Leading-Edge

The Motorsport
leading motorsport Technology
technology Since 1990
publication since 1990

Formula 1 2017 Digital edition www.racecar-engineering.com

Formula 1
2017
www.windform.com info@windform.com

www.crp-group.com www.crp-usa.net
CONTENTS/COMMENT
Racing improves the breed
G
one, it seems, are the days when
engineering excellence delivered
an outstanding result. Decisions
today seem to be based on
fairness and equality. Racing is no longer simply
about winning; todays decisions are based on
encouraging more competitors, and therefore
more money. The new Formula 1 regulations for
2017 appear to bear this out. In an interview with
Racecar Engineering (October 2016, V26N10), Max
Mosley admitted that the reason for hybridisation
of F1 was to give the manufacturers more
corporate responsibility for their racing. It has
nothing to do with improving the competition.
Todays new regulations similarly have
nothing to do with improving the racing; the
wider, more aggressive stance was designed to
increase the audience wow factor, while also
requiring more of the driver. However, it seems
to be that the Formula 1 cars, and incidentally
the WEC cars, are more about safe and efficient
delivery of power than cornering.
The drivers are actually less relevant now
than they were in the past, when there was no
downforce and a need to be able to execute more
racecraft. That is not to say that the current crop
of drivers dont have that racecraft, but there
is a danger that the skill will be lost if the cars
continue down this current path.
Maybe I dont need to worry. F1s in good
hands, and I hope that the technical regulations
are opened up sufficiently under the new
management to allow technical innovation. Ross
Brawns most recent title was thanks to a clever
double diffuser, and throughout the history of F1,
engineers have been free to experiment.
One thing that is clearly lacking in F1 at
the moment is the need for the drivers to look
after the car during a race. The tyres are harder,
and Pirelli expects there to be fewer pit stops.
Arguably this puts more emphasis on overtaking
on the track, but we have seen that these facts
dont necessarily go hand-in-hand. A return to
steel brakes would be better, or a reduction in
brake cooling would help to increase the braking
distances, the latter also encouraging a little bit
of mechanical sympathy. At least there is the
issue at some circuits of needing to conserve fuel,
although this has already been compensated for
in the new regulations with a larger fuel tank.
I hope that the new season goes well in
F1, that the issues highlighted in this edition,
brought together from our coverage in previous
magazines, dont hold completely true, and that
the competition will be as fierce as ever. This is
the start of a new era, with new ownership, a new
helmsman, and a wealth of opportunities.
ANDREW COTTON
Editor, Racecar Engineering
CONTENTS
4 THE DANGER FACTOR
Peter Wright assesses the analysis of
risk in modern Formula 1 racing
6 F1 TEST UPDATE
The Barcelona tests showed the cars
to be as quick as expected, but also
very sensitive to set-up changes
10 CFD ANALYSIS
F1 has piled on more downforce,
but does this mean less overtaking?
18 MERCEDES POWER UNIT
The rumour is that the Merc PU
now runs with over 50 per cent
efficiency. Peter Wright investigates
24 NEW ENGINE RULES
Do the 2017 Formula 1 power unit
regulations really allow for technical
innovation and closer competition?
30 F1 FUELS
We take a look at the hi-tech blends
that power modern Formula 1 cars
37 TECH DISCUSSION
Is Formula 1s aero approach
based on flawed thinking?
40 PETER WRIGHT
Racecars technical consultant
considers the best way to fix F1s
problem of a lack of overtaking
Cars have bulked up for the 2017 Formula 1
season, but will that improve the racing, or
just lead to drivers needing to do the same?
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 3
 WRITE LINE PETER WRIGHT

Calculating risk
Is Formula 1 forgetting the fundamentals when it comes to risk management?

M
otorsport is dangerous it says so on the pressures, and the nature of the competition. At any licence requires it. To try and unify risk in all forms
ticket. It always has been and always will time they combine to form a set of rules that define of motorsport would result in closed-wheel, closed-
be, just as descending stairs is dangerous. and limit the risks. Those who participate in the cockpit cars on circuits, and would eliminate karting,
Its an activity which is right up there as a cause of sport, as opposed to watching it, know what these rallying, and single-seaters. Nobody wants that.
accidental death with pedestrian road accidents, risks are and accept them. They volunteer to expose
drugs and alcohol. Or, to put it another way, themselves to these risks and can always walk away Acceptable risks
motorsport is remarkably safe; if you are going to if they believe they are unacceptable. What is an acceptable risk has changed with time.
have a high-speed crash in a car, make sure it is in a Experience and technology have been applied If we take the highest class of racing, initially road-
racing car. But this was not always the case. by the motorsport industry to steadily reduce the racing, then grands prix, and now F1, in the early
The early races, city-to-city contests, had only risks, but occasionally social pressures intervene days the driver and his unfortunate mechanic sat on
been going a few years before nine fatalities during and demand a further reduction in risk. Examples top of the car with little protection. In an accident
the Paris-Madrid caused the French government include: 1907 Paris-Madrid; 1955 Le Mans, and 1994 they were usually thrown clear and hoped the car
to halt the race in Bordeaux and ban all open road Senna and Ratzenberger at Imola. didnt land on top of them. Even after the occupants
racing. Governments do not want to have to control were lowered and surrounded by bodywork in
any sport, let alone motorsport, and will only step in Risk factors the interests of performance, being thrown clear
if sporting fairness or safety is compromised; instead Influencing this steady evolution of risk is the nature was the preferred option. Anything that inhibited
they look for sanctioning bodies capable of doing of the competition. Leaving bikes aside, the four the driver escaping from a car that was on fire was
the job properly. In international motorsport, that main categories of wheeled motorsport are: Karts; rejected. In the late 60s, aided and abetted by
organisation is the FIA, with its affiliated member open-wheel, open-cockpit, single-seaters; closed- Jackie Stewart, F1 drivers started to not accept the
clubs acting as the national sanctioning bodies. wheel, closed-cockpit circuit cars, and closed-wheel, unnecessary risks involved. Over the next decade,
closed-cockpit rally and cross-country cars. standards were established to completely change
Explosive issue They do not have identical safety risks, so why the philosophy of protecting a driver in an accident.
High on the agenda of anybody responsible for is that tolerated? Neither do they have the same This resulted in the cockpit becoming a survival
any form of motorsport is safety. The sport is still risk as racing motorbikes, downhill skiing, base space, particularly by the installation of a roll over
inherently dangerous, because of the level of energy jumping, cross-country horse eventing, scuba hoop. Also, the driver was restrained in this survival
embodied in a high-speed car, the use of flammable diving, or flying home-built aircraft. space using a full harness, he wore fire protection
fuels, high voltages in electrical energy stores, and They are all different, they all involve different clothing, and fuel tanks were fitted with bladders.
the number of people involved in the running of risks, and participants understand and accept the Alongside these fundamental changes to
the sport. The nature of the contest requires this risks, or at least they should do so, as their racing driver protection, changes to the race circuits, the
concentrated energy to be conducted by a human
at the limit of control the kinetic energy of an The kinetic energy of an LMP1 racecar at
LMP1 car at maximum speed is equivalent to over
1kg of TNT; while the full fuel tank is over 0.5 tonnes maximum speed is equivalent to 1kg of TNT
of TNT. And accidents will happen.
The job of the sanctioning body is to keep any
sudden release of this energy away from humans.
Track workers and spectators must be protected by
the circuit layout and design, but officials, teams,
marshals, and drivers are inevitably likely to be
exposed. This is where the management of risk
becomes necessary. Motorsport cannot be 100
per cent safe; there are always risks and they need
to be understood and managed.
The instruments by which these risks are
managed are the Sporting and Technical
Regulations. The way the drivers, officials, marshals,
teams and all engineers involved conduct
themselves are laid down here. Also set out are
how they will be policed and the sanctions for
non-compliance. These regulations have been
developed over more than 100 years, with variations
for all the different forms of motorsport from bikes,
to trucks, to dragsters, to rally cars, and to F1.
XPB

Four forces have shaped the evolution of

these regulations: experience, technology, social While F1 is nowhere near as dangerous as it once was it still has its moments. This was at last years Russian GP

4 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

emergency intervention, and the medical facilities
at the tracks were also taking place.
Once the driver was strapped into the cockpit,
he was subjected to the deceleration of the car
if it impacted a solid object. These were steadily
removed from the edges of tracks and replaced
by impact attenuating barriers. Standards for the
strength of the car chassis were developed and
thought given to impact attenuating structures on
the cars themselves. Unfortunately, at that time the
sides of the car structure were mainly fuel tanks.
However, the spaceframe and aluminium chassis
of cars in the 1960s and 1970s would not hold up
well in an accident and intrusion injuries became
prevalent, for example with Clay Regazzoni and
Ronnie Peterson. And so the driver was moved
back to put his feet out of harms way and fuel
was stored in a single, central fuel tank.
Driving change
Drivers drove these changes, new technologies
XPB
enabled them, and there was little pushback against
the changes, as they did not infringe on the F1,
open-wheel, open-cockpit concept. The advent
of CFRP monocoque chassis then led to the
concept of the strong survival cell for the driver,
surrounded by impact attenuating structures of
regulation-prescribed performance.
The risks reduced dramatically as intrusion
injuries became rare and deceleration injuries were
addressed with better harnesses, helmets, cockpit
surrounds, and HANS developments.
The cars were still open-wheel and open-
cockpit, and fans could just about see and identify
with the drivers. Drivers started to take more risks
as the consequences of a mistake were reduced.
Circuit design, run-off areas and barriers, race
direction, and intervention protocols applied
throughout motorsport meant that a new
generation of drivers arrived in Formula 1 who
had never experienced a fatality at a motor
racing event. Until Imola 1994.
Three accidents involving two fatalities occurred
where the injuries incurred could be attributed in
part to the lack of head protection in an open-
cockpit. Measures were put in place to reduce
the risks, but none impinged significantly on the
concept of the open-wheel, open-cockpit single-
seater formula. The risks became acceptable again.
We are now in a new era following a number of
accidents where loose objects have hit the drivers
head, and the risks are being reassessed once again.
This time there is a difference, as the only potential
solutions affect the open-cockpit concept of motor
racings premier formula, and inevitably, all the
rungs of the single-seater ladder up which the
young drivers climb to Formula 1.
Risky business
How are the risks assessed for acceptability in
a volunteer activity? How are the sanctity of a
concept and the image of a sporting activity
determined? Who decides these issues? Risk is
usually analysed statistically as it relates to the
probability of uncertain future events. Safety is
Halo looks set to come in to Formula 1 in 2018 and is sure to be used on other single seaters too. But have the
risk factors been properly assessed and is it worth diluting the essence of open cockpit racing if they have not?
a statistical science, with development normally
being based on experiments rather than theory.
Any safety feature introduced into an activity
can only be assessed in a limited number of
experiments, which will never cover all eventualities.
Once sufficient confidence in the benefits has
been established it can be introduced and the
actual benefits, measured against the downsides,
assessed statistically. In motorsport there is usually
a competitive benefit from taking risk, which must
be balanced. Unfortunately motorsport safety
statistics are very hard to establish reliably. With one
fatality in Formula 1 every 20 years the data is not
statistically significant. Head strikes by loose objects
occur about once a decade. However, drivers
themselves are expert at assessing risk, they do it
every time they brake into a corner at racing speeds:
If I leave my braking later and enter the corner
faster I will take pole. If I brake too late, I shall not
get pole and may damage the car or myself, which
will affect my chances in the race.
It is the drivers who accept the risk. No one can
do that for them. The problem comes when they
collectively say the risk is unacceptable; something
has changed. At this point they can walk away,
as Niki Lauda did on occasion, or lobby for a risk-
reduction technical or procedural solution.
Dangerous liaisons
Enter the other stakeholders; the fans (something
must be done or I shant watch F1 if there is no
danger involved,); the sponsors (Mercedes after
Karl Wendlingers accident at Monaco in 1994
We are not in this for a driver to be so injured in
a car with a three-pointed star on it.); the
sanctioning body (must regulate safety to a
level such that governments do not step in); the
Commercial Rights Holder (against anything that
puts fans off watching); the teams (tell us what
the rules are in time to implement them. And
then theres the lawyers (it is too complex to define;
depends on which territories are involved in any
resulting action).
Any proposed reduction in risk that also
changes the nature or perception of the activity is
bound to cause controversy. Safety doesnt work
with clear, irrefutable numbers, and this is why the
Additional Frontal Protection proposed for F1, is
creating so much discussion; how much does the
Halo reduce risk? How much does it increase it?
Would a screen reduce it further? Or increase the
risk? Is there an alternative? How much would it
cost to apply to GP2, F3, and F4 etc.? How many
people would it put off watching F1?
Risk management is possible when clear
numbers exist, although the unintended
consequence can still rear its head. Without firm
numbers it is just a battle of opinions. It should be
resolved by the drivers (the risk takers), and by the
guardians of motorsport, the sanctioning body (the
sport) and the CRH (commercial rights holder), but
in a world dominated by social media, everyone
believes they have a right to have their views heard.
From risk management to democratic government,
it is becoming harder and more complex to find
the right path in such an environment.
The race drivers
themselves are experts
at assessing risk, they
do this every time they
brake in to a corner at
racing speeds
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 5
FORMULA 1 TESTING UPDATE

