Should F1 ensure ‘sustainable’ fuels are no pipe dream before ditching hybrids?

63 comments on “Should F1 ensure ‘sustainable’ fuels are no pipe dream before ditching hybrids?”

1. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   18th August 2024, 9:42

   Neither agree nor disagree as I struggle to form a strong view, but the chosen minimum of 768 kg should be achievable, given how many different areas each will automatically reduce weight & 30 or rather 32 kg compared to next season’s chosen minimum is already a lot itself, even if less than the initially targeted 40-50, & U’m still mystified how FIA failed with this amount range target.
2. 

   Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
   18th August 2024, 10:06

   I think there’s no way back from hybrids, in any case. The hybrid systems will get better and more easily packaged, that’s an area where efficiencies very much are possible (energy store technology is an obvious area for improvements in storage density vs weight but even wiring is still underexplored and a huge topic for the broader automotive industry) and there’s also a huge performance loss to removing them.

   Regardless of the total horsepower, a car without a flick of electrical power will be slower out of corners, it’s why supercar makers are fitting the systems. Lamborghini did not put a PHEV system in the Temerario because they think anyone buying a Lambo genuinely cares about getting a bit off their road tax, they put it in for performance. In road cars that can translate to things like the Temerario’s torque vectoring system to help millionaires live their track day dreams for slightly more laps, in race cars it’s very visible in why OEMs (in a system where they don’t have to) have all opted to run hybrid LMDh, only privateers with zero hope of fighting for the overall win running only ICE.

   Beyond that, though, braking would be so limited. Without the energy recovery systems drivers would either need replacement brakes mid-race, endurance-style or would have to save brakes so aggressively it would ruin hard racing. Returning to super lightweight cars wouldn’t be possible, even in removing the hybrid systems (because cars have a lot more chassis features; aerodynamic, electronic/telemetry and for safety) and it would make unwieldy cars unable to slow down properly.

   It would be a huge shame to see F1 cars take a dip in overall performance for the sake of removing hybrids. It would be worse to do that on a politically charged issue like synthetic fuels; Pat Symonds (then working for F1) said quite openly at FT Future Of The Car earlier this year that F1 had been meeting with EU politicians about synthetic fuel, so this isn’t a (carbon) neutral agenda. Synthetic fuel processes are not new – the Fischer-Tropsch process is 100 years old next year – and any innovation around them would be outside the car (efficiency in direct carbon capture, which could reduce the energy costs of creating the fuel, efficiency of process, efficiency of transport) – I don’t think that most of us tune into F1 for the thrill of a tech battle over marginal cargo emissions reductions.

   F1 has a history of bending physics to extract performance. But it is not possible to deliver on synthetic fuel in a way that will make it make broad sense, let alone be economical. F1 is clearly a huge draw for the last days of gas/oil money right now and has found a (semi) acceptable way to exploit that but it shouldn’t throw away a tech area with huge development potential over a false marketing promise.
   1. 

      MichaelN
      18th August 2024, 10:39

      It would be a huge shame to see F1 cars take a dip in overall performance for the sake of removing hybrids.

      Regulations are always made to keep lap times somewhat similar so comparisons are hard. It’s no real use to say, for example, that race times in the late V10 era were comparable to now. That’s the point of the regulations, not an innate quality of either the V10s or today’s hybrids. Both of which could have easily been tweaked to be faster or slower, depending on what the regulations asked for. Same with how Indycar is always aiming for that 230mp/h mark, and Le Mans always wants 3:20 to 3:25 or so to be the fastest class lap time.

      What F1 has done, and which is pretty impressive, is dramatically lower the amount of fuel used to complete these races in the same amount of time. That’s probably the biggest ‘win’ for these engines.
   2. 

      S
      18th August 2024, 11:13

      Synthetic fuel processes are not new – the Fischer-Tropsch process is 100 years old next year – and any innovation around them would be outside the car

      Sounds suspiciously similar to the evolutionary path batteries are on, doesn’t it…. ;)
      This is still just the beginning.
   3. 

