Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
3361 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (413 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (372 votes [90.07%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.07%

  2. Nay (41 votes [9.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.93%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (209 votes [50.61%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.61%

  2. Nay (204 votes [49.39%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.39%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (305 votes [73.85%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.85%

  2. Nay (108 votes [26.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 25,888 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 November 2017 - 22:35

The old thread was getting a bit long so, like Liberty Media's ownership of F1, this thread can be a fresh start. Here's the latest:
 
Formula 1 2021 engine rules revamp details revealed 
 

The proposal for 2021 includes keeping the current 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrid engine, but running it at 3000rpm higher "to improve the sound".

In order to try to simplify the internals of the power unit, the MGU-H will be removed, and several prescriptive design parameters will be introduced to "restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions".

These will include internal and external parameters, with the latter allowing for what the FIA described as "a plug-and-play engine/chassis/transmission swap capability".

[...]

The MGU-K will be made more powerful, with a focus on manual driver deployment of the additional power, similar to the way KERS was used when it was first introduced into F1 in 2009.

This feature will also give drivers the option to save up energy over several laps to increase the tactical elements involved in racing.

 
Sp where are we? Ross Brawn says F1 is at a crossroads, and wants this little old engine to reduce costs, make car performance more equal, inspire more fans, rev higher, and generally lead the F1 paddock into the promised land.
 
Ferrari are threatening in the vaguest terms possible to walk away from F1. Mercedes and Renault have reservations too.
 
Aston Martin, not a major car manufacturer but perhaps that's the point, are "encouraged" by the noises coming out of Paris.



Advertisement

#2 Alonsofan007

Alonsofan007
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 02 November 2017 - 22:47

he he .......removal of MguH is the reason ferrari will quit? they can't be serious with this :rotfl: .



#3 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,105 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 02 November 2017 - 22:47

It filled up as I was replying...

 

 


Privateers are prone to leaving as well, in fact the last 3 who tried to enter failed miserably. They don’t pump any money into the sport unlike Ferrari and Mercedes either.

 

 

I'd argue that neither Ferrari or Mercedes fund anything that isn't related directly to their respective teams.  They don't activate promotion for the series in and of itself.  That money is going to a winning F1 team and not the good of the sport.  A good chunk of both of their revenue is derived directly from FOM particularly in the case of Ferrari.  With FOM subsidizing them as much they get a great return on any brand promotion they do in the series.  There was a piece not too long ago where it said the total outlay from Mercedes after sponsorship and FOM money was about US$30 mil.  That's a deal.

 

The goal of Liberty is going to be to take the revenue stream and distribute it among the teams so each team can have a profitable, sustainable business over the long term.  This "the teams won't stand for it" mantra reminds me of when Liberty acquired the rights and people were saying the Ecclestone would never allow it.  Where's Ecclestone now?  The three big teams won't pack up and quit, ditching the billion dollar investments.  Mercedes or RedBull may sell but Ferrari won't quit. They don't have much other marketing and they're able to make a good hunk of money from merchandising.  Thinking Malone spent all this money only to be knuckled under by the manufacturers is pretty wide of the mark.  There are already rumblings of Liberty calling the team's bluff.  There is the report/rumor that Malone told Sergio Marchionne if he didn't like it he could sue him and that he nothing but time and money.  Joe's Award is reporting that with the new money disbursement and engine rules they'll listen to the teams but in the end it's their way or the highway.   The teams aren't going to take what's going to be a money making promotional tool and walk away and absorb the losses from closing the race businesses.   



#4 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 6,284 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:02

Given that a higher-revving V6 is on the table for the next formula, I’ll take this as an admission that a field full of four-cylinder turbo hybrids probably would have been an abject failure...

EDIT: Actually, I have a way this might have work. Mandate standalone four-cylinder turbo ICEs with a series of minimum performance and efficiency targets–and then force the teams to bolt them together and run them as a modular V8. Road relevance and a proper F1 engine all at once, am I right?

Edited by Afterburner, 02 November 2017 - 23:06.


#5 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:08

Part 1 of this thread can be found here:  http://forums.autosp...formula-merged/



#6 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 6,597 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:28

What a weird hill for Ferrari to die on :lol:

'you're increasing the rev limit and taking away a hybrid part, how dare you, we're off!'

