Mercedes engine to have a big power advantage? 100hp rumoured in AMuS!

I love how I keep hearing that the 2014 power units will produce as much power as todays engines, that is not accurate and doesn't compare like for like.  Todays 'power units' produce around 750hp + 80hp (for 6.6 seconds) for a peak output of about 830hp.  The 2014 units are reputed to have a total output of 750hp with 160hp coming from the ERS for 33 seconds.  Considering that the average circuit lap times are about 1 minute 25 seconds, with full throttle applied about 65 to 70 percent of the time, average output will be way down. 

Try thinking about more than "Ooh, shiny big numbers".

Let's say a current engine peaks at 750hp. What does this mean? Well, it could mean it has very little below or above this peak power producing rpm. So as impressive as the peak figure is, the engine will be woeful under acceleration, and woeful going past peak power in order to have the next gear ratio put it anywhere near the power band.

Let's say a turbo V6 has no better a peak figure. But the forced induction gives more power, compared to the current engine, both below and above the peak power rpm. This engine will accelerate better, and still hold on well enough after peak hp to allow the next gear up to engage within the usable power band.

If the engines are also more fuel efficient, the cars will have to carry less fuel weight, although as they're going to be Pirreli limited that's not likely to have as much impact on lap times.

To put the engine design differences another way - I can throw a hot camshaft in my everyday car and have as much power as the factory spec turbo version. Except the power will kick in for such a limited range that the car will be slower in the majority of situations, and most likely use much more fuel in the process.

And upon re-reading your post, I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion 750 + 80 for 6 seconds, is more on average than 750 + 160 for 33 seconds. Unless I'm mis-reading (only had the one glass so far tonight though).

I don't think you get a penalty if you dnf.

[...]

 

And upon re-reading your post, I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion 750 + 80 for 6 seconds, is more on average than 750 + 160 for 33 seconds. Unless I'm mis-reading (only had the one glass so far tonight though).

I think you are, he probably means 750bhp, of which 160 are coming from ERS, compared to 830bhp peak power from today's V8s.

Comparing them like that is pointless though and i agree with the rest of your post.

Meh. When the V8's came in, Ferrari's was also suppose to be the weakest...

Meh. When the V8's came in, Ferrari's was also suppose to be the weakest...

Well, they've not exactly excelled since 2005 have they?

I don't think the V8's were a technical challenge like the new power plants; the specs weren't a problem really, and manufacturers were all allowed to update them selectively until they were all pretty much equal.  

This new set of rules is something else, especially in the first year.  It's hard to believe in the 100bhp advantage or the car weight issue but it seems quite likely that there will be winners and losers to start with.

I don't think the V8's were a technical challenge like the new power plants; the specs weren't a problem really, and manufacturers were all allowed to update them selectively until they were all pretty much equal.  

 

This new set of rules is something else, especially in the first year.  It's hard to believe in the 100bhp advantage or the car weight issue but it seems quite likely that there will be winners and losers to start with.

A 100hp advantage is hard to believe. Remember that these are turbo charged engines and thus you can crank the power up to obscene heights but there are trade offs such as lag, excessive torque, poor throttle response and most importantly lots of excess heat. 

Well, they've not exactly excelled since 2005 have they?

They came in 2006.

Let's see.

1 WDC

2 WCC

4 times WDC runnersup

4 times WCC runnersup

And powered Toro Roso's only pole and win at Monza 2008, Vettel's first win.

Only second to Renualt (AKA Redbull)

I've heard this claim mentioned a few times but I just cannot believe that it is true.

Still, one thing which is intriguing is Ross Brawn's repeated reference to both building for the 2014 regulation changes and that Mercedes are in a good place to challenge from next year. Brawn has even answered questions about his potential retirement with comments such as (paraphrasing) "I want to be around for the fun/good times in 2014."

The last time Brawn was adamant that a good car was on its way, in a team he was overseeing, was going into the 2009 season. To the point he even took the risk and commitment of running the 2009 entrant as "Brawn GP." And look how 2009 turned out for Ross Brawn! In short, the one thing I would say is that it would be a huge surprise if Mercedes doesn't have the first or second best car at the start of 2014.

A 100hp advantage is hard to believe.

