Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

V6T vs V8 NA


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#51 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:08

I thought I'd better go back and check your assumptions.

The 2.17 number you quote is the DENSITY RATIO required for the 1.6T to make 620 hp @ 10.5 kRPM, assuming the same VE and TE as the 2.4 V8. The pressure ratio required to achieve this density ratio (at 80% compressor efficiency and no intercooling) is about 3.25 ie 3.25 bar abs boost. Discharge temperature is about 190*C.

With a typical intercooler, the pressure ratio required will be about 2.3 and compressor discharge temperature about 140*C.

The cars will need intercooling.

About 125*C


I beg to differ somewhat here, do you really think you need a 2.25 Bar boost to bring a 1.6 liter racing ICE to produce 620 Hp at 10 500+ Rpm,
still believe that a 1+ Bar boost will be quite enough and that they can do without intercooler all things considered?

Such a shame we might never know as I suspect they will keep the V8s after 2013.

Edited by Rasputin, 11 October 2012 - 09:12.


Advertisement

#52 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:20

I know it works, to an extent, on aircraft travelling at 400mph, but does that work with cars travelling at 100-200mph?

Bearing in mind that in aircraft where it works there are adjustable inlets, outlets, or both, which is not allowed in F1.


The adjustable inlets and outlets were, initially at least, to cope with the high load, slow speed extreme case, like warming up and takeoff, climbing. Cruise and full throttle are easy, given the high speed air available. The F1 analogy would be - we can design a cooling system with low/no drag for the 'race' mode, but sitting on the grid waiting for the lights to go out ... or behind the safety car ... can it still cool (well enough)? The low heat input would help but it still may be too much to ask.

Then again, when you have AN and his pencil ...

#53 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,463 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:27

The adjustable inlets and outlets were, initially at least, to cope with the high load, slow speed extreme case, like warming up and takeoff, climbing. Cruise and full throttle are easy, given the high speed air available. The F1 analogy would be - we can design a cooling system with low/no drag for the 'race' mode, but sitting on the grid waiting for the lights to go out ... or behind the safety car ... can it still cool (well enough)? The low heat input would help but it still may be too much to ask.

Then again, when you have AN and his pencil ...


I think the analogy would be that at 200mph you may get the desired reduction/elimination of cooling drag along with appropriate cooling, but at 100mph or less, through twisty sections of the circuit, the cooling drag would not be minimised and the cooling would be inadequate.

#54 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:43

The 1.5 liter 1988 Honda RA168E was delivering 456 kW (620 Hp) at 12 000 Rpm and 1.5 Bar boost, (2.5 absolute), consuming 272 g/kWh (34 g/sec).

I stand corrected grunt, you will probably need more that 1.27 Bar boost to produce 620 Hp from 1,6 liter at 10500 Rpm, even with today's technology.



#55 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,463 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:33

I have to agree with Rasputin. Around 35% TE from 10,500 to 15,000. I think we will eventually see close to 40% TE at 10,500 for nearly 700 hp.

The Honda RA168E had a peak TE of 28% at 12,000 rpm in 1988 and no recovery turbine.


I was under the impression that Mats' graph was not including the compounding.

In any case, 40% TE @ 10,500rpm gives 700hp, 35% TE @ 15,000rpm is 612hp.

But as the rpm rises, and the boost required falls I would expect to see more power generated from the turbo-compounding, and thus the drop off in power won't be quite so dramatic.

#56 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:05

The 1.5 liter 1988 Honda RA168E was delivering 456 kW (620 Hp) at 12 000 Rpm and 1.5 Bar boost, (2.5 absolute), consuming 272 g/kWh (34 g/sec).

I stand corrected grunt, you will probably need more that 1.27 Bar boost to produce 620 Hp from 1,6 liter at 10500 Rpm, even with today's technology.

Remember also the Honda was intercooled. I said in my earlier post "With a typical intercooler, the pressure ratio required will be about 2.3 and compressor discharge temperature about 140*C." ie a boost of 1.3 bar. Truth be told, because those numbers were based on current 2.4 V8 @ 18,000 and it is certain that the 1.6T will have a higher TE, the specific air consumption will be lower and therefore the boost required will also be lower than 1.3 bar.

