Fuel limit change? Heck no! Why would we do that?

Share This Post

In 2014, Formula 1 ushered in a new era of hybrid engines and with the introduction of the V6—it originally wanted a 4-cylinder—the series added a turbo charger and KERS unit to supplement the ERS design and by 2016 they were delivering a maximum of 2MJ per lap of energy and could enjoy an unlimited amount of energy transfer between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K.

As for the internal combustion engine or ICE, it still remains at 1.6 liters in capacity with a rev-limit of 15,000rpm and as it lives in its 90-degree formation, I t has two inlet and two exhaust outlet valves per cylinder. The majority of the recent gains in performance have come from the ICE and some incredible fuel innovations from companies like Shell and their V-Power Nitro+ product. Much more has been gained from the ICE performance in fact than the electric side of the equation.

The chokehold on the ICE is its fuel flow rate of 100 kilograms/hour and in order to increase performance, some F1 players are keen to increase either fuel load limit or the fuel flow rate. Mercedes and all of its customer teams have met this notion head on with a “no” vote. I suspect it’s part of their secret sauce if I’m honest.

AUTOSPORT quotes Mercedes boss Toto Wolff as saying:

“[Williams deputy team principal] Claire [Williams] brought it to the point in the meeting itself that the whole world is looking to reduce emissions,” said Wolff. “This is what is happening out there.

“Can we possibly out of the sheer principle vote in favour of an increased fuel allowance from 100kg to 105kg?

“If the sport needs it, it’s fair enough to do it but as a principle we have decided we won’t go there, we will say no.

“We knew before that it would be the only four votes against [the Mercedes teams] it and that is a lost case.”

FIA president Jean Todt has made this hybrid F1 a hallmark of his reign and places climate change as mission one of the organization’s focus. He also believes the world must focus on using electric cars telling CNN:

“We talk a lot about pollution, CO2, climate change, and we have to take that into consideration when we discuss regulations for ongoing championships,” Todt told CNN.

“I thought it was important to create a specific series that could be adapted to the needs of the cities because we need to increase the use of electric cars in our cities.

“That’s why it was a great combination to find the biggest cities in the world, who are climbing on to the use of electric cars, and to implement a single-seater category with electric power.”

Todt speaks of Formula E, an all-electric racing series and one would applaud the effort regardless if the Russian E-Prix has just been canceled. The fact is, if you were looking to expand the electric car design, this is the series to do it in. Williams is involved in this program as well as other F1 teams in one form or fashion.

This brings the notion of “why”? Why is F1 and World Endurance Championship (WEC) LMP1 class so focused on hybrid systems? The fact is, manufacturers are involved and were lured to both series to develop their road-going hybrid programs. Fair enough.

Today’s 6 Hours at Spa Francorchamps was a race in which I can’t think of a team who didn’t have an issue or an LMP 1 team that wasn’t struggling with some hybrid niggles. Ferrari and Mercedes both have had their share of DNF’s in Formula 1 this season such is the complexity of these systems. While F1 struggles to find the accurate fuel-flow rate and performance balance, WEC has done a nice job of balancing the details but they are two different series ran by two different interests.

Why we can’t have nice things

In the end, the climate change movement has impacted Formula 1 and did so at a time when Red Bull Racing’s domination of the sport was getting tedious so the sport capitalized on the yawn-inspiring race results by making sweeping sporting and technical regulation changes that focused on hybrid technology to lure manufacturers.

Since then, some may argue the sport has endured more yawn-inspiring domination from Mercedes at the levels the sport has never seen before and one would think that the series has tried their hybrid experiment and found it wanting. That isn’t the case.

Lather, rinse, repeat

Like most sustainability programs that have lost momentum in the last 3-4 years, they’ve doubled down in a large push to ramp up the message and even rhetoric against those who are not quite sold on the notion and believe that single-digit percentages of hybrid cars sold is a reason F1 shouldn’t be perpetuating the notion at the sacrifice of more exciting racing.

Others argue that a return to normally aspirated ICE’s begat Red Bull yawners and Ferrari yawners and so this new format is the right direction as history cannot prove to be a better, more exciting form of racing. Still, the concept of becoming less efficient with fossil fuels is something Force India’s COO, Otmar Szafnauer, says it shouldn’t do:

“These hybrid power trains were introduced with goal of – or an intent – of reducing the amount of fuel that we use over time,” he said.

