Gary Anderson's verdict on F1's 2021 engine row

Are the 2021 engines really going to sound that much better? The only new thing seems to be 3000 rpm.
Klaus Brandt Froslev, via Twitter

I don't really understand what the proposed changes are going to achieve.

The most obvious change is the increase in the rev limit. Currently, the regulations define the maximum as 15,000rpm, with an increase of 3000rpm to 18,000rpm for the new rules.

But, in fact, the teams and engine manufacturers are running to a maximum of around 12,000rpm. So what will allowing this 3000rpm increase achieve?

The reason for them not using the maximum revs is the fuel flow meter, which limits the maximum rate to 100kg/h. Basically, there is not enough fuel to run the engine efficiently at higher revs.

Also, the turbo speed and the actual boost level is controlled by the MGU-H to allow the engine to produce its maximum power from the maximum amount of fuel allowed through the fuel flow meter.

When the engine's fuel flow reaches the maximum, the MGU-H will start to load up the turbo. This basically stops it from going any faster and/or increasing the boost level and while it is doing this it is producing electrical power to charge up the ERS battery pack.

As far as the noise level is concerned, a turbo requires a large diameter exhaust outlet to reduce any back pressure. With a turbo in the exhaust system it will always act like a silencer, even more so when its speed is being controlled by something like the MGU-H, which is basically holding the turbo back creating even more of a blockage in the exhaust system.

From what I've read of the proposals for 2021, they are not very well thought through and in general the fuel flow meter is the one single component that is responsible for the engine manufactures not using maximum revs.

This, combined with it being a single turbo engine package, means that it will never produce the same noise level as we had with the V8s or V10s

All that said, I don't think the noise level is as bad as it was in 2014 when the regulations were introduced and I hope that FOM or whatever they are called now abandon their attempts to create the noise artificially.

The microphone system trialled on the Force India for a couple of races sounds like a bee caught in a bean tin.

Why are Renault and Mercedes not pleased with the proposed engine regs? It seems Ferrari isn't too happy either?
@rubensday, via Twitter

You could summarise it as Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari being pretty disappointed with the proposals, and I'm pretty sure Honda will be as well.

Yes, some of them, like Mercedes, will be looking after their own interests because they've spent a lot of time and money on their current package so don't want drastic change.

What's more, to change engine concept direction now does little for what was probably the marketing strategy of using F1 for Mercedes road car promotion.

Change means more expense for everyone. At least for a certain amount of time, it will also spread the performance when all the fans want is closer racing. You don't have to have a great memory to look back to 2014 when these regulations came into play.

Mercedes was basically in a league of its own during that season and even now still has a small advantage. This is particularly the case when Mercedes really needs it in qualifying. Change means someone will get it right and the rest will spend millions trying to catch up.

With the MGU-H being phased out, theoretically, how much more electricity could they harvest if engine had no hardware limits?
@Famous_Unknown, via Twitter

The proposal to outlaw the MGU-H and increase the power output of the MGU-K, along with the increase in capacity of the energy store (battery), will probably balance out to end up with the same amount of electrical power available over a lap.

When you say 'no hardware limits', this is like giving someone a blank cheque and telling them to go off and spend it on whatever they want. They are not going to head into a 'Pound Shop' to spend the money, they are going to head to a very expensive London property agent and buy the most expensive place on the books.

There must be some sort of control, otherwise it just gets into a spending war. But it also needs to be challenging within that cost control.

Do we have to wait for manufacturers to walk away en masse [due to cost] for the rulemakers to realise that technology relevant to road cars is nice but not at the cost of the survival and health of F1?
Gary Finney, via Facebook

Yes, probably. F1's bosses have never been very good at listening to anyone else when it came to the future direction of F1. I'm not saying that the manufacturers are always correct, but they do need to be listened to.

The people we see at the races are only employees of the manufacturers, and for any manufacturer to justify the cost it is the big boss at the top table who will have to sign it off. If F1 can't justify its existence, either with engineering challenge or as an advertising tool, then he or she will have no qualms about pulling out.