For a guesstimate of air consumption, M(air) = M(fuel) x AFR = 100kg/hr x 14.7/0.98 = 1500 kg/hr
For volume flow divide by density V(air) =1500/1.25 = 1200 cu.m/hr = 20 cu m/min
A 1.6 litre engine at 110% VE at 10,500 rpm consumes 1.6/2 x 1.1 x 10,500 /1000 = 9.24 cu m/min so the required density ratio for the compressor is 20/9.24 = 2.16 Sounds familiar - ie the assumption of similarity to the current NA engines seems to be supported.

EDIT. I assumed a dimensionless AFR of 0.98 as for the Honda but I have just remembered these new engines will have direct injection which may permit them to run significantly leaner. Of course the boost required would increase in line with that.

Edited by gruntguru, 11 October 2012 - 12:17.


#57 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:13

But as the rpm rises, and the boost required falls I would expect to see more power generated from the turbo-compounding, and thus the drop off in power won't be quite so dramatic.

Mass flow will similar at 10,500 and 15,000. Lower boost means less compressor work (unless compressor efficiency drops which is possible with the operating point moving vertically down on the map). On the other hand the turbine may also need to run at a lower pressure ratio so total turbine work may also decrease.

So its hard to say for sure but you could be right.

#58 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:45

I thought I'd better go back and check your assumptions.

The 2.17 number you quote is the DENSITY RATIO required for the 1.6T to make 620 hp @ 10.5 kRPM, assuming the same VE and TE as the 2.4 V8. The pressure ratio required to achieve this density ratio (at 80% compressor efficiency and no intercooling) is about 3.25 ie 3.25 bar abs boost. Discharge temperature is about 190*C.

With a typical intercooler, the pressure ratio required will be about 2.3 and compressor discharge temperature about 140*C.

The cars will need intercooling.


About 125*C

Did I misunderstand you grunt, I was under the impression that you predicted a 2.25 Bar boost (3.25 absolute), while I said 1.27 Bar boost.

I'm confused, are you now saying that boost will be less than 1.3 Bar at 10 500 Rpm?


#59 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:50

The efficiency value includes everything needed to adjust the power output to what the gearbox gets. thats whats interesting.

Posted Image


TE drops from 10,5K from 0.4 to 0.34.

To much perhaps but. no way they are going to compensate for the increased friction, heat and such in the motor and maintain 0.4 all the way through.

Depending on track they will then mostly operate around 9000 to 14000rpm?

https://dl.dropbox.c...l delivery.xlsx

Link to file if anyone wants to make their own.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 October 2012 - 12:56.


Advertisement

#60 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 22:26

Did I misunderstand you grunt, I was under the impression that you predicted a 2.25 Bar boost (3.25 absolute), while I said 1.27 Bar boost.

I'm confused, are you now saying that boost will be less than 1.3 Bar at 10 500 Rpm?

1.3 bar boost with intercooling and 2.25 without.

#61 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 22:31

TE drops from 10,5K from 0.4 to 0.34.

To much perhaps but. no way they are going to compensate for the increased friction, heat and such in the motor and maintain 0.4 all the way through.

Don't forget the Honda made peak efficiency at 12,000 rpm. (24 years ago!)

- and Wuzak makes a good point about turbine recovery and rpm.

Edited by gruntguru, 11 October 2012 - 22:32.


#62 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,463 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 October 2012 - 23:21

Don't forget the Honda made peak efficiency at 12,000 rpm. (24 years ago!)

- and Wuzak makes a good point about turbine recovery and rpm.



It stands to reason. Mass air flow is going to roughly constant between 10,500rpm and 15,000rpm, so the turbine shaft power should remain relatively constant. But compressor power required will reduce.

#63 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:45

The maximum turbine inlet pressure that can be tolerated is somewhat related to boost pressure so turbine power will drop also. The tradeoff is a loss of engine efficiency as the difference between exhaust and intake pressure moves in the direction of exhaust pressure.

#64 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:39

1.3 bar boost with intercooling and 2.25 without.


Which means that you consider my original estimate of 1.27 Bar not that off anyway, my "lazy-dog" is not so bad after all? ?

