Regenerative systems (KERS)

[rodders47]

Thanks Guys for that support of my very basic idea. Everyone that I have run that past just laughed !!

Come to think of it,IF ALL the heat generated by an F1 car, i.e. exhaust/cooling system for engine & gearbox as well as the brakes could be harnessed, just think of the power recovery !!!

Whilst this would add weight to the over all car it would save all those Drag items like brake ducts/radiator coolers etc. which I am sure would result in a cleaner more aerodynamic race car body!

[WhiteBlue]

I have no objections to Ciro's dream of electrical cars. As soon as we get efficient fuel cells or storage systems they would make good sense. stationary fuel to electriciuty conversion is likely to have higher efficiency because no weight restrictions apply and heat can be used in a household for warm water and heating. so it is a logical way to make use of fossile energy to the max. I just don't see such things in the next 10-15 years.

I have my doubts that nuclear energies will have a significant contribution before we run into a severe energy crisis. with cheap abundant fusion energy I also have the philosophical concern that typically mankind inflicts huge damage to eco systems when energy is available for free. not such a good prospect. at least here in Germany we have made very good progress in solving some environmental issues in my lifetime (although the CO2 issue is unresolved).

Regen systems and anything that improves efficiency has my full support because it addresses the problems we are facing now.

[WhiteBlue]

some interesting info from the Canadian press conference on the state of KERS

Q: (Daniel Bastien – Radio FM 103.3) How far ahead are you with the energy recovery systems?
GW: Reasonably well underway. Clearly we know what the architecture of our energy recovery system is going to be and we know the type of technology that we are using. In our programme we will be able to test parts of the hardware in a few months time and then look towards final track testing at the end of the year in time for next year’s car.
PS: We are probably in a very similar position. We have run the motor generator unit on a dyno connected to an engine. Layout of the car is going ahead with the positioning of batteries and stuff like that. There is a lot of software and a lot of simulation done. We are well into the safety aspects of the car which are very important on hybrid cars. There is a lot left to do and there doesn’t seem much time to do it but I guess like always we will get it done.

Q: (MC) Geoff, can I come back to you on that: are you doing it yourselves, as Red Bull Racing, or is your engine supplier doing it?
GW: It’s certainly being done in close co-operation with Renault. The system is quite tightly connected with the whole powertrain. The battery technology itself is something that we’re developing independently but we’re using very similar solutions to Renault Enstone, and as Pat has said, we have the same – as most of the teams using this type of technology are going to be using – we have the same challenges of safety, of appropriate packaging. The battery packaging in the car will be quite a challenge. The sheer volume of battery we have to package is not trivial, even with next year’s aerodynamic regulations, it’s still a bit of a struggle to find a safe and aerodynamically effective place to package it, so it’s quite a big challenge, for sure.

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) Pat, to follow on from what was just being said about the new systems being developed, and about what’s been happening at Viry Chatillon, it’s a strange time to be cutting back on engine R&D when we have new systems needing to be developed and then ultimately new engines in 2013 and perhaps even 2011. Can you talk us through exactly what’s going on, what changes are being made and how long it takes to work on a new engine?
PS: Yes, there are two separate things here. The Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems are very much an Enstone-based development group. Now of course they have to work with the engine, it is a powertrain project but it’s largely Enstone-based, so there’s not a huge knock-on effect on the engine. We are of course allowed to modify the engine to fit the KERS systems, and there are designers involved in doing that.
The other part of the question, new engines, yes, it’s quite a difficult thing. At the moment the plan is for a new engine in 2013. As you quite rightly say, there’s talk of moving it forward. At the moment it has just been talk rather than discussion, I would even say. I think that if we want an integrated approach, and we’ve got to get this one right, we’ve got to integrate a modern engine, a cheap engine – because at the moment, unfortunately, we’ve frozen a very very expensive engine, an engine that’s capable of doing much more than it does at the moment. So we’ve got to get the price down, the integration with Kinetic energy recovery and indeed thermal energy recovery. I think, to do all that, and move it to 2011 is over-ambitious, bearing in mind that we haven’t even run kinetic energy recovery on the track yet. So I think quite wisely the teams have made a – I would call it a statement rather than a decision – that they would like to get a year’s running with kinetic energy recovery under their belts before they really start looking at a new powertrain for a future Formula One. I would say that if we wanted to move the engine change forward, we could move it forward to 2012 and in fact I would welcome that because it is a way of reducing costs. We could make a much longer-lasting, much cheaper engine in 2012 if we chose to do that. And yes, of course, that requires designers and engineers and people doing calculations. What I would say is that at Viry we have kept the core of those sorts of people. What we’ve probably lost is more the development people, because there is no development going on in the powertrain at the moment.