Edited by SCUDmissile, 02 November 2017 - 23:28.


#7 DS27

DS27
  • Member

  • 2,999 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:34

Yes for all, but it's still not enough for me not to answer yes to the 4th question of is it too little too late.



#8 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,555 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:47

I think it would be entirely possible for them to operate the engines 2,500-3,000rpm higher without needing to raise the rpm limit.

 

This should enable the current core engines to continue without too much issue.

 

I am not sure about keeping a single turbo without the MGUH. It sounds like a recipe for much turbo lag, even though the turbo would be smaller. I also wonder about the sound of the single turbo vs a twin turbo - was any investigation done into this?

 

The prescriptive design for engine internals could be a major sticking point, particularly if that involves combustion chamber shapes and concepts. 

 

Brawn and Symonds, and the group from FOM who "researched" this seem to all be chassis guys, and they seem to be moving to reduce the influence of the engine in the performance of the car.



#9 pablo_a

pablo_a
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 November 2017 - 23:54

i think this poll is risking severe bias by not presenting a 'i really don't care' option



#10 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 9,064 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 00:03

It’s traditional for Ferrari to threaten to leave at least once during every regulation cycle.

#11 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 7,216 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 00:33

"The MGU-K will be made more powerful, with a focus on manual driver deployment of the additional power, similar to the way KERS was used when it was first introduced into F1 in 2009.

This feature will also give drivers the option to save up energy over several laps to increase the tactical elements involved in racing."

Lewis would have loved that in Mexico when he was trying to pass Alonso.
Three laps of extra harvesting and he'd get a free pass down the straight with his 30 extra seconds of electric energy boost.
Add some DRS on top of that and it sounds like great racing, doesn't it?

#12 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 00:58

Rule changes?  There were rule changes?

 

Spec engine, spec battery, spec electric motors, fuel flow limited, bozo anti-intellectual reasoning behind having a tiny hybrid motor...

 

Ferrari, Lewis and Fernando leaves - efficient vacuum cleaner motors aren't going to sustain F1.

 

Rule changes?

 

What's the point in "discussing" what amounts to Yet Another Step Into Mediocrity?  I kinda hope Ferrari leaves.  I think F1 finding itself on the brink of existential demise, like the U.S., may be the only think that makes act 1:1 with reality.



#13 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:07

What a weird hill for Ferrari to die on :lol:

'you're increasing the rev limit and taking away a hybrid part, how dare you, we're off!'

Enzo is rolling over in his grave as I type this.



#14 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,461 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:08

Welcome to Formula One, Liberty. The honeymoon's over.

#15 Knowlesy

Knowlesy
  • Member

  • 3,252 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:40

If Ferrari walk I will pop open the champagne.

#16 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:58

he he .......removal of MguH is the reason ferrari will quit? they can't be serious with this :rotfl: .

I don't think they are about it in particular but there was more in the proposal. Cheaper and more standard engines are not to Ferrari's liking.



#17 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:08

Supercar sales worldwide have increased dramatically over the last 12 months with record sales from the likes of traditional brands like Lamborghini and Ferrari ,and now McLaren are increasing their slice of the market too. But what keeps Ferrari at the top of the tree? IMHO it's F1, both their heritage and their continued participation. I say call their bluff - their core business couldn't afford the sales hit if they pulled out. They need F1 more than F1 needs them.


Edited by RacingGreen, 03 November 2017 - 02:10.


#18 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,650 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:37

 

It filled up as I was replying...

 

 


 

 

I'd argue that neither Ferrari or Mercedes fund anything that isn't related directly to their respective teams.  They don't activate promotion for the series in and of itself.  That money is going to a winning F1 team and not the good of the sport.  A good chunk of both of their revenue is derived directly from FOM particularly in the case of Ferrari.  With FOM subsidizing them as much they get a great return on any brand promotion they do in the series.  There was a piece not too long ago where it said the total outlay from Mercedes after sponsorship and FOM money was about US$30 mil.  That's a deal.

