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

[xxChrisxx]

EDIT you said HERS, nevermind.

I don't see why they would make the cooling holes smaller though, even if you had heat exchangers extracting useful work from heat you still have the same net hear output. (I suppose you could make the inlets smaller, but to conpensate you'd need a bigger outlet)

It's also not really relevent to the original problem of using limiting cooling capcity to limit power output. Adding heat exchanges and extracting work from the heat wouldn't do anything to limit engine power as you are adding a second cooling system.

[autogyro]

EDIT you said HERS, nevermind.

I don't see why they would make the cooling holes smaller though, even if you had heat exchangers extracting useful work from heat you still have the same net hear output. (I suppose you could make the inlets smaller, but to conpensate you'd need a bigger outlet)

It's also not really relevent to the original problem of using limiting cooling capcity to limit power output. Adding heat exchanges and extracting work from the heat wouldn't do anything to limit engine power as you are adding a second cooling system.

Not if you also reduced the amount of fuel allowed, as well as bringing in heat and brake energy recovery.
Then the development direction would be to use less of the low efficiency IC engine and more electric energy recovered from heat and braking.
Reducing energy and heat output from the IC engine would then force a reduction in cooling by the radiators, to maintain the same amount of heat but from less fuel, better streamlining resulting in less drag would also result.

[xxChrisxx]

EDIT you said HERS, nevermind.

I don't see why they would make the cooling holes smaller though, even if you had heat exchangers extracting useful work from heat you still have the same net hear output. (I suppose you could make the inlets smaller, but to conpensate you'd need a bigger outlet)

It's also not really relevent to the original problem of using limiting cooling capcity to limit power output. Adding heat exchanges and extracting work from the heat wouldn't do anything to limit engine power as you are adding a second cooling system.

Not if you also reduced the amount of fuel allowed, as well as bringing in heat and brake energy recovery.
Then the development direction would be to use less of the low efficiency IC engine and more electric energy recovered from heat and braking.
Reducing energy and heat output from the IC engine would then force a reduction in cooling by the radiators, to maintain the same amount of heat but from less fuel, better streamlining resulting in less drag would also result.

Using the waste heat from the engine does NOT eleimate the cooling problem. This thread was about using cooling to control power.

Teams would never choose the route you suggest (if just the cooling restriction was in place, the ywould need to limit fuel also), basically making an engine put out say 600bhp instead of 750bhp, but make up the differnce with recovered energy. They would have all the engine pwoer AND the KERS, as the extra power outweighs the downsides of drag and cooling.

The problem is that when you recapture the waste heat it sticks around. If you increase the role of KERS you could drop engine cooling but would need to increae KERS cooling. I highly doubt you'd see a marked difference in cooling requirements.

As such I think limiting car cooling is a poor way of controlling power output. As many people in this thread have pointed out, the rules would have to be nailed down so tight as it's easy to circumvent. No way they can circumvent a set fuel amount (short of fuel tampering, making u;ltra ense fuel like they had in the 90's).

[autogyro]

Sorry, I forgot for a minute. The Kers original introduction by the FIA was the first part of this concept. It was destroyed by Fota to maintain their reliance on fossil fuel and the big car makers established methods.
Now the truth is becoming known of course they are all leaving the sinking Fota ship.

[autogyro]

"Using the waste heat from the engine does NOT eliminate the cooling problem. This thread was about using cooling to control power".

Of course it does not and that is nothing near what I said!

"Teams would never choose the route you suggest (if just the cooling restriction was in place, the would need to limit fuel also), basically making an engine put out say 600bhp instead of 750bhp, but make up the difference with recovered energy. They would have all the engine power AND the KERS, as the extra power outweighs the downsides of drag and cooling".

Rubbish, they would then run out of fuel! I did not suggest just energy recovery!

"The problem is that when you recapture the waste heat it sticks around. If you increase the role of KERS you could drop engine cooling but would need to increase KERS cooling. I highly doubt you'd see a marked difference in cooling requirements".

Kers cooling and any other cooling not inside an IC engine, is neither a major problem nor a deficit in performance! A red hot chassis is not a problem of itself!

"As such I think limiting car cooling is a poor way of controlling power output. As many people in this thread have pointed out, the rules would have to be nailed down so tight as it's easy to circumvent. No way they can circumvent a set fuel amount (short of fuel tampering, making u;ltra ense fuel like they had in the 90's)".

I agree and reducing fuel coupled to energy recovery would work exactly as I explained!

[xxChrisxx]

Kers cooling and any other cooling not inside an IC engine, is neither a major problem nor a deficit in performance! A red hot chassis is not a problem of itself!

Thats a good point, and really quite obvious when it's pointed out like that.

[tarzoon]

As far as I care, unrestrict engines (except size) and put a budget cap for engines overall. The score would end up balanced, as usual! The cap involves R&D and number of engines.

[autogyro]

As far as I care, unrestrict engines (except size) and put a budget cap for engines overall. The score would end up balanced, as usual! The cap involves R&D and number of engines.

All that does is to continue development of obsolete IC engines.
It does not address CO2 emissions or energy recovery.
The two factors that must be addressed if F1 is to have a future.

[safeaschuck]

I like the cooling resriction idea in principle, as has been mentioned already it would be very difficult to police as you can only realistically count the surface area of the radiators.
I would imagine heat rejecting pipework would be used to assist (not very marketable, and also very pointless as a cross over tecnology) along with more air-cooling features, i.e. finning of the block.
Air-cooling was dumped because it is difficult to manage, great differences in engine perfomance and lifespan would result when the outside temperature changed during a race weekend. It would also be very expensive and time consuming to simulate at the design stage, modeling heat exchage in gas is many factors more complicated than liquid (ask an FEA person to explain this better).

