planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:57 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it may well be the opposite.

I'd hazard a guess that most uninformed fans don't care what powers the cars. If they did care, they'd investigate and become informed! They are more likely to just want to watch the fastest cars being driven by the best drivers (for the purposes of uninformed motivation, let's please not get hung up on which drivers are "best"), but the actual tech being used will likely not make that much difference. So an uninformed fan will likely just want the fastest PU around, and that would most likely end up being a hybrid anyway

It's informed fans who, almost by definition, care about the nuts and bolts of F1. And then we move beyond simply performance and start to assess the impact in other areas, be it cost, noise, technical complexity etc. And since it's clear from this poll and other discussions that there's no overwhelming consensus one way or the other, it's hard to say that an informed fan would be more likely to choose the hybrids than an uninformed one

If that's true it would only further support my argument ;)

But, what I meant in that context by informed fans, where the most engaged of the engaged group.
Obviously, most of the really casual fans won't really care. But of the 'informed fans' some are more informed than others. Some will just read the headlines, but other fans will dig deeper.

Those that dig deeper will be even more divided,depending on their ideology - so I'm not saying that not liking the hybrids is an indication of a more informed fan. They will just be more aware of how the technology works, why there is less noise, the complex clever technology of the MGU-H and also know that the journalists reporting that the fuel flow is responsible for the lower RPMs is just plain BS.

Again, I'm not saying that knowing that will make them like it, for some it will turn them away even more - but knowing the truth and details of how the system work will make you more inclined to like it,as if you just read the headlines and read "expensive, quiet, Mercedes dominated engines" - it's difficult to really turn that into a positive outlook.

The situation is complicated and nuanced (and far more nuanced than the power / noise / cost split I put in the poll) but those are the three main factors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
kleefton wrote:
pokerman wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?


He is moaning about having to develop two engines a the same time. But surely that would always be the case since the regulations are changing? Wolff just wants an evolution of the current power units I guess, he does not want to see the MGU-H go. What a crybaby.

I'm not sure any of the engine manufacturers want to see it go when the goal is to develop engines with cutting edge technology?



There are outsiders well in favor of these proposed regulations. https://www.gpguide.com/News.aspx?artic ... BydWxlcw==

The current F1 engine manufacturers are just looking after their own interests. It probably cost them a ton of resources to develop the MGU-H already, so they would like to get more bang for their buck. In the case of Mercedes, their recovery system is probably key to their success, so of course they do not want to lose any part of it. It has little to do with being cutting edge. Again, what irks me is that Toto and company tell us that they want to keep the fans in mind and care about the sport but it's baloney. The only thing they care about is themselves and themselves only.

The independent engine manufacturers don't even have the resources to build the engines being proposed without backing from an outside source maybe if they retrograde down to F2 type engines then yes all and sundry could then take part?

Independent engine manufacturers will always be happy to build spec engines or engines paid for by someone else, they actually don't put their own money in.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 515
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
So in conclusion, no it will not make sense to slow RPM down just to prevent frictional loses. You will get to the law of diminishing returns eventually but I think even a 18,000 RPM engine is still far from it.

One extreme case is a Top Fuel Dragster, it takes about 300-400hp just to turn the Supercharger, but without it, the engine will not be able to make the close to 8000 Hp it makes. Friction loses due to RPM are there, but the benefits of running high RPM's are stronger, just like the loses on the Top Fuel dragsters Superchargers are there, but the benefits it gives are just greater.

Firstly I did say that it was a simplification as clearly on an F1 forum post it's impossible to scratch the surface of the complexity. While I focused on frictional loses, that's because it's the simplest area to explain. These power loses that increase with engine speed occur across the system, and a general consequence of the second law of thermodynamics means the greater the energy,the greater the proportion of wasted energy.

So if you have an engine moving at 10,000rpm its power losses will be much higher than double the power losses of 5,000rpm.

A supercharger is very different to a turbo. While they are both forced induction, a supercharger is linear with the engine speed.

A Turbo is more like a pressure cooker, hence why they have poor performance low down the rev range and suddenly explode.

