Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

FIA client engine


  • Please log in to reply
794 replies to this topic

#751 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 11,547 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 November 2015 - 14:19

So what's stopping Renault making a big leap forward like Ferrari did this year?

Ferrari had a fundamentally sound engine. They just made the mistake of sacrificing power for packaging... Their engine package was greatly improved by using only 23 tokens over the winter.



Advertisement

#752 PoleSitter85

PoleSitter85
  • Member

  • 77 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 26 November 2015 - 14:21

What's a massive leap? Winning 3 out of 18?


Yet in 2013 Red Bull won all but 6 races.... 1 Lotus-Renault, 2 Ferrari and 3 Mercedes. Great challenge to their title then....

Edited by PoleSitter85, 26 November 2015 - 14:25.


#753 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:08

Obviously. The puzzle is a solution to engine rules that keeps everyone happy:

 

 

 

 

  • All manufacturers want hybrid technologies at the heart of the engine for marketing reasons as that is the future of road-car power

 

  • All manufacturers who have invested heavily in the technologies want to amortize the costs and generate revenues from customer sales over the long term

 

  • Global engine manufacturers want to maintain the cartel mechanics of the marketplace where a high price can be demanded due to no viable cheap competitive alternative existing

 

  • FIA will always want F1 to be the marketing platform showcasing technology that will trickle down to roadcars - publicising energy and safety advancement in particular

 

 

 

Of course manufacturers want Hybrids, they cost more and hence increase their profits, they are not doing this out of altruism. And F1 wants to maintain the veneer of safety improvements to everyday cars, not that anything of note has ever been transferred directly from F1 to any car that an everyday joe could possibly afford.

There is not one hybrid on the market today that is a best seller, they are horrendously overpriced.

Let's put it this way, a base price Tesla Model S is 71k, a base model Corvette is 55k. Put them side by side and 90% of the public would take the corvette. The other 10% read Mother Jones.



#754 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:09

In hindsight this token marlakey while initially well intentioned,is bollox.Just open up development of engines within the framework of the rules much the same as the chassis.And if Mercedes spends more than Ferrari or vice versa,let them and lets see who comes out on top.Then and only then should things spiral out of control,bring out the scissors to clip the feathers.

It might be in hindsight to the rule makers who don't appear to have a clue when it comes to thinking the process through, but there were plenty of us that pointed out the obvious flaw of homologation when it was first muted.

#755 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:18

The Tesla versus the Corvette is an interesting dichotomy. The choice depends on where you live. In the UK petrol is around £4/$6 a gallon. At those prices I'm opting for the model S and no Road tax is a no brainer. The reason The FIA is pushing hybrids is to attract new investors to the sport. A return to archaic V8/ V6T simply relegated F1 to a historic formula and a niche market.

#756 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:25

Yet in 2013 Red Bull won all but 6 races.... 1 Lotus-Renault, 2 Ferrari and 3 Mercedes. Great challenge to their title then....

 

Mercedes had the to car to beat Red Bull had they cared to continue developing it, or at least to come close, but they chose to focus their energy and resources on 2014 in the second half of '13. History says it was a good decision. 

 

I always look at 2013 as a gimme for Red Bull only because everyone else was focused on the new era, whereas RBR were still focused on winning with the V8s and their great aero package. 



#757 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:30

The Tesla versus the Corvette is an interesting dichotomy. The choice depends on where you live. In the UK petrol is around £4/$6 a gallon. At those prices I'm opting for the model S and no Road tax is a no brainer. The reason The FIA is pushing hybrids is to attract new investors to the sport. A return to archaic V8/ V6T simply relegated F1 to a historic formula and a niche market.

How's that attracting new investors going?

#758 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 26 November 2015 - 17:45

The Tesla versus the Corvette is an interesting dichotomy. The choice depends on where you live. In the UK petrol is around £4/$6 a gallon. At those prices I'm opting for the model S and no Road tax is a no brainer. The reason The FIA is pushing hybrids is to attract new investors to the sport. A return to archaic V8/ V6T simply relegated F1 to a historic formula and a niche market.

