F1 engine re-equalisation

[gridwalker]

Why do the regulations have to be all or nothing?

Because the teams will pour enormous amounts of money, into the next engine, even/especially if it is just 1 homologation.

The only way to cut the spending significantly is to totally freeze them.

Most of the engines who were strong before the freeze are the the same engines who are strong after the freeze... so Millions were spent and the relative positions have remained the same.

gcdugas seems to consistently forget the large number of teams that spend their way out of existence, the manufacturer teams may have a set budget, but when the results dont come they either ask for more money from the parent company which either ponies up or shuts down the whole operation. F1 teams never stay on budget.

No "glory" has been lost from the engine freeze, F1 engines have only ever revved higher than they do now for what, maybe
4 0r 5 seasons at most (2005 to 2008). The switch to the V-8's was a bigger lose of "glory" than the actual freeze itself.

And when the manufacturers spend enormous amounts of money developing the engines the customer teams have to pay for these upgrades or the are relegated to the back.

But we know this is going to happen anyway, regardless of the engine "freeze" or not. Be it though their own initiative (aero wars) or artificially contrived FIA interventions (KERS) ... why should the engines (the heart of F1, so to speak) be exempted from this?

Even the "reliability" mods that have been allowed through must have cost a bomb, in order to extract maximum advantage through their introduction, so why not just do it out in the open?

If there is a single iteration of the engine per season, the development race is contained but doesn't force engine manufacturers into a static hierarchy ...

[WhiteBlue]

F1 teams are not supposed to compete on engine power. They are supposed to use efficiency and fuel saving technology for gaining competitive advantages. It is simply the application of that philosophy that requirers an engine freeze.

As long as 80 years ago engineers were capable of sticking a hugely powerfull fighter aircraft engine into a race car and produce 1000 horse powers. That game isn't exactly new. So why don't we sit back and enjoy the show that the new rules have brought us?

[gridwalker]

By that logic, why don't the FIA sit back and enjoy what the new rules have brought them, rather than demanding that teams equalise components that by definition will not be equal : you may as well have a spec engine if that is the case (something to which I am vehemently opposed).

Please tell me where it says that F1 manufacturers aren't supposed to compete on engine power? I was under the strange impression that they are supposed to extract the maximum competitive advantage within the given set of rules.

Unfortunately, the demand that Merc detune their engine to make things easier for the other teams betrays my understanding of this & the sport's heritage in one fell swoop.

[Belatti]

I hate to repeat myself into stupidity, but regarding KERS here are a number of physical limitations to consider:

a) The kinetic energy available. A 700 kg object, such as an F1 car, loses 1400 kJ slowing down from 250 to 100 km/h.
If you do this that 5 times per lap you have in theory 7000 kJ to accumulate, but that means all-wheel KERS and no conventional brakes.

b) The MGU capacity. It is difficult to imagine a Motor/Generator much larger than 60 kW, while picking up all the energy of the 1400 kJ xample above in five (correction: one) seconds means an average Generator power of about 300 kW, peak probably 500.

So, we have to have batteries to store all the 7000 kJ ??? Cant we push the button in every straight, after every brake?

And in an all-wheel KERS car, dont you think it would be a nice idea to place 4 generators instead of braking disks and maybe another in the engine to have your desired 300 kW ???

[WhiteBlue]

By that logic, why don't the FIA sit back and enjoy what the new rules have brought them, rather than demanding that teams equalise components that by definition will not be equal : you may as well have a spec engine if that is the case (something to which I am vehemently opposed).

You may have got the underlying issue slightly wrong. Apparently the WMSC was approached with a demand to allow other competitors development work in order to catch up with Merc (called equalizing). They decided to put a stop to the silly game of "reliability" improvements which miraculously produce power increases as collateral.

The FIA has not demanded that anybody equalizes anything. They are happy to let things roll as they are. They just feel that any equalization - demanded by FOTA - should come off the top rather than added to the runners up.

Spec engines are not an issue here. F1 can have different engines. They can even get into serious develoment work from next year on if they agree to the principle that competitive advantage must come from increased efficiency.

Please tell me where it says that F1 manufacturers aren't supposed to compete on engine power? I was under the strange impression that they are supposed to extract the maximum competitive advantage within the given set of rules.