A sensitive
subject
With new higher downforce aero regulations and fatter
tyres, quicker F1 cars were a given at the pre-season
tests. But Barcelona also provided a surprise or two
By SAM COLLINS

6 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017


It does seem that things are quite
amplified with these cars, because
you are going that much quicker
I
n 2017 Formula 1 has a new look, new
aerodynamic regulations and much bigger
tyres, all designed to improve the show and
make the cars more challenging to drive.
It is those tyres, though, that appear to be the
biggest factor following pre-season testing.
It is now clear that this season is a big
contest not just of aerodynamics, but also the
tyres, says Paddy Lowe, chief technical officer
at Williams. Its going to be a lot about how
you use those tyres which will give you an
advantage. These new wider tyres are going to
create a huge challenge and the people who are
best at understanding them will profit.
Following the eight days of winter testing at
Barcelona and a few shakedowns and filming
runs at Fiorano, Silverstone and Misano much
more is now known about the new generation
of Formula 1 racecars, and it has emerged that
they have one unexpected trait.
From our experience they seem to be
more sensitive to change, Toro Rosso technical
director James Key says. We knew the tyres
would be more sensitive to tyre parameters,
where you change the onset angle of the
tyre to the road. So I think thats proven to be
the case, but maybe more sensitive than we
expected. I think even things like front flap
angle changes and this sort of thing all seem to
be more noticeable than they were last year. It
could be that last years cars were quite mature
so the teams and the drivers understood the
diminishing returns, they were maybe a bit
more benign than these cars are, but it does
seem that things are quite amplified with these
cars, because you are going that much quicker.
Early days
During testing some teams were clearly working
hard on understanding the new rubber, though
the general feeling in the paddock was that
there is still much work to be done. Some of
the parameters we expected to be sensitive
are sensitive and some of the compounds
characteristics are not that far away, Key says.
But Id say the majority of it is a learning
process. However well you try and model a
tyre, until you hit Barcelona in the morning
or the afternoon, or with a different fuel load
or whatever, you dont know exactly how its
going to respond. I think every run weve learnt
something new about how the tyre responds to
changes and how the driver needs to drive his
out-lap and this kind of thing. I think in terms
of modelling and prediction theres no nasty
surprises, but certainly a few differences in how
sensitive they are to certain things.
Pirelli, too, is investigating the performance
of not only the tyres but also the cars and how
they work on its product. It had not been able to
test the new rubber at any time before the new
cars were launched in February and has been
outspoken about its concerns about that lack
of running, though following the tests in
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 7
FORMULA 1 TESTING UPDATE
Pirelli was unable to test new rubber before the Barcelona tests,
where most of the cars were launched. Despite concerns over lack
of running it was broadly happy with performance of its product
Catalunya its spokespeople all seemed broadly
positive about how things were going.
The degradation level is lower than last year,
thats what we expected and that is what we
saw in testing, Pirellis head of Car Racing Mario
Isola claimed during his test review. When you
overstress the tyres they come back quickly, that
was a key objective for us. I think the cars will
have a huge amount of development during the
season so the rate of degradation will probably
increase as they gain downforce and power
through the year, as you might expect.
However, the Pirelli engineers also noticed
the increased sensitivity of this generation of
grand prix car. They are more sensitive to any
change in set-up, talking with the teams it is
8 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
Rookie Lance Stroll was caught out by snap oversteer three times, his final spin resulting in this crash and a
damaged monocoque. New breed of cars seem much more prone to sudden oversteer than the 2016 racecars
clear that these cars are very, very sensitive. Any
small change has a big effect on balance and
the performance of the cars, so of course the
tyres are a key factor in that.
Perhaps making car set-ups somewhat
easier are the limitations on tyre pressure and
camber angle which have been in force in
Formula 1 for some time. The original set-up we
set in testing was 3.5 degrees maximum camber
on the front with a pressure of 22psi, but we
then gave the option of going to four degrees
of camber but at a minimum of 23psi. The
pressures and camber will again be restricted
during the season, the pressure will be checked
as the tyres go on to the car, the camber is
policed by the FIA, Isola says.
Under pressure
In 2016 Pirelli was criticised by some, including
drivers, who thought that the tyre pressures
were too high, but as Isola explains, if anything
the minimum pressures are going to increase.
The restrictions will be fairly similar even with
the new tyres. Last year the minimum pressure
limit was 21.5psi on the front. At the rear it is
18psi and I think it was 19.5psi last year, so
the minimum pressure is higher at the front and
lower at the rear as that is what our simulations
suggested was right. Now we are receiving data
from the teams from testing and it is generally
in line with the simulations. In 10 to 12 races
time, with the cars getting much faster, we will
have to increase the minimum pressures as the
stress on the tyres will be higher.
Hard drive
Throughout the test a number drivers
noticeably struggled with the handling of their
cars, some suffering high speed spins and a few
hitting the wall as a result of them.
I think in terms of tyres, from my feeling, it is
not a massive difference in terms of how sudden
the loss of grip is, only in the case if the tyre
is not hot enough, especially with the harder
compounds, sometimes it can be quite tricky
to get them to work, Mercedes driver Valtteri
Bottas says. The cars are quite snappy if you
have oversteer, its very sudden. But with the
softer compounds, once you get them to do the
temperature, it felt like very much the same rate
of sliding or losing the grip as last year.
Once the car has lost the rear it seems that
drivers are struggling to bring it back under
control. This was very apparent watching them
tackle some sections of the circuit in testing, and
it could lead to more crashes during races. To

Front camber and the tyre pressures are to be limited, which has been the case for the last few seasons.
The pressures will be checked as the tyres go on to the racecars, while camber is to be policed by the FIA
Tyre degradation will be low in 2017 if the tests are anything to go by. But Pirelli expects the rate of deg to
increase throughout the year as the teams find more power and downforce through in-season development
catch the car is much harder, so you can go off,
whereas before, you had a slide and you could
catch it. This year it is harder to catch it, Esteban
Ocon, now a Force India driver says. You go at
such a speed in the corners, it is already hard to
find the limit and when you start to lose the car,
the car is heavier, obviously. The tyres especially
are wider, so when you start to lose the car, the
snap you get is much bigger than [in] previous
years. That has caught out some of the drivers
in winter testing.
Snappy days
This snap oversteer tendency is, according to
Isola, really a consequence of the aerodynamic
regulations allied to the increased tyre grip.
Snap oversteer is possible as the cars have
increased grip, so I know a lot of the teams are
working to make the cars a lot more predictable,
working on set-ups that are more driveable. Its
clear that when you have more grip and more
downforce that when the grip is lost the car
becomes snappy, Isola explains.
Temperature and the working window of
the cars, as well as keeping them drivable yet
fast, is likely to be the deciding factor in many
races this season, and with the cars so sensitive
to any changes it is likely that almost every
Formula 1 team will get it wrong at some point
and that could lead to unpredictable results.
It will be fascinating to watch.
It is highly likely that almost every one of the
Formula 1 teams will get it wrong at some point
Pirellis wet woes
E
ight large tankers slowly toured around the Circuit
de Catalunya during the second pre season test.
They deposited a quarter of a million litres of water
around the whole track; twice. Pirelli had demanded this
slightly odd-looking activity as a way to get some running
on its new wet and intermediate tyres before the season
got underway. Unfortunately, not everything was as the
Italian tyre maker had hoped, not least because the Catalan
sunshine saw the track dry rapidly.
With the new wet tyres we focussed on two things;
firstly a tyre which could work in cooler conditions and
switch on easily, Mario Isola says. We have the new
regulations about standing starts in the wet, where you
can see the cars driving around behind the safety car for a
few laps and then they have to stop and make a standing
start, so we need the tyres to work right away. Aquaplaning
was another big area, with the bigger tyres the risk of
aquaplaning is higher, so we designed the tyres with more
grooves, different sized grooves and different angles, but
we have to test them. At Barcelona the track is not flat and
the water just ran off, so there were no rivers or pools, so we
could not really test that unfortunately.
Global warming
Paul Hembery, Pirellis former head of motorsport says: We
have some work to do on switching on the compound,
we are working on that. We could see there was an issue
warming up the tyres. We found that the intermediate
was not switching on how we wanted it to, so we know
that there is a bit of an issue and we are working on it. We
already suspected that it would be an issue and the test
confirmed it, but work is already well advanced. There is
probably a case for having two types of wet tyre, one for the
warmer wet races and one for the Silverstone or Spa type
of wetness, where it is a lot cooler. If we confirm what we
are working on we could introduce a wet tyre compound
change for the Chinese Grand Prix.
The track was soaked to evaluate Pirelliss wet rubber, but the
Spanish sunshine and the circuit drainage spoilt the exercise
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 9
TECHNOLOGY F1 AERODYNAMICS

Follow the leader

Downforce levels have increased in F1 for 2017 but will the new regulations
improve or reduce the ability of cars to run close together or overtake?
By SIMON McBEATH

2017 F1 car models in tandem-running

simulation. Theres the usual messy
spaghetti, but will it be easier for the
following car to stay close or overtake?

W
ith official F1 testing
scheduled to take
place at the end of
February, time is now
short for the teams to complete the
build of their initial aerodynamic
packages to the new regulations
that come into force for 2017. And
with limits on the amount of wind
tunnel testing and CFD that the
teams are permitted to do under the
Resource Restriction Agreement, it
is improbable that any of them have
indulged in the relative luxury of
running their new designs in multi-car
scenarios to see how they will perform
in traffic. Their focus will inevitably
have been on hitting the track with a
package designed to achieve the best
lap time, and one which will form the
basis for ongoing developments.
However, with designs and CFD
services provided by Miqdad Ali (MA)
at Dynamic Flow Solutions, Racecar
Engineering can show the results not
only of optimisation work on the
2017 rules model introduced in our
December issue (V26N12,) but of
running that car in two-car line-
astern drafting scenarios that we can
compare to the similar trials we have
conducted in the past 18 months.
The rationale behind our line
astern two-car simulations has been
that the effect on the aerodynamics
of a following car has an enormous
influence on a drivers ability to
get close to the car in front. And
being able to get close is the
essential preliminary to being able
to overtake, which definition here
excludes artificially assisted passing
manoeuvres that use DRS, or push
to pass engine modes, or the release
of stored energy. The FIAs passing
reference (pun intended) to the topic
of overtaking was seemingly just to
request that the new rules should not
make the current situation any worse.
Now we can demonstrate what the
initial following car simulations on
our 2017 rules model have indicated,
and our findings are surprising indeed.
But first, lets look at the optimisation
work that MA has performed on
the new 2017 car model to bring
its balance and downforce closer to
expected levels so that he had a
good basis on which to conduct
the line astern simulations.
Improvements
The 2017 rules model introduced
in last months issue did not quite
achieve the desired aerodynamic
balance or the expected total
downforce level in initial simulations.
With the statutory weight distribution
in F1 requiring around 45 per cent
of the weight on the front axle, the
aerodynamic balance target was
also to have 45 per cent of the total

Now we can demonstrate what the initial following car simulations on

our 2017 model have indicated, and our findings are surprising indeed
10 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
 Table 1: The basic aerodynamic parameters on our baseline
2017 FIA rules F1 model at 50 per cent front balance level
CD -CL -L/D
2013 1.17 3.94 3.36
2016 0.87 2.84 3.27
2017 1.20 3.91 3.26

Figure 2: The effects of our optimisation work on the 2017 Formula 1 racecar model.
Gains in downforce were made from the underbody and the rear wing areas of the car