Hmmm...

Price difference, 16k / 6 = 2,600 gals x 10 MPG = 26k miles.  Gas here in California is now about 3 bucks a gallon. I average about 12k miles a year driving my everyday car here in the US, so the price difference here would equal + 4 years of driving a vette. As much as I would like a vette though, I was perfectly happy with my VW CC which at 33k was less that half the cost of a Tesla and averaged about 24 MPG. 

And for those that think a Tesla is all that environmentally sound, it burns coal, not gas.



#759 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 26 November 2015 - 18:21

Have you understood the freeze&token rules?

You are only allowed to change/improve a certain amount of parts on an engine. each component is given a certain amount of token and you can change as much of the allocated parts just as long as you don't pass the mnaximum amount of tokens.
Honda and Renault appear to be in a situation that they need a major overhaul of parts after a major redesign. Regrettably that is impossible and because of that they are forced to keep using parts on their engines that they would love to change and replace but can't do so anymore because opther parts were in an even larger need to be replaced and have been so already.

That is, very simply said: the nadir of the engine freeze & toklen system. you can't change and replace everything you want enven if you knew what you want to do and have options avaialble: you much select what you want to replace to remain within that maximum of tokens that is allowed.

Merc had the by far best engine, Ferrari, renault and Honda were wrongfooted but because of that frees & token system they can't correct the situation as fast as they want and as fast as the sport/show could use, thereby handing the titles on a plate to Mercedes&associates.in the past two seasons and very likely next year again. Only if Merc makes a major design fault within their chassis, then the opposition stands a chance.
But the 4 merc powered teams are not within the top 6 of the constructors championship for no obvious reason and because of sheer luck.

henri


Renault have said that they are not lacking in tokens, but in ideas. Their facilities are majorly outdated. I bet Total is nowhere as active in fuels development as Shell and Petronas. Honda barely had any time to develop their engine before they entered. They also decided on a foolish concept that would require them to do things other manufacturers thought were unreasonable.

In hindsight this token marlakey while initially well intentioned,is bollox.Just open up development of engines within the framework of the rules much the same as the chassis.And if Mercedes spends more than Ferrari or vice versa,let them and lets see who comes out on top.Then and only then should things spiral out of control,bring out the scissors to clip the feathers.


We already know costs would get out of control with free development. We had this whole saga in the 2000s. Rule makers are a bit stupid, but they have learned from past experiences, free development does not work. I am not interested in seeing who has the most money. Renault would most likely fall further behind in that case anyway.

Advertisement

#760 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 26 November 2015 - 18:38

How's that attracting new investors going?

Exactly. If that was the idea then it was also something guaranteed to fail.
Maybe FE should have been Formula Hybrid instead, a Formula where you really put focus on green. A formula that not only focuses on how much energy you use but also how "green" it is to produce that energy. In that formula it is also necessary to weight in the "green" cost for manufacturing the parts, batteries for instance. The more rare a certain material is, the less you can use. For instance.

But F1 can never be that because the pinnacle of formulas, in racing, does not give a **** about green, it is a formula for speed.

But a Formula Hybrid could be very interesting, suddenly it would be a bit a like in the beginning when the competitors really tried to build something as fast and powerful as possible. Not like today when almost everything in the tech reg is about limiting the performance in artificial ways. With artificial I mean that instead of stipulating "Maximum 3 litre cylinder volume" it regulates fuel flow, rpm, max output, max time for using this and that and so on.

 



#761 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 28 November 2015 - 17:29

When do you think the last time an F1 car wasn't fly by wire?

 


Back in the cable days, the linearity of the throttle could also be controlled by use of clever links.

 

 

 That is not the same thing as software controlling the blend of IC/electric.  Additionally, there is a feedback element involved by having the ERS involved that effectively is borderline TC. 

 

 "Clever links" is not the same thing as adaptive programming, or curves set to flatten output per rpm per gear/ERS.



#762 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 28 November 2015 - 21:00

^I honestly don't see anything objectionable about any of your objections!:D
The good drivers will adapt to whatever is thrown at them.Wasn't that the case during the active days?

