Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
5263 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (505 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (455 votes [90.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.10%

  2. Nay (50 votes [9.90%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.90%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (257 votes [50.89%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.89%

  2. Nay (248 votes [49.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.11%

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

  1. Yay (370 votes [73.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.27%

  2. Nay (135 votes [26.73%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.73%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#3551 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,262 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 January 2019 - 15:38

It’s not even an arguement is it?

A frozen engine design is going to be cheaper than the current DEVELOPED engines.

F1 should be and has been a development series.

 

I think in the past, many saw value in the developments. Fewer do now. It's fine for F1 to be a development series, but it's not going to attract the levels of money that it burns right now unless it focuses on technologies that develop into big-money-making products.



Advertisement

#3552 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 26 January 2019 - 15:39

You appove with this how much people who moan about the price of the current engines while hallowing the atmos fail to realize and to understand that those atmos were rediculously expensive back then as well already. And with less technology used on them...

 

If the frozen spec V8s were leased for a predetermined fixed prize that was below the costs of the actual engines ......

 

If I understand this correctly, I agree.  There was a huge development phase for the NA engines.  Some people like to say low technology with regards to the NA engines but the truth is quite the opposite.  There is a tremendous amount of state-of-the-art technology required to make an engine designed to turn 18 to 20 thousand RPM.  I read about the tremendous amount of development, testing and quality control it takes to make a single piston for such an engine, amazing.  The bearings broke new ground in material science too.  And the development required for the pneumatic valve train was fascinating.

 

It is much easier to make an engine designed to run at 11 to 12 thousand RPM and making less horsepower.  The forces on the pistons and all moving parts are much lower at that range.


Edited by nonobaddog, 26 January 2019 - 15:42.


#3553 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 26 January 2019 - 15:50

I'm sure a lot of people will be happy to use taxis (why we must reinvent new terms for these things I do not know) but there will still be plenty of room for those who want their own car, personalised to their tastes. Things like colour, interior trim, entertainment packages, etc. The stuff that modern car manufacturers offer as options today. It's a fundamental human trait to want stuff that is "yours", a private thing that you share with nobody, that you can customise and make your own. And of course, it's there available to you immediately when you need it.

 

I have no doubt that a proportion of especially urban population will not have that requirement for private transport in their lives, and using a taxi to get around is fine. But to think that private car ownership will become obsolete is about as silly as saying in the future people won't want to own property, we'll just rent a series of hotel rooms.

 

Well said.  I could not possibly agree more with this statement.


Edited by nonobaddog, 26 January 2019 - 15:50.


#3554 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 January 2019 - 18:58

If I understand this correctly, I agree.  There was a huge development phase for the NA engines.  Some people like to say low technology with regards to the NA engines but the truth is quite the opposite.  There is a tremendous amount of state-of-the-art technology required to make an engine designed to turn 18 to 20 thousand RPM.  I read about the tremendous amount of development, testing and quality control it takes to make a single piston for such an engine, amazing.  The bearings broke new ground in material science too.  And the development required for the pneumatic valve train was fascinating.

 

It is much easier to make an engine designed to run at 11 to 12 thousand RPM and making less horsepower.  The forces on the pistons and all moving parts are much lower at that range.

 

 

I've already pointed out on several occasions that I think the engineering level and some of the results of that of the atmo engines being very impressive and respectable. The Cosworth started out at some 400 and a but hp in 67, and the last inrestricted 3 liter v10s were close to 2.5 times as powerful. I seriously take my hat off for such performance increments.

 

To be honest, I doubt however if you understand me correct since we have entirely different opinions on what F1 engines should be nowadays and engines in general for that matter.

So if you don't mind, shall we keep it  at this point and accept we agree to disagree? 


Edited by Henri Greuter, 26 January 2019 - 18:58.


#3555 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 26 January 2019 - 20:20

I've already pointed out on several occasions that I think the engineering level and some of the results of that of the atmo engines being very impressive and respectable. The Cosworth started out at some 400 and a but hp in 67, and the last inrestricted 3 liter v10s were close to 2.5 times as powerful. I seriously take my hat off for such performance increments.

 

To be honest, I doubt however if you understand me correct since we have entirely different opinions on what F1 engines should be nowadays and engines in general for that matter.

