- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
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.
People still think that the V8s and V10s were cheap. They absolutely were not.BrunoH wrote:to be fair i think it might go like the old days..
1.5 turbo or 3.5 litre and you can have any NA config...
for sure it will be more in line with today engines so 1.6 turbo hybrid or cheaper 3.0 litre hybrid to be on power balance..
for sure weight is going to be something to choose but if they want they can make rules to compensate for performance with that... giving an edge in weight for the NA hybrids due to less torque.. etc.. but an offset mid race as they have less weight form less batteries, turbos etc... so could be interting formula.. we get sound.. that we all want.. cheap engines for some, and keep the big boys happy with the current engine regs on the other side...
it allows to have expensive engines or road relevant tech, for some teams,, but it allows for smaller teams to have cheap engines like the V8 hybrid era, and for us.. great sound and a way for a manufacture like Honda if they want to make a getaway to a more simple engine for 2020 afterwards...
You cap the power by using a fuel flow rate.FW17 wrote:Listening to Ross and Jean over the last 2 weeks on the future of engines, few things are clear
1) NA is not happening
2) They want more involvement of manufacturers but at a accessible cost
3) They want to continue parts of the existing technology
On the other hand we have Liberty's idea of close competition but reduced cost.
I think going into the next generation of engines are going to have some form of BOP for manufacturers to enter without a huge cost
What I would like to see (totally wishful)
1) A cap on the energy recovery to be set at either 4 or 6 MJ and do away with unlimited recovery
2) Cap on the ICE engine power at 1000 HP
3) Fuel flow of 100kg/hr and fuel ration for 105kg per race removed
4) V6 and single turbo stay
Existing manufacturers would have an advantage of fuel efficiency, but incoming manufacturers would not be would not bee too handicapped as the difference in the fuel weight is not going to be massive.
If you cap power with fuel flow rate then cost goes up. It is better to just cap the power with BOP without fuel restrictions so that the cost comes down for new entrants.wuzak wrote:You cap the power by using a fuel flow rate.
There seems to be an opinion that the MGUH will go for the next formula. In that case I would consider getting rid of ERS altogether. Save some weight and have ~800hp V6Ts (100kg/h) or maybe have more power by upping the fuel flow rate.
As long as the MGUH is there I vote to allow it to have unlimited recovery.
Fuel flow rate is fair and then there is no need for balance of performance.
The last of the v8's were relative cheap because they were frozen and heavily limited (at 18.000 rpm). The biggest costs problem is the size of the corporations behind some (well, actually just one) team. Daimler. You just can't compete against their bankroll, engineering power and resources. If the whole car would be FIA supplied except the mirrors, they would engineer 500mln dollars worth or mirrors made and calculated by 1000 engineers. Cutting costs or make F1 available again for other then big money is standerize certain components like the combustion chaimber and the fuel injection system. That way a company like Cosworth could build a straight forward V6, hook up a turbo, a ERS packet from Magnetti and a Samsung ES slab and you're in.wuzak wrote:People still think that the V8s and V10s were cheap. They absolutely were not.BrunoH wrote:to be fair i think it might go like the old days..
1.5 turbo or 3.5 litre and you can have any NA config...
for sure it will be more in line with today engines so 1.6 turbo hybrid or cheaper 3.0 litre hybrid to be on power balance..
for sure weight is going to be something to choose but if they want they can make rules to compensate for performance with that... giving an edge in weight for the NA hybrids due to less torque.. etc.. but an offset mid race as they have less weight form less batteries, turbos etc... so could be interting formula.. we get sound.. that we all want.. cheap engines for some, and keep the big boys happy with the current engine regs on the other side...
it allows to have expensive engines or road relevant tech, for some teams,, but it allows for smaller teams to have cheap engines like the V8 hybrid era, and for us.. great sound and a way for a manufacture like Honda if they want to make a getaway to a more simple engine for 2020 afterwards...
The V8s were "cheap" because their price was capped by the FIA.
Hmmn, it would seem that the following statement confirms my initial suspicion that Brawn would be re-writing the rule book, regardless of who he works for:wuzak wrote:You cap the power by using a fuel flow rate.FW17 wrote:Listening to Ross and Jean over the last 2 weeks on the future of engines, few things are clear
1) NA is not happening
2) They want more involvement of manufacturers but at a accessible cost
3) They want to continue parts of the existing technology
On the other hand we have Liberty's idea of close competition but reduced cost.
I think going into the next generation of engines are going to have some form of BOP for manufacturers to enter without a huge cost
What I would like to see (totally wishful)
1) A cap on the energy recovery to be set at either 4 or 6 MJ and do away with unlimited recovery
2) Cap on the ICE engine power at 1000 HP
3) Fuel flow of 100kg/hr and fuel ration for 105kg per race removed
4) V6 and single turbo stay
Existing manufacturers would have an advantage of fuel efficiency, but incoming manufacturers would not be would not bee too handicapped as the difference in the fuel weight is not going to be massive.
There seems to be an opinion that the MGUH will go for the next formula. In that case I would consider getting rid of ERS altogether. Save some weight and have ~800hp V6Ts (100kg/h) or maybe have more power by upping the fuel flow rate.
As long as the MGUH is there I vote to allow it to have unlimited recovery.
Fuel flow rate is fair and then there is no need for balance of performance.
Brawn must also realize that he is working in the wrong organisation for that.AJI wrote:Hmmn, it would seem that the following statement confirms my initial suspicion that Brawn would be re-writing the rule book, regardless of who he works for:
"Brawn also explained that he wants to hire a team of engineers that he would task with creating F1’s new technical rules, which have previously been drafted from suggestions from the teams and agreed by the F1 Strategy Group and F1 Commission before being formalised by the FIA.
He said: “My plan is to build a small group of engineers and specialists who will be working under my direction and our task will be to try and bring a bit more logic and application to where the sport should head.”
I can see your point of view, but that is not Brawn's management style. He always wants his team to win, his way, at all costs. Win is not even the right word, dominate is more appropriate, preferably with an unfair but completely legal advantage.wuzak wrote:
Brawn must also realize that he is working in the wrong organisation for that.
If they get rid of the strategy group then the FIA will free to write the rules as they see fit.
And that's how it should be - the CRH should have no input into the rules process if the FIA has no input on the commercial side.