“Yes, although the cars will be a bit draggier, if the fuel limit stays the same, then effectively it is like reducing it over time.

“But I still think we should look at doing just that and over time reducing the amount of fuel we use just to complement the philosophy that we had when all this was introduced.”

In the end, if there is no way to get the FIA or teams off this notion of hybrids because it is planet-saving technology and manufacturer-luring kit, then perhaps Toro Rosso’s technical director, James Key, has a more measured approach:

“In the longer term it’s always a good thing to target ever more efficiency,” he said.

“These power units are incredibly efficient now anyway, they are really extraordinary things.

“These engines were designed around a given chassis and a given aerodynamic set-up – in fact for that matter, a given tyre design and we’ve now changed that and you’ve got to make sure that your power unit and the way you use it is compatible with your chassis design.

“So if we do need to squeeze a little bit more just to ensure that races don’t become fuel-saving events, then that’s probably the right thing for the sport but certainly in a longer term we need to look for continued efficiencies as we go down the line.”

The 2017 regulation changes are supposed to solve F1’s current ills and in the last few years, noodling around with the sporting regulations while leaving the technical regulations largely untouched, has been the first attempt. Now, however, things are getting more serious and F1 has to make some changes. Those changes may not include increased fuel flow if Mercedes and their customers have anything to say about it.

Competition of ideas

I’m more trenchant about the entire situation as I believe that the concept of big climate enforcement denies the opportunity for discourse and the exchange of ideas and when a series, person or government claims “saving the planet” as its mission, it suddenly divests itself from normal, vigorous debate on the divergence of scientific opinion. Sloganeering (“there’s no debate”) and capitalizing on a movement to create new revenue streams has never been one of my favorite business acumens and I find the entire notion, at the very least, one that should be stringently debated in the public marketplace of ideas by those qualified.

I could be wrong but I think you may be hard pressed to find anyone in the FIA or F1 paddock inordinately qualified to speak on the cause and effect relationship of global warming—otherwise known as climate change—and what measures the sport can take that will have immediate and measurable impacts on the reduction of, one presumes, global warming or would it simply be climate change either way?

Regardless, instead of running at 3mpg, like they were back in 2013, they are now running between 5-7mpg and this has reduced climate disruption by how much? Where are the measured impacts of this increased efficiency of the F1 racing engine? It sounds and feels great! I’m just not sure that’s really a metric that will energize every F1 fan if I’m honest. They are waiting for awesome racing…still.

Yes!  Recycle damnit!

I can think of nothing wrong with being a good steward of the resources you are given and in more tangible ways, the increased efficiency of a racing engine and reduction of fuel usage is a terrific and noble charter by anyone’s measure. I have been at the forefront of the green movement as it applies to new construction and technology and the price tag for being a LEED certified building is exponentially more than previous, traditional construction materials and methods. No shock then that green racing would also incur a serious uptick in expense and no one knows that better than HRT, Caterham and Marussia racing teams as well as Force India, Williams and Red Bull with their engine supply contracts ballooning from $8-10M to $20-25M per year to pay for being green.

I am with James Key on this one, denying an increased fuel flow rate to improve the racing because the image you’ve set as having reduced fuel use is really nonsensical and unless there is another way to improve engine performance that would allow these cars to push the entire race, then I think we are putting sustainability way ahead of the racing and therein lies the problem and reason for a re-think for 2017.

I’m saving the planet, damnit!

We all want to “save the planet”, I’m just not convinced F1 is having a measurable impact on it nor am I convinced that ignoring great racing in favor of being an R&D lab for sustainable road car engines is really F1’s prime mission or core DNA. Things change they say…yes, yes they do and DTM, BTCC, WRC, MotoGP, NASCAR and GT class racing in the WEC is some of the best racing on the planet. There is a reason for that.

