F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
We seem to have different definitions of what constitutes a problem then.
F1 power units were already homologated and equalised between 2007 & 2013. It is not at all unprecedented for Formula One... Particularly if the disparity in 2020 power unit performance is up to 5%, which is more than rulemakers intended. Even if Haas build a superb chassis, they have no chance to win with such a lacking power unit!
).V8 Supercars use a hp limit rule without issue, all engine packages are homologated on the organiser's dyno and must comply with given maximum cumulative power over the useful rpm range. Engine components cannot be changed from the homologated parts, without redynoing and rehomologating.
Meanwhile, the homologated engines with minimum weights for pistons & conrods can run easily for 5500km and rarely see engine failures.Why shouldn't Ferrari be offered the opportunity to build the best engine? Why should they have to be equalised with all the others?JordanMugen wrote: ↑03 Oct 2020, 16:37F1 power units were already homologated and equalised between 2007 & 2013. It is not at all unprecedented for Formula One... Particularly if the disparity in 2020 power unit performance is up to 5%, which is more than rulemakers intended. Even if Haas build a superb chassis, they have no chance to win with such a lacking power unit!
Why should Haas not be offered the opportunity to excel, just because they cannot secure a Mercedes-Benz power unit supply? To the contrary, every constructor was able to purchase the Cosworth DFV and have a competitive power unit (even Ferrari perhaps! although they chose not to
V8 Supercars use a hp limit rule without issue, all engine packages are homologated on the organiser's dyno and must comply with given maximum cumulative power over the useful rpm range. Engine components cannot be changed from the homologated parts, without redynoing and rehomologating.
This rule allows for 4-5 different engine suppliers in the field, but all with interchangable performance. When engine performance was unrestricted, they would use lightweight pistons which developed cracks after one to two race meetings... That is just a waste of money wouldn't you say?
Start of 2020 - end of 2020: everything is frozen except KERS (1 update is permitted)
Sure but I never did like the V8-era.siskue2005 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2020, 17:43You missed the best seasons in the last 2 decades
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
All were great seasons
How are those simplifications? Your post starts out not understanding the complexities but ends with some blanket suggestions from that same lack of understanding. That strikes _me_ as being a tad... complex.Blackout wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020, 11:07Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
Basically the MGU-H is an integral part of the turbocharger system. If the rules for the MGU-H change you also have to redesign the whole turbo charger system. For instance if you would bann the use of the MGU-H as an motor, the teams would have to make the turbo charger smaller overall to gain responsivness. But if you do that you also reduce the amount of energy you can get out of the exhaust turbine. This means you have to redo all the energy calculations, which then also has influence on the MGU-K and the fuelburn and so on. So as you see, it's really not that simple. The PUs are designt as a package and they only work properly as such.Blackout wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020, 11:07Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
It was stated some time ago, an off the shelf turbo, used in Indycar is only 3000€. An F1 turbo is custom made and about 100000€. Plus, if any change is made in combustion, the have to redesign en built another turbo, which cost another 100000€.Blackout wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020, 11:07Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
That's just the turbo itself not to mention the 100s/1000s of manhours and resources required to design and test before the final assembly.NL_Fer wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020, 19:07It was stated some time ago, an off the shelf turbo, used in Indycar is only 3000€. An F1 turbo is custom made and about 100000€. Plus, if any change is made in combustion, the have to redesign en built another turbo, which cost another 100000€.Blackout wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020, 11:07Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
Maybe an easy way to cut costs is to limit the amount of MJ that can be recovered through the MGU-H. This would halt the research en redesign in that area.