 

The goal of Liberty is going to be to take the revenue stream and distribute it among the teams so each team can have a profitable, sustainable business over the long term.  This "the teams won't stand for it" mantra reminds me of when Liberty acquired the rights and people were saying the Ecclestone would never allow it.  Where's Ecclestone now?  The three big teams won't pack up and quit, ditching the billion dollar investments.  Mercedes or RedBull may sell but Ferrari won't quit. They don't have much other marketing and they're able to make a good hunk of money from merchandising.  Thinking Malone spent all this money only to be knuckled under by the manufacturers is pretty wide of the mark.  There are already rumblings of Liberty calling the team's bluff.  There is the report/rumor that Malone told Sergio Marchionne if he didn't like it he could sue him and that he nothing but time and money.  Joe's Award is reporting that with the new money disbursement and engine rules they'll listen to the teams but in the end it's their way or the highway.   The teams aren't going to take what's going to be a money making promotional tool and walk away and absorb the losses from closing the race businesses.   

 

 

I don't see any similarities between this and Libery/Ecclestone, other than to make your point work.

 

If their F1 participation does not portray Ferrari in a good light, they'll quit, why wouldn't they? 

As for Liberty, they know what makes F1 the top series in motorsport, it's exactly the participation of road car giants. Not a pseudo spec series where giants and minnows compete with basically the same machinery. Liberty will be the one to buckle if Ferrari put their foot down. 

 

I think it would be entirely possible for them to operate the engines 2,500-3,000rpm higher without needing to raise the rpm limit.

 

This should enable the current core engines to continue without too much issue.

 

I am not sure about keeping a single turbo without the MGUH. It sounds like a recipe for much turbo lag, even though the turbo would be smaller. I also wonder about the sound of the single turbo vs a twin turbo - was any investigation done into this?

 

The prescriptive design for engine internals could be a major sticking point, particularly if that involves combustion chamber shapes and concepts. 

 

Brawn and Symonds, and the group from FOM who "researched" this seem to all be chassis guys, and they seem to be moving to reduce the influence of the engine in the performance of the car.

 

What is wrong with some turbo lag? 



#19 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,555 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:13

What is wrong with some turbo lag? 

 

1 or 2s, like in the '80s, may not be so bad. 5-10s would be bad.

 

Taffin said that the current turbos would result in lag of the order of 10s or more if they didn't have the MGUH.



Advertisement

#20 l12mcg

l12mcg
  • Member

  • 250 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:21

What is wrong with some turbo lag?

We don’t need these cars to be slower off the line than the old V8s...

For example see this, https://youtu.be/-BcISSWqpXE?t=3m12s

That’s a great start by Fernando

But compare to this

https://youtu.be/FE0hauNnlJQ

Vettel has to drive around the merc and he still beat Fernando to the 150 m board by about 1 second... That’s crazy. The old V8s has no toque, a V6 with turbo lag would be worse...

Also I know Alonso’s car had a bit of a stutter buts that’s how starts we’re then, they didn’t have the torque to get going. Ohh and they had traction control... So imagine the current engines with traction control...

Edited by l12mcg, 03 November 2017 - 03:23.


#21 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,650 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:40

1 or 2s, like in the '80s, may not be so bad. 5-10s would be bad.

 

Taffin said that the current turbos would result in lag of the order of 10s or more if they didn't have the MGUH.

 

They would have to downsize their turbo, the loss of power would be made up by the higher fuel flow allotment. 



#22 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,383 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:30

We don’t need these cars to be slower off the line than the old V8s...

For example see this, https://youtu.be/-BcISSWqpXE?t=3m12s

That’s a great start by Fernando

But compare to this

https://youtu.be/FE0hauNnlJQ

Vettel has to drive around the merc and he still beat Fernando to the 150 m board by about 1 second... That’s crazy. The old V8s has no toque, a V6 with turbo lag would be worse...

Also I know Alonso’s car had a bit of a stutter buts that’s how starts we’re then, they didn’t have the torque to get going. Ohh and they had traction control... So imagine the current engines with traction control...


That was a V10, not a V8.

I seriously doubt that a light weight V10, with a small amount of fuel on board, and launch control, would be slower than the hybrids. There is no way that’s representative of normal starts.