I’m all for a hybrid system in F1 or WEC that pushes the limits, not simply attempts to achieve what we had before. A normally aspirated V8 with KERS and ERS is a plan that can be simply halved in cylinder count and that becomes a 4-cylinder road car engine model for Merc or Renault etc. An increased fuel-flow rate on the current system isn’t admission to climate change commitment failure, it is suggesting that the racing needs to be improved and the series is committed to that. Which position concerns F1 more? IF fans don’t think you’re green or if fans think your racing sucks? I think that one is obvious, Claire.

Showrooms are were brand messages belong

Let the technology find its ultimate brand and corporate message when it is fitted in a road car and presented in showrooms across the world. That’s where the brand and tech message is best delivered for the most impact. Merc can say their new S Class was developed in the crucible of F1 and is the most efficient car engine ever designed running at 50% efficiency using F1 hybrid technology DNA. That’s where the marketplace is listening.

Let’s not place the notion of F1 as the ultimate in sustainable racing as the most critical element to be protected. No one goes to the office and brags to their friends that the racing series they watch is the most processional, most expensive, and most predictable but it does include the most efficient race engines in motor sport. No one!

F1 should have one brand image it’s concerned about…the fastest, loudest, most exciting AND safest racing series in the world. Cars that defy the human mind with performance unheard of on four wheels driven by the very top drivers in the universe on some of the world’s most iconic and legendary race tracks. Now that’s green…as in the color of money.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

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

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Paul KieferJr

I can see a dominatrix cracking a whip and yelling “You will save the planet, slave!!!”

Er, yeah, bad visual for the kiddies. Let’s move on to something else, shall we? Besides, I’m already doing my part by splitting my trash between “recyclables” and “landfill”. That should be good enough already. Leave my racing alone!


Well F1 is about cutting edge technology and innovation, which hybrids and electric systems are. However, the ICE is antiquated and needs pushed aside as it has no place in the future.

Negative Camber

I think that’s a lot easier said than done as I rely on a ICE every single day and so do 99% o the people I know. So does shipping and transport and air travel. We are good at creating energy on demand for use in propulsion but we are not that good at storing energy for use later. All these electric cars are mostly powered by coal electricity so while I think the tech is terrific in F1, I’m not sure the ICE is quite as dead as you may feel it is. Also, I don’t think there was… Read more »


Umm, no. F1 is not now and has never been “about cutting edge technology and innovation.” That’s the cart before the horse. It is – or should be – about competitive motorsport. Period. I won’t go on my “road relevance” tirade, except to say that Formula H(ybrid) is today the worst expression of this mendacious ruse as perpetrated by works team marketeers (including Claire Williams, who has a vested financial interest in “green” tech).

Roger Flerity

The issue is not about F1 reducing emissions, but showcasing technology that shows that we can enjoy high performance into the future, without being pigs. F1 is a showcase series of the tip of the automotive performance pyramid. The first GP races were demonstrations of performance, showcasing brands and the capability of the automobile itself, exciting customers to buy in. The technology showcased in F1 today leads the way to newer generation of performance and regular passenger cars that not only produce minimal emissions, but remain fun to drive. This is a fantastic message to auto enthusiasts (the ones who… Read more »

Paul KieferJr

I don’t come to race to be a museum piece and a showman. I race to win. If you’re not into winning, you’re in the wrong business.

Negative Camber

If F1’s super tech was a brand message and auto enthusiasts were very engaged on F1’s tech and impact on the future of road car innovation, I’d humbly submit that this is not the message coming from F1 these days and you can’t blame Bernie for this. Manufacturers haven’t done a very good job of selling their expensive tech to the public either. I’ve spoken to Mercedes owners who have no clue they are in F1 or who Lewis Hamilton is. The hybrid efficiency message isn’t getting made. Also, for those who don’t really care about the hybrid tech, it… Read more »

Paul Riseborough

P1 might be a two horse race, but go back behind that and the racing is not so predictable. Drivers nursing high deg tyres to lap time targets during the race calculated using complex computer models – that’s not racing.