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) So would it be fair to say it’s a bit like the design modules of the late eighties when Renault cut back a little bit, but kept the core for the next project?
PS: Yes, it is very similar to that and as you saw then, they were able to ramp it back up very quickly when they needed to.

Q: (Niki Takeda – Formula PA) Pat, can you just expand on packaging and positioning of the battery for KERS? Obviously, you don’t want any failure close to the fuel tank.
PS: Yes, the KERS project is actually quite fascinating. It’s rare that we get a chance in Formula One to do something really different. We’ve spent many years producing cars that are ultimately similar. We may have changed from turbocharged engines to normally aspirated engines. We may have had slick tyres and grooved tyres and things like that, but KERS has introduced a lot of new things and the battery technology is a very interesting one. I think batteries recently, particularly lithium ion batteries, have had quite a lot of bad press from laptop computers catching fire and things like that. It’s a very real worry. The management of the state of charge of the batteries is very very important. As Geoff said, they are very difficult to package. There are a lot of little batteries that we’ve got to put in the car somewhere, trying not to have too much aerodynamic deficit. We’ve got to keep them cool. Even if you keep the state of charge good on them, you’ve still got to cool the things to get efficiency. The whole thing is quite an interesting project, it’s the sort of thing I like to see.

what are the significant bits?


Renault and RBR are going to use electrical KERS as BMW are doing. This would indicate that STR are going to do the same. Williams and Honda may be the only teams to rely on flywheels.

The cooling and safety isssues are going to have more impact than might have been anticipated. The chassis integration aspects obviously are more important than the drive train integration hence doing it in Enstone for Renault. I wonder how that is going to be split at BMW.

The impact of KERS on F1 is going to be huge. this is going to be a watershed. I think it is almost irreversible already whatever happens at the FIA. with thermal regeneration going on top there will be all kind of lessons to learned before it makes good sense to commit to another engine formula. F1 could still be using V10 engines without having missed a great deal of opportunities by switching to rev limiting earlier. they should not make the same mistake again. it will be an exercise of one time design and introductory cost versus running an engine that may cost a bit more and uses a bit more gas. so waiting until 2012 or 2013 may be the right thing to do considering that engine design isn't going to be the big issue of the next years anyway. leave it as it is and focus on HERS, KERS and on the question of optimizing aero versus mechanical grip. one should not forget that the regeneration issues will force a rethink of the ECU as well.

[checkered]

As long as STR, or any entity

it evolves into, uses Ferrari engines they'll likely go along with Magneti Marelli's designs. I've also seen it suggested that Williams' system isn't purely mechanical either, but something rather original that they haven't elaborated on. It is interesting to note that while the volume of the chassis is apparently going to be greater in 2009, the technology represents a packaging dilemma nonetheless. I hope the systems' particular demands are clearly reflected in the bodywork so we'll get more readily discernable variety (if only to compensate for the homologated parts of aero).

Where I clearly differ with your notions is engine homologation. This vastly predates energy recovery efforts and originates with the misplaced effort of restricting costs through taking specific (and ultimately arbitrary) engineering decisions away from the teams. What KERS/HERS will achieve in short term has been achievable by "traditional" means for quite a while. Variable vane turbos, variable displacement engines, variable valve timing, just to name a few. Engineering and manufacturing costs have to be considered separately as the former can be richly justified through road relevance, but the latter (due to labour intensive processes and rare materials unthinkable in mass production) is more of a strain.

So my hypothesis is that for all the talk about road relevance, F1 has been shortsighted in what the term really implies - engineering within the framework of manufacturing processes which can be realistically duplicated in mass production (with safety, of course, remaining as the other focal point). Just why FIA and the teams have been oblivious to this, I don't know. Whenever the new "low cost" engine formula has been discussed, Pat Symonds has consistently said that the currently frozen engine is expensive and over-engineered for its purpose.

Then take that logic to its conclusion, I say. Have the manufacturers make all the components of their F1 engines on production lines spewing out a minimum of 50.000 general-purpose units per year instead of specialist workshops, if need be. Want better competition engine production facilities? Fine, as long as the same process is equally upgraded for the rest of the 49K, or so, engines. It's even kinda in keeping with the tradition. Formerly the teams converted a variety of engine blocks for their purposes: Repco Brabham 620s (the first ones anyway) were modified from Olds' F85s, not to mention the stuff that went on in the last turbo era.