So if you don't mind, shall we keep it  at this point and accept we agree to disagree? 

 

Sounds good to me.

I was just trying to agree with your point that the atmo engines were already very, very expensive.



#3556 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,895 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 January 2019 - 00:04

I'm sure a lot of people will be happy to use taxis (why we must reinvent new terms for these things I do not know) but there will still be plenty of room for those who want their own car, personalised to their tastes. Things like colour, interior trim, entertainment packages, etc. The stuff that modern car manufacturers offer as options today. It's a fundamental human trait to want stuff that is "yours", a private thing that you share with nobody, that you can customise and make your own. And of course, it's there available to you immediately when you need it.

 

I have no doubt that a proportion of especially urban population will not have that requirement for private transport in their lives, and using a taxi to get around is fine. But to think that private car ownership will become obsolete is about as silly as saying in the future people won't want to own property, we'll just rent a series of hotel rooms.

 

Maybe I implied that I think car ownership will disappear.

 

I don't actually think it will disappear, but I do believe that rates of car ownership will continue to decline.

 

Regarding owning property, many people can't afford to own their own property.

 

People who don't want to own property, or can't afford to, generally don't rent hotel rooms, but they do rent houses/apartments/etc.

 

The ratio of owner-occupied units to total residential units in the United States is approximately 65%, similar to Australia, New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom. https://en.wikipedia..._ownership_rate



#3557 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,895 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 January 2019 - 00:49

If I understand this correctly, I agree.  There was a huge development phase for the NA engines.  Some people like to say low technology with regards to the NA engines but the truth is quite the opposite.  There is a tremendous amount of state-of-the-art technology required to make an engine designed to turn 18 to 20 thousand RPM.  I read about the tremendous amount of development, testing and quality control it takes to make a single piston for such an engine, amazing.  The bearings broke new ground in material science too.  And the development required for the pneumatic valve train was fascinating.

 

It is much easier to make an engine designed to run at 11 to 12 thousand RPM and making less horsepower.  The forces on the pistons and all moving parts are much lower at that range.

 

If you are suggesting that the current ICEs are not as advanced, or are less stressed, I think you are wrong.

 

The first point about stresses is that the V10s and V8s had strokes of around 40mm. The current engines have a stroke of about 53mm. That has a lot to do with the rpm discrepancy.

 

The V6s also have boost. Possibly as much as 4 atm manifold air pressure, whereas the non turbos have about 1. The compression ratio in the cylinder head is comparable to that of the V10s/V8s, maybe even higher (limited to 18:1). The in cylinder pressures of the V6s are very much higher than in the V10s. In terms of engine stresses the cylinder pressures probably make the V6s more highly loaded than the V10s/V8s were.

 

As for making less power, yes they do. About 10% less power using about 49% less fuel. That doesn't sound easy to me*.

 

* The easiest way to make more power is to put in more fuel. But more fuel requires more air. For a turbo engine you can wind up the boost, but for a NA engine it means adding capacity or adding rpm. Since capacity was limited, rpm was the only way to get more air into the engine. Had the FIA not restricted the engines to 10 cylinders there may have been a move to V12s, as these allow smaller piston diameters and strokes but greater piston area. Smaller pistons and strokes enable greater rpm, more air, more fuel and more power.



#3558 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 27 January 2019 - 03:59

If you are suggesting that the current ICEs are not as advanced, or are less stressed, I think you are wrong.

 

The first point about stresses is that the V10s and V8s had strokes of around 40mm. The current engines have a stroke of about 53mm. That has a lot to do with the rpm discrepancy.

 

The V6s also have boost. Possibly as much as 4 atm manifold air pressure, whereas the non turbos have about 1. The compression ratio in the cylinder head is comparable to that of the V10s/V8s, maybe even higher (limited to 18:1). The in cylinder pressures of the V6s are very much higher than in the V10s. In terms of engine stresses the cylinder pressures probably make the V6s more highly loaded than the V10s/V8s were.

 

As for making less power, yes they do. About 10% less power using about 49% less fuel. That doesn't sound easy to me*.