I'm finding it near impossible to believe. If an F1 engine is 40% efficient and makes 750, then it would have to find nearly 5% greater efficiency to gain another 100hp (or burn a load more fuel, which isn't going to help in the new fuel limited formula). Given they're all rev limited, as well as fuel limited, finding 5% more efficiency, or looking at it another way 12.5% improvement on current efficiency, assuming the rest of the field doesn't improve, seems a lot. And given the other engine makers will presumably be finding more efficient ways to extract power, it seems an unbelievable lot indeed.

In the days of unlimited revs, and free choice of cylinder count and layout, there was little more than 50hp difference between best and worst (not counting customer spec obsolete engines based on cost not performance).

I think you are, he probably means 750bhp, of which 160 are coming from ERS, compared to 830bhp peak power from today's V8s.

 

Comparing them like that is pointless though and i agree with the rest of your post.

I have a bit of a knee jerk to the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on because the new engines won't deafen people in the next county, whilst belching out vast plumes of pollutants in the name of stagnation.. So I tend to fly off the handle a little when I think I see yet more complaining!

(Says me, yet I love dropping my 50 year old car down a gear under bridges to hear the exhaust note, or leaving my 40 year old car in the right gear to get pops and bangs on over run...)

Try thinking about more than "Ooh, shiny big numbers".

I do understand some of the benefits the 2014 units will bring (much more torque) and I agree with much of your post, however I still feel as though many publications are not making like for comparisons when discussing power outputs specifically and the differences between peak and average.  The fact is average power will be down quite significantly, but acceleration will be up.  

Top speeds?............  Well the 2014 aerodynamic regulations should produce a reduction in downforce and with fuel efficiency being key, aero set ups that negate drag as well as DRD technologies may offset the power deficiency in this area.

Edited by Obi Offiah, 16 September 2013 - 22:58.

I do understand the benefits the 2014 units will bring (much more torque) and I agree with much of your post, however I still feel as though many publications are not making like for comparison when discussing power outputs specifically and the differences between peak and average.  The fact is average power will be down quite significantly, but acceleration will be up.  

 

Top speeds?............  Well the 2014 aerodynamic regulations should produce a reduction in downforce and with fuel efficiency being key, aero set ups that negate drag as well as DRD technologies may offset the power deficiency in this area.

What?

The new power units will have more "area under the graph" than the old ones. I.e. will make more power for more of the time, across more of the rev range. Probably with a higher peak as well. There is no measurable way in which the new v6s will be outperformed by the current v8s.

Minimum weight forced by expansion of the hybrid drive train? Fuel/engine saving mode driving?

Early reports suggested that peak power will be smaller.

They came in 2006.

 

Let's see.

1 WDC

2 WCC

4 times WDC runnersup

4 times WCC runnersup

 

And powered Toro Roso's only pole and win at Monza 2008, Vettel's first win.

 

Only second to Renualt (AKA Redbull)

One of those WCC's was inherited but that's by the by. Truth is I was being a touch sarcastic and really the engines don't make much difference in the V8 era as they're all so similar. Next year everything is being thrown up in the air and we'll see where it all lands. I fear that we're going to have a messy year with grid penalties galore for engine changes etc. It's going to becomes a circus and the team/driver that wins will be the one whose engine doesn't go 'pop' the most. Oh, and Friday practice will be a thing of the past - teams are going to do even less running as they preserve their engines. It seems crazy to bring in such restrictive engine usage rules when such major changes are taking place and I hope that they see sense before it's too late.

I would be surprised if Merc or any powertrain manufacturer in F1 has a 100PS advantage next year.

Where it does get interesting is if any of the powertrain units has a vastly more efficient ERS system than their competitors.  That being the case I am guessing that the ERS efficiency advantage could result in better use of that power throughout the lap thereby saving some fuel where their competitors are more reliant on the IC part of the powertrain? 33 seconds is the maximum permitted use per lap but there is no guarantee that they will all be able to use that at maximum efficiency all of the time if heat is an issue.  Any fuel saving could then be utilised when required,

I would be surprised if Merc or any powertrain manufacturer in F1 has a 100PS advantage next year.

 

Where it does get interesting is if any of the powertrain units has a vastly more efficient ERS system than their competitors.  That being the case I am guessing that the ERS efficiency advantage could result in better use of that power throughout the lap thereby saving some fuel where their competitors are more reliant on the IC part of the powertrain? 33 seconds is the maximum permitted use per lap but there is no guarantee that they will all be able to use that at maximum efficiency all of the time if heat is an issue.  Any fuel saving could then be utilised when required,

yeah, that's my take on it. i would've thought that the engine part of it will be quite similar but the differences will come in the ERS. Remember when KERS was introduced the merc unit was widely regarded as the best. Who knows though, I guess we'll find out more in January.