Figure 1: Areas optimised on our 2017 model are highlighted in red. The front wing, Figure 3: Comparing downforce contributions with our 2013 model. Its clear here that
bargeboard, rear wing flap and rear wheel brake duct cascade were all re-designed the underbody of the car has become even more important with the 2017 configuration

downforce on the front axle. In its
first design iteration our model
generated a 50/50 per cent split in
downforce, so clearly more work was
required to generate some more rear
downforce, and/or to reduce front
end downforce. At the same time MA
was also looking to achieve greater
total downforce, as he explained: In
the previous feature we compared
three cars at equivalent balance levels
of roughly 50 per cent front and that
gave us an idea of where things were,
as shown in Table 1. The next target
was to optimise our 2017 car both
for balance and downforce. We also
wanted to compare the optimised
2017 car with our earlier optimised
2013 car (at 45 per cent front), against
which our following-car simulations
on various design configurations have
been compared in previous articles,
and run the optimised 2017 car at
various separations behind a leading
2017 car to see how it performed
when following. This would give us
an idea of how it compared to the
2013 racecar at various line astern
separations and whether the 2017
rules had made things any better.
MA continued: To improve both
balance and increase downforce
there were several things on the
baseline 2017 car which obviously
needed work straight away. One
would expect this anyway when
you make simple changes to a car
which works well under one set of
regulations to meet a different set of
regulations. The first thing to address
on the 2017 baseline model was the
size of the front tyre wake. The results
and visualisations showed that the
baseline front wing and its endplate
did not do a good enough job of
diverting the airflow outboard of the
wider front tyres. Secondly, the y-250
area [where the neutral section of
the front wing terminates, 250mm
from the centreline] of the 2013 front
wing worked well with a raised nose
where the resulting y-250 vortex
interacted well with the vane-vortex
coming from the under-nose turning
vane. The lowered nose on the 2017
car changed the flow in that area
considerably. We were not getting the
flow conditions needed for producing
efficient downforce. There is also the
presence of the bigger bargeboard,
which would need careful placing
in the context of all the other flow
structures around the area. Also, the
baseline front wing produced more
downforce than required.
A new front wing was designed
to address the above issues. The
outboard section diverted the flow
around the front tyres a lot better,
resulting in a smaller front tyre wake.
A reduction in chord length of the
main element reduced front wing
downforce by the required amount.
The strength of the y-250 vortex
was increased through the use of
smaller flap elements at higher AoA.
Moreover, the y-250 vortex was
moved outboard (to y-320) (through
reduced span of the flap elements)
and worked better with the bigger
bargeboard in deflecting the front
tyre wake away from the underfloor.
All these produced a more favourable
flow condition behind the front
wing which helped the underfloor
produce more downforce and shifted
the balance to the rear.
To improve the underfloor further,
several vertical slots were added
to the bargeboard, which kept the
flow attached to the inner face of
the bargeboard; this in turn kept the
pressure low and improved mass
flow in that area. It also increased the
strength of the bargeboard vortex
(which added downforce in the

The visualisations showed that the baseline front wing did not do a good
enough job of diverting the airflow outboard of the wider front tyres
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 11
TECHNOLOGY F1 AERODYNAMICS

Figure 4: This delta-Cp plot shows where pressure reductions were achieved with Figure 5: Turning the airflow more effectively outboard around the tyre also produced
optimised 2017 model, leading to downforce gains, especially in the rear underbody reductions in front tyre drag, as shown by the pressure reductions (blue) on front of tyres

Figure 6: A total pressure slice taken 200mm above ground level clearly shows Figure 7: A total pressure slice 900mm behind the front axle line shows how the flow
the reduced front tyre wake on our optimised 2017 Formula 1 racecar model structures were modified by the optimisations; note the front wheel wake reduction

Table 2: The basic aerodynamic parameters on our
optimised 2017 FIA rules Formula 1 model compared
with our earlier 2013 Formula 1 model racecar
CD -CL %front -L/D
2017 optimised 1.20 4.31 45.0% 3.59
2013 optimised 1.17 3.89 45.0% 3.32
forward underbody) due to a bigger Table 2 shows the basic aerodynamic
pressure difference across the two data for this optimised 2017 model
faces of the bargeboard. and compares it to our earlier
Moving to the rear of the car, optimised 2013 rules model. The
minor changes were made to the 2017 model now generated over 10
rear wing flap profile, reducing per cent more downforce than the
its camber to fix some trailing 2013 model. Given that the 2014 to
edge flow separation. The slot gap 2016 regulations caused a marked
between the main element and decrease in downforce compared
flap was reduced from 12mm to the to the pre-2014 rules, it looks as
minimum permitted 10mm. And though our optimised 2017 model
gills were added to the rear wing was producing significantly more
endplate leading edge to deal with downforce than our 2016 model
flow separation there. Rear wheel/ would have done at the same balance
tyre assembly lift was reduced via the level, had it too been optimised.
use of brake duct cascades. All these From this we might conclude
changes increased overall downforce that, following the optimisation work
by over 10 per cent over the baseline MA carried out, our model may not
2017 car, with a desired downforce be too far from expected Formula 1
balance of 45 per cent front and 55 aerodynamic performance levels
per cent rear, [Figures 1 to 7] amid the reported predictions by F1
insiders of up to 25 per cent more
downforce in 2017 than in 2016.
Tough act to follow
So, coupled with increases in
mechanical grip from the bigger tyres
being imposed for 2017, Formula 1
lap times will certainly decrease for
cars running in isolation. But how will
following cars in line astern formation
fare? We have seen in our various
studies over the past 18 months
that the cars basic aerodynamic
configuration can alter the total
downforce and aerodynamic balance
that a following car can generate. MA
created one configuration, among
others, that saw zero balance shift on
the following car across the range of
longitudinal separations from eight
car lengths to half a cars length, and
another that saw much reduced total
downforce losses when following,
although achieving both certainly
looked like the search for the Holy
Grail. Meanwhile, out on track in all
the recent rule-defined aerodynamic
configurations we have seen how
cars have suffered from aerodynamic
understeer when closing on the
car in front, and our simulations on
models to recent rule sets have shown
this rearwards shift in aerodynamic
balance at ever closer line astern
separations too, which has made it
manifestly difficult for following cars
to close up on the car in front.
It was felt that minimising or
eradicating this rearwards shift
in downforce balance was key to
mitigating the problem of being able
to follow closely, and we saw in V26N2
(February 2016) how increasing the
influence of underbody aerodynamics
was one of the important factors
in minimising balance shift on the
following car. The 2017 rules enable
a greater downforce contribution
from the underbody, so could we be
optimistic of change for the better?
The data from our 2017 rules
model in two-car line astern is
outlined below, and Figure 8
illustrates the changes to the usual
aerodynamic parameters across
the range of horizontal separations
from half a cars length to eight car
lengths. It is immediately obvious

It was felt that minimising this rearwards shift in downforce balance

was key to mitigating the problem of being able to follow a car closely
12 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
Figure 8: Changes to the principal aero numbers on optimised 2017 car when following Figure 9: Changes to front wing downforce on our optimised 2017 car when following

Figure 10: Changes to rear wing downforce on our optimised 2017 car when following Fig 11: Changes to underfloor, diffuser downforce for optimised 2017 car when following

that there are some major and very
surprising differences with this 2017
configuration. The most obvious
difference is in how the aerodynamic
balance on the following car changes
across the separation range.
Initially there was zero balance
shift at eight and four car lengths
separation, which does indeed give
ground for optimism that cars could
run closer. This minimal balance
shift at these separations, combined
with just a modest initial decline in
total downforce, and the increased
mechanical grip of the 2017 cars,
should make things easier for the
following driver as he first starts to
close on the car in front.
However, the subsequent forwards
balance shift at closer separations
is the complete opposite of what
we have become used to and is an
intriguing and if it translates to
reality on track a slightly worrying
response for the closer separations.
The plot lines in Figure 8 showing
the front and rear downforce changes
with car separation confirm the
forwards balance shift, with front
and rear downforce declining
similarly and modestly from eight
to four car lengths separations, but
at closer separations both ends
declined further, but rear downforce
declined much more.
Translating the relative data in the
graph to absolute numbers, what we
saw on our model was the balance
figure change to about 50 per cent
front at two cars separation, 55 per
cent front at one cars separation
and about 61 per cent front at half a
cars separation, compared to the 45
per cent front figure on our model
in isolation and at eight and four
car lengths separation. If this were
to transfer out on to the track, what
we could see in 2017 when cars try
to run close together in line astern
through aero speed corners is that
the following car might initially be
able to get closer more comfortably
than in previous configurations but
then, as it closed more, become prone
to aerodynamic oversteer. This may
simply manifest itself as just that,
oversteer. But could it be that drivers
will risk spinning off if they get too
close to the car in front?
The detail
Figures 9, 10 and 11 isolate the
downforce changes of the front
and rear wings and the underbody
across the range of longitudinal
separations to help understand why
our 2017 rules model responded the
way it did. In contrast to previous car
configurations, with our 2013 rules
model shown here for comparison,
the 2017 models front wing
maintained a good proportion of its
downforce at all separations. This in
isolation was quite a step forwards;
previously the loss of front wing
downforce as cars closed up on the
one in front was the dominant cause
of rearwards balance shift and aero
understeer when following through
a corner. But our 2017 rules model
did not suffer this to anything like
the same extent as we had seen on
earlier models, and had this been
the whole story then we might be
contemplating indeed celebrating
a scenario in which balance shift when
following closely was minimal.
It was unfortunate, then that,
after the initial modest downforce
losses at eight and four car lengths
the rear wing then lost considerably
more downforce as the car got closer
to the one in front. A not dissimilar
pattern affected the underbody, and
the rear wings losses will have been
directly related to the underbody
losses because of the interaction
between the two; once the rear
wing lost downforce, so too did the
underbody. Thus we appear to have a

This may simply manifest itself as just that, oversteer. But could it be
that drivers will risk spinning off if they get too close to the car in front?
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 13
TECHNOLOGY F1 AERODYNAMICS

Figure 12: At four car lengths separation the front wing of the following Figure 13: At four car lengths separation the rear wing of the following
racecar received a reasonably energetic and a well aligned airflow racecar also received a reasonably energetic and a well aligned flow

Figure 14: At half a cars length the front wing of the following car still received Figure 15: However, the rear wing did not fare quite so well at
decent airflow; in fact the swept back shape seems to align with the onset airflow closer separations, receiving lower energy and a disturbed airflow

Figure 16: Here the delta Cp plot of the underside at half a racecars length Figure 17: At half a racecars length separation the rear wing saw pressure
separation shows that the front wing incurred relatively minor pressure changes increases on its suction surface that created significant downforce loss

configuration that saw this forwards
balance shift at close quarters. The
question is, why did it happen?
Looking first at streamline images
of the wings at four cars length
separation, in Figures 12 and 13 we
can see that both the front and the
rear wing of the following car received
flow with reasonably high total
pressure, or energy, as shown here
by the relatively high coefficient of
total pressure. Furthermore, the flow
direction was reasonably well aligned
with the ideal. Thus, the wings were
able to generate a high proportion
of what they would have generated
when the car was running on its own.
If we now look at Figures 14
and 15 at half a cars length apart,
in the case of the front wing we can
see that streamlines impinging on it
were not just reasonably high energy
but also had reasonably good flow
directionality, too. MA picked up the
explanation here: When we look at
the streamlines approaching the front
wing at half a cars length we can see
that most of the flow was high energy
coming from outboard of the lead car
thanks to the in-wash caused by the
highly cambered rear wing, which is
a lot closer to the ground [than under
2016 rules] and therefore so was the
in-washed flow to the front wing.
This helped the front wing keep its
performance. Furthermore, the swept
back nature of the 2017 front wing
worked well with the in-washed flow
since the flow direction was aligned
with the front wing. In fact, the front
wing only lost six per cent of its
downforce at half-car length whereas
the rear wing lost around 55 per cent.
When we look at the delta Cp plots in
Figures 16 and 17 we can clearly
see that the front wing maintained
most of its downforce since the
pressure changes were less, whereas
the rear wing showed significant
changes in static pressure.
Looking at Figure 15 showing the
streamlines impinging on the rear

The wings were able to generate a high proportion of what they

would have generated when the racecar was running on its own
14 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
TECHNOLOGY F1 AERODYNAMICS

not ideal either. Thus, the relatively

benign situation at eight and four car
lengths separation had turned into a
significant and intrinsically unstable
forwards balance shift at separations
of two lengths and less.
Total pressure slices in line with
the front and rear wing leading edges
at four car lengths and half a cars
length separation (Figures 18 and 19)
complete the story and show how the
energy of the airflow encountering
the front wing remained high even
at the closest separation, whereas
that which impinged on the rear
wing had lost significant energy at
half of a racecars length.

Cause for optimism?

Could our findings just be a particular
Figure 18: Energy of airflow impinging on front wing leading edge didnt change much from four car lengths to half a car length characteristic of our interpretation
of the 2017 rules, or is the forwards
balance shift at closer separations
likely to be a generic effect? MA
commented that our model has the
same basic architecture as the cars
will have, with the bigger wheels and
tyres, and the wings to the sizes and
in the locations they have to be, so
the main flow structures will be pretty
similar. But Im optimistic that things
will be better in 2017, and it looks
as though the initial response when
closing will be to allow the cars to get
closer more easily I hope so anyway!
So now we wait to see what
happens when the cars hit the track,
and in all likelihood it wont be until
the first race of 2017 that we get an
idea of how running in traffic has or
has not changed. It will be fascinating
to see if the new aerodynamics and
mechanical layout do provide any
Figure 19: Here it can be seen that the energy of the airflow impinging on the rear wings leading edge was help to drivers trying to close up on
much reduced at half a cars length separation compared to the situation at four car lengths separation the car in front through a corner. The
FIAs brief to the rule writers was to
Dynamic Flow Solutions wing of the following car at half a cars
length separation the story was quite
not make the overtaking problem
any worse. Would the response we
different, as MA related: The in-wash have seen here fit that requirement?