      Yaru (@yaru)
      18th August 2024, 14:14

      ‘last days of oil and gas money”

      Hazel having her fantasy rants again.
      1. 

         Nick T.
         18th August 2024, 16:19

         It’s not far off, especially for oil. It’s got another 25-30 years of prices high enough to sustain the petro states where extraction costs are nearly free and there are only about three states in the world whose extraction per barrel is that cheap. 30 years is a blink of the eye.
      2. 

         Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
         19th August 2024, 3:17

         “Non-renewables” has a meaning. Oil is expected to run out in less than 30 years but scientific research says we need to, as a desperate, last-ditch effort to avoid 2C change, keep one third of oil, half of natural gas and four fifths of coal reserves in the ground until at least 2050. I’m sure you’ve listened to some very interesting podcasts saying climate change isn’t real but you do still live on the planet is it happening to.
         1. 

            Nick T.
            19th August 2024, 10:39

            Oil is nowhere close to running out. New fields are being discovered all the time and there are many existing fields which are not tapped simply because the extraction cost is too high to be profitable. The reason the Saudis make so much money is because their oil costs $3 a barrel to extract while in countries like the US it around $50-$60 a barrel to extract. The next cheapest country for extraction is still more than triple the cost of SA. It gives you an idea of what an advantage they have.

            The predictions about oil running out also came before the shale oil revolution. There are multiple countries, which due to political strife, have essentially massive oil deposits going untapped or tapped at a tiny fraction of their potential.
            1. 

               Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
               19th August 2024, 16:31

               Gosh how rude of countries to experience political strife instead of exploiting their natural resources to ecologically disastrous effect.
            2. 

               Nick T.
               22nd August 2024, 7:50

               That’s not at all what I was implying. My hope is for nuclear power paired with actually feasible green tech to provide 100% of our power. But you know what they about people who assume things.
   4. 

      Fletch (@fletchuk)
      18th August 2024, 14:49

      Your argument that F1 cars can’t be light again is circular. There is no reason the cars cannot be sub-600kg again with current safety and performance levels… other than the regulations.
   5. 

      Webbo (@webbo82)
      19th August 2024, 9:22

      I agree Hazel (btw, great to read your words here again). But I also think adding synthetic or waste oils in could be part of the mix.

      I’ve never understood why F1 promoted ERS & KERS, etc but capped the deployment. If Motorsport is serious about pushing the tech, let’s unleash the best engineers to push the envelope!
      1. 

         Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
         19th August 2024, 16:34

         @Webbo82 I agree about waste oils and I think synthetic fuel actually does have a use in some contexts (because the process is actually very basic and replicable in fairly small facilities, it could be a replacement for the terrible logistics of trying to get fuel to remote locations, for instance) – it’s just that as a global automotive solution it’s particularly expensive and distracting snake oil.

         Absolutely agree on capping ERS/KERS, too. Even the 2026 increase doesn’t go far enough, would be good to see the systems actually unleashed rather than mostly venting recovery energy as heat.
         1. 

            rsp123 (@rsp123)
            20th August 2024, 17:16

            Well said. Let the engineers have free rein on the electrical power (all 4 wheels), and have an annual reduction in the amount of combustible fuel allowed – maybe reduce it by 10kg per year?
3. 

   Red Andy (@red-andy)
   18th August 2024, 10:17

   The push back to using fossil fuels, “sustainable” label or otherwise, is part of a bigger trend by Liberty of making decisions that threaten the long-term integrity of the sport in exchange for short-term financial gains. In this case, it is the influx of Middle Eastern money into F1 that is to blame, particularly from Aramco, as they try to wring the last drops of dirty oil wealth from a dying planet.
   1. 

      MichaelN
      18th August 2024, 12:07

      Whatever the motivations, synthetic fuels have benefits. It’s all about finding the right balance and most advantageous use for different types of energy.

      Synthetic fuels can be used in existing cars, negating the need to construct new ones (which reduces the construction emissions to, well, zero – something that is most definitely not the case with BEVs, whose construction is notoriously troublesome due to the technologies used in batteries).