Definatly not the pinnacle of motorsport to move towards aircooling of engines! Also the noise levels would be even higher (but not neccisarily in a good way) as the water jacket area may reduce causing less sound deadening and aircooling fins tend to be quite noisy when resonanting at high rpm.

Another potential downside that I can think of is that cockpit temeratures might climb even higher than their present (in my opinion) already un-safe levels as teams run engines even hotter. Needles to say that would involve a lot of R&D into things like new ceramic coatings.

I'm still silently hoping for a Maximum downforce rule. Iv'e droned on about the specifics before so won't do it again. In essence it's a rig test in a wind tunnel (moving road would, I guess, be neccasary) with max downforce figures at low, medium and high speeds.
I think that with this in place, and a control tyre, engine power output would be self limiting, there would simply not be enough traction/grip to require any extra power. With relaxed engine restrictions the teams could concentrate on taking the weight out of the engine and also the fuel burden (by maximising gains from energy recovery).

[safeaschuck]

oh, and four more posible plus points of the max downforce legislation:

1. cleaner, simpler, more attractive bodywork.
2. cost saving on wind tunnel and computing time due to downforce levels being less critical to performance.
3. Less downforce leads to less turbulence in air behind??? (maybe...) which hopefully lead to closer following distances and more overtaking???
4. More emphasis on mechanical grip + reduced cornering speeds = the occasonal sideways moment from the drivers, without the massive tyre wall incident that might otherwise follow.

[autogyro]

I like the cooling resriction idea in principle, as has been mentioned already it would be very difficult to police as you can only realistically count the surface area of the radiators.
I would imagine heat rejecting pipework would be used to assist (not very marketable, and also very pointless as a cross over tecnology) along with more air-cooling features, i.e. finning of the block.
Air-cooling was dumped because it is difficult to manage, great differences in engine perfomance and lifespan would result when the outside temperature changed during a race weekend. It would also be very expensive and time consuming to simulate at the design stage, modeling heat exchage in gas is many factors more complicated than liquid (ask an FEA person to explain this better).

Definatly not the pinnacle of motorsport to move towards aircooling of engines! Also the noise levels would be even higher (but not neccisarily in a good way) as the water jacket area may reduce causing less sound deadening and aircooling fins tend to be quite noisy when resonanting at high rpm.

Another potential downside that I can think of is that cockpit temeratures might climb even higher than their present (in my opinion) already un-safe levels as teams run engines even hotter. Needles to say that would involve a lot of R&D into things like new ceramic coatings.

I'm still silently hoping for a Maximum downforce rule. Iv'e droned on about the specifics before so won't do it again. In essence it's a rig test in a wind tunnel (moving road would, I guess, be neccasary) with max downforce figures at low, medium and high speeds.
I think that with this in place, and a control tyre, engine power output would be self limiting, there would simply not be enough traction/grip to require any extra power. With relaxed engine restrictions the teams could concentrate on taking the weight out of the engine and also the fuel burden (by maximising gains from energy recovery).

Surely taking weight out of the engine with unrestricted engine regulations, would simply result in huge expense on specialist materials with no relevance to either fuel saving or CO2 output.
It is time it is accepted that the IC engine is dieing and to concentrate development onto technology that will be used in the future.

[autogyro]

As soon as energy recovery technology is balanced with fuel limitations as projected already by the FIA, then aerodynamics can be forgotten as the interest generating red herring it is and it can then be easily restricted within the regulations.
This has always been possible.
Both IC technology and aerodynamics/downforce development are well past their interest sell by date and achieve little in the real world any longer.
F1 must reflect that real world if it is to have any meaningful purpose or future.

[autogyro]

The end of sensible aerodynamic development is proven by Manor GP designing a car without a wind tunnel. All the data needed is now on computers. Wind tunnels should be outlawed and this area of development relegated to history where it belongs.

[xxChrisxx]

The end of sensible aerodynamic development is proven by Manor GP designing a car without a wind tunnel. All the data needed is now on computers. Wind tunnels should be outlawed and this area of development relegated to history where it belongs.

No it isn't, there is no 'data' unless you calculte it. All a comuper is, is a hugely complicated calculator. You'd never say the anwers to a maths text book were in the calclator, you USE the calcualtor to find the answers. It doesn't do it for you, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.


If they arent using a windtunnel at all Manor is actually pretty stupid acutally. If you don't validate the model, the simulation could be utter bullshit and you'd never know.

You need wind tunnels for that reason alone (not a fullscale/ just something to get validation). Manor will get a simple model and validate that on a wind tunnel, then do development work soley on CFD.

It's standard practise, if you simulate, you validate.

[autogyro]

The end of sensible aerodynamic development is proven by Manor GP designing a car without a wind tunnel. All the data needed is now on computers. Wind tunnels should be outlawed and this area of development relegated to history where it belongs.

No it isn't, there is no 'data' unless you calculte it. All a comuper is, is a hugely complicated calculator. You'd never say the anwers to a maths text book were in the calclator, you USE the calcualtor to find the answers. It doesn't do it for you, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.


If they arent using a windtunnel at all Manor is actually pretty stupid acutally. If you don't validate the model, you could be simulation could be utter bullshit and you'd never know.

You need wind tunnels for that reason alone (not a fullscale/ just something to get validation). Manor will get a simple model and validate that on a wind tunnel, then do development work soley on CFD.

It's standard practise, if you simulate, you validate.

Nope, you can only validate if the car works and wins, anything else with or without a wind tunnel is a guess.
There is far to much b--ll==t baffles brains in F1 aerodynamics.