D
ynamic Flow Solutions Ltd is an which was beneficial to the front wing In one sense perhaps it would,
aerodynamics consultancy led also had to go around the front tyres. although it might simply change the
by director Miqdad Ali, ex-MIRA The resulting front tyre wake headed reason for the fact that the underlying
aerodynamicist, who has performed to the rear wing along with the rear problem, at least in part, remains!
design, development, simulation and wing vortex coming from the lead car. But lets remain optimistic that what
test work at all levels of professional The streamlines approaching the rear looks to be at least a partial fix for the
motorsport from junior formula cars to wing clearly show this. By the time the aerodynamic reasons for the difficulty
World and British touring cars, Le Mans flow reached the rear wing it had lost in following closely, combined with
prototypes, up through to Formula 1 a significant amount of energy and an increase in mechanical grip, will
and Land Speed Record cars. the direction it approached from was improve the situation overall.
Contact: miqdad.ali@dynamic-flow.
co.uk
web: www.dynamic-flow.co.uk Could our findings just be a
particular characteristic of our
interpretation of the 2017 rules?
Ex-MIRA aero man Miqdad Ali (MA),
is boss of Dynamic Flow Solutions

16 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

 O r d e r
On l i n e !

You are now able to purchase online

from our huge range of Rod Ends and
Spherical Bearings, NEO Lubricants,
Ball and Roller Bearings, Fasteners,
Batteries and much more.

In fact, we have EVERYTHING to make

your RACE CAR a winner!

Call +44 (0) 1932 225777 www.autosport-bearings.co.uk

abc@autosport-bearings.co.uk

lithium batteries
FORMULA 1 MERCEDES PU

Halfway to
impossible
One hundred per cent thermal efficiency is
simply impossible, but with its 2016 F1 power
unit Mercedes HPP was halfway there Racecar
went to its Brixworth base to investigate
By PETER WRIGHT

18 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

I From 2012, when HPP
n 2012 the FIA announced new powertrain
regulations with two radical features: firstly
it determined that power output was to
be a function of thermal efficiency and
energy recovery, and secondly it constrained
the configuration of the system IC engine,
and energy recovery and storage to align the
technologies with those of the road car industry.
For the first time in 64 years of Formula1, the
technical objectives of the engineers in both
disciplines were very nearly the same.
Since the first powertrains ran in early 2014,
half the F1 paddock has been decrying these
devices on the basis of: not noisy enough;
too complicated; too expensive, and his is
more powerful than mine; its not fair! All to be
expected. The other half of the paddock has
kept quiet, and this is the extraordinary thing.
Instead of extolling their achievements in radically
improving the thermal efficiency of an IC gasoline
engine, and the power density of energy storage
systems, power electronics and machines, they,
being racing engineers, have kept their heads
down looking for the next improvement and
competitive advantage. A consequence of this is
that the bath water, baby and all, very nearly got
thrown out, with a reversion proposed to return to
irrelevant, high-revving, fuel-guzzling powertrains.
Racings relevance
The relevance of motorsport engineering to road
cars has always been a debated topic, and never
more so than with powertrains. The problem is
that motorsport requires the maximum output
within the regulatory constraints, regardless
of cost, while road car engineering sets out to
provide adequate output for minimum cost.
With a swept-volume engine regulation
dominating throughout F1s history until 2014,
power output has been the quest for RPM.
Pneumatic valves are an example of an expensive
F1 technology that removed a development
constraint but had no road car relevance. An
opposite example is GDI (gasoline direct injection)
present on the W196 Mercedes of 1954, which
started work on the
current powertrain,
efficiency has risen
from 29 per cent to
nearly 50 per cent
so it is easy to see both why HPP is working so
revved to 10,000rpm, at that time twice the RPM
of a high performance road car engine, such as the
Jaguar XK. GDI did not return to racing until the
late 1990s with the Audi R8. The engine for this
produced its peak output at 6500rpm, while at the
same time F1 engines, in particular the Mercedes
engine which won the World Championship that
year, turned at up to 18,000rpm, where GDI is
not feasible. GDI is one of the technologies that
has had a big influence on road cars, but was not
possible to use in F1 until now, when it has been
made central to the current F1 regulations.
As a prelude to the 2016 season, with two
successive World Championships under the new
regulations in the bag, Mercedes HPP decided it
was time to tell the world what it had achieved
to date, how it did it, and the relevance of the
technologies developed to its passenger cars.
No one is better placed to do this than Andy
Cowell, managing director of Mercedes HPP,
and the architect of this success.
Measuring efficiency
Cowell was at pains to ensure that what is meant
by efficiency is correctly understood, which in an
era of energy recovery and energy storage, is not
always the case. True thermal efficiency is the ratio
of the power delivered at the crankshaft to the
power delivered to the engine as fuel. And 100 per
cent is thermodynamically impossible. In F1s case,
100kg/hour of fuel is delivered at a peak
rate equivalent to 1240kW or 1686PS. The
crank power must not include any that derives
its energy from an electrical storage system.
Cowell then gave some interesting numbers,
starting in 1876, the year that Karl Benz invented
the automobile see Table 1.
Pressed to be a little bit more specific about
the thermal efficiency achieved today, based on
the fact that through reverse engineering all his
competitors will probably know the figure anyway,
Cowell admitted, not far short of 50 per cent.
Halfway to impossible, then (Table 2).
A one per cent gain in efficiency yields 18ps,
hard on efficiency, and why Cowell is somewhat
cagey about exactly where they have got to. With
additional energy sent to the MGU-K from the
battery to top it up to its permitted maximum,
there is at certain times greater than 900PS
available to the driver at the flywheel.
Staggering development
In the 137 years since the inception of the IC
engine, thermal efficiency has been improved
from 17 per cent to 29 per cent, that is 0.00875 per
cent per year. From 2012, when HPP started work
on the current powertrain, efficiency has risen
from 29 per cent to nearly 50 per cent, that is 5.25
per cent per year. This represents a staggering
steepening of the development curve.
HPP made a fundamental decision when it
heard KERS was to be introduced into F1 in 2009;
that it would take on the responsibility for this
technology, starting work on it in 2007 (Table 3).
Cowell stated that the specific power had been
improved by a factor of 12, which would mean
that the less than 20kg might in fact be nearer
to18kg, based on the firm figures supplied. This
weight not only includes the battery itself, but
also all the control electronics that monitor the
Lithium Ion cells, and control the flow of electrical
energy to and from the two MGUs (H and K) that
form part of the powertrain. This latter computer
performs a mere 43 trillion calculations in the
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 19
FORMULA 1 MERCEDES PU

The engine from the first the desired torque, then the MGU-K can draw
motor car, as invented by energy from the battery and fill in any holes in
Karl Benz back in 1876, the IC engine torque curve. Cowell stated that
which had a thermal torque feedback from a sensor on the input
efficiency of 17 per cent shaft of the gearbox is not employed as that
would look too much like traction control.
This mastery of the mammoth torque of
these powertrains has given the drivers better
control than ever before, and has meant that
talented young drivers can step up to F1 with
ease. Spectacular it is not, and however much
power the powertrains deliver, that era is gone.
But does Mercedes ever burn fuel solely
to fill the energy store, under braking or mid
corner, or for instance when the traction is
limited? Cowell says that would be an inefficient
use of fuel, to send the energy via the battery,
but admitted it would be possible on circuits
where the race allocation of fuel (100kg) is not
needed, or when there is an extended safety car
period and fuel is conserved.
Cowell spoke carefully and somewhat
Table 1: Thermal efficiency of Mercedes-Benz guardedly about how HPP had achieved
automobile engines since its inception these remarkable results starting in 2012,
Year Engine configuration Thermal Efficiency when the new regulations became firm. He
1876 1-litre, 1-cylinder, NA 17 per cent gives much of the credit to four key groups
within HPP: Performance Simulation, tasked
2013 2.4-litre, V8, NA 29 per cent
with combustion, Dr Nigel McKinley, its team
2015 1.6-litre, V6, turbo-compound >45 per cent
leader; Turbocharger Design (Pierre Godof,
team leader); Hybrid Systems team (led by John
Table 2: Performance of recent Mercedes Formula 1 powertrains Stamford); and the Software Development
Year Engine Power Fuel flow Thermal Efficiency group, led by John Goodman.
2005
2013
3-litre, V10, NA
2.4-litre, V8, NA
900ps @ 18,000rpm
725ps @ 18,000rpm
194kg/hr
148kg/hr
27.5 per cent
29 per cent
Performance simulation
The first powertrain, the GB (the 2016 is the
2015 1.6-litre V6, t-c 750-840ps @ 10,500rpm 100kg/hr 45-50 per cent
GF), weighed in at 262kg and would never
have fitted in to a car. It did not feature the
Table 3: Mercedes-Benz HPPs work on KERS later engines split turbo system, but gave the
Year Weight (kg) Power (kW) One-way efficiency (%) Power/Weight (kW/kg) engineers the first validation of the combustion
simulation work that is the cornerstone of HPPs
2007 107.0 60 39 0.56
R&D. Using moving-mesh CFD, essential where
2008 36.5 60 54 1.64
there are geometry changes, the Performance
2009 25.3 60 70 2.57 Simulation group ran hundreds of simulations in
2012 <24 120 80 >5.0 order to understand and optimise the synergy
2015 <20 120 95 >6.0 between: GDI; charge motion; compression
efficiency; gas exchange; and combustion
course of a two-hour race. This level of number delivery response to the drivers desires, both including molecular-level modelling of fuels
crunching is needed to manage the recovery on track and in the simulator. When the driver with a knock limit being the critical boundary.
and deployment of the energy between the applies the throttle pedal he wants to receive Results are then proven in a single cylinder
MGUs and the battery, and to ensure that the the exact torque at the wheels he desires, and it research engine, and transferred to the latest
race driver receives exactly, and repeatedly, must be exactly the same as last time. More can spec of the V6 R&D engines.
the torque that he demands. lead to loss of control; less to frustration. At the start of the project, HPP found that
The first of these is supervised according to In the days of port fuel injection, the there was virtually no turbocharging expertise
the strategy in use: Friday practice, Qualifying, fuel droplets made a couple of laps of the in-house at Brixworth. Turning to parent
Race, Safety Car, etc. The software learns and trumpets before disappearing down them, says company Daimler, it ended up talking to both
updates the strategy according to what is Cowell. Mixture distribution was somewhat the truck division of Mercedes-Benz and the
actually happening out on the track. haphazard, and the response of the engine helicopter gas turbine division of MTU. The truck
The second function reveals an interesting to a given throttle opening was guesswork. business is driven by the costs of fuel, and so
insight about the entertainment value of GDI has solved much of this problem with efficiency is paramount. Also, the power rating
F1. Many perceive that F1 has become less predictable, repeatable fuelling of each cylinder. of big truck diesel engines is of the same order
spectacular, and that this can be corrected The throttle pedal is a torque demand, and as the F1 powertrain, so learning from truck
with more power although why more grip is the computer determines the actual throttle turbos is not as odd as it may seem.
also being prescribed is currently beyond me. opening according to engine conditions at the Freeing up the size of the compressor
However, Cowell explained how HPP engineers time, compensating for RPM, turbo pressure, air by taking it out of the V, and mounting it at
spend a great deal of time tuning the torque temperature etc. If the IC engine cannot deliver the front of the engine, with the MGU-H just

20 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

The Mercedes F Cell Roadster concept of 2009 (left) was a tribute
to the very first car, the Benz Motorwagen (right). The roadster has
an electric motor powered by a fuel cell. Mercedes-Benz HPP has
now made concept car-like efficiency gains in the real world of F1

closely related to the piston alloy developed by

Rolls Royce for the Schneider Trophy R-engine
and the Merlin, 90 years ago. The double entry
turbine wheel is a cast, high nickel inconel alloy;
ceramics are not permitted. We did not get a
chance to look at an exhaust system.
Inspection of the other IC engine
components revealed parts that look similar to
the V8 equivalent parts, although there were
obviously many, many detailed differences.
Much lower RPM has relieved the inertial loads,
but the gas loads are way higher. The small V6
also needs some beefing up to maintain its
structural stiffness as an integral part of the
chassis, and this is particularly evident as a larger
Mercedes HPP has achieved a thermal efficiency of close to 50 per cent with its F1 power unit. True thermal web at the base of the crankcase, and tubular
efficiency is the ratio of the power delivered at the crankshaft to the power delivered to the engine as fuel structures above the cylinder heads.

