By Jonathan Noble |
Amid all the excitement about Formula 1's bright post-Ecclestone future, reality is likely to bite very quickly for Liberty Media when it has to deliver on its self-proclaimed mandate for change. Any underlying resistance to new ideas presented by F1's new owner will manifest itself in the form of those ideas being derailed as they pass through the sport's long-dysfunctional decision-making process. That's the process that gave us double points and elimination qualifying, remember. But while even those within F1 are expressing some support for certain changes - such as better promotion, a more exciting spectacle and broadening the sport's appeal to a wider audience - there is one issue sure to provoke arguments over the months to come. Engines. If you had to single out something that has typified the conflict over the past few years between F1's various stakeholders - the teams, the fans, Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt, promoters and media - it is their differing views on whether F1's move to turbo hybrid engines in 2014 was the right path to take. Since the hybrids appeared, barely a race has gone past without some form of criticism about what they have done to F1 - be it the lack of noise, crazy grid penalties, the inability of drivers to push hard in races because of fuel management, or the fact that Mercedes has maintained such a power advantage for three years now. Yet it must not be forgotten that the move to hybrid turbo power was prompted by shaky manufacturer commitment to the previous generation of high-revving V8 engines, and the belief that car makers would desert the sport if race engines could not be made more relevant to the road-going product. Compelling reasons, then, but whether F1 ultimately chose the right platform is still subject to debate. Since the current regulations are set until 2020, we have an opportunity to think deeply about what powertrain philosophy F1 should embrace beyond that point. And, right now, we find ourselves facing the same uncertainties as the car industry itself. The challenge in trying to remain relevant to where road cars will be in 10 years' time is that no one really knows how the market will evolve over the next decade. Will the public be driving small petrol-powered engines in 2027? Will hybrids still be the way forward? Will full-on electrical cars be the norm? Or will mass car ownership become a thing of the past as rising running costs drive the public towards on-demand services such as Uber, or autonomous cars? Any of those scenarios could play out, which makes road-relevancy in F1 very much a moving target. Last week I spent some time chatting with a senior engineer at a well-known car manufacturer and he offered some fascinating insight into the challenges the car industry faces in future-proofing itself. He concurred that there was little consensus in his industry about what the picture will be like in 10-15 years' time. The current best guess is that electrical cars will eventually prevail, but a lot depends on external circumstances aligning for them to take off. It was suggested that the breakthrough point for electrical cars to become more mainstream, and an acceptable mode of transport, would be for their range to get up to 500 miles. Once that point is reached, it's likely the focus will shift to making batteries smaller and - perhaps more crucially - cheaper. Once price and convenience hit an acceptable point for mainstream consumers, that will be the tipping point. Earlier this month, Tesla quietly rolled out a new battery option for its Model S. This lifted its range to 335 miles - much more than any other commercially available all-electric car, and close to that offered by petrol cars aimed at a similar demographic. The 500-mile target still appears a little way off, then, but there is no knowing just how quickly technology is going to progress. And Tesla may not get there first, because one viewpoint is that the answer may well come from China - simply because it has money to throw at the problem, a thirst to push on with such technology, and, as one figure suggested, 'plenty of coal to burn'. But even if the technology arrives, where the road car market goes also depends on what infrastructure governments are willing to put in place to support a switch to full-on electric. If the UK government, for example, decides it is willing to make provision for one million charging points, what happens if 1.5 million people then make the jump from petrol? So if the road car industry is not sure of what it will be making in a decade, how can F1 even start to think where it should be? Should the starting point for discussions not be whether we have V6 turbos, V8s or V10s, but whether F1 even attempts to shadow where things are going to be on the road? Perhaps F1's future might actually be best served by cutting its ties to road cars, and taking a direction motivated by just one thing: making grand prix cars truly epic again. Fans do miss the violence and noise of the old normally aspirated engines, so would F1 not attract a new audience if its engines once again delivered far more power and volume than on the road? While we're at it, let's sweep away the tyranny of worrying about fuel economy - let's get back to the days where horsepower was king. Reverting to the old V8s and V10s would certainly be too much of a backwards step, but what about some form of turbo V8 - with a rev-limit much, much higher than the current 15,000rpm so we get some noise back? Throwing in battery technology and hybrids could be part of the package too. Louder, bigger and faster combustion engines may well take F1 down a path that diverges from road cars, but perhaps now is the right time for it to take that step and make the show, sport and competition the priority. Making F1 road car irrelevant wouldn't automatically turn the carmakers away, either. An F1 that draws in bigger crowds, drives larger profits and attracts more sponsors will bring the marketing benefits and financial rewards to justify manufacturers having a part to play. Adrian Newey questioned the value of F1's current hybrid rules earlier this year, when he suggested it was pure "marketing blurb" to suggest that technology had transferred from contemporary grand prix power units to road cars. He insinuated that if F1 really was road relevant, those carmakers not on the grid would be falling behind the technology curve and losing sales to those who have raced the turbo hybrids for three years. That doesn't look like the case. Mercedes has earned such great brand presence because it has been winning - not because there could be some road-car spin offs from the knowledge it has gained in F1. It ultimately boils down to the one thing that has kept road car manufacturers interested in F1 from day one: the positives that come from winning. And they are the same today as they were in 1950. The real relevance to manufacturers is not what engine is being used, it's that if you win on Sunday, you sell on Monday. Rip up the current formula and F1 can still deliver exactly that. |
