Why turbo´s in F1?

[sandokan83]

Can you tell me why FIA has decided to introduce turbo´s in F1? I´m didn´t follow the news about this subject.
Is reducion costs?

[WhiteBlue]

There are two main reasons.

One is environmental sustainability. In order to support sustainability the FiA decided to switch from air control as the method of power curbing to fuel control. That decision has transformed the power race. You must get more efficient to get more power from the same fuel. Turbo engines allow you to down size and to extract more power from the exhaust. Both principles lead to more power.

The second reason is to attract more manufacturers to the sport. Downsizing and fuel economy are the most important trends beside going hybrid in the automotive world. Turbo engines happened to fit with with both goals of the federation.

[sandokan83]

Thanks

[SectorOne]

Yea Turbo engines are environmentally sustainable....until the oil runs out.

My guess on why we have Turbo engines is simply because of the situation the auto-industry is in thanks to EU.
Mercedes, Renault and Honda benefit because they can apply the knowledge to their cars.
Reanult as we know was very persistent on the new regs threatening to quit etc.

[Tim.Wright]

Its for marketing reasons and nothing else.

They are costing a fortune by the way, so its definately not for reasons of cost.

[WhiteBlue]

If it was for marketing reasons why was the marketing supremo dead against them? That does not make any sense at all. The history of the formula is very well known. The starting point was an enquiry with all significant manufacturers asking them what they wanted from a new engine. They all wanted downsizing and direct injection to achieve an alignment with their road car research. Even Ferrari supported those goals. The FiA added the mass flow plan and from there it all was almost automatic. Turbo simply fill the requirements in the best way.

[SectorOne]

I´m pretty sure Ferrari was against it, this is why we have V6´s instead of straight fours.
Without Ferrari we would have four-bangers next year.

[WhiteBlue]

But that wasn't the question here. The question was why F1 went to turbo, not why was a V6 selected. Ferrari reportedly were supporting the original FiA plan to go to turbo. But they had objections to the proposed idea of a world engine that was originally introduced by the VW group.

They thought it would be bad for Ferrari and F1 because both are associated by many people with the traditional high capacity, high cylinder count design strategy seen in NA engines. So they argued pro turbo and anti I4. In effect they were proposing a less powerful engine, but that was seen as a small penalty for shooting down the world engine. Ferrari was protecting the perceived image of premium for Themselves and F1 and at the same time were lobbying to keep other manufacturer competitors out. So that sub plot was marketing or rather oligopoly thinking driven. But the turbo decision was not.

I believe that we might actually see a shoot out between the I4 and the V8 concepts in LMP1 next year. I'm convinced that Porsche will take the completely opposite decision and opt for four cylinders. Simply because the concept is more powerful in a fuel flow controlled formula. If Ferrari wil compete in LMP1 as well in 2015 as rumor has it we will see a V6 as well. I would love to see that. My money is on Porsche to keep the upper hand and with fewer cylinders. Shame that Ferrari are probably only posturing. They do not have the resources to see such a plan through IMO.

[Tim.Wright]

If it was for marketing reasons why was the marketing supremo dead against them? That does not make any sense at all. The history of the formula is very well known. The starting point was an enquiry with all significant manufacturers asking them what they wanted from a new engine. They all wanted downsizing and direct injection to achieve an alignment with their road car research. Even Ferrari supported those goals. The FiA added the mass flow plan and from there it all was almost automatic. Turbo simply fill the requirements in the best way.

You have basically answered you first question yourself. Bernie is not the only one with a vested interest in how F1 is marketed.

You yourself have stated that the manufacturers (not the teams!) wanted the new formula "to achieve an alignment with their road car research".

That it. That is marketing in its purest sense. The manufacturers will include gimmiks such as KERs on their cars and claim links between their turbo V6 and the F1 engines for purely marketing reasons.

The reality is that there nothing in the new powertrain formula that will provide any tangible improvement to anyone's road cars. The fact that there are such heavy restrictions on them and a watertight plan to freeze their development after a few years proves this point.

So, if its not for road car development, then its purely for marketing. Seems a pretty clear diagnosis to me.

[WhiteBlue]

The answer to "Why turbo in F1" is still not marketing. Not by a long stretch anyway. IMO you have to consider what is the primary driver and what is the consequence. Turbo is there because the FiA were setting up a new formula with new requirements and turbo technology including compounding filled the requirements of most participants of the hearing process.

The primary marketing needs of the commercial rights holders were disregarded because the FiA was behind the program and for once they decided to go against Mr. Ecclestones interests and pursue their own objectives. It played a big role that the federation is heavily into mobility as well. On the mobility side of things fuel efficiency, down sizing and hybridization were important issues.