“The current power units…. have the potential of delivering… spectacular stuff… for those willing to open their eyes and appreciate it.” If they put gerbils in the engine box I wouldn’t care, so long as (from a spectator perspective) it resembled something along the lines of the conventional and competitive motorsport expressed in literally every other racing series around the world. Unfortunately F1 has now chosen to crown “efficiency” as its main purpose (and that’s literally the first, second, and third goal of F1 as expressed by the FIA). Then there’s Formula E of course, which really isn’t about competitive… Read more »

Robert Rick

To me f1 is by far the most exciting racing today. I don’t understand why everybody cry “crisis!”. I followed f1 back in the seventies and again in the nineties and often races were “boring”. I think there’s plenty of action going on in most f1-races today. Regarding “saving earth” I don’t think anybody has a choice on that – I think it is just a question of a decade or two and then probably nobody will deny it is going on or ignore it as a problem that needs to be dealt with in every apect of life. F1… Read more »

Negative Camber

EU countries may have leveraged themselves heavily in climate change and big environment enforcement and perhaps to your point, much like tobacco, F1 has little choice but to fall in line and march to the orders.

I tend to dislike rampant pragmatism over prudence and the competition of ideas and vigorous debate from consent and dissent. Your point about European car makers and the their brand and what they need to appeal to is a salient one and I also think it is a lucrative one as well. perhaps that’s the insidious part of this on many fronts.


“that’s the insidious part of this”
Yeah, not just Merc but most certainly Williams and probably others have vested financial interests in the Formula H(ybrid) concept. From the Williams site: “Williams Advanced Engineering creates energy efficient performance to meet the sustainability challenges of the 21st Century.”


The whole “reduce emissions – save the planet” angle of F1 put forth here is hypocrisy of the highest order. If Claire Williams, or Jean Todt, or any of the others really gave a tinkers damn about saving the planet, maybe they would endeavor to find a way to run a racing car around a circuit without a back room of 20, or 40, or whatever engineers staring at (energy sucking) computers, who are hauled around the planet by emissions belching aircraft, and who are coddled in 4 star accommodations and fed by 4 star chefs. I won’t even get… Read more »

sunny sticvala

it is better there be no technical discourse than wrong/false discourse/ information.

sunny sticvala

The original 1.5l 4 cylinder in-line hybrid power unit formula (turbo included) was the brainchild of Moseley as recommended by Volkswagen, this was intended to be a so called (world engine) designs rights to Belong to the FIA. The 1.6L V6 came about as per the insistence of FERRARI. The rules as are permits the MGU-K to “HARVEST” 2MJ per lap under braking, and to deploy 4MJ per lap for 33.33 seconds per lap, this maximum deployment allowed of 4MJ by the MGU-K is regardless of where the power is coming from, being the ES or MGU-H. the present formula… Read more »


Appendix 3 of the technical regulations covers the energy flow. The ES can store a maximum of 4 MJ. The MGU-K can charge the ES at a maximum of 2 MJ each lap. The ES can feed the MGU-K a maximum of 4 MJ each lap. The feed to and from the MGU-H is unlimited, regardless of whether that is to the ES or MGU-K. The 33.33 seconds is a calculated figure based on the maximum size of the MGU-K (120 kW) and the maximum feed from the ES each lap (4 MJ), but since the MGU-K can be fed… Read more »

sunny stivala

deployment of electrical power by the MGU-K to the ICE crankshaft is limited to 4MJ per lap for 33.33 seconds irrespective if the MGU-K is being fed from the ES or MGU-H, In short the maximum deployment (electrical power” the MGU-K can deploy is 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap.


I’m sorry, but that isn’t what the regulations state. As I said above, look at Appendix 3 of the technical regulations.

sunny stivala

Your interpretations of the rules/regulations are wrong “maximum electric power deployment of MGU-K (THE FINAL LINK TO THE ICE CRANKSHAFT) is 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap. The ES capacity is limited to a maximum of 4MJ. The ES supply to MGU-K is limited to 4MJ. The MGU-K “deployment to crankshaft is limited to 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap”. The MGU-K harvesting is limited to a maximum of 2MJ per lap. The MGU-H harvesting and deployment is unlimited/for free. Now you out to understand and put it in your head that the ES cannot store more than 4MJ, and… Read more »


Nowhere in the FIA Technical Regulations for 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017 does the figure of 33.33 seconds appear. It is the result of someone dividing 4MJ by 120kW. As I keep saying, Appendix 3 of those regulations has the diagram showing the permitted energy flow. There is non scope for misinterpretation. The power into and out of the MGU-H is unlimited regardless of whether it is to the ES or MGU-K.