#763 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 November 2015 - 22:00

The 'golden' era of F1 back in early 90s had fully reactive suspension, automatic gearboxes, ABS, TCS, all manner of engine systems to maximise/smooth performance.

So retroactively is that era now shit?

#764 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 28 November 2015 - 23:41

^I honestly don't see anything objectionable about any of your objections!:D
The good drivers will adapt to whatever is thrown at them.Wasn't that the case during the active days?


He's trying to make it look like the traction control on the V10 was the same as what they have now.

#765 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 November 2015 - 02:31

 That is not the same thing as software controlling the blend of IC/electric.  Additionally, there is a feedback element involved by having the ERS involved that effectively is borderline TC. 

 

 "Clever links" is not the same thing as adaptive programming, or curves set to flatten output per rpm per gear/ERS.

 

The driver asks for X amount of power and the computer decides that would be Y from the ICE and Z from the MGUK. If Y + Z = X, which the driver asks for and not any more or less what is the problem?

 

Also doubt the part about traction control. Especially since we oftenhear them spinning up teh rear wheels coming out of slow corners.

 

There are limits to the curve that could be applied.

 

I'd also argue that the V8s took more liberties with the systems, as they used cold blowing which required open throttles even when the driver was off the pedal.


Edited by Wuzak, 29 November 2015 - 02:32.


#766 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 December 2015 - 19:00

Big news as FIA WMSC gives mandate to Bernie and Todt to make "recommendations and decisions regarding a number of pressing issues in F1"

It clarifies those issues as "such as governance, Power Units and cost reduction"



#767 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 12 January 2016 - 10:20

A breakthrough maybe on the vexed question of the client engine and how it might be developed and financed? To me this reads like spec engine.
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/122436

Edited by Fatgadget, 12 January 2016 - 10:28.


#768 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 12 January 2016 - 12:19

http://www.auto-moto...b-10360724.html

 

Marchionne is a funny guy...

 

Marchionne's idea was rejected by Bernie. An engine could have been rebranded as Alfa Romeo and would have been based on the Ferrari.

 

This allowed Ferrari to give less powerful customer version engines to potentially strong teams, while keeping the works engines for themselves and other teams that are unlikely to be a threat. FOM had pay for the development of such a customer engine.



#769 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 10,567 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 12 January 2016 - 13:06

Of course manufacturers want Hybrids, they cost more and hence increase their profits, they are not doing this out of altruism. And F1 wants to maintain the veneer of safety improvements to everyday cars, not that anything of note has ever been transferred directly from F1 to any car that an everyday joe could possibly afford.

There is not one hybrid on the market today that is a best seller, they are horrendously overpriced.

Let's put it this way, a base price Tesla Model S is 71k, a base model Corvette is 55k. Put them side by side and 90% of the public would take the corvette. The other 10% read Mother Jones.

 

Totally agree. I would add that the Corvette buyers are far more likely to be fans of motorsport.

 

Which is why I have always felt that ICS and F1 should just go for larger lumps and more horse power.

 

And less downforce of course  :wave:



#770 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 10,567 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 12 January 2016 - 13:09

The Tesla versus the Corvette is an interesting dichotomy. The choice depends on where you live. In the UK petrol is around £4/$6 a gallon. At those prices I'm opting for the model S and no Road tax is a no brainer. The reason The FIA is pushing hybrids is to attract new investors to the sport. A return to archaic V8/ V6T simply relegated F1 to a historic formula and a niche market.

 

I think that hybrid cars in the States is still a niche market - perhaps in 5-10 years it will be larger. But IMO it will never demand the passion of pure HP and the sounds and smells that helped to make autosport glamorous, dangerous and so on.

 

F1 should open regs to V10 NA engines, V8 Turbos - all the way down to something like the AER Mazda engine.

 

Keep refueling out and eventually the series will figure out how to build a powerful engine that gets better mileage.



#771 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 12 January 2016 - 16:48

The driver asks for X amount of power and the computer decides that would be Y from the ICE and Z from the MGUK. If Y + Z = X, which the driver asks for and not any more or less what is the problem?


