Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

2014 Power Units


  • Please log in to reply
1459 replies to this topic

#151 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 16:49

I think i'm right in saying the ERS, the actual "engine" and all the associated ancillaries are counted as the "power unit" as a whole, so if ERS fails then thats it for the whole unit, it can't be used at all if one component of the power unit fails, i think its an attempt to increase the life of some of the smaller parts/ancillaries and thus save costs, with only 5 power units a season your in trouble if there's a fundamental reliability issue thats for sure! (IndyCar 2012 & endless penalties anyone?)

I'm not 100% on this so feel free to correct me if necessary.


Have you seen this written somewhere?

Advertisement

#152 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 17:29

Road car relevence is a PR tactic mostly, there may be some transfer from F1 but most transfer will be TO F1.

My issue is that road cars are boring (bar some exotics, and even they are getting boring) compared to race cars. Road cars are made to last a long time; they are tuned for low maintenance; they are designed to display sedate behaviour; they are increasingly developed to accommodate people who cannot muster the co-ordination to use a manual transmission or parallel park; they are designed to be so quiet the regulators are now thinking of requiring "noise makers" to promote pedestrian safety; they are designed for comfort rather than maximum alertness; and on and on. They are boring.

Frankly I don't want F1 to be road relevant, far from it. I have watched F1 for almost 40 years and I am ever grateful that there was little to no road car relevance. People pick a few examples of possible road car technology transfer and forget the larger F1 picture - the teams needs guys with laptops to start the engines (after the engines have been pre-conditioned to start), the driver cannot buckle his own seat harness; he must remove the steering wheel to enter and exit the vehice; there are no passive restraints such as air bags; the rear view mirrors (historically a true race-to-road transfer) are as good as useless; the tires are so "road useless" that they must be changed during the race and certainly if it starts (or stops) raining; KERS batteries are changed after each race; etc., etc.

So, if you want road car relevance step up to the plate - require all weather tires that last a season (imagine the tech transfer potential there!); engine and batteries must last at least a season (let's get serious about this for road cars); the driver must be able to start the car all by himself; let's require racing in sub-zero temperatures (after all many of us live in such climates); etc. If you're serious about road relevance then stop pretending and get serious! If you're satisfied by some small arcane issue then any kind of competition will do the job.

#153 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 17:31

Have you seen this written somewhere?


Yup, took a while to remember where i'd seen it though!

While each car currently has a limit of eight engines for the season, in 2014 this limit will drop to five “power units,” to include not just the traditional block we know as the engine but “all ancilliaries, any energy recovery systems and all actuation systems.” So, for the avoidance of doubt, a failure on any element of the “power unit” which requires a change, means that’s one of your allocation of five.


http://willthef1jour...-it-is-awesome/

:)

#154 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 17:48

... the new formula DOES NOT capture the imagination, ...


NO. It does not capture your imagination.

Edited by Tombstone, 15 January 2013 - 17:48.


#155 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 17:50

... that was 3.5l, V10 and put out 850 hp - and didn't stop at 14,300 because a RULE said so, but because *that was the engineering limit at the time*.


There are other rules too. Why not have whinge about those?

#156 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 18:01

Yup, took a while to remember where i'd seen it though!



http://willthef1jour...-it-is-awesome/

:)


Cheers. :up:

I'm expecting a record haul of penalties in 2014 then.

#157 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 18:35

I just have to say I don't understand the need for the reliability reg of 5 units, the fuel limitation and the rpm limit. I'd like them to drop the rpm limitation, it just seems redundant.

#158 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 18:46

I just have to say I don't understand the need for the reliability reg of 5 units, the fuel limitation and the rpm limit. I'd like them to drop the rpm limitation, it just seems redundant.


Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.

#159 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 19:02

Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.


It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.

Advertisement

#160 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 19:13

Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.

Probably there is a RPM limit because some teams would prefer to take the grid penalty and run an engine with a higher RPM that would last only 1gp but would be significantly faster.

#161 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 19:45

It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.


Why do you think it limits the learning and development?

The teams (as i understand it) are still allowed to improve the reliability & efficiency of the engines during the season, there will still be masses of R&D work carried out to improve the engines for future seasons as well which would help with their understanding for road car side of things.

#162 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 19:48

It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.

How does a RPM limit impede their learning process regarding road car development? Does the new Twingo rev up to 18k?

#163 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 19:56

Why do you think it limits the learning and development?

The teams (as i understand it) are still allowed to improve the reliability & efficiency of the engines during the season, there will still be masses of R&D work carried out to improve the engines for future seasons as well which would help with their understanding for road car side of things.