I have little doubt that energy recovery would immediately make more sense if the integration weren't so superficial to the engine itself (changes are allowed, but apparently the basic parameters will remain). It'd probably also be much safer in practice. Homologation, as far as the differentiation of returnable and irrecoverable costs is considered, hasn't done many services for the sport. Certainly nothing for road relevancy. Sustainability - be it in sport, society or nature - goes way beyond efficiency efforts within operating the vehicle.

In F1, there's really no excuse for being stupid about this. But yes, it is a watershed moment, of that I agree. I just hope that for the restrictions it won't evolve into an excuse for pointing out weaknesses that need not exist in pursuing environmental responsibility and all-around sustainability anyway.

[Scotracer]

It saddens me so when Pat Symonds reiterates what we already know -- the current engines are being strangled by homologation. This is F1. Well, it used to be F1...

I really do fear for the future of F1 powertrains. As soon as the screaming, high specific output engines are gone, so am I.

[Conceptual]

It saddens me so when Pat Symonds reiterates what we already know -- the current engines are being strangled by homologation. This is F1. Well, it used to be F1...

I really do fear for the future of F1 powertrains. As soon as the screaming, high specific output engines are gone, so am I.

Wow, I'm sorry that efficient technological advancements in motive power production are so painful for you. I hope my children have more passion and respect for the people that are trying to do this than you, since ultimately they would be the ones to pay for your enjoyment.

Chris

[Conceptual]

DP

[checkered]

Maurice Hamilton's blog in

the Guardian has some interesting insight into KERS (as pointed out by Pitpass). Here's an excerpt from "Mosley's victory comes at a price".

Mosley has been pushing for the introduction of Kinetic Energy Reduction Systems (Kers) whereby energy currently wasted when a car's brakes are applied can be stored and reused in the form of a power boost at chosen moments in a race. While the idea has significant ecological implications for road cars, the concept is costing the teams vast sums at a time when Mosley has been publicly pursuing cost-savings measures such as requiring engines to last for two races and gearboxes for four.

'It's nonsense,' said one team engineer. 'We're saving costs with the engines - which is fine. But some of the larger teams are reputedly spending $70m[£35.5m] on Kers in the hope that they will find a performance advantage. It means even the smallest teams have to look at spending between $5m-$10m they don't have. One of the Kers systems uses batteries to store the energy. They cost £150.000 and would need to be thrown away after each race. Where's the sense in that? But we're stuck with it for as long as Mosley is in charge.'

The engineer would not be named, a sign that the teams are worried about the consequences of Mosley continuing to hold a whip hand, as it were. ...

Again, with a more complete appreciation of road relevance and sustainability, it should've been clear that KERS systems can't be disposable (or unrecycleable). The FIA and its consultants should've realised this ages ago. The issue with the financial health of smaller teams is also tricky, as it's clear by now that without a successor to the Concorde agreement manufacturers are spending wildly not merely to get a competitive edge but also as part and parcel of a general F1 power play. Call it the "cold war strategy": It's like Reagan splurging the Soviets into brokedom, really.

I'll be really disappointed if sustainability, efficiency and energy recovery become cynical political bludgeoning tools. I expect much more of the effort. The manufacturers should have the foresight to only develop systems that reduce both the footprint of operating a vehicle as well as the footprint of manufacturing and recycling it. Throwing away a £150.000 Lithium-ion battery array after being used once is madness in any framework and rest assured, won't go unnoticed for the humongous waste it is. (I'm not familiar with the recycling of these, but I'd be surprised if it were efficient enough to justify this.)

It also sounds like privateers have been pretty unimaginative in seeking out new technical partners with regard to KERS. This is an opportune moment for any corporation to highlight innovative efficiency technology, so it need not be that small teams have to finance their efforts through unrelated sponsorship. It's an incredibly claustrophobic and misfocussed attitude to think that the resources for technology which from the outset is supposed to be relevant widely beyond F1 should only be found within the teams themselves.

Motivations are many and varied in F1, be it in KERS or otherwise. If the manufacturers that are currently involved truly want to take on more responsibility for the future (of the sport and generally), they'd better be sure that their actions can be viewed in a favourable light in 10, 20 or 50 years' time as well. The fans can be of great service by being more informed, organised, active and vocal about these matters. Ultimately understanding, and then doing, "the right thing" is more profitable as well.

