An independent audit for FOTA has projected a 15% cut in carbon emissions in Formula One by 2012 compared with 2009 figures. The driving force for all this is of course sponsors who don’t want to be associated with a sport that is seen as gas-guzzling despite the fact that in reality running the cars’ engines on races weekends and testing accounts for less than 1% of the sport’s emissions, regardless of how fuel thirsty they are.

“With the support of all its member teams, Fota has… undertaken to maintain continuous and independent analysis and assessment in order to ensure that these carbon emissions reduction targets are met or bettered, and to investigate where further carbon emissions reduction opportunities may exist.”
Martin Whitmarsh

Undoubtedly, the on-going cost cutting measures that Formula One has and continues to introduce will play a significant roll in efforts to become more environmentally efficient. Notably, one of the main sources of carbon is through the use of electricity and the biggest consumer of electricity on most teams’ balance sheets is the wind tunnel. Limiting wind tunnel testing time therefore provides an obvious starting point.

The emissions associated with travelling around the world from circuit-to-circuit is another area that clearly needs to be addressed – it makes little sense that next-door neighbours Bahrain and Abu Dhabi currently sit at the opposite ends of the calendar if none of the teams are based in the Middle East. Add to that Malaysia’s relative location to Singapore and China’s closeness to Japan and Korea. Even allowing the for the nuances of climate, you could be forgiven for thinking there was an attempt to maximise travel distances rather than minimise it. Interestingly, the report predicts the emissions from freight to the races to increase over the next three years, largely it seems due to the expanding calendar and perhaps a sign that they expect little change in the ordering of the races.



But with half around half of the current emissions associated simply with items that the teams buy in, it is on this that teams need to commit most focus. Before it collapsed, USF1 made much of how much Formula 1 relied on US technology and it may be that greater dependence on European suppliers is required. The gradual increase in standardised components may help in this area.

We are also approaching the time when new engines will be taken on board – and the momentum is there to target cleaner, more economical engines. They may in reality play a small part in cleaning up Formula One given that engine emissions make-up such a small proportion of teams’ carbon front print but with the technology filtering down to road users, the potential is there to make a big difference to tackling vehicle emissions.

It is fitting that the pinnacle of motorsport and the FIA leads the motor industry in efforts to clean up its act – at least nobody can criticise Formula One for not trying.



Source: Trucost’s Carbon Emissions Study

Photo © Vodafone McLaren Mercedes 2010

2013 should see new engine designs unless the FIA decide that the move is too costly. However, what form they will take is still very much open to debate. The FIA supported by the car manufacturers are keen to be more road relevant. The aborted KERS project was part of that plan and it could yet surface in the engine department with a move away from the normally aspirated units currently employed.

Turbo or Not Turbo?

One possible move (and which was discussed here some 18 months before one website this week claimed to have an exclusive) is a switch to turbo engines. However, before you start thinking about a return to the monsters of the late ’80’s, these could be very different beasts.

About two years ago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a small turbocharged engine fitted with direct fuel injection that matched the performance of current hybrid motors at a fraction of the cost. They also offered better fuel consumption due to their small weight. With European Union rules in the pipeline to judge car manufacturers by the average CO2 emission across their entire fleet, I suggested that this was exactly the kind of engine that manufacturers were crying out for, especially performance manufacturers such as Ferrari.

And where better to develop the technology than Formula One?

After a number of spectacularly off-target predictions (okay, it seems McLaren weren’t sandbagging, Brawn were as good as their testing speed and Michael Schumacher would return to F1) it looks like I might have hit the bulls-eye on this one with Ferrari talking about exactly the power-unit I described.

“If F1 has to develop something helpful for real driving conditions, then the best solution is for an engine that is turbocharged and GDI. That is what we would support.”
Amedeo Felisa, Ferrari CEO

Gasoline Direct Injection, GDI offers even greater fuel economy. It is a form of fuel injection whereby instead of injection of the fuel under pressure into the inlet stream it is injected directly into the cylinder. This allows precise control of the amount of fuel injected and by careful design of the injector can also lead to a more controlled combustion. The result is improved efficiency.