#65 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:41

Which means that you consider my original estimate of 1.27 Bar not that off anyway, my "lazy-dog" is not so bad after all? ?

As long as you consider 1.27 to be "not far off" from 2.25

#66 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:57

As long as you consider 1.27 to be "not far off" from 2.25

What I mean is that 1.27 is not far off from 1.3 of course, my "lazy-dog" does not consider different air-densities.

#67 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 22:57

What I mean is that 1.27 is not far off from 1.3 of course, my "lazy-dog" does not consider different air-densities.

:)

#68 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 13:55

The issue of turbo-pressure and intercoolers/charge-cooling for the 2014 engines is analyzed here;

http://www.racecar-e...2014-f1-engine/

#69 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 22 October 2012 - 15:37

Do you all have any opinions about having the throttle after the compressor outlet as it relates to a street driven vehicle? It works great for a race car where it's usually on or off, but I find it difficult to precisely control the boost pressure/power output on part throttle application. I have a 2012 F150 Ecoboost and I find it somewhat annoying in that respect.

Thanks!

John

#70 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 00:56

I always preferred to drive draw-thru setups for the simple fact that the turbo slows down much more gradually when the throttle is shut - on gearshift for example. The F150 is probably DBW and apart from lag issues around its blow-thru configuration, you may be suffering the effects of DBW programming ie the throttle is doing what the ECU says and not necessarily what your right foot is asking for. Greg might have some insight.

Edited by gruntguru, 23 October 2012 - 00:57.


#71 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:12

I agree with your throttle placement experience....in the '80s I adapted a 6.9 L Mercedes Benz K-Jetronic to a 350 turbocharged Chevy (Rajay) and placed the throttle in front of the compressor inlet.....very smooth, easy to modulate and very responsive......whilst cruising on the freeway I loved to hear the whine of the turbine spooling up at partial throttle due to very low pressure at the compressor inlet......when the throttle was opened quickly, the boost was instantaneous.....like  a belt driven supercharger. If in fact it is a fbw programing problem they need to rethink the application process.....it just seems to be an odd way to try and accurately control the output of a compressor by placing the throttle in front of it.......it's hard to get used to......after around 2000 rpm, there is little accuracy , it's either too much or not enough!

Thanks!

John

#72 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:13

If in fact it is a fbw programing problem they need to rethink the application process.....it just seems to be an odd way to try and accurately control the output of a compressor by placing the throttle in front of it.......it's hard to get used to......after around 2000 rpm, there is little accuracy , it's either too much or not enough!

If it is simply a problem of engine output being excessively sensitive to throttle pedal position in "steady state", it is definitely a programming issue. I have found that manufacturers sometimes program DBW systems this way to make the engine "feel" more responsive or powerful. Great for selling cars in the road test but poor part throttle precision becomes tiresome after you have owned the car for a while. The other downside is when you open the throttle from 25% to 100% you discover there is little difference. DBW should allow the torque vs throttle pedal position to be fairly linear at any rpm - something a mechanical sysstem cannot do. (Any fixes for my 2007 manual Focus Greg?)

#73 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 17:55


Well, do be fair....this is a 5000 lb vehicle with a 213 ci motor, so it's probably in and out of boost on a regular basis.....I wish it had a pressure gauge so I could see what is actually occuring at various throttle settings and load.

Thanks!

John

#74 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,477 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 October 2012 - 22:12

I'd have thought MAP would be on the CANBUS.

#75 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 October 2012 - 20:16

I think the issue of the V6T introduction was finally resolved last week in Paris. They are definitely going ahead. Even Bernie is saying that. Ferrari have admitted that they have invested too much money now to scrap it. And if it needed any confirmation it came this weekend from Toto Wolff saying that the 2014 rules make it mandatory that they introduce budget restrictions ASAP.

They still seem to be of two minds about running V8s for poor teams. Fact is that it may be the only way for the three low budget teams and Cosworth to survive. So whatever you find unpalatable about having two different sets of rules will take a back seat to the simple alternative of killing three teams and an engine supplier. Of course they may still find another solution of sales price capping with a multi year financing model but that has its own difficulties. The engine suppliers are already piling up huge development costs and there is no talk about a freeze from 2014. So one has to assume that development cost will be continually added year by year into the new formula. You are not going to solve the sales price problem to the small teams by a financing package unless you order sales price caps. To me it makes an equivalence rule much more likely.

