F1 beyond 2020: The future engine formula [merged]

Without manufacturers, F1 would rapidly become a very sad place (sadly). 

new article on amus

https://www.auto-mot...l-12780493.html

rough translation by me:

Oh god, they will add some kind of stupid rear wheel covers like IndyCar. I just know it.

I don't think they'd go that far to produce a less wake-sensitive car. It's not really the rotational aspects of the tyres that affect the wake anyway.

Hopefully, if they take anything from Indycar aerodynamic philosophy, it'll be this:

Edited by maverick69, 26 October 2017 - 09:51.

The 2018 IndyCars are quite good looking compared to the current F1 cars. Wouldn't be a bad direction to go in,.

Marchionne has his say:

 

"The knowledge and technology of the Ferrari tradition can not be undone by the objective to reduce costs," he said.

"I am the first to acknowledge that we are spending too much, but we cannot take action by removing what is the DNA of Ferrari and Formula 1."

https://www.autospor...crunch-f1-talks

Out of touch, unbelieveable.   

If Ferrari have money left over after the budget cap, they can go race at Le Mans.     Le Mans will welcome them, and will welcome hi-tech hybrid cars. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 26 October 2017 - 12:24.

It's almost as though F1 is supposed to be the peak of technology.

Yet it isn't.  LMP1 is the peak of technology, so advanced that four of five ultra-complicated works cars broke down and were nearly beaten to Le Mans 24 hour victory by privateer cars running old-fashioned V8 engines. 

   

 

Out of touch, unbelieveable.   

 

If Ferrari have money left over after the budget cap, they can go race at Le Mans.     Le Mans will welcome them, and will welcome hi-tech hybrid cars. 

If I was being cynical, I think Ferrari are probably aware pound-for-pound they are among the biggest underachievers (by which I mean in 2016 they reportedly had the biggest budget but finished a distant 3rd in the WCC). They therefore could stand to lose ground should budgets come closer together. They're not concerned about DNA at all, just protecting their own interests.

I'm glad that the likes of Zak Brown and Christian Horner (from two of the other three big-budget teams) can see the bigger picture for the sport. Ross Brawn has said Mercedes also want expenditure brought under control. So Ferrari appear to be the only ones openly resisting the idea at this stage.

But I agree with you, it would enable them to compete elsewhere and grow their exposure. 

Edited by onemoresolo, 26 October 2017 - 12:37.

Yet it isn't.  LMP1 is the peak of technology, so advanced that four of five ultra-complicated works cars broke down and were nearly beaten to Le Mans 24 hour victory by privateer cars running old-fashioned V8 engines. 

That's how you recognise bleeding edge tech - if it isn't breaking you aren't pushing hard enough.

Peak of technology!  No ABS, no traction control, no stability control, no active suspension, no automatic gearboxes, no CVT, no variable valve timing, no modern valve train technologies etc.  Instead, let's add 4WD which will be complex, costly and require an increase in minimum weight which will probably make the cars slower.  F1's idea of peak of technology and critical thinking.

On the driver aids - there's no issue with omitting them - although my current biggest motorsport frustration is the lack of Roborace progress, you either have a driver or no driver - don't buy a dog then bark yourself.

It's fair to say the most technically advanced engine and powertrain, braking system, gearbox and chassis deliver a given amount of torque at a given throttle position, negative torque at a given brake position, drive ratio in a given gear and a given front wheel angle at a given steering wheel angle.

I like that they allow 4WD, i can not read the article so i assume they make everyone run it.. that i dislike greatly. 4WD can be very fun in racing. Shame it is banned in most series that involves track racing.

4WD around Monaco sounds scary fast.

Edited by MatsNorway, 26 October 2017 - 13:59.

It's fair to say the most technically advanced engine and powertrain, braking system, gearbox and chassis deliver a given amount of torque at a given throttle position, negative torque at a given brake position, drive ratio in a given gear and a given front wheel angle at a given steering wheel angle.

While these hybrids are very technical, I view them (the hybrid elements) as being about as useful in an F1 car as an air-conditioning system.  An air-con system would increase driver comfort and make concentrating during races easier, but is it worth the weight penalty.