The problem is that you choose to ignore the part of your sentence, "the computer decides". How the computer "decides" is based on software engineering to account for the variability of the
ICE, battery, electric motor/generation, boost, anti-lag, braking. All of those are curves that are continuously changing, and has to be integrated based on assumptions. Which are not perfect, and
are *not* linear to the pedals. Throw in some latency - which is probably also variable, and you have a great disconnect between the driver and what is happening at the wheels.


Also doubt the part about traction control. Especially since we oftenhear them spinning up teh rear wheels coming out of slow corners.


Doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have to be made perfect, and it also doesn't have to react perfect to be there. There are dozens of ways of hiding TC in coefficients governing non-braking harvesting, gear
change timing, clutch timing, asking for anti-lag "early", all sorts of strategies that will just look like variables.

Again, the software engineers can be the most valuable assets to a team. Why is Newey so nervous pointing out client teams should have parity on software grounds? He understands.

I'd also argue that the V8s took more liberties with the systems, as they used cold blowing which required open throttles even when the driver was off the pedal.


If it were up to me the ECU would be greatly limited in scope and sealed at the start of the season. Then we'd see how much manufacturer teams really want "road car relevance".....

#772 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 12 January 2016 - 17:14

I think that hybrid cars in the States is still a niche market - perhaps in 5-10 years it will be larger. But IMO it will never demand the passion of pure HP and the sounds and smells that helped to make autosport glamorous, dangerous and so on.


The thing is, here in the states, hybrids *aren't* a niche market. They're very common, people have them and aren't even conscious of the "HYBRID" emblem on the sides of their trucks. I don't know what the numbers
are, but I'd guess I see 1 in 7-8 vehicles on the "republican" side of town, maybe 1 in 10-12 on the "lesser affluent" area. That's not counting all of the Priuses and the occasional Leaf and Volt. It's also not counting
the couple of Teslas I spot every week.

Which gets back to my point: F1 missed that boat LONNNNNG ago. There is nothing special about a small displacement hybrid arrangement: Joe Construction Worker drives a hybrid pickup to work everyday. Boring.

Conversely though, just because people wanted to race "road cars" in the past doesn't mean it was about racing ROAD car technology. 

 

 There was a time when powerful cars were relatively cheap.  They were also simple enough that Joe Average could figure out how to modify them to make more power.  Out of that came "car racing".

 

All of those parameters have changed over time.  The guy working at McDonald's can't afford to buy the equivalent of a V8 Dodge Dart today.  The guy that *can* afford to buy a new car - the electronics and engineering makes

"home modification" beyond his scope.  He's not able to bolt on a 4 barrel carb over the weekend, or a new intake manifold.  All that's left is the Ever Present Cold Air Intake.  And why would he want to?  Chances are he's in hock with the new car,

and he's too busy, things cost more, it is not the 60's or 70's.

 

 Making race cars hybrid is the most daft notion ever concocted: "road car relevance".  Because of the overwhelming popularity of Prius racing?  Because of the massive movement of teenagers hot rodding their hybrid Camrys?  Because kids

are putting posters up on their walls of a hybrid Chevy pickup that their dad drives, and thinking "wow, just imagine all of that energy it's saving!!!!"?

 

 Really?

 

 There is no soul in F1 anymore, and little inherent substance for the pure racer, or the pure engineer.  Confabulation being marketed as "the pinnacle of racing". 

 

 Nobody that is a racing fan would come up with these rules and regs.  We all know it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 



#773 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 January 2016 - 00:28

The thing is, here in the states, hybrids *aren't* a niche market. They're very common, people have them and aren't even conscious of the "HYBRID" emblem on the sides of their trucks. I don't know what the numbers
are, but I'd guess I see 1 in 7-8 vehicles on the "republican" side of town, maybe 1 in 10-12 on the "lesser affluent" area. That's not counting all of the Priuses and the occasional Leaf and Volt. It's also not counting
the couple of Teslas I spot every week.

