106 replies to this topic

[Rasputin]

As Ecclestone has suggested a twin engine formula for F1 in 2017, I wonder if there could be a simple way to equal all engines from the past three decades?

 

Just cap the driveshaft power by measuring torque and rpm simultaneously on each car, which should be easy enough with modern technology.

 

This way, everybody could have their 1000 Hp with whatever engine available?

[Richard T]

Just give them a set fuel amount and let them build whatever engines they like. Like WEC

[johnmhinds]

If the engines were equalised on power wouldn't everyone just go for the most reliable and/or cost efficient engine layout?

 

You'd only be creating the short term illusion of choice until everyone switches to using the best engine for the job.

[Gyno]

I rather see the teams run what ever they want without stupid limited fuel or bhp output.

1 engine per race weekend.

[KingTiger]

Equalization never works. 

[drionita]

5h!t, a V82!

[Imateria]

Just give them a set fuel amount and let them build whatever engines they like. Like WEC

Thats not how the WEC works though, the regulations are based on a fuel flow rate based on fuel type, turbo charging and the amount of recovered energy being used.

[quaint]

If the engines were equalised on power wouldn't everyone just go for the most reliable and/or cost efficient engine layout?

 

You'd only be creating the short term illusion of choice until everyone switches to using the best engine for the job.

Probably not. The rich teams would go for the most efficient power unit (weight-corrected) to minimize car weight or to optimize weight distribution and CoG.

[ninetyzero]

Oh look, another engine thread. because there's been a lack of those recently....

 

They should use WEC engine regs. <----my 2 cents

[Rasputin]

5h!t, a V82!

I was just waiting for that post, it took a full 77 minutes for the wiseguy to reveal himelf, thanks.

[vowcartaGP]

equalize engines on a power to weight ratio and then you might be talking.

 

Set a capped price that engine customers pay for engines to be supplied. Something teams can actually afford. The regulations should allow the current Chevrolet & Honda INDY engines too.

 

I would say make WEC engines legal in F1, but we all know what happened the last time we had that situation...

[Fastcake]

A V82 would be quite something to behold.

If the engines were equalised on power wouldn't everyone just go for the most reliable and/or cost efficient engine layout?

You'd only be creating the short term illusion of choice until everyone switches to using the best engine for the job.

Indeed, even with a number of supposedly equal choices available, they'll always be a ideal engine based on something else than power. For example, who's going to choose a V12 under these rules?

[Wuzak]

Fuel flow rate is the answer.

 

No other rules required. No rpm limits, engine size restrictors, capacity limits or anything else you could think of.

 

If there was no ERS, or only KERS, allowed, then N/A engines may have some chance. Otherwise it will be a turbo of some description - like Porsche's WEC engine or the current F1. But likely with 4, or fewer, cylinders. 

 

If the fuel flow rate is on a gradiant up to a fixed point, then the engines would likely be downsized.

 

But since it has to cater for different types of engine, the fuel flow rate will likely be flat across all rpm, so the engines would be similar in size to current or larger and run less rpm.

[TheCaptain]

As has been said before - let them do what they want but keep the fuel limit - cutting the limit when car performance starts to become dangerous again.   

 

Equal customer engines must be made available at an affordable price - £10m/season?

[Richard T]

Thats not how the WEC works though, the regulations are based on a fuel flow rate based on fuel type, turbo charging and the amount of recovered energy being used.

I know, was just trying to simplify it

I wonder whether the same concept in turns of MJ-classes would work in F1. There would be endless discussions about the balance between these, even if the highest class should be favored overall (IMO).

[Henri Greuter]

Little that I read about it but:

 

what influence do you think that the designers have on the cars? Newey & Co will have a lot of influence on the engine of choise because it has to offer the best options regarding aero, weight balance, COG, A bunch out here may want V12 and V10s being used and dream up just about every kind of solution that would enable such engines.  But in such a formula dreamed up here: it isn't just the power output of the engine that matters, but also how it enables the car to be the most optimum in aero, weight distribution etcetera.