However, the F1 engines are not really turbocharged either. And that's why the normal rules do not apply. While an ordinary turbo engine does need to be producing exhaust pressure to add pressure to the compressor, the MGU-H means this is no longer the case.

Turbos have always had to be balanced in the past between generating a small amount of pressure across a wide rev range,or a lot of pressure further up the rev range. It also usually means that as you get to the top of the rev range the exhaust pressure is substantially more than you can exploit.

The MGU-H has no limits on electrical harvesting or deployment.

This means all of that unused exhaust energy that was previously wasted on a regular turbocharger gets stored in the battery pack, and then - when the engine is not producing enough exhaust pressure to power the compressor - the stored battery energy is used to add torque to the MGU-H and supply the air pressure.

This means that balance point from before is no longer an issue. It means that we can get much closer to a perfect score under the second law of thermodynamics than before.

There will exist some point in the rev range where the exhaust pressure perfectly delivers the pressure needed for optimal power. Below that the engine is under delivering power, and a point below that the engine is not even delivering enough pressure to power the turbo. Above the optimal point,the engine is delivering too much pressure.

The MGU-H scoops up all that extra energy and saves it for later, something that is not possible with a regular turbo and certainly not with a supercharger. And that's why calling these engines 'turbos' is somewhat misleading. The battery pack fundamentally changes the operation, and it is why these new engines are the most thermally efficient internal combustion engines ever manufactured (for practical purposes).


Lets provide some counter points, I will try to explain the way I see it the best I can

Firs you say "Power losses occur across the system", which system? Which Frictional losses are you considering? We have already established that fuel efficiency, as in capacity to extract maximum power is one of the benefits of the combustion and fuel advancements in technology, is our main concern. Now for the sake of the argument lets say that it is a set amount, meaning we are at peak fuel combustion efficiency across our RPM range (and I don't think that is possible), and our combustion losses are accounted for, this regardless of engine design or RPM, we know how much energy we can extract from our fuel for each combustion event. Now we have to look at where our engine has friction, measure that loss and added to the "system". Don't forget we need to also add power required to move camshafts (when equipped) and oil pump, we will forget about ancillaries such as water pump, alternators etc etc. Your main friction point is piston to cylinder contact and oil pump drive losses to keep oil pressure, these engines do not use ball bearings, the use sleeve bearings so oil film prevents metal to metal contact so friction is negated, other than piston to cylinder friction, I fail to see from where are you getting your huge friction losses due to RPM other than inertia, and you can reduce inertial losses by reducing weight, I am not saying they are not there, I am questioning the magnitude. That is where the analogy I make comes from, we can discuss differences about Turbo to Superchargers later, it was just me trying to make a point as to "what do I lose against what do I get in return". Again your mechanical loses will be there, but you can not have two identical engines with different power curves, where one produces 500hp at 10KRPM and the other 500Hp at 15KRPM and say "See the one at 10KRPM is more efficient because of reduced friction loses" It does not work that way!! I can, with certainty say, that the one running at 10KRPM will either have a longer stroke with a reduced bore, or running a lot more boost, and both variants require beefing up the engine with a possible increase in weight.

Your point on the Turbo is also in my view inaccurate, Turbos have a set lift window they can operate that is dictated by its design, this window moves in response to intake pressure vs outlet pressure, if you increase intake pressure you can increase outlet pressure, you can not increase outlet when inlet stays the same or you might surge the compressor, the same happens if you lower your intake while trying to maintain outlet. Turbos don't suddenly explode into boost, a Turbo that behaves like that is usually selected when you want big HP (street guys usually make a bad Turbo selection, too big for application), Turbo Diesels produce huge torque numbers and you hardly notice the Turbo in them, my point is that Turbo behavior is a result of selection and operating range desired, you can select a Turbo to be efficient down low, you can extend the range of the turbo by using Variable Geometry Diffusers/intake vanes (Porsche used these) or make them multi stage. This limit of Turbo range its the reason of sequential turbos is the 90's with Supras and RX7. Today, engines in Civics are producing insane amount of boost at low RPM range. Where you produce boost is function of impeller/turbine design not all exhaust flow volume. They are producing boost levels that require a secondary mechanical fuel pump to increase fuel pressure to a point where they can maximize combustion.