What About KERS?

It’s looking more likely that KERS could return, even before 2013, although it may be a standard unit available to all the teams. The talk is of less restrictions on the amount it can be used compared with 2009 in order to offset the weight penalty of carrying the system which was marginal last year. However, the issue with that is in further developing the system and the cost incurred. McLaren were class leading last year and Williams’ system while never seeing the race track is turning into a commercial success. Either could be supplied to the rest of the field but the cost of the development needed to increase storage and transfer rates would have to be passed on.

Interestingly, KERS makes an ideal partner for the small turbo engines discussed above. The lighter engine will help offset the weight of carrying KERS while the energy recovery system is the perfect way to eliminate turbo lag. Potentially, in a road going car, stored energy could be released automatically in order to cover the engine lag and again Formula 1 could play a part in developing the technology side-by-side.

Any Alternatives?

Improved normally-aspirated engines, perhaps extended with direct injection technology would be the low cost option although with the lowest benefit. There is also of course the rotary engine although there has been little interest in developing the system outside of Mazda.

One alternative mentioned this week is the gas turbine engine, something that Colin Chapman tinkered with in the early 1970’s with moderate success. A company has reportedly contacted the FIA with a proposal to supply such engines, however, the big question is whether the manufacturer teams would want to go along with such an idea. The idea of a single engine supplier was quickly shot down and it is difficult to see Ferrari wanting to go the gas turbine route. The technology’s one hope may be in a multiple engine configuration series, with some form of equalising factor between types – potentially an unpopular route if one developing technology is seen to be favoured over another. The other issue with the gas turbine is that it’s green credentials rely on using biofuels, the subject of continued debate as to just how green they really are.

At the moment, the teams look to be closing in on 1.5 litre turbo-powered engines, able to produce something like 670 bhp. They may not be totally clean but they seem to be taking Formula 1 in the right direction.

Image © Bridgestone Corporation

Despite Ferrari coming away from Bahrain with a maximum points haul, it has been Red Bull who have been playing on the minds of the top teams. Lewis Hamilton mused the possibility of Mark Webber retiring (although you have to wonder what the question posed to him was) while Ron Dennis made some cryptic remarks about Sebastian Vettel’s engine problems in Bahrain but it is the question of Red Bull’s pace that is most interesting, not least because Ferrari have also jumped on this particular bandwagon.

“I think maybe performance-wise maybe Red Bull is a bit ahead of everybody now, which is not a surprise because they finished 2009 very strongly, so they kept the momentum”
Fernando Alonso

“The Red Bull is ridiculously faster than anyone else’s car. It’s insane… They should be quite a lot further ahead in general.”
Lewis Hamilton

The general consensus from observers was that Ferrari and Red Bull were pretty closely matched in qualifying trim and Ferrari probably had the edge over a race distance as The Scuderia better preserved its tyres. So why all the platitudes for Red Bull? Lewis Hamilton even went as far as suggesting that Red Bull were a good half a second quicker than Ferrari and while Ferrari haven’t bandied around any numbers, the general message coming from the Italians is that they are part of a McLaren-Ferrari-Mercedes group trying to catch up with Red Bull.

We’re only one race down, and the Red Bull performance was hardly of Brawn GP proportions but are the Austrians really miles ahead of the opposition? Fix the reliability issues and will we see one team dominate?

Or is all this perhaps just linked to Renault’s desire to equalise engine power?

When is an engine freeze not an engine freeze? When you’re allowed to make changes for ‘cost and reliability reasons’ as Renault have now been given the go ahead to do. I would be interested to see the economics of this explained as presumably Renault have already built a year’s supply of engines for both themselves and Red Bull. Therefore I guess that these will now either be modified or turned into limited edition coffee tables and replaced – and in the process somehow cost less than if they had been used ‘as is’. Forget selling cars, building and scrapping engines all day is where the real money is!

