26 replies to this topic

[Hati]

I think that one partial (and quite unlikely) solution for ever increasing costs in F1 would be simply limiting how much power engine can produce. It would also mean that there wouldn't be much difference between different engines making field somewhat even, there would be some variance between driveability and fuel consumption for example but engine could hardly dictate the successors. I suspect that some big car manufacturer don't want to make race engine that is dynoed by FIA before sealing but I do hope that with right rules there would be enough interest for engine manufacturers.

 

I know that limiting power sounds bad but in the end it's just one more line in big list of limitations, fuel amount, weight, width, etc. Is it a limit that takes something away from the sport? And if limit is ok where it should be put?

[Hati]

In my opinion, if car with driver weighs 600kg I would want engines with 1000hp but I could settle with 800hp. Less is too little.

[Marklar]

there wouldn't be much difference between different engines making field somewhat even [...] engine could hardly dictate the successors. 

Let's make a spec series then. It's even more cheaper.

[johnmhinds]

When has limiting anything in F1 ever lowered costs? If you put a limit on the top end power they'll just shift their money into something like developing a faster accelerating engine.

 

None of the limits that have been put on the cars/teams have ever lowered any of the costs.

 

All it does is force the teams to spend more money in other areas to find that extra 0.1 seconds in less cost effective ways.

Edited by johnmhinds, 26 April 2016 - 19:01.

[Hati]

Let's make a spec series then. It's even more cheaper.

 

I wouldn't care if everybody used same engine if that would lead to good fights on the track (and engine was powerful enough of course). Some car manufacturers would mind.

 

I think that world has changed so that something that worked before doesn't work any more. And with current days mega corporations it's allowing them to pour money for something as much as they want.

[jimjimjeroo]

It's F1 LET THEM BE F1!!!

These engines have the potential to be bat crap crazy. Let them play

Edited by jimjimjeroo, 26 April 2016 - 19:01.

[Lotus53B]

Ooh, a poll, how unusual...

 

If you don't impose limits, you'd get carnage.  We already have the cars receding into the infinite distance to make space for run off areas and the like - without limits on power or similar, you'd need Hubble just to see the cars.

Edited by Lotus53B, 26 April 2016 - 19:49.

[PistolPete]

I suspect that if you limit the amount of power the engines to a certain value, then the engine manufacturer will turn their investment to other aspects of the engine, like how compact it is, operating temperatures etc. So will we then see a cost reduction, i doubt it.

[MikeV1987]

I understand the point you trying to make in the OP, but for me personally I like seeing the manufacturers try and get as much as they can out of the engines and regulations. Something like that is what F1 should be all about IMO.

Edited by MikeV1987, 26 April 2016 - 20:50.

[Scotracer]

The fuel flow limitation is already an attempt at power limitation.

 

How exactly would you like to 'simply' limit power? By what means? In a engine it's usually by monitoring fuel flow vs a characterised mapping so that for different load/speed conditions you can predict fairly accurately how much torque is produced. In F1's case, we already know how much fuel is being commanded...but who's going to do the characterisation of the engines? The FIA? At each event? Not happening.

 

There are some instantaneous torque measuring systems but I have no experience with them - can't say how accurate they could be.Especially in an F1 environment.

[Clatter]

The power of the current PU is, to a large extent, already limited.

 

They have a limit on the amount of fuel they can use, there is a limit on how quickly they can use that fuel, there are limits on how much power can come from the batteries to drive the car. How much money has that saved?

[AlexS]

 

 

I know that limiting power sounds bad but in the end it's just one more line in big list of limitations, fuel amount, weight, width, etc. Is it a limit that takes something away from the sport? And if limit is ok where it should be put?

 

It is not the same. Limit power is to limit engineering end result. One of 3 staples of F1.

[R Soul]

"Cars 44 and 6 under investigation: too much power."

5 minutes later:

"Drive through penalty for cars 44 and 6: too much power."

 

"Cars 19 and 77 under investigation: too much power."

5 minutes later:

"Drive through penalty for cars 19 and 77: too much power."

 

"Cars 14 and 22 under investigation: too much power."

5 minutes later:

"Cars 14 and 22: no further action."

[PlatenGlass]

We have an RPM limit don't we, and that has always seemed a bit odd to me, and I see this as pretty much the same ball park. From there we could have a maximum top speed followed by a minimum lap time. Maybe maximum number of wins in a season?

