2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Holm86]

Wasn't thinking about turbo-lag. I know how they will eliminate that. I was talking about the higher torque as you say.I think they will have to be more carful when applying throttle exiting a corner. Not like now......

The rules allow for some very interesting possibilities regarding KERS and turbo lag. For example, it may be possible to keep the turbine spooled going into a corner, and thus more ready to quickly respond out of the corner, by using the KERS to maintain a load on the engine.

Yes i know that they will use MGU-H to control the boost limit. And also to spool the turbo to remove lag.

[wuzak]

I haven't looked at the aero/chassis regs for 2014. Is there any significant change, other than the low nose?

I was understanding that the drag would be lowered because, generally, the cars would have less power than currently. But it is looking less likely that the power will be much less, if at all, for the whole lap.

The top speeds would not change that much at Monza, I would guess. About the same max power, and probably similar drag characteristics. Somewhere like Spa could see increases in speeds - as they tend to use quite a bit of wing there.

WHo knows, maybe Eau Rouge becomes scary again?

[Holm86]

I haven't looked at the aero/chassis regs for 2014. Is there any significant change, other than the low nose?

I was understanding that the drag would be lowered because, generally, the cars would have less power than currently. But it is looking less likely that the power will be much less, if at all, for the whole lap.

The top speeds would not change that much at Monza, I would guess. About the same max power, and probably similar drag characteristics. Somewhere like Spa could see increases in speeds - as they tend to use quite a bit of wing there.

WHo knows, maybe Eau Rouge becomes scary again?

The idea of the lower drag was fuel efficiency only. Not to compensate for lower power.

[WhiteBlue]

The FiA is obviously determined not to deviate from the previously published fuel flow and fuel allocation figures although - to nobodies surprise - Ferrari is bitching. I find it highly amusing in the light of the concessions the federation had to make for Ferrari.

It appears the problem isn't the peak power but the energy budget of 100 kg/race. In order to achieve that figure the FiA have cut the drag, as Charlie Whiting told us and is prepared to see lap times going up by 2-3 s. Less drag and more peak power means we have higher strait line speeds and lower cornering speeds in high speed corners. Low speed corners will probably become slightly faster as the engine will deliver more torque more quickly.

[xpensive]

...
I think you need to elaborate a bit further. Do you deny that strait line speed will rise due to significant reduction of drag? All sources so far agree that drag will go down and peak power will rise.

Or do you consider the changes to the torque curve exaggerated?

This is my humble way of seeing things WB, all through my engineering glasses of course;

- Energy is Force times Distance.

- Power is Force times Distance over Time, meaning Speed times Force.

- Force in this case is basically Air-resistance, at least above 300 km/h.

- Air resistance for a car is Speed squared over two * Rho, times cross-section area and Cv.

All in all you end up with a cubic relation between speed and power.

Like if 100 Hp is good for 150 Km/h, it will take 800 Hp for the same car to hit 300 km/h.

To go from 300 to 330 km, with the same cross-section and Cv, will ask for 33% more power and I doubt we will see 1000 Hp.

[FW17]

Ferrari is right in saying there will be fuel saving in certain portion of the race

eg:

Monza race time is about 1' 20"

In 80% full throttle it would require at least 105 kgs for full throttle period and another 10 kgs for the part throttle period which is a total of 115 kgs, which will mean drivers will be in a fuel saving run for about 30% of the race.

[djos]

*facepalm*

I hate fuel economy races, seen a few in indycar and they suck!

[xpensive]

...
I think you need to elaborate a bit further. Do you deny that strait line speed will rise due to significant reduction of drag? All sources so far agree that drag will go down and peak power will rise.

Or do you consider the changes to the torque curve exaggerated?

This is my humble way of seeing things WB, all through my engineering glasses of course;

- Energy is Force times Distance.

- Power is Force times Distance over Time, meaning Speed times Force.

- Force in this case is basically Air-resistance, at least above 300 km/h.

- Air resistance for a car is Speed squared over two * Rho, times cross-section area and Cv.

All in all you end up with a cubic relation between speed and power.

Like if 100 Hp is good for 150 Km/h, it will take 800 Hp for the same car to hit 300 km/h.

To go from 300 to 330 km, with the same cross-section and Cv, will ask for 33% more power and I doubt we will see 1000 Hp.

Having said that, if 2014 cars has 10% less air resistance, we are good for 30 km/h increase in top-speed with the same power.

[Holm86]

There is already fuel saving in F1 today.

But i am also against the 100kg fuel limit. To me its completly unnecessary. The fuel flow limit should be fine.

Let the teams calculate how much fuel they need for each track. It's nok like they're gonna fuel the cars with 150kg of fuel if only 100kg is necessary to complete the race. That would give them a weight penalty.

[djos]

Yes there is fuel saving today but its really not overt at all because the teams can control how much fuel they run etc and work out for themselves what the "fastest" fuel load will be for each race.

[WhiteBlue]

The issue of the race fuel allocation is complex, no doubt about that. My take on this is that the FiA wants a formula that requires no negotiation per track. They have set an achievable target many years ago and now they insist that it will be met. If that means a slight compromise in the fuel management software for one or two races per season that appears to be no problem to me. After all the drivers will not even realize it. They will still be able to put the pedal to the metal. It is the teams responsibility to program the energy management in such a way that they stay inside the budget. Drivers may realize that their absolute horsepower may change for one or two circuits where fuel allocation is maxed out currently. But does it matter for the entertainment? I don't think so! Energy budget management will be a race engineering item like tyre management today or downforce setting today. It gets optimized per track like any other task.

[xpensive]

...
But i am also against the 100kg fuel limit. To me its completly unnecessary. The fuel flow limit should be fine.
...

Myself and WB have argued over this since count dracula was a teenager, why I agree with you but leave the rest to WB.

[ringo]

Looks like Ferrari is already in trouble with their new engine.

Next year, with an engine having somewhere between 600 and 650 horsepower and an additional 160 horsepower coming from the ERS, if you add the two it’s very similar to what you have today.

Is there still time for the Maranello squad to find that 900bhp everyone's talking about?

They are not in trouble, they are right in the ballpark. This is really the expected power levels of these engines. They wont be more powerful than today's engines thanks to fuel limits on 1 litre less of displacement.
900hp is ridiculous. The fuel flow limit wont allow it, and i don't think such an engine would last anywhere near 8 engines per season of today, much less the 5 of next year.

I'm expecting all engines to put out roughly the same horsepower. All teams will try their best to make maximum use of that 27.8 grams per second. All they can do is burn is efficiently without much heat loss, and then reduce parasitic loads and friction as best they can. I'd be surprised if one engine has a 50hp advantage.

[WhiteBlue]

I'd be surprised if one engine has a 50hp advantage.

I agree with that bit. It is basically a spec engine because that is what the teams want.

[xpensive]

...
I'm expecting all engines to put out roughly the same horsepower. All teams will try their best to make maximum use of that 27.8 grams per second. All they can do is burn is efficiently without much heat loss, and then reduce parasitic loads and friction as best they can. I'd be surprised if one engine has a 50hp advantage.

But this is the entire idea, "You've got 1278 kW to play with, let's see what you can do with it?"

For once in a lifetime myself and WB agree, though I'd given the manufacturers more freedom.