At the most recent meeting of the engine working group last Tuesday it emerged that constructors are looking for an engine formula that will provide simpler and lighter engines, following a considerable weight increase since the introduction of the Hybrid power units in 2014.
- Go all in with the hybrids. Energy recovery front and rear, keep the MGU-H but make it a stock component to keep costs down, up revs and fuel flow to help offset the weight of the hybrids and keep the noise brigade happy.
- Send F1 down the route of horse racing. Make a statement that it is about entertainment and no longer represents the cutting edge of technology and bring back 3 litre V10's with a 21k RPM rev limit or 3.5 litre V12's with an 18k rev limit.
Last option you'd likely end up with a spec engine to a large degree as car companies are not going to sink hundreds of millions into building gas guzzling, normally aspirated grenades anymore.
The actual FIA proposals sound like a half baked, lily livered route aimed at trying to get more manufacturers onboard and pleasing no one else at the same time...
This is my own take on this as well and also why I don't really understand the half-way positions. I could see an F1 Classic show where, say, you can have V10:s with pure mechanical injection, 3.5L and nothing exotic. I would watch it and the sound/ noises with be one erotic.
If we want to run real F1, then that should be fairly open to the exotic stuff as well as expensive development paths.
I also find the idea of an electrically assisted turbocharger fascinating, but am not well placed to say how practical such a device is with current technology. How close do people think cars would be to being able to deploy electrical assistance over the entire lap with K on the front as well? Isn't the harvesting of the front something like 50% more potential energy than off the back axle?
I understand that weight distribution for an f1 car is 60/40 during braking. Front axle generators could at least double the amount of energy recovery.
An electric supercharger would be like half of current turbo’s. No turbine, no exhaust recovery. What would be the advantage?
Personaly i still believe a standarized mgu-h will be on the table next year. Complete removal would be a waste of current learned knowledge. Porsche and Lamborgini could be temped to allow it.
""Sergio Marchionne said the Italian supercar maker 'will not play' unless it’s provided with 'a set of circumstances, the result of which are beneficial for the maintenance of the brand in the marketplace and to strengthening the unique position of Ferrari.' "
Roughly interpreted: "We are tired of sucking!"
I looked up the payouts for this year. Ferrari is the only team getting a "Long-standing team" payment of a measly $68 million.
I suspect they will stick it out another year.
Last edited by Dazed1 on 04 Nov 2017, 03:57, edited 1 time in total.
""Sergio Marchionne said the Italian supercar maker 'will not play' unless it’s provided with 'a set of circumstances, the result of which are beneficial for the maintenance of the brand in the marketplace and to strengthening the unique position of Ferrari.' "
Roughly interpreted: "We are tired of sucking!"
Or, "We do not which to compete with a standard, or nearly so, power unit dictated to us by chassis guys".
Sergio Marchionne is well versed in the art of using a lot of words to say nothing at all. Given he didn't come out in support I think it reasonable to assume he isn't overly happy with the proposed regulations: and why should he, these proposed regulations are a halfway house of nothing.I'm not really sure there is anything in these regulations for anyone.
I might be in a minority on this, but I'd rather Ferrari upped and left than keep bending over backwards for them. I also don't think if push came to shove that they would leave. F1 is as part of them as they are of it. Hopefully if a scenario can be reached where new team owners can come in and be fairly competitive without sinking $500M a season just for the chassis and buying engines (nevermind developing them) a stronger F1 would be in much more of a position to point Ferrari in the direction of the door altogether and see if they are brave enough to walk through it...
I understand that weight distribution for an f1 car is 60/40 during braking. Front axle generators could at least double the amount of energy recovery.
An electric supercharger would be like half of current turbo’s. No turbine, no exhaust recovery. What would be the advantage?
Personaly i still believe a standarized mgu-h will be on the table next year. Complete removal would be a waste of current learned knowledge. Porsche and Lamborgini could be temped to allow it.
Re the electric turbocharger/supercharger, if that is what using one would entail then you are right, there is no advantage. What i was picturing naively though was a motor bolted onto the compressor to eliminate what little lag probably remains with these engines and with the MGU-H still present.