[flynfrog]

It saddens me so when Pat Symonds reiterates what we already know -- the current engines are being strangled by homologation. This is F1. Well, it used to be F1...

I really do fear for the future of F1 powertrains. As soon as the screaming, high specific output engines are gone, so am I.

Wow, I'm sorry that efficient technological advancements in motive power production are so painful for you. I hope my children have more passion and respect for the people that are trying to do this than you, since ultimately they would be the ones to pay for your enjoyment.

Chris

If I wanted to watch "green" racing id watch tour de france

and since when has f1 ever been road relevant mabye in the first 10 years. I hate the current regs.

I dont want to see engines that last two races
I dont want to see qualifiing with race fuel load.
I dont want to see gmicks like push to pass
I dont want to see every team have the same power output.


I want to see engineers getting the most power out of a given displacement
I want to see honda decorating the front strech with there latest attempt to gain a few more hp
I want to see new matirials being developed so that maybe one day I can buy a small part of my engine made out of them.
I want to see Kimmi or Lewis on a one lap flier using every mm of the track with only enough fuel to coast back to the pits screaming to get P1


enough of this PC EnviroC BS
I want to see racing not saving the rain forest

[Conceptual]

It saddens me so when Pat Symonds reiterates what we already know -- the current engines are being strangled by homologation. This is F1. Well, it used to be F1...

I really do fear for the future of F1 powertrains. As soon as the screaming, high specific output engines are gone, so am I.

Wow, I'm sorry that efficient technological advancements in motive power production are so painful for you. I hope my children have more passion and respect for the people that are trying to do this than you, since ultimately they would be the ones to pay for your enjoyment.

Chris

If I wanted to watch "green" racing id watch tour de france

and since when has f1 ever been road relevant mabye in the first 10 years. I hate the current regs.

I dont want to see engines that last two races
I dont want to see qualifiing with race fuel load.
I dont want to see gmicks like push to pass
I dont want to see every team have the same power output.


I want to see engineers getting the most power out of a given displacement
I want to see honda decorating the front strech with there latest attempt to gain a few more hp
I want to see new matirials being developed so that maybe one day I can buy a small part of my engine made out of them.
I want to see Kimmi or Lewis on a one lap flier using every mm of the track with only enough fuel to coast back to the pits screaming to get P1


enough of this PC EnviroC BS
I want to see racing not saving the rain forest

I see. It's all about you.

Fortunately, there are several HUNDRED million fans that want to see otherwise.

I'd rather see something that is truly innovative and 21st century, and the internal combustion engine doesn't belong there. I would rather see 5 gram anti-matter batteries driving AWD electric cars instead of the antique and quaint way to harness fire in loud and highly inefficient manner.

Top level motorsport needs to be NEW technology in order to be "Top Level". There is no way to be "Bleeding-edge" using 1800's ICE technology. To believe so is almost moronic.

There is a better way, and what better place to find it than F1? With the amount of combined engineering talent, as well as literally a combined budget of 3Bil+/Year, why would you want to waste that sharpening a bronze knife when we have the combined engineering history of the last 200 years as well as developments in alloy science that could be used to build the ultimate blade?

I don't get off by watching wasted potential, and that is how I feel about the regulations of F1, but I am sincerely sorry if you do.

chris

[Scotracer]

I see. It's all about you.

Fortunately, there are several HUNDRED million fans that want to see otherwise.

I'd rather see something that is truly innovative and 21st century, and the internal combustion engine doesn't belong there. I would rather see 5 gram anti-matter batteries driving AWD electric cars instead of the antique and quaint way to harness fire in loud and highly inefficient manner.

Top level motorsport needs to be NEW technology in order to be "Top Level". There is no way to be "Bleeding-edge" using 1800's ICE technology. To believe so is almost moronic.

There is a better way, and what better place to find it than F1? With the amount of combined engineering talent, as well as literally a combined budget of 3Bil+/Year, why would you want to waste that sharpening a bronze knife when we have the combined engineering history of the last 200 years as well as developments in alloy science that could be used to build the ultimate blade?

I don't get off by watching wasted potential, and that is how I feel about the regulations of F1, but I am sincerely sorry if you do.

chris

But is KERS innovative or the future? It is old technology and that's the problem I have with it. It is purely a political stunt as the technology used in some Hybrid road cars is far more advanced than that proposed for next year. And if they are limited (which they most definetely are) how will it really push the industry forward?

