Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

2014 F1 regulations and proposed changes [Merged]


  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#51 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 July 2013 - 15:11

Exactly, if the rules mandated a lower chassis, then the floor would be less effective (downforce reduction).

Er - that is exactly what they are doing! Nose is way down on the front wing and chassis is lower at it's maximum. Did you check out the rules?

Advertisement

#52 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,067 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 09 July 2013 - 15:14

Could someone be so kind as to explain to a non-technical/bit of a moron person such as myself what the theory is behind making teams stick with gear ratios over an entire season?

#53 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,035 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 15:45

Er - that is exactly what they are doing! Nose is way down on the front wing and chassis is lower at it's maximum. Did you check out the rules?

At 525mm the front bulkhead is still very high in my opinion.

#54 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,035 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 15:45

Could someone be so kind as to explain to a non-technical/bit of a moron person such as myself what the theory is behind making teams stick with gear ratios over an entire season?

Cost saving.

#55 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 July 2013 - 16:08

Cost saving.

Is it really such a big item on the invoice?

#56 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 09 July 2013 - 16:10

Testing around race weekends is something I and others suggested a long time ago - a welcome change.

Other than that, it's bad. 690 kg minimum weight? A disgrace! F1 cars shouldn't be much heavier than 600 kg. It's sad that such drastic weight increase takes place due to the hybrid drivetrain being forced by the rules.

Downforce reduction is nothing good - they should have stuck to the original idea of reintroducing ground effects.

The gear ratios thing seems to be unnecessary.

Edited by DrProzac, 09 July 2013 - 16:11.


#57 mclara

mclara
  • Member

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 09 July 2013 - 16:23

It was found it didn't make a big difference, in reality. The majority of the issue came from the diffuser and the rear wing in combination. With the removal of the beam wing and the severe limitation of the diffuser since 2011 it should be okay.



Thank you. I was not aware of that.


#58 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 July 2013 - 16:36

Other than that, it's bad. 690 kg minimum weight? A disgrace! F1 cars shouldn't be much heavier than 600 kg. It's sad that such drastic weight increase takes place due to the hybrid drivetrain being forced by the rules.


It also runs counter to the "road car application" notion.

None of the rules really make any sense, except from the bureaucracy-decision standpoint. Hybrid systems that don't work the way road cars do, engines that are not like road car engines, no emphasis on developing battery technology, or lighter motors, on and on. It's some weird hash up of different half-baked notions decided by proxy of a bureaucracy.

I think F1 is very vulnerable today, both from a marketing/business model/product standpoint, as well as the inherent global-financial situation.


#59 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:17

How is there no emphasis on developing battery technology or lighter motors?

Advertisement

#60 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:26

Scarbs' take - http://scarbsf1.com/...2014_draft2.jpg , been pretty accurate in the past with his drawings based on the regs, looks rather GP2 like to me, not so keen...

#61 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,823 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:30

How is there no emphasis on developing battery technology or lighter motors?


I would suspect that the F1 teams just buy batteries from whoever makes them. Not convinced that a battery company will start a new R&D chemistry project for one formula 1 team that wants a better weight/power figure.
Edit - doing a search around the net, I see that F1 teams partner up with battery companies to *package* a battery cell of appropriate power and shape for the cars, but you were asking about advancing the fundamental technologies.

And for the engine, the weight figures are homologated, so you *arent allowed* to try to make lighter engines.

...and that scarbs picture just posted. If we had "stepped noses" last year, everyone will be talking about "broken noses" next year.

Edited by alfa1, 10 July 2013 - 17:40.


#62 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 485 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:36

Fuel flow limit is same from 10500-15000rpm, so the power curve is quite flat. Gearing is not going to be crucial like it is now. They do get one chance to change gearing during 2014.

#63 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:54

Scarbs' take - http://scarbsf1.com/...2014_draft2.jpg , been pretty accurate in the past with his drawings based on the regs, looks rather GP2 like to me, not so keen...

Loving the small Scarbs on the bargeboard.

#64 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 17:56

I would suspect that the F1 teams just buy batteries from whoever makes them. Not convinced that a battery company will start a new R&D chemistry project for one formula 1 team that wants a better weight/power figure.
Edit - doing a search around the net, I see that F1 teams partner up with battery companies to *package* a battery cell of appropriate power and shape for the cars, but you were asking about advancing the fundamental technologies.

And for the engine, the weight figures are homologated, so you *arent allowed* to try to make lighter engines.

...and that scarbs picture just posted. If we had "stepped noses" last year, everyone will be talking about "broken noses" next year.