If you are going to quote regulations it may help to read them.

sunny stivala

and what is the use of having the power into and out of the MGU-H being unlimited when the electrical power deployment link to the ICE crankshaft is limited to 4MJ for a maximum of 33.33 seconds per lap?. and do you think or believe that only you reads the rules and interprets them correctly?.


Of course I am not the only one who can read the regulations, but no matter how many times I read them I cannot find the reference to the MGU-K being limited to 33.33 seconds. Can you tell me what clause you are referencing?

sunny stivala

the 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap electric power maximum limit of deployment is correct as per the rules, that is the maximum that can be passed by the MGU-K to the ICE crankshaft. take note that the probability is that the self appointed technical expert you quoting/following will confuse you some more especially when he is in a competition/race with others like him, just like he/they did to a lot of people with their grand discovery of the HCCI and jet ignitor combustion systems.


Please help me understand where in the regulations it says this as I cannot find it. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected, but simply stating that it is in the rules without saying where doesn’t help.

sunny stivala

OK, First be assured of the following, the MGU-K maximum deployment of electrical power to the ICE (crankshaft) is 4MJ FOR 33.33 SECONDS PER LAP (max allowed torque 200nm, max allowed power 4mj/120kw/161bhp at a fixed speed of 50,000rpm). Now go trace “ERS energy flow chart” and see for yourself what the MGU-K can pass to the ICE. Do not get confused by the different proportions of power deployment and time as per the throttle demand (according to map setting) while the car is not braking and under power, the maximum power and time cannot be exceeded.


The maximum energy flow from the ES to the MGU-K is 4MJ per lap. The maximum power of the MGU-K is 120kW. The maximum rpm is 50,000 rpm (this cannot be a fixed speed because of clause 5.2.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft. The rotational speed of the MGU-K may not exceed 50,000rpm. ) Energy can be fed into the MGU-K from either the ES or the MGU-H, this later source is unlimited (see Appendix 3).… Read more »

sunny stivala

“the max energy flow from the ES to the MGU-K is 4MJ per lap” correct, And the max power of the MGU-K is 4MJ, max allowed torque 200NM, max allowed power 120KW/161BHP, And that is what it (the MGU-K) can deploy per lap for a max of 33.33 seconds per lap. The MGU-K Is linked to the ICE crankshaft through a planetary gearbox, the crankshaft max RPM is 15000rpm, the MGU-K max rpm is 50000rpm. If there is something in the regulations that you cannot find, it doesn’t mean it is not in the regulations. And Dave, it does not… Read more »

sunny stivala

OK, I have tested the two involved in this polemic with me on here for their “believing me or not” in what I was saying far enough, Now to avoid further waste of time for those following and for both of them I recommend going too “F1. POWER UNIT AND ERS. power unit and ERS-formula1” and read what I was saying all along. negative camber and Dave (MIE) thanks for the good time on here. sunny stivala.


Do you mean here?
Where it says :
“An unlimited amount of energy can be transferred between the MGU-H and the ES and/or MGU-K.”

Negative Camber

I followed your trace on the diagram Sunny and I am still confused on the 33.33 seconds. Is there a limitation on the hardware that’s creating this 33.33 second limit that you are aware of and we haven’t seen? I’m curious, like Dave (MIE) is, because I would like to understand this better and I was very much under the same understanding as Dave was on this. How do you arrive at 33.33 seconds? How does that work exactly? I’m not an engineer so admittedly I might be not seeing the obvious here.