[Lennat]

We have an RPM limit don't we, and that has always seemed a bit odd to me, and I see this as pretty much the same ball park. From there we could have a maximum top speed followed by a minimum lap time. Maybe maximum number of wins in a season?

 

So many different winners, perfect! And would not discriminate drivers with less talent or less experience who could drive as fast as the "best" ones. It's not road relevant in the slightest to encourage driving as fast as possible.

[Jejking]

Not this **** again. Can't we impose a limit on the number of dumb ideas each season instead?

[Kristian]

One of the first words you think about when you think about F1, or motor racing in general, is POWER. (/Jeremy Clarkson voice)

 

Of all the things that could be limited, I don't think that should be it. Limit aero, bring in costs caps, bring in customer parts, etc. for all I care, but F1 should be about maximising power of the grunter in the back to the limit, not reigning it in. 

[Hati]

I knew it wouldn't be well liked idea but still seems even less liked than I predicted.
 

One of the first words you think about when you think about F1, or motor racing in general, is POWER. (/Jeremy Clarkson voice)

 
You know, limit could be higher than current power output, limiting power output and limiting it low are two very different things.

Edited by Hati, 27 April 2016 - 15:56.

[Clatter]

One of the first words you think about when you think about F1, or motor racing in general, is POWER. (/Jeremy Clarkson voice)

Of all the things that could be limited, I don't think that should be it. Limit aero, bring in costs caps, bring in customer parts, etc. for all I care, but F1 should be about maximising power of the grunter in the back to the limit, not reigning it in.

That's not what I think. There are other racing series with more powerful PU's and F1 has been hobbling the power for years.

[Cig35]

I don't belive in limiting Power output as such.

To me the whole idea in F1 is to build the fastest car possible given the limits in the regulations.

For the engine the limits could be volume, max RPM, turbo restrictions and so on, but not maximizing the power outut.

Just like for aero regulations the constructors need to build the best handling car with as much downforce and as low drag as possible. The rules can for example limit the specifications for the front wing, but there should not be a rule limiting the dowforce created by it. 

 

(Just my 2 cents)

[Rinehart]

Not this **** again. Can't we impose a limit on the number of dumb ideas each season instead?

An excellent idea.

[Kristian]

That's not what I think. There are other racing series with more powerful PU's and F1 has been hobbling the power for years.

 

Indeed. Doesn't mean I agree with it. 

[Nonesuch]

Do we want to limit power output? No, because it's just going to put an artificial cap in one place, and lead to money being spent in yet more obscure places on even less relevant parts of the car.
 
Worse, it's yet another place where advantages, direct or circumstantial, become locked in and which makes it more likely that we'll see another 2015, another 2014, another 2013, another 2011, etc.

 

 

 

This tweaking of the regulations in an attempt to be road relevant, exciting, competitive, affordable, you name it, is increasingly becoming an unintentionally hilarious fool's errand.

 

Technology has moved so far beyond what F1 will allow that the teams are basically wasting their money to come up with bogus solutions to 'problems' that only exist because of the regulations.

[Seanspeed]

Personally, I find this chase for power under a restricted fuel flow rate one of the more exciting areas of development we've had in F1 for quite a while.  For the longest time, it was mostly all about aerodynamics and now we're actually getting the engine manufacturers pushing power and efficiency, which absolutely can lead to road relevant benefits down the line.  We're gonna see more and more hybrid/turbocharged cars going forward, so I think it's a good thing to have a sport like F1 pushing what these sorts of powertrains can do.  

[Clatter]

Personally, I find this chase for power under a restricted fuel flow rate one of the more exciting areas of development we've had in F1 for quite a while.  For the longest time, it was mostly all about aerodynamics and now we're actually getting the engine manufacturers pushing power and efficiency, which absolutely can lead to road relevant benefits down the line.  We're gonna see more and more hybrid/turbocharged cars going forward, so I think it's a good thing to have a sport like F1 pushing what these sorts of powertrains can do.  

It will still only be relevant to racing as the generating forces are so much greater than normal road use. Hybrids are only of use in town and don't give any benefit on the open road where there is no braking.

[DS27]

I voted yes just so the poll didn't look so one-sided and so the OP didn't feel like they had wasted their time.  

[R Soul]

We're gonna see more and more hybrid/turbocharged cars going forward,

 

We'll see a lot of parked ones too, and occasionally we'll see one in reverse for a brief period.