 

* The easiest way to make more power is to put in more fuel. But more fuel requires more air. For a turbo engine you can wind up the boost, but for a NA engine it means adding capacity or adding rpm. Since capacity was limited, rpm was the only way to get more air into the engine. Had the FIA not restricted the engines to 10 cylinders there may have been a move to V12s, as these allow smaller piston diameters and strokes but greater piston area. Smaller pistons and strokes enable greater rpm, more air, more fuel and more power.

 

I am not suggesting the current ICE are not as advanced.  They are probably more advanced particularly the efficiency and also since time marches on.
 
I am suggesting they are less stressed because they are.  That is by design and by regulation.
 
They do make less power but again that is by design and regulation.  They could easily make significantly more power than the V10's ever did simply by giving them more fuel and more boost but the regulations do not want that.
 
The main reason the V6T's are stressed less than the V10's is because of the operating range.  The V6T's operate at about a maximum of 11K RPM while the V10's were pushing 19K RPM.  
 
I used 18K RPM for these calculations because that was more common for them than 19K RPM.
I used 11K RPM for the V6T even though their fuel formula maxes out at 10.5K RPM they frequently hit 11K before shifting.
 
The V6T, with a bore of 80 and stroke of 53 has:
mean piston speed: 19.45 m/s
max piston speed: 31.57 m/s
max piston acceleration:  88,698 m/s2
 
The V10, with a bore of 95 and stroke of 42.3
mean piston speed: 25.38 m/s
max piston speed: 40.71 m/s
max piston acceleration:  181,458 m/s2
 
These piston speeds and piston accelerations of the V10 are nearly all human engineers could handle at the time.  They could probably handle more now but they don't have to develop that technology since the V6T's don't approach those levels.
 
As a comparison
2018 Mustang Shelby GT350 at 7.5K RPM has a max piston acceleration of 72,029 m/s2
Top fuel dragster making 11,000 hp at 8,200 RPM has a max piston acceleration of 131,503 m/s2 - (some builders use new pistons for each quarter mile run)
 
Two of many other areas where the RPM operating range causes huge stresses are obviously the main bearings and the valve train.


#3559 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,895 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 January 2019 - 07:11

The V10s had a bore of 98mm and stroke of 39.7mm at the end. The bore was limited to a maximum 98mm, which was carried over to the V8s.

 

The V6s also rev to 11,500 or 12,000rpm before changing gear. Sometimes they run faster, but generally not.

 

The V10s were more heavily loaded from the rpms. What I am saying is that the V6s are more heavily loaded overall.

 

Think of it this way:

 

The V10s had 950hp from 10 cylinders = 95hp/cylinder. The V6s have ~ 840hp from 6 cylinders = 140hp per cylinder.

 

As pointed out, the V10s revved harder, so that 95hp per cylinder comes from more power strokes than the V6's 140hp per cylinder.

 

The V6s also run hotter from having air from the compressor in the chamber and running very lean. Yes, the intake air runs through an intercooler, but that doesn't take the temperature back to ambient air temperature, which is what the V10 receives. Which puts higher thermal loadings on the engine.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't top fuel engines basically rebuilt after each run?



Advertisement

#3560 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 January 2019 - 10:34

If you are suggesting that the current ICEs are not as advanced, or are less stressed, I think you are wrong.

 

The first point about stresses is that the V10s and V8s had strokes of around 40mm. The current engines have a stroke of about 53mm. That has a lot to do with the rpm discrepancy.

 

The V6s also have boost. Possibly as much as 4 atm manifold air pressure, whereas the non turbos have about 1. The compression ratio in the cylinder head is comparable to that of the V10s/V8s, maybe even higher (limited to 18:1). The in cylinder pressures of the V6s are very much higher than in the V10s. In terms of engine stresses the cylinder pressures probably make the V6s more highly loaded than the V10s/V8s were.

 

As for making less power, yes they do. About 10% less power using about 49% less fuel. That doesn't sound easy to me*.

 

* The easiest way to make more power is to put in more fuel. But more fuel requires more air. For a turbo engine you can wind up the boost, but for a NA engine it means adding capacity or adding rpm. Since capacity was limited, rpm was the only way to get more air into the engine. Had the FIA not restricted the engines to 10 cylinders there may have been a move to V12s, as these allow smaller piston diameters and strokes but greater piston area. Smaller pistons and strokes enable greater rpm, more air, more fuel and more power.

