20 replies to this topic

[inox]

Since the recent "F1 Future Engine Poll" things appear to have moved on and V6 appears to be the only option teams could agree on. So now it is time to vote for fuel flow limits and fuel allowance. For a reference, current F1 power units are estimated to produce power as follows with current 100 kg/h fuel flow limit:

 

ICE: 700 bhp @ 10500 rpm (max revs ~ 12000 rpm) + ERS: 160 bhp = 860 bhp

 

There are talks of increasing the fuel flow limit to increase power and to make the show more spectacular but this also means that engines are going to get more expensive. What is your opinion on this? Please cast your votes.

Edited by inox, 13 February 2015 - 22:59.

[Wuzak]

You need another opton - drop the 100kg race fuel limit altogether.

[inox]

You need another opton - drop the 100kg race fuel limit altogether.

 

I tried to include only realistic options for this poll. Removing race fuel limit completely is probably not what manufacturers want. 

[l2k2]

You need another opton - drop the 100kg race fuel limit altogether.

Would that make much difference? In 2014, in most races, all cars had less than 100 kg fuel just because it was faster that way. More fuel = heavier car at start = slower car.

[Gyno]

Allow refueling and NO FUEL LIMITS.

[Wuzak]

Would that make much difference? In 2014, in most races, all cars had less than 100 kg fuel just because it was faster that way. More fuel = heavier car at start = slower car.

 

In some races, yes.

 

It would help with the perception fo fuel saving, even if there is no actual difference to this year and last year.

 

It would allow them to use the PUs to their maximum - tyres and engine wear considerations then taking over.

 

THe best thing would be to allow more of the ICE component for each season. Say back to 8 (like the V8s), but keep the ERS components and turbo at 4 per year. Then all they will need to fix is the tyres to enable them to run faster throughout the race.

[noikeee]

I'm not entirely sure I understand as I'm not very knowledgable on the mechanics, but I'd like a more powerful engine yes (voted the 1000BHP option) and I'd like to remain the hybrid component so voted no for removing the MGU-H even if the noise remains underwhelming. As for the middle question, I voted "keep 100kg limit for the whole race", so I guess if you relax the fuel flow rule but not the overall fuel limit, the engines would be peakier and have to be managed more to reach those huge BHP peaks whilst cruising at other points of the race to not run out of fuel? That could be very interesting and dynamic to watch...

Edited by noikeee, 14 February 2015 - 15:19.

[Szoelloe]

I don't understand the obsession with the 1000 bhp. ATM, it is appr. 50bhp less. I don't give a flying xxxx about the engines, it is by very far not the problem with F1. If you put a set of wider tyres on a current car, it would be faster and stronger than most cars ever built. The only reason it is debated is that the other two constructors seriously underestimated the tech background of Mercedes, and some people(even at some teams) think a reset-reboot would even the field. It wouldn't. It will not make Mercedes go away. The technical level of F1 has been turned up a few notches. Better to nudge Mercedes out of F1 somehow, so no one will spit in stew.

[V8 Fireworks]

950hp?

 

 

I don't understand the obsession with the 1000 bhp. ATM, it is appr. 50bhp less

 

No, is it not more like 750 hp at the moment?

 

Ask F1 fan - of course they will ask for most powerful engine possible 

 

May as well keep the MGU-H.

 

Re: F1 is stuffed.  I don't mind Bernie's Tier 2 F1 idea actually, surprisingly...

[superden]

I don't understand the obsession with some mystical bhp benchmark, a panacea for all the sports ills? A distraction technique more like.

We need something new.
1000bhp!
Its the new generation, 1000bhp is here!
1000bhp is sh*t, 750bhp was better.
We need something new.
Wider track!
Its amazing, wide track!
Wide track is sh*t.

And so on. Sort out what you want to be and where you want to go. Identify your vision, define your brand and bloody well stick with it. I've never seen any sport change its mind so often, it would be more coherent if it was run by the PG chimps.

Edited by superden, 14 February 2015 - 16:50.

