planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:09 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 584
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13277 ... mp-details

I'm glad they are planning on getting rid of the MGU-H as that seems to be the part of the PU that fails the most and clearly isn't up to the job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
Agreed, the MGU-H was probably a bit too soon. Only Mercedes and Ferrari could make it work well enough, and it took Ferrari quite some time.
A little dissapointing that there will still be only 1.6L, they could increase that to atleast 2.0. An increase in RPM is welcome though.
The sound they make now is one that I like, it's only the volume that is too low.

They state that they listen to the fans but, I'm sure most fans are asking for a return to the V10's, or (please no!) the V8's. Ugh, what a puny enginesound those V8's had when you were used to the V10's.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1664
Warheart01 wrote:
Agreed, the MGU-H was probably a bit too soon. Only Mercedes and Ferrari could make it work well enough, and it took Ferrari quite some time.
A little dissapointing that there will still be only 1.6L, they could increase that to atleast 2.0. An increase in RPM is welcome though.
The sound they make now is one that I like, it's only the volume that is too low.

They state that they listen to the fans but, I'm sure most fans are asking for a return to the V10's, or (please no!) the V8's. Ugh, what a puny enginesound those V8's had when you were used to the V10's.


They want to listen to the fans, but 2 things:

1. They need to balance emotional fans with what is realistic for the greater good of the sport
2. Fans often don't communicate what they want very well. When they say V10, they usually mean 'more noise'. They're delivering more noise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2237
Wonder if this will actually come to pass... so often F1 announces things and then later on changes it's mind. In fact sometimes it's hard to believe that F1 is actually a professional entity!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8716
This part sounds really interesting, could be the end of DRS if this works well -

"More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps give a driver controlled tactical element to racing"


I guess the battery will be capable of having maybe twice the charge it can usually deploy in 1 lap. Therefore a driver can do a lap without deploying at all and and then double drop then next lap in order to pass. Sounds interesting and less artificial than DRS. It would be especially interesting if the battery was able to hold say 3 laps of charge to all be deployed in one lap.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2880
A step in the right direction imo but why not 6k rpm more instead of just 3k?
I like the return of manual electrical power deployment.
Would have liked to see twin turbos since its seemingly impossible to see a v8 or v10 again.
Now will the teams agree to this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 267
"In order to try to simplify the internals of the power unit, the MGU-H will be removed, and several prescriptive design parameters will be introduced to "restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions".

It will be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences will apply to the cost cutting measures. Engineers love to find ways through "prescriptive design parameters". They move beyond all kinds of constraints as a matter of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5183
Location: Mumbai, India
Question now remains will this be good enough for new entrants such as Porsche to enter F1?

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3010
I'm disappointed to see the MGU-H go, as the scope for clever technical solutions as a result of it was huge.

Pleased to see a bigger MGU-K, and manual deployment. I'd also like to see the limits on recharging and deployment scrapped, this is a legacy of when battery technology was in its infancy.

Personally, I feel that the rule makers are missing something that would solve a lot of F1's problems.

1. Engine manufacturers have to supply their teams under the same method that Pirelli do, so they can't favour their factory team.

This would mean, when a new design comes along, they can't release it until they have enough to give each of their customers one version of it. These engines would be batch numbered and distributed on a lottery system, so each team would get 1 instance of the new engine, it would be a random engine.

It would also stop all this "Sauber and Haas running year old Ferrari engines" - no Ferrari and Mercedes have to supply teams with equal engines.

2. Engine Manufacturers sell the engines at a cost determined by the FIA (eg $2 million each) and if they want to pump in lots of R&D to make theirs the best, then they absorb that cost.

3. The engine manufacturers with the two lowest number of customer teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for an engine supply, although if a team wants to switch suppliers they won't be counted in their present manufacturers tally when applying.

Under this situation, with Merc, Ferrari and Renault all supplying 3 teams, and Honda 1, this means that all the engine manufacturers could be forced to a fourth team - although if Red Bull were to switch from Renault, Renault would only count as supplying 2, so they could only forcibly choose between Renault or Honda (as it would then be 3,3,2,1) - McLaren ditching Honda would have no effect, as it would be 3,3,3,0.

If Merc wanted to stop McLaren forcing them, then they could voluntarily supply a fourth team before being approached, making it 4,3,2,1 - and then McLaren could only choose between the 2 and 1 options.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but it's to ensure that teams have a choice of engine supplier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6720
Anyone with a good understanding have any idea how high the engines will actually rev?