Sure, the ICE is an old design and is ridiculously inefficient but all thermodynamic engines are! An electric engine would be a much better candidate but with introducing it you are removing one of the biggest pulls of F1 -- the noise. How would the tracks pull in the crowds with virtually silent F1 cars, only the wind from the aerodynamic appendages whistling as they go by. Sorry, but I wouldn't pay to watch that. I pay to see the fastest and loudest racing cars scream around at a few hundred km/h at over 130dB. It might be "crude" but it IS entertainment -- what the sport should be about, nothing else.

[Conceptual]

I see. It's all about you.

Fortunately, there are several HUNDRED million fans that want to see otherwise.

I'd rather see something that is truly innovative and 21st century, and the internal combustion engine doesn't belong there. I would rather see 5 gram anti-matter batteries driving AWD electric cars instead of the antique and quaint way to harness fire in loud and highly inefficient manner.

Top level motorsport needs to be NEW technology in order to be "Top Level". There is no way to be "Bleeding-edge" using 1800's ICE technology. To believe so is almost moronic.

There is a better way, and what better place to find it than F1? With the amount of combined engineering talent, as well as literally a combined budget of 3Bil+/Year, why would you want to waste that sharpening a bronze knife when we have the combined engineering history of the last 200 years as well as developments in alloy science that could be used to build the ultimate blade?

I don't get off by watching wasted potential, and that is how I feel about the regulations of F1, but I am sincerely sorry if you do.

chris

But is KERS innovative or the future? It is old technology and that's the problem I have with it. It is purely a political stunt as the technology used in some Hybrid road cars is far more advanced than that proposed for next year. And if they are limited (which they most definetely are) how will it really push the industry forward?

Sure, the ICE is an old design and is ridiculously inefficient but all thermodynamic engines are! An electric engine would be a much better candidate but with introducing it you are removing one of the biggest pulls of F1 -- the noise. How would the tracks pull in the crowds with virtually silent F1 cars, only the wind from the aerodynamic appendages whistling as they go by. Sorry, but I wouldn't pay to watch that. I pay to see the fastest and loudest racing cars scream around at a few hundred km/h at over 130dB. It might be "crude" but it IS entertainment -- what the sport should be about, nothing else.

You don't think it would be cool to still watch the cars compete at 320km/h and still chat with the person next to you without having to yell at their ear-muffs?

I think that it would still draw a crowd. Every race is a sellout, and if 1/2 of them didn't buy tickets because of the silence, someone else would buy them.

I don't think KERS as it will be in 2009 will really be that huge, but it is the first step towards the removal of ICE, and I am willing to bear with them on the transition. Once the teams have the KERS part of their operation smoothed out, I'm sure they will open it up to AWD and such, and THAT is where the teams want to be, because it is directly relevant to their road cars. KERS is the beginning, but deffinately NOT the end.

I am very passionate about F1 as are most of the people here. My view is different than many, but the same as many as well.

I just hope that as it moves forward, it gets better. And I'm sure that I will accept whatever that "better" is.

Chris

[Scotracer]

I see. It's all about you.

Fortunately, there are several HUNDRED million fans that want to see otherwise.

I'd rather see something that is truly innovative and 21st century, and the internal combustion engine doesn't belong there. I would rather see 5 gram anti-matter batteries driving AWD electric cars instead of the antique and quaint way to harness fire in loud and highly inefficient manner.

Top level motorsport needs to be NEW technology in order to be "Top Level". There is no way to be "Bleeding-edge" using 1800's ICE technology. To believe so is almost moronic.

There is a better way, and what better place to find it than F1? With the amount of combined engineering talent, as well as literally a combined budget of 3Bil+/Year, why would you want to waste that sharpening a bronze knife when we have the combined engineering history of the last 200 years as well as developments in alloy science that could be used to build the ultimate blade?

I don't get off by watching wasted potential, and that is how I feel about the regulations of F1, but I am sincerely sorry if you do.

chris

But is KERS innovative or the future? It is old technology and that's the problem I have with it. It is purely a political stunt as the technology used in some Hybrid road cars is far more advanced than that proposed for next year. And if they are limited (which they most definetely are) how will it really push the industry forward?

Sure, the ICE is an old design and is ridiculously inefficient but all thermodynamic engines are! An electric engine would be a much better candidate but with introducing it you are removing one of the biggest pulls of F1 -- the noise. How would the tracks pull in the crowds with virtually silent F1 cars, only the wind from the aerodynamic appendages whistling as they go by. Sorry, but I wouldn't pay to watch that. I pay to see the fastest and loudest racing cars scream around at a few hundred km/h at over 130dB. It might be "crude" but it IS entertainment -- what the sport should be about, nothing else.