The question is, will the FIA make a concerted effort to ensure that Renault’s changes do not result in any performance increase? Will power and torque remain the same? How about fuel economy? Requests to improve the latter have apparently been rejected but the FIA have now opened up a potential can of worms in terms of homologating engines as in all fairness Mercedes and Ferrari should be given the same opportunity. It’ll be interesting to hear how they respond in the next few days.
.

“I think the problem is if you don’t allow some development, then you freeze in an advantage for one team or a disadvantage for another.”
Christian Horner

As it is, Renault seem to have played their ‘we’ll have to consider pulling out of F1′ card yet again – although this time they’ve been using Christian Horner as the messenger. Given their reduced shareholding in the team, I just wonder how many more times they’ll get away with that one before someone finally calls their bluff.
.

You may have already noticed a few new buttons over to the left in the last week or so, under the subheading Statistics. These are the new look season statistics pages for 2010, although you can look back to 2009 to compare them as we have also updated last season’s statistics to reflect the new data. We just thought we’d take a few moments to introduce the new pages, giving an opportunity for feedback before the season starts.

Standings
Both the World Drivers’ and World Constructors’ Championship standings as you may have expected. The one minor change is to show the points gaps but otherwise, simple, straightforward and to the point with the man with the most points at the top.

Results
A quick summary of all the season’s race results on one handy page, including reasons for not finishing and podium positions highlighted for quick reference.

Qualifying
Similar to the Results page, a brief summary of qualifying position and final grid position for every race of the Formula One season.

Performance
Driver by driver, the basics statistics of how they have performed in 2010 in qualifying and the race, including a summary of Q1/Q2/Q3 distribution, handily graphed for comparison or if you just can’t deal with more numbers.

Team Mates
Every driver pairing goes head-to-head: Who’s the better qualifier out of Button and Hamilton? Does Schumacher put in better race performances than Rosberg? Who contributes the most points to the team’s total out of Glock and di Grassi? We don’t know but the numbers might point you in one direction or another.

Engines
Once again, teams are allowed eight engines per car over the entire season and this is the place to keep track of who has used how many. And new for 2010, the engine manufacturers side-by-side with percentage engine failures – BMW had the weakest engine last year, but who’ll take that crown this year?

Reliability
Engines aren’t the only thing that can go wrong, and the Reliability page summarises each team’s weaknesses: Virgin had how many hydraulic failures? Ferrari ran out of fuel how often? USF1 missed how many races?* Plus keep track of the gearbox cycle with each gearbox once again having to last for four events.

Penalty
Watching over the stewards, the Penalty Tracker shows who was punished, where and how throughout the season. Just think of it as F1’s Most Wanted.

Testing
The Pre-Season Testing Statistics page has been around for over a month now, detailing the key statistics from testing. If you haven’t seen it, it’s still here.

2009
Almost all the above statistics pages allow you to swap between them and last year’s statistics, allowing you to contrast with the 2009 season. In addition, you can access all of them together from the 2009 Statistics hub page. Did you know that Toro Rosso only completed three quarters of the maximum possible number of laps?

So that’s all the statistics pages, feedback and comments are more than welcome. The plan is to also graph much of the data as the year progresses – watch out for those here on the blog.

2010 sees new regulations, both sporting and technical, resulting in bigger, heavier cars and a lot more points at stake. So with just four weeks until the first race of the season, here’s a quick run down of the main changes and the likely effect on the season.

Qualifying Format
Qualifying will again be split into three session, although with a larger grid of 26 cars expect, the bottom eight drivers will drop out at the end of each of the first two sessions. However, it is in Q3 that the biggest changes will be seen as the teams will no longer have to use race fuel for qualifying and so cars will be fuelled to the bare minimum. Don’t expect a return to a pure contest of which is the fastest car though – drivers will have to start the race on the same tyres that they set their qualifying time. The intention is that some drivers will opt for the harder of the two compounds allocated for the weekend, sacrificing pace and qualifying position in the hope of taking advantage of the optimum race tyre. Whether it works out like that remains to be seen.