Re Lamborgini - who owns them these days? Was re reading the Chrysler/Lambo/Mclaren story again last night and was thinking what a spectacular waste that was, so would be good to see them make a return of some sort...
I guess I am not the only one to feel that 2021 engine rules are stupid.
Teams will now spend 3 more years developing the MGU-H and its not there anymore.
Instead of ditching the MGU_H- why not have a standard one produced by a 3rd party - something done by RR, GE or Honeywell - No penalties for this component being changed.
Allow max rev limit to 18k rpm wth 5-10kg more fuel and slightly higher fuel flow rate - Claw this back at 2-3kg per year until current levels or a much lower limit is reached.
I guess I am not the only one to feel that 2021 engine rules are stupid.
Teams will now spend 3 more years developing the MGU-H and its not there anymore.
Instead of ditching the MGU_H- why not have a standard one produced by a 3rd party - something done by RR, GE or Honeywell - No penalties for this component being changed.
Allow max rev limit to 18k rpm wth 5-10kg more fuel and slightly higher fuel flow rate - Claw this back at 2-3kg per year until current levels or a much lower limit is reached.
I am in agreement. You speak eerrr type too much sense which is why the FIA will not like your proposal. I am not surprised manufacturers are meh with the change as well. Toto has been vocal about it.
For everybody who wants a higher rev limit, that won’t help. The limit now is 15k, but it’s pointless because of the TC, the lower the RPM the more efficient the PU is.
Raising the minimum rev limit for max fuel flow is what should be done to get more revs from the PU manufacturers. This now stands on 10.500 rpm and that is revs they are falling back to when up shifting.
an fulltime electrically-driven compressor would make little sense with today's F1 engines .....
because the power required is so high (towards 100 hp) due to the very high PR of 3 - 4 used for heat dilution (extremely lean mixture)
to put it another way, they'd never use such a PR without turbocharging
but with a low-boost engine the compressor power would be a fraction of that above
this could be a relatively small engine with a conventionally lean mixture ie little heat dilution or .....
a larger engine with extremely lean mixture ie significant heat dilution
some of the most efficient SI engines ever have been low-boost (than came WW2, which was not an efficiency competition)
the boost increasing power in-cylinder with little increase in friction, pumping losses, and losses to coolant
these days there might be no need for reduced CR in a low-boost engine (F1 or road car)
and electric compressor drive gives perfect control
4 wheel electric drive/regeneration can be far cheaper and more road-relevant by using asynchronous MGs and drives
(with E4wd these also give less scope for covert pseudo-ABS, pseudo-traction control, and steering-by-wire)
it doesn't need the synchronous MGs presently needed to respond with the crankshaft on shifting and with the 0 - 110000 rpm MGU-H
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 03 Nov 2017, 16:59, edited 1 time in total.
because of the variation in boost with engine rpm (they already have centrifugal superchargers driven independently of ICE rpm)
in past F1 mechanical drive of centrifugal superchargers really needed impeller VG or other throttling or wastegating
(and remember we now want to emulate the present rules ie boost to fall above 10500 rpm or some other rpm)
and there's slowing of the shifts due to the high referred inertia from the supercharger
(at present the MGU-K inertia is mostly cancelled by impulsive generator action on upshifts and impulsive motor action on downshifts)
a small electric supercharger drive in parallel and mixed with the mechanical SC drive would give steady boost as engine rpm varied
and help the shift inertia situation
Sergio Marchionne is well versed in the art of using a lot of words to say nothing at all. Given he didn't come out in support I think it reasonable to assume he isn't overly happy with the proposed regulations: and why should he, these proposed regulations are a halfway house of nothing.I'm not really sure there is anything in these regulations for anyone.
It is easy to see why they start discussing engine changes 5 years in advance.
Are there any details in this proposed engine spec of engine allocations per season? Could this not be a good place to start with the whole "competition vs show" balancing act that Liberty seem willing to embrace and/or face up to?
As surely there's a huge increase in R&D costs for reliability purposes if an engine (and ancillaries) has to last 5 races instead of just 1? Could it be cheaper, per unit produced, if each driver was allowed a fresh engine per weekend? Would an increase in production numbers lead to a change in manufacturing techniques that are more mass production, such as casting instead of milling components?