They sure are, but engine power is not supposed to be a competitive advantage these days. How do you explain that Renault was granted a power increase after the other leading teams cheated with the reliabilty upgrades? Power is supposed to be frozen!!!! Please read and accept that.

Unfortunately, the demand that Merc detune their engine to make things easier for the other teams betrays my understanding of this & the sport's heritage in one fell swoop.

You may have to take this gripe up with FOTA. They are asking for equalization. Heritage is a nice thing to have. Unfortunately nobody gives a rats ass for it when the regs are set. Right now the regs say engines are frozen and IIRC they should have been since the end of 2006. It is time that the FIA stops the silly power increases through back doors.

[xpensive]

I hate to repeat myself into stupidity, but regarding KERS here are a number of physical limitations to consider:

a) The kinetic energy available. A 700 kg object, such as an F1 car, loses 1400 kJ slowing down from 250 to 100 km/h.
If you do this that 5 times per lap you have in theory 7000 kJ to accumulate, but that means all-wheel KERS and no conventional brakes.

b) The MGU capacity. It is difficult to imagine a Motor/Generator much larger than 60 kW, while picking up all the energy of the 1400 kJ xample above in five (correction: one) seconds means an average Generator power of about 300 kW, peak probably 500.

So, we have to have batteries to store all the 7000 kJ ??? Cant we push the button in every straight, after every brake?

And in an all-wheel KERS car, dont you think it would be a nice idea to place 4 generators instead of braking disks and maybe another in the engine to have your desired 300 kW ???

- Why do you correct my posting, 300 kW over FIVE seconds is 1500 kWs, which is the same as 1500 kJ?

- There's probably never going to be a 7000 kJ battery suitable for F1 and I never said that either. That number is just to make a comparison to the total of approximatively 30 000 kJ produced, and 120 000 spent, by the engine over one lap.

- That's what I said, four-wheel KERS and no conventional brakes, releasing the 1400 or so everytime exiting a bend, would work. Looking forward to see your beloved peanut-teams developing that.

[Belatti]

- Why do you correct my posting, 300 kW over FIVE seconds is 1500 kWs, which is the same as 1500 kJ?

- There's probably never going to be a 7000 kJ battery suitable for F1 and I never said that either. That number is just to make a comparison to the total of approximatively 30 000 kJ produced, and 120 000 spent, by the engine over one lap.

- That's what I said, four-wheel KERS and no conventional brakes, releasing the 1400 or so everytime exiting a bend, would work. Looking forward to see your beloved peanut-teams developing that.

I (badly) corrected your posting because F1 cars hardly spent more than 3 seconds braking. You said that the MGU spends 5 seconds picking energy
Now I correct myself: 3 seconds picking 300Kw is 900KWs and we are short. Damn!

So, would you call Williams, McLaren, Lotus, Tyrrell, Ligier in the 70s and 80s and later Benetton, Williams, McLaren or even Jordan in the 90s peanut teams??? Even if those teams make partnership collaboration developments with firms such as Ricardo, Brembo, Marelli, Bosch, Flybrid, or even some Universities ???

My bad, I thought they were the ones that developed carbon fibre monocoques, active suspension, traction control, ground effects and other aerodynamic features...

PS: When I say no to car manufacturers involved DIRECTLY Im not saying peanut teams. I mean, even car manufacturers can be involved but as partners (Like Honda or Renault with McLaren and Williams in the 80s-90s) without making team budgets rise to heaven.
The problem will always be that a car manufacturer team wont stand less that a WCC and for that they will invest billions or retire. And thats not the way things should be.

[xpensive]

In short; If you if you want to bring down a 700 kg car from 285 to 120 km/h in three seconds, while recovering half the kinetic energy, 900 kJ, you need a 300 kW (400 Hp) MGU with a 100% efficiency.

[Belatti]

Correct.

Nowadays rules limit KERS usage to 400Kj per lap. With actual systems capacity I think thats a bit tightfisted. If they can collect 60KW * 2.5 secs * 6 brakings a lap (conservative side) they could use (and I say could use, not could store) arround 900Kj per lap. Do you think thats feasible?