A new points system
2010 sees a new points system with a mammoth 25 points now awarded to the winner. There is then a larger gap to second, with the intention of creating more incentive to push for victory, and points will be awarded down to 10th place reflecting the larger field: 18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. It means that one of Michael Schumacher’s records, 148 points over the 2004 season, is certain to be lost – unless he can extend it himself. However, the is one question lingering over the decision to change the points system: Does it make any sense if only 11 teams make the grid?


Additional engine penalties
Once again, teams will be limited to eight engines per driver over the season, however, this year that means 19 races not 17, meaning that engine life and effective usage will be even more critical. A loop-hole that I spotted in last year’s regulations meant that teams could minimise the effect of taking an additional engine by also taking a tenth, eleventh, twelfth, etc. engine at the same weekend and only paying the penalty for that one race weekend. That’s now been closed as using a second additional engine during a race weekend will now incur a 10-place grid penalty that is carried over to the following event.

Safety Car protocol
The safety car procedure has been simplified, presumably to reflect the larger field, as backmarkers will no longer be able to unlap themselves behind the Safety Car (the old article 40.11 of the Sporting Code). This should mean that racing will be able to resume more quickly although the front runners will have to deal with a mix of lapped drivers at the restart.

In-race refueling banned
No more refuelling during the race will have both sporting and technical consequences for 2010. Firstly, races will become more dependent on tyre strategy, however, cars will be significantly heavier and slower at the start of races, which could have consequences on tyre wear as well as other areas such as brake life. It also means races are likely to be noticeably longer due to the heavy fuel stage reducing early lap times. For example, last year’s Singapore Grand Prix just crept in under the two hour mark, not helped by the deployment of the safety car – it seems likely that the race may not go the full distance of 61 laps. Of course, the in-race refuelling ban will become most obvious at pitstops which will be significantly quicker when unlimited by fuelling flow rate, with stops potentially of less than four seconds. It also means the 2010 cars feature significantly larger fuel-tanks and the result is that all the cars are slightly longer as designers accommodate the change. By necessity, teams will also have to adapt how they run behind the safety car – conserving fuel is precisely what they don’t want to do.

Teams agree to not use KERS
One thing that designers won’t need to accommodate in 2010 is KERS, the teams having agreed not to use the energy recovery system. Therefore, don’t expect the Ferraris and McLarens to be screaming past half a dozen cars at the start every weekend.

Minimum weight increased from 605kg to 620kg
With larger fuel tanks and KERS expected, it was decided to raise the minimum weight by 15 kg. This means that ballast positioning will be much easier for teams, especially now that they will no longer be using KERS.

Less sets of tyres
There is a reduction in the number of sets of tyres available to drivers over the weekend with 11 sets of dry tyres instead of the previous 14. A simple piece of maths possibly reveals why: 14 sets of tyre for 20 drivers is 280 sets, while 11 sets for 26 is 286 sets – a minimal change from Bridgestone’s point of view. The 11 sets will consist of six prime and five option compounds and there will continue to be four sets of intermediate and three sets of extreme wet tyres. However, it will mean that on Fridays, drivers will have to manage with just three sets of tyres instead of four, two of which will be the prime compound the other the option tyre.

Narrower front tyres
Dry, slick tyres for 2010 will be narrower – the same width as the existing wet tyre in fact. The reason for this is that the change from grooved to slick tyres last year resulted in a greater proportional increase in contact area at the front, effecting the overall car balance of the car. The change should make the teams’ jobs easier in terms of setting up the car.

Aerodynamic wheel fairings banned
The wheel covers introduced by Ferrari, ostensibly as a brake cooling device but also considered to have aerodynamic benefits, have been banned in order to save costs. Teams will look to recover their benefits elsewhere and it has been noticeable that larger brake ducts have been on show on this year’s new cars.

Wheel rim-heaters banned
The FIA wanted to outlaw tyre blankets before eventually relenting and instead limiting tyre blankets to only heating the surface of the tyre, banning the inner heated core used to heat the wheel rim. It will partly achieve what the FIA originally sought – making tyre heat up more critical and putting drivers on new tyres at more of a disadvantage.