I think having an advanced engine/PU as a standalone item is not particularly important or impressive.  What counts is the package, when the PU is placed in the car, how efficient is the total package and what sort of performance can be achieved.

 

While these hybrids are very technical, I view them (the hybrid elements) as being about as useful in an F1 car as an air-conditioning system.  An air-con system would increase driver comfort and make concentrating during races easier, but is it worth the weight penalty.

 

I think having an advanced engine/PU as a standalone item is not particularly important or impressive.  What counts is the package, when the PU is placed in the car, how efficient is the total package and what sort of performance can be achieved.

The test for this is simple - if you remove it from the regulations - not ban it, not require it - will the teams still include it?

Same for 4wd, same for turbochargers.

If it's not a driver aid, and adheres to "Open Cockpit, Open Wheel racing" the presumption should be in favour.

The test for this is simple - if you remove it from the regulations - not ban it, not require it - will the teams still include it?
Same for 4wd, same for turbochargers.

If it's not a driver aid, and adheres to "Open Cockpit, Open Wheel racing" the presumption should be in favour.

The test for this is simple - if you remove it from the regulations - not ban it, not require it - will the teams still include it?

Same for 4wd, same for turbochargers.

 

If it's not a driver aid, and adheres to "Open Cockpit, Open Wheel racing" the presumption should be in favour.

I agree with you for the most part Calorus.  Cost as ArrowsLivery mentioned would be an issue.

I'd like to see a return to manual gearboxes and for the drivers throttle pedal to control engine airflow rather than torque demand.

If I was being cynical, I think Ferrari are probably aware pound-for-pound they are among the biggest underachievers (by which I mean in 2016 they reportedly had the biggest budget but finished a distant 3rd in the WCC). They therefore could stand to lose ground should budgets come closer together. They're not concerned about DNA at all, just protecting their own interests.

 

I'm glad that the likes of Zak Brown and Christian Horner (from two of the other three big-budget teams) can see the bigger picture for the sport. Ross Brawn has said Mercedes also want expenditure brought under control. So Ferrari appear to be the only ones openly resisting the idea at this stage.

 

But I agree with you, it would enable them to compete elsewhere and grow their exposure. 

That's a good article, and I came away from it with a much more optimistic feeling than I did after reading Joe's comments. Am I wrong?

LMP1 is the peak of technology, so advanced that four of five ultra-complicated works cars broke down and were nearly beaten to Le Mans 24 hour victory by privateer cars running old-fashioned V8 engines. 

The chances of that increase as the number of LMP1 cars has gone down.

But while it was close this year, Le Mans has been won by hybrids since 2012, and the last non-hybrid / non-diesel to win was way back in 2005.

That only says so much, however. Like F1, Le Mans is not an open competition. Regulations benefit or even mandate certain types of cars - depending in no small part on the influence of manufacturers.
 

Edited by Nonesuch, 26 October 2017 - 15:14.

 

new article on amus

 

https://www.auto-mot...l-12780493.html

 

 

rough translation by me:

 

* Looking for more random results in racing

* Lower costs, simpler technical elements, spectacular cars

* Group of experts under supervision of Brawn are working on sports and technical regulations

* New engine concept will be released October 30th

* November 7th will see the budget

* Expert team is now working on infrastructure for their own future testing

* Independent testing, no longer solely relying on team testing

* Expert team consist of Pat Symonds, Nikolas Tombazis, Jason Somerville and many more

* CFD models already made

* Have acquired the Manor windtunnel

* On Aero: don't care about flow around the car, more concerned about the 40m or so behind

* To test this last problem, new larger windtunnel needed: Toyota, Sauber, Williams have the best infra

* Rear wheels section/floor is a point of interest

* Time gain within a reasonable framework

* Goal is that a difference of 50 million euros in budget should not make a difference of a second, but a maximum of i.e. 3 tenths

* Then you could freeze the budgets at 150 and not at 100 million euros. Because the small teams would approach the 150 million limit more easily with a fairer money distribution

 

forgot to add that amus also had a video-interview with Brawn:

https://www.auto-mot...n-12782863.html

That would be great if money grew on trees!

It does.

Everyone will spend what they have.

If this were soapbox racing, but still had the viewership and the cachet, Ferrari wouldn't spend a Euro less.