sunny stivala

Without wanting to sound arrogant or whatever, be assured that I am 100% sure of what I am saying, (THE MAX ALLOWED ELECTRICAL POWER OUTPUT OF THE MGU-K DEPLOYED TO THE ICE “POWER/TIME” CANNOT BE EXCEEDED), being an engineer is not the all and be all, but it sure helps in easing the technical understanding of the matter and trace on diagram (the one posted on here by Dave IS NOT COMPLATE in detail) and so rendered confusing. As I said, be carful of basing your opinion on that pushed forward by some individuals who are in a position to… Read more »

sunny stivala

A repeat, The max power deployment allowed by the MGU-K to the ICE is 4MJ/120KW/161BHP AT MAX TORQUE 200NM FOR 33.33 seconds per lap. and repeat, the above cannot be exceeded. Examples (some) of the different ways by engine throttle maps (selectable by means of selector switch on steering wheel) that this (max deployment) can be deployed, 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap, 3MJ for 44.44 seconds per lap, 2MJ for 66.66 seconds per lap, 1MJ for 133.32 seconds per lap. The above is separate from the (on call) push-to-boost max power button on steering wheel which is called (free… Read more »


OK, basic explanation of SI units. Joules are a measure of energy. Watts are a measure of power. Seconds are a measure of time. Power multiplied by time is the energy required. With the way SI units are defined one Joule equals a Watt second. That is why the regulations use 120 kiloWatts as the maximum power of the MGU-K. 4 MegaJoules deployed over 33.33 seconds would give an average power of 120 kiloWatts, however 2 MegaJoules deployed over 66.66 seconds would only give an average of 30 Watts. The regulations are complicated enough without making things up that aren’t… Read more »

sunny stivala

Your “basic” explanation of SI units are really basic things for me. It is you who is making things complicated with “making-up” things that aren’t actually written in the rules. The button on the steering wheel (free load mode) has been used by both FERRARI and Mercedes since the start of the new PU formula, FERRARI was said to have started off with the best system, Mercedes were restricting their drivers as to its use, there was an argument that their drivers were using it without the teams permission at one time, Renault and later on Honda were not using… Read more »


From the FIA F1 Technical Regulations

5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.

This regulation has been in place since 2014, when these power units were introduced. It is illegal to have a boost button on the steering wheel or anywhere else to demand acceleration torque.

sunny stivala

since the start of the new PU formula they were using a boost system called free load mode, this mode is activated by a button on the steering wheel, in this mode the turbo goes in electric only drive with the waste gates open, exhaust gasses bypassing the exhaust turbine, bot H and K are sharing ES power. check my post about mccabism site for full information about this mode.


Do you mean this report:
The one that states at paragraph 4.2.2 subparagraph 9
“the power and energy flow to and from the MGU-H is unrestricted”
and mentions nothing at all about a 33.33 second limit?

sunny stivala

@ MIE, And others that might be interested in keeping themselves up-to-date and correctly informed about F1 matters especially technical ones.
Suggested/ Recommended reading, “a scheme used by FERRARI in late 2013, data derived by—” go to and read, “optimal control theory and FERRARI’s turbo electric hybrid, April 4 2015 mcCabism” (by Gordon McCabe).


OK, thanks for the title of that article. It is very interesting. Pages 20 – 23 of your subject document have the following text: “4.2.2 Kinetic and Thermal Energy Recovery The energy recovery rules for 2014 are more complex than those used previously, with the optimal control problem correspondingly more intricate. The key differences are these: 1. The car is restricted to a maximum 100 kg of fuel per race; 2. the fuel mass flow rate must not exceed 0.028 kg/s (or 100 kg/hour); 3. turbocompounded engines [31] have been introduced that include a turbine, compressor and motor-generator on a… Read more »

Paul Riseborough

Don’t agree with your interpretation, a max of 4MJ from the energy store to the MGU-K per lap is stated, a max mechanical power into/from from the MGU-K of 120kW is stated, unlimited electrical energy from the MGU-H to the MGU-H is per lap is stated, a max energy per lap from MGU-K to ES of 2MJ is stated. That mean that the energy into the MGU-K per lap may exceed 4MJ if the MGU-H can make up more than the 2MJ difference between what is allowed from MGU-K to ES and ES to MGU-K.

sunny stivala

recommend you following my latest suggested site about this matter, read and come back than.


This is Appendix 3 of the technical regulations, it has remained the same in 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 regulations:

sunny stivala

regardless of what the energy/power the MGU-H is capable supplying to the MGU-K FOR FREE, the MGU-K can only pass/deploy to the ICE a maximum amount 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap. An example of an equivalent deployment by the MGU-K will be the deployment of 2MJ for 66.66 second per lap, but whatever the portion of power and time per lap, the maximum deployment allowed per lap cannot be exceeded.


