I would limit the amount of fuel / race to 20% less than the average used this year, starting in 2008.
Then drop it by 5% per year for a couple of years after that, reviewing the situation in case the racing got too dull.
The 20 and 5% numbers are indicitive - people in the know could set real targets.
They might be much higher.
Does anyone have a "mpg" value to a typical F1 car in a race ?

Note that racing engines are actually already among the most efficient, measured in BTU/kWh. The only way F1 could make a serious dent in fuel consumption would be to liberalize the rules on aerodynamics - currently, the cw-value is around 0.6, compared to less than 0.3 for production passenger cars. For example, the rules require that the front wheel suspension be monoposto, i.e. no cowlings. Of course, this visual cue differentiates F1 from other racing leagues, e.g. the Le Mans circuit.

Fiddling with the drivetrain using e.g. pneumatic recuperative braking, will achieve precious little as long as the cw-value remains sky-high and maximum speeds well in excess of 300kph. The theoretical lower bound (for a droplet shape) is about 0.15.

Limiting the energy consumption is tricky because in F1, fuel composition is one of the very few parameters still shrouded in secrecy. Unless the change that rule (instantly eliminating the participation of the oil & gas majors), they's have to actually measure the energy density of each team's fuel prior to each qualifying or race and then ensure they don't tamper with it during the event.

Limiting top speed for the sake of driver safety and reduced fuel consumption would be easier to enforce (radar guns), but it goes against the grain in racing. F1 is boring enough as it is, passing maneuvers are quite rare. Aerodynamic downforce minimizes the amount by which drivers have to slow down in turns.

Apart from ecological improvements in F1 cars, it would be very nice if the FIA is more equitable with all the teams. To many followers of F1, it was evident that the FIA tried to help the Ferrari Team by banning the mass damping system and by punishing Fernando Alonso.

Raser did an EV race car. If these were hybrid it would advance the state of the art and make auto racing more of a contribution, rather than just entertainment.

I can see how a hydraulic braking energy recovery system can be made within the weight requirements for an F1 car, but how on earth will they manage the heat recovery systems?

You can start with a turbocharger and reduction in engine size. It was either Williams or McLaren who experimented with energy recovery (we'd call it a hybrid) back in the 90's -- the FIA banned it before they'd gotten very far. Too bad -- the state of the art might have been well advanced by now.

Racing and conservation don't have much overlap but it's not a complete oxymoron: think of what F1-driven engine mapping did for efficiency.

And Jorge, were you complaining when F1 kept changing the rules to break Ferrari's stranglehold on F1? Renault ultimately benefited.

fyi C02, I'm sort of suprised to hear what you said. I don't consider this pursuit an oxymoron at all, I consider it accelerated 'testing.' Automakers worth their salt will adequately test their vehicles for the road; this accelerates and improves upon everything. There is a 100% overlap possible here between the F1 and regular automotive vehicles in terms of possible technological applications.

One of the reasons why Honda's road vehicles are so well engineered and fuel efficient is b/c their F1 engineers (and superbike engineers) are cycled to develop cars like...civics. There are other auto makers (no names given) who have never had the benefits of engineering F1 vehicles, and it shows. This can only accelerate green technological advances, which no one here hopefully, would put down. It's easy to be a cynic, but not helpful. This development is not only not an oxymoron; it's eminently reasonable.

I'm all for this. If F1 does this, I can't wait to see Honda's or any other participants "regular" hybrid or electric road vehicles in 10 years.

fyi CO2,

Are you talking about worldwide fatality numbers? US highway/road deaths are a little over 42,000 (~4000 from motorcycles and ~4200 from pedestrians).

"burn the fuel and go like stink?" If that's a treehugger statement, then Exxon just planted a redwood forest for your picnic.

I was interested in the fatality numbers and was surprised to see over 1 million fatalities worldwide in the late 90s.

It seemed (in 96), while there were twice as many accidents in the US versus Europe there were 3 times the number of fatalities (probably due somewhat to a much larger number of pedestrian fatalities). Even if you consider all of North America (Mexico, US, and Canada) Europe still had twice the number of fatalities with less than half the number of accidents.

With all that cash floating around, F-1 teams could fund things like camless engines w/solenoid valves (20% vs conventionals, ~11% vs near future VVTs).
__As for aerodynamic drag, perhaps they can take a page from Porsche, sproilers (and wings) that have variable profiles for variable downforce levels. For example, on a long flat straight, they would take a minimal profile to increase acceleration and speed. Just before the driver stomps on the brakes at the end of the straight, the sproilers pop up to create downforce, and act as mini airbrakes. The car's computer would be programed to take various profiles at different speeds, turning G's, etc. A lighweight failsafe backup (dragchute?) would be added to ensure the safety of drivers, and spectators.

allen Z: movable aerodynamic devices have been banned for decades for safety reasons (this was the strange justification for the mass damper thing Jorge went on about). Things break at the bleeding edge. That wouldn't be particularly relevant for passenger cars anyway, since in road racing downforce beats top speed everytime.

Given the amount of money spent to gain even a small edge in a tight time frame (the next race), I think this is a good development. Certainly better than NASCAR, where they still use carburetors and are actually about to go to (gasp) unleaded gas.

This strikes me as pretty foolish since Mosley & Bernie Eccelestone have in the past been saying the cost of F1 racing needs to lowered drastically and certainly not increased...As for F1 having any sort of technical relevance to production autos you have to kidding yourself.