Obviously, the teams won't delve into battery development themselves, but i'm pretty sure the larger ones will work with battery companies to find the best solutions. Which should also include looking at more exotic cell types. How's that not development? Also, teams don't even have to use batteries, they are free to run flywheels or supercaps. There's plenty of scope for development there.

With 'motor', i was actually thinking of the MGU-K, my mistake. The ICE of course has a minimum weight, but the ERS part of the propulsion does not, as far as i'm aware.

Edited by dau, 10 July 2013 - 17:57.


#65 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 18:11

Scarbs' take - http://scarbsf1.com/...2014_draft2.jpg , been pretty accurate in the past with his drawings based on the regs, looks rather GP2 like to me, not so keen...

We'll see. I mean Scarbs' drawing is most probably quite accurate, but will the cars look good or just like GP2 cars? Time will tell.

I wish they'd increase track width.

#66 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 July 2013 - 20:58

How is there no emphasis on developing battery technology or lighter motors?


Because they've chosen to limit both the energy output and duration per lap.

If they said "electric is only limited by (fixed weight)" they'd be dumping a ton of money and research on making their motors and batteries as light as possible, with as much efficiency as possible. Limiting it - I'm not sure what the thinking is with that, other than to simply make it harder for the teams with money to jump further ahead.

#67 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,792 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 21:02

Scarbs' take - http://scarbsf1.com/...2014_draft2.jpg , been pretty accurate in the past with his drawings based on the regs, looks rather GP2 like to me, not so keen...


F1 and GP2 cars already look pretty similar overall. The difference is in the fine detail, which Scarbs' drawing doesn't show, as it is a generic template.


#68 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 21:10

F1 and GP2 cars already look pretty similar overall. The difference is in the fine detail, which Scarbs' drawing doesn't show, as it is a generic template.

I think in general they are fairly distinguishable. Here though, with the lack of coanda exhaust and the new nose regulations I fear that may no longer be the case.

#69 toofast

toofast
  • Member

  • 463 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 22:01

One thing that is totally daft about F1 in 2014 is this idea:

"We're switching to small displacement fuel limited V6 turbos because it's more relevant to road car technology (vis-a-vis fuel economy/efficiency)"

.... BUT....

"....to save money we're not going to allow engine development".


So, the fans get smaller, weaker engines. The motor industry doesn't really get anything relating to real fuel economy/efficiency in road cars - how does a V6 make sense if you're talking fuel efficiency? And the gestalt of F1 is ruined by eliminating competition IN DEVELOPMENT.


I hate the 21st century.


They only want some similarities with road car engine but not really contributing to the technology much like NASCAR move to fuel-injection which is several decades too late. I think the only innovative thing in the new engine is the MGU-H. All the other stuffs such as direct injection are already well developed.

#70 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,931 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 July 2013 - 18:47

Oh come on. Of course it is pretty much a spec series. All the cars look the same (if you painted them all white, your average fan wouldn't be able to tell which was which), sound the same, and go the same. Any and all innovation is swiftly banned like the f-duct, exhaust blown diffuser, etc, etc. Back in the 70s and 80s, not only did all the cars look different, but they were fundamentally different under the skin too. That is what Formula One is missing today.


The current rule restrictions don't help, but it seems to me a large part of why the cars looked so different back then was that they really didn't have a good idea about aero, without wind tunnels (or at very restricted size and without computers attached, at least in the seventies), simulation, or even much practical knowledge from history. To a smaller extent that is true on the mechanical side as well, at least compared to today. When a field is new and wide open, many different ideas will be tried. But as evolution goes on, the successful designs tend to home in on a common basis. Not only in F1.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 11 July 2013 - 18:48.


#71 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:13

Check this out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/23493372

The article itself is about tyres, but key points noted in it that interested me were:
- 2014 engine output expected to approach 850 bhp, with almost 700 from the engine & turbos alone, with the remainder from ERS;
- teams have been able to produce much more downforce than expected, but still massively reduced drag
- initial target of no more than 5 seconds per lap slower has been smashed, with cars projected to be only slightly slower than this year.

Overall this gets me quite excited about the 2014 season, I don't want the cars to be much slower.

Has anyone else seen other sources saying the same things?

#72 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,620 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:36

Because they've chosen to limit both the energy output and duration per lap.

If they said "electric is only limited by (fixed weight)" they'd be dumping a ton of money and research on making their motors and batteries as light as possible, with as much efficiency as possible. Limiting it - I'm not sure what the thinking is with that, other than to simply make it harder for the teams with money to jump further ahead.