Your definition of ‘energy deployment’ is leading you astray. It is deployment from the energy store that they are referring to, not a limit on total input into the K. The erroneous interpretation is at the core to Ferrari’s lost year. The correct understanding of the rule is why we are seeing large turbos. Not to make more boost but to have excess H electrical output to pump directly into the K. The flow diagram in the rulebook makes it very clear where the limits are and are not. It specifically labels flows directly between the H and the K… Read more »

sunny stivala

no I am not being lead astray, it is you who are being lead astray.
the final link for power deployment to the crankshaft (MGU-K) has a max output limit of 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap.

sunny stivala

Just google it all you have to do, (F1 power unit and ERS), “A maximum of 4MJ per lap can be returned to the MGU-K and from there to the drivetrain-that’s ten times more than was possible with KERS, the “bolt-on” recovery system ERS replaced in 2014. that means drivers have access to an additional “160BHP OR SO FOR APPROXIMATELY 33 SECONDS PER LAP”.


Your source doesn’t know what he is talking about. kW is an amount of horsepower, MJ is a measure of energy. At 120kW(160BHP) it takes 33.33 seconds to consume the 4MJ/lap limit of power from the ES. But, there is no rule to stop the MGU-K from continuing to output 120kW using the unlimited energy flow from the MGU-H.

sunny stivala

yes flow between H and K is unlimited, but flow from K to crankshaft is limited to 4MJ for 33.33 seconds per lap.


There is no time limit of 33.33 seconds from K to crankshaft. Only to the horsepower (120kW or 160 HP) at a given moment.


Formula E is greener than F1 not because of how the cars are powered, the batteries still need to be charged from some source, which probably relies on burning fossil fuels. The series also races all over the world, so the freight moved around the planet will be similar. What is dramatically different is the carbon footprint of the journey the fans make to go and see the races. Being held in the centre of big cities, fans are far more likely to use public transport to get to and from the event than those watching F1, where the circuits… Read more »


Based on published Williams comparative data 2013-2015), I extrapolated and calculated that that the absolute fuel savings from MGU-H (entire field, entire season) were about the same as taking one American SUV off the road for one year. Upping fuel capacity from 100 to 105kg = 11 pounds = ~1.5 gals x 20 cars = 30 gals x 20 races = 600 gallons. “So we’re putting that SUV back on the road?” Woe. No worries, it’ll be compensated by the ongoing dropoff in spectator attendance. Like you said MIE, less people driving to the circuits. Which raises another question: If… Read more »


With the 2.4 litre V8’s each car was using about 160kg of fuel per race. So if they did increase the fuel up to 105kg it wouldn’t quite get back to where we were in 2013. Teams are already putting less that 100kg of fuel in the car as it is faster to lift and coast for a few laps than it is to drag the extra weight around for a significant amount of the race. I’m not convinced that many would used the extra fuel even if it were allowed.

sunny stivala

Another thing that is very little known is the present power unit “fuel flow” rate rule of 100kg/h at 10500rpm is actually slightly higher than the 2013 NA 2.4l V8 was using back then.


Meaningless statistic. The current engine is making full power at that flow rate while the V8 is basically dawdling around 7500 RPM away from peak power.


This whole climate hoax cr*p is the most dangerous thing of our time…


Yas Marina. Tabac. The F1 paddock. That’s all one needs to see to understand the phenomenal hypocrisy of MGU-H and everything that brought it about and sustains it. As vexing and irritating as this topic is – and I am really restraining myself here – there are thankfully *many* other motorsport series which understand competitive racing and are not inclined to supplicate to popular but wrongheaded mass opinion. I’m watching WTCC Morocco right now, after a 2AM stint on V8 Supercars Perth and yesterday’s Spa WEC (even the LMP1 hybrid blow ups!). Next weekend I’ll be driving an iconic USA… Read more »


“the whole world is looking to reduce emissions”

So then remove all restrictions on engine development and mandate an emissions limit. Let the teams then spend as much money as they want to achieve victory by being more efficient that their competitors.

Oh, wait, you want F1 to be cheaper too? Well, sorry I can’t help you there…

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x