If you look at the turbo on an 1.6L F1 engine, the thing is massive and is single stage, it is selected for the upper RPM range, there is no way in hell that thing is producing boost at low RPM range. And here is where it gets complicated, there is a rule out there in tuning where it says that engines that produce torque naturally don't need to spool a Turbo quick, so you can get by with a big turbo, you can take some turbo lag because the engine has the ability to get itself out or the low range, when the engine starts gasping for air you want your turbo to be boosting good. In F1 you can use the MGU-K to wake up the engine from a low RPM corner taking some turbo lag by providing electric torque to the wheels, while using the MGU-H to help your impeller get in its range where it starts producing some usable boost, as the RAM air effects on the turbo inlet increases as speed increases intake pressure, the impeller can produce more boost by itself without assistance from the MGU-H until you hit your fuel limit, so you ARE using fuel as a REV limiter, where you start leaning out and the waste gate opens. You are not using the MGU-H to produce power in itself as you state, you use it to get the impeller to its working range quicker where IT can help the ICU make power. There is nothing misleading about calling these engine Turbocharged, they are TURBO engines, its just that because you are using a motor to drive the impeller to its efficiency range, you can get away with using a big impeller with a Turbine that minimizes back pressure. If you take the MGU-H out, you can replace its effect by simply allowing more power from the MGU-K to power the engine for more time until that big Turbo starts being meaningful, more so now that you are gaining a bit more RPMs which will require a bigger Turbo that will need to be spooled up, and you are getting more RPM as a result of more Fuel flow, again Fuel is being used as a RPM limiter.

I like the direction F1 is taking with this, not because of sound, but because it will deliver reduced cost, more performance from a simpler package. I cant care less about sound, I am not a Neanderthal that requires sonic booms to travel thru my body to appreciate what these machines piloted by a human are doing.

In terms of power production there is no replacement for RPMs. if you want big power from low RPM get ready to get some weight back into the system, and weight adds a lot of penalties to performance. Low displacement engines require RPM to produce meaningful power, no way around it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Inappropriate post removed.

P-F1 Mod


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
PRFAN wrote:
You are not using the MGU-H to produce power in itself as you state, you use it to get the impeller to its working range quicker where IT can help the ICU make power. There is nothing misleading about calling these engine Turbocharged, they are TURBO engines, its just that because you are using a motor to drive the impeller to its efficiency range, you can get away with using a big impeller with a Turbine that minimizes back pressure. If you take the MGU-H out, you can replace its effect by simply allowing more power from the MGU-K to power the engine for more time until that big Turbo starts being meaningful, more so now that you are gaining a bit more RPMs which will require a bigger Turbo that will need to be spooled up, and you are getting more RPM as a result of more Fuel flow, again Fuel is being used as a RPM limiter.

I like the direction F1 is taking with this, not because of sound, but because it will deliver reduced cost, more performance from a simpler package. I cant care less about sound, I am not a Neanderthal that requires sonic booms to travel thru my body to appreciate what these machines piloted by a human are doing.

In terms of power production there is no replacement for RPMs. if you want big power from low RPM get ready to get some weight back into the system, and weight adds a lot of penalties to performance. Low displacement engines require RPM to produce meaningful power, no way around it.

I'll be honest and admit there could very well be parts I have not considered, and without talking to an engineer who has been involved with one of the F1 engines then it's going to be difficult to really confirm or deny it.

However I do stand by what I said when I said these are not turbo engines as we know turbo engines from the past, and that's because the MGU-H does fundamentally change the operation of the engine.

A key point to know is the power of the MGU on the MGU-H - what level of magnitude is to the MGU-K. And what level of power is required to compress the engine up to 10,000rpm.

I think that we are in agreement that, providing you can supply enough air that lower rpms will generate more power for the same amount of fuel? Because if we disagree on that point then we're fundamentally disagreeing altogether.

The area of contention I see, is whether the design of the hybrid engine can supply enough air at lower rpms,or whether the power losses in turbo system attempting to do so mean it will never be possible to achieve that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.