I know the limit will be 18K but the current limit is 15 and the engines only actually rev to about 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2159
Location: England
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Anyone with a good understanding have any idea how high the engines will actually rev?

I know the limit will be 18K but the current limit is 15 and the engines only actually rev to about 12.


Right now they are strangled by the fuel flow rate, i've read elsewhere that they are debating ramping that right up which will also mean the engines can rev higher without it being pointless. I imagine that will also mean moving the power band up, something that will have an impact on throttle control, and anything that makes it harder for the driver is a good thing in my book.

I'm a bit down on the MGU-H going for a walk, because technologically its a fantastic bit of kit and the amount they managed to increase the thermal efficiency with it was very, very impressive. It directly flew in the face of engine noise though, so I can understand why it's gone in that respect.

Cracking down on the fancy fuels is going to get interesting too.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3010
Flash2k11 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Anyone with a good understanding have any idea how high the engines will actually rev?

I know the limit will be 18K but the current limit is 15 and the engines only actually rev to about 12.


Right now they are strangled by the fuel flow rate, i've read elsewhere that they are debating ramping that right up which will also mean the engines can rev higher without it being pointless.

I have seen journalists reporting this but it is either a result of them not understanding the technology and the rules or them dumbing it down.

They are not hampered by the fuel flow limits, they do rev higher because the high revs are less powerful. Engines lose power the higher they go, and with a turbo - particularly a MGU powered one - they can combust the same level of fuel at a lower engine speed.

The fuel flow rate has absolutely nothing to do with it.
In fact, the fuel flow rate regs mean they don't rev lower because below 10,500 they have to operate an even lower fuel flow. If they scrapped all rules relating to fuel flow they'd be revving at around 8,000 rpm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2159
Location: England
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Anyone with a good understanding have any idea how high the engines will actually rev?

I know the limit will be 18K but the current limit is 15 and the engines only actually rev to about 12.


Right now they are strangled by the fuel flow rate, i've read elsewhere that they are debating ramping that right up which will also mean the engines can rev higher without it being pointless.

I have seen journalists reporting this but it is either a result of them not understanding the technology and the rules or them dumbing it down.

They are not hampered by the fuel flow limits, they do rev higher because the high revs are less powerful. Engines lose power the higher they go, and with a turbo - particularly a MGU powered one - they can combust the same level of fuel at a lower engine speed.

The fuel flow rate has absolutely nothing to do with it.
In fact, the fuel flow rate regs mean they don't rev lower because below 10,500 they have to operate an even lower fuel flow. If they scrapped all rules relating to fuel flow they'd be revving at around 8,000 rpm.


The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:40 am
Posts: 129
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

It would also stop all this "Sauber and Haas running year old Ferrari engines" - no Ferrari and Mercedes have to supply teams with equal engines.


Wasn't there a little more to this? I though some of the issues were the new engines not fitting into the bodywork. Who is to say a smaller team doesn't choose to run an older engine version to save costs. It might not be the manufacture refusing to supply current technology. Just looking at it from a different perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2159
Location: England
Vettel Fan wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

It would also stop all this "Sauber and Haas running year old Ferrari engines" - no Ferrari and Mercedes have to supply teams with equal engines.


Wasn't there a little more to this? I though some of the issues were the new engines not fitting into the bodywork. Who is to say a smaller team doesn't choose to run an older engine version to save costs. It might not be the manufacture refusing to supply current technology. Just looking at it from a different perspective.


Was a cooling issue.... to a point. Sauber knew they could cool the year old engine with parts(and pretty much car) they already had (doing it on the cheap) so went down that road, effectively writing the year off save a good result via unreliability (something that isn't beyond reason tbh). It was a Sauber led choice dictated by funding.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3010
Flash2k11 wrote:

The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

Currently the rules say you get maximum fuel flow rate at 10,500rpm - 15,000rpm.

What they probably will do is increase the max fuel rate to 25% higher, but make that only available from 15,000rpm.

It's a huge joke, it will make the engines less powerful than they could be if it was allowed from 10,500rpm, and continue to perpetuate the myth that the fuel flow rate was responsible for lower engine rpms.