Which gets back to my point: F1 missed that boat LONNNNNG ago. There is nothing special about a small displacement hybrid arrangement: Joe Construction Worker drives a hybrid pickup to work everyday. Boring.

Conversely though, just because people wanted to race "road cars" in the past doesn't mean it was about racing ROAD car technology. 

 

 There was a time when powerful cars were relatively cheap.  They were also simple enough that Joe Average could figure out how to modify them to make more power.  Out of that came "car racing".

 

All of those parameters have changed over time.  The guy working at McDonald's can't afford to buy the equivalent of a V8 Dodge Dart today.  The guy that *can* afford to buy a new car - the electronics and engineering makes

"home modification" beyond his scope.  He's not able to bolt on a 4 barrel carb over the weekend, or a new intake manifold.  All that's left is the Ever Present Cold Air Intake.  And why would he want to?  Chances are he's in hock with the new car,

and he's too busy, things cost more, it is not the 60's or 70's.

 

 Making race cars hybrid is the most daft notion ever concocted: "road car relevance".  Because of the overwhelming popularity of Prius racing?  Because of the massive movement of teenagers hot rodding their hybrid Camrys?  Because kids

are putting posters up on their walls of a hybrid Chevy pickup that their dad drives, and thinking "wow, just imagine all of that energy it's saving!!!!"?

 

 Really?

 

 There is no soul in F1 anymore, and little inherent substance for the pure racer, or the pure engineer.  Confabulation being marketed as "the pinnacle of racing". 

 

 Nobody that is a racing fan would come up with these rules and regs.  We all know it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All this may be true. And if it is, why are you interested in F1 anymore? Why are you bothering to post here? This is what we have and it's not going to change anytime soon.



#774 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 January 2016 - 02:13

The problem is that you choose to ignore the part of your sentence, "the computer decides". How the computer "decides" is based on software engineering to account for the variability of the
ICE, battery, electric motor/generation, boost, anti-lag, braking. All of those are curves that are continuously changing, and has to be integrated based on assumptions. Which are not perfect, and
are *not* linear to the pedals. Throw in some latency - which is probably also variable, and you have a great disconnect between the driver and what is happening at the wheels......

 

The computer decides based on mapping and driver adjusted settings.

 

The mapping is worked out on a dyno. I don't know if there are any assumptions in the mapping, but I doubt it. The mapping will be based on inputs - from throttle percentage, boost, rpm, change in revs (ie rising or decreasing) - what the engine and ERS need to do to give the power the driver demands.

 

The point is that the power unit delivers what the driver demands - the computer does not decide how much power to give the driver.

 

The driver probably does not even know what role the MGUK plays until the battery power runs out. Which rarely, if ever, happens to Mercedes powered cars, similarly for 2015 Ferrari and Renault powered cars. The Hondas ran out of juice, but that is not a control problem, but a hardware problem.



#775 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 13 January 2016 - 09:59

Anyone in anyway advocating the banishing of control electronics in racing cars stands a better chance of doing a King Canute against the tide! :lol:

#776 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 January 2016 - 13:17

Road cars are faster and easier to modify than ever.

Carb pushrod v8 s of the 60s are dinosaurs...

#777 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 January 2016 - 13:41

the computer does not decide how much power to give the driver.

 

Well, it actually does exactly that in a way. It does not decide how much of the power it have made available will be used by the driver though.



#778 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 January 2016 - 01:33

Road cars are...easier to modify than ever.

They're really not.

#779 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,968 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 January 2016 - 06:59

Road cars are faster and easier to modify than ever.


In theory yes, but in practice no!

Advertisement

#780 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 14 January 2016 - 07:00

Yes they are. A simple tune and exhaust on a turbo car can net a 100hp increase in some cases!

#781 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 January 2016 - 10:21

Well if you count a remap as a modification then maybe.

Do you work in insurance? :D

#782 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 January 2016 - 10:41

Like every new modern technology it is expensive to begin with but costs do spiral down...

 

I can remember hearing when computer RAM used to be over £1k per meg...