Over at F1technical we have calculated the BTE of the V8s at 29%. The V6T should be above or at 40% including the electric compounding contribution. It will not be a simple exercise of power comparison to set the fuel flow limit for the V8s. The V6T chassis will be considerably different with the intercooler package and the fuel tank size will be different as well. I still think they will simply give the V8s much more fuel flow than 27.8g/s but a bit less than they currently have. My guess is they could start with 35g/s and adapt that to the results always keeping the V8 car performance under that of the slowest V6T.

One area of comparison that we have learned very little about is the direct injection system and its impact on AFR. Grunt said something about it but there seems to be no good estimate about the technology. My impression is that spray guided combustion technology is likely to be used. There must be a reason why they have set a 500 bar limit to the high pressure fuel pump. The most likely reason in my view is to stop a cost race on injection speed. Such a limit only makes sense if they all inject at the end of the compression phase and use spray guided combustion to exploit high compression and lean running. The question I have is how lean could it be compared to the V8s?

#76 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 October 2012 - 22:41

Such a limit only makes sense if they all inject at the end of the compression phase and use spray guided combustion to exploit high compression and lean running. The question I have is how lean could it be compared to the V8s?

In theory there is no limit to how lean it could go provided there is no boost pressure limit and the stratified charge technology can be developed. OTOH there will be a limit where leaner mixtures produce no further gains in BTE.

#77 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:25

In theory there is no limit to how lean it could go provided there is no boost pressure limit and the stratified charge technology can be developed. OTOH there will be a limit where leaner mixtures produce no further gains in BTE.

There is no limit to boost pressure that we know of. Nevertheless one has to be sceptical that stratified charge will work at 10,500 rpm where the fuel flow is maxed. Do you know any manufacturers who have experience with 500 bar direct injection systems @ 10,500 rpm?


#78 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,463 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:31

Just thought this would be a better question.

Do you know any manufacturers who have experience with 500 bar direct injection systems @ 10,500 rpm?



#79 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 November 2012 - 20:43

I just don't like F1 being too over-regulated. I see F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport and I don't want to see a set of engine regulations that evens out the potential performance between different manufacturer's engines. Hey, why not have success ballast too so that we can manipulate the racing to keep it going down to the wire every season....

Advertisement

#80 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,843 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:26

If cost containment and close racing for the spectators are the priorities, spec cars and penalty ballast for good results make perfect sense. You could take fuel flow away from the most successful cars away as well. We are kind of in an awkward halfway point at the moment between spec racing with enforced parity and pure F1 now where you get the worst of both approaches.

#81 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:01

Yes we have started down the road of penalising good performance with DRS to overtake. If the trend goes beyond that it will become farcical and I won't bother watching. Where's the incentive to develop a faster car if you know the result will be a hobble of some kind.

#82 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:19

Don't you think that development cost curbing by budget caps could have a positive impact on the technical rules? I believe the trend of the last years to fight cost by narrowing the technical scope is wrong. If they can come up with budgets they will attract more manufacturers and we will have a good chance to see more liberty in turbo and ERS design. So I hope that we get a total budget for 2013 and a power train budget from 2014.

#83 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,843 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 November 2012 - 15:09

How does one realistically implement a budget cap system though? The resources poured into developing a ground up racing car are diffused over a dizzying array of avenues. There are fixed infrastructures like physical plants already in place-- bases of operation, wind tunnels, dyno facilities, K&C tools, vehicle dynamics rigs etc. etc. that mean even with fixed operating budgets every team is starting from a different line. Then there are technical partnerships and sponsorships with powertrain and component suppliers with no obvious or workable accounting methods to tease out or quantify the amount of support they bring to the effort. How does one quantify collaborative development with those suppliers with any useful precision? Each collaborative supplier has its own unequal fixed infrastructures just as the teams do so the suppliers are on differing starting lines as well. How does one equalize an independent team from one with a large manufacturer partner where the team with the close relationship with the manufacturer derives direct and indirect benefit from having a huge staff of engineers and engineering resources? And there are a thousand possible shades of gray between a fully manufacturer and supplier sponsored team and an independent team who are buying components more or less off the shelf. What is the precise dollar value of a collaborative relationship between a team and a engine supplier or a transmission or damper or software supplier who derives promotional benefits from the relationship with no fixed figure to attach to it? Then there are huge staffing differentials from team to team, do we mandate that Caterham and McLaren equalize staffing levels or mandate that Newey get compensated at the same level as Mark Smith?