Manufacturers have come, gone and came back again many times over the years, and this will continue to happen. But the biggest problem is that private engine manufacturers have been driven out by rules that are complicated and expensive.

Currently, there's nobody knocking at the door seriously wanting to join. Yes, Aston Martin, Ilmor and a couple of others have talked about it, but when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets it's a different matter.

We badly need someone like Cosworth that has a commercially viable package available at an affordable price. Or we need to say to the current manufacturers that if you want to compete in F1 you have to be in a position to supply your current power unit package and services to independent teams at a set price. Currently the cost is in excess of €20million, so for 2018 make it €15m, for 2019 make it €12m and for 2020 €10m. Then allow the independents to put forward proposals for the 2021 regulations.

What exactly can be changed about the engine modes to extract more power and forsake reliability? To extract more power, are ancillary systems such as oil and water pumps made to work at a lower rate? Is the air/fuel mixture altered to adjust the needs of the moment or is it always as lean as possible?
Killian Lobato, via email

To get that extra power for a limited amount of time, everything will be tweaked that little bit; fuelling, ignition, ERS usage and anything else that is possible will all contribute.

This will alter the temperature, but as it's only over part of a lap the systems can handle it. Remember, extra power is only required when the driver is on full throttle and at most circuits that's around 60% of the time, so on a 1m40s lap that is only 60 seconds - and it is split up into small bursts with time to recover while on part throttle or braking.

Mechanically, the engines should be fairly bulletproof. As I said above, they are currently running at a maximum of 12,000rpm when the regulations actually allow them to rev to 15,000rpm.

It's funny how times change. Way back in 1994 I put a proposal to the FIA about running our water, oil (pressure and scavenge) and fuel pumps from an ancillary electric motor. This would have required a smallish power storage system and allowed us to switch off the alternator charging system when the driver was on full throttle.

In other words, the engine would not lose power driving the pumps. And when the driver requested full power they would get it as the alternator would also be switched off.

The reply from the FIA was to introduce a maximum energy storage that basically was not big enough to allow us to run my proposal. Now look where we are.

Nigel Mansell described the Williams FW11B as 'huge'; 'bulky'; 'formidable' and 'awesome'. Wheelbase: 2795mm. Weight: 540kgs. Power: 850-1200hp. Fuel capacity: 195litres. Lewis Hamilton's 2017 Mercedes W08 has a 1000mm longer wheelbase and is over a metre longer overall - ie 36% bigger! But it is also 35% heavier. Not to mention carrying around only 100 litres of fuel with less horses too. Surely it would be sensible to reduce the size either by having a maximum overall length or by limiting the weight (under 600kgs) so that there would be a direct trade-off of a bigger/longer car with a weight penalty? What are your thoughts on this for the new regulations?
Guy Dormehl, via email

In Nigel's day, the cars were a bit like riding a bucking bronco and the driver was able to contribute to its performance. That is what makes the Mansells, Sennas, Piquets and Prosts stand out to me.

Currently, the drivers are very fast but the cars are so well engineered you never really see a car being wrestled into performance. It's all about making sure you are driving in the tram lines, get out of them and normally you are off but going back a few years no two laps were ever the same - it was basically a fight from leaving the pits to coming back in again.

Was that the cars and drivers or is it just the changing times? Just look at how much road cars have changed since the late 1980s/early 1990s and perhaps it will help us to understand.

In the Max Mosley FIA years, and especially after the death of Ayrton Senna in 1994, his philosophy backed up by Bernie Ecclestone on safety grounds was to slow the cars down and reduce cornering speeds. That meant narrower cars and narrower wheels and tyres - even to the extent of grooved tyres because making them any narrower would have made them look even more stupid.

There was also reduced aerodynamics and air boxes with outlets to reduce the engine ram effect. Less grip in general was the order of the day. This, combined with reduced weight, meant that in an accident the cars would be travelling slower and the less weight meant there was less energy to dissipate, all good solid engineering principles.