Besides, you can only dump as much power into the rear wheels as the tyres can take, and whether it be V10, V8, Hybrid, etc, none of them are at full power off the line. The fact that the Mercedes in front of vettel that he had to drive around has the most power on the grid, is proof that engine numbers are mostly irrelevant to a good start. Otherwise the Mercedes would have disappeared when the lights went out.

#23 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 10,119 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:46

There will have to be a new engine design which means large R&D costs for the manufacturers and a step back in technology. Almost the same engine just castrated.

 

It just isn't justifiable.

 

I would support new engine regs if they were much different than know and I guess the manufacturers too but this proposal just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Honestly, I expected much more from the "think tank", this just smells like an attempt to make F1 more "Indy".


Edited by peroa, 03 November 2017 - 06:10.


#24 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 755 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:11

Ferrari is just buying leverage to keep their special Ferrari payment. It is business, just follow the money.

#25 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:34

So let's look at the stated objectives: 

 

Equalise Performance

 

I don't buy it. Major rule changes tend to increase the field spread, not decrease it. Mercedes have had the best engine the last few sets of engine rules, I doubt this redesign will be any different. 

 

Inspire more fans

 

I don't buy it. Who are these people they are trying to inspire? Because if it's us lot, they don't stand a chance. If the engine noise was so astoundingly fantastic that it caused spontaneous orgasms across F1 diehards, we'd still find something to complain about. But, moreover, 3k RPM isn't going to make a lot of difference.

 

Cut Costs

 

I don't buy it. And, to be honest, I'm disappointed that other F1 fans fall for this. I understand the temptation to believe it, I mean, the power units are complex - if we make them simpler it will save money, right? But this notion rests on the fallacious idea that the main thing driving cost in F1 is complexity. No, competition drives cost. Sure, the units were cheaper back when we had the V8s, but that was because they were homologated, not because Luddites could understand them. If Mercedes think spending an extra $100m a year on PU development will bring them better results, they will do, no matter how complex the engine formula.

But that's before we even consider the wasted sunk cost in developing the current PUs. Or, the astronomical cost of a complete redesign for the new specification. This rule change will cost the current PU manufacturers a small fortune.

 

Enticing Other Engine Manufacturers

 

I don't buy it. I get it, everyone is fed up with the Mercedes/Ferrari cartel. So it's tempting to say "screw those guys, let's get Audi or Aston in to shake things up". Tempting for sure. But I just don't see manufacturers lining up to join F1 at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, prior to Honda, the last new engine manufacturer to enter F1 was Toyota, 15 years ago. More new manufacturers joined F1 in the hybrid era than in the decade before. It's not the new engine formula that is stopping wider manufacturer involvement.

 

So this leaves me a little baffled. The stated aims don't seem to align with what we have previously experienced in F1. Brawn and Co. are smart people, but I can't help but feel that we are, as usual, being placated while the powers that be gently caress one or more of the current manufacturers to a happy ending. 


Edited by learningtobelost, 03 November 2017 - 10:45.


#26 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,105 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:57

I don't see any similarities between this and Libery/Ecclestone, other than to make your point work.

 

If their F1 participation does not portray Ferrari in a good light, they'll quit, why wouldn't they? 

As for Liberty, they know what makes F1 the top series in motorsport, it's exactly the participation of road car giants. Not a pseudo spec series where giants and minnows compete with basically the same machinery. Liberty will be the one to buckle if Ferrari put their foot down. 

 

 

The similarities regarding Ecclestone is that many here on the forum were saying that Ecclestone wouldn't let Liberty do anything once they got control.  And that F1 couldn't function without Ecclestone.  Liberty basically relieved him of duty and did what they think is best for their business.  With regards to Ferrari it's much the same.  The "F1 can't survive without Ferrari" or specific to your case that Liberty will "buckle" isn't going to happen.  They are going to do what they think is best for the long term plan of the business and not compromise that to keep any specific marquee. 

 

Forum participants have built this mythology that somehow is more cut throat than any other business.   In fact most large scale, high profile businesses are every bit as cut throat and even more so than F1.  Sergio Marchionne isn't a billionaire that owns one of the largest media companies in the world.  John Malone is.  Marchionne answers to his board.  Malone controls his.  The power dynamic is not in Ferrari's favor.   Without F1 they become another boutique car company with a storied history in a crowded market.

