What F1 can learn from Le Mans

The success of the World Endurance Championship since its inception in 2012 has increasingly been used as a stick to beat Formula 1 with over the past year.

This tribal polarisation is a counterproductive way to look at two of motorsport's crowning glories - world championships for grand prix cars and topline endurance machinery - as real motorsport fans should revel in both being strong.

But setting aside the tiresome polemics, it is worth asking whether there is something that can be learned from sportscar racing - especially against the background of F1's growing identity crisis.

A trip to cover the Le Mans 24 Hours for the first time since 2005 (a lengthy absence owing more to circumstances than a lack of interest) is the ideal opportunity to do this.

The most striking comparison is the diversity in the engines. While F1 mandates a 1.6-litre turbocharged V6 with energy recovered both from the rear brakes and the turbo, LMP1 offers more choice. As a result, the three LMP1 manufacturers all have different engine configurations.

Toyota's TS040 has a total output of nearly 1000bhp © XPB

The Toyota TS040 Hybrid has a 3.7-litre normally-aspirated petrol V8 with energy recovery systems harvesting from both axles and stored using a super capacitor. This results in a power unit that, when full electrical energy is deployed, puts out 1000bhp with all-wheel-drive.

The Audi R18 e-tron quattro has a 4.0-litre turbodiesel V6, with energy recovery systems harvesting from the rear wheels and storing it using a Williams-derived flywheel.

Then there's the new Porsche 919 Hybrid, which has a 2-litre turbocharged V4 engine, with energy recovered from the front axle and excess exhaust gases, and the generator attached to the turbo and stored using lithium ion cells.

Three very different ways of propelling a car. Yet the Toyota should have won Le Mans, the Porsche could have won and the Audi did win.

What's more, the three cars looked different. Were you to strip the colours off and attempt to distinguish between them, it would be far easier than for the current F1 cars.

Diversity is one of the appeals of Le Mans. Only a small percentage of those watching would have been able to tell you much about the different powertrains of the three factory cars, but far more would have at least known there was some kind of difference.

Nissan's ZEOD RC completed an all-electric lap around the 8.5 miles of La Sarthe © XPB

On top of that, across the four classes there were over a dozen different cars, including the distinctive Nissan ZEOD RC, which completed very few laps during the weekend but did do a full lap propelled only by electric power and broke the 300km/h barrier without using convention propulsion.

And bear in mind that this was a narrower selection of cars than might be expected at Le Mans given the withdrawal of Lotus, Dome and Viper machinery from the original entry list, published in February.

Le Mans is perhaps not as diverse as it once was. LMP1 and the two GTE classes were universally shod by Michelin, with only Dunlop's supremacy in the secondary prototype LMP2 class breaking that hegemony. But even so, it is far more varied than F1.

There is criticism from some in sportscars about increasingly limited regulations, but in comparison to F1 it's the wild west.

The time will eventually come to write F1's next-generation engine regulations. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from sportscars is in the way in which, rather than dictating every detail of engine configuration or slapping on air restrictors, an energy allowance is used.

There are risks in terms of the costs involved and it will also increase the chances of one engine having a big advantage, but if F1 continues to want to chase green technology and road relevance, it seems the obvious choice.

After all, while it was essential that F1 did introduce new engine technology, the final package isn't perfect. Adrian Newey, who is easing himself out of F1 partly because of the lack of freedom in the rules, has highlighted that there are legitimate question marks over the credentials of the current regulations.

Newey took great interest in the Porsche LMP1 at the Silverstone WEC season-opener © XPB

"When you get into things like batteries, then an electric car is only green if it gets its power from a green source," said Newey. "With a hybrid car a lot of energy goes into manufacturing those batteries and into the cars which is why they're so expensive.

"And whether that then gives you a negative or a positive carbon footprint or not depends on the duty cycle of the car - how many miles does it do, is it cruising along the motorway at constant speed or stop-starting in a city? So this concept that a hybrid car is automatically green is a gross simplification.

"On top of that there are other ways, if you're going to put that cost into a car, to make it fuel efficient. You can make it lighter, you can make it more aerodynamic, both of which are things that F1 is good at.

"For instance the cars are 10 per cent heavier this year, a result, directly, of the hybrid content. So I think technically, to be perfectly honest, it's slightly questionable."

Newey's argument is not to go back in time with the engines. But what he would prefer is the chance to tackle the challenge of new green technology in a different way to the current ERS regulations. There are legitimate questions to be asked about the green credentials of batteries, while his point about looking at the energy consumed by the whole process is very valid.

So despite the risks, arguably this is where F1 can become truly road relevant - through the development of unexpected technology.

Rather than being proscriptive, create the conditions in which new technologies that are not just efficient, but as the French would say 'performant' can be explored. It's difficult to forsee what the results would be, and that in itself is part of the appeal.

Some felt KERS had no road car application when it was first introduced © XPB

But knowing F1, the results could be extraordinary. The pursuit of performance could genuinely accelerate the development of green technologies, and throw up some unexpected ideas that could have real application outside of grand prix racing.

And while, inevitably, it would advantage those willing to spend the most, that's the case with any regulation set. Contrary to the rhetoric, teams will spend as much as they can get away with.

If the regulations are open, there are more avenues to explore. If they are limited, then it becomes a game of tiny, expensive iterations. Either way, those with the biggest resources will, provided they exploit them properly, prevail.

As has been argued exhaustively and compellingly, simply divide F1's profits more equally between the teams and they can all be sustainable.

The trend towards tighter regulations has been a necessary one given the march of technology. Where once the technology was the limiting factor, F1 has long since passed the point where it has to keep car pace under control artificially. The result is an ever-narrowing window in which to build you car.

But with diversity, or at least the perception of diversity, seemingly an important factor in the appeal of grand prix racing, the time is approaching where F1 does need to think about rules that can create conditions that can provide both for great racing and real innovation.

Perhaps it would have been too big a leap for F1 to go that far with its first attempt at green engines, but an energy formula is something worth considering for the future. And rather than simply talking about efficiency, which is not exactly the most sexy thing to sell to the fanbase, F1 can again get on with talking only about performance.

What is going on in sportscars is by no means a template. But the energy allowance regulations do offer a potential direction for the sport to follow in the 2020s.