So put the onus of proof on the teams.  Unless they can prove with independent audits from the best accounting firms that they comply, then no FOM revenue for them and/or a huge fine or worse.  Simple.

Er, I said that myself a few posts back.

Marchionne has his say:

 

"The knowledge and technology of the Ferrari tradition can not be undone by the objective to reduce costs," he said.

"I am the first to acknowledge that we are spending too much, but we cannot take action by removing what is the DNA of Ferrari and Formula 1."

https://www.autospor...crunch-f1-talks

is "DNA of Formula 1" the Godwin's law of motor sport arguments?

It does.

 

Everyone will spend what they have.

 

If this were soapbox racing, but still had the viewership and the cachet, Ferrari wouldn't spend a Euro less.

Teams often spend more than they have. That is why they go bankrupt. 

is "DNA of Formula 1" the Godwin's law of motor sport arguments?

Agreed.

It does more often or not tend to iterate down to that...........

is "DNA of Formula 1" the Godwin's law of motor sport arguments?

Denying the existence of fundamental principles - "DNA" - is synonymous for denial of the sports' history and character, as if Formula One is interchangeable with any other series.

Edited by Pingguest, 27 October 2017 - 08:53.

Teams often spend more than they have. That is why they go bankrupt. 

The whole world's economy is in fact built on debt (mostly Chinese debt at the moment, if I understand correctly).  Banks have the ability to essentially create money out of thin air, a mere liability on their balance sheet.    Scary.

https://en.wikipedia.../Money_creation

Lord helps us if the value of the assets these loans (created money) are against drops (as with the GFC)! 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 27 October 2017 - 11:19.

What could help with costs is why not let teams sell on there old IP to other teams, so say let Williams by the year old IP to the Mercedes chassis?

That would just strengthen Mercedes' position... The 888 team sells older specification equipment to various customer teams in V8 Supercars... trouble is while those customer teams may be initially more competitive, in the longer term they have no real ability to challenge or surpass 888 since they are always one or more steps behind...

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 27 October 2017 - 11:21.

That would just strengthen Mercedes' position... The 888 team sells older specification equipment to various customer teams in V8 Supercars... trouble is while those customer teams may be initially more competitive, in the longer term they have no real ability to challenge or surpass 888 since they are always one or more steps behind...

Totally disagree with that!

Teckno won a couple of rounds in 2016 including the jewell in the crown race, Bathurst, Davison was 5th in the championship. In 2015 GVG won a few rounds and was in the championship fight.

Of course customer teams are not going to dominate, only the best funded teams are going to have that chance.But the customer-system clearly works. In V8 a customer team can win races and challenge for titles. In makes the strength and competition through the grid better. The equivalent in F1, say Force India, have no chance of that. 

My number 1 rule change for F1 would be to have open IP. As soon as any new design of any part is used in a race (chassis or PU) the blueprints then need to be uploaded to a publically accessible platform. The "inventing" team will have the advantage of first to market and integration - but any other team can then look to develop and incorporate it (the lead time will vary from 1 - 20 races depending on the complexity). It won't always be the top teams innovating first. This will drastically cut the cost of development, accelerate performance closure and improve competitiveness throughout the grid.

Plus the fans will get to know what is under the hoods. It seems insane that all this money is spent on technology, yet we don't know fully what it is...

I'm just waiting for F1 to cotton onto this blindingly simple idea. I'm certain it will happen eventually! 

That would just strengthen Mercedes' position... The 888 team sells older specification equipment to various customer teams in V8 Supercars... trouble is while those customer teams may be initially more competitive, in the longer term they have no real ability to challenge or surpass 888 since they are always one or more steps behind...

That sounds better than the alternative, which would be that old 888 equipment collecting dust in their shop while the other teams not being on the grid at all if they can't afford the new stuff. 

The whole world's economy is in fact built on debt (mostly Chinese debt at the moment, if I understand correctly).  Banks have the ability to essentially create money out of thin air, a mere liability on their balance sheet.    Scary.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Money_creation

 

Lord helps us if the value of the assets these loans (created money) are against drops (as with the GFC)! 

more so than the US 20 trillion debt? (most of that debt is owned by the American Social Security program...so ya all the money taken out of every americans paycheck that is supposed to go towards their retirement was actually spent and is in the form of an IOU, this is going to end well)

Edited by tokengator82, 27 October 2017 - 14:10.