behind it and the driveshaft extending back to
the turbine at the rear, brought a number of
benefits: When added together, they are worth
the enormous effort needed to make it work
it was very hard, says Cowell.
Inspecting the assembly indicates that the
125,000rpm rotating parts are monitored by
a number of sensors to ensure that the bearings
and shaft dynamics are always within limits. The
cogging of the electrical machine, combined
with the exhaust pulses the turbine experiences,
make for a highly excited rotating assembly.
At the front, the compressor inlet conditions
are controlled by variable geometry inlet guide
vanes, to maintain the surge margin when the
throttle is closed. At the rear, variable geometry
is not permitted on the turbine, and in fact is not
required as the whole system is constant speed,
controlled by the MGU-H. A wastegate, however,
is required for safety, for instance when it is
necessary to unload the turbine suddenly
due to an electrical short, triggering the total
disconnection of the high-voltage power
electrical system. It is also sometimes useful
to compensate for sudden load shifts during
downchanges. It took 600 CFD simulations to
arrive at the first design, and many containment
burst tests to prove it, at 20,000 a test for the
hardware alone. The large diameter compressor
allows HPP to run the turbocharger below the
maximum 125,000rpm at sea level, and to speed
it up and continue to use the 100kg/hr fuel flow
rate at altitude, for example at Mexico City, to
maintain design power output.
The compressor wheel employs the same
alloy as the pistons, an aluminium alloy still
Electrification
It is easy to overlook the development that
has gone into the two electrical machines that
are part of the powertrain. By their very nature
they are densely packed cylinders of copper,
steel laminations, and rare-earth magnets,
with the smallest of air gaps and only sufficient
free space for cooling fluid. Weight reduction
only comes from reducing the size for a given
power by increasing RPM. Both MGU-K and
MGU-H seem to be around the same size, but
HPP is neither releasing the power rating of the
125,000rpm MGU-H, nor the RPM of the 120kW
MGU-K. From the sizes observed, it is unlikely
that either is much under 10kg.
A 16ps/kg figure is, however, impressive
compared to around 10ps/kg of the 900ps of
the best V10s. The problem with automotive

The 125,000rpm rotating parts are monitored by a number of sensors

FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 21
FORMULA 1 MERCEDES PU
electrification is not the motor; rather it is
the storage of the energy
Cowell stressed how hard HPP had worked
on the efficiency of the whole power electrical
system. The payoff is not just yielding more
power, but less cooling of all elements of
the system, which compromises the cars
aerodynamics. Every aspect is studied to yield
crumbs of performance, which add up to
something useful. Aircraft wiring and connector
systems are utilised. In aircraft power electric
cables, copper is replaced with nickel-plated
aluminium wires, which are half the weight for
a given resistance. Running the system under
full power and inspecting with thermal imaging
cameras guides the engineers to hot areas
where the losses are occurring. It is like the
water and oil systems, you have to eradicate or
ease every little restriction, Cowell explains.
Yet while alls clearly very good at HPP now,
in an ideal world what would HPP like to do to
change the F1 powertrain regulations to yield
greater efficiency? Maybe two less cylinders,
says Cowell. If it must be a V6, then 60-degree or
Weve developed three or four alloys, unique to HPP, for the powertrain
22 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
Above: The V6, which is smaller
than the V8 which preceded it,
needed some beefing up to maintain
its structural stiffness as an integral
part of the Mercedes chassis
Left: HPP spends a great deal of time
tuning the torque delivery response to
the drivers desires, both on track and
in the simulator, so they always know
whats under their right foot
120-degree rather than 90-degree, for a sweeter
sound. Larger capacity with less RPM would
increase thermal efficiency. The fuel regulations
are okay a reasonable balance between
energy density and knock.
Tech transfer
Another hypothetical question: if Cowell was
suddenly and unexpectedly transferred by
Mercedes-Benz to design the next C-class
powertrain, what would he take from HPP
to incorporate into a middle of the range
powertrain? After some thought, but still just
about off the cuff, these are the features he
puts forward: 400cc, 90-degree V-twin, with
200PS; electric turbocharger but not exhaust
energy recovery as this requires full throttle;
an MGU-K integrated into the powertrain,
with two energy recovery MGUs for each of
the front wheels, giving 4WD when necessary;
combustion know-how; lower RPM than the
F1 internal combustion engine. The IC engine
would effectively become a range extender with
around 54 per cent efficiency, he adds.
Cowell sees no future for the IC engine as
a stand-alone powertrain. However, he did
also admit that his vision would require clever
production engineers to get the costs out
without destroying the efficiency.
HPP has a total staff of around 500 at
Brixworth, of which Cowell is the managing
director. To have an engineer with total
management control is unusual in F1, and this,
plus the autonomy of Mercedes-Benz HPP,
located in a different country to the parent
company but close to the racing team, is a
major contributor towards its success.
A number of other things impressed me
as Cowell led a brief tour of the factory, during
which he offered a number of insights, for
instance: In general we dont employ F1 people.
Instead we simply look for very good engineers.
In the middle of the engineering office was
the materials group. We tend not to believe the
material performance as published by suppliers,
so we do our own tests, he said. Then, when
something breaks, the materials engineers
carry out a full forensic investigation. We have
developed three or four alloys, unique to HPP,
for the powertrain, Cowell added.
Machine shop
The machine shop was the next stop. It is
laid out in such a way that machine tools
can be removed and replaced easily, as new
technology comes through. This may be
machine tools themselves or new powertrain
technology requiring different processes. The
machine tools are relatively lightly used, as
Formula 1 components generally require light
cuts, and so they maintain their value; HPP
depreciates them over five years. Cowell said:
We encourage a spirit of change in the machine
shop, not a production mentality.
Another point Cowell made related to the
companys staff: The key to a happy workforce
is to avoid annoying them with silly little things,
like there not being enough parking. But
the workload is heavy: We are working 24/7
through January, February and March to build
and test engines for testing and the early races,
and yet we try to be flexible. We build about 100
engines a year, but we managed to get away
with using only three engines for one driver last
year. That is good, as it means we have a spare!
Perhaps the single thing that struck me
about how different HPP is from many other F1
outfits was the lack of trophies in the entrance
foyer. The trophies, and there are many of
them, are displayed around the factory, even in
among the machine tools.
HPP is quietly confidant of what it is doing;
that is, something that is quite remarkable in
automotive engineering, and well worth telling
the world about. It is halfway to impossible,
and has no intention of stopping there.
FORMULA 1 2017 ENGINE REGULATIONS

A
fter over a year of debate, dispute and
speculation, last year F1 finally settled on a new
set of technical regulations for the 2017 and
2018 seasons. As expected the rules have seen
the cars built to a higher weight limit, with wider bodywork
and tyres and more dramatic looking aerodynamic devices.
Those changes have largely been detailed elsewhere (see
V26N5), but the more recent changes to the regulations
relating to the power units have been less widely discussed.
In a nutshell, the headlines relating to the design of the units
have remained unchanged a direct injection 1600cc turbo
V6 mated to an electro turbo-compound hybrid system but
the details of many sub systems have been adjusted.
From the moment that the new regulations were
introduced in 2014 there were a number of very vocal figures
in the sport who felt that the power unit had become too
much of a performance differentiator, Red Bull team principal
Christian Horner among them: I think Formula 1 has the
three elements which should have equal weight: the driver,
the chassis and the engine. So if one of those elements isnt
quite right, the other two can compensate. I think in todays
Formula weve offset that balance, so youve probably got, 50
per cent engine, 25 per cent chassis, 25 per cent driver.

Convergence of power
Under pressure from the likes of Red Bull, and notably Bernie
Ecclestone, Formula 1s rule makers have now moved to
redress this balance somewhat by adjusting the regulations
to allow the performance levels of the four different power
units to converge, with the aim of reducing the huge
advantage that Mercedes HPP is perceived to have. One
our main objectives with the rule changes was to help
performance convergence, the FIAs head of powertrain,
Fabrice Lom, says. To do that the first big thing that people
thought was important is to have stability in the regulations.
There was a lot of discussion of changing completely the
regulations, going back to normally-aspirated engines, no
hybrid. Nobody wanted that because the trend in the world
is to go hybrid and low consumption, but also they thought
if theres a big change there will be a redistribution of the
cards, and there could be a big difference in performance
between the power unit manufacturers, so they said that
stability of regulations would help a lot.
To allow for power unit manufacturers to be able to
close the gap, the much debated upgrade token system
has been dropped entirely, allowing for free performance
development during the season; the idea being that the
law of diminishing returns will apply and, over time, the
performance of the units will converge naturally.
Perhaps in an attempt to accelerate this process a
number of component weight restrictions have been
introduced, as well as some minor changes in the material
specifications. Both MGUs will now have a minimum weight
applied of 7kg for the kinetic and 4kg for the heat. Inside
the combustion engine similar minimum weights are being
applied, too, with the minimum piston weight set at 300g,
and the connecting rod also at a 300g. The piston weight
includes the pin, rings and retaining clips, while the rod
weight includes the bolts and bearings.
The crankshaft will be restricted, too, both in terms
of weights and dimensionally, the main bearing journal
is limited to a minimum of 43.95mm and the pin bearing
journal 37.95mm. A complete crankshaft assembly including
all balance weights, bolts and bungs must weigh at least No smoke without fire: the debate over Formula 1 power units has been heated and divisive over
5.3kg. The total power unit minimum weight remains the past years, but last year the teams and the FIA finally agreed a new set of engine rules

24 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

Power games
After much deliberation the F1
power unit regulations for the next
two years were put in place last year.
But what were the implications for
the engine builders and the teams?
By SAM COLLINS

The much debated upgrade token system

has been dropped entirely allowing for free
performance development during the season

FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 25

FORMULA 1 2017 ENGINE REGULATIONS
unchanged at 145kg. These limits were put
where the best [power unit] is today so that
people know the target, and also allow us to
stop the best ones developing more, to go
lighter or smaller, so that we put something like
a bit of a barrier to development, Lom says.
In 2018, an additional restriction is also
being introduced on the temperature of the air
in the plenum, which will have to be more than
10degC above the ambient temperature. On top
of that more of the ERS control systems will have
to be packaged inside the monocoque.
One aspect of power unit development
which has been at the forefront of Formula 1
research and development work, particularly
over the last 12 to 18 months, is the combustion
process, and this is an area where significant
innovations are now being applied. But the FIA
has now moved to restrict performance in
this area somewhat, with a maximum
compression ratio of 18:1 being enforced
from 2017 onwards, again in order to force
performance convergence.
Part way through the 2015 season, Ferrari
adopted the Mahle Turbulent Jet Ignition
concept on its Formula 1 V6, a technology which
is thought to have featured on the Mercedes
26 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
unit since 2014. The technology, which was
patented relatively recently, relies, according
to its inventor, the Mahle Group, on a special
surface ignition, which in turn allows for higher
engine performance. The ingenious trick here
is that the air-fuel mixture is pre-ignited in a
pre-chamber around the spark plug. This results
in the formation of plasma jets that reach the
piston primarily at the outer edge and ignite
the remainder of the mixture. While ignition
normally takes place in the centre of the
cylinder, with Mahle Jet Ignition it essentially
takes place from the outside toward the inside.
This allows significantly better combustion of
the fuel mixture. The result is more power with
considerably less residue. With this lean burn
combustion process a substantially greater
efficiency can be achieved than with previous
ignition concepts, Mahle tells us.
High compression
This is not the only technology under
development in this area, as the quest for
efficiency grows the levels of compression have
risen substantially, to the point where at least
partial compression ignition is almost possible.
In theory the higher the compression the
There has been no major changes in the basic
engineering philosophy of F1 PUs in 2017; they
are still 1.6-litre turbocharged V6 hybrids
There has never
really been as much
of a link between an
engineer developing
a Formula 1 engine
and an engineer
developing a road
car engine as
there is now
higher the potential efficiency, but it also brings
a risk of knock with it, Yusuke Hasegawa of
Honda R&D says. So the level set at 18:1 is high
enough for us not to care about it for now. HCCI
[see page 16] and pre-chamber systems are very
much in the R&D phase at the moment.
These sentiments are echoed by
Renaultsport F1s technical director (power
unit) Remi Taffin, who says: If you look at 18:1
and look at the maximum cylinder pressure its
frightening, but that new regulatory limit is not
a restriction on us. We dont think we will reach
that any time soon. I know what the constraints
are, I look at the materials technologies I have
around me and I dont think there is anything
to cope with this for the next five or six years.
These regulations will not stand for the next 20
years. Look at it in that way, the limit is far away
enough that it is not limiting us.
In addition to the limit on compression
ratio, the FIA will also introduce restrictions
on the number of different fuels used by each
team, with only five fuels allowed per season
and two per event. Fuel development has been
a major area of performance gain under the
current formula, especially when allied with the
combustion developments, and the limits have
Renaults has struggled to keep pace with its rivals in recent seasons but the dropping of the engine token
system could give it more scope to develop its PU for the 2017 season. Early testing proved inconclusive
been introduced for similar reasons. Its all about
how your ICE is working, Taffin explains. If you
look at how the fuel developed, early on we look
to get the best out of the knock sensitivity, then
as you develop the combustion chamber you
get a bit more freedom to develop the fuel, as
you can be a bit less knock sensitive, but get a
bit more energy from the fuel.
Each car will be able to use a little more fuel
in 2017, as the maximum amount used on each
car for the duration of the race will increase from
100kg to 105kg, to deal with the wider, heavier
and more draggy cars defined by the chassis
rules. It is not a change all were in favour of.
Mercedes boss Toto Wolff says: Claire Williams
[Williams deputy team principal] raised [this]
in the meeting itself, that the whole world is
looking to reduce emissions, and she asked can
we possibly vote in favour of an increased fuel
allowance from 100kg to 105kg? All Mercedes-
powered teams voted against the increase,
but they were in the minority.
It could be argued (and has been) that the
new restrictions, especially those impacting
fuel development and compression ratio, could
reduce the relevance of F1 to production car
R&D the very reason the current power units
were introduced in the first place. When we
started to discuss convergence, there were
suggestions of defining a power limit, but we
were totally against that, Hasegawa says. But
it is natural to have some kind of limitation as
this is a sport, not pure R&D. You cannot have
infinite development, so some kind of restriction
is necessary. Technical freedom is a good thing,
that is our philosophy as a company, but we
dont want to make everything ourselves. Why
would we design a coffee cup when we can just
buy a perfectly good one?
I think restrictions can reduce the value of
F1 R&D to production cars, but it very much
depends on the parts restricted, and what those
restrictions are. If you restrict everything then
the sport has no meaning and it has no value to
us anymore. I think the 2017 regulations do not
restrict us really, at least not so far.
R&D relevance
Taffin points out that while some of the
combustion techniques under development
have some very real applications to the
mainstream, the way Formula 1 uses its engines
is very different and as a result technology
transfer is not all that straightforward. We are
using engines that are not all that close to what
you see in production, he says. We are revving
to 11,000rpm or more and we spend a lot of
time at full throttle. If you work out how much
time you spend at full throttle in your road car,
you understand that the duty cycle is not in the
same area. But saying that, there has never really
been as much of a link between an engineer
developing a Formula 1 engine and an engineer
developing a road car engine as there is now,
and that it is probably the best thing about
these rules. Even if the technology cannot be
switched directly from race to road.
With the changes made to the technical
regulations aimed at forcing the varying
performance levels of the power units to
converge, the FIA has decided that it will
monitor very closely if indeed convergence is
taking place. We have a process agreed with
the power unit manufacturers, we dont look at
lap times, we have tools to simulate everything,
so we can calculate the performance of the
power unit itself on each car and we transform
this in a power index, Lom says. You have this
hybrid system and an engine and you cannot
only talk about horsepower, so it is translated
into a power index. We check every car, every
lap of the first three races. We take the best of
F1 cars will feature a sound generator from 2017, but details of its
design and operation were not yet available. The picture shows an
earlier attempt to improve the engine noise; waste gate exit pipes
each power unit for each race and each PU
manufacturer, then we do the average over the
three races. This should give a power index of
performance for each power unit manufacturer.
If one power unit is found to be substantially
above or below the rest on this Index of
Performance (Lom stresses that this is not a
Balance of Performance) then Loms team at the
FIA will escalate the situation. We will report to
the Strategy Group, and the action is a decision
of the Strategy Group. We will check this in
the first three races, which is [at a time] that is
before the deadline to make a change at the
majority for the following year, Lom says.
Not all of the changes are directly aimed at
encouraging convergence. Many changes to
both the technical and sporting regulations are
aimed at reducing costs and ensuring that every
team in F1 has a guaranteed supply of power
units, something which was not the case at the
start of 2016, and could have conceivably seen
three teams drop out of the sport as a result.
The first step in this process did not quite
go as far as a pure cost cap, but is a direct
The new regulatory limit
is not a restriction on us,
we dont think we will
reach that any time soon
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 27
 FORMULA 1 2017 ENGINE REGULATIONS
One of our main
objectives with the rule
changes was convergence
of performance
The 2016 Mercedes HPP power unit had a big advantage;
which is why the new engine technical regulations have been
formulated with convergence of performance in mind
Honda has been forced to enlarge its power unit manufacturing
facilities in England (pictured) and Japan, largely as a response to
new F1 engine rules which might oblige it to supply an extra team
F1 single spec sensors
Regulation 5.13.1: Any pressure sensor used to
measure pressure of any fluid necessary to ensure the
power unit functions correctly at all times (including
but not limited to coolant, oil, fuel and air) must be
manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a
specification determined by the FIA. Cylinder pressure
sensors are excluded from this requirement.
Regulation 5.13.2: With the exception of exhaust
temperature sensors and temperature sensors
embedded in electronic boxes, any temperature sensor
used to measure temperature of any fluid necessary to
ensure the power unit functions correctly at all times
(including but not limited to coolant, oil, fuel and air)
must be manufactured by an FIA designated supplier
to a specification determined by the FIA.
28 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
Both MGUs have a minimum
weight applied from 2017.
This will be 7kg for the
kinetic (K) (pictured)
and 4kg for
the heat (H)
reduction in the price charged to customer
teams. This reduction is 1m in 2017, compared
to the price in 2016, and its reduced by 4m,
compared to 2016, from 2018 onwards. From
2018 a cost cap of 12m is applied to teams
working with new suppliers (that is, if they
have switched from one supplier to take an
engine suppy from another).
In order to get the manufacturers to agree to
this reduction in price the FIA had to take other
steps, Lom says: We cannot ask the power unit
manufacturers to reduce price without reducing
cost. So to reduce the cost, firstly in 2017, we
will go down to four power units per driver
per season, instead of five today, whatever the
number of grands prix. In 2018, and this is a big
task for them, we will go down to three ICE, plus
turbo, plus MGU-H, and only two energy stores,
control electronics and MGU-K. So its nearly 50
per cent fewer parts, so it should reduce the cost
by a nice amount.
While this is a reduction on total price paid
out per team, it is actually an increase in price
per power unit with the reduction of number of
units allowed per season. Not all of the power
unit manufacturers are entirely happy about the
reduction in units, and Loms comments came as
a surprise to some in the paddock.
It is very tough even now, Hasegawa says.
Last year we struggled to achieve the
durability. This year its much better but we
are still struggling, so longer mileage is pretty
tough. Bringing in longer mileage, we need
some more time to do that, even just for life
testing. In some ways that actually increases
the cost for us, not reduces it.
I think its true that when you want to make
something last longer you get it heavier, and as
a whole vehicle that is not efficient, so its a bit
controversial. If you want to make a car faster, of
course, you would make the power unit lighter,
its the opposite direction for an endurance car.
Hasegawa went on to hint that he felt that
the 2018 price level was a bit too low and
suggested that Honda would end up having to
subsidise customer teams if it had to.
In a further effort to reduce the cost of
the units the FIA has regulated that it will
restrict the sensors used in some areas of the
power unit to a single specification (see box
out below left). It is a small part of the
reduction but it is a bit of a reduction, Lom
says. In general terms all pressure and
temperature sensors, apart from in-cylinder
pressure sensors and sensors embedded in
electronic boxes, will be control parts.
Power supply
Finally, the last objective of the 2017 changes
was to ensure that all teams had access to
a power unit supply. If by June 2016 a team
had yet to be allocated a power unit then
the manufacturer with the smallest number
of customer teams will be obliged to supply
whatever team lacks an engine. Every power
unit manufacturer is obliged to have the
capability to supply an equal share of the grid,
so with 11 teams in Formula 1 at the moment
each must be able to supply three teams
(rounded up from 2.75). This has seen Honda
significantly increase its facilities in both Japan
and the UK. A complex set of regulations about
the specifics of supply appear in the rulebook
(including a rather unnecessary equation),
but as things stand if any Ferrari or Mercedes
powered team loses its supply then by default it
will run with a Honda, while if Red Bull loses its
supply there will be a coin toss to see if it runs
either a Honda or Renault power unit.
As the seemingly endless discussions about
the 2017 and 2018 rules come to a long overdue
conclusion thoughts now turn to the future of
the sport in the years to come. One possibility
is increasing the importance of the electronic
parts, says Hasegawa. Right now we have a
120kW limitation, and an energy limitation.
If those limitations are removed then I think
the cars might be a lot more exciting.
 Innovative Damper Technology

Patent Pending
Regressive Damping
Technology

Offering the latest in technology, Penske Racing Shocks designs, develops, and manufactures high
performance suspension products for race applications

Phone: (610) 375-6180 Email: info@penskeshocks.com

Fax: (610) 375-6190 Internet: www.penskeshocks.com
TECHNOLOGY RACING FUELS

The powertrain suppliers had to change

emphasis from ultimate power to efficiency,
and the need for close collaboration with fuel
partners became ever more important
30 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
Pump action
When fuel flow was limited in Formula 1s new-for-2014 regulations
those companies that supplied its racing juice had to meet a whole
new set of challenges head on. Heres how they went about it

B
etween the start of the 1989 season
and the end of 2013 turbocharged
engines were banned in F1, and
the technical regulations evolved
predominantly to govern and reduce
displacement and maximum revolutions. But in
2014 all of that changed with the introduction
of the current power unit regulations, which
saw the reappearance of turbocharging and
had fuel flow limitation at their core.
Limiting the fuel flow created a very
different challenge for the fuel suppliers;
namely Mobil 1, Shell, Petronas and Total. Under
the flow restrictions the route to performance
became all about considering the maximum
fuel efficiency by mass. The change from high-
revving, normally aspirated, indirect injection
engines, with a non-regulated fuel load, to
low(er)-revving, turbocharged, direct injection
engines with a maximum fuel load per race
and a fuel flow rate limit as well, caused the
fuel suppliers to radically change tack, yet still
within the FIAs fuel specification regulations.
The powertrain suppliers had to change
emphasis from ultimate power to efficiency,
and the need for close collaboration with fuel
partners became ever more important. In
simple terms, the regulation shifted from an
air-limited engine to a fuel-limited one.
while it is a myth that F1 cars run on pump
fuel in other words a product which you can
buy on a forecourt the fuel used does have
to meet a specification broadly similar to the
EU regulations on commercially available fuel.
All the fuels we are using in motorsport you
could run in your road car, Wolfgang Warnecke
of Shell claims. The aim is to have the science in
the fuel make its way to the road. For example,
in the Le Mans diesel fuel we use a very high
amount of GTL and thats the same as we sell
on the road. But the fuels need to be different
to that which you get at the pump, because
todays road cars simply cannot meet the
efficiency levels that you see in Formula 1 these
days. They are close to 50 per cent efficiency. In
the past that was only possible with very large
marine or energy generating engines.
Petrol head
The regulations for Formula 1 fuels (which can
be found in Article 19 of the 2016 technical
regulations) are divided into two parts; firstly
the physical properties of the fuel itself these
limitations on the standard fuel properties are
inspired by the European Standard for gasoline:
EN228. The second section of the rules relates
to the chemical composition and it essentially
forces F1 fuel to contain 99 per cent of the same
types of compounds as fuels for the road.
High Octane
Racing fuels, based on road car specifications,
are a trade-off between octane number and
flame speed, and energy density. The first
requires high RON aromatics, and oxygenates,
the latter high heating value/kilogram paraffins,
olefins and naphthenes. These two properties
are in opposition to each other and the range
of molecules the fuel developers are permitted
to work with is tightly restricted. Pre-2014,
octane number was king; post-2014, energy

Tank battle
Four major racing classes adopted fuel flow
limitations as the core of their technical
regulations from 2014 onwards, but only one,
Formula 1, did not also place harsh restrictions
on fuel development. The other three all used
single specification fuels. In LMP1 all cars would
use identical petrol (or diesel) from the same
supply, while in GT500 and Super Formula the
cars had to run on whatever was sold from the
circuits own pumps in the paddock. This has
meant that Formula 1 has become the leading
racing category in the world in terms of fuels
development and, according to some, it also
leads the way in road fuel innovation, and even
that components found in conventional road
fuels are developed in Formula 1 race fuels. Formula 1s introduction of direct injection engines Shell is a technical partner to Ferrari. Formula 1 is an adventure
Unsurprisingly, there is not complete and fuel flow limits changed the fuel requirements. playground for racing fuel developers with fewer restrictions than
freedom in the rules for fuels in Formula 1 and Now its all about optimising a fuel-limited engine other categories, but F1 gas still has to be similar to road car fuel

FORMULA 1 20176 www.racecar-engineering.com 31

TECHNOLOGY RACING FUELS

density rules. Exactly where the trade-offs lie

are determined in the simulation computer
and proven in combustion research engines
in laboratories. Hundreds of formulations are
evaluated, and just a few are FIA homologated
and find their way into an F1 fuel tank.
According to Total, its Formula 1 fuel is
made up of about 200 different substances
from the gasoline refining process. These
components are selected like a kit of parts to
build the perfect fuel for each iteration of the
Renault 1.6-litre V6 turbochraged combustion
engine. Or, in other words, the regulations force
the Formula 1 fuels to be made using the same
set of ingredients, but to a very different recipe.

