THE FIA PROPOSALS FOR 2008 FORMULA ONE TECHNICAL REGULATIONSFOLLOW-UP NOTE ON TECHNOLOGY IN FORMULA ONE
The FIA proposals for 2008 which were sent to you (teams) on 4 July include significantrestrictions on technology with a view to reducing costs. However, the recentFIA/AMD survey has demonstrated that the public regard technology as an importantelement of Formula One, although they do not like its use for driver aids. Theresponses to our proposals from major manufacturers involved in Formula One alsofavour retaining sophisticated technology.
During the consultation period which is now underway, we should like allstakeholders to consider carefully the technology/cost issue and let us have theirviews. Which technologies to allow and even encourage is a decision offundamental importance, as is the question of cost.
The FIA’s preliminary view is that technology which helps the driver to control the car(eg traction control, ESP-type systems, launch control, etc, etc) have no place inFormula One, which should remain a supreme test of driver skill. This view issupported by the public in the FIA/AMD survey. On the other hand, technologieswhich improve car performance by, for example, saving energy or reducingmechanical losses should be encouraged. These do not devalue a racing driver’sskills and their development can benefit the ordinary motorist.
The example of an energy recovery, storage and release, or “hybrid”, system is agood one. Using known technology it would be possible to recover and store about300 kilojoules of energy when braking for a corner and release it to give about 60bhp for 5 seconds on the next straight, all from a system weighing no more than 50kg. If we were to regulate (limit) such systems by weight, the research would aim forthe maximum energy (power) for the minimum weight. We would soon see morepower for longer from lighter systems. Such systems will eventually be on all roadcars - it is just a question of how many kilojoules per kilo of weight plus system costcompared to fuel cost. Deployment in Formula One would greatly accelerate therate of development of such devices as well as promoting public acceptance andconsumer demand.
In the Research and Development departments of the major manufacturers there arecertainly many other new and interesting technologies under development whichcould usefully be deployed in Formula One. It is also possible that majormanufacturers not currently in Formula One might wish to come into the WorldChampionship with their new technologies without necessarily becoming enginesuppliers. This would benefit the independent teams.
We believe there is a strong case for putting the emphasis on useful technology as ameans of gaining performance in Formula One. At present, much of the technologyis sterile. For example seeking the best lift/drag ratio within the confines of veryrestrictive bodywork regulations whose only purpose is to limit cornering speeds isarguably not the best use of talented aerodynamicists working in very expensive andsophisticated facilities.
On the subject of aerodynamics, we believe there may be a case for placing a limiton the amount of downforce a car can generate (ie a maximum of x newtons) ratherthan constantly regulating to restrict the aerodynamics in the hope of containingperformance. Research would then be directed to reducing drag, possibly useful tothe car industry. Techniques for generating massive amounts of downforce from thebodywork of a single-seater racing car have limited practical application.
Also, if we have a fixed but relatively low maximum permitted downforce, why wouldwe need to continue to ban moveable aerodynamic devices? Could we not allowthem at least under braking? Or perhaps forward of the front wheel centre line tohelp aerodynamic balance when following another car closely? We would have tohave an accurate and reliable means of measurement, but I am told this will be mucheasier with a single tyre supplier. Moveable devices might also be useful for safety.If there is some support for such ideas, we should like to discuss possible action for2008 as a matter of urgency. In the longer term we would propose setting up a smallcommittee from the major manufacturers and perhaps some academics to advise theFIA on possible car and aerospace technologies for use in Formula One. We couldthen start to think about regulations five or even ten years ahead of their introduction.
Finally, we must never lose sight of the need to keep at least 20, preferably 24, carson the grid. This means that permitted technologies must either be relativelyinexpensive to develop or of a kind which bring paying technology partners intoFormula One.
We should be glad to discuss these and related questions with any of the teams andother stakeholders, either individually or collectively.
