2021 Engine thread

[63l8qrrfy6]

At the end of the day it is just one big fat expensive advertising campaign so they should prioritize what the fans want to see rather than what manufacturers want to make.

I think advertising is just an excuse people use to blow money in motorsport. The effectiveness of advertising is ultimately hard to verify. There are genuinely people who want to compete, gamble, and build race vehicles. They get their funding to do this by many means. One of them being the advertising ploy.

Yes, I fully agree. I dread the day businessmen will see past over-enthusiastic engineering pitches.

[roon]

At the end of the day it is just one big fat expensive advertising campaign so they should prioritize what the fans want to see rather than what manufacturers want to make.

I think advertising is just an excuse people use to blow money in motorsport. The effectiveness of advertising is ultimately hard to verify. There are genuinely people who want to compete, gamble, and build race vehicles. They get their funding to do this by many means. One of them being the advertising ploy.

Yes, I fully agree. I dread the day businessmen will see past over-enthusiastic engineering pitches.

Well, they haven't done so for the entire past ten years or so of the second tech boom, so I wouldn't worry too much.

[ME4ME]

No, fans will pay for the most inane garbage you can imagine. As I said, they need it. Appealing to some abstraction called "the fans" is a downward spiral into lowest common denominator appeal. Either way they go, keep doing their own thing or become Dancing With The Cars, people are gonna blow money on it.

"Opportunities for improvement" is vague and subjective. Many are content as-is. If F1 stays aloof, out-of-touch or insular then that would be truer to its roots.

I'm not talking about making it some kind of clown show, what I'm saying and what is relevant to the topic is that the quality of racing can be improved upon and that the power unit is a part of that.

[wuzak]

I think a lot of fans dont care about the amount of fuel, or at what rate it is used. People just get annoyed or disappointed by fuel saving and/or lack of impressive sound.

ERS is also something that comes from the manufacturs rather than the fans. It doens't really add to the sport, on the contrary, it has created a void in performance between manufacturers and has driven up the costs of the current units.

I think the most simple way forward, if manufacturers can be convinced to give up "road relevance" to some extent, is a larger displacement V6 Turbo. The annual price should be capped at a sustainable number. Fuel flow rate and fuel budget limits can be left undefined, instead a maximum boost pressure can be put in place.

Ross Brawn is all about prioritising what the fans actually care about and keep the rest cheap and simple. I hope he can convince the manufacturers to cooperate.

Why would a boost limit be more acceptable to fans than a fuel flow limit? Both seek to do the same thing - ie, limit power. In fact a boost limit would likely need another limit - such as rpm limit - to really control power.

Why would the V6 need to be of greater capacity? The V6Ts of the 1980s peaked at 850-900hp in race trim. They were 1.5l. The current V6Ts would make 750-800hp without the ERS. Just tweak the fuel flow limit to get the desired power range.

Fuel saving could be eliminated by ending the race fuel limit. Even so, on the evidence of last weekend, it seems tyre saving has been the greater part of what fans have been complaining about the past few years. And most races this year will require no fuel saving or minimal fuel saving.

A price cap for engine supply will almost certainly be part of the next engine regulations. As it was for most of the 2.4l V8 era.

The problem about prioritising what the fans want is that not all fans want the same things. Many fans were drawn to F1 because of the technology - cheap and simple may not appeal to them. I know it certainly won't to me.

I see that Liberty are fans of a budget cap. I can see an ulterior motive for that - if they control the costs that way they may be able to pay the teams less and thus take more out of the sport for themselves.

[Singabule]

I think a lot of fans dont care about the amount of fuel, or at what rate it is used. People just get annoyed or disappointed by fuel saving and/or lack of impressive sound.

ERS is also something that comes from the manufacturs rather than the fans. It doens't really add to the sport, on the contrary, it has created a void in performance between manufacturers and has driven up the costs of the current units.

I think the most simple way forward, if manufacturers can be convinced to give up "road relevance" to some extent, is a larger displacement V6 Turbo. The annual price should be capped at a sustainable number. Fuel flow rate and fuel budget limits can be left undefined, instead a maximum boost pressure can be put in place.

Ross Brawn is all about prioritising what the fans actually care about and keep the rest cheap and simple. I hope he can convince the manufacturers to cooperate.

So HPD and chevy put their engine on F1 cars... Anticlimax. What is the marketing point to engine builder? If you want sound, keep current technical spec, but the turbine only harvest on one bank, and free the other. Put the electric motor at front to increase the power. No need to develop other engine. Get rid from mguh since its applicable only on highway or heavy hauler.