 

Ferrari is just buying leverage to keep their special Ferrari payment. It is business, just follow the money.

There won't be any special Ferrari payment after 2020.  Ferrari will be presented a framework within which to work and if they don't like it they don't have to race.



#27 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,887 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:22

Honestly, I expected much more from the "think tank", this just smells like an attempt to make F1 more "Indy".


Given the current state of IndyCar regulations, that’s no bad thing.

#28 RECKLESS

RECKLESS
  • Member

  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:28

All sounds pretty good to me, but will have to see it to make final judgement.

I really liked the manually applied Kers.
Drivers could use it to attack or defend superbly (Kimi's surprise overtake on The Michael down the hill towards Eau Rouge '12 prime example).

Edited by RECKLESS, 03 November 2017 - 07:29.


#29 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,887 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:41

Hopefully the manual deployment of ERS stored energy is less artificial than KERS was. It always bothered me that KERS could always store more energy than was available to the driver. It would apparently be empty at the end of a lap and then just refill itself at the car crossed the line next lap of allowance.

I’d rather actually see the energy store build up under breaking and then be deployed by the driver as he sees fit.

Though the last poll question was hard to answer. I’d be happy for MGU-H to be retained and have the more tactical use of MGU-K.

#30 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 3,784 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:56

We don’t need these cars to be slower off the line than the old V8s...

For example see this, https://youtu.be/-BcISSWqpXE?t=3m12s

That’s a great start by Fernando

But compare to this

https://youtu.be/FE0hauNnlJQ

Vettel has to drive around the merc and he still beat Fernando to the 150 m board by about 1 second... That’s crazy. The old V8s has no toque, a V6 with turbo lag would be worse...

Also I know Alonso’s car had a bit of a stutter buts that’s how starts we’re then, they didn’t have the torque to get going. Ohh and they had traction control... So imagine the current engines with traction control...

 

That's the 2005 V10 powered Renault. Probably the fastest F1 car from 0-200kph of all time. That is all down to the launch control.

 

Turbo lag isn't an issue for starts when they can build boost on the line by revving. 



#31 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 3,873 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:00

Given that a higher-revving V6 is on the table for the next formula, I’ll take this as an admission that a field full of four-cylinder turbo hybrids probably would have been an abject failure...

EDIT: Actually, I have a way this might have work. Mandate standalone four-cylinder turbo ICEs with a series of minimum performance and efficiency targets–and then force the teams to bolt them together and run them as a modular V8. Road relevance and a proper F1 engine all at once, am I right?

 

I don't understand the difference?

The only reason for the engine grump ist they have been expensive because they've been freshly developed.

Ferrari didn't like the I4 and Merc weren't over enamoured, either.



#32 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,552 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:20

The similarities regarding Ecclestone is that many here on the forum were saying that Ecclestone wouldn't let Liberty do anything once they got control. And that F1 couldn't function without Ecclestone. Liberty basically relieved him of duty and did what they think is best for their business. With regards to Ferrari it's much the same. The "F1 can't survive without Ferrari" or specific to your case that Liberty will "buckle" isn't going to happen. They are going to do what they think is best for the long term plan of the business and not compromise that to keep any specific marquee.

Forum participants have built this mythology that somehow is more cut throat than any other business. In fact most large scale, high profile businesses are every bit as cut throat and even more so than F1. Sergio Marchionne isn't a billionaire that owns one of the largest media companies in the world. John Malone is. Marchionne answers to his board. Malone controls his. The power dynamic is not in Ferrari's favor. Without F1 they become another boutique car company with a storied history in a crowded market.

There won't be any special Ferrari payment after 2020. Ferrari will be presented a framework within which to work and if they don't like it they don't have to race.

Did anyone actually say those things? I thought the general consensus was it would be good to see Be deposed.

#33 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:27

I don't think they are about it in particular but there was more in the proposal. Cheaper and more standard engines are not to Ferrari's liking.

Nor mine, not a standard PU...

#34 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:30

Ther could be a special Ferrari payment after 2020 but could be dressed up as a “years taken part” bonus?

#35 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,277 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:36

he he .......removal of MguH is the reason ferrari will quit? they can't be serious with this :rotfl: .

I'm sure that doesn't help, but it's more about payments imho.



