FIA & F1 Innovation

[autogyro]

I find it amusing to read that the problems are a result of a lack of budget to produce innovation.
All the power train manufacturers have plenty of budget and there is no innovation involved.
The basic concept was thought up by the FIA, it is not new technology or innovation.
It is a system totally controlled in its development by the FIA regulations.
No different from any other production manufacture.
Innovation in F1 is long gone.

IMO the problems are almost certainly excess heat from over tight packaging.
It remains to be seen whether Renault can source sufficient electronic expertise to make the control systems robust enough.
It might result in major step downs from the teams aero designers.

[321apex]

I find it amusing to read that the problems are a result of a lack of budget to produce innovation.
All the power train manufacturers have plenty of budget and there is no innovation involved.
The basic concept was thought up by the FIA, it is not new technology or innovation.
It is a system totally controlled in its development by the FIA regulations.
No different from any other production manufacture.
Innovation in F1 is long gone.

I offer a wikipedia definition for the term "innovation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation
and can list these key items as evidence for it:
- 120kW hybrid technology at F1 racing level is certainly an innovation
- MGU-H device as engine boost control is certainly pioneering application
- lastly to go fast on 100kg of fuel where before there was 50% more requires a HUGE innovation to resolve the challenge

One must grasp the meaning and magnitude of technology. I believe too much technical change was instituted for 2014 season, which may be disastrous for F1. If the championship is decided based on the number of times a world champion was relegated to the back of the starting grid for powertrain replacement, it will become a farce. Such is the technical risk the FIA has taken by making participants invent too much, too quickly.

IMO the problems are almost certainly excess heat from over tight packaging.
It remains to be seen whether Renault can source sufficient electronic expertise to make the control systems robust enough.
It might result in major step downs from the teams aero designers.

Heat is just the consequence of making the learning curve too steep. You will soon see Mercedes and Ferrari having similar problems.

[rscsr]

I find it amusing to read that the problems are a result of a lack of budget to produce innovation.
All the power train manufacturers have plenty of budget and there is no innovation involved.
The basic concept was thought up by the FIA, it is not new technology or innovation.
It is a system totally controlled in its development by the FIA regulations.
No different from any other production manufacture.
Innovation in F1 is long gone.

I offer a wikipedia definition for the term "innovation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation
and can list these key items as evidence for it:
- 120kW hybrid technology at F1 racing level is certainly an innovation
- MGU-H device as engine boost control is certainly pioneering application
- lastly to go fast on 100kg of fuel where before there was 50% more requires a HUGE innovation to resolve the challenge

One must grasp the meaning and magnitude of technology. I believe too much technical change was instituted for 2014 season, which may be disastrous for F1. If the championship is decided based on the number of times a world champion was relegated to the back of the starting grid for powertrain replacement, it will become a farce. Such is the technical risk the FIA has taken by making participants invent too much, too quickly.

IMO the problems are almost certainly excess heat from over tight packaging.
It remains to be seen whether Renault can source sufficient electronic expertise to make the control systems robust enough.
It might result in major step downs from the teams aero designers.

Heat is just the consequence of making the learning curve too steep. You will soon see Mercedes and Ferrari having similar problems.

I wouldn't call the 120kW KERS an innovation, because Toyota has been using more than 300bhp in LMP1 and will use for this year something like 600+bhp.
But the MGU-H certainly is something innovative.
But I don't understand why this is called to much innovation. It's mainly in the engine department and if a team uses smaller or bigger radiators doesn't matter to much. And the weight is also not really higher (at least at the beginning of the race).
So if the changes are to much for the Teams, then why don't the take a conservative approach to get the basics right.

[Richard]

If the championship is decided based on the number of times a world champion was relegated to the back of the starting grid for powertrain replacement, it will become a farce.

Yes that would be a farce for the engine supplier, but a success for F1 as a competition of both diver and machine.

While I appreciate Moseley's drive for homogenization tired to address escalating costs, it killed competition between engine manufacturers. It'll be nice to see that rebalanced.