      Synthetic fuels are high-density energy; there’s no need for two tonne cars to lug around big batteries. This has a lot of advantages, from reducing the frequency of road maintenance (with big trucks and construction vehicles, creation of new tarmac, paving, etc. all of which are not ‘green’) to safety.

      There’s a certain type of road user for whom BEVs are great. But not for everyone. It’s important not to ignore the benefits that synthetic fuels can bring to areas where BEVs don’t make much sense (whether that’s due to infrastructure requirements, costs, ease of use, etc.). And as always, when in urban environments, putting 300 people in a tram is always going to be better environmentally than having 300 separate BEVs clogging up the roads.
      1. 

         kpcart
         18th August 2024, 12:47

         Rich F1 teams could quickly help reduce battery week ght and push bev tech forward… But don’t worry the weights are coming down quick, China, Germany and other countries are putting full steam ahead with battery tech, F1 will be left behind very quickly.
         1. 

            Nick T.
            22nd August 2024, 7:54

            China isn’t making any progress and their EV industry is basically the most environmentally destructive thing in the world beside their endless new coal plants, their illegal drag fishing in places like the Galapagos and a thousand other disastrous practices.
      2. 

         greasemonkey
         18th August 2024, 13:34

         The big one about the extra mass that is usually ignoring in popular calculations is that the extra mass takes more energy to accelerate and stop, as well as increasing friction. Mass is an efficiency loss in and of itself.

         And when you don’t have the ground helping you counter the acceleration of gravity, like in planes, the mass issue compounds.
         1. 

            Yaru (@yaru)
            18th August 2024, 14:15

            But the hybrids still make up for that extra mass in energy recovery and deployment. Otherwise that energy is just purely wasted.
   2. 

      Nick T.
      18th August 2024, 16:28

      Going hybrid in the first place was simply to cater to manufacturers. The new formula is no more friendly to the Saudis than the existing formula.

      Anyway, F1 shouldn’t be catering to any agenda. It’s a spectator sport. Its formula should have stuck to one that produced an exciting sound. The fans are forever. The multinationals will come and go. Better to have teams like McLaren, Williams, RBR, the former Sauber team, etc. whose entire existence is F1 and who don’t require special enticements to stick around. The only reason they began to struggle was zero budget cap and manufacturers coming in and engaging in unsustainable spending wars. Though Ferrari was just as guilty as anyone of beginning that cycle, except they finally started winning for once.
4. 

   stefano (@alfa145)
   18th August 2024, 10:24

   from what I can make out of the article sustainability is in terms of the process needed to manufacture the fuel itself, but not on the emissions after the combustion. I’m hardly sold on anything that claims to be sustainable if it only refers to a minor part of its cycle. if really CO2 emissions are unchanged from conventional fuels, it looks hardly an improvement to me. Surely using such fuels with hybrid units would sound more appealing
   1. 

      Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
      18th August 2024, 10:33

      @alfa145 You’re right, the tailpipe emissions are unchanged from fossil fuels. The argument that these fuels can be carbon neutral comes from capturing CO2 in the environment (or from industrial waste) and using that to build the hydrocarbon chain. All the carbon that is bonded into the fuel would then be released again on combustion, like with fossil fuels.

      Synthetic fuel has an additional energy burden in both generating clean energy to make it (taking that away from other potential uses, during an era of energy shortage) and the equipment and process needed to actually generate it. All of which incurs a significant carbon cost that synthetic fuel would have very little hope of ever repaying, given its emissions might be recycled but are still very much emissions.
      1. 

         greasemonkey
         18th August 2024, 13:42

         Ideally, carbon neutral fuel is in fact itself really just energy storage. A liquid battery. Same as H2.

         So while we are researching an ramping on all this, why not also impose a rule that it has to be generated with energy that would otherwise be lost (solar beyond what the grid can take at peak, a farm in the Sahara with no grid access, etc).

         In California, we even now have some politicians trying to disincentive solar panels on roofs because the energy has no where to go mid-day. Having extra energy going into fuel or H2 on a less than ideal process is still better than having it just drop on the floor, or having solar panels not even be installed.
         1. 

