F1 tech: no one ‘bloody cares’; What F1 missed

19

We’ve talked about the new Formula 1 Power Units and hybrid technology until we’re blue in the face and while I never want to marginalize the opinions of those who truly like the technology and advanced nature of the systems, I also have little time for those who use it as a political agenda for some other cause, pro or con.

There’s little doubt that the road car industry is trying like hell to push for hybrid and electric cars and depending on what you read, it’s either still not selling anywhere near the hype generated with single-digit sales or they are nearly there and mass adoption is not only coming but you won’t be able to have a choice. Not sure how I feel about either of those scenarios if I’m honest. I’d rather my shipments via 18-wheeler not have to stop and charge for 10 hours every 150 miles.

Regardless, the complicated nature of the new hybrids have a checkered history in F1 so far with the bankruptcy of three teams due to exorbitant costs of these systems, a nonsensical radio ban prompted by over-the-top driver coaching in order to make the best use of this complicated tech and slower lap times that are just now starting to reach 2004 levels.

One of the recurring narratives from the paddock and governing body, the FIA, is that F1 hasn’t done a good job of explaining the tech and to be fair, I think F1’s website has done a tremendous job of trying to unpack the complexity of the systems. The real issue may not be the explanation but the interest level and impact these engines have had on the sport but don’t listen to me, listen to the most popular and loved F1 driver in recent history—Lewis Hamilton:

“What do I think to the actual rule? The fact we have six components of an engine and mismatch [of component usage], I don’t think it’s great,” said Hamilton.

“People watching don’t care about that.

“It’s far too technical, far too complicated.

“Most people watching don’t know what an MGU-H is and don’t bloody care.”

Lewis told AUTOSPORT that fans don’t bloody care about the hybrid engines and they are too complex. He said:

“It doesn’t sound good,” said Hamilton. “I still look online and watch old races with the old cars sounding great.

“I miss that. One day I hope we come back to that and simplify it.”

Technology is over engineered

I draw a few parallels from my day job in technology regarding any innovation and product advancement. In my world, manufacturers over engineer their products. That’s their job and that’s not a criticism of them. Their business model inspires innovation and pushing limits of technology in order to drive new trends and new markets as well as advance the technology.

If you consider display manufacturers with their 8k resolution, that’s terrific and looks stunning but there is little or no programming being delivered at 8k. It’s over engineered but it has to be in order to eventually become the norm in programming delivery resolutions. Sometimes it resonates and sometime it doesn’t—remember a few years ago and the massive push for 3D TV’s? That didn’t quite float did it?

As car makers, companies such as Mercedes are using F1 as a proving ground for rapid prototyping and advance engineering. That’s their job. They’ve found that F1 fits the bill for their program and they were very influential in getting the regulations changed for hybrid technology—the FIA were happy to play along because at the time the world was all about sustainability…I hate to tell them but that trend has run, now it’s all about “Wellness” in the workplace.

So Mercedes engineered this incredibly complex hybrid power unit that costs a fortune and then, along with Ferrari and Renault, they sold engines to the small teams who couldn’t afford to develop their own but they charged a fortune for the supply in order to offset their R&D. This placed a massive cash-grab within F1’s economy and a drain on the series leading to three teams vaporizing.

What F1’s technology migration path failed to understand

I’m only going to type this once so if the teams, FIA or F1 miss it, it’s not my fault.

New opportunities in technology haven’t come from technology innovations per se but by linking technology to elements valued by buyers—or in this case, the fans.

F1’s tech may appeal to a manufacturer’s engineering team as an element that is valued by them for their road car programs but it isn’t linked to elements valued by F1 fans.

It’s crucial to realize that in the technology innovation world, which car manufacturers are engaged, it is critical to seek differentiation while avoiding the natural value-cost trade-off that naturally occurs. Increasing your differentiation usually accompanies increased costs but that error is due to one thing—not treating value and innovation as equals.

What F1 teams should have done is to create elements that F1 has never offered before (exciting new chassis regulations, broadcast packages to meet digital and mobile strategies et. al.), and seek to increase elements way above industry standards. As you can see, doing either or both of these would naturally increase costs but what you have done here is address the value aspect of F1.

Now let’s look at the cost element. In order to differentiate via creating and increasing, F1 should have reduced and eliminated to balance the value-cost model. What elements can be reduced far below industry standards (common parts supply, standardized, high-quality tires without all the variations et. al.) and what elements can you eliminate that the industry takes for granted?