Ironically (and referring also to dau's previous post wrt battery engineering and development) it does feel like one area where a manufacturer could still do a big chunk of development in the racing arena that would then filter back to the commercial & retail (i.e. us lot) environment, but by the same measure if the manufacturers were able to become involved in this it creates a two-tier system which counters the homologation system that would be in place.....it's almost like it was just easier to leave that development alone, which is a pity given the benefit that general development could provide.

#73 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,765 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 15 August 2013 - 18:03

Engineers discuss 2014 changes (Formula1.com)

#74 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 419 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 August 2013 - 18:35

The f1.com article tweaked my interest in the electronic brake assist on the rear. Some thoughts...

1) Massa will be happy if he's still driving since he's lost it at least twice on the rear this season
2) It's fairly important because so much time can be lost of gained under braking - I know this system is very well known but is there some scope for it to be a differentiator between teams?

#75 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,231 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:17

Drivers could get sixth engine for crowded 2014 calendar

http://grandprix247....-2014-calendar/

 

 

 

But race director Charlie Whiting told Auto Motor und Sport: “If there are 22, we can talk about a sixth engine per driver.”

 

but small teams are not happy .... Auto Motor und Sport claims that just one extra engine will cost them an extra EUR 2 million.

  

 

And they will need yet another extra engine – perhaps two – for the new private testing in 2014.

Edited by eronrules, 27 September 2013 - 09:19.


#76 Enzoluis

Enzoluis
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 27 September 2013 - 13:31

How is there no emphasis on developing battery technology or lighter motors?

 

Costs. We are living the Cheap F1 era. :(



#77 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,403 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 27 September 2013 - 14:47

What is this? Single Fuel Supplier?

 

One of the noteworthy aspects of the new 2013 Concorde Agreement is the new tender procedure for appointing single suppliers in the tyre and fuel categories, for the FIA F1 World Championship.

 

http://www.fia.com/n...sport-council-2



#78 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,274 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 September 2013 - 15:02

What is this? Single Fuel Supplier?

 

http://www.fia.com/n...sport-council-2

 

How would that possibly work? :confused:  Or is it just a provision for the future?



#79 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 27 September 2013 - 15:04

I expect to see this new Turbo Wastegate



Advertisement

#80 HuddersfieldTerrier1986

HuddersfieldTerrier1986
  • Member

  • 1,949 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 27 September 2013 - 15:05

Do we really need a single fuel supplier? Let the teams decide who they want to have providing them with their fuel.



#81 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,403 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 27 September 2013 - 15:10

Fuel suppliers are huge sponsors, are Petronas, Total, Shell, Mobil, etc going to sponsor when BP is the official fuel supplier?



#82 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 September 2013 - 23:11

They only want some similarities with road car engine 

 

I can't see any similarities at all.  Most road cars are 4 cylinders, run on 89 octane and are not forced induction.  There is nothing mechanically they are doing that is relevant.  The future for road cars is electric advancements.  

 

On the other hand, if they had to run road car blocks, then we would be getting somewhere both on the track and off.  Frak - MY CELICA HAS .2 OF A LITER MORE DISPLACEMENT THAN AN F1 ENGINE NEXT YEAR!!!  WTF???

 

 If they ran factory blocks, we would get DIRECT engineering that would go into road cars - lighter and more durable designs.  Period.  THAT is road-car relevance.  I want a road car that goes to 19,000 rpm that gets 50 mpg.  How much hp can Mercedes get out of one of their production blocks?  That would be interesting, and it would pull in all the manufacturers - I don't see how the "Murican Auto Industry could ignore that, they would have to get in... that would be great.
 

Instead... a tiny engine that is neither a thoroughbred race car engine, nor is it a street car engine.  It's also not a real platform for electric advancement, with the restrictions.  It's a sham formula.



#83 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:02

I can't see any similarities at all.  Most road cars are 4 cylinders, run on 89 octane and are not forced induction.  There is nothing mechanically they are doing that is relevant.  The future for road cars is electric advancements.

Well in Europe most cars run 95 RON (91 AKI) octane (89 AKI isn't even available). Newer cars are designed for 98 RON (94 AKI) octane fuel and most new car engines are turbo charged. 


Edited by Gorma, 29 September 2013 - 09:10.


#84 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:44

All of these rule changes is such a missed oppertunity to have rebooted the designs to the 81/82 ground effect cars. Simplier, sexier, smaller wings, less electronics, more attention to mechanic design, and no DRS needed.

 

So much money wasted in this supposedly cutting costs, and by the end of it all, half of the field will be in more in dept from spending stupid amounts of money in finding the finest angle for that extra 0.0001th of second.