[Ali_G]

I don't understand the obsession with some mystical bhp benchmark, a panacea for all the sports ills? A distraction technique more like.

We need something new.
1000bhp!
Its the new generation, 1000bhp is here!
1000bhp is sh*t, 750bhp was better.
We need something new.
Wider track!
Its amazing, wide track!
Wide track is sh*t.

And so on. Sort out what you want to be and where you want to go. Identify your vision, define your brand and bloody well stick with it. I've never seen any sport change its mind so often, it would be more coherent if it was run by the PG chimps.

I can't think of a single fan who actually wanted less power. More power makes the cars more difficult to drive. Why anyone would want to make them easier to drive is beyond me.

[superden]

I can't think of a single fan who actually wanted less power.

Fans always want what they don't have. You can't ascribe logic to it, it's blinkered.

Edited by superden, 14 February 2015 - 17:23.

[Ali_G]

Fans always want what they don't have. You can't ascribe logic to it, it's blinkered.

You'll struggle to find many posts on here of people who were calling for less power outside of people who were calling for it on safety grounds.

[sabjit]

I don't understand the obsession with some mystical bhp benchmark, a panacea for all the sports ills? A distraction technique more like.

We need something new.
1000bhp!
Its the new generation, 1000bhp is here!
1000bhp is sh*t, 750bhp was better.
We need something new.
Wider track!
Its amazing, wide track!
Wide track is sh*t.

And so on. Sort out what you want to be and where you want to go. Identify your vision, define your brand and bloody well stick with it. I've never seen any sport change its mind so often, it would be more coherent if it was run by the PG chimps.

 

Excellent post and I like your point about wide tracks. I have never seen their benefit. Monza is a narrow track but provides great racing.

[Henri Greuter]

Allow refueling and NO FUEL LIMITS.

 

 

Do you care to explain how you want to keep control on the poer output of these tubocharged engines which have no boost limitation rules to achieve such?

 

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

I can't think of a single fan who actually wanted less power. More power makes the cars more difficult to drive. Why anyone would want to make them easier to drive is beyond me.

 

I want them to be less poweful!

 

So less powerful that, in order to have something of a decent top speed, they have to sacrifice a lot of those downforce generating appendages, get rid of a major part of the downforce and grip levels.

You'll be surprised to see how difficult cars with way less downforce then the current cars have are to dive, even with reduced power.......

 

 

Henri

[Wuzak]

950hp?
 
 
 
No, is it not more like 750 hp at the moment?
 
Ask F1 fan - of course they will ask for most powerful engine possible 
 
May as well keep the MGU-H.
 
Re: F1 is stuffed.  I don't mind Bernie's Tier 2 F1 idea actually, surprisingly...

 
It is somewhere in between 750 and 950hp.
 
The Mercedes may be around 850hp.

[inox]

There is an interesting news article about negotiations between the teams about future F1 rules.

 

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/31454550

 

So Ferrari has indeed proposed a V8, but instead of 2.2 liters, it was 1.9 liters. The 1.9 liter V8 would actually make sense, since they could run the engine with same stress level as the current ones. That would help engines to last easily the required mileage, while still achieving the 1000 bhp goal. The V8 would have probably a 120 kg/h fuel flow limit, producing approximately 840 bhp @ 10500 rpm. But I would still prefer a higher revving V6 with 840 bhp @ 12600 rpm, even though V8 option would have slightly higher frequency engine tone.

[sabjit]

These engines have the capacity to produce enough noise it's just the problem is they never reach the 15000rpm limit.

[carlt]

enough about the noise ! we want to See what the drivers are capable of, we need to See how good they really are

[Buttoneer]

The cars are already so difficult to manage under acceleration that the foot pedals have to be managed electronically to prevent the driver leaving his tyres on the circuit when he launches from the grid. If you left it as engine->cable-> foot connection these cars would be off, everywhere.

I would prefer to see the ERS developed to bridge the gap from the combustion engine limits to 1000bhp. For the same level of fuel, and fuel flow, can the engineers eke even more power using ever more aggressive recovery systems?