The FiA wanted a stronger alignment between mobility and sport for the technology. Some people mind that or ignore that. But for rational analysis the influence on decision making is important. The series owner does not want F1 to happen in an ivory tower with nine English chassis constructors involved only. They want manufacturers involved and so they listened to the manufacturers primarily. If you do not believe me you should read what the FiA published about the new formula process in 2008-2010.

Todt has worked in automotive all his life, first in Peugeot then at Ferrari. It must have been painful to him to see the exodus of manufactures in 2007 and that nothing was done to pull them back into F1. He lured his friend and compatriot Gilles Simon away from Ferrari and gave him the task to fix the new formula for him. Which Simon did speedily. He suffered one year set back because Ecclestone managed to get Ferrari into his corner but they soon defected again when they were appeased by the V6 decision. Todt was still on the original plan: To run a fuel flow controlled formula with a fixed target of 35% fuel reduction. He rather accepted one year of delay than to shift the main goal and dilute his most important objective.

This is the story in more detail if you want. I tell you three times that marketing wasn't on Mr. Todt' and Mr. Simon's mind.

[Tim.Wright]

I'm with you. But per my definition its still marketing. Just from the manufacturers and the FIA instead of F1 itself.

[Tim.Wright]

To put it another way, next year the cars will effectively performing the same in terms of absolute laptime and the same relative to other racing series be they single seaters or sports cars.

They could have acheived this by maintaining status quo on the powertrain front. Instead they have, at immense cost, developed a new powertrain so that the manufacturers could put F1 cars in their ads.

The existence of the turbo in this formula is part of the same game. I believe they could have obtained the required power output a number of different ways but turbos were added because the manufactureres wanted them for marketing purposes.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm with you. But per my definition its still marketing. Just from the manufacturers and the FIA instead of F1 itself.

The FiA is not a commercial organization which thinks in marketing categories. Their objectives were based on strategic and political motives. You do have a bigger voice in a political arena if you cannot be attacked for running a motor racing series that is famous for disregarding all environmental and sustainability concerns. With a 35 % reduction target the FiA was well positioned to fight off any polemics that it might have faced by running F1.

For the manufacturers there might have been marketing considerations, yes. But they were not the prime movers in F1. They had no power base. They could only gain influence as long as their objectives were aligned with the FiA's which by coincidence happened in this case. So the root cause is the policy of the FiA here.

[Tim.Wright]

Fair enough. Maybe marketing is the wrong word for the FIA's reasoning. Politcal, as you suggested, would fit better. From the manufacturers its still pretty clearly a marketing effort. I haven't followed all the politics of the new rules, but I'm sure the manufacturers were lobbying the FIA to go in this direction.

However you want to call it. There is no technical reason for the turbo's or any part of the new powertrains. Its all politcal, imaging, marketing crap. I resent seeing such massive amounts of money and engineering resources being wasted on an image excersise. So much money and effort for nothing.

If they had made these changes such that they either, A) made the cars faster or B) allowed enough technical freedom to develop something "relevant" then I wouln't be so bitter. There would be a tangible measureable reason for the changes.

So, in light of this discussion, I'd like to revise my answer to why the turbo's were included:
Its for marketing, politcal and image reasons. Nothing else.

They might not achieve anything meaningful, but at least they cost a fortune...

[WhiteBlue]

Any new engine development costs a fortune. That is inevitable. If it only were about making more power the FiA could have stopped development in 1937 when Autounion made hugely powerful 16 cylinder compressor charged engines and put the engine behind the driver first. But the engine formula has been changed many times since then and it has included turbos before. Motors are relevant to motor sport.

The FiA and GP racing is much older than F1. People tend to forget that. And the history of open cockpit single seater GP racing began much before a bunch of English based constructors named FOCA took over the FiA to install Max Mosley and his money master Ecclestone. Since the day of the first concord in 81 the constructors have had the say in F1. When Todt took over in 2009 from Mosley he made it a policy point to bring the manufacturer's voice back into F1. The new engine formula was his vehicle for that purpose. I'm convinced it will bring much value to F1 in the long run.

People identify with automotive brands and support the sport by doing so. Ferrari would never have the influence they have now if they were not supported by millions of fans of their products world wide. To get Honda, Porsche, BMW, Audi, Aston Martin, Ford or any other of the traditionally motor sport minded manufacturers on board you have to give them an opportunity to showcase their expertise in power train development. They can do more for F1 popularity than Williams or McLaren.

It is absolutely legitimate in my view to spend money on power train development in order to keep F1 relevant to the world outside of the 20 races it does each season. There is so much money being wasted on aerodynamics that have no use in the real world outside of F1. I' very happy that this excesses are a little bit rebalanced towards spending on more sensible technologies. I think it is even more important to limit the aero research and the speed of new aero parts being introduced by a homologation scheme like the one we have on the power train side unless of course the team budgets get capped in a sensible way.