[wuzak]

If you want sound, keep current technical spec, but the turbine only harvest on one bank, and free the other. Put the electric motor at front to increase the power. No need to develop other engine. Get rid from mguh since its applicable only on highway or heavy hauler.

If they get rid of the MGUH they should get rid of the ERS altogether, IMO.

To put the MGUH in perspective, Ferrari recently said that they can run the MGUK at 100% for 50s. That is 6MJ. And they are only allowed to recover 2MJ with the MGUK, which means the MGUH is responsible for at least 2/3 of the energy used by the MGUK during a lap.

[Singabule]

If you want sound, keep current technical spec, but the turbine only harvest on one bank, and free the other. Put the electric motor at front to increase the power. No need to develop other engine. Get rid from mguh since its applicable only on highway or heavy hauler.

If they get rid of the MGUH they should get rid of the ERS altogether, IMO.

To put the MGUH in perspective, Ferrari recently said that they can run the MGUK at 100% for 50s. That is 6MJ. And they are only allowed to recover 2MJ with the MGUK, which means the MGUH is responsible for at least 2/3 of the energy used by the MGUK during a lap.

Yes, but if harvest from front and adjust harvesting allowance from K in front, minimum 4MJ could achieved from front alone. Plus rear, minimum 5MJ per lap could be achieved. It is still Green engine, but with a lot of noise.

[ME4ME]

Why would a boost limit be more acceptable to fans than a fuel flow limit? Both seek to do the same thing - ie, limit power. In fact a boost limit would likely need another limit - such as rpm limit - to really control power.

Why would the V6 need to be of greater capacity? The V6Ts of the 1980s peaked at 850-900hp in race trim. They were 1.5l. The current V6Ts would make 750-800hp without the ERS. Just tweak the fuel flow limit to get the desired power range.

Fuel saving could be eliminated by ending the race fuel limit. Even so, on the evidence of last weekend, it seems tyre saving has been the greater part of what fans have been complaining about the past few years. And most races this year will require no fuel saving or minimal fuel saving.

A price cap for engine supply will almost certainly be part of the next engine regulations. As it was for most of the 2.4l V8 era.

The problem about prioritising what the fans want is that not all fans want the same things. Many fans were drawn to F1 because of the technology - cheap and simple may not appeal to them. I know it certainly won't to me.

I see that Liberty are fans of a budget cap. I can see an ulterior motive for that - if they control the costs that way they may be able to pay the teams less and thus take more out of the sport for themselves.

I was thinking along the lines that a greater displacement less boosted engine would suffer less from turbo-lag than a 1.5L highly boosted one. That's why I mentioned the limit in boost pressure rather than fuel flow limit. The current 15k rpm limit can continue to be in place. But you might be right that a fuel flow rate limit is a more reliable way of controlling the units power output into the desired range.

Regarding technology, I know thats one of Formula 1's core values. I'm my opinion, it's ranked below great racing though. I think that the lack of close racing is more detrimental to the sport than the lack of a cutting edge engine would be. I'd like to see a shift more in favor of the driver being the main performance differentiator rather than the engine, so I think it's worth the sacrifise to take a step back in technology. But I acknowledge that there is room for debate. The outcome of the new Motorsport inquiry should be interesting.

[FrukostScones]

I still don't understand why people would want to damage their hearing with loud exhaust noises.
V10, V8 were pretty much absolutely hazardous in noise levels. pretty unbearable . like 145-150DB. at a very damaging frequency.
2017 PU are decently loud trackside. They just sound a bit dull like a turbo single exhaust engine. I don't think the 80ies turbos sounded much better.
If F1 will go backwards in technology because of high pitched engine noise, than it will be extinct soon.
And the sound on TV absoultely not what you hear trackside. Wasn't before (in the good old times) and isn't now.

edit: 2017 of course.

[santos]

I still don't understand why people would want to damage their hearing with loud exhaust noises.
V10, V8 were pretty much absolutely hazardous in noise levels. pretty unbearable . like 145-150DB. at a very damaging frequency.
2016 PU are decently loud trackside. They just sound a bit dull like a turbo single exhaust engine. I don't think the 80ies turbos sounded much better.
If F1 will go backwards in technology because of high pitched engine noise, than it will be extinct soon.
And the sound on TV absoultely not what you hear trackside. Wasn't before (in the good old times) and isn't now.