#36 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,228 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:45

It’s one of the perils of being a publicly traded company.

Nobody wants to have to tell the stock holders that from 2020 they’ll probably be making $100 million a year less because the FOM historic payments stopped.

#37 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 26,520 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:46

I don't think they are about it in particular but there was more in the proposal. Cheaper and more standard engines are not to Ferrari's liking.

 

The idea of cookie cutter 'swappable' similiar engines is never going to be liked by Ferrari. The idea of their powerplant as something unique and special is a core value.



#38 Kev00

Kev00
  • Member

  • 3,098 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:17

Hopefully the manual deployment of ERS stored energy is less artificial than KERS was. It always bothered me that KERS could always store more energy than was available to the driver. It would apparently be empty at the end of a lap and then just refill itself at the car crossed the line next lap of allowance.

I’d rather actually see the energy store build up under breaking and then be deployed by the driver as he sees fit.

Though the last poll question was hard to answer. I’d be happy for MGU-H to be retained and have the more tactical use of MGU-K.


I think the graphic only showed their allowance on the lap they were on. It didn’t show how much energy they had stored. Teams would only harvest as much as they needed to.

#39 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:31

Given that a higher-revving V6 is on the table for the next formula, I’ll take this as an admission that a field full of four-cylinder turbo hybrids probably would have been an abject failure...

EDIT: Actually, I have a way this might have work. Mandate standalone four-cylinder turbo ICEs with a series of minimum performance and efficiency targets–and then force the teams to bolt them together and run them as a modular V8. Road relevance and a proper F1 engine all at once, am I right?

 

Yay, v8s!   ;)

 

I think four cylinders would be fine, the Super Formula four cylinders have a nice bark -- indeed sounding like half a V8.

 

:up:  Super Formula I4 sounds better than the  F1 V6s.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 10:40.


Advertisement

#40 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:34

 

 

Taffin said that the current turbos would result in lag of the order of 10s or more if they didn't have the MGUH.

 

So replace with N/A motors, lag-free FTW!  :clap:

 

Don't use MGUH-based electric spooling as a crutch for the addiction of fitting a comically over sized turbine.  :rolleyes:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 10:35.


#41 RECKLESS

RECKLESS
  • Member

  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:20

Hopefully the manual deployment of ERS stored energy is less artificial than KERS was. It always bothered me that KERS could always store more energy than was available to the driver. It would apparently be empty at the end of a lap and then just refill itself at the car crossed the line next lap of allowance.

I’d rather actually see the energy store build up under breaking and then be deployed by the driver as he sees fit.

Though the last poll question was hard to answer. I’d be happy for MGU-H to be retained and have the more tactical use of MGU-K.

I disagree, it didn't bother me at all. There's always certain limits, and one might aswell dislike a rev limiter for the same reason.

Having it at a set amount over one lap made it a weapon of equal measure for all and to me it was fun that way.

There would have to be a max amount of restored energy to be used either way.

#42 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,887 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:34

I think the graphic only showed their allowance on the lap they were on. It didn’t show how much energy they had stored. Teams would only harvest as much as they needed to.

I disagree, it didn't bother me at all. There's always certain limits, and one might aswell dislike a rev limiter for the same reason.
Having it at a set amount over one lap made it a weapon of equal measure for all and to me it was fun that way.
There would have to be a max amount of restored energy to be used either way.


I know it was an allowance, but it bothered me that it didn’t reflect what they actually had stored.

I’d have preferred if, rather than an allowance of x seconds deployment per lap, it was just a limit on the energy storage, to be used as the driver saw fit. I could then have been displayed to us in that manner.

What tended to happen was drivers their allowance at the same points in each lap, and never having to worry about having anything in reserve because there was always enough opportunity to fill that allowance.

#43 kissTheApex

kissTheApex
  • Member

  • 635 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:49

Though the last poll question was hard to answer. I’d be happy for MGU-H to be retained and have the more tactical use of MGU-K.


Exact dilemma I faced with the last question. Id like for the MGU-H to stay but the driver to have control of the harvested energy deployment as they see fit.

