Tuesday 27 December at 13:28 : Formula 1 cars have, during the last ten years, become one of the safest places in the world to be. This has been illustrated a number of times in the recent past – most notably when Jacques Villeneuve quite literally flew into a barrier at Melbourne in 2001 only to calmly climb out of the wreck and get on the back of a bike to catch a ride back to the pits. A more recent illustration would be Ralf Schumacher’s massive shunt into the wall at Indianapolis at almost 200 km/h. The man was hurt but he was racing again not long after – the same crash a few years before would have killed him for sure. If modern safety standards were in place 1994, Senna would no doubt still be with us. In fact the last time any driver died as a result of an incident on track was indeed in 1994.
Changing the Game
Despite all of the above the FIA has decreed once again that the sport is too dangerous and the cars are too fast. Never mind that this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport – the paragon of technology and speed and an illustration of the absolute limits of what can be done on four wheels. Never mind that the drivers are paid more than ever and at the same time face less risk than ever. Never mind that other forms of motor sports are infinitely more dangerous than F1. No no, a radical change is necessary so let’s kill two birds with one stone and introduce some cost-saving measures that will slow the cars down to boot.
Enter the new V8 rule: As of 2006, Formula One cars will no longer be powered by the 3.0 V10’s we have come to know and love. No, the engines are to have two fewer cylinders and their capacity is to be reduced to 2.4 litres. Aside from that the centre of gravity will be regulated, along with other additional technical regulations.
Money Money Money
There is much dissent about the cost-implications of this new rule. From the teams’ (and fans’) perspective the speed impact of the new rule has to be minimised as much as possible – some teams indicating early on that they’re aiming for a 2.5 seconds a lap loss in the first season. The development costs for this will not exactly be trifling and it does not end there. The cars will require a more radical design change from the ’05 to the ’06 season to ensure that the car marries well to the new engine characteristics. Renault, for instance, has had tremendous success in their focus on putting the V10’s immense power down onto the tar coming out of corners – to the dismay of many a potential overtaker. This will now have to change in favour of carrying as much speed as possible through the corners – dissipating the effects of the massive difference in torque between the old engine and the new. All the development, all the costs incurred will be wasted. Scuderia Torro Rosso (previously Minardi) have even indicated that they are willing to race with whatever restrictions the FIA choose to impose on them as long as they can still use their V10’s for 2006 – giving them a reprieve from the costs they would have to incur in the development of a new engine. Exactly what performance defecit (or even advantage) this will result in is very hard to predict. Mario Ilien, literally the “Il” in Ilmor (the Mercedes subsidiary responsible for the design and manufacture of their F1 engines), says of the new rule: “we're having to develop a V8 engine for next year. Overall the cost will be up.” and ''With stability, sure, we would have saved money.''
The FIA's penchant for dictating cylinder configuration started only at the turn of the century. Before that the engine capacity was always limited but how to get there was up to each inidividual engine manufacturer. Honda was considering a V12 for 2000 (not unlike their all-dominant engines of the early 90's) as they found they could get a lower centre of gravity and more revs with that configuration. They ended up deciding against it citing torque characteristics and physical engine length as down sides. Lucky for them as the FIA announced a surprise rule change in January 2000 that dictated a V10 cylinder configuration. The victims then were Toyota - who had spent most of '99 developing a V12 engine for Formula 1 entry in 2001. The new rules resulted in them having to pay a US$12 million penalty, as well as having to develop a whole new (preferably competitive) V10 engine in one year. The development costs were obviously massive but the real problem lay in the performance penalties caused by the limited development time - the monetary costs of which are virtually impossible to calculate.
Speed
It seems then, that the cost-saving effects of this rule has so far proven ineffective. But what of speed? Aside from the obvious loss in sheer brake horse power which will naturally affect the maximum speeds the cars will reach and to a great extent the acceleration, the torque characteristics will differ vastly – affecting tractability and making the cars less drivable. Braking distances will also be shorter, negatively affecting the opportunity to overtake. We will have to wait for the first race day in ’06 to see how the rule affects overtaking, tailgating, etc but for now, we already have early testing times which at least provide us with an indication as to the difference in speed. Let’s examine the times so far…
In a June test at the Jerez circuit, Pedro de la Rosa set the fastest lap time of 1:16:9, followed closely by Ricardo Zonta posting a 1:17:3 – obviously both in V10’s. On 15 December these drivers set a 1:20:5 and a 1:20 respectively at the same circuit. Other teams seem to be posting similar time differences. As an example of how far the engines have come, we can look at an early example of a V8 test when Panis set a 1:22:4 also at Jerez on 13 July. That’s a 2.4 second gain from then to now, if you discount all the other factors involved.
But do these times tell the true story? No. Every year the cars develop and gain speed, reducing their lap times. On top of that, the cars currently in testing have had the added advantage of more grippy rubber following the re-introduction of tyre changes. And they are still some three seconds off the pace. Of course only Toyota is running its ’06 cars, the other teams still running hybrid versions of their ’05 cars. It is realistic then, to expect the lap times to improve further before the first race starts but one still gets the feeling that speed has been hampered sufficiently to please the FIA and displease fans.
Opinions
So what do the drivers think? "You've just got to adjust. The V10 was of course more fun, but 700 horse power is pretty good too." says Nick Heidfeld. Some drivers, like Mark Webber and Pedro de la Rosa, feels it makes driving an F1 car a lot easier, the Spaniard even equating the power levels to a GP2 car and making no secret of his opinion that fitness demands will be reduced. World Champion Fernando Alonso, on the other hand, believes that "It doesn't matter whether you are in an F3 car or an F1 car, with a V10 engine or a V8. The important thing is to be driving on the limit, and when you are there, it is never simple."
Some drivers have even been pleasantly surprised, initially believing that the V8’s would bring about a greater drop in power, yet to a man they agree that speed has been reduced significantly, with one jokingly commenting that a “little girl” could take it to the limit.
One thing’s for sure, it will make for an interesting season as we see new elements coming to the fore. Certain driving styles will benefit from the reduced torque – with Button already claiming that the different characteristics will suit his driving style – and others will not. Certain engine manufacturers, such as Cosworth, have vast experience with V8’s and engine makers like Honda and Toyota are traditionally very, very good at making really small engines go really fast. Will these manufacturers benefit? A radical new engine rule such as this always opens a gap for one player to really run away with it as a single key discovery can give a team a massive advantage. Will such a team emerge? Late in February we will run a follow-up to this article to examine testing progress. Perhaps by then we will know…
Edu de Jager
DailyF1News.com
For all the columns by this author,
click here 