I just don't see budget caps as a realistically workable approach in F1.

#84 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 16:05

You surely cannot create total equality. But that isn't the objective either. What you want is separately limiting the development budget that teams can spend on their chassis and power train manufacturers can spend on their thing. You set up controlled legal entities for that purpose. That gets a big problem out of the way. You obviously have to limit the transfer sales price for power trains and engines accordingly so that the mid field teams remain viable. To keep the small teams afloat you simply introduce an equivalence formula with V8s. I would not so much worry about partnership with sub suppliers. Sponsorship has always been something that existed and why should it not exist in future. Some manufacturers may have to pay more for their alternators than others and some teams may pay more for their brake disks. It isn't really a problem.

The problem starts where you have hidden development organizations working in the core competencies of the controlled entities. I'm talking about aerodynamics for the teams and engine development for the manufacturers. When those companies start to transfer their result free of charge or under charged to the entities that are budget controlled then you must catch them. It is obviously a matter of stringent auditing and setting up suitable rewards for whistle blowers. There are always disgruntled team members. The risk of something getting out must be too high.

Today you have many tools to penalize or threaten a racing or manufacturing company into compliance. The directors have to apply for an FiA license. You can ban the directors if they have known about cheating. You can have severe sporting and financial penalties. As soon as you have the governing body at the driving wheel you will see people clean up their act very quickly.

One thing that you can never stop is personal transfer between different entities of manufacturers. So for instance a guy doing research for Ferrari's LeMans engines suddenly pops up at the F1 engine entity. That you cannot stop. The same can obviously happen at Mercedes, Honda, Porsche or any other manufacturer. It is something that will even out as soon as you have attracted enough manufacturers. And limiting budgets will obviously attract manufacturers faster than anything else.

I'm just privately chuckling at the idea of Baretzky getting a phone call by Piech ordering him to prop up the F1 project in Weissach. It would be something I would like to watch happening.

edited for typos twice

Edited by WhiteBlue, 02 November 2012 - 16:19.


#85 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:37

There is plenty of other areas cash can be saved like certain manufacturing technics can be banned. Same goes for materials.

Spesifying the alloys and wall thickness allowed for exhaust systems, Only allow aluminium intakes, No titanium anywhere ever. No carbon fiber anywhere on the motor. and so on.
They will still probably hit the weight limit with ease.

Simplify the cars and that alone would help a great deal. How many million dollars does a F1 car cost?

No one knows? how about certain parts of them?

No such diff adjustments from the steering wheel. No fuel saving mappings.

Got problems going the distance? well learn to short shift then. or retire.

Spesify standardised spark plug wires.

No carbon fiber in the suspention. costly and not needed to go as fast as the current F1 cars are going. Not very safe either. Too brittle.

No tire temp sensors. The driver needs to do manage his tires not the engineers.

Racing legends will not be made with engineers overseeing everything.



Starting with this is easier and will give bigger gains on the backmarkers laptimes than a resource cap for mclaren. They still got the infrastructure and machine park.


Edited by MatsNorway, 02 November 2012 - 19:42.


#86 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:08

That's about right, Mats.

#87 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:29

There is plenty of other areas cash can be saved like certain manufacturing technics can be banned. Same goes for materials.

Spesifying the alloys and wall thickness allowed for exhaust systems, Only allow aluminium intakes, No titanium anywhere ever. No carbon fiber anywhere on the motor. and so on.
They will still probably hit the weight limit with ease.

Simplify the cars and that alone would help a great deal. How many million dollars does a F1 car cost?

No one knows? how about certain parts of them?