People don't seem to understand that if there were no regulations limiting engine design we'd have engines running much slower than right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2159
Location: England
I guess there is something in that... low revving CVT cars whooshing round a track making the same noise an annoying fridge would make would be very underwhelming.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4506
Aliens post covers my thoughts almost to a tee. Nothing more to add.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Seems a bit halfarsed again. For instance, now teams do not hit the rev limit as there is not enough fuel flow to produce more power for more RPM. They are not going to rev 4 or 5 k rpm higher just to produce noise and lose fuel economy. Or will they allow more fuel and flow?

Save up power nad allow the driver to use it, I like, as long as it is the driver who manes the judgement call.

Removal of the H? Does this mean no electric drive on the turbo? The design spec and allowed size of the turbo is going to be critical here.

STILL the limit of a V6? why? this cannot be cost saving as a l3 would be far cheaper lighter and more simple, and more likely to get independents, or other manufacturers involved using a road car block/crank/head (but highly modified of course).

I suspect there will be quite a bit of fiddling to do next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1231
The irony is they'll probably be dropping the MGU-H about the time that manufacturers are starting to perfect it.

I kinda wish they could just dub some noise onto huge track side speakers and the TV coverage to appease people, rather than actually hobble the engines (EDIT: Power Units :) ) to fit some superficial idea of what race cars should sound like. But that's just me :-P

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4272
Driver controlled energy deployment as a replacement for DRS is something that I would support. I certainly have an open mind to that idea and if it really becomes too hard to overtake then we can go back to the gimmick but I think there should be a goal of ditching DRS if possible.

With regards to the revs increasing; sounds great and all but are we coming up with a consistent concept here or are we, once again, doing something disjointed and halfassed? I'm actually okay with them doubling down on this more advanced technology if they want to but make sure you do so with no reservations and with a wholehearted embrace of the technology (minus the artificial limits). The engines are amazing in terms of performance already and they are being hamstrung by artificial limits. If, on the other hand, they choose to embrace engines that are not on the cutting edge (and this is the important part) I hope they do that wholeheartedly as well. If they, in any way, want to use obsolete engine tech, they should go full force to V10s or V12s and just let go of all the pretense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2538
Location: UK
I'm a little disappointed that the MGU-H is going but if they're going to try to simplify the engines and drop the costs then it's the most sensible change to make as it's probably the element that adds the least performance for the cost and has the least applicability to road cars.

Upping the revs just to make more noise when there's no performance advantage to be gained from doing so is nearly as artificial as blasting engine noises out of speakers if you ask me. I'm disappointed that they're taking that route. I wonder if the people lauding that move are the same ones who thought that mandating titanium skid blocks to generate sparks to improve the spectacle was a silly artificial idea, because in my mind it's essentially the same thing.

Overall... I'd rather they kept them as they are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Apparently this is a proposal put forward without consultation with the engine manufacturers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
As long as they have fuel restrictions - they have bovine droppings for a plan!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Flash2k11 wrote:
I guess there is something in that... low revving CVT cars whooshing round a track making the same noise an annoying fridge would make would be very underwhelming.


You have that the wrong way around. CVT revs high straight from the off. They would make more noise.

Small scooters and mopeds are usually CVT, if you know the way they rev. The engine goes to high revs and stays there and the gearing adjusts to fit the road speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 829
Location: Melbourne Australia
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:

The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

Currently the rules say you get maximum fuel flow rate at 10,500rpm - 15,000rpm.

What they probably will do is increase the max fuel rate to 25% higher, but make that only available from 15,000rpm.

It's a huge joke, it will make the engines less powerful than they could be if it was allowed from 10,500rpm, and continue to perpetuate the myth that the fuel flow rate was responsible for lower engine rpms.

People don't seem to understand that if there were no regulations limiting engine design we'd have engines running much slower than right now.


I can’t remember the previous regs but why did the V8s rev to 18,000 rpm when less would have been better?

I remember reading in 2014 about a comparison between Kmag and Button at McLaren. Kmag changed gears earlier vs Button used to revving out the engine from V8 days. The 160hp electric engine with flat torque curve was so good that the lap difference between the 2 drivers was negligible.
So the extra power gained by revving out the combustion engine was negated by having the electric engine delivering at any rev.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
Let's do away with geared transmissions. ICE hooked direct to generator to supply all electrical power to electrical motors on each wheel - regenerative braking from each wheel's electric motor to supply all braking.

ICE has two positions - idle or WOT

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 561
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:

The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

Currently the rules say you get maximum fuel flow rate at 10,500rpm - 15,000rpm.

What they probably will do is increase the max fuel rate to 25% higher, but make that only available from 15,000rpm.