I am really looking forward to the new engines.  It's going to be amazing looking at the cars thinking 'that's a 1.6 litre'!  Still getting my head round it all, a bit late, but every time I read something about it it's fascinating, like 'huge turbines revving up to 200k'   

I see according to Merc "In 2014, there will be up to seven possible energy journeys to keep energy within the vehicle rather than wasting it through the exhausts and brakes."

What are they?

1. Internal Combustion Engine -> Gearbox

2. Exhaust turbine -> Turbo charge compressor -> ICE

3. Braking -> Battery

4. Exhaust turbine -> Battery

5. Battery -> Gearbox

6. Exhaust turbine -> electricity -> Gearbox (direct) ?

7. ?

ISTR there was a flow diagram somewhere, but I can't find it.

I could see a manufacturer finding an advantage in lubrication/thermal efficiency, intercooling/thermal efficiency, harvesting (electronic brake balance), batteries. turbines, layout, for starters.  If one outfit put all of those together, it could mount up.

I am really looking forward to the new engines.  It's going to be amazing looking at the cars thinking 'that's a 1.6 litre'!  Still getting my head round it all, a bit late, but every time I read something about it it's fascinating, like 'huge turbines revving up to 200k'   

 

I see according to Merc "In 2014, there will be up to seven possible energy journeys to keep energy within the vehicle rather than wasting it through the exhausts and brakes."

 

What are they?

 

1. Internal Combustion Engine -> Gearbox

2. Exhaust turbine -> Turbo charge compressor -> ICE

3. Braking -> Battery

4. Exhaust turbine -> Battery

5. Battery -> Gearbox

6. Exhaust turbine -> electricity -> Gearbox (direct) ?

7. ?

 

ISTR there was a flow diagram somewhere, but I can't find it.

 

I could see a manufacturer finding an advantage in lubrication/thermal efficiency, intercooling/thermal efficiency, harvesting (electronic brake balance), batteries. turbines, layout, for starters.  If one outfit put all of those together, it could mount up.

7. Brake 》Turbo

8. Battery 》Turbo

I think maybe ICE 》gearbox was assumed.

Edited by Lazy, 17 September 2013 - 13:40.

  

I see according to Merc "In 2014, there will be up to seven possible energy journeys to keep energy within the vehicle rather than wasting it through the exhausts and brakes."

 

The software controlling the power units better be fool proof or else an electrical issue will pretty much end the race of innocent drivers.

[...]Still getting my head round it all, a bit late, but every time I read something about it it's fascinating, like 'huge turbines revving up to 200k'   [...]

5.2.4 of 2014 Formula One Technical Regulations states that for MGU-H (Turbocharger with integrated electrical generator) max. allowed rotational speed is 125'000 rpm.

You can find the regulations here

Very recommended literature for those interested...

7. Brake 》Turbo

8. Battery 》Turbo

I think maybe ICE 》gearbox was assumed.

Ah yes Battery -> Turbo, like a supercharger.  Do the brakes directly power the blower though? Why would they?

Ah yes Battery -> Turbo, like a supercharger.  Do the brakes directly power the blower though? Why would they?

So when you come off the brakes and onto the power, your turbo is already spinning nicely.

5.2.4 of 2014 Formula One Technical Regulations states that for MGU-H (Turbocharger with integrated electrical generator) max. allowed rotational speed is 125'000 rpm.

 

You can find the regulations here

Very recommended literature for those interested...

Oh, I guess they got a bit alarmed at 200,000 rpm!  125k is still quite a lot though.

5.2.4 of 2014 Formula One Technical Regulations states that for MGU-H (Turbocharger with integrated electrical generator) max. allowed rotational speed is 125'000 rpm.

 

You can find the regulations here

Very recommended literature for those interested...

The 125.00 rpm was a mistake (in hindsight) according to Martin Whitmarsh. The RPM is so high that it will be expensive to design a turbo capable of revving that fast.

So when you come off the brakes and onto the power, your turbo is already spinning nicely.

Oh yes I see.  Nice.

AMuS (Bing translation): Renault's engine director Rob White says there will be 600 HP from the IC and 160 from ERS.

AMuS (Bing translation): Renault's engine director Rob White says there will be 600 HP from the IC and 160 from ERS.