Thats true, but the ridiculously high price of the engines is not because the new tech was required, but because the engine manufacturers wanted to show off. In racing terms the old engines were fine and did not need wholesale changing.



#783 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 January 2016 - 19:22

All this may be true. And if it is, why are you interested in F1 anymore? Why are you bothering to post here? This is what we have and it's not going to change anytime soon.

 

 Yes, I am losing interest in F1.  But, why are YOU posting contrarian opinion to what I write?  I disagree with "it's not going to change" - you don't know.  I am maintaining a public profile of being for what I am for, as are others, and despite what you'd like to think - the fact that The Powers That Be are addressing the sound indicates public opinion matters.  And can change things.

 

 It's my belief F1 is at a critical juncture, 2017 will be a make or break year.  People on my side of the fence - pro large, high revving IC V10 - in my opinion are the core of the future F1 audience.  If we all went along with just YOUR opinion - that everything is just fine - yeah, things won't change. 

 

 "Things aren't going to change!" -  yet Bernie recently brought up V10s. Various team principals referenced the V8's in regards to the client engine idea.  Almost immediately people were backtracking on the regs regarding fuel limiting when the hybrids were introduced.  All of the drivers have displayed their disappointment with the present engines. Formula E has offered their technology to help F1. They messed up with these engines and everyone knows it.   When time comes to fix F1, which has to come IMO - I am campaigning for what I like, and it appears to me "my side" is in the majority.  I'd like to help keep it that way, as opposed to the "things are just fine, just look at them saving fuel!" near invisible minority.  A change is going to come one way or another, F1 sinks or swims.



#784 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 January 2016 - 19:26

Anyone in anyway advocating the banishing of control electronics in racing cars stands a better chance of doing a King Canute against the tide! :lol:

 

 

 There is a vast difference between a simple electronic ECU that manages timing in a set fashion, linear to the driver's inputs, and convoluted integrations of 3 different energy sources, plus braking, in a variable fashion non-linear to what the driver is requesting.  But if you want to do the 21st century thing and reduce/simplify reality by using a soundbite, it's your call.



#785 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 January 2016 - 19:28

The Tesla versus the Corvette is an interesting dichotomy. The choice depends on where you live. In the UK petrol is around £4/$6 a gallon. At those prices I'm opting for the model S and no Road tax is a no brainer. The reason The FIA is pushing hybrids is to attract new investors to the sport. A return to archaic V8/ V6T simply relegated F1 to a historic formula and a niche market.

 

 

 There can't be a "return" when we haven't left - just because an electric motor is attached to a V6T doesn't mean, somehow, that the V6T is magically NOT "a V6T IC engine".



#786 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 January 2016 - 19:40

The computer decides based on mapping and driver adjusted settings.

 

The mapping is worked out on a dyno. I don't know if there are any assumptions in the mapping, but I doubt it. The mapping will be based on inputs - from throttle percentage, boost, rpm, change in revs (ie rising or decreasing) - what the engine and ERS need to do to give the power the driver demands.

 

The point is that the power unit delivers what the driver demands - the computer does not decide how much power to give the driver.

 

The driver probably does not even know what role the MGUK plays until the battery power runs out. Which rarely, if ever, happens to Mercedes powered cars, similarly for 2015 Ferrari and Renault powered cars. The Hondas ran out of juice, but that is not a control problem, but a hardware problem.

 

 

 In one sentence you're saying "the computer decides" and in another "the computer does not decide".  Which one is it?

 

 It's not as simple as it was, the driver pushing on the pedal and the ECU running a single engine faster or slower.

 

The software has to take into account braking (regenerative or not), the turbo (lag, boost relative to exhaust, relative to the ERS), the electric motor, the battery charging/discharging.  These are non-linear to each other.  These are non-linear to what the driver does with his feet.  The SOFTWARE integrates these things - which are constantly changing depending - and, via how clever the sofware engineer is, tries to make the resulting single locomotive force seem linear to the driver. 