 

 

Henri

[pdac]

Everything in F1 has to go through the main people in F1 (in terms of officials, teams, manufacturers). If they were to allow an alternative to the current V6 hybrids then you can be sure that they would only allow a non-competitive alternative. Mercedes have invested a lot in their current PU. Ferrari are catching them now. These two, alone, would not allow an alternative that might challenge them.

[Pingguest]

 

Just give them a set fuel amount and let them build whatever engines they like. Like WEC

 

In WEC engines are equalized, as they run on different fuels. Diesels and gasoline engines do not have the same fuel-flow limit and fuel tank size.

 

 

If the engines were equalised on power wouldn't everyone just go for the most reliable and/or cost efficient engine layout?

 

You'd only be creating the short term illusion of choice until everyone switches to using the best engine for the job.

 

With engine being limited on power in terms of brake horsepower, there would still be plenty of areas to compete and various performance parameters to compete. One could think of torque, drive-ability, fuel consumption, weight and center of gravity. With a limit on the maximum power output being set, manufacturers will strive to get that maximum power output as efficient as possible.

Edited by Pingguest, 25 April 2015 - 21:47.

[Victor_RO]

 

In WEC engines are equalized, as they run on different fuels. Diesels and gasoline engines do not have the same fuel-flow limit and fuel tank size.

 

 

They are given relatively equivalent allocations of energy and energy per lap though, based on the different fuel types.

[noikeee]

A V82 is just 10 V8s bolted together with another 2 cylinders on each end to make it a V, I'd say it's easy to equalize that with the others as long as you give the rest of the car total freedom on weight as that ****'s gonna weight tons.

Edited by noikeee, 25 April 2015 - 21:57.

[highdownforce]

A V82 is just 10 V8s bolted together with another 2 cylinders on each end to make it a V, I'd say it's easy to equalize that with the others as long as you give the rest of the car total freedom on weight as that ****'s gonna weight tons.

Not really.

http://www.ohgizmo.c...onic-injection/

[KnucklesAgain]

Cut back on the number of stupid new threads you are opening, please.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 25 April 2015 - 22:35.

[krod]

I think this horse is dead, but keep flogging it if you want...

[noikeee]

Not really.

http://www.ohgizmo.c...onic-injection/

 

I just applied common bro-science that since BRM's famous 1960s engine with 16 cylinders was incredibly heavy, the more cylinders you put in the heavier it'll be.

 

I may or may not be an actual expert in racing engine design.

[superstring]

Restrict the fuel consumption and open up the engine regs.  Maybe give bonus points to those (winning) teams using the least amount of fuel.  F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge technology (which hopefully can be applied in the real world).

[V8 Fireworks]

Great idea Rasputin!!       

[Wes350]

Sounds an awful lot like the type of Balance of performance done for sportscar racing. 

 

The FIA just needs to realize that they need to make the engines affordable for privateers In F1.

 

WEC and LeMans has always been a manufacturers playground.

 

But how big a grid would they have if it was just the LMP1 cars?

 

 

F1 just needs to simplify the overly complicated engine formula, and let the manufacturers sort what type of configuration is best for the 1.6L displacement...

 

1.6L single Turbo,  4-6 cylinders, flat, inline, or V.  

 

With the usual caveats about exotic materials.

 

Just the single Kers unit everyone had been using - but with unlimited use.

 

Brake by wire, and the various complicated subsystems; Bin them. Too much added complexity for too little PR gain.

 

The 100L fuel flow limit is fine as a starting point; The FIA should make a provision to allow them to increase it between races as they see how much the teams are short filling their tanks. (So gradually more power as the season goes on...)

 

 

Unlimited engine development - but the customer teams cannot be charged more than 8 million US per season. (A defacto cost cap.)

 

The current research done by the engine makers is still valid, the engines would be cheaper, and the competition would be closer between the different makes.

[Wuzak]

F1 just needs to simplify the overly complicated engine formula, and let the manufacturers sort what type of configuration is best for the 1.6L displacement...
 