It's a huge joke, it will make the engines less powerful than they could be if it was allowed from 10,500rpm, and continue to perpetuate the myth that the fuel flow rate was responsible for lower engine rpms.

People don't seem to understand that if there were no regulations limiting engine design we'd have engines running much slower than right now.


Can you explain your reasoning behind this? Not the case as far as I'm aware.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 445
I would like for f1 to keep the current engine design and keep developing the technology as it is the "pinnacle" of motor sports. But i do understand that removing the most complicated system component will lower cost for teams.

Lets not forget f1 has already tried a manual kers system that was originally introduced in 2009 but it wasnt mandatory. It was reintroduced in 2011 with all but 3 teams using it. It was then ditched again.

Heres a quick over view as to how kers works

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kinetic_Energy_Recovery_System.gif

Kers was a great way to counter drs when a trailing car was attempting to over take using both kers & drs. Drs might be better recieved if it wasnt limited use and drivers could deploy it at there discretion similar to the kers system.

What get me is how fans see drs seen as a gimmick overtake system. kers adds 120-160bhp at the touch of a button for a certain amount of time to allow for over taking and is seen as "tactical racing" but pushing another to remove drag to increase straight line speed is seen as a "cheap ploy"?

Both devices give an artificial advantage that wouldn't be there without the system in place.

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4272
Mayhem wrote:
I would like for f1 to keep the current engine design and keep developing the technology as it is the "pinnacle" of motor sports. But i do understand that removing the most complicated system component will lower cost for teams.

Lets not forget f1 has already tried a manual kers system that was originally introduced in 2009 but it wasnt mandatory. It was reintroduced in 2011 with all but 3 teams using it. It was then ditched again.

Heres a quick over view as to how kers works

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kinetic_Energy_Recovery_System.gif

Kers was a great way to counter drs when a trailing car was attempting to over take using both kers & drs. Drs might be better recieved if it wasnt limited use and drivers could deploy it at there discretion similar to the kers system.

What get me is how fans see drs seen as a gimmick overtake system. kers adds 120-160bhp at the touch of a button for a certain amount of time to allow for over taking and is seen as "tactical racing" but pushing another to remove drag to increase straight line speed is seen as a "cheap ploy"?

Both devices give an artificial advantage that wouldn't be there without the system in place.

The difference is that DRS leaves the defending driver totally helpless. There's nothing you can do about it. With KERS it actually is just another tool that the drivers have to manage throughout the race. Use it up on the front straight and the car behind can get you on the back straight. DRS just gives the trailing car an advantage that can't be managed or countered in any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2880
Mayhem wrote:
I would like for f1 to keep the current engine design and keep developing the technology as it is the "pinnacle" of motor sports. But i do understand that removing the most complicated system component will lower cost for teams.

Lets not forget f1 has already tried a manual kers system that was originally introduced in 2009 but it wasnt mandatory. It was reintroduced in 2011 with all but 3 teams using it. It was then ditched again.

Heres a quick over view as to how kers works

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kinetic_Energy_Recovery_System.gif

Kers was a great way to counter drs when a trailing car was attempting to over take using both kers & drs. Drs might be better recieved if it wasnt limited use and drivers could deploy it at there discretion similar to the kers system.

What get me is how fans see drs seen as a gimmick overtake system. kers adds 120-160bhp at the touch of a button for a certain amount of time to allow for over taking and is seen as "tactical racing" but pushing another to remove drag to increase straight line speed is seen as a "cheap ploy"?

Both devices give an artificial advantage that wouldn't be there without the system in place.


Kers had a strategic element to it. There is no real strategy involved in using DRS because the defending car cannot use it unless another car is in front of it and it can only be used at certain predetermined sections of the track.

And Kers was never 120-160hp. It was 80hp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 515
jono794 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:

The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

Currently the rules say you get maximum fuel flow rate at 10,500rpm - 15,000rpm.

What they probably will do is increase the max fuel rate to 25% higher, but make that only available from 15,000rpm.

It's a huge joke, it will make the engines less powerful than they could be if it was allowed from 10,500rpm, and continue to perpetuate the myth that the fuel flow rate was responsible for lower engine rpms.

People don't seem to understand that if there were no regulations limiting engine design we'd have engines running much slower than right now.


Can you explain your reasoning behind this? Not the case as far as I'm aware.


Thanks! I need clarification also! I had some trouble understanding his previous post btw..