            Picasso 1.9D FTW (@picasso-19d-ftw)
            19th August 2024, 8:44

            Very important point, thank you
5. 

   MichaelN
   18th August 2024, 10:31

   For F1, the technology isn’t that important. It’s marketing. Hybrids are now ‘boring’. And since F1 cannot go electric (other than with huge battery swaps), it’s only natural that the focus shifts to that crucial second meaning of the EU’s 2035 time horizon: carbon neutral.

   Synthetic fuels have a role to play here. They won’t be a one size fits all solution for all transportation. Nothing is. There are now, and will be, different forms of energy used. That’s fine.

   There are of course issues with synthetic fuels. For one, you need a steady supply of CO2 to make it, and that tends to be produced in areas using a lot of energy, in which case one might argue that the energy needed to make synthetic fuels is better used to … you get the idea. It’s never simple. On the other hand, once the fuel is made, it’s there. That’s not the case with electricity, which sees pretty substantial losses when transported over even medium distances.

   BEVs are not a one size fits all solution either. Even in 2023, for new UK registrations they only account for 17%. That’s new registrations. In regions that are seen as early adopters of BEVs, we’re already starting to see governments wrestle with the increased road maintenance costs due to the huge weight of these cars, and the loss of gas tax revenue to pay for it. Tyre pollution also can’t escape public notice forever either, and weight and safety for other road users are inextricably linked as well.

   F1 is a great place to develop these fuels, and can also act as a sort of ‘stamp of approval’. One of the things that has hurt E10 ethanol fuels, is that people thought they’d be bad for their engines (which in a few cases was true, but especially today, not so much).
   1. 

      Yaru (@yaru)
      18th August 2024, 14:18

      F1 is going to fully use them in 2026 anyways so using synthetic fuels is coming for sure.
   2. 

      anon
      18th August 2024, 16:36

      MichaelN, do you have any sources to cite for the claims you are making such as your assertion that “we’re already starting to see governments wrestle with the increased road maintenance costs due to the huge weight of these cars”?

      The University of Edinburgh, for example, published a paper back in 2022 that assessed the impact of vehicle weight on road wear, and that publication concluded that, for the average passenger vehicle, a BEV had a negligible impact on road wear rates. It was only when they looked at the heaviest road vehicles – mostly HGV’s and buses – that there was an appreciable difference in road wear rates, although even that could potentially be mitigated by introducing measures to reduce the axle loads of those vehicles.
      1. 

         MichaelN
         18th August 2024, 21:31

         Purchase fees or annual fees for ownership of vehicles are usually based on weight, because heavier cars cause more wear and tear on the roads. This has been the case for decades, and with good reason. It doesn’t really matter if the weight comes from sheer size or from a different type of engine/motor and the accompanying batteries.

         It’s probably true that BEV weight isn’t currently a big issue on roads that are build with the expectation of frequent truck use, such as national highways. But there is still wear and tear, and given that personal vehicles vastly outnumber trucks, an increase from the current single-digits for BEVs to 30% or even a majority will undoubtedly have an effect. It’s a long term problem; not so much right now.

         A more pressing concern, especially in countries that aren’t blessed by geography with firm foundations and the cheap road construction that comes with it, are the smaller regional or local roads of which there are much, much more. The kind of roads where one might see road signs that indicate weight limits (or axle load limits, as you rightly note) for a reason: many of these were built to facilitate only local traffic, often in a time when a car would weigh less than a tonne.

         As for governments; the majority of US states now have annual EV-ownership fees to make up for lost gas taxes, and even Norway scrapped the exemption from the weight-based purchase fee (a one off cost, as far as I’ve been able to find). Similar debates are ongoing in other countries; although the reasons are varied, as with Germany having to scrap the purchase-subsidy on BEVs for legal reasons. The Netherlands are currently on track to scrap hybrid exemptions from the ownership fees by 2025 and BEV by 2030, which will mean – based on current weight rules – that the owner of a Volkswagen ID.3 would pay almost double the annual fee the owner of a petrol Golf would pay.
         1. 

            anon
            19th August 2024, 8:11

            MichaelN, when you assert that “Purchase fees or annual fees for ownership of vehicles are usually based on weight”, are you sure you’re not getting confused about weight being one factor in whether a vehicle changes from one classification to another?