It limits the development of the engine. It's not like someone is going to discover a way to make them 90% efficient. Even if someone found a way to turn heat directly into energy there are too many losses in an ICE. But having fuel flow limits and life limits on the engine should be restriction enough. I'm sure they'll be plenty of opportunities to learn and develop the ERS, but the actual lump will see little development in this formula. But perhaps that is the point, the manufacturers feel they've already gotten the most out of the old combustion engine.

#164 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 20:00

How does a RPM limit impede their learning process regarding road car development? Does the new Twingo rev up to 18k?


The lessons learned in making an engine run at 18k for 2000km can be directly applied to making the lowly Twingo more reliable.  ;)

So why shouldn't part of the engineering challenge be to make the 18k, or more, engine go for 4000km?

#165 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 20:21

It limits the development of the engine. It's not like someone is going to discover a way to make them 90% efficient. Even if someone found a way to turn heat directly into energy there are too many losses in an ICE. But having fuel flow limits and life limits on the engine should be restriction enough. I'm sure they'll be plenty of opportunities to learn and develop the ERS, but the actual lump will see little development in this formula. But perhaps that is the point, the manufacturers feel they've already gotten the most out of the old combustion engine.


Well, i respectfully disagree. It's a completely new unit that the teams haven't even scratched the surface of yet in terms of learning and development. I still can't see how you think limiting RPM will affect development, honestly i don't get the logic.

#166 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 20:40

Probably there is a RPM limit because some teams would prefer to take the grid penalty and run an engine with a higher RPM that would last only 1gp but would be significantly faster.

Not with the fuel flow limit in place.

#167 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:09

Well, i respectfully disagree. It's a completely new unit that the teams haven't even scratched the surface of yet in terms of learning and development. I still can't see how you think limiting RPM will affect development, honestly i don't get the logic.


Cylinder config limit.
Cylinder dimensions spec'd
CG spec'd.
Number of valves spec'd
Boost pressure limited.
Fuel flow limited.
RPM limited.
Standard ECU.

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.

#168 Gfhuus

Gfhuus
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:12

Gfhuus, 80s turbos used to be also I4. I don't think the layout is a real problem (though I'd wish they make it free), lack of power is imho. Though we can hope that V6s will sound better than I4s would.


Yeah, I know :). There's some pretty sweet sounding I4 rally cars too. Personally I even like the Le Mans diesels.

Can't say I wasn't happy when they announced the I4=>V6 thing though. As a tech enthusiast, I'd love to see unrestricted layouts since that would make following the off-track development race more exciting. Still, if it's at the expense of on-track excitement, which is what the strict regulations try to ensure, I can easily settle for less. My heart rate was a lot higher during Brazilian GP than FPs where Lotus was testing it's DRS thingie.

I'm not concerned about the lack of power, though it's partly because I'm more or less blindly believing the claims that torque increases.

#169 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:23

Cylinder config limit.
Cylinder dimensions spec'd
CG spec'd.
Number of valves spec'd
Boost pressure limited.
Fuel flow limited.
RPM limited.
Standard ECU.

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.


I don't know whether or not your an engine engineer/technician/whatever but i'm not so i can't comment on the specifics but i highly doubt it the worlds top engine manufacturers would of been happy with the new engine rules if they could not develop and learn from the new generation engines. Why would they go to the initial expense and hassle if there's nothing to garner from the rule change?

Edited by olliek88, 15 January 2013 - 21:24.


#170 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:35

It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.


How many road cars rev anywhere close to 15k?

#171 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:37

The lessons learned in making an engine run at 18k for 2000km can be directly applied to making the lowly Twingo more reliable. ;)

So why shouldn't part of the engineering challenge be to make the 18k, or more, engine go for 4000km?


I agree with that, but it has zero relevance to a road car.


#172 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:44

How many road cars rev anywhere close to 15k?


They don't need to. It's called reliability engineering. That's how its relevant.

#173 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,953 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:46

I don't know whether or not your an engine engineer/technician/whatever but i'm not so i can't comment on the specifics but i highly doubt it the worlds top engine manufacturers would of been happy with the new engine rules if they could not develop and learn from the new generation engines. Why would they go to the initial expense and hassle if there's nothing to garner from the rule change?


Marketing.
Beating one another and winning titles will always be good for the image, no matter what engine they have. But there are only a very few companies/manufacturers that can afford and are willing to go all in with the necessary investment and expenditure.

Edited by Atreiu, 15 January 2013 - 21:47.


#174 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:48

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.