Then along came Jean Todt, now head of the FIA, and he and his team (I say team because while Mosley would be there in the meetings pushing his point of view Todt can seldom be seen) are pushing in totally the opposite direction. The cars are now wider, with wider wheels and tyres, increased aerodynamics and in excess of 100kg heavier with more power available.

I suppose one of the two of them are right. But the jury is still out as to which one.

I read that 4WD was being considered as an alternative to an MGU-K, with the benefits of better front-end grip to offset turbulence when following a car and added kinetic energy harvesting. While Porsche have successfully deployed this technology in the World Endurance Championship, surely adding more weight to the existing F1 monsters is not the way to go?

So, here's a possible solution. By all means add 4WD, but have the front motors air-driven.

Under braking, the units would harvest compressed air (with a pop-off valve for safety), which gets rid of the weight penalty of batteries. And having harvested the energy as compressed air, perhaps leave it open as to how this resource is deployed - e.g. it could simply be used to drive the front wheels; it could be deployed to enhance aerodynamics - as exhausts gasses once were; or it could be used to add boost to the ICE.
Timothy Lyons, via email

I hope we don't go down the four-wheel route as again it will just mean the cars will be more on rails than they currently are.

There is only one reason that the TV director goes back and shows a replay of a driver when they get the car out of shape or has a lock up or a slide and its simply because it is interesting and to have four-wheel-drive on these cars will again reduce the potential of that spectacle.

The statement about the cars with four-wheel-drive having better front end grip to offset the turbulence is a strange one to me.

I do not understand why, if you are asking the front end of the car to do more work (ie supply traction as well as react cornering forces and the turbulence remains the same as we currently have) then the front end will be more of a problem.

Tyres only like doing one thing at a time, you have to compromise if you are asking them to do two things at once. For example, in a straight line under braking the cars can pull at least 6g. In corners they can pull at least 4g.

Asking them to do both at once is when you get the problem. You see the driver either locking the front brakes and understeering wide or the rear tyres giving up under the cornering force and the car spinning. So adding a traction requirement to the front tyres will do nothing, and will actually be worse for front end grip when following another car.

There are many ways to harvest the braking energy from the front axle. I am not sure that we would need to introduce a completely separate system to harness it. My proposal would be small (standard) outboard motor built into the front upright that would only switch on when braking. This would not be used for positive drive, so no four-wheel-drive, they would just replace the energy level that the MGU-H currently produces.

This is something that is actually road car relevant and, implemented correctly, could have a direct influence on improving road car energy recovery.

What's the stupidest rule change that you've faced in your racing career?
Antonio Gonzalez, via email

I'm afraid this column is not long enough to list them!

I suppose two of them would be the grooved tyres and the hole in the back of the air boxes to reduce the ram effect. But then you could go on and add some of the later ones, the rip-off visor stupidity and the last attempt to revise qualifying, which meant the cars just sat in the garages.

The thing the FIA has never really come to terms with is that there are probably two or three of them sitting down trying to come up with a regulation to achieve something and there are probably 1000 engineers working for the 10 teams trying to find ways around the proposals! Unless a way for them for them to work together is found there will always be embarrassing moments when someone will have to eat some humble pie.

I don't think the Technical Working Group that was set up after Senna's death was bad. Each team had a technical representative at each monthly meeting and good things on at least safety grounds came out of those.

Mosley was at most of them, and my only criticism was that he always pushed through what he wanted. His requests were not always that bad and you knew where you stood but a more even point of view would have been more productive.

If I had anything to do with it now, I would resurrect that and the FIA and Liberty Media would put forward their vision and objectives to allow the teams' technical representatives to come up with the solutions to achieve that vision.

Around 95% of the current problems can all be addressed by technical changes. It sounds simple, and in reality it isn't, but what we have now with the Strategy Group with half the teams attending meetings doesn't work.

The people that do attend aren ot the correct people and some people have more votes than others. That system doesn't work.

Got a question for Gary Anderson? Send it to askgary@autosport.com, use #askgaryF1 on Twitter or look out for our posts on Facebook giving you the chance to have your question answered