            You highlight the Netherlands, but that is not a particularly great example given that the reasons for the weight rules are more complex than you assert. After all, the Netherlands also grants reductions in fees for classes of heavier vehicles that, by your argument, should be paying more for causing more wear, rather than paying a reduced fee (or even paying nothing at all).

            There are those who argue that it’s been turned into a form of indirect progressive taxation these days – i.e. the sort of person who is buying a large luxury saloon, for example, is therefore able to afford to pay more in tax – rather than being linked to the maintenance requirements.
   3. 

      cdfemke (@cdfemke)
      18th August 2024, 19:16

      Marketing and profit maximalisation are king. If “green” sells, fine. If big sound sells better? We are going to get v10’s back
   4. 

      SteveR (@stever)
      19th August 2024, 20:43

      That’s not the case with electricity, which sees pretty substantial losses when transported over even medium distances.

      DC power transmission losses are about 3.5% per 1000 km.
6. 

   Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
   18th August 2024, 10:40

   I am deeply cynical, and sceptical about all the “Net Zero”, “Sustainable Fuels”, “Carbon Neutral” type hype that the Media rams down our throats these days.

   If there is an alternative to petrol that improves the sport, and does either less, or least no more, harm to the environment, then try it.

   No Motorsport however should ever wait for the public to lead the way in my opinion.
   That will just create stagnation.
   Improvements in road car safety and performance come from experimentation on the track, not from Joe Average doing 60 in the middle lane of the motorway.
   1. 

      Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
      18th August 2024, 13:18

      + 1
   2. 

      Yaru (@yaru)
      18th August 2024, 14:22

      It already will. F1 fuels will be 100% synthetic by 2026 as opposed to the 10% ethanol mix now.

      The question is, is it worth dropping the electrical part of the powerunit? While obviously there will be extra cost in terms of mass, the electric part increases the efficiency of the powerunit and systems. It might be lighter and better racing but it will be less efficient and worse for the environment, if that is the consideration.
7. 

   S
   18th August 2024, 10:59

   There really isn’t any reason to resist the introduction of such fuel into F1. It is objectively a massive improvement over what they currently use and have previously used.
   If F1 were to wait until it (or whatever similar products are produced) is in mass production and widely adopted outside of motorsport, then they’ve totally failed as a development and prototyping series. And as a marketing one – which is F1’s primary reason to exist now.

   Neither production scale nor energy efficiency are an issue here. They are problems for mass production, not for F1 – and F1 is not tied to mass production in any meaningful way whatsoever.

   As for the hybrid system – that is completely separate from the energy storage medium (fuel) used. Environmentally friendly/sustainable fuel or not makes no difference.
8. 

   M2X
   18th August 2024, 12:41

   Since technological expression and freedom have been curtailed by the Formula, and every car virtually looks and sounds the same, which doesnt evoke an emotional response, since the cars have gotten easier to drive and have lost the ability to provoke fun, since they are the size of campervan and the weight of consumer car that barely fits the tracks they race upon, since the racing has become the victim of the technological advancements of hybrid engines and the massive increase in downforce, I have lost any interest in them.

   First and foremost the racing needs to be good, the cars behavior on track and the sound need to evoke an emotional response. There needs to be a clear feeling of being on the edge and approaching the limits of skill towards danger.

   Lighter, shorter, narrower, and more skill needed to drive them at the limit and a better aweinspiring sound are what is needed from F1 cars.
   1. 

      Yaru (@yaru)
      18th August 2024, 14:23

      The cars are definitely harder especially the ground effects cars and how sensitive they are.
      1. 