RON speak
Today Formula 1 fuels have no upper limit to
the RON and MON values, though previously
this was the case. A change was introduced
in 2010 in preparation for the return of
turbocharged engines, to permit optimised
fuel formulations to be explored within the
road relevant framework of the regulations.
Following this common objective that
Formula 1 fuel development should embrace
new technologies and their transfer to road
fuels, the regulations were further amended
to permit the use of other bio-components
alongside bio-alcohol, and today they play a
crucial role and must make up a minimum of
5.75 per cent of the fuel blend.
Since the banning of refuelling in Formula 1 the fuel rigs are not so prominent but they are still at the very heart of the action Of course, even putting the rules to one
side the switch from absolute power for
performance to efficiency based performance
had a considerable impact on fuel formulation.
Under the previous regulations, fuel
predominantly influenced the performance
of a Formula 1 car in two aspects, firstly
absolute engine power output, with an obvious
positive impact on lap time and also fuel mass
consumption, with an obvious negative impact
on lap time due to the decreased car dynamic
when carrying more fuel weight.

Absolute power
Weighted in relative numbers, the sum of the
two factors was clearly in the advantage of
the absolute power number, meaning that the
engine power was more important than fuel
consumption for competitiveness. The ratio
was dependent on the race track and some
The Formula 1 regulations were recently amended to permit the use of other bio-components alongside bio- low speed tracks could have been in favour of
alcohol and today they play a crucial role and must make up a minimum of 5.75 per cent of the fuel blend a slightly lower consumption fuel when other
high speed tracks needed the fuel formulation
with the maximum absolute power. So at times
In terms of engine design all the the fuel suppliers created track specific blends,
a heavier fuel which gave more power at Spa
parameters have been refocused from and Monza, and a lighter fuel with a lower
power output at Monaco, for example.
optimal configuration for an air limited Today, as the fuel mass flow rate (100kg/h)
and the maximum fuel payload (100kg)

engine to optimal for a fuel limited engine is limited, the key factor in ranking fuel
performance is the power output of the
power unit from this limited quantity of fuel.

32 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

In terms of engine design, it means that all
the parameters have been refocused from
optimal configuration for an air limited engine
(naturally aspirated, limited displacement
and revolutions), to optimal for a fuel limited
engine. The goal is now to achieve the best
power from the given l00kg/h fuel flow rate
(ie the best efficiency), thus the lowest Brake
Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC, in g/kWh).
This has seen compression ratios rise rapidly
as the engine designers seek performance
through efficiency and the leanest burn
possible. To make this possible the challenge Figure 1: This shows the heating value against RON for a range of gasoline molecules. It can be seen that the racing
for the chemists in the fuel development fuel formulator faces a quite substantial challenge as these two properties are antagonist for RON values above 100
laboratories is substantial. There are three main
areas of fuel formulation that are now the focus.

Anti-knock
Firstly, the anti-knock properties of the
formulation are crucial. High octane value is
a known positive property for spark-iginition
engine efficiency. Thanks to the better
anti-knock properties of high octane fuels,
the spark advance can be increased, leading
to a better combustion phasing and hence
engine efficiency. Secondly, the fuel energy
content by mass. As the mass flow is fixed to
100kg/h, it is possible to select compounds
with higher energy per mass, i.e. providing
more energy with the same given flow.
Thirdly, combustion speed. The speed and
completeness of combustion through higher
flame speed formulations is a constant target
as these items are having a direct impact on the
thermodynamic efficiency of the ICE.
So to formulate the best possible fuel,
these three factors and the relationships
between them must be considered. Based on
the table (Figure 1) of heating value against
RON for a range of gasoline molecules, it can be
seen that the fuel formulator faces a challenge
as these two properties are antagonist for
RON values above 100; the use of high RON
aromatics will always lead to a decreased
energy content of the final formulation.
So the fuel formulator must find the
optimum balance between the three
parameters for a given engine specification,
and the 2016 regulations allow five different
specifications a year not including test engines. Different forms of motorsport have different requirements. Its interesting to see how fuel philosophy differs between series
In the same graph, two typical fuel formulations
have also been positioned: a typical European
maingrade gasoline, located centrally, It is known that a large number of varying fuel
specifications were being introduced by each
showing that the formulation is a balance of
all components, paraffins, olefins, naphthenes
and aromatics, and a Formula 1 fuel for the
turbocharged F1 engine of the l980s. supplier throughout the 2015 and 2016 seasons
Hondas accord
In a paper on the 1.5-litre V6 Honda F1 engine,
released some years ago by the Japanese
company, the fuel formulation used in 1988
was revealed. The formulation was a mixture of
84 vol% of toluene and 16 vol% of n-heptane.
This fuel is obviously positioned close to the

FORMULA 1 20166 www.racecar-engineering.com 33

 TECHNOLOGY RACING FUELS
European Union regulations will see bio-content increase in production
car fuel so that is likely to be replicated in any new regulation on fuel
aromatics family in terms of RON and energy
content. At that time the RON was limited to
102, but the anti-knock properties were key for
the engine performance and hence this fuel
included a substantial amount of toluene with
n-heptane used to trim the RON of the final
formulation to exactly 102. This fuel cannot be
considered as road relevant because of the very
high aromatic content, which falls outside the
current levels specified within EN228 and thus
falls outside the current F1 fuel regulations.
In the same paper, the BSFC of the 1988
Honda F1 engine is revealed to be 272g/kWh.
The fuel industry is keen to sell the green credentials of the fuel it uses in motorsport. CO2 limits could be the next challenge
34 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
By comparison, the BSFC of the current breed of
downsized and turbocharged Formula 1 power
units is below 200g/kWh. Therefore, to achieve
the same duty, the fuel consumption has been
reduced by over 25 per cent and within the
context of road relevant regulations.
New limits
None of the fuel companies will disclose exact
details of their current fuel formulations for
obvious reasons, but it is known that a large
number of varying fuels specifications were
being introduced by each supplier throughout
the 2015 and 2016 seasons. That practice
is being restricted for 2017, however, as a
temporary limit on the number of specifications
introduced by each manufacturer has been
brought in in an effort to even up the power
unit performance somewhat.
Fuel speed ahead
Thoughts about the fuels used in Formula 1 are
now starting to turn to the future. European
Union regulations will see bio-content increase
in production car fuel so that is likely to be
replicated in any new regulation on fuel.
A bigger factor in production car legislation
is the EU maximum fleet average CO2
emissions of 95g/km and this has seen
motorsport begin to consider the impact of
emissions for the first time (See RCE V26N8).
This is sure to impact the fuels used, too.
CO2 is one of the parameters used to
evaluate sustainability, and looking to the
sustainability of cars it can be seen that there
is a reduction already directly due to the
increased efficiency of LMP1 and Formula 1 cars
since 2014. According to Shell, which supplies
the fuel for the Le Mans 24 hours, the CO2
emissions through fuels have reduced from 436
tonnes in 2012 to 320 tonnes in 2015.
Although a major contribution on CO2 is
based on the production and combustion of
the fuels used for the race event, other energy
intense sources such as tyre manufacturing
will also need be considered.
Ensuring that developments within
motorsport ultimately make their way to
road car fuel applications is a core mindset
within the fuels industry and continuing
this will according to many working in
this industry be essential in nurturing and
motivating the fuel industry for the future.
Fuels paradise
Allowing multiple fuel development cycles per
season, and being open to new types of fuels
in some race series, is clearly a motivation for
the fuel companies, and is also an attractive
proposition for those involved to continue to
push the technical boundaries. Next month we
will look at what the racing fuel of the future
might be like, and also the fuels of the past.
Shell presented a paper to the 37th International
Vienna Motor Symposium, titled Innovation
from Track to Road: The Role Fuels can Play
in Motorsport. In it, the history and technical
challenges presented by motorsport are
described in detail, this article is largely but not
entirely based on it. It also draws on interviews
conducted by Peter Wright and Sam Collins.
Woodford Trailers Limited 14 Great Central Way Daventry Woodford Halse Northants NN11 3PZ

Telephone: 01327 263379 Email: sales@woodfordtrailers.com

 TECH DISCUSSION F1 AERODYNAMICS
Clear the air
A feature in Racecar from last year has
led to some radical ideas on whats really
important when it comes to F1 aero
By RUDY PYATT
S
imon McBeaths piece in the February
2016 issue of Racecar (Follow Closely,
V26N2), which was produced in
collaboration with Miqdad Ali and
Dynamic Flow Solutions, refers to the Purnell-
Wright paper of 2007 and reproduces a graphic
included in that paper (see p38). At minimum,
McBeath and Ali have raised questions worthy
of additional computer simulation and
experiment, an idea for which I present here.
All told, McBeaths article and the Purnell-
Wright graphic present enormous opportunities
for a team of sufficient boldness and ingenuity
to exploit. Simulation will be necessary simply
because real world empirical data will be
A car with high RaE is one that is the least sensitive to wake turbulence
and other effects and it can follow the racecar ahead of it more closely
difficult to obtain, at least via F1 teams. The
inertia of received wisdom, standard practice,
and frankly, ego, prevents the F1 establishment
from assuming that aerodynamic downforce
creates the fastest car. But the way remains
open for lesser categories that permit teams
to build their own chassis, such as Formula 3,
to put ideas to the test which, if successfully
implemented, can reset the concept of what is
the most effective open-wheeled racecar.
Time for change?
This has happened before of course: then-
lesser teams Cooper and Lotus so effectively
demonstrated that the long discredited rear
Simon McBeath has addressed the problem of a
lack of overtaking in F1 in a series of features for
Racecar. One of these has inspired Rudy Pyatt to
suggest teams adopt a fresh approach to the issue
engined layout, allied to light weight and
effective, though not overwhelming, engine
power had sufficient advantages over the
then prevailing practice as to usher in the
so-called rear engine revolution. I believe that
we are at a tipping point in F1, much as in the
1950s, when current practice will give way to a
demonstration of the effectiveness of a simpler
approach. The demonstration this time will be
success through aerodynamic efficiency.
Ask most teams and engineers what they
mean by aero efficiency and youll probably
hear something along the lines of the greatest
amount of downforce for the least amount of
drag. As proven time and again in the last 20
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 37
 TECH DISCUSSION F1 AERODYNAMICS
Are there Formula 1 tracks with characteristics such that the RaE
versus the LaE balance point can be reached over the course of a lap?
years, whoever gets this combination right, at
least if they have an appropriately powerful
engine, will have a car that produces the fastest
lap possible in qualifying. Pole position, or
at least a spot on the first two rows, usually
comes with that performance. For the reasons
outlined by McBeath, cars outside the first two
rows often find that lack of qualifying pace to
be an insurmountable obstacle. They cannot
closely follow, let alone overtake, the cars
ahead of them because of aerodynamic effects.
For these reasons, I believe that the correct
measure of aerodynamic efficiency is what I call
racing efficiency or RaE. So measured, efficient
aerodynamics are those least affected by other
cars. In other words, a car with high RaE is one
that is the least sensitive to wake turbulence
and other effects and can follow the car ahead
of it more closely closely enough that the
driver can overtake without the racecars
handling deteriorating in bad air.
Downforce issues
This is why the Purnell-Wright graphic is
so significant. It shows the aerodynamic
continuum from racing efficiency to what Ill
call lap time efficiency, or LaE. Quite plainly,
cars optimised for LaE (high downforce) cannot
follow each other closely and passing is difficult
to impossible. More interesting still, the Purnell-
Wright graphic shows the point at which LaE
and RaE balance out such that a car with high
RaE (low downforce) will have an advantage
down the straights over a high LaE car, with the
This graphic was included in a paper from 2007 by Peter Wright and Tony Purnell. It suggested that a lack of overtaking in
F1 was due to high downforce, a dependence on the front wing, and the drag produced by downforce-generating devices
38 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017
reverse being true around corners. And therein
lies the rub, leading to the following questions
with respect to F1 especially: In what kind of
corners does a high LaE car excel? Are corners
with such favourable characteristics uniformly
present at all F1 tracks? Are there F1 tracks with
characteristics such that the RaE v LaE balance
point can be reached over the course of a lap?
Intuitively, it seems that high LaE works to
best advantage on tracks with lots of high speed
corners. Those conditions allow downforce to
maximise and maintain speed through corners
that would otherwise require deceleration
(via lifting or braking) to safely and effectively
negotiate. Conversely, RaE seems best suited to
long straights and slower corners conditions
that allow an advantage gained on the straights
to be sufficiently large to fend off opponents
despite having to corner slowly.
Let me attempt some maths here (Im a
lawyer and former journalist, and members
of both professions are stereotypically bad
at mathematics. I am not the exception to
prove the rule, but bear with me) to the extent
of defining some fairly obvious terms and
equations for present purposes to illustrate. Let
(fc) = fast corner and (sc) = slow corner. Let Ad
(like I said, Im being obvious here) = Advantage,
Tr for track. The foregoing intuitive conclusions
would be expressed as:
Ad[LaE] @Tr if (fc)>(sc) and Ad[RaE] if (sc)>(fc).
But, from the Purnell-Wright Continuum, this
implies that where:
Tr(sc) = Tr(fc), then Ad[LaE] = 0 and Ad[RaE] = 0.
In other words, where (fc) and (sc) are
approximately equal, Tr will be Balanced
(BTr) and LaE has no advantage over RaE.
You can take this as a track corollary to the
Purnell-Wright Continuum.
So, in theory, we have a continuum of tracks
and a continuum of cars running Ad[LaE] BTr
Ad[RaE] and the question becomes: just how
close do the values of (sc) and (fc) have to get
before reaching BTr on a given track? And are
there any existing race tracks on the calendar
that allow both RaE and LaE to thrive without
one dominating the other?
But lets go back to the cars, because heres
where the simulation comes in. Lets take a CFD
model of an ordinary non-wing, non-diffuser
Formula Ford, and give it the same 900bhp as
the average F1 car as the stand-in for RaE.
Now lets take the McBeath Racecar
Engineering 2013 Formula 1 model as LaE and
assume the same horsepower. To eliminate
the influence of tyres, assume they both have
current F1-spec hard compound tyres.
Simulated duel
Now, pick some set of tracks from the current
Formula 1 calendar lets say Silverstone,
Monaco, Dubai and Sepang and run some
simulations. Start with simulating a qualifying
lap. What lap times do the cars produce when
alone on each track? What about together,
in a simulated duel for the lead? What about
expanding the simulation to include a complete
grid using a mix of our two CFD models: does
starting grid position correlate closely with
finishing position for RaE?
Based on every description, the 2017 F1
rules have aimed to increase LaE: the explicit
goal was to reduce absolute lap times. This
should make for an excellent time trial car; but
it seems that making a good racing car a car
that maximizes RaE is at best a hoped-for by-
product of the new rules.
On at least some tracks, my fear is that close
racing, with genuine (non-DRS) overtaking, will
in fact be rare. My hope is that an analysis of
the kind I have outlined here will show that a
race team can succeed with a radical approach
that doesnt sacrifice all other considerations on
the altar of absolute lap time.
Of course, these considerations are not
confined to Formula 1. It may take successful
teams in other categories to show the way
forward. After all, Formula 3 doesnt have to be
what amounts to a Dallara spec-series. Perhaps
analysis as outlined here will prompt a team
to take up Formula 3s standing invitation to
design and build its own car? If that happens,
and succeeds? Vive La Revolucion!
 SUBSCRIBE TO MOTORSPORTS
LEADING TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