 

 Mercedes seem to be ahead of everyone in this respect.  All of the drivers are on record complaining about their cars doing "unexpected" things, or being "disconnected" from the braking feel, or accelerator.  This is a SOFTWARE issue.  Comparing the software side of running one of the Rube Goldberg Power Units to what used to simply be an ECU is ridiculous.  It's completely different, requiring all sorts of software engineering decisions to APPROXIMATE a traditional throttle/brake behavior.

 

 The programmers are the "Adrian Newey" of this era.



#787 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2016 - 20:42

 Yes, I am losing interest in F1.  But, why are YOU posting contrarian opinion to what I write?  I disagree with "it's not going to change" - you don't know.  I am maintaining a public profile of being for what I am for, as are others, and despite what you'd like to think - the fact that The Powers That Be are addressing the sound indicates public opinion matters.  And can change things.

 

 It's my belief F1 is at a critical juncture, 2017 will be a make or break year.  People on my side of the fence - pro large, high revving IC V10 - in my opinion are the core of the future F1 audience.  If we all went along with just YOUR opinion - that everything is just fine - yeah, things won't change. 

 

 "Things aren't going to change!" -  yet Bernie recently brought up V10s. Various team principals referenced the V8's in regards to the client engine idea.  Almost immediately people were backtracking on the regs regarding fuel limiting when the hybrids were introduced.  All of the drivers have displayed their disappointment with the present engines. Formula E has offered their technology to help F1. They messed up with these engines and everyone knows it.   When time comes to fix F1, which has to come IMO - I am campaigning for what I like, and it appears to me "my side" is in the majority.  I'd like to help keep it that way, as opposed to the "things are just fine, just look at them saving fuel!" near invisible minority.  A change is going to come one way or another, F1 sinks or swims.

 

Well, I don't know for sure, but I'm not holding my breath that anything will change soon (and I did say 'soon' - not 'ever'). In terms of the criticism that you and others have launched against the current PU's, I can't see any of that being resolved by 2017 and I really doubt 2018 or even 2019 are likely either. If I'm right, do you think you'll still be following F1 in 2019?



#788 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 January 2016 - 00:13

 In one sentence you're saying "the computer decides" and in another "the computer does not decide".  Which one is it?

 

The computer decides how to give the power the driver demands, it does not decide on how much power it will give.



#789 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 20 January 2016 - 06:08

what price is the agreed price cap on manufacturer engines? Are they all latest spec engines!

Well done by f1 to avert the client engines anyway! Bravo! :)

#790 Hans V

Hans V
  • Member

  • 651 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 20 January 2016 - 06:38

The client engine was never really on the table.. Nobody wanted that and it was just a threat to force the manufacturers to reduce the price. Does anybody know if the new 12 million Euro price cap is introduced from the 2016 season (the Autosport article doesn't say)?



#791 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 20 January 2016 - 07:38

The client engine was never really on the table.. Nobody wanted that and it was just a threat to force the manufacturers to reduce the price. Does anybody know if the new 12 million Euro price cap is introduced from the 2016 season (the Autosport article doesn't say)?

The reduction in price, and tweaks to the rules to guarantee supply, will come in to force for 2018 once regulations have been finalised by the teams and the FIA's World Motor Sport Council.

http://www.motorspor...il-2020-668797/



#792 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,968 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 20 January 2016 - 09:02

The reduction in price, and tweaks to the rules to guarantee supply, will come in to force for 2018 once regulations have been finalised by the teams and the FIA's World Motor Sport Council.

http://www.motorspor...il-2020-668797/

Which gives the current PU manufactures time to tweak there costs so that they can reduce there costs... as there current business plan wasn't based on a maximum price!

 

Also what is included in the maximum price everything to make the PU work? or just the basic engine/ERS? No software/ECU's?



#793 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 21 January 2016 - 15:12

Well, I don't know for sure, but I'm not holding my breath that anything will change soon (and I did say 'soon' - not 'ever'). In terms of the criticism that you and others have launched against the current PU's, I can't see any of that being resolved by 2017 and I really doubt 2018 or even 2019 are likely either. If I'm right, do you think you'll still be following F1 in 2019?