 

 

In the mid eightties I read a book by Gerd Hack & Fritz Indra about F1 engines and they came up with some theoretical evidences that, based on calculations made for the atm V8s and V12s of recent times, a V10 configuration would provide the ideal compromise between V8 and V10 as long as certain issues could be solved.

A few years later we got to see the evidence of that when Renault and Honda came with their V10's, though they were a bit larger initially.

 

Out of the top of my head, Ferrari was the only team that tried a V12 once engine capacity was reduced to 3 liter from '95 on. But even they were working on a V10 by then that debuted in '96.

Somehow I still wonder what kind of advance any extreme revving V12 could have had over a V10. Even if it still could be more powerful than a V10, the engine would be difficult to use because of the lack of torque  and extreme narrow rev range. The V8's were very bad in that as I've understood and given the fact they had similar bore & strokes one would assume that the latest V10 were also reving at 10000+ stationary in order not to stall.

 

Mindy you, The 1.5 liter BRM V16, pretty much to be rated as the most insane outing of employing more cylinders to obtain more piston area had a stroke of 48.26 mm, thus the V10s had an even smaller stroke than that BRM trick-box!

I really wonder if a V12 revving faster than 20000 rpm with an even smaller stroke than the V10 already had would hve been capable enough to still obtain optimal filling of the cylinder with fuel/air mixture at such rpm's, let alone there be enough time for obtaining maximal combustion and burning off the air fuel mixture to still generate more power to overcome the additional friction of 2 cylinders and all components coming along with that and overcome all other handicaps related with the higher engine weight and fuel consumption. Not mentioning what all of that would cause for the entire car package in which such a 20000+ RPM V12 had to be fitted in.



#3561 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 27 January 2019 - 15:46

The V10s had a bore of 98mm and stroke of 39.7mm at the end. The bore was limited to a maximum 98mm, which was carried over to the V8s.

 

You must be thinking of 2006 when the bore for the V8 was specified to a max of 98mm.  That was not a regulation for the V10 engines.  There was one caveat for 2006 that teams could run old spec engines if they were not able to source a new spec V8 for the season.  Only one team ran a V10 in 2006 and that was Toro Rosso which ran a Cosworth.

 

The V10 engines through 2005 did not have a specified bore so the teams used what they wanted and it was difficult to find all the specs.  I had to dig a lot to find what I could and came up with a typical bore used of 95mm.


Edited by nonobaddog, 27 January 2019 - 15:56.


#3562 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 27 January 2019 - 16:24

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't top fuel engines basically rebuilt after each run?

 

Yes, top fuel engines are completely torn down and rebuilt after each run.  If the block is still good it is reused some number of times, maybe up to 5 or 6 runs.  The rings and bearings are always new for each run.  The builders have piston, rod and ring assemblies prepared ahead of time to make the rebuild faster.

 

My little statement about the pistons was that some builders will save the pistons from one run and use them later.  They use them to make the piston, rod and ring assemblies for later use, possibly the next weekend.  Some builders will reuse those pistons once more and others up to five times.  Other builders throw the pistons away after each run and never reuse them.  I think it has more to do with their sponsorship budget than anything.  They would all probably like to only use them once.



#3563 F1 Mike

F1 Mike
  • Member

  • 664 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2019 - 12:52

Feels like everyone has gotten obsessed with overtaking stats in recent years rather than the entertainment of the race as a whole.

There is less surprise now because there is very very solid reliability.

The reliability formula is bad for the racing.

1 engine per weekend should be plenty and the engines should be far less expensive to balance it out.

#3564 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,822 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 February 2019 - 13:34

Feels like everyone has gotten obsessed with overtaking stats in recent years rather than the entertainment of the race as a whole.

There is less surprise now because there is very very solid reliability.

The reliability formula is bad for the racing.

1 engine per weekend should be plenty and the engines should be far less expensive to balance it out.

The overtaking stats are only up because of DRS and frontrunners having to start from the back due to penalties. Very fake number AFAIC.

Edited by Clatter, 10 February 2019 - 13:35.


#3565 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 February 2019 - 13:50

Feels like everyone has gotten obsessed with overtaking stats in recent years rather than the entertainment of the race as a whole.