What we are doing here is balancing value and innovation by increasing and creating while reducing and eliminating and it treats both value and innovation equally while differentiating F1 from all other series and making the sport more financially viable.

Hybrid technology is perfectly fine and the kind of power units F1 uses are a master stroke in technology innovation but they are over engineered and what F1 would have been well advised to do is to look at the total possible scope of this tech advancement and linked it to the elements valued by fans and chucked the rest. To be honest, most fans were fine with KERS so why the MGU-H, ES, TC and turbo? I understand they introduced this to get the power unit on par with the older engines, horsepower and RPM’s but we already had engines delivering that. Remember, it’s about linking the tech to elements value by the fans.

In my industry, the real opportunity is linking this technology innovation to elements valued by the client and what you will normally find is, the real opportunity is in simplifying the over-engineered technology the industry produces. It’s not a “good is good enough” scenario, it’s a case of aligning or linking technology to what clients value and that is simplicity. I would argue F1 fans are no different.

Fans would have much preferred more broadcast delivery options, more access, more features and, above all, better racing. Those are elements valued by fans and every fan survey for the last 10 years has echoed this notion. If only Value is favored, we increase costs while trying to compete through differentiation which becomes niche and too small to sustain as well as too costly and it misses the elements fans value.

Advanced, over-engineered technology that requires driver coaching, lift and coast and begat sheer domination leading to less exciting racing? No one “bloody cares”.

Hat Tip: AUTOSPORT

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
12 Comment threads
7 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
FryDaddyBasCBBarry Rothwell Taylor Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nigel Cass
Guest
Nigel Cass

Great article! For me it comes down to a very basic question: Did anyone in Formula One’s power structure TRULY believe that racing fans were going to get hard-ons for cars silent going around the circuits of the world saving fuel and “Mother Earth”? I cannot accept that anyone would believe that, so the only reason to do this “green” rubbish is for political reasons, and that is why, in my mind, it has been a failure.

Nigel Cass
Guest
Nigel Cass

Great article! For me it comes down to a very basic question: Did anyone in Formula One’s power structure TRULY believe that racing fans were going to get hard-ons for cars silently going around the circuits of the world saving fuel and “Mother Earth”? I cannot accept that anyone would believe that, so the only reason to do this “green” rubbish is for political reasons, and that is why, in my mind, it has been a failure.

Alianora La Canta
Guest
Alianora La Canta

Some did (and still do) believe it. Others believed that while it wasn’t considered exciting by fans, it was going to be necessary in order to be considered relevant to the next generation, especially given that even back then, F1 knew it wasn’t good at digital (these are perhaps closest to the “political reasons” Nigel cites). Further, there were those (especially in Mercedes) whose continued involvement in F1 required F1 take a direction more relevant to the road cars they were going to develop, and lobbied accordingly.

B1
Guest
B1

There are obviously some intelligent people involved with F1’s decision making but I can’t understand why they thought the current formula will ever be appealing to existing and potential fans. If they were trying to reach out to newer generations who are more tech savvy on average and generally impressed with all the “gadgets” (even though it takes away from the whole experience making cars too easy to drive) that demographics is already well captured by Formula E and WEC. In my opinion, fuel and tire saving, coasting, engine tune down to increase reliability has no place in a sprint… Read more »

Rapierman
Member
Rapierman

So, how much of this comes down to people behaving like “tools” on the F1 side?

Tom Firth
Guest
Tom Firth

The issue to me isn’t the technology levels involved. It’s the officiating of said technology, which I believe is what really is turning fans off. These are mechanical parts which are breaking… and need to be replaced. The parts have a shelf life, so they expire right? Ok if the parts expire, then replace them, and if required, give a sensible penalty of say 10 places irregardless of how many pieces are replaced. What they don’t bloody care about is why a driver has a 55 place penalty for a wearable piece of technology on a 24 car grid. Don’t… Read more »

Negative Camber
Guest

Nothing in my editorial suggests that technology isn’t forefront in the minds of F1 fans. Quite the contrary, but what was missed is linking those technologies to elements that fans value and a methodical approach to the evolutionary cycle of the technology. To juxtapose, imagine if Samsung’s 8K TV was now mandatory for every person who owns a TV. There’s very little to watch with a resolution of 8k and few, if any, broadcasters are delivering that kind of picture quality so the user doesn’t value 8k…yet. Doesn’t matter that they don’t value it because it has been forced upon… Read more »

Tom Firth
Guest
Tom Firth

Instead of being so condescending, perhaps explain to me at what pace should F1 adopt the technology in your opinion then to match with adoption curves? Given that it could be perceived that they’ve missed the first point in this curve before the sport even began to respond to it, if you see that as innovators.

