New way to uncap engine regs, but maintain performance..

[Conceptual]

What about limiting the cooling system as a way of locking down the horsepower? I mean, if you are only allowed X amount of surface area for heat exchangers, wouldn't that alone limit how much HP that you can pull out of an engine?

Also, this would be great with opening the door for HERS devices. If you use the heat to generate power BEFORE sending it to the excnanger, you could run hotter.

I am interested in some thoughts on this, as it came to me while re-reading "Engineer To Win". You don't have to limit fuel, or arbitrarily limit development, just limit cooling capacity, and let the engineers invest into recovery tech just to use up the energy before it needs to be expelled...

Comments? Thoughts?

[bill shoe]

My first response is that your idea is just as reasonable as limiting power with displacement and rev limits. We are so used to limiting those parameters (expecially displacement) that we have oddly come to think of them as the natural way to limit performance.

The downside (or lack of upside) to your idea is that optimizing heat-exchager limited engines would be just as expensive as optimizing displacement limited engines.

Ideally I want some engine formula where there will be significant differences and creativity between the engines, but paradoxically where lots of additional money spend on detail development makes little or no difference to performance.

How could you achieve this with a heat-exchanger limited engine?

[wesley123]

With these rules you would have alot of difference in engine power, as some have to run their engines underpowered as they need more cooling, others can run it with more power, like the renault and mercedes as those need less cooling.

[machin]

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work....

However... as stated elsehwere on this forum; F1 needs to be marketable... all the money basicaly comes from various companies willing to sponsor F1 for marketing reasons. In today's political climate, like it or not, disagree with it or not, no company can afford to be seen to be involved in an activity which isn't aiming to increase energy efficiency. For F1 the best way to achieve this is to promote fuel efficiency... that's why the FIA proposed a fuel quantity based power output solution....

The Fuel quantity solutions also promotes the use of HERS and KERS just as much as this idea.

Your idea would of course promote energy efficiency (i.e. more power out with less wasted as heat), but not in a way that is easily marketable for the sponsors...

Otherwise yeah, the idea would work....

[Conceptual]

Will fuel efficiency regs automatically lead to less cooling needs? Or would the cooling restriction lead to less fuel needs?

I guess it is a question of which one would lead the design philosophy down the path of greatest gain (or savings...).

Looking for more comments! Where is Terry when you need his input?

[machin]

Will fuel efficiency regs automatically lead to less cooling needs? Or would the cooling restriction lead to less fuel needs?

Yep, both.... but being able to say "our car is more fuel efficient and therefore has better performance" is more marketable than saying "Our car has less cooling requirements and therefore has better perfomance"....

[machin]

Oh, just thought of a problem with trying to "police" this method; the teams would no doubt start to try and use other forms of cooling to remove some of the heat in addition to the heat exchangers... e.g. finned engine block.... and/or longer hoses (possibly convoluted to increase surface area)....

Maybe you could limit the size of cooling openings in the bodywork, rather than heat exchanger area? But the teams would then try and promote heat exchange between the engine and other (external) parts of the car.... maybe...?!

[Giblet]

I don't want to watch teams try to outspend millions of dollars on heat management, and the aero needed to maximize any advantage possible.

I'm also not sure that keeping this cars on the edge of catching fire or not will be a good way to go.

After all, going knife edge in cooling will call for extreme measure, and fires/failures will happen.

Running out of gas might be less dramatic and dangerous, but there is great shame when it happens.

[ISLAMATRON]

Will fuel efficiency regs automatically lead to less cooling needs? Or would the cooling restriction lead to less fuel needs?

Yep, both.... but being able to say "our car is more fuel efficient and therefore has better performance" is more marketable than saying "Our car has less cooling requirements and therefore has better perfomance"....

Incorrect, Merc lumps need smaller cooling becaused they run richer and use the fuel to help cool the engines. It is a trade off they have made in the past that they may have to change soon. Renault has less power and that is why they have less cooling requirements... to the best of my observations.

Leaner engines usually run hotter and require more cooling and thus more drag penalty. If the teams start to run leaner they may actually make more power but will have less "driveability" and require higher cooling requirements.

[Jersey Tom]

What's the point of uncapping engine regs? Take this route.. every engine manufacturer spends millions on R&D.. for what? What does the sport really gain?

[machin]

What's the point of uncapping engine regs? Take this route.. every engine manufacturer spends millions on R&D.. for what? What does the sport really gain?

I must say in recent weeks I've come around to thinking the same; spending millions to refine what is already a very refined item of equipment on the car is pointless; it doesn't improve the racing/entertainment/advancement of real-world technology. I think where they are at the moment is quite good in that we have a choice of engine for any team, and its been proven a team can swap engine suppliers very late in the day and still produce a championship winning car. Seems like a really good situation to be in...

[machin]

they run richer and use the fuel to help cool the engines.

Good point! That's another reason to go for the fuel-restriction.... if you were to change the engine regs....

[Conceptual]

What's the point of uncapping engine regs? Take this route.. every engine manufacturer spends millions on R&D.. for what? What does the sport really gain?

How long can F1 be static, and still be considered a pinnacle formula? Isn't the point to constantly advance the technology?

Or was that only before money > The Sport?

[The_Man]

What's the point of uncapping engine regs? Take this route.. every engine manufacturer spends millions on R&D.. for what? What does the sport really gain?

How long can F1 be static, and still be considered a pinnacle formula? Isn't the point to constantly advance the technology?

Or was that only before money > The Sport?

Money will always be > sport in the capitalist world. No amount of passion is going to change it. And I think the engine freeze is a good thing. That way formula one can regulate where the research and the advancements takes place. Like this year they thought that KERS technology will benefit the world very much and the formula one guys are the best people to trust to develop the technology in the most efficient way. May be it did not work out as planned, though I think it partially did but the intent was that.

Similarly enigne development I think is something they do not want anymore. I have a feeling that 25 years from now Formula One(if Bernie and his descendants make sure it exists)will not be running IC engines. So they think that it is much better if the limited money is not spent on engines giving some equality in teams from the engine point of view and making the sport more competitive like we have seen this season.

[autogyro]

The re introduction of Kers and hopefully Hers systems will automatically reduce the size of cooling air intakes as attempts are made to harness and convert heat.
Hopefully Fota will soon be dead so as to allow this to progress.