         M2X
         19th August 2024, 21:26

         If they were harder to drive we would see more mistakes, we don’t.
9. 

   kpcart
   18th August 2024, 12:44

   It’s too late for F1 to go back to internal combustion engine only when Chinese road cars can accelerate quicker to 100kmh than the fastest race cars in the world. Think of the EV tech in 5 years, F1 is instead relying on a conservative fan base like combat sports. The only reason for F1 to not switch to EV (which it should if it wants to be the Pinnacle of motor racing technology) is SOUND. But I noticed since 2014, crowds increased in F1 even with the shit sound it currently has.
   1. 

      MichaelN
      18th August 2024, 21:35

      The only reason for F1 to not switch to EV (which it should if it wants to be the Pinnacle of motor racing technology) is SOUND.

      With current battery technology, it would take about 2000kg in batteries to have enough energy to do an F1 race at current speeds. This is not feasible. Battery swaps are possible, but impractical.

      Also, and of lesser concern given the technical issue is far more serious, F1 cannot be an electric series because Formula E has the exclusive rights up to 2040.
10. 

    Roberto Fratelli (@rfratelli)
    18th August 2024, 13:15

    Just bring back the V10’s!
11. 

    Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
    18th August 2024, 13:30

    I voted slightly disagree. It is not an issue I understand very well but in answer to the simple question I think F1 should try to move ahead with trying synthetic fuels, certainly before they will be available to the general public.

    I am not too concerned if cars are slightly slower but I do think they need to be lighter and more nimble. All of drivers say this. If synthetic fuels can achieve this to some degree, then so be it. I know F1 is all about being the fastest and pushing the limits but I think it’s more important that the product is entertaining and competitive than if the cars reach10 Kms per hour more in speed. Of course, it does not want to be slower than more junior series.
12. 

    Philippe (@philippe)
    18th August 2024, 13:43

    Having 20 cars running around for a few hours every other weekend is nothing, in terms of emission. Especially compared to the billions of cars running every day, around the world. It’s just a question of image and marketing.

    I think it’s hilarious that F1 never talks about it’s biggest source of emission: the number of travel by planes. But you won’t see F1 changing the calendar to reduce the number of races, or making a calendar that makes geographical sense.
    1. 

       greasemonkey
       18th August 2024, 13:50

       Carbon neutral fuel is the single best hope for those planes, and all the other planes, which, yes, per mile, is an insanely high carbon footprint per person.

       So spin that into the hype too. We are pushing this direction for the planes too.
    2. 

       Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
       19th August 2024, 15:14

       F1 never talks about it’s biggest source of emission: the number of travel by planes

       F1 does address this within its reporting on its total carbon emissions, of which travel is a huge part. Here’s an example from this year.
13. 

    Coventry Climax
    18th August 2024, 13:49

    The real question over whether sustainable fuels ‘work’ is whether they can be produced cost-effectively at the scale needed to replace the fossil fuels many of us pump into our cars.

    – Will it bring down F1’s carbon emissions to such an extent that it weighs up against the weight increase and therefore loss of car nimbleness, and deterioration of the racing and the sport?
    – Won’t F1 save a rather more significant amount of carbon from optimising the calendar and freight methods used?
    – Outside of F1: Are synthetic fuels really zero emission, cradle to cradle? (Answer: No way, and most certainly not when they are going to be produced in the quantities required for the global economy of households, transportation etc.)
    – What’s F1’s obsession with this topic in the first place? Why should F1 try to improve the world? Whenever it comes down to politics and questionable regimes, or even when it’s about gender issues, F1 keeps very, very silent, forbids personnel from speaking out and says it is not for the sport to decide on such things. Also, it’s got nothing to do with being at the forefront of technology, as they’ve waved that ship farewell over a decade – and maybe even two- ago already. They ditch technology (MGU-H) whenever they think it suits them. If anything, they more follow what is going on with roadcars than the other way round.

    The answers ofcourse are all and solely of financial nature, or more specifically; the Liberty shareholders.

    I am all for reducing our pollution footprint. I’m not very optimistic about us saving the planet though, and certainly not by means of synthetic fuel.
    I don’t mind if people do things for the money only, and for themselves only.
    But I do mind if they lie about it, playing your sterotype door-to-door or car salesman with stories anyone in their right mind find hard to believe anyway.

