say, The Split in Indycar, which broke the sport more than any damage the V6Ts did to F1. Or allowing homologation specials in FIA GT with the Porsche 911 and Mercedes CLK GTR in the late 90s, which killed that series outright in about two years. The original DTM/ITR expansion was another big mistake far bigger than the V6Ts.

 

The F1 PUs have been badly mismanaged since the introduction of the current formula and I'd say the mistake was pandering to the manufacturers. They weren't going to continue with what at the time were seven year old V8 designs for much longer, and they wanted something modern, high tech and reflecting their road car projects. Things have moved fast in the past decade, and now Honda are already moving on.

 

F1 needs a lower cost formula, but it needs a lot of change elsewhere too. Changing the engine formula isn't going to undo the franchise system the teams are now protected by which raises the bar too high for new entrants.

 

In summary, no. It isn't the biggest mistake made by a series, because F1 is still around six years after the change was made.

[jjcale]

Sorted your little type in the title JJ. You can sort out the punctuation in the OP yourself.

 

Cheers ... I think...

[PayasYouRace]

Cheers ... I think...

 

Run on sentences, overuse of ellipses...

 

These are not the hallmarks of a well written piece of text.

[jjcale]

Run on sentences, overuse of ellipses...

 

These are not the hallmarks of a well written piece of text.

 

Those are called ... my style. 

 

Everyone needs a distinctive style... keeps things interesting. 

[Risil]

Well I thought it was a timely, provocative and thought provoking OP pointing towards broad vistas of discussion and well-meaning acrimony.

But you can't please everyone!

[Requiem84]

Run on sentences, overuse of ellipses...

These are not the hallmarks of a well written piece of text.

Pff. Patronizing.

Let’s focus on content, no need at all to discuss how well written something is on a forum like this.

Regarding the content, I feel the following:

- no it wasn’t the biggest mistake ever. Going (more) hybrid showed awareness of where the world was going. And 7 years later the series is still alive.
- but yes, it has become a big chain around F1’s neck which is making it slowly sink into the ocean, because:

A) the tech is so complicated new competitors simply can’t join the series
B) performance advantage seem to have been locked in for very long periods
C) F1 did not succeed in selling the tech marvel to the audience: no fan engagement
D) PU manufacturers were able to block rule changes regarding simpler PU’s (bizarre governance).

[noikeee]

It hasn't gone to plan but I think there's been worse motorsport regulation mistakes in history.

I'm not a huge endurance guy so don't know the details but I recall whatever they did to the World Sportscar Championship in the late 80s/early 90s, killing the championship altogether. Literally stopped existing for many years until it was revived in recent years as the WEC.

By comparison modern F1 still remains a highly popular sport all the way through the hybrid era. It's just had a few bad years but probably nothing like a deadly wound.

Edited by noikeee, 04 October 2020 - 21:19.

[shure]

You need to take into account the difference in popularity.  F1 has massive, global reach.  The decision didn't kill it in the short term but it sounded the death knell for the series over the longer term.  It's a very different sport to what it was even a decade ago.  And they've gone too far down the hybrid rabbit hole to turn back.  F1 is in real danger of not actually having much of a future left and it can be traced back to when it started down this path

[noikeee]

You need to take into account the difference in popularity.  F1 has massive, global reach.  The decision didn't kill it in the short term but it sounded the death knell for the series over the longer term.  It's a very different sport to what it was even a decade ago.  And they've gone too far down the hybrid rabbit hole to turn back.  F1 is in real danger of not actually having much of a future left and it can be traced back to when it started down this path

 

But what was the alternate path? Turning into Formula E? Would kill it in popularity, the cars would be visibly too slow (and silent). Remain with wildly outdated ICEs and if the manufacturers leave, so be it? That can still be arranged again. Simpler hybrids? Can still be arranged again.

 

The danger to F1 comes from the wider technological change across all motor vehicles sold to the general public, and not necessarily because of the specific formula of engines they took on back in 2014.

[Fastcake]

What would have happened if F1 didn't adopt these rules?

 

I'll answer straight away, we would have had a slightly different engine formula. Which would also have cost a lot of money, could have resulted in one manufacturer having a massive advantage and would have seen raised costs for customer teams (unless the extra time meant they thought of extending the cost cap with existed with the V8s). So every issue we have now, because the problems are much more to do with money and competition instead of the rules themselves.