If nothing changes, the list is even longer (like the spec angle between cylinder banks, spec cylinder dimensions etc)

#175 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:54

If nothing changes, the list is even longer (like the spec angle between cylinder banks, spec cylinder dimensions etc)


Got the cyl dimensions forgot the spec angle. :up:

#176 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 21:57

They don't need to. It's called reliability engineering. That's how its relevant.


Do you really think there is a crossover between a race engine and a road car engine? They are totally different beasts.

#177 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:03

Do you really think there is a crossover between a race engine and a road car engine? They are totally different beasts.


Not as far apart as you'd like to think. If you understand how an engine operates and how its made you'll understand what I mean. I in no way mean that to sound condescending.

#178 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:08

Not as far apart as you'd like to think. If you understand how an engine operates and how its made you'll understand what I mean. I in no way mean that to sound condescending.


I understand, but the materials and methods used in the race engine are vastly different. I really do think they are totally standalone products.

#179 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:15

but the materials and methods used in the race engine are vastly different.


That's all down to reliability and how long the engine is required to last. The architecture is identical.

Advertisement

#180 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:22

That's all down to reliability and how long the engine is required to last. The architecture is identical.


So apart from the materials you think the engines are identical?

#181 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:26

So apart from the materials you think the engines are identical?


You know I remember being flabbergasted when I learned that four valves per cylinder and blown engines existed pre WWII. The greatest three things to happen to engines in the last 30 years are computer aided machining, fuel injection and electronics. Everything else is pretty much the same. Excluding material science of course.

#182 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 22:46

Do you really think there is a crossover between a race engine and a road car engine? They are totally different beasts.

Having worked for a car maker (nothing cool, just translating manuals) that had a pretty extensive LMP project at that time, I can assure you that there is much more road-relevant stuff going on than I'd have ever imagined. Still, I don't really see that with the new regs. If they'd gone with the I4 world engine instead, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

#183 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,662 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 January 2013 - 23:28

Cylinder config limit.
Cylinder dimensions spec'd
CG spec'd.
Number of valves spec'd
Boost pressure limited.
Fuel flow limited.
RPM limited.
Standard ECU.

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.


I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.


Edited by BillBald, 15 January 2013 - 23:30.


#184 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,534 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 00:10

They don't need to. It's called reliability engineering. That's how its relevant.

Well we have the Proton owned Lotus team. Proton reliability. Words not normally found without "un" inbetween I would suspect.

We have Volkswagen at Le Mans with Audi and Porsche. Volkswagen think it is a good idea to sell a basic hatchback with a 7 speed semi-automatic gearbox and a turbo- and super-charged little engine. What could possibly go wrong in 5 years time! :p Toyotas and Hondas might be bland, but at least they keep it simple, if antiquated, to maximize reliability... And so we have Volkswagen having to resort to 10 year powertrain warranties to satisfy disappointed customers in China, where they were a very popular and respected brand.

Not to mention Citroen. In places far away from France, such as Australia, owning a Citroen is considered a non-trivial exercise, often involving importing your own parts from Europe. Unfortunately in the business of (not) selling cars they have got themselves in a predicament where they are too much like a Toyota for Australian Citroen enthusiasts, and not enough like a Toyota (i.e., reliable) for other car buyers. How unfortunate!

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 January 2013 - 02:04.


#185 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,927 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:53

I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.


I thought they would lose the separate button and have the electric power blend into overall power output automatically via the throttle pedal and some electronics. At least that was the case in some earlier version of the rule drafts, not sure if it has changed.


#186 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:09

V6 turbo from years gone past in F1, 1.5 liters, twin-turbo:

V6 turbo from Indycar last year (and this year and the next few years), 2.2 liters, twin-turbo:

Thanks!

#187 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:27

I can not imagine a direct 'push-to-boost' control for the ERS turbine mapping but rather a dial which enables varios settings plus a 'Kers'-button to allow the driver to tramit the available energy into the driveshaft.

Edited by H2H, 16 January 2013 - 14:28.


#188 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,662 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:49

I thought they would lose the separate button and have the electric power blend into overall power output automatically via the throttle pedal and some electronics. At least that was the case in some earlier version of the rule drafts, not sure if it has changed.


If it was all done via the throttle pedal, I can see some possible complications.

If the driver pushes it to the floor, does that cause the ERS to kick in? If so, it could cause wheelspin by being activated too early. If electronics prevented that happening, you would have a kind of traction control. But apart from that, the driver will surely always be a better judge of when to use it (tactically) than the most sophisticated electronics.

Maybe the best solution would be to have an activation/deactivation button or switch, but to allow the throttle pedal to control the amount of power delivered?

Edited by BillBald, 16 January 2013 - 17:50.