Also centrally commanded change is not the same as innovation. Power train innovation would be best served by defining the input energy (ie fuel tank) and letting teams figure out how to go as fast as possible. Let them work out the optimum ERS capacity. It'd be survival of the fittest. I do realise that's utopian and harking back to the era when turbos raced natural aspirated engines. However F1 has gone too far the other way IMHO.

[321apex]

Also centrally commanded change is not the same as innovation. Power train innovation would be best served by defining the input energy (ie fuel tank) and letting teams figure out how to go as fast as possible. Let them work out the optimum ERS capacity. It'd be survival of the fittest. I do realise that's utopian and harking back to the era when turbos raced natural aspirated engines. However F1 has gone too far the other way IMHO.

Innovation has to be voluntary?
I believe FIA made a mistake. Too much change, too quickly. They should have transitioned the new era of 3-6 years with elements of new technology introduced in steps. However as an engineer, I can not refute tremendous scale of innovation mandated by these changes.

In 1984 F1 turbo cars were limited to 220L of fuel, which roughly is 195kg. This year those same F1 cars will travel the same distance more quickly using half of that chemical energy.
This is not innovative?

[rjsa]

Also centrally commanded change is not the same as innovation. Power train innovation would be best served by defining the input energy (ie fuel tank) and letting teams figure out how to go as fast as possible. Let them work out the optimum ERS capacity. It'd be survival of the fittest. I do realise that's utopian and harking back to the era when turbos raced natural aspirated engines. However F1 has gone too far the other way IMHO.

Innovation has to be voluntary?
I believe FIA made a mistake. Too much change, too quickly. They should have transitioned the new era of 3-6 years with elements of new technology introduced in steps. However as an engineer, I can not refute tremendous scale of innovation mandated by these changes.

In 1984 F1 turbo cars were limited to 220L of fuel, which roughly is 195kg. This year those same F1 cars will travel the same distance more quickly using half of that chemical energy.
This is not innovative?

No, it's evolutive - based on technology aready tested and proven.

[Richard]

Innovation has to be discovery not instructed (put ERS here, MGU there etc), so yes I'd say discovery is voluntary.

[321apex]

I wouldn't call the 120kW KERS an innovation, because Toyota has been using more than 300bhp in LMP1 and will use for this year something like 600+bhp.
But the MGU-H certainly is something innovative.
But I don't understand why this is called to much innovation. It's mainly in the engine department and if a team uses smaller or bigger radiators doesn't matter to much. And the weight is also not really higher (at least at the beginning of the race).
So if the changes are to much for the Teams, then why don't the take a conservative approach to get the basics right.

I appreciate the LMP1 comparison, but truthfully there is such disparity of rules and competitiveness between F1 and sports car racing that they should not be compared.

Sports car racing is gentleman's sport and rules are designed to have a "wide funnel" allowing a variety of technical specifications and configurations to run together on the same track. If you were to apply 107% qualification rule to sports car racing, you would have to sent home 75% of the field for most races.

[Del Boy]

[quote="321apex"][quote="richard_leeds"]

[Innovation has to be voluntary?
I believe FIA made a mistake. Too much change, too quickly. They should have transitioned the new era of 3-6 years with elements of new technology introduced in steps. However as an engineer, I can not refute tremendous scale of innovation mandated by these changes.]

The FIA did originally try to introduce changes in steps. KERS was originally going to be ramped up to 320KJ over 5 years but the teams didn't agree and the year of no KERS (2010) ended up changing the engine rules to what we have now.

[Pup]

A few comments on the past few pages...

• I don't see how the definition of "innovation" matters to Renault's situation.

• Whether too much change was incorporated at once into the current regulations can only be a matter of opinion at this point. Though since the regs and their phasing were proposed and approved by the manufacturers themselves, I can't see how the FIA can be blamed either way.

• Last we checked in on budgets, Renault were spending around $200M per year, and Mercedes around $175M.