1.6L single Turbo,  4-6 cylinders, flat, inline, or V.  

All well and good. But they will gravitate to the same format over time.

 

Just the single Kers unit everyone had been using - but with unlimited use.

Still the hate for teh MGH. The MGUH gives the PU more power for longer.

Using the MGUK only severely restricts the amount of time the MGUK can be used. The more power you use, the less time.

 

Brake by wire, and the various complicated subsystems; Bin them. Too much added complexity for too little PR gain.

If they are using the same 160ho MGUK they will still need the brake by wire - basically there to adjust brake balance when the MGUK is harvesting.

 

The 100L fuel flow limit is fine as a starting point; The FIA should make a provision to allow them to increase it between races as they see how much the teams are short filling their tanks. (So gradually more power as the season goes on...)

 

The short filling is track dependent. Some tracks use more fuel than others because of their characteristics. Australis is one where the fuel used is maximum and much fuel saving is going on. Monaco is likely to be one where they short fill the cars.

 

 The current research done by the engine makers is still valid, the engines would be cheaper, and the competition would be closer between the different makes.

Why?

Renault are down on maximum power - that is down to the ICE. Also, the ICE is the part that has been failing, not the ERS.

[Rasputin]

Great idea Rasputin!!       

Thank you V8F, I needed that one after all the beating I recently got on the MP4-30 thread. 

 

I only wish I knew how I could adjust the name of this thread?

[ViMaMo]

Sounds delicious but would be hard to make it work and sustain. 

[Rasputin]

Sounds delicious but would be hard to make it work and sustain. 

I'm not so sure Homie, Rpm- and Torque-measuring technology, together with wireless remote diagonstics, is already a reality?

[midgrid]

If the engines were equalised on power wouldn't everyone just go for the most reliable and/or cost efficient engine layout?

 

You'd only be creating the short term illusion of choice until everyone switches to using the best engine for the job.

Every five years, roll a set of dice to determine the new maximum power output.

[Wes350]

All well and good. But they will gravitate to the same format over time.

 

 

So?

 

The cars have all gravitated and looked the same over time since the late 1970's  

 

(also in the 30's to mid 60's - with a brief period of difference in the late 60's to late 70's when everyone was trying to figure out Aero.)

 

Like this wont happen even with a BoP format??

 

 

 

 

Still the hate for teh MGH. The MGUH gives the PU more power for longer.

Using the MGUK only severely restricts the amount of time the MGUK can be used. The more power you use, the less time.
 

If they are using the same 160ho MGUK they will still need the brake by wire - basically there to adjust brake balance when the MGUK is harvesting.

 

The short filling is track dependent. Some tracks use more fuel than others because of their characteristics. Australis is one where the fuel used is maximum and much fuel saving is going on. Monaco is likely to be one where they short fill the cars.

 

 

 

 

All good points.

 

I was thinking of just keeping the 80ho MGUK they ran in the v8 engines. (no brake by wire used for that)

 

A debate can certainly be had weather the increased complexity of having a MGUH to power an increased 160ho MGUK is really worth it from a racing & cost to the teams point of view.

 

Raising the fuel flow limit gives teams the options to go for more power on various tracks - I know that nothing will end fuel saving in racing. (The refueling era in F1 was one big fuel saving exercise.) 

 

 

 

Why?

Renault are down on maximum power - that is down to the ICE. Also, the ICE is the part that has been failing, not the ERS

 

No development tokens. They can spend all the money they want to overcome their shortcomings.

 

But they can't pass the cost  on to the customer teams.

 

It's the cost to the customer teams I care about.

[johnmhinds]

I don't think it would save anyone any money.

If you're the team that makes a bad engine choice you're screwed for that year and then you have spend extra the next season to change engine types again to try and keep up.

Edited by johnmhinds, 27 April 2015 - 06:35.

[xmoonrakerx]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118696

 

Force India believes V8 engines can race with V6s in F1

Edited by xmoonrakerx, 28 April 2015 - 10:41.