What do you mean with "If F1 will go backwards in technology"? Jean Todt already said that the V10's or V12's are gone. And i don't belive that is atractive to manufacturers like FORD, VW, PSA... to come to F1 if the engines would be something that they can't relate with what they sell.

[dren]

The idea of a fuel limited formula is good. As others have said, stick with that. Fully open the regulations. Open regulations allow for smaller teams to find an edge. It also falls in line with what I like about Formula 1; technology and true innovation.

If you want to pander to the fans more, put more focus on the drivers and their interactions on and off the track. You can do that while still keeping the above formula for those of us interested in the technology.

[wuzak]

Why would a boost limit be more acceptable to fans than a fuel flow limit? Both seek to do the same thing - ie, limit power. In fact a boost limit would likely need another limit - such as rpm limit - to really control power.

Why would the V6 need to be of greater capacity? The V6Ts of the 1980s peaked at 850-900hp in race trim. They were 1.5l. The current V6Ts would make 750-800hp without the ERS. Just tweak the fuel flow limit to get the desired power range.

Fuel saving could be eliminated by ending the race fuel limit. Even so, on the evidence of last weekend, it seems tyre saving has been the greater part of what fans have been complaining about the past few years. And most races this year will require no fuel saving or minimal fuel saving.

A price cap for engine supply will almost certainly be part of the next engine regulations. As it was for most of the 2.4l V8 era.

The problem about prioritising what the fans want is that not all fans want the same things. Many fans were drawn to F1 because of the technology - cheap and simple may not appeal to them. I know it certainly won't to me.

I see that Liberty are fans of a budget cap. I can see an ulterior motive for that - if they control the costs that way they may be able to pay the teams less and thus take more out of the sport for themselves.

I was thinking along the lines that a greater displacement less boosted engine would suffer less from turbo-lag than a 1.5L highly boosted one. That's why I mentioned the limit in boost pressure rather than fuel flow limit. The current 15k rpm limit can continue to be in place. But you might be right that a fuel flow rate limit is a more reliable way of controlling the units power output into the desired range.

Regarding technology, I know thats one of Formula 1's core values. I'm my opinion, it's ranked below great racing though. I think that the lack of close racing is more detrimental to the sport than the lack of a cutting edge engine would be. I'd like to see a shift more in favor of the driver being the main performance differentiator rather than the engine, so I think it's worth the sacrifise to take a step back in technology. But I acknowledge that there is room for debate. The outcome of the new Motorsport inquiry should be interesting.

There seems to be confusion about what motor racing is and what, in particular F1 is.

Motor racing, from its inception, was a contest of machines - not drivers. Of course it soon became obvious that better drivers can extract more of a car's performance than the lesser ones, so that's why they became important.

And for some reason people think F1 isn't as good racing as it has been before. When, in fact, most races in F1 history would be called boring by today's fans.

Also, there is not guarantee than making the engines a lesser technology will prevent one manufacturer from gaining a big advantage on another.

[wuzak]

Regarding turbo lag with the V6s, this would obviously be a problem with the single turbo.

But with two smaller turbos and, perhaps, allowance for anti-lag systems that could be reduced.

[ME4ME]

There seems to be confusion about what motor racing is and what, in particular F1 is.

Motor racing, from its inception, was a contest of machines - not drivers. Of course it soon became obvious that better drivers can extract more of a car's performance than the lesser ones, so that's why they became important.

And for some reason people think F1 isn't as good racing as it has been before. When, in fact, most races in F1 history would be called boring by today's fans.

Also, there is not guarantee than making the engines a lesser technology will prevent one manufacturer from gaining a big advantage on another.

I agree people can be overly nostalgic. Personally I'm not looking at how good F1 has been but how it can be. I watch old F1 races, qualifying and GP2/Formula3 regularly and I don't think F1 is anywhere close to fullfilling it's full potential. Reducing performance gaps and increasing competition is by far the most simple cure to many of todays deficiencies in my opinion.

There are never guarantees, but at least it's likely. Taking away some of the expense and complexity will reduce performance gaps. It's unlikely that a more simple engine formula would create the 30, 60 or 100 (or whatever you want to believe) bhp gap that there has been since 2014.

[Singabule]

Regarding turbo lag with the V6s, this would obviously be a problem with the single turbo.

But with two smaller turbos and, perhaps, allowance for anti-lag systems that could be reduced.

Thats why you need K at back, to fill torque gap. Future engine configuration is NSX type, and turbo can be modified as needed. I think one bank opening is the best compromise between two type of fans here. ALS is wasting so much energy