#85 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:45

Fuel suppliers are huge sponsors, are Petronas, Total, Shell, Mobil, etc going to sponsor when BP is the official fuel supplier?

 

A huge spanner to Shell and Ferrari's partnership.



#86 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,726 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 October 2013 - 07:29

A huge spanner to Shell and Ferrari's partnership.


This sort of thing is a massive bugbear of teams in Indycar. They make the headline price of competing in the series very low by requiring everybody to run an inexpensive spec chassis, the price of which is negotiated down to a very low level by Indycar, but the flip side is where there is money to be made from supply & sponsorship deals for things like fuel and lubricants, Indycar is the one that makes the money because they negotiate the deal with a single supplier, then they put it in the regulations that the teams must run the supplier‘s logo on their car.

I can‘t see the FIA getting away with this kind of thing in F1 unless they made sure the commercial terms for the teams were better than now, which as you say in the case of Ferrari, when they have a very lucrative and long-standing deal in place, wouldn‘t be easy. That said, they‘ve managed to do it with tyres by allowing the teams to charge Pirelli the going rate to run the logo on their cars, meaning the top teams are effectively being paid to run the spec tyre while the smaller teams, which don‘t command the same rates for on-car advertising, have to pay for their supply.

Maybe Todt is trying to pull the Mosley trick of pretending to want to do something outrageous so that he can then offer to drop the proposal in exchange for the teams letting him have his way on some other issue.

#87 jokuvaan

jokuvaan
  • Member

  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 01 October 2013 - 07:54

Other than that, it's bad. 690 kg minimum weight?

 

Bigger the weight, less advantage for smaller size drivers. It matters a lot where the weigth is placed in the car.



#88 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 01 October 2013 - 08:30

I'm more annoyed about the hike in min weight than I am the engine output. 690kg is 85kg more than 10 years ago. That is the weight of the V10 engine from those days.

 

So we've gone from 605kg and 900BHP to (1490BHP/tonne) to 690kg and 750BHP (1090BHP/tonne). That's a lot of performance drop.



#89 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,726 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 October 2013 - 12:12

I'm more annoyed about the hike in min weight than I am the engine output. 690kg is 85kg more than 10 years ago. That is the weight of the V10 engine from those days.
 
So we've gone from 605kg and 900BHP to (1490BHP/tonne) to 690kg and 750BHP (1090BHP/tonne). That's a lot of performance drop.


I agree fully, this is crap. The minimum weight increases are to accommodate ERSs; well guess what, engine manufacturers, if you put 175KG of ERS equipment in one of your road cars, that car will be 175KG heavier than it would otherwise be, and if a competitor chooses not to put the ERS in his similar road car, the car without the ERS will have a weight advantage.

The manufacturers will never convince any rational person that these hybrid/ER systems are worth the weight penalty if they continue to insist, as they have done ever since the first KERS units were brought in, not just in F1 but in LMP1 too, that these heavy devices have to be rendered effectively weightless in the regulations. In other words, give the teams the freedom to opt not to run ERS, and let those teams run to the weight limit as it was before it was revised upwards to accommodate first KERS and now ERS. Only then would we get a true picture of the value of these systems (i.e. when the entire grid eschews them).

#90 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 01 October 2013 - 15:14

So much for F1 being the pinnacle of motor sports. More like the pinnacle of Sunday entertainment with lots of fireworks and concerts after the podium. :mad:


Edited by Tron, 01 October 2013 - 15:14.


#91 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 01 October 2013 - 15:59

Blah blah blah - heard it all before - like; literally every time ANY change is proposed. God, there is a hell of a lot of whining when we've seen barely anything as yet.

 

I can see no reason to expect a lesser spectacle, and every reason toexpect to have lots of great things to discuss.



#92 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 01 October 2013 - 17:46

  • Electronic control of the rear brake circuit is permitted in order to ensure consistent braking whilst energy is being recovered.
  • In order to ensure that side impact structures are more useful in an oblique impact and more consistent, they will become standard items made to a strictly laid out manufacturing process and fitted to the cars identically. The impact tests currently carried out will be replaced by static load push-off tests and squeeze tests. This will also help reduce costs as no team will need to develop their own structures.

 

Rear axle ABS  :down:

Standard Side Impact Structure [StaSI] will limit the shape of sidepods and castrate Adrian Newey creativity  :down:

 

Its a RedBull coup  :mad:



#93 Holdenboy

Holdenboy
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:01

Does anyone know aout engine allocations for next year ? I understand for the new regulations each team is allowed 5 engines (per car) for the whole season. Was this alloation based on the 19/20 race schedule for this year or will the teams be allowed to use more engines next year since tthe provisional calendar issued shows a 22 race championship.