This is a sensible estimate, i'd say. And really no way one can be 100 hp down, apart of deliberally chosing a MGU-K (the electric motor coupled mechanically to the internal combustion engine) smaller than the 160hp permitted. 

AMuS (Bing translation): Renault's engine director Rob White says there will be 600 HP from the IC and 160 from ERS.

  that is a long way down on figures banded about for Mercedes engine :/

Im surprised at only 600bhp to be honest considering cosworth have detuned one of their (proposed but dropped) 1.6L 4 pot units and given it a 100k mile life while still acheiving 480bhp http://www.pistonhea...p?storyId=27981. I would have expected if you turned everything up to 11 and reduced the design life you could get more than 100bhp out of it.

Edited by Mrluke, 18 September 2013 - 11:16.

This is a sensible estimate, i'd say. And really no way one can be 100 hp down, apart of deliberally chosing a MGU-K (the electric motor coupled mechanically to the internal combustion engine) smaller than the 160hp permitted. 

There's a lot of kidology and bluff flying around at the moment. I strongly suspect these are deliberate underestimations. We won't find out for a little while what the truth is.

I think they would want to test the in mules pretty soon tbh

I think they would want to test the in mules pretty soon tbh

Is there anything to stop engine manufacturers running the engine in an older/different chassis?

Is there anything to stop engine manufacturers running the engine in an older/different chassis?

I don't think so.

I've already said that I'm surprised that some teams have not got a DW12 running around on Avon's to check things out a bit more.

Then again.......... Perhaps their dyno facilities are so good that quasi-simulation is enough.........

 

I've already said that I'm surprised that some teams have not got a DW12 running around on Avon's to check things out a bit more.

 

Then again.......... Perhaps their dyno facilities are so good that quasi-simulation is enough.........

I think the teams basically come up with a formula that so many dyno miles equates to so many track miles.  For example they may be able to get 5000km on a dyno but only 3000km at a track.

  that is a long way down on figures banded about for Mercedes engine :/

 

Im surprised at only 600bhp to be honest considering cosworth have detuned one of their (proposed but dropped) 1.6L 4 pot units and given it a 100k mile life while still acheiving 480bhp http://www.pistonhea...p?storyId=27981. I would have expected if you turned everything up to 11 and reduced the design life you could get more than 100bhp out of it.

That's because the Merc figure is likely rubbish. 600bhp won't be exact, but is around the expected output.

They could easily get more power out of the engine if none of the other con-straining rules existed.

  that is a long way down on figures banded about for Mercedes engine :/

 

Im surprised at only 600bhp to be honest considering cosworth have detuned one of their (proposed but dropped) 1.6L 4 pot units and given it a 100k mile life while still acheiving 480bhp http://www.pistonhea...p?storyId=27981. I would have expected if you turned everything up to 11 and reduced the design life you could get more than 100bhp out of it.

It's due to the fuel flow limit. That Cosworth engine has no fuel limit.

Fact of the matter is that effectively we have a spec series.  One expects the max limit to be attained, and since all energy input has been restricted ultimately it's diminishing returns.  If all of the manufacturer's engineers do their jobs, the end result will be effectively the same except for the logistics/Karkhov chain math.  Which should be sorted in under 2 years I would think.

I wish they had left the ERS side of things unrestricted, so that the manufacturers would go full out in that direction at least.  That is the only thing that has "road car relevance", but because of the legal writing it presently doesn't.  The world needs mor efficient batteries, they need to arrange the rules so that the manufacturers would be obligated to dump money into that side of things.

Or go back to 3l V10s.

Fact of the matter is that effectively we have a spec series.  One expects the max limit to be attained, and since all energy input has been restricted ultimately it's diminishing returns.  If all of the manufacturer's engineers do their jobs, the end result will be effectively the same except for the logistics/Karkhov chain math.  Which should be sorted in under 2 years I would think.

 

 

I wish they had left the ERS side of things unrestricted, so that the manufacturers would go full out in that direction at least.  That is the only thing that has "road car relevance", but because of the legal writing it presently doesn't.  The world needs mor efficient batteries, they need to arrange the rules so that the manufacturers would be obligated to dump money into that side of things.

 

Or go back to 3l V10s.

I agree. Powerwise I don't expect much in it. Reliability will make the biggest difference between the teams. I'm expecting a lot of grid penalties next year.

They will have a fuel flow limit, fuel per race limit and much higher reliability requirements as well.

I think physically testing engine is slightly different to dyno, vibrations, cooling and stuff like that, its well, real and those differences might matter