[Henri Greuter]

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118696

 

Force India believes V8 engines can race with V6s in F1

 

 

 

That's what Balestre believed back in the late eighties as well when FIA fielded 3.5 liter atmo cars of 500 kg with inlimited fuel allowance against cars of 540 kg with 1.5 liter turbos restricted to 2.5 bar and 150 liters of fuel for the entire race in 1988. Balestre even predicted no victories for turbos in 1988.

Look at the list of winning cars that year and their engines.....

 

Sorry but in short sprint racing like F1 is compared with WEC events you just can't allow too large differences within engine specifications.

 

Henri

[Alexis*27]

Face facts - half the grid can never win a race under normal conditions.

 

If the choice is between having a half size grid, or enabling the smaller teams to survive and continue F1, then it becomes a necessity to change the rules. Those at the front are unaffected, and the teams that will never challenge them can survive.

 

If you want more than 12 cars, you need a formula that works for those that by their very existence are only there to make up the numbers.

 

F1 tried to fix the lack of teams problem in 2010 and f*ucked it up royally.

 

The smaller teams need help NOW and if they can save £15m a year on older engines, it needs to happen.

 

Plus it make it worth watching a GP in person again.

Edited by Alexis*27, 28 April 2015 - 11:55.

[Rasputin]

That's what Balestre believed back in the late eighties as well when FIA fielded 3.5 liter atmo cars of 500 kg with inlimited fuel allowance against cars of 540 kg with 1.5 liter turbos restricted to 2.5 bar and 150 liters of fuel for the entire race in 1988. Balestre even predicted no victories for turbos in 1988.

Look at the list of winning cars that year and their engines.....

 

Sorry but in short sprint racing like F1 is compared with WEC events you just can't allow too large differences within engine specifications.

 

Henri

I don't think anyone believed that someone would develop a new engine for one season only either, other turbo-teams just turned down the boost.

 

But anyway, this is why my idea of regulating output-power and voila, problem solved?

[Requiem84]

With balancing formula's like proposed we will constantly hear teams that they're being disadvantaged and that bakance measures shoukd in- or decrease.

Just Image Christian Horner this year but then times 100...

[Lennat]

Take a Cosworth V8 (or V10 even, might be needed given the ever increasing power of the V6s) and make sure it's slightly worse overall (taking everything into account) than the average V6. Or even better, just take a conservatively built Cosworth turbo V6 and give it enough fuel to make it almost match the manufacturer engines , but without the ERS. I think a spec engine is needed in this case, so that you can control the power compared to the manufacturer engines. It would HAVE TO be worse as I see it, but not suck.

[SealTheDiffuser]

especially V12's ...

[ardbeg]

If the formula had a built in equalizer, meaning the stronger engines would be weakened, everybody would just go for the cheapest formula. While that might not be a bad idea, it would quickly lead to the end of the current PU's. I don't think that will happen until those involved had recieved full ROI

[V8 Fireworks]

ROI!?

 

Well why'd they make them so fancy in the first place?

 

The Indycar V6 turbos cost a mere fraction of the amount to design and build; and as far as the punter in the grandstand is concerned I doubt they can tell much difference (hell the Indycar engine even sounds better).

 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 28 April 2015 - 13:19.

[noikeee]

With balancing formula's like proposed we will constantly hear teams that they're being disadvantaged and that bakance measures shoukd in- or decrease.

Just Image Christian Horner this year but then times 100...

 

I agree, HOWEVER, we could go down an alternative path where instead of trying to equalize tech, we could open up a second division where old tech is elligible but meant to be less competitive: Let anyone field one of the old V8s as long as they're a little detuned.

 

This could be a good compromise for smaller teams. Get a cheaper less competitive engine if you're struggling to afford the super-hi-tech current V6s.

 

But hybrid V6s battling on equal/balanced terms with the old petrol V8s? Nope.

[Dan333SP]

Not really.

http://www.ohgizmo.c...onic-injection/

Totally off topic but that reminds me of this-

 

 

The tiniest 12 cylinder ever! If only you could train kittens to drive...