No such diff adjustments from the steering wheel. No fuel saving mappings.

Got problems going the distance? well learn to short shift then. or retire.

Spesify standardised spark plug wires.

No carbon fiber in the suspention. costly and not needed to go as fast as the current F1 cars are going. Not very safe either. Too brittle.

No tire temp sensors. The driver needs to do manage his tires not the engineers.

Racing legends will not be made with engineers overseeing everything.



Starting with this is easier and will give bigger gains on the backmarkers laptimes than a resource cap for mclaren. They still got the infrastructure and machine park.


These proposals won't really save money, but rather change where money is spent. If you for example ban the electro-hydraulic adjustable limited slip differential which works well, teams would have to develop new adjustable mechanical diffs at great expense. Ban titanium and we will end up with various expensive superalloys, steels and complex manufacturing methods instead. No tire temperature sensors, well, use IR cameras instead.

Spark plug wires aren't used at all, like with most modern engines coil on plug is used.

What makes F1 cars expensive is the manhours needed to design, build and service them. An HRT car is cheaper than a Ferrari simply because the latter spend far more manhours on their cars.

#88 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:40

If you for example ban the electro-hydraulic adjustable limited slip differential which works well, teams would have to develop new adjustable mechanical diffs at great expense.

Less techno bits costs less. Yes you can waste a lot on clever design but everything got its limits. And when you do it gives you lesser advantages against teams like HRT because the techology is simpler.

Ban titanium and we will end up with various expensive superalloys, steels and complex manufacturing methods instead.


Spesify the alloys allowed and ban tricky dicky production methods as allready mentioned.

No tire temperature sensors, well, use IR cameras instead.

No temperature sensors onboard is still a improvement. IR cameras got its limits. and a complete ban on tire temperature logging/measuring during race day would probably do just fine.

Spark plug wires aren't used at all, like with most modern engines coil on plug is used.


standarise a dirt cheap and solid unit. and the wire going into it. they probably costs a fortune because they save 20grams over what normal units costs.

Edited by MatsNorway, 03 November 2012 - 08:59.


#89 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,843 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 03 November 2012 - 19:19

Cost control through the technical regulations is an exercise in futility in any case. The teams will spend whatever they can get and the ones with deeper pockets will spend more, no amount of specifying materials or designs will change that.

#90 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:06

Cost control through the technical regulations is an exercise in futility in any case. The teams will spend whatever they can get and the ones with deeper pockets will spend more, no amount of specifying materials or designs will change that.

That is one obvious conclusion from the last ten years of cost control. You have to introduce budget control to keep the whole thing viable. And you have to do it ASAP as Toto Wolff has confirmed. If you freeze it now at the amount which they are currently spending ($250m) and drive it down from there over several years you can prevent a bubble. Look at 2006 when they had budgets in excess of $400m. You definitely do not want them to go anywhere near that again. $250m for 2013 would be a good starting point if they agree to split it for 2014 and the following years.

I would look at such a situation:
2013: teams $250m ; engines unlimited
2014: teams $180m ; engines $50m
2015: teams $150m ; engines $40m
2016: Teams $120m ; engines $35m
2015: Teams $100m ; engines $30m

I think at $130m p.a. there would be plenty of manufacturers coming back into F1. There would also bee more teams if you are sure that you can run it competitively at $100m.

Bernie has told reporters in Abu Dhabi that he will offer $500k to all whistle blowers who report on cheating the budget.


#91 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:16

Some of the chances i mentioned should be done regardless of budget cap. Steel suspension and a ban on sertain production methods.

Edit: Lets put the question on its head. Would F1 be a cheaper and better racing series with active suspension, active aero, intelligent braking and traction systems?

The answer is obviously no. So it only makes sence to work in the same direction about other techno bits no one would miss.

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 November 2012 - 13:30.


#92 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:41

And $500K is good enough to live the rest of your life unenployed, right. Maybe if the offer was $500K/year...

Budget cap will just make the big spenders stronger. You just can't enforce it. The almighty U.S. can't put a cap on drug dealers' money operating within it's borders how do you think FIA will be able to watch the tobacco, soft drink, car manufacturers and the whatnot companies?