 

There's not much point in thinking about the V8s. We couldn't have run those engines forever - engines that had been frozen and barely changed since 2006. If we were using them today it would have been the 15th season without any change and it is hardly F1 to sit stagnant. So eventually you'd have to replace them with something. And that's not considering the practical point that two of the manufacturers did not want to continue with those engines, with zero chance of new entrants, making a change in similar timescale inevitable anyway.

 

So was it a mistake? There were many mistakes made surrounding the rules, but some form of hybrid engines were my opinion the only option on the table.

[shure]

But what was the alternate path? Turning into Formula E? Would kill it in popularity, the cars would be visibly too slow (and silent). Remain with wildly outdated ICEs and if the manufacturers leave, so be it? That can still be arranged again. Simpler hybrids? Can still be arranged again.

 

The danger to F1 comes from the wider technological change across all motor vehicles sold to the general public, and not necessarily because of the specific formula of engines they took on back in 2014.Fi has always been about evolution.  

F1 has always been about evolution. Teams come up with innovations and others either copy or come up with their own innovations  instead.  But the hybrids were the first time that the governing body mandated innovations that hadn't actually been invented yet.  There was  no choice.  Instead of allowing the teams to maybe continue developing KERS or its equivalent, they pushed everybody down a very heavily regulated path and by doing so all but ensured that you had to be a manufacturer to compete.

 

They could have gone the twin turbo  route, which was cheaper and above all far more accessible, even with s hybrid component, but instead they went sci-fi.  And then inexplicably made the rules so that if someone had an advantage at the start it all  but guaranteed no-one could catch up.  In short, they designed for the perfect scenario without considering what would happen if everybody didn't develop at the same rate.  They severely underestimated the complexity and challenges.

 

Now it's a lot harder to go back.  I'm not sure they can ditch these hybrids for something less complex as it would be an admission of defeat.  No-one wants to look backwards.  I'm not sure what options they have tbh but that's something they should have thought about more deeply before embarking on this path.

[Risil]

Question: is it clear which personalities were behind the move to the 2014 hybrids? I know Max Mosley made himself the face of the introduction of KERS in 2009, but that was a much more limited affair.

 

I guess Jean Todt was behind it, but who else? And how did they sneak it past Bernie?

[Burtros]

Yes.

It’s been a disaster. I’ve been saying it for years - these engines are not fit for competitive sport.

I will caveat my agreement with this by pointing out F1 is so far up **** creek that sorting the engines tomorrow still probably wouldn’t save it. From itself.

[FirstnameLastname]

Letting Agag get the exclusivity for electric engines is their biggest cock up, although it happened on Bernie watch and he was a dinosaur. Now they are stuck with the hybrid option instead, or forking out an absolute shitonne of money to allow them to chase the tech that the car companies would rather be investing in (see Honda)

[Risil]

I wonder how Agag's exclusivity of electric engined racing series could be enforced. I mean, nobody has exclusivity of petrol-engined racing, do they?

[shure]

Question: is it clear which personalities were behind the move to the 2014 hybrids? I know Max Mosley made himself the face of the introduction of KERS in 2009, but that was a much more limited affair.

 

I guess Jean Todt was behind it, but who else? And how did they sneak it past Bernie?

Renault were the initial proposers, which Todt endorsed, and threatened to withdraw unless the hybrids were adopted.  Mercedes were originally ambivalent but then joined them.  I think Ferrari were against it but managed to get a concession from 4 cylinders to V6 engines.  Bernie was completely opposed as I recall, so seems like they should have listened to him!

[Risil]

Renault were the initial proposers, which Todt endorsed, and threatened to withdraw unless the hybrids were adopted.  Mercedes were originally ambivalent but then joined them.  I think Ferrari were against it but managed to get a concession from 4 cylinders to V6 engines.  Bernie was completely opposed as I recall, so seems like they should have listened to him!

 

Were VW/Audi/Porsche leading F1 on with interest in a hybrid formula too, or did I misremember that?

[Ben1445]

I wonder how Agag's exclusivity of electric engined racing series could be enforced. I mean, nobody has exclusivity of petrol-engined racing, do they?

I might add that from what we think we know, the scope of Formula E's contract only applies with the FIA and only for single seaters. 
 