You don't think it would be cool to still watch the cars compete at 320km/h and still chat with the person next to you without having to yell at their ear-muffs?

I think that it would still draw a crowd. Every race is a sellout, and if 1/2 of them didn't buy tickets because of the silence, someone else would buy them.

I don't think KERS as it will be in 2009 will really be that huge, but it is the first step towards the removal of ICE, and I am willing to bear with them on the transition. Once the teams have the KERS part of their operation smoothed out, I'm sure they will open it up to AWD and such, and THAT is where the teams want to be, because it is directly relevant to their road cars. KERS is the beginning, but deffinately NOT the end.

I am very passionate about F1 as are most of the people here. My view is different than many, but the same as many as well.

I just hope that as it moves forward, it gets better. And I'm sure that I will accept whatever that "better" is.

Chris

It might be cool, as a sort of gimmick to see such a fast machine being virtually silent but I would get bored of it very quickly. The noise of F1 cars is personally the biggest pull of the sport. I adore the sounds of racing cars and removing it would completely kill the sport for me. I know my opinion isn't final but I am not alone -- the noise is very important. Why else would events such as the Goodwood Festival of Speed be so popular? There's no racing at that event but something still draws the sellout crowds -- the noise and theatre of the cars.

If they remove this noise there is no incentive for me to go watch at the track. I may as well stay at home where I pay less. I think the track owners would have something to say about that.

Meh, I'm probably just a fanatic who's upset.

[WhiteBlue]

But is KERS innovative or the future? It is old technology and that's the problem I have with it. It is purely a political stunt as the technology used in some Hybrid road cars is far more advanced than that proposed for next year. And if they are limited (which they most definetely are) how will it really push the industry forward?

some of the KERS use a flywheel which isn't used in road cars yet. I would also think that F1 systems will show advances in weight to power ratios over existing road cars. finally perhaps you need a little bit more patience? most people would probably loved a system without limits but the objections from some teams would have been too great to overcome. politics is the art of the possible and with the 2009 rules KERS will at least make it to the grid. more sophistication will follow soon.

Sure, the ICE is an old design and is ridiculously inefficient but all thermodynamic engines are! An electric engine would be a much better candidate but with introducing it you are removing one of the biggest pulls of F1 -- the noise. How would the tracks pull in the crowds with virtually silent F1 cars, only the wind from the aerodynamic appendages whistling as they go by. Sorry, but I wouldn't pay to watch that. I pay to see the fastest and loudest racing cars scream around at a few hundred km/h at over 130dB. It might be "crude" but it IS entertainment -- what the sport should be about, nothing else.

there are actually engines (gas turbines) with twice the efficiency of F1 engines but they use two stages, one for the combustion and a second steam cycle to extract waste heat. F1 has never much cared about efficiency. except perhaps when the thursty V12 meant a significant weight penalty. the next engine formula will be much more efficiency oriented. the manufacturers will see to that. they are competing more and more on efficiency and less on top power. efficient dynamics is the new concept at BMW showing that fun and fuel economy can both be pursued at the same time. I don't know how they will handle the noise issue in the future but having an alternative of quieter F1 or no F1 there should be a lot of people who still want to see F1 racing. the vast majority of viewers only watch TV where you do not get a real impression of the noise. there are probably only 2-3 million people each year who get to hear the cars in real. thausend times more people watch it on TV and they decide if the show is successfull by consuming the comercials. if there is a choice between noise or go faster every team and driver will forget the noise and go for the speed as the V12 story shows. if F1 finds that the fastest engine within the energy budget is quiet they may go down that route.

[checkered]

I don't know why

energy recovery should be subservient to preserving a particular noise, even without considering other priorities. Actually, the sport has already had problems at certain venues for going above the allowed dB levels - practically miles away from the track. It's being used as an argument against night racing as well. Having said it before, I can only reiterate that even halving the current intensity, the noise would still remain at ridiculous enough levels. I wouldn't worry about that too much.

As far as the relative "silence" of alternative engines go, don't bet on it. Some electric motors emanate the most unbelievable shrieks. It's not pretty, but perhaps the harmonics can be worked on. And turbines, they have a pretty "cool" image as it is, don't you think? It'd go pretty well with the fighter plane looks of a F1 car; as an auxiliary regenerative device as well as the main powerplant, if you ask me.