By Jonathan Noble |
Amid all the excitement about Formula 1's bright post-Ecclestone future, reality is likely to bite very quickly for Liberty Media when it has to deliver on its self-proclaimed mandate for change. Any underlying resistance to new ideas presented by F1's new owner will manifest itself in the form of those ideas being derailed as they pass through the sport's long-dysfunctional decision-making process. That's the process that gave us double points and elimination qualifying, remember. But while even those within F1 are expressing some support for certain changes - such as better promotion, a more exciting spectacle and broadening the sport's appeal to a wider audience - there is one issue sure to provoke arguments over the months to come. Engines. If you had to single out something that has typified the conflict over the past few years between F1's various stakeholders - the teams, the fans, Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt, promoters and media - it is their differing views on whether F1's move to turbo hybrid engines in 2014 was the right path to take. Since the hybrids appeared, barely a race has gone past without some form of criticism about what they have done to F1 - be it the lack of noise, crazy grid penalties, the inability of drivers to push hard in races because of fuel management, or the fact that Mercedes has maintained such a power advantage for three years now. Yet it must not be forgotten that the move to hybrid turbo power was prompted by shaky manufacturer commitment to the previous generation of high-revving V8 engines, and the belief that car makers would desert the sport if race engines could not be made more relevant to the road-going product. Compelling reasons, then, but whether F1 ultimately chose the right platform is still subject to debate. Since the current regulations are set until 2020, we have an opportunity to think deeply about what powertrain philosophy F1 should embrace beyond that point. And, right now, we find ourselves facing the same uncertainties as the car industry itself. The challenge in trying to remain relevant to where road cars will be in 10 years' time is that no one really knows how the market will evolve over the next decade. Will the public be driving small petrol-powered engines in 2027? Will hybrids still be the way forward? Will full-on electrical cars be the norm? Or will mass car ownership become a thing of the past as rising running costs drive the public towards on-demand services such as Uber, or autonomous cars? Any of those scenarios could play out, which makes road-relevancy in F1 very much a moving target. Last week I spent some time chatting with a senior engineer at a well-known car manufacturer and he offered some fascinating insight into the challenges the car industry faces in future-proofing itself. He concurred that there was little consensus in his industry about what the picture will be like in 10-15 years' time. The current best guess is that electrical cars will eventually prevail, but a lot depends on external circumstances aligning for them to take off. It was suggested that the breakthrough point for electrical cars to become more mainstream, and an acceptable mode of transport, would be for their range to get up to 500 miles. Once that point is reached, it's likely the focus will shift to making batteries smaller and - perhaps more crucially - cheaper. Once price and convenience hit an acceptable point for mainstream consumers, that will be the tipping point. Earlier this month, Tesla quietly rolled out a new battery option for its Model S. This lifted its range to 335 miles - much more than any other commercially available all-electric car, and close to that offered by petrol cars aimed at a similar demographic. The 500-mile target still appears a little way off, then, but there is no knowing just how quickly technology is going to progress. And Tesla may not get there first, because one viewpoint is that the answer may well come from China - simply because it has money to throw at the problem, a thirst to push on with such technology, and, as one figure suggested, 'plenty of coal to burn'. But even if the technology arrives, where the road car market goes also depends on what infrastructure governments are willing to put in place to support a switch to full-on electric. If the UK government, for example, decides it is willing to make provision for one million charging points, what happens if 1.5 million people then make the jump from petrol? So if the road car industry is not sure of what it will be making in a decade, how can F1 even start to think where it should be? Should the starting point for discussions not be whether we have V6 turbos, V8s or V10s, but whether F1 even attempts to shadow where things are going to be on the road? Perhaps F1's future might actually be best served by cutting its ties to road cars, and taking a direction motivated by just one thing: making grand prix cars truly epic again. Fans do miss the violence and noise of the old normally aspirated engines, so would F1 not attract a new audience if its engines once again delivered far more power and volume than on the road? While we're at it, let's sweep away the tyranny of worrying about fuel economy - let's get back to the days where horsepower was king. Reverting to the old V8s and V10s would certainly be too much of a backwards step, but what about some form of turbo V8 - with a rev-limit much, much higher than the current 15,000rpm so we get some noise back? Throwing in battery technology and hybrids could be part of the package too. Louder, bigger and faster combustion engines may well take F1 down a path that diverges from road cars, but perhaps now is the right time for it to take that step and make the show, sport and competition the priority. Making F1 road car irrelevant wouldn't automatically turn the carmakers away, either. An F1 that draws in bigger crowds, drives larger profits and attracts more sponsors will bring the marketing benefits and financial rewards to justify manufacturers having a part to play. Adrian Newey questioned the value of F1's current hybrid rules earlier this year, when he suggested it was pure "marketing blurb" to suggest that technology had transferred from contemporary grand prix power units to road cars. He insinuated that if F1 really was road relevant, those carmakers not on the grid would be falling behind the technology curve and losing sales to those who have raced the turbo hybrids for three years. That doesn't look like the case. Mercedes has earned such great brand presence because it has been winning - not because there could be some road-car spin offs from the knowledge it has gained in F1. It ultimately boils down to the one thing that has kept road car manufacturers interested in F1 from day one: the positives that come from winning. And they are the same today as they were in 1950. The real relevance to manufacturers is not what engine is being used, it's that if you win on Sunday, you sell on Monday. Rip up the current formula and F1 can still deliver exactly that. |