If I was being cynical, I think Ferrari are probably aware pound-for-pound they are among the biggest underachievers (by which I mean in 2016 they reportedly had the biggest budget but finished a distant 3rd in the WCC). They therefore could stand to lose ground should budgets come closer together. They're not concerned about DNA at all, just protecting their own interests.

 

I'm glad that the likes of Zak Brown and Christian Horner (from two of the other three big-budget teams) can see the bigger picture for the sport. Ross Brawn has said Mercedes also want expenditure brought under control. So Ferrari appear to be the only ones openly resisting the idea at this stage.

 

But I agree with you, it would enable them to compete elsewhere and grow their exposure. 

Mercedes are the ones pushing like crazy to keep the current engine technology and want the budgets brought under control. Funny that seeing how they have a big lead and if budgets are cut one could argue teams would find it even harder to catch up.

Personally I don't see anything going on in this round of changes that is any different to those that have gone before. They all look out for themselves and want to preserve whatever advantages they think they have now or might have to come. Budget caps are completely and utterly unenforceable unless you have a spec series.

Same thing with people assuming that all fans want simple engines etc. Each survey that is done shows that not to be the case. If simple engines and cars that are all about the driver is what every F1 fan want then why isn't F2 much bigger than F1? At the end of the day modern F1 is primarily about the celebrity of the drivers. The majority of the fans don't watch because it's F1 they watch because it's Ferrari racing, Alonso racing, Hamilton racing etc.

Totally disagree with that!

 

Teckno won a couple of rounds in 2016 including the jewell in the crown race, Bathurst, Davison was 5th in the championship. In 2015 GVG won a few rounds and was in the championship fight.

 

However this year all the customer 888 teams are rubbish...   A lot of them have a lot of old stock parts, and simply can't afford or justify to upgrade to the latest parts even if they wanted to.

In V8 a customer team can win races and challenge for titles. In makes the strength and competition through the grid better. 

Yet when Walkinshaw Performance tried to buy 888 go-fast parts, they were told the waiting list is too long and to go away.  Doesn't help the competition. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 27 October 2017 - 14:43.

 

Plus the fans will get to know what is under the hoods. It seems insane that all this money is spent on technology, yet we don't know fully what it is...

 

I'm just waiting for F1 to cotton onto this blindingly simple idea. I'm certain it will happen eventually! 

Open technical inspections for the win! 

It is a superb idea!

Drag the podium finishers into a open tear-down with media and other teams, and/or require teams to homologate full documentation for their cars, which is then open access. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 27 October 2017 - 14:45.

That sounds better than the alternative, which would be that old 888 equipment collecting dust in their shop while the other teams not being on the grid at all if they can't afford the new stuff. 

Privateers did just as well back in the early 2000s when most teams designed their own cars and parts, and/or purchased them from suppliers.  Back then suppliers like Beehag Engineering supplied caged shells to many teams, and crucially they were independent.

Open technical inspections for the win!

It is a superb idea!

Drag the podium finishers into a open tear-down with media and other teams, and/or require teams to homologate full documentation for their cars, which is then open access.

No!

Yes! 

Yes! 

Also Yes!

I've always argued this.

You get the benefit of getting where you get first, but then everyone has the option of taking what you know and improving it.

Teams often spend more than they have. That is why they go bankrupt. 

And, as long as they think the next pound is the one that will secure the title, they always will.

One of the biggest failures of the current regulations for me, regardless of whether they were right or wrong to begin with, has been the failure to promote the impressive fuel efficiency achievements. The WEC made much more fanfare about how the cars were going faster than previous years using 40% less fuel. Meanwhile, F1 was making similar achievements with the V6 Hybrids and all anyone ever seemed to do is complain about the sound, cost and complexity with very little mention, if at all, on the efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, the V6 Hybrids can still be regarded as a mistake and be appreciated for what they are, but I think Formula One in general has royally failed to do that and created bad press when it could have been positive - the knock on effects of which are unpredictable.