Debatably.

Negative Camber
Guest

I’m being “funny” Tom. Not condescending. ;) hence the wink ;) See? ;) As for adoption curves, I am not convinced a wholesale jump into the deep end of the hybrid/electric pool was the best move for F1 and its fans. I think another regulation period introducing some more technical KERS units and a more aggressive chassis regulation may have been a better move. Also, clearly there is very little effort made to simplify the tech for fans to understand. If they were going to go this route anyway, then some serious thought should have been put in to aligning… Read more »

Tom Firth
Guest
Tom Firth

I think I misunderstood you. Happens when communicating in text and misreading on a small screen. Apologies.

Thanks for explaining that further also. On the last paragraph, I agree we need better broadcast graphics certainly, unfortunately it appears instead of graphics which explain this, we now have new graphics which show us the residence country of drivers.

Helpful ;-)

Alianora La Canta
Guest
Alianora La Canta

One (of several) takehome point(s) from this: F1 is bad at ergonomics and needs to improve.

Jamie Huntoon
Guest
Jamie Huntoon

NOBODY gives a shit about the fans or what they want, that is a problem. Fuel mileage lift and coast, well it sucks and so does the sound of the engines, or lack of sound.

Herb Dressing
Guest
Herb Dressing

Hybrid/Electric vehicles are now, and they have a short lifespan. If F1 is he pinnacle of technology, Hydrogen will be the longer term solution. The only thing holding it back today is the lack of infrastructure, but in the F1 ecosystem it could be easily transported as part of the series. Let’s see wide, fat tyred, huge winged, mad Hydrogen powered Formula 1 monsters!!!

Barry Rothwell Taylor
Guest
Barry Rothwell Taylor

Dennis Jenkins ( writer and co-pilot to Sterling Moss in the Mille Miglia ) said that ” if when they start it up and you don’t jump it’s not a racing car ” , he wasn’t wrong . People want race cars that look and sound fast – though they don’t need to be that fast , just look it . The current cars are actually the fastest F1 cars in a long time but are hamstrung by the tyres and their excess weight Solution ? Bin the tyres and , in the words of Colin Chapman , ” add… Read more »

Negative Camber
Guest

What a great guy Jenks was. I’ve always considered Roebuck the Jenks of our generation. :)

Member
Mike

Totally DEAD-ON and great article. Like NC says later on in discussing with Tom, its more about the adoption curve. The ‘sound’ is a critical component and a emotional one, perhaps missed by technicians who marveled at the tech and missed the value of it. My 2-cents? Take hold of a ‘value’ and use that as your communication platform. Sheer horsepower for instance…take the hybrid tech and produce 1000hp+ in these engines to produce fastest open-wheeled racing ever. THAT ‘value’ and traditional metric would draw both the old-school and the new fans. Another explanation that could have been more of… Read more »

BasCB
Guest
BasCB

Hm, I see what you are wanting to say, and you are right about the way to go about it (if one want’s to improve the sport for the fans), but I think that ignores the point where the manufacturers were just not interested in playing along without any changes in engines (that goes for Renault, Mercedes and Honda, 3 of our current manufacturers). KERS was a nonsense “solution”, more of a PR thing to be “hybrid”. It did nothing that was not already done almost as good by cars that were already on the roads by that time. The… Read more »

FryDaddy
Guest
FryDaddy

I concur with the adoption curve. And I also think there is a certain sense to the matter that while the tech has changed, there is nothing in the user experience that leads them to believe that the change has really occurred. From the user experience perspective, how much of the tech has changed? It’s not much different from buying organic food. It may very well be better for you. It may very well be better for the planet. But for most people, the differences between that and the “regular” alternative are too minuscule to notice. F1 fans are different.… Read more »

Member
Fast Freddy

As an engineer I like the technology. It’s the rules that regulate it that is messed up.