I’m pretty much the odd one out but I like the current PUs for the technical advancements that they are. I’ve been watching F1 since 87, I’ve seen the sport I’ve been watching die slowly, and turn into a fast dying “entertainment” once advanced aerodynamics became the mainstream. I much prefer it to be an engine development formula with tires that wouldn’t shred themselves off when drivers with the most miserable PUs this regulation has seen pushes the limits of tires for more than two laps.

#44 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 5,712 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:10

To be honest, I'm not too bothered about the details. It'd be great for F1 to get back to a proper racing engine, rather than a science project.

 

I don't necessarily mean the stereotypical "bring back V8s/V10s!" comment either. I'd just like an engine that is less expensive, and way less complicated. It frustrates me to no end that here we are, several years into the V6T era, and the engines are still hideously unreliable - to the point teams are having the most ridiculous grid penalties imposed on them.

 

I don't think the common fan cares about all the crap that's going on at the moment. MGU-K, MGU-H...it's unfathomable nonsense to all but a minority.

 

A better engine noise would be nice, too. I'm not sure if it's because I associate the current noise with dull and often predictable racing that I haven't been able to warm to it. But yeah, at the moment, I just find the current engines underwhelming. I'm sure they're fascinating, technologically, if you're into that type of thing. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those people.


Edited by JHSingo, 03 November 2017 - 13:11.


#45 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:16

It frustrates me to no end that here we are, several years into the V6T era, and the engines are still hideously unreliable - to the point teams are having the most ridiculous grid penalties imposed on them.

The Mercedes and Ferrari PUs are very reliable.



#46 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 25,888 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:25

The grid penalties are ridiculous. It would be better to let the cars fail in the race so we can all see what naughty boys they've been.



#47 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 5,712 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:29

The Mercedes and Ferrari PUs are very reliable.

 

Just not at the point in the season they need it to be.



#48 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 6,284 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:34

I disagree, it didn't bother me at all. There's always certain limits, and one might aswell dislike a rev limiter for the same reason.

Having it at a set amount over one lap made it a weapon of equal measure for all and to me it was fun that way.

There would have to be a max amount of restored energy to be used either way.

To interject on this discussion, if it’s coming back as a type of push-to-pass, they may as well learn lessons from Indycar.

This year, Indy went to a system where they gave the drivers an allotted number of seconds of extra HP per race and let them use it as they see fit. The problem? It obviously takes more seconds of extra HP for a trailing car to make an overtake than it does for a leading car to defend. As a result, passing remained difficult because the leading car could just deploy a few seconds towards the end of a straight to stave off a pass while the following car would be on the button the whole way just to get close. There was no strategy in it as obviously the leading car would use some of its seconds of extra HP because there’s no real penalty for doing so.

The solution? Make it so activating extra HP burns the whole store of it, all at once, every time. This equalizes the penalty between the leader and the follower because they will always use up the same amount of extra HP time no matter what happens so long as they decide to use it. Also places an additional strategic burden on the lead car, who will obviously be able to tell only too late when their rival will be going that little bit quicker–do you risk your extra HP now or wait until later that lap and try for a repass?

So yeah, if F1 goes back to a KERS system, it needs to burn itself all up at once whenever used, and not be available until fully-charged. Ideally, it would take three or four laps to charge all the way, leading to a series of mini-battles within each race because each driver could only get the boost once every four laps.

Obviously, none of this would be necessary if they could sort the aero out, but they won’t do that because every team wants a system in which it’s easy to keep the lead because they all assume they’ll have it...

Edited by Afterburner, 03 November 2017 - 13:36.


#49 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:41

Lewis would have loved that in Mexico when he was trying to pass Alonso.
Three laps of extra harvesting and he'd get a free pass down the straight with his 30 extra seconds of electric energy boost.
Add some DRS on top of that and it sounds like great racing, doesn't it?


Yep, don’t agree with any sort of “push to pass” idea...

#50 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,155 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 November 2017 - 13:56

It's a catch 21. How can you ever implement new engine regulations which please manufacturers without creating an arms race? Which brings me to my next point, why don't they tell manufactuers to go fvck themselves?

 

"Dear manufactuers, these are the regulations. We have decided to adopt simple, loud and exciting engines with tremendous output. The fans love them. You are free to join, the door is always open. Just remember the door works both ways.

 

Sincerely,

 

FIA and LMC."