As far as I understand, and I am no engine guru here. Fuel rate does not limit RPM, A/F Ratio might, so if at 12K RPM you are maxing out your fuel flow for a given CFM's (Boost), then one would think that the only way to get above that 12K RPM ceiling, is to reduce the amount of boost to keep control of the A/F ratio and temperatures in case you start leaning out. The engine will still produce power, but it will produce less. Engineers might think that it is not worth the risk to push for more RPM's when the advantage given by running more RPM's is negated by a loss of power as a result of boost reduction due to fuel starvation. Introduce fancy fuels and oils here to help a bit!

If you look at the HP/Tq formula HP=RPM*T/5252, a engine running at 12,000RPM producing 400Tq will give you about 900Hp, if Tq remains the same, usually peak Tq occurs at peak engine V.E. (Volumetric Efficiency), the same engine running at 15000RPM producing 350Tq will give about 1000Hp. So with an increase of 3000K RPM our make believe engine lost 50Tq but gained 100Hp. F1 engines are designed for good VE at high RPMs, so your Tq curve will be somewhat flat, in which case your main driver of power is RPM, more RPM = More Power for more time = faster lap times. Turbos help in keeping that Tq curve flat. So by allowing more fuel, you increase the RPM range where you can still produce power, if more fuel will allow the engine to stay flat on the Tq curve at 15000 RPM and still produce 400Tq we are in the range of 1142Hp!!!! How can that be bad for the sport???

If what you say is true, that freedom of design will takes us to lower RPM's, then the only way to produce power will be by producing a lot of Tq down low in your RPM range, and that will be unsustainable by current F1 engine design and it will mean more weight, you will have to engineer an engine that will have is peak VE down low, with a long stroke to help turn your crank shaft, long stroke means high piston speeds which limits peak RPM, basically we are talking about Chevrolet LS1 engine philosophy. You will have to run a very low final gear or a transmission with 15 gears to keep the engine on the sweet spot.

Then new engine proposed for 2021 will loose the MGUK, in my opinion this is the way to go, again I might be completely wrong or missing something but you will have to better explain your reasoning because I am lost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1555
Location: Miami, Florida
UnlikeUday wrote:
Question now remains will this be good enough for new entrants such as Porsche to enter F1?

Bingo and most of the proposed changes are just to add specific set of regs to the PU just as they do with the Chassis which just makes things more expensive, thereby likely costing the teams the same amount of money on trying to extract the maximum possible performance, exploiting loopholes and oversights by the FIA that is projected to be saved by implementing set limits to everything.

Personally most fans who want V10's tend to know why that is what they want, myself included. And while the current tech is pretty advanced compared to the V10's of that era, a V10 today would likely be technological marvels for today's times, offering staggeringly increased fuel efficiency compared to the last time the configuration was run in the sport, and they would likely be matching the current PU's more closely than most people think.

It's just like EVERYTHING in F1, although they've implement stricter rules over the last 4 or more generations of cars, engineers have been able to consistently find their way around those strict guidelines to develop cars that continued to get faster and faster. The same would be true if the decision was made to return to V10's.

And for anyone who thinks the V8's sounded puny, no way. Either you don't have surround sound, or the one you have really sucks, or you've never heard them live. You can literally FEEL them through your bones which is something that automatically denounces the opinion of them sounding puny or poor in any capacity. That will never be true no matter how much that statement is repeated. They might not match the v10's & 12's, but that's the same as saying those don't sound like General Electric F404 turbofan engines. They're never going to but it doesn't mean the V10's sound lesser.

F1 V8 Sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTTMxtv2PY

I don't hear anything puny or lacking and I listened intently to see if I notice any one of them sounding less than awesome.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1749
Pretty disappointed they're getting rid of the MGU-H. Seems pushing tech comes second to 'DA NOIZE!!!!11!'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:52 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
GingerFurball wrote:
Pretty disappointed they're getting rid of the MGU-H. Seems pushing tech comes second to 'DA NOIZE!!!!11!'

I think that's a bit simplistic. They're getting rid of the MGU-H for cost and complexity reasons, not because they are anti-tech. At the same time, they are trying to address the noise issue that many have been very vocal about, which is completely unrelated. It's not a binary choice between tech or noise.

I'm ambivalent about the noise. I do prefer the old, but it's not a game changer for me. But there's no denying it has caused a huge storm and I think it's not cause for complaint that they appear to be trying to address fan concerns where they can, in a manner that has no immediately obvious detrimental side effects (that I can see, anyway)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2237
Vettel Fan wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

It would also stop all this "Sauber and Haas running year old Ferrari engines" - no Ferrari and Mercedes have to supply teams with equal engines.


