Formula 1 influence on road car design

TIM HIRE

The speed-fuelled world of Formula 1 may seem extreme to the likes of you and I, who only use cars for transportation. In a world where 300 km/h (186 mph) can be reached in just 8.4 seconds using an estimated 1.4 horsepower per kilo, it could be prudent to assume that such eye-watering acceleration figures have a place solely on a race track. However, many technologies found in road cars today have previously seen development and use in the world of Formula 1. While there have been many technologies that have been transferred to road cars, I will take a closer look at the influence of F1 on car safety, alternative energy technology developments, and improving engine efficiency.

Firstly, we will look at the influence of F1 on car safety. Perhaps the most stringent of tests when designing a new car for the road are those regarding safety; with an estimated 33.6 million drivers in the UK alone, it is inevitable that collisions take place. It may be reassuring to know that many of the crash structures found in your average road car originated in an F1 car, designed for speeds most cars can never reach. Crash structures were developed to reduce the number of crash-related deaths in motorsport, as colliding with barriers at high speeds exert huge forces on drivers and the car. It is the job of crash structures, such as the front wing and side pods on a Formula 1 car, to reduce impact forces so the deceleration is below injurious limits. This is achieved by increasing the crumple distance of certain components to increase the total time of the collision, thereby reducing the average deceleration of the incident. However, it is impossible to eradicate all such forces. Instead, the FIA (F1’s governing body) set a benchmark that teams have to achieve: average deceleration cannot surpass 40g (392 m/s²), with peaks not spiking beyond 60g (589 m/s²). Similar crumple zones are now incorporated into every modern car, catering for collisions from all angles including from the sides. This has reduced car mortalities by more than 20 times since the 1930s, despite more cars being on the road.

Similarly, disc brakes, now found as standard on most modern cars, can be attributed to the pioneering spirit of motorsport (originally seen in Le Mans). Perhaps one of the most important developments to modern automotive safety, the disc brake dramatically decreases stopping distances in comparison to the previous drum brake design (17% to 33% shorter depending on the study) by providing a more efficient braking force. The superior design of disc brakes is now often found combined with another F1 assisted technology area - computer-managed traction control - to further increase control when braking and accelerating. One common reason for loss of control of a car is when the wheels lose contact with the road, increasing car instability. Being able to monitor the individual speed of each wheel and comparing reading with the actual speed of the car allows for computers to actively prevent tyres breaking traction with the road. The most common form of this is Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (used to reduce braking distances) which uses a computer to rapidly compress and depress the brake pedal to stop individual wheels locking up. The other common form of wheel management is actively limiting power to driving wheels to prevent wheel-slip under acceleration. This is often known as traction control and was put in the stoplight by F1 during the 1990s. Traction control operates in a similar way to ABS, with sensors looking for one wheel rotating faster than the others. The onboard computer then redistributes power to the other three wheels, equalising wheel speeds and retaining control. Wheel management systems have been standard in European road cars since 2011, and help reduce the loss of control in slippery conditions such as rain or snow, both during braking and acceleration.

Motosport is not renowned for being environmentally friendly, however, F1 has led to a number of technological innovations in the alternative energy technology sector. Most notably, the KERS system, or Kinetic Energy Recovery System, (officially allowed onto F1 cars in 2009) gave drivers the opportunity to recover some of the thermal energy wasted during braking. Initially, this was achieved by storing kinetic energy in the angular momentum of a large flywheel, however, this was quickly replaced with an electrical system that is still used today. When braking, an onboard motor acts as a generator, generating electricity to charge an onboard battery (regenerative braking); under acceleration, this energy can then be utilised producing extra horsepower. Given the need for the global community to unite to reduce carbon emissions and curb global warming, energy recovery systems are a vital technology being increasingly used to reduce car emissions. 

Additionally, investment into electrical technology by F1 engine manufacturers has seen huge developments in consumer electric car technologies, given all engine manufacturers have a road car business. Electric motors have many advantages over traditional diesel or petrol fuelled engines, such as having instantaneous power, fewer moving parts and producing no pollutants. Indeed many supercars, such as the McLaren P1 and Ferrari LaFerrari, are becoming full-electric or hybrid-powered, taking advantage of the huge power-to-weight ratio of electric motors combined with their environmentally-friendly attributes. Now, lessons learned from optimising onboard electric motors of F1 cars are being directly applied to current and upcoming electric consumer vehicles such as the Renault Zoe. The future of transport is likely to be electric-orientated (either hydrogen fuel cells or batteries), and will partly have F1 and other forms of motorsport such as Formula E and Le Mans to thank for its initial development.