 

 

 The "power units", being effectively frozen, and basically no more testing, with a series that leaves drivers like Alonso stuck out in the cold?  Ticket prices that means I'm treated like cattle, looking through a fence pressed against the other cattle - IF I can afford such an extravagance?  Crappy coverage with a zillion commercials, and then "coverage" that includes constant interruptions by the network to advertise other sports I have zero interest in?  Ridiculous rules that are invisible to the viewer - the condition of the tires, fuel consumption, battery status? 

 

 I've stopped watching practice all ready, which is an amazing thing to write.  I missed Q1 and Q2 a few times, and felt none worse for the wear.  If F1 somehow manages to survive in it's present mediocre state by 2019, there isn't much there anymore - frozen engines, chassis, effectively a spec series via "spending regulation".   What if Ferrari manages to make an engine .. I mean, "power unit" capable of competing against the Mercedes?  Will it be via clever engineering, or merely they spent enough to get them "there"?  Then what?  Stasis.

 

 Not "who can rev another 1,000 rpm?  Who can make a lighter engine?  Smaller?  Better chassis design?".  It's set in stone, the amounts of energy relative to the design limit the progression, as it was meant to do, to "control costs".  Rubbish.

 

 Meanwhile, Formula E gets on with being in the NOW, and hopefully becomes more open - and more like actual "F1".   If they open the rules up, I might end up watching that. 

 

 F1 - I don't know.  It's not "F1" really anymore, is it?



#794 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 21 January 2016 - 15:22

The reduction in price, and tweaks to the rules to guarantee supply, will come in to force for 2018

 

 

2018?  Rubbish.  

 

 

"World Motor Sport Council".   Ridiculous, it's car racing, not an international trade agreement.  F1 will collapse under it's own pretentious weight.  Manufacturers acting like virtual prima donnas, team bosses as lords, Bernie being the only king - but his power diluted by the New Bureaucracy.  The land holders along for the ride.   A slow descending ride.

 

I'm having a hard time dealing with the pompous, arrogantly vacuous attitude of FOM, the FIA, the whole essence of what has become "F1".   Supposedly filled with smart people, but unable to do anything coherent anymore.  "Oh noes, Mercedes might quit!  We can't do that!".   Ridiculous.

 

 If the premise of why something exists is not based on the fans, but on some sort of maniacal legal construct to please a "Too Big to Fail" philosophy, it's going to suck.  It's the business disease of the 21st century.



#795 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 January 2016 - 15:41

 The "power units", being effectively frozen, and basically no more testing, with a series that leaves drivers like Alonso stuck out in the cold?  Ticket prices that means I'm treated like cattle, looking through a fence pressed against the other cattle - IF I can afford such an extravagance?  Crappy coverage with a zillion commercials, and then "coverage" that includes constant interruptions by the network to advertise other sports I have zero interest in?  Ridiculous rules that are invisible to the viewer - the condition of the tires, fuel consumption, battery status? 

 

 I've stopped watching practice all ready, which is an amazing thing to write.  I missed Q1 and Q2 a few times, and felt none worse for the wear.  If F1 somehow manages to survive in it's present mediocre state by 2019, there isn't much there anymore - frozen engines, chassis, effectively a spec series via "spending regulation".   What if Ferrari manages to make an engine .. I mean, "power unit" capable of competing against the Mercedes?  Will it be via clever engineering, or merely they spent enough to get them "there"?  Then what?  Stasis.

 

 Not "who can rev another 1,000 rpm?  Who can make a lighter engine?  Smaller?  Better chassis design?".  It's set in stone, the amounts of energy relative to the design limit the progression, as it was meant to do, to "control costs".  Rubbish.

 

 Meanwhile, Formula E gets on with being in the NOW, and hopefully becomes more open - and more like actual "F1".   If they open the rules up, I might end up watching that. 

 

 F1 - I don't know.  It's not "F1" really anymore, is it?

 

I do not disagree with any of this. Sadly though, I think if Formula E starts to grow  sooner or later there'll be some group who will buy the series to milk it for all it's got.