#189 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,662 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:54

I can not imagine a direct 'push-to-boost' control for the ERS turbine mapping but rather a dial which enables varios settings plus a 'Kers'-button to allow the driver to tramit the available energy into the driveshaft.


That's a possibility, but I think drivers would prefer to control the power via the throttle pedal. Otherwise they could find themselves having to lift off the throttle because they dialled too much ERS, saving fuel but using up ERS, which would often be a poor tactical choice.



#190 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,662 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:59

Well we have the Proton owned Lotus team. Proton reliability. Words not normally found without "un" inbetween I would suspect.


I think you'll find that Proton have a better reputation for reliability than Lotus road cars have ever had.



#191 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,927 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:00

James Allen wrote,

There has been talk of Ferrari cutting a deal on engines in return for a seat for Bianchi, but Force India will have to reflect carefully on this as all the signs are that the Mercedes will be the dominant new generation engine in 2014 and they’d be mad to give that up.


But he does not say why he thinks so. What are "all the signs"?

#192 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,819 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:03

If it was all done via the throttle pedal, I can see some possible complications.

If the driver pushes it to the floor, does that cause the ERS to kick in? If so, it could cause wheelspin by being activated too early. If electronics prevented that happening, you would have a kind of traction control. But apart from that, the driver will surely always be a better judge of when to use it (tactically) than the most sophisticated electronics.

Maybe the best solution would be to have an activation/deactivation button or switch, but to allow the throttle pedal to control the amount of power delivered?


As far as I'm aware ERS is disabled by various means under certain speeds. For instance, you never see KERS activated by a F1 driver at the start under a certain speed limit (somewhere around 90-100 kph); the Williams flywheel KERS in the Porsche GT3-R hybrid and the Audi R18 e-tron is only enabled over 120 kph; the KERS on the Toyota TS030 operates only at speeds over 80-90 kph. The latter two are most likely activated automatically through the throttle. Teams calculate at what speed the driving wheels are no longer grip-limited under power, and the KERS/ERS would only operate above that speed.

#193 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:30

James Allen wrote,


But he does not say why he thinks so. What are "all the signs"?


Tis not the first time I've seen Allen make bold sweeping statements like this with nothing (apparent) to back it up.

So although I'd love that to be the case, I defintitly wont take his word on it.

#194 Gintonious

Gintonious
  • Member

  • 1,007 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:42

I do like James Allen, but he can come out with this sort of crap every now and then.

#195 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 20:00

Tis not the first time I've seen Allen make bold sweeping statements like this with nothing (apparent) to back it up.

So although I'd love that to be the case, I defintitly wont take his word on it.



Well, I think it's simply a combination of them already having strong engines, having a good reputation in that field & of course the recent event they hosted for journos where they showed off an early build of their new engine. On this latter point - having an event already could be perceived as a fairly confident think to do and guzzling Reisling all day while cooing at a dyno simulation will have had some effect.

The truth is probably that most of the journos and certainly all of us are not well versed enough in the operations of each company. They don't know the standard of engineers working on the project, when they really started, how much cash is committed & the importance of being #1 to each team. Classic 1+1 = 3 stuff really and you can come up with a story to suit every manufacturer.

I mean, let me just throw into the ring the fact that Ferrari do not like to lose, they are no stranger to engines and contrary to popular belief they most certainly could apply this knowledge over to a whole raft of road cars. They've also had well documented failings developing aero in recent years and so would love an opportunity to get ahead of the opposition by applying their strengths. Just my 2c though...

#196 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,167 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 21:02

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.

#197 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 January 2013 - 21:12

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.


With so many rules regarding the design of the engine, rev limits etc. and the fact that they all have more than enough experience of building engines I don't think anyone will have a real advantage in this area.


#198 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,750 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 January 2013 - 21:22

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.

Turbo charging is well understood by all now. It's no rocket science.
The true innovation and challenge is the area of Turbo Compounding where kinetic and heat recovery systems are coupled to the turbo function.
The challenge will be to manage and deploy the kinetic, heat and combustion energy in the most efficient way.

#199 rodlamas

rodlamas
  • Member

  • 8,052 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:21

I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.


You have to consider the worst case which is Spa, 70% on throttle on a 110 seconds lap, which means 77 seconds.

So drivers will be 44 seconds without ERS while full throttling.
Therefore the controls will be just like KERS is this year.

Advertisement

#200 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:41

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.



Although, ferrari are the only (current) engine manufacturer to have won a 'Turbo-WCC'. Two of 'em, in fact.

~30 years ago mind.

Edited by Tombstone, 16 January 2013 - 22:44.