One must remember that today the result of a $100MM development process fits into a DVD or a pen drive. Not to mention the internet, but that could leave a trail.

#93 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:04

And $500K is good enough to live the rest of your life unenployed, right. Maybe if the offer was $500K/year...

Why should a whistle blower be unemployed? He may be working for another team by the time he blows the whistle. And even if he is still with the cheating team his employment chances will primarily depend of his work quality. Just remember spygate and crashgate. The perpetrators are mostly in F1 now and they have done the real bad things and not the right thing.

#94 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:46

And the whistle blower is driving phony trucks that turn only to the left.

#95 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:00

I have no idea what you are talking about.
What I know is that teams will have to relay on their professionalism

Edited by WhiteBlue, 07 November 2012 - 08:02.


#96 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 17:19

That is one obvious conclusion from the last ten years of cost control. You have to introduce budget control to keep the whole thing viable. And you have to do it ASAP as Toto Wolff has confirmed. If you freeze it now at the amount which they are currently spending ($250m) and drive it down from there over several years you can prevent a bubble. Look at 2006 when they had budgets in excess of $400m. You definitely do not want them to go anywhere near that again. $250m for 2013 would be a good starting point if they agree to split it for 2014 and the following years.

I would look at such a situation:
2013: teams $250m ; engines unlimited
2014: teams $180m ; engines $50m
2015: teams $150m ; engines $40m
2016: Teams $120m ; engines $35m
2015: Teams $100m ; engines $30m

I think at $130m p.a. there would be plenty of manufacturers coming back into F1. There would also bee more teams if you are sure that you can run it competitively at $100m.

Bernie has told reporters in Abu Dhabi that he will offer $500k to all whistle blowers who report on cheating the budget.


Budget controls will never work.

Why, what do you think of how Red Bull easily sidesteps the RRA with their separate entity known as Red Bull Technology?

Every team will set up some side company somewhere that does all the hard work, then "sells" the products back to the team(s).

#97 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 17:21

yea. These guys knows how to bend rules without breaking them.

#98 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 07 November 2012 - 18:24

Less techno bits costs less. Yes you can waste a lot on clever design but everything got its limits. And when you do it gives you lesser advantages against teams like HRT because the techology is simpler.


The electro hydraulic LSD was actually kept due to the reason I mentioned.

The fact that HRT isn't competitive despite that they can buy a complete competitive powertrain for a fair sum only goes to show that standard parts aren't really effective in reducing spending.

Spesify the alloys allowed and ban tricky dicky production methods as allready mentioned.


Unless you plan to engineer all the parts yourself and send the teams your drawings complete with material specifications, this is simply not possible. It won't reduce costs either, CNC machined titanium forgings used for conrods, valves and other parts are reasonably cheap to produce. "Clean" high strength steel won't cost you less, and you need spend more on CNC machining due to the higher strength and higher density material requiring thinner sections.

No temperature sensors onboard is still a improvement. IR cameras got its limits. and a complete ban on tire temperature logging/measuring during race day would probably do just fine.


No temperature sensors onbord is simply not a solution, temperature sensors are required for many purposes.

Also, tire temperature sensors are typically of the IR kind. Thermal cameras is the latest high end solution for this purpose.

http://mclarenelectr.....hermal Camera

standarise a dirt cheap and solid unit. and the wire going into it. they probably costs a fortune because they save 20grams over what normal units costs.


Not really, they are motorsport units designed to be compact (so they fit in the heads), handle high operating engine speeds and withstand high levels of vibration and high temperatures without failing. The Bosch coil suitable for F1 and other motorsport applications below cost 710 euros.

http://mclarenelectr.....Ignition Coil
http://www.bosch-mot..._2778033291.pdf

#99 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,843 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:15

I must say I find the wet behind the ears naïveté of those who think it would be possible to make F1 "affordable" or even "more affordable" through regulatory means charming.

Advertisement

#100 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:24

Fire uphill, water downhill, and a few other things are unstoppable...

The say goes in a very nasty and sexist way here in BR, but that's the idea.

No stopping people from spending money when they have it and intend to. The intention itself is enough, one can always spend someone else's.