What kind of agreement do the FIA make with other championships to protect their position? If I went to the FIA tomorrow and said I wanted to start an FIA sanctioned competitor to the World Rally Championship which does more or less the same thing as the current World Rally Championship... would they let me go ahead with it? Or do they have contractual obligations with the WRC to tell me to find a different sanctioning body? Do they just say no because of common sense? 

Edited by Ben1445, 04 October 2020 - 22:18.

[Clatter]

Question: is it clear which personalities were behind the move to the 2014 hybrids? I know Max Mosley made himself the face of the introduction of KERS in 2009, but that was a much more limited affair.

 

I guess Jean Todt was behind it, but who else? And how did they sneak it past Bernie?

 

It was the manufacturers, and specifically Mercedes and Renault.

[shure]

It was the manufacturers, and specifically Mercedes and Renault.

and  Todt.  He was really pushing it, too

[Clatter]

I wonder how Agag's exclusivity of electric engined racing series could be enforced. I mean, nobody has exclusivity of petrol-engined racing, do they?

 

They only have exclusivity under the FIA banner.

[dissident]

During the last year of the V10's there were 7 different engine manufacturers. 

 

Eight years on, during the last year of the V8's, we had 4.

 

 

The trend was already there: OEM's came in, couldn't win and left. Which brings me to my main issues with these engines:

 

  1. Their complexity and related costs make it very risky for a supplier to enter the sport (see Honda);

  2. The token system in 2014 was completely absurd and remains absurb: it doesn't save money, it simply shifts when money is spent and locks in a development advantage;

  3. The sound is truly underwhelming in person, there are better sounding street cars (it has improved, however).

 

At the end of the day, there wasn't much choice since the pressure to switch to hybrids was pretty high. And like I said, the trend was already there before these engines were introduced. Personally I don't think it was a mistake per se, rather the way it was handled (i.e. no cheap 3rd party engine for independent teams, extremely complex PU rules which the FIA itself cannot police, etc.)

[Clatter]

and  Todt.  He was really pushing it, too

 

The initial proposal was far simpler, the rules that they ended up with were driven by the manufacturers.

Edited by Clatter, 04 October 2020 - 22:18.

[Ben1445]

There's a fairly short but comprehensive summary here of the thinking surrounding the future engine regulations as it was in late 2010. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...een_agenda.html

[shure]

There's a fairly short but comprehensive summary here of the thinking surrounding the future engine regulations as it was in late 2010. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...een_agenda.html

I'm loving how prescient Bernie was:

 

Why should we change it to something that is going to cost millions of pounds and that nobody wants and that could end up with one manufacturer getting a big advantage?

[Burtros]

A massive problem with these PU rules are the fuel flow limits too. Look at the difference it made to Ferrari when they cheated in that area.

It’s not ‘hybrid tech’ that’s the problem in itself, it’s the whole philosophy of these PU rules that’s wrong for sport

[MattK9]

F1 has an identity crisis. It paints itself as the leader of technical innovation and that is not without good reason. F1 has indirectly created/finessed such innovations as active suspension,seemless shift gearboxes, traction control, ABS while also being at the forefront of aerodynamics, windtunnels and CFD modelling etc.

The problem is that this is all in the past and these innovations have mostly been outlawed or regulated. Nowadays the only innovation we see is to find a loophole in the regs. Things such as DAS or FRIC suspension which really have no place in the general motor industry as a whole. This new technology isnt going to drip feed itself down into normal road cars. I cant buy an A-Class with variable toe or an F-Duct or an S-Duct.

F1 isnt at the bleeding edge of technology anymore and it is time that F1 opens up the regs so that F1 is (how? highly debatable), or accepts that it no longer is the pinnicle of technology and moves the championship away from a technical championship and towards a sporting championship.

[Fastcake]

I might add that from what we think we know, the scope of Formula E's contract only applies with the FIA and only for single seaters. 
 
What kind of agreement do the FIA make with other championships to protect their position? If I went to the FIA tomorrow and said I wanted to start an FIA sanctioned competitor to the World Rally Championship which does more or less the same thing as the current World Rally Championship... would they let me go ahead with it? Or do they have contractual obligations with the WRC to tell me to find a different sanctioning body? Do they just say no because of common sense? 

 

If you want to run an international motorsport series you go to the FIA and providing you abide by the international regulations, which are mainly related to safety and administrative matters, they have to sanction you. Have to being backed by external force, as the settlement with the EU in the 90s ensured that the FIA cannot block rivals to their own championships and they have to regulate all motorsport equally. The FIA can however restrict the use of "championship" and "world championship" to their own series, which is why everything not FIA or national level calls itself something else. Eurosport did of course set up a rival to the WRC in the 2000s, the Intercontinental Rally Challenge.