Wasn't there a little more to this? I though some of the issues were the new engines not fitting into the bodywork. Who is to say a smaller team doesn't choose to run an older engine version to save costs. It might not be the manufacture refusing to supply current technology. Just looking at it from a different perspective.


Should a team running in top flight be choosing to save money by running an uncompetitive engine? What sort of message does that send. I understand it, but the FIA should legislate against it (and ensure parity of engine supply between teams).

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 561
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Zoue wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Pretty disappointed they're getting rid of the MGU-H. Seems pushing tech comes second to 'DA NOIZE!!!!11!'

I think that's a bit simplistic. They're getting rid of the MGU-H for cost and complexity reasons, not because they are anti-tech. At the same time, they are trying to address the noise issue that many have been very vocal about, which is completely unrelated. It's not a binary choice between tech or noise.

I'm ambivalent about the noise. I do prefer the old, but it's not a game changer for me. But there's no denying it has caused a huge storm and I think it's not cause for complaint that they appear to be trying to address fan concerns where they can, in a manner that has no immediately obvious detrimental side effects (that I can see, anyway)

I suspect I'm in the minority but I'm content with the fact that this is just what F1 sounds like now. It will change again as it has changed many times before, and hopefully it falls within your personal preference at some point. Having said that it would be nice to have microphones which pick up the unique sound of each PU. In person there are subtle but noticeable differences, and getting that variety through on TV may help bring people around.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 561
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
ALESI wrote:
Vettel Fan wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

It would also stop all this "Sauber and Haas running year old Ferrari engines" - no Ferrari and Mercedes have to supply teams with equal engines.


Wasn't there a little more to this? I though some of the issues were the new engines not fitting into the bodywork. Who is to say a smaller team doesn't choose to run an older engine version to save costs. It might not be the manufacture refusing to supply current technology. Just looking at it from a different perspective.


Should a team running in top flight be choosing to save money by running an uncompetitive engine? What sort of message does that send. I understand it, but the FIA should legislate against it (and ensure parity of engine supply between teams).

Sauber claimed that in 2016 when they needed to sign off certain elements of their design, the dimensions of the 2017 PU were not known. Lack of funds causes long lead times, so forcing an underfunded team to use an up to date PU can cause problems even if its cost is capped.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
F1 MERCENARY wrote:


And for anyone who thinks the V8's sounded puny, no way. Either you don't have surround sound, or the one you have really sucks, or you've never heard them live. You can literally FEEL them through your bones which is something that automatically denounces the opinion of them sounding puny or poor in any capacity. That will never be true no matter how much that statement is repeated. They might not match the v10's & 12's, but that's the same as saying those don't sound like General Electric F404 turbofan engines. They're never going to but it doesn't mean the V10's sound lesser.

F1 V8 Sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTTMxtv2PY

I don't hear anything puny or lacking and I listened intently to see if I notice any one of them sounding less than awesome.


You are 100% spot on. The V-8 engines sounded glorious in person. Ear shattering noise, that simply was amazing to hear live. No, they didnt sound as good as the previous eras, but they were very very similar. That kind of soul stirring noise is dearly missed in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
jono794 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Pretty disappointed they're getting rid of the MGU-H. Seems pushing tech comes second to 'DA NOIZE!!!!11!'

I think that's a bit simplistic. They're getting rid of the MGU-H for cost and complexity reasons, not because they are anti-tech. At the same time, they are trying to address the noise issue that many have been very vocal about, which is completely unrelated. It's not a binary choice between tech or noise.

I'm ambivalent about the noise. I do prefer the old, but it's not a game changer for me. But there's no denying it has caused a huge storm and I think it's not cause for complaint that they appear to be trying to address fan concerns where they can, in a manner that has no immediately obvious detrimental side effects (that I can see, anyway)

I suspect I'm in the minority but I'm content with the fact that this is just what F1 sounds like now. It will change again as it has changed many times before, and hopefully it falls within your personal preference at some point. Having said that it would be nice to have microphones which pick up the unique sound of each PU. In person there are subtle but noticeable differences, and getting that variety through on TV may help bring people around.


TV is never going to be able to transmit the subtleties of engine noise. It couldnt do that back in the day when the engines were loud as hell and they wont be able to do that today.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Zoue and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group