Here is a thought. The removal of the H reduces the weight considerably. The minimum weight went up to compensate for this, can they now not reduce the weight by 50 or even 100 lbs? I would love to see a return to the smaller more agile cars.
It is probably more likely they will allow another 50lb for the Halo though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
moby wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.



Here is a thought. The removal of the H reduces the weight considerably. The minimum weight went up to compensate for this, can they now not reduce the weight by 50 or even 100 lbs? I would love to see a return to the smaller more agile cars.
It is probably more likely they will allow another 50lb for the Halo though.

That's not the case. The weight went up because they increased the size of the energy storage from the V8s as the KERS was double the power and they wanted twice as long for deployment so they need 4 times the energy storage and batteries are really really heavy. Guess what, they are significantly increasing the KERS and batteries for the new formula. The MGU-H didn't need to store its energy for long before deploying it so didn't actually require that much energy storage. The KERS on the other hand - that requires a lot.

If they are doubling KERS then the new engines will weigh more, in fact, if they want to allow drivers to charge KERS over a period of laps and then get multiple laps usage at once, they're going to need to more than double the energy storage.

The MGU-H is a turbo charger with an electric motor attached. It's not a cubic metre of depleted uranium.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
moby wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.



Here is a thought. The removal of the H reduces the weight considerably. The minimum weight went up to compensate for this, can they now not reduce the weight by 50 or even 100 lbs? I would love to see a return to the smaller more agile cars.
It is probably more likely they will allow another 50lb for the Halo though.

That's not the case. The weight went up because they increased the size of the energy storage from the V8s as the KERS was double the power and they wanted twice as long for deployment so they need 4 times the energy storage and batteries are really really heavy. Guess what, they are significantly increasing the KERS and batteries for the new formula. The MGU-H didn't need to store its energy for long before deploying it so didn't actually require that much energy storage. The KERS on the other hand - that requires a lot.

If they are doubling KERS then the new engines will weigh more, in fact, if they want to allow drivers to charge KERS over a period of laps and then get multiple laps usage at once, they're going to need to more than double the energy storage.

The MGU-H is a turbo charger with an electric motor attached. It's not a cubic metre of depleted uranium.

Also the MGU-H only weighs 10Kg, this will be offset by having to beef up the engines so they can rev 3000rpm higher, also the cars will have to start the race with about 40Kg of more fuel due to the engine being that much more inefficient.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
Yeah but noise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Yeh, feel a right pilloc now as it is obviously so stupid. Don't know where my head was when I posted that :uhoh: I blame the beer :lol:

Right up there with one of the stupidest things I have posted, and I have plenty to chose from


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
moby wrote:
Yeh, feel a right pilloc now as it is obviously so stupid. Don't know where my head was when I posted that :uhoh: I blame the beer :lol:

Right up there with one of the stupidest things I have posted, and I have plenty to chose from

Not really, I have seen lots of people suggesting the MGU-H makes the engines really heavy, it's a very common myth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
moby wrote:
Yeh, feel a right pilloc now as it is obviously so stupid. Don't know where my head was when I posted that :uhoh: I blame the beer :lol:

Right up there with one of the stupidest things I have posted, and I have plenty to chose from

Not really, I have seen lots of people suggesting the MGU-H makes the engines really heavy, it's a very common myth.


If I can say it without intending to blow my own trumpet though, I should know better. It was a matter of a free-wheeling brain :uhoh:
It sort of came to mind that the extra weight allowance was for this, not the total package.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 51
Get rid of the gimmicks introduced supposedly for the fans . Bring back the beast engines without fuel consumption rate or RPM limit requirements.
For fans more interested in fuel saving than racing there is Formula E now for you . Return Formula 1 back to what was it was created to be in the beginning being about power and speed and let the better Formula win as chosen by fans and advertisers .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
kls2020 wrote:
Get rid of the gimmicks introduced supposedly for the fans . Bring back the beast engines without fuel consumption rate or RPM limit requirements.
For fans more interested in fuel saving than racing there is Formula E now for you . Return Formula 1 back to what was it was created to be in the beginning being about power and speed and let the better Formula win as chosen by fans and advertisers .