    I could not care less actually, about the cost effectiveness of producing this scam; my main question is when will we get to see someone who is not such a clown but instead true, realistic and transparent about the real reasons and complete calculations as to why F1 pursue this.
14. 

    notagrumpyfan
    18th August 2024, 13:58

    Quite strange to pose the question like this, as hybrid and sustainable fuels are two totally independent things:
    – Hybrid is all about efficiency (and/or increased power) where lost energy is being reused (mostly) for traction later on (if joined by an energy store).

    Sustainable fuels are mostly carbon fuels in which the carbon cycle has been drastically reduced, slowing down our efforts to build a gigantic greenhouse, and thus helping to reduce global warming.

    Why would one link/slow down efficiency gains in motorsports when tackling global warming?
    I don’t see similar questions on if we should abolish the turbos (efficiency and power) when we have sustainable fuels.

    Of course when we find a truly sustainable fuel which is free as well (any progress on the perpetual motion machine?) then we can stop all efficiency efforts.
    1. 

       Yaru (@yaru)
       18th August 2024, 14:29

       The question is basically, are the upcoming sustainable fuels actually carbon neutral (in the overall chain) that they don’t really need the increased efficiency of the electrical components to recover and deploy energy in exchange for lighter and more nimble cars that will probably provide better racing.

       From an efficiency standpoint, hybrids will never lose as long as they can offset the gain in mass. Question is, can the new fuels “pay” for better racing by allowing us to get rid of the extra electric mass with no extra carbon cost.
15. 

    Dex
    18th August 2024, 14:59

    It’s a sport, and they should have that in mind sometimes. When it comes to ecology, what matters is how much they fly, what kind of trucks do they use, the whole logistics. They could use diesel for all I care.
16. 

    Riccard
    18th August 2024, 16:08

    The main reason oil and gas countries are pushing ‘sustainable fuels’ is because they use the same infrastructure as petrol and diesel… so you can sound good and look busy while still using oil and diesel for the forseeable future. That doesn’t get the planet anywhere!

    There may be a case for these fuels in air travel because you need a certain level of energy per kilo to fly, but apart from that, they are mostly an excuse for inaction.

    Meanwhile electric and hybrid cars have better performance anyway.
17. 

    Neil (@neilosjames)
    18th August 2024, 17:21

    Even as an environmental person, I couldn’t care less about whether F1 puts ‘sustainable fuel’ into 20 cars which contribute less than 1% of the sport’s total emissions. It’s meaningless, cheap greenwashing… “wouldn’t it be great if we could pretend to be environmentally aware by using this ‘sustainable’ fuel stuff, instead of spending hundreds of millions on eco-friendly power unit tech?”

    So for me… keep the hybrids, and deepen the green sheen by using sustainable fuel in the ICE bit.
    1. 

       Mayrton
       18th August 2024, 18:00

       Totally agree, I understand the role of example the sport has, but frankly it are a handful of cars. We should not get carried away and overdo it.
    2. 

       BasCB (@bascb)
       20th August 2024, 18:46

       Indeed @neilosjames. The fact they can use a syntethic fuel that they produce using captured CO2 and hopefully using energy from solar/wind for the process, is fine. But there is no good reason to stop using hybrid powertrains that use otherwise wasted energy to make them accelerate better!
18. 

    Robert
    18th August 2024, 20:24

    The question I would ask is something like this. If F1 cars had no minimum weight in the rules, but still kept some form of limit on fuel usage, would the teams put hybrid systems in their cars if they were allowed but not demanded?
    1. 

       notagrumpyfan
       18th August 2024, 20:47

       Yes!
       Many parts of a hybrid systems weigh less than double the weight of the fuel it saves. But it shouldn’t be too regulated, as that will limit this efficiency. e.g. it’s stupid to regulate how much energy can be harvested or used per lap. It is easier to get those weight trade offs with a small battery (or capacitor) which can be charged various times each lap.
       Initial calcs even showed the fuel saved by having the MGU-H was offsetting the weight of the MGU-H itself, even if including part of the battery store weight. It’s not an easy comparison though (only looking at thermal efficiency) as the set up and usage of a MGU-H PU is totally different from a normal turbo engine, to get a comparable (total) power output curve.
19. 

    ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
    18th August 2024, 22:42

    F1’s idea of sustainability is flawed. They think sustainability means adopting green technologies or buying fake carbon offsets that do little to nothing in reality. All the energy spent developing these complicated hybrid power units or sustainable fuels is greater than the energy saved over using bigger NA engines, and the cars could be lighter which would give better racing. If they really want to be more sustainable, make the events at places where people can get to them easily instead of in far flung corners of the world where few fans live and set up transportation so people don’t have to drive themselves in their own cars. Reduce the amount of equipment the teams need to or can bring to events.
20. 

    Maisch (@maisch)
    19th August 2024, 8:12

    So much talking and buzzwords, If they really wanted a fuel thats better for the environment they could have changed to ethanol made from waste material a decade ago, its been available for a long time now and its a perfect race fuel (Except for the added volume needed). Of course its not the perfect fuel, but its available, easy to make and doesnt require any pumped up oil (maybe thats the issue as some other commenters have pointed out :) )
21. 

    G (@unklegsif)
    19th August 2024, 12:44

    Voted “Strongly Disagree”, but not for the reason for ditching the hybrids.
    Yes they are heavy, but that is only because of the constraints in development that are placed on the engine manufacturers. If they had greater budgets, and more flexibility in the regulations, the powertrains could be significantly lighter. Battery and ICE technology could be pushed further and further, with permitted development in materials.

    These PU’s are widely reported to be the most efficient ICE ever produced, pushing 50% and beyond in some cases. Imagine what potential the development of a motorsport lead, super lightweight hybrid AND sustainable fuels could offer to the “domestic” market

    G
22. 

    Cranberry
    20th August 2024, 9:17

    A 10 year old Toyota Prius is technologically more advanced and has better hybrid technology that any F1 car on the current grid.

    Modern F1 is being managed in such a way that has resulted in F1 cars being essentially irrelevant when it comes to hybrid technology, there is no reason to assume that any “SyNtHeTiC FuEl” they start mandating would not suffer the same fate.

    F1 Regulators need to stop micro managing the cars and regulate them in much the same way they would a street car. Budget Cap, Euro Whatever emissions for the engine, non-toxic batteries, and sure throw in 100% synthetic fuel.
23. 

    us-brian (@us-brian)
    20th August 2024, 14:19

    Sustainable fuels are great if they could replace fossil fuels and reduce emissions.
    My problem however is with batteries. I feel that we are not advancing when it comes to them. Charge times, overheating and endurance are not really getting much better. We know what F1 and their Hybrids are about, but it doesn’t help anything and we are using the same stuff year after year until there are regulation changes in hope to mix things up.
    But nothing advances anymore for the world anymore with F1. It should be the test bed for the Future.
    1. 

       moblet (@moblet)
       22nd August 2024, 3:11

       There is a lot of R&D in batteries at present, the technology is not standing still. The next step looks like it will be “solid-state” versions of existing Li-ion chemistry with improved specs and safety.
24. 

    moblet (@moblet)
    22nd August 2024, 3:30

    Hybrids have the potential to improve the closeness of racing and overtaking opportunities by introducing trade-offs in energy capture during braking. If braking at less than maximal deceleration allows the car to capture more energy for subsequent acceleration it creates an environment where:
    1. A following car can lose less time to the car in front during the acceleration phase out of a corner.
    2. There is no longer “one fastest way” to brake and accelerate through any given corner (or sequence of corners) but multiple ways that come out fairly equal, equivalent to creating multiple racing lines. Drivers battling for position will have tactical options not just in positioning but in energy management (e.g. car A gets to the apex first but car B has captured more energy so will have more potential to accelerate out the other side).

    From my limited understanding of the 2026 regs this may be in play from 2026.

Comments are closed.