Previous efforts to make F1 more environmentally friendly in recent decades included reducing fuel consumption by improving engine efficiency and decreasing engine capacities. Out went the screaming 3.5 Litre V10s (some which reached a crazy 19,000 RPM) and in came a restricted turbocharged 1.6 Litre V6s (2014-2021) combined with an electric motor (they still make an incredible 1000HP!). Fuel flow is regulated, making combustion efficiency the determining factor in total power output (as fuel is the limiting factor). As a result, engine manufacturers have had to develop new technologies to maximise the fuel combusted, while not compromising reliability. One technique is the use of variable valve timings to increase the power band of the engine, giving the engine a more constant acceleration profile. By tuning how long and far valves open, the torque of the engine can be changed. Given engine power is the product of engine RPM and torque, power output can be made more constant across the full RPM range; high valve lift and long valve duration generates max power at high RPMs, whereas low valve lift and a short valve duration improves power at low RPMs. As most road cars are often driven slowly in traffic, actively shortening valve duration could improve driver experience and efficiency at the same time. 

Some companies are taking this further, with the Koenigsegg Gemera featuring a twin-turbocharged “Tiny Friendly Giant” 2-litre 3-cylinder engine making a ridiculous 600 horsepower - an unprecedented power to cylinder ratio. The incorporation of Freevalve technology enables the active controlling of all aspects of the combustion cycle, allowing artificial intelligence to reduce the number of cylinders being used at low loads. Additionally, the presence of a turbocharger allows for increased air pressure in the combustion chamber, allowing for more peak power to be made in a smaller engine, while also retaining the low parasitic emissions of a small engine at idle. The combination of these features reduces emissions by up to 15-20% in comparison to a modern 2-litre 4-cylinder engine, according to Koenigsegg. While most modern road cars take advantage of the benefits of turbos, variable valve timing is perhaps an efficiency strategy of the future as the technology becomes cheaper.

Another area of engine efficiency development is in piston head shapes. One major limitation to efficient combustion of air and fuel in the combustion chamber is how well the two parts mix. By varying the piston bowl geometry (top of the piston), squish and swirling actions (caused by the increase in cylinder pressure as the piston reaches the top dead centre) can be generated improving air-fuel mixing. This increased pre-mix benefits combustion, both increasing efficiency and reducing exhaust emissions as less fuel remains unburnt. 

Alongside piston optimisation, other strategies such as direct fuel injection and pre-combustion chambers are and have been explored, both in Formula 1 and by consumer car manufacturers. The major advantage of direct fuel injection into the combustion chamber allows for better computer control over air-fuel ratios, reducing wasted fuel and improving engine efficiency. For example, when the engine is idling, only a small amount of fuel is injected, just enough to keep the engine running minimising inefficient fuel combustion. While direct injection is already commonplace, pre-combustion chambers are less customary, given its recent adoption and development in F1 during the turbo-hybrid era. A pre-combustion chamber features its own fuel injector and spark plug, igniting a small amount of fuel which then exits the pre-combustion chamber through numerous small holes into the main combustion chamber. This decreases the ignition time of the fuel in the combustion chamber as well as reducing the amount of fuel unburnt, thereby improving engine efficiency. This technology has recently been used in the Maserati MC20, the first sports car to use such a system. Perhaps this will be found more regularly in road cars, as the pressurised flames allows for the ignition of leaner air-fuel mixtures, providing potential development opportunities of lean-running fuel-efficient engines.

The examples explored above are just a few from the plethora of areas influenced by F1 through the ages. Many features, such as a sleek aerodynamic design, are already found on regular cars, while others, such as electric power, will continue to become more common. Despite normal cars having poor handling and acceleration in comparison to lightweight racing machines, perhaps they share more similarities than you might expect. Who knows what the new great innovation may be - flying cars?