Agreed. RPM and fuel limitations have no place in F1. If they can design an engine to go 25,000 rpms, then go for it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
kls2020 wrote:
Get rid of the gimmicks introduced supposedly for the fans . Bring back the beast engines without fuel consumption rate or RPM limit requirements.
For fans more interested in fuel saving than racing there is Formula E now for you . Return Formula 1 back to what was it was created to be in the beginning being about power and speed and let the better Formula win as chosen by fans and advertisers .

If you think fuel saving hasn't been a part of F1 for years then you're deluding yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20985
And now Todt/the FIA want to meddle even further, not content with the complete pigs ear they've made of the rules recently:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/11/27/fia-want-multi-purpose-f1-engine-for-2021/

In essence, they want the same engine to be used for F1 and the WEC. Which likely means even tighter homologation, which in turn means fewer development opportunities. And will likely increase the push towards spec parts

Why don't they just come out and admit they hate F1 and want to kill it off?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4534
Wasn't that the hope with the start of the current regulations as well?

Until WEC makes it more clear what the new LMP1 rules will be there's no way to tell whether or not the new F1 PU is either suitable or affordable for their series. Even if it is suitable it still needs to be affordable but that won't be known for some time yet.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1699
Zoue wrote:
And now Todt/the FIA want to meddle even further, not content with the complete pigs ear they've made of the rules recently:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/11/27/fia-want-multi-purpose-f1-engine-for-2021/

In essence, they want the same engine to be used for F1 and the WEC. Which likely means even tighter homologation, which in turn means fewer development opportunities. And will likely increase the push towards spec parts

Why don't they just come out and admit they hate F1 and want to kill it off?


Reading it, I'm not sure he events wants this to influence F1 - the wording suggests taking whatever F1 comes up with, and asking those manufacturers to run the same engine in WEC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4534
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
And now Todt/the FIA want to meddle even further, not content with the complete pigs ear they've made of the rules recently:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/11/27/fia-want-multi-purpose-f1-engine-for-2021/

In essence, they want the same engine to be used for F1 and the WEC. Which likely means even tighter homologation, which in turn means fewer development opportunities. And will likely increase the push towards spec parts

Why don't they just come out and admit they hate F1 and want to kill it off?


Reading it, I'm not sure he events wants this to influence F1 - the wording suggests taking whatever F1 comes up with, and asking those manufacturers to run the same engine in WEC.

The problem in that regard is that the manufacturers who were running in WEC weren't running in F1 and vice versa. Sounds like he's encouraging Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda, and Renault to consider running LMP1 and using the same PU for both.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 51
GingerFurball wrote:
kls2020 wrote:
Get rid of the gimmicks introduced supposedly for the fans . Bring back the beast engines without fuel consumption rate or RPM limit requirements.
For fans more interested in fuel saving than racing there is Formula E now for you . Return Formula 1 back to what was it was created to be in the beginning being about power and speed and let the better Formula win as chosen by fans and advertisers .

If you think fuel saving hasn't been a part of F1 for years then you're deluding yourself.


Lowered fuel consumption during the race by the individual teams as a racing strategy? Yes agreed .
Recent fuel consumption limits as imposed by F1A during the new hybrid era . No


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
kls2020 wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
kls2020 wrote:
Get rid of the gimmicks introduced supposedly for the fans . Bring back the beast engines without fuel consumption rate or RPM limit requirements.
For fans more interested in fuel saving than racing there is Formula E now for you . Return Formula 1 back to what was it was created to be in the beginning being about power and speed and let the better Formula win as chosen by fans and advertisers .

If you think fuel saving hasn't been a part of F1 for years then you're deluding yourself.


Lowered fuel consumption during the race by the individual teams as a racing strategy? Yes agreed .
Recent fuel consumption limits as imposed by F1A during the new hybrid era . No

From the mid 80's to the end of the previous turbo era they had a declining total race fuel limit, a similarly declining boost pressure limit and an even lower engine capacity formula.

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


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: Google Adsense [Bot] 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