Racecar Engineering
Leading-Edge Motorspor
t Te chnology Since 1990
Get the latest product 4

developments, technical
Volume 27
insight and performance
analysis from the leading April 2017 Vol 27 No
4 www.racecar-engineerin

F
g.com UK 5.95 US
motorsport technology
o r m
$14.50

publication every month.

u la 1
How teams have interp
2017
INSIDE EACH ISSUE reted
the rules as new cars
NASCAR engines 2017

Unrivalled analysis break cover

of major events
Formula 1 cars Cadillac

including Formula
One, the World Rally
DPi-V.R

Championship and
the World Endurance
Championship
Detailed racecar
design and innovation
9 770961 10910

Features from leading

industry engineers print or
April 2017

Cadillac DPi-V.R
and the latest deeigital
04

Under the skin of the

NASCAR engines Brazilian FV
Is the end in sight for the
cost entry-leva cce
product development
seas
Daytona 24 Hour winner
ters
Ricardo Divila designs low-
big V8s in US stock cars?
el single
April_Cover-01 - Maste
r_ac_mbAC.indd 3

01/03/2017 10:36

TO ORDER
www.chelseamagazines.com/racecar-F103
+44 (0) 1795 419 843 (quote code CRCEF103)
AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

DIGITAL EDITION ALSO AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

for tablet, smartphone and desktop. To order go to:
www.chelseamagazines.com/racecar-CRCEF1D3
 WRITE LINE PETER WRIGHT

The laps of the gods

A view from Olympus on F1s lack of real racing and what might be done about it

F
ormula 1 seems to be in such a state of
schizophrenia that everyone and anyone can
offer solutions to what is fundamentally a lack
of interest in the younger generation. In fact, it is
not just the young; Gerhard Berger admitted that
he falls asleep watching Formula 1 once he knows
who will win, usually after the first few corners.
Rather than plunge headlong into this melee,
I am going to ask you to momentarily suspend
belief and imagine I am the God of Sport, residing
on Mount Olympus. Imagine Zeus has just given
me instructions to go and sort out F1, as he is sick
of the whinging of mortals. The brief is to take no
account of the politics or commercial self-interests,
and on no account to form a committee or working
group to decide what to do. Having observed
motor racing over the last 100 or so years, and seen
the highest level become the Formula 1 of today,
he has become annoyed.
I do wonder what has become of the racing
in motor racing. Given the brief to sort it out
quickly, I would decide to concentrate on just
this issue, as overtaking means uncertainty, and
uncertainty means entertainment (us gods are
good at broad, sweeping statements).
My first port of call would be to go and find
Jabby Crombac, the late editor of Sport Auto,
who attended all grands prix from 1955 until just
(yes, really, overtaking was a subject for debate
18 years ago) he undertook to use this database
to calculate the number of changes of position in
each GP, each year, as noted as the cars cross the
start/finish line. This data was condensed down to
an average number of such manoeuvres per year,
as can be seen in the chart below.
Draft excluders
Certain features are immediately apparent. First;
when the great slip-streaming circuits ceased to
be used in the early 1970s, overtaking reduced by
around 60 per cent from an average of 20 a race.
Second, overtaking reached a minimum in the
mid-1970s, and then nearly doubled again by the
mid-1980s. Finally, from then on it fell steadily
over the next decade to an absolute minimum
of two to three per race.
Why? In the early 1970s, wing-generated
downforce was being steadily developed, with drag
less important, due to the absence of the very fast
circuits. Overtaking reduced.
In the late 1970s,
ground effect with skirts Average number of overtaking manoeuvres per
Average number of overtakingrace.
entered the arena and
front wings shrunk, 25.00
acting mainly as trim
20.00
tabs. The overtaking
Average no. of
banned, though fought over until 1983 when flat
bottoms were mandated. From that year on the
front wing became the dominant aerodynamic
feature on Formula 1 cars, and overtaking declined
steadily. Plotting average overtaking manoeuvres/
race against front wing downforce generates a clear
trend, as seen on the chart on the following page.
Unfortunately, Jabbys analysis was never
extended to the present day, but we can probably
predict what it would look like up until the time
that DRS and Pirelli tyres reinstated overtaking.
Most people know that the front wings,
elaborate multi-element devices, are the culprits,
yet F1 itself is unable to do anything about them.
Time for a thunderbolt then. Limit front wings
drastically, controlled by size and number of
elements max one or two at the most. Then we
should limit overall CLA to, say, 50 to 60 per cent of
current values, or maybe even less.
The first can be regulated dimensionally, the
second requires the measurement of downforce on
track, normalised with pitot pressure, and limited
manoeuvres per race

manoeuvres.
overtaking

before he died in 2005. He maintained, by hand, then increased. In 1981, 15.00

a rigorously accurate lap chart of each GP. In 1998 sliding skirts were
10.00

5.00

0.00
1955 1965 1975 Year 1985 1995 2005

Many believe F1 is not exciting these days beyond the cut and thrust of the first lap but might there be a way to improve the racing by changing the aero regulations?

40 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA 1 2017

 Average no. of overtaking manoeuvres per race
Average number of.v. Frontmanoeuvres
overtaking wing downforce
per race v front wing downforce (1972 - 1997)
12
Average overtaking per race
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 200 400
Front wing downforce (lbf @ 150 mph)
to an FIA-monitored, never-exceed figure. All the
teams have the means to measure downforce
precisely, to a level where they are able to confirm
or otherwise a drivers feeling that he has lost
downforce, either due to damage or rubber
blocking the front wings flap slots.
The FIA can have access to this data, and the
teams would have to ensure that downforce
never went over that CLA value.
Drag reduction
With freedom regarding the rest of the
aerodynamics of the car, with the exception of
no skirts and dimensional limitations such as rear
wing width and overall height, the efforts of the
hundreds of aerodynamicists would be re-focused
onto: drag reduction at the CLA limit; minimising
the effect of disturbances from the car in front in
order to enable overtaking; and, inevitably, how to
tune the aerodynamics to make it more difficult for
the racecar behind to overtake.
The downforce and drag lap time sensitivity
values of a Formula 1 car at a high downforce and
tough-to-overtake circuit such as Barcelona, are
in the ratio of around 4.3 to 1, downforce to drag.
This means that the return in terms of lap time on
aerodynamic research and development effort
would be significantly less than at present, where
the concentrated effort is on downforce, and so
rich teams would have less of an advantage
compared to the smaller teams.
This would focus the efforts of the
aerodynamicists on to aero-efficiency, in much
the same way the fuel flow regulation focuses the
powertrain engineers on to thermal efficiency.
The reduction in downforce would allow larger,
grippier tyres, and so the increase in overall lap
time would be compensated for. Drivers complain
about the heat degradation characteristics of the
current Pirelli tyres, pushing for cars they can drive
flat out until the tyres wear out. Drivers drive flat
out in qualifying, and then line up in the order of
speed. If they could then race flat out, the field
Reducing downforce and drag will take the
pressure off the quest for more power
(1972-1997)
SUBSCRIBE
TO RACECAR
y=13.039-0.35484*x^.5
ENGINEERING
gy Since 1990
Leading-Edge Motorsport Technolo
Racecar Engineering
11
Volume 26
UK 5.95 US $14.50
www.racecar-engineering.com
November 2016 Vol 26 No 11
9 770961 109104
P217
LE MANS 2017
600 800 1000 1200
Ligier JS
11
new global prototype
We reveal the
Force India VJM09 Ligier JS P217 LMP2
Indycar rule changes
would slowly stretch out, with no overtaking bar
errors. What is the good of that?
Reducing the downforce, and hence the drag,
which would be further reduced by aero R&D
focusing on efficiency, will increase the top speeds
November 2016
Rear wing studies Force India VJM09
Indycar 2018
and reduce grip under braking. Thus the area Aero rule changes that will We continue our investigation
into aerodynamic efficiency
Under the skin of Formula 1s
most improved car of 2016
change shape of US series
Printtoarl
where the majority of overtakes are set up would Nov_Cover_New-ac.indd 3
27/09/2016 12:33
be extended. Lap times will be increased to five
to six seconds a lap by the reduced downforce,
digi ss
acce
but some of this will be clawed back by reduced
drag and increased mechanical grip, unleashed
by the lower aerodynamic loads Why is lap time
so important anyway? It is like 0-60mph times of
supercars only important on paper.
Strategy Working Group attempts to increase
downforce have been thwarted by the inevitable
response by Pirelli that the tyres will become
harder and less grippy. So isnt it obvious that there
is a need for us to go in the opposite direction?
New direction
Reducing downforce and drag will take the
pressure off the quest for more power. Current
powertrains are 850-900cv, and teenagers can
manage them. Does anyone really think another
200cv is going to sort the men from the boys? If
powertrain changes are needed after three to four Get the latest product
years, then I would ask the manufacturers what developments, technical
features they would like to change to make them
more relevant to road cars and increase thermal insight and performance
efficiency. One day, when the bones of motorsport analysis from the leading
are being picked over, the engineering skills of the motorsport technology
F1 manufacturers will be compared with those
in WEC LMP1, and those achieving the greatest
publication every month.
thermal efficiency will be declared the winners.
And thats it. The change towards a limited,
reduced downforce would send Formula 1 in
a whole new development direction. It would
To order, go to:
increase overtaking ability, make the cars more chelseamagazines.com/racecar-2017
difficult to drive, prevent speeds escalating to
the safety limits of the circuits, and yet be more Or call:
relevant to road car technology.
Right, I wonder what Bacchus is up to +44 (0)1795 419837
And quote CRCEPAP7 for print,
or CRCEPAD7 for digital.
FORMULA 1 2017 www.racecar-engineering.com 41
Subs Ad CRCEPAP7.indd 1