• Since Renault themselves say that the problem is that their test environment did not match the real world environment, it seems fair to say that the root of their problem lies in the way they're communicating and working with their partner teams especially their 'works' team, who are having the most trouble of all. Not sure why that idea is so easily dismissed here.

[321apex]

Innovation has to be discovery not instructed (put ERS here, MGU there etc), so yes I'd say discovery is voluntary.

This year's F1 cars have often been described as "innovative" and they truly are. Then, if something is deemed to be "innovative", it must contain innovations , regardless of it being voluntary or by imposition.

[321apex]

A few comments on the past few pages...
• Whether too much change was incorporated at once into the current regulations can only be a matter of opinion at this point. Though since the regs and their phasing were proposed and approved by the manufacturers themselves, I can't see how the FIA can be blamed either way.

Good point, however FIA should be the good shepherd wanting to ensure survival and longevity of Formula One. Teams and manufacturers come and go (except for Ferrari) almost in a whimsical fashion. So in my view the role of FIA is more than to rubber stamp the temporary wants and needs of those participants. FIA must look at the bigger picture and be in a position to pour cold water on the escalation of hi-tech.

[autogyro]

A few comments on the past few pages...
• Whether too much change was incorporated at once into the current regulations can only be a matter of opinion at this point. Though since the regs and their phasing were proposed and approved by the manufacturers themselves, I can't see how the FIA can be blamed either way.

Good point, however FIA should be the good shepherd wanting to ensure survival and longevity of Formula One. Teams and manufacturers come and go (except for Ferrari) almost in a whimsical fashion. So in my view the role of FIA is more than to rubber stamp the temporary wants and needs of those participants. FIA must look at the bigger picture and be in a position to pour cold water on the escalation of hi-tech.

Escalation of high tech as it applies to hybrid and EV vehicles is essential for the future transport demands of this planet.
Pouring cold water on the escalation of high tech by organisations as powerful in the world of vehicle technology as the FIA will damage the future for every man woman and child on this planet even more than the restrictions covertly placed by the oil companies and vehicle manufacturers that are already in place.

[321apex]

Escalation of high tech as it applies to hybrid and EV vehicles is essential for the future transport demands of this planet.
Pouring cold water on the escalation of high tech by organisations as powerful in the world of vehicle technology as the FIA will damage the future for every man woman and child on this planet even more than the restrictions covertly placed by the oil companies and vehicle manufacturers that are already in place.

Realizing, that what you touched upon is straying somewhat from the leading message of this thread, I do hope the moderators will be understanding.
I do agree with your concerns. However, let's be clear that FIA is in the entertainment business and not in "saving the planet" business. This is why they must be true to their goals. We want sustainable, exciting racing, which will keep our interests and allow those who put it up to make profit accordingly. FIA goal should be to facilitate this long term.

Saving the planet should be left up to the citizens thru the elected democratic governments of the Free World.

[autogyro]

Escalation of high tech as it applies to hybrid and EV vehicles is essential for the future transport demands of this planet.
Pouring cold water on the escalation of high tech by organisations as powerful in the world of vehicle technology as the FIA will damage the future for every man woman and child on this planet even more than the restrictions covertly placed by the oil companies and vehicle manufacturers that are already in place.

Realizing, that what you touched upon is straying somewhat from the leading message of this thread, I do hope the moderators will be understanding.
I do agree with your concerns. However, let's be clear that FIA is in the entertainment business and not in "saving the planet" business. This is why they must be true to their goals. We want sustainable, exciting racing, which will keep our interests and allow those who put it up to make profit accordingly. FIA goal should be to facilitate this long term.

Saving the planet should be left up to the citizens thru the elected democratic governments of the Free World.

The FIA is definitely NOT just in the entertainment industry and this fact is obvious to everyone.
It is the inability of the current people at the FIA to recognise this fact that has brought F1 to the place it is today.
Renaults problems are as a direct result of this FIA restrictive practice which does as you say focus everything on F1 and on marketing and profit for big business through entertainment.
The end result will not be of benefit, either to F1 or the future of transport technology.