 

I am presuming that the agreement with Formula E would restrict the FIA from setting up another FIA run series, or more importantly prevent them from switching an existing series to electric, but it couldn't stop anyone else from setting up another electric single seater series.

[Afterburner]

Betamax. Reminds me of this scene from Wings:

https://youtu.be/7U41Ja2cg0o?t=148

Come to think of it, that scene has more in common with this thread than I thought...

EDIT: Now that the link is in YouTube embed hell, you'll just have to click it to see for yourself. 

[Rodaknee]

F1 has an identity crisis. It paints itself as the leader of technical innovation and that is not without good reason. F1 has indirectly created/finessed such innovations as active suspension,seemless shift gearboxes, traction control, ABS while also being at the forefront of aerodynamics, windtunnels and CFD modelling etc.

The problem is that this is all in the past and these innovations have mostly been outlawed or regulated. Nowadays the only innovation we see is to find a loophole in the regs. Things such as DAS or FRIC suspension which really have no place in the general motor industry as a whole. This new technology isnt going to drip feed itself down into normal road cars. I cant buy an A-Class with variable toe or an F-Duct or an S-Duct.

F1 isnt at the bleeding edge of technology anymore and it is time that F1 opens up the regs so that F1 is (how? highly debatable), or accepts that it no longer is the pinnicle of technology and moves the championship away from a technical championship and towards a sporting championship.

Why should a racing 'anything' have any relevance to what we need/use at home?  You can't ride a MotoGP bike down the shops. use an America's Cup boat for a trip round the lighthouse or ride a thoroughbred horse around Hyde Park.  Racing in all of it's forms is different, that's why people enjoy it.  There's plenty of innovation in F1, we just don't get to see it - not that we ever did.  I can't believe you've fallen into the old trap of "everything has already been invented" - I believe that was first used 200 years ago.

 

The engineering of F1 does drip feed into our lives.  People work in F1 and move to other fields, use their knowledge elsewhere.  Have you forgotten Project Pitlane already?  One former car designer now makes furniture using the same technology he created.  Cutting team numbers to suit the greedy at Liberty will have a long term effect on UK engineering.  Sadly, too few realise it.

[F1Gui]

I always thought the logical progression from 3L V10 to 2.4L V8 would be a 1.8L V6. Add on a turbo or 2 and KERS 2.0 and that should have been what was introduced in 2014. Simple and cost effective. With a view to developing the energy recovery side of the PU.

Instead we got what we have today which is nothing short of a disaster.

The biggest slap in the face is Honda announcing their F1 withdrawal while a day later announcing their future commitment to Indy car with the new 900+ bhp 2.4L V6 turbo hybrid from 2023 which to me contradicts their reasons for quitting F1 which noone seems to have picked up on.

I think the FIA got too far ahead of themselves and wanted something that was above and beyond anything that was in existence to make F1 look 'green' without realising the costs involved. And inadvertently due to complexity and costs, they have prevented other manufacturers from entering.

[FLB]

Question: is it clear which personalities were behind the move to the 2014 hybrids? I know Max Mosley made himself the face of the introduction of KERS in 2009, but that was a much more limited affair.

 

I guess Jean Todt was behind it, but who else? And how did they sneak it past Bernie?

They were trying to attract VAG (Audi). As he had been in the 1980s, Bernie couldn't undertstand why they chose to do Le Mans instead of F1, so the rules were made to pander to them. They (VAG) pussled out at the last moment,

 

https://www.motor1.c...eat-ecclestone/

[PayasYouRace]

During the last year of the V10's there were 7 different engine manufacturers. 

 

Eight years on, during the last year of the V8's, we had 4.

 

 

The trend was already there: OEM's came in, couldn't win and left. Which brings me to my main issues with these engines:

 

 

I think that's a very important point. The manufacturers were already leaving before this formula was brought in. The V6Ts didn't bring many in, but it's been about the same overall.

 

And really, apart from touring and rally cars where a lot of independents can run production based machinery, or GT3s where everything is balanced to be equal, what series even have as many as four manufacturers? FE is booming, but electric is where all the manufacturers really want to be seen.

 

The single seater ladder is generally spec.