 

Considering the fact that the engines will be new and reliability being a cause for concern, I think it would be fair to allocate more engines to the teams based on the 22 race calendar.

 

Does anyone know of any discussions around this ?



#94 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:19

Yes, 6th engine under discussion.



#95 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,231 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:20

Does anyone know aout engine allocations for next year ? I understand for the new regulations each team is allowed 5 engines (per car) for the whole season. Was this alloation based on the 19/20 race schedule for this year or will the teams be allowed to use more engines next year since tthe provisional calendar issued shows a 22 race championship.

 

Considering the fact that the engines will be new and reliability being a cause for concern, I think it would be fair to allocate more engines to the teams based on the 22 race calendar.

 

Does anyone know of any discussions around this ?

^^^^ look above a couple of posts, ye shall find ye's answer  :kiss:



#96 Holdenboy

Holdenboy
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:23

^^^^ look above a couple of posts, ye shall find ye's answer  :kiss:

 

thanks :up:  :up:



#97 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,672 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:49

Could someone be so kind as to explain to a non-technical/bit of a moron person such as myself what the theory is behind making teams stick with gear ratios over an entire season?

 

 

Cost saving.

 

 

Is it really such a big item on the invoice?

There is a bit more to it:

 

The fixed gears will force the drivers to run more of the avaliable RPM band. As gearing goes today drivers would go litle above 10500rpm.

 

It will shuffle the field. Unless everione goes with the exact same gearing there will be more visible difference between 'Monza cars' and 'Monaco cars'


Edited by saudoso, 02 October 2013 - 09:50.


#98 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 2,670 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:09

 

  • Electronic control of the rear brake circuit is permitted in order to ensure consistent braking whilst energy is being recovered.
  • In order to ensure that side impact structures are more useful in an oblique impact and more consistent, they will become standard items made to a strictly laid out manufacturing process and fitted to the cars identically. The impact tests currently carried out will be replaced by static load push-off tests and squeeze tests. This will also help reduce costs as no team will need to develop their own structures.

 

Rear axle ABS  :down:

Standard Side Impact Structure [StaSI] will limit the shape of sidepods and castrate Adrian Newey creativity  :down:

 

Its a RedBull coup  :mad:

 

 

You do know who was involved in helping design the StaSI don't you? It's originally a Marussia design, which was then reworked by Red Bull. Pretty sure Newey won't be castrated at all.

 

There's one conspiracy theory deflated in an instant :p.



#99 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:15

I agree fully, this is crap. The minimum weight increases are to accommodate ERSs; well guess what, engine manufacturers, if you put 175KG of ERS equipment in one of your road cars, that car will be 175KG heavier than it would otherwise be, and if a competitor chooses not to put the ERS in his similar road car, the car without the ERS will have a weight advantage.

The manufacturers will never convince any rational person that these hybrid/ER systems are worth the weight penalty if they continue to insist, as they have done ever since the first KERS units were brought in, not just in F1 but in LMP1 too, that these heavy devices have to be rendered effectively weightless in the regulations. In other words, give the teams the freedom to opt not to run ERS, and let those teams run to the weight limit as it was before it was revised upwards to accommodate first KERS and now ERS. Only then would we get a true picture of the value of these systems (i.e. when the entire grid eschews them).

Don't be ridiculous. ERS is not like KERS, no team can afford to run without it.

Advertisement

#100 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,726 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:22

Don't be ridiculous. ERS is not like KERS, no team can afford to run without it.

 

No but what I'm saying is the weight of the ERS shouldn't count towards the weight limit. Or, to put it another way, if the ERS equipment is reckoned to weigh 175KG, say, then the minimum weight limit for a car with ERS should be 175KG more than for a car without. Then let's see how many teams run it.

 

Of course you can't afford to be without the extra power if the system is effectively weightless, as it is now. But the test of whether these systems are worth having or not is whether they can recover and usefully deploy enough extra energy to make up for the amount they weigh, which on a road car would be extra weight. In motorsport it's not extra weight because either the systems are mandatory so everybody has to carry them and their weight penalty, or else the minumum weights are increased so that anybody not running the system has to run ballast instead to negate the natural weight advantage.

 

The feature whereby ERS carries no weight penalty is unique to motorsport, and hybrid and ERS technologies are supposed to be road-relevant. In the real world, a road car with a heavy battery or flywheel doesn't weigh the same as an an equivalent car without said battery or flywheel.