Thats 80HP+ for 15 seconds!

[xpensive]

A pretty realistic ambition Belatti, provided they can get the 900 kJ batteries down to an affordable cost, or perhaps stick with the 400 kJ battery and allow for two discharges per lap?

But with efficiencies and various losses in consideration, you might need a bigger MGU for 900 kJ to be used.

[gcdugas]

A pretty realistic ambition Belatti, provided they can get the 900 kJ batteries down to an affordable cost, or perhaps stick with the 400 kJ battery and allow for two discharges per lap?

But with efficiencies and various losses in consideration, you might need a bigger MGU for 900 kJ to be used.

They don't need any more battery capacity in they discharge it several times a lep. Take all limits off. Let them charge it every time they brake and let them discharge it coming out of every corner. Why have artificially imposed limits? Let F1 pioneer a technology that is marketable, green, is an engineering marvel and had an immediate crossover application to road cars which helps the manufacturers exploit their investment and helps justify their F1 budget. The engineering goes beyond what meets the eye. Just maintaining braking balance during charging is a feat in itself.

As conceived it was a "push to pass" feature but, quite predictable it became a "push to defend" button. Overtaking still needs work but not with artificial aid such as two compounds or KERS.

[flynfrog]

A pretty realistic ambition Belatti, provided they can get the 900 kJ batteries down to an affordable cost, or perhaps stick with the 400 kJ battery and allow for two discharges per lap?

But with efficiencies and various losses in consideration, you might need a bigger MGU for 900 kJ to be used.

They don't need any more battery capacity in they discharge it several times a lep. Take all limits off. Let them charge it every time they brake and let them discharge it coming out of every corner. Why have artificially imposed limits? Let F1 pioneer a technology that is marketable, green, is an engineering marvel and had an immediate crossover application to road cars which helps the manufacturers exploit their investment and helps justify their F1 budget. The engineering goes beyond what meets the eye. Just maintaining braking balance during charging is a feat in itself.

As conceived it was a "push to pass" feature but, quite predictable it became a "push to defend" button. Overtaking still needs work but not with artificial aid such as two compounds or KERS.

I agree take off the rev limiters and 3 race limit, the engine freeze, and the layout spec.

[xpensive]

A pretty realistic ambition Belatti, provided they can get the 900 kJ batteries down to an affordable cost, or perhaps stick with the 400 kJ battery and allow for two discharges per lap?

But with efficiencies and various losses in consideration, you might need a bigger MGU for 900 kJ to be used.

They don't need any more battery capacity in they discharge it several times a lep. Take all limits off. Let them charge it every time they brake and let them discharge it coming out of every corner. Why have artificially imposed limits? Let F1 pioneer a technology that is marketable, green, is an engineering marvel and had an immediate crossover application to road cars which helps the manufacturers exploit their investment and helps justify their F1 budget. The engineering goes beyond what meets the eye. Just maintaining braking balance during charging is a feat in itself.

As conceived it was a "push to pass" feature but, quite predictable it became a "push to defend" button. Overtaking still needs work but not with artificial aid such as two compounds or KERS.

Sorry, but there we are again with the physics, to charge the 400 kJ battery during three seconds of breaking for each corner, you need at least a 135 kW MGU, even at a 100% efficiency and no other losses.
But that is only in theory, I doubt if the batteries would take that kind of abuse for long?

[ISLAMATRON]

Back on topic please...

Horner still whining that Merc wouldnt detune their engines for him after he tried to get one in the back of his car... I wonder if he would be crying so much if he was successful at acquiring a Merc engine deal.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81370

[WhiteBlue]

Back on topic please...

Horner still whining that Merc wouldnt detune their engines for him after he tried to get one in the back of his car... I wonder if he would be crying so much if he was successful at acquiring a Merc engine deal.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81370

I'm sure he wouldn't. I'm equally sure Mr. Todt will give a damn about the whining. Its up to FOTA to soert this out. If they can't why should the FiA pick up any hot potatoes. Renault had equal chances as Ferrari or Merc. The only engine maker worthy of a catch up chance is Cosworth. They seem to be very busy with Hülkenberg today to pile on the miles in testing.