Indycar: 2 (Honda and Chevy)

Super Formula: 2 (Honda and Toyota)

GT500: 3 (Nissan, Toyota and Honda)

LMP1: 3 (Toyota, Rebellion-Gibson and Ginetta-AER)

DTM: 2 (Audi and BMW)

NASCAR Cup: 3 (Chevy, Ford and Toyota)

etc.

[F1Lurker]

Even as (in my own mind) the biggest LH fan on this forum and therefore I have enjoyed this era since 2014 more than most, I have to be objective and conclude that the decision to go to hybrid engines has turned out, with hindsight, to have been perhaps the biggest mistake made by any series in the history of motorsport, 

 

Its been a failure on every level:

• New car manufacturers being attracted to F1: Nope ... only Honda came back and now they are gone.
• Road relevant tech changing the future of motoring: Nope ... its looking been the Betamax of potential ICE replacements for roadgoing vehicles
• Spicing up the series after 4 years of domination by a single team: Nope ... we now have 6 years of domination and counting by a single team..... I now regularly fall asleep during races ... and my boy is winning!  (.... though I have to admit that these are very contented naps )

[Edit - and how could I forget ... we lost the beautiful scream of the previous engines .... which used to be my favourite thing about F1 ... the engines dont sound as bad/quiet now but its not a patch on what we used to have] 

 

[Edit 2 - how could I not remember .... the insane cost of the engines ... in an era when F1 has been supposedly focused on cutting costs]

 

Do I need to go on ... is there even one good aspect to this decision??

 

.... am I over the top .... or can you think of one other single decision by any other series that has been such a dud??

I agree that hybrid power units turned out to be a complete disaster. However, when the decision was made it was a rational decision. NO ONE knew that electric cars would arrive in such a successful way (Tesla is now the worlds most valuable car company). NO ONE knew that climate change would be so urgent to so many. 

 

Everyone expected those things to be much more incremental. In such a scenario hybrid tech was expected to be relevant/dominant for 20 to 30 years--hence the stupidly long deal the FIA gave to formula E. But here we are, not even 10 years later and ICEs are increasingly reviled by investors, consumers and policy makers. If hybrids were to be the relevant tech until 2040 then F1 would have seemed visionary and relevant. But sadly F1 chose betamax and the world chose vhs.

[TomNokoe]

Yes. I don't know if F1 will ever get "better", but in decades to come I am sure we will look back at the 12 seasons between 2014-2025 with pure disdain.

The enduring sporting, technical and financial inequity that has consumed the grid will be my overriding memory.

And on the LH theme introduced in the OP, I sometimes wonder if it will severely cloud Hamilton's legacy.

[Tombstone]

It's not all about engines.

 

The best and worst teams are both powered by Mercedes.

 

My favourite era, late 70s to late 80s, was all about small capacity turbos. Although their reliability was crap, which was most entertaining.

Edited by Tombstone, 05 October 2020 - 11:31.

[Clatter]

A massive problem with these PU rules are the fuel flow limits too. Look at the difference it made to Ferrari when they cheated in that area.

It’s not ‘hybrid tech’ that’s the problem in itself, it’s the whole philosophy of these PU rules that’s wrong for sport

The fuel flow is the same for all teams. You really can't use the argument that it's bad because a team suspected of cheating suffered when they were prevented from cheating.

[Ali_G]

I always thought the logical progression from 3L V10 to 2.4L V8 would be a 1.8L V6. Add on a turbo or 2 and KERS 2.0 and that should have been what was introduced in 2014. Simple and cost effective. With a view to developing the energy recovery side of the PU.

Instead we got what we have today which is nothing short of a disaster.

The biggest slap in the face is Honda announcing their F1 withdrawal while a day later announcing their future commitment to Indy car with the new 900+ bhp 2.4L V6 turbo hybrid from 2023 which to me contradicts their reasons for quitting F1 which noone seems to have picked up on.

I think the FIA got too far ahead of themselves and wanted something that was above and beyond anything that was in existence to make F1 look 'green' without realising the costs involved. And inadvertently due to complexity and costs, they have prevented other manufacturers from entering.

Assume that the new Indycar engine has been designed to be a much cheaper overall package?

[Tombstone]

NO ONE knew that electric cars would arrive in such a successful way. Tesla is now the worlds most valuable car company.

 

It could also be the automotive equivalent of tulip mania.