I am also beginning to think, more so over the past few months with all the EV announcements this summer, that the goals of Formula One and the goals of manufacturers are diverging more than ever before. Maybe F1's best option is to go back to cheaper, more heritage based non-hybrid engine regulations - but it would have to do so as an acknowledgement that it is no longer at the leading edge of innovation and be prepared to accept the loss of manufacturers, many of whom are beginning to announce that they will only sell EVs and Hybrids in the near future.

I am also beginning to think, more so over the past few months with all the EV announcements this summer, that the goals of Formula One and the goals of manufacturers are diverging more than ever before. Maybe F1's best option is to go back to cheaper, more heritage based non-hybrid engine regulations - but it would have to do so as an acknowledgement that it is no longer at the leading edge of innovation and be prepared to accept the loss of manufacturers, many of whom are beginning to announce that they will only sell EVs and Hybrids in the near future.

No problem. "The leading edge of chasing that sweet, sweet boomer money" is just as catchy.

Maybe F1's best option is to go back to cheaper, more heritage based non-hybrid engine regulations - but it would have to do so as an acknowledgement that it is no longer at the leading edge of innovation and be prepared to accept the loss of manufacturers, many of whom are beginning to announce that they will only sell EVs and Hybrids in the near future.

If an increase in the minimum weight rule is necessary to make hybrids competitive, then they were never leading edge of innovation (in F1 terms) to begin with.

Mercedes are the ones pushing like crazy to keep the current engine technology and want the budgets brought under control. Funny that seeing how they have a big lead and if budgets are cut one could argue teams would find it even harder to catch up.

 

From what we are told, every current manufacturer wants the tech to continue in the same vein. Blaming Mercedes is a cheap way to try and gain support just because they are unpopular with all the winning.

If I was being cynical, I think Ferrari are probably aware pound-for-pound they are among the biggest underachievers (by which I mean in 2016 they reportedly had the biggest budget but finished a distant 3rd in the WCC). They therefore could stand to lose ground should budgets come closer together. They're not concerned about DNA at all, just protecting their own interests.

 

I'm glad that the likes of Zak Brown and Christian Horner (from two of the other three big-budget teams) can see the bigger picture for the sport. Ross Brawn has said Mercedes also want expenditure brought under control. So Ferrari appear to be the only ones openly resisting the idea at this stage.

 

But I agree with you, it would enable them to compete elsewhere and grow their exposure. 

Please tell me you don't believe a word Horner says. He uses "old school racing" arguments to drum up support, but if you look at his words, everything he says is about taking the engines out of the sport and making aero the only differentiator. Who would benefit from that? Why that would be Red Bull, what a shock.

Edited by NorwegianRudo, 28 October 2017 - 12:57.

One of the biggest failures of the current regulations for me, regardless of whether they were right or wrong to begin with, has been the failure to promote the impressive fuel efficiency achievements. 

Nobody cares how much fuel F1 cars use... All they do is drive around in circles flat out (not an economical way to drive by any means) and then end up back where they started (i.e., their journey was completely pointless and they didn't even get anywhere!), it is pure waste at it's finest! 

I've often wondered why road car manufacturers don't build turbo petrol engines, since they've been building turbo diesels for over 20 years now.

Nearly every single car manufacturer has replaced nearly all of their naturally aspirated petrol engines with turbocharged ones of a smaller capacity.

The only notable exceptions are Mazda (promoting lean combustion tech use on naturally aspirated (N/A) motors) and Toyota (focusing more on hybrids, and sticking with efficient dual-injection N/A in reliability-sensitive North American and Asian markets).

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 28 October 2017 - 12:04.

Surely they could have been building 600cc & 900cc turbos for your average hatchback?

FIAT sell a 900cc turbo 500, while Ford sell a 1L turbo Fiesta.   (Amongst others that I can't recall.  You should find similar engines available in Renault Clio, Opel Corsa, VW Polo etc.)

although I have yet to see a turbo hybrid road car, does one exist?
 

I don't think so.  Eco hybrid petrols use the Atkinson cycle combustion on their N/A petrol engines as an alternative way to improve efficiency.

This must be a recent thing then with the small petrol turbos then. I must stop buying old bangers!

I'm sticking with old tech myself, less to go wrong!