[Nemo1965]

Totally off topic but that reminds me of this-

 

 

The tiniest 12 cylinder ever! If only you could train kittens to drive...

 

I always wondered since I saw this guy on Top Gear why no-one offered this guy to put a hydraulic remote in the seat and a camera... and then drive it around Fiorano!

Edited by Nemo1965, 28 April 2015 - 13:42.

[Atreiu]

Follow these steps:

 

1. Fixed ammount of fuel. This will ensure F1 can actually market itself as a series focused on energy efficiency and it will also have safety implications by avoiding unreasonable speeds and outupts. No Tilke track will be safe if the cars can hit 340+ at every straight;

 

2. Any engine format goes. To allow each manufacturer to develop engines that suit their marketing and R&D platforms. If I work for AUDI and want to make management and treasury buy the idea that joining the piranha club is actually worth it, at least let me race the God damn fvcking engines that will be worth the most;

 

3. Vastly reduced minimum weight. Cut it to some 555kg or so. This is to ensure that simple cars with compact and cheaper engine solutions, like a normal V8, remain competitive against these newer technology behemoths. (which are inevitably heavier for the time being and maybe only 3 or 4 manufacturers can actually fund without bankruptcy nowadays);

 

4. Engines used in qualifying must be used in the race. Qualifying specials are fantastic, but not worth their current cost, plus the necessary safety precautions;

 

5. I guess the tokens are a nice idea.

 

Under this model Ferrari would race a V12 3.5, Renault a V10, Honda and Mercedes all the ERS possible, AUDI could show up with a turbo diesel and BMW could show up with any insane engine they felt like.

Edited by Atreiu, 28 April 2015 - 14:00.

[Dan333SP]

I always wondered why no-one offered this guy to put a hydraulic remote in the seat and a camera... and then drive it around Fiorano!

 

Imagine how this guy would feel if the gearbox self-destructed under load or if the little car was crashed... that's a good chunk of his adult life gone in that model. It's incredible that the engine has apparently run over 50 hours in demonstrations (revving out of gear and such) since it was built without a part failure, but I'm sure adding load to it is asking for trouble. I've been trying to find out where he stands on his other projects (another PB and a P4), but his website is either down or blocked from my office.

[Nemo1965]

Imagine how this guy would feel if the gearbox self-destructed under load or if the little car was crashed... that's a good chunk of his adult life gone in that model. It's incredible that the engine has apparently run over 50 hours in demonstrations (revving out of gear and such) since it was built without a part failure, but I'm sure adding load to it is asking for trouble. I've been trying to find out where he stands on his other projects (another PB and a P4), but his website is either down or blocked from my office.

 

Thanks, I never would have thought of that. A shame, really. It would be the most fantastic and most beautiful remote-controlled car, ever. A couple of years ago I could buy a really small Mercedes Benz W195 model, with a real one cylinder, 1 cc engine... It was idiotically expensive but I am still sorry I did not buy it...

[Henri Greuter]

I don't think anyone believed that someone would develop a new engine for one season only either, other turbo-teams just turned down the boost.

 

But anyway, this is why my idea of regulating output-power and voila, problem solved?

 

 

no, no problem solved.

 

Other posters already indicated that eventually it will turn out that one of the options is the best compromise and they who wasted money on the other options then have yet another cash problem: to find enough money to join the bandwagon.

 

Other than power, a F1 engine needs to comply to other demands, it is no longer a part of the car that the rest of the car was built around like with the Ferrari flat-12. But nowadays because of matters like balancve, weight distribution andf above all: aero the engine needs to be an integral part with the car with as less compromises as possible.

It is by now nearly impossible to design a car for a V10 that produces 1000 hp and then convert it into a current V6T PU powered car withoat major consequences for packing, aero balance etc and make it work just as good as with teh V10 for which it was initially designed.

 

It reads as an easy solution but due to the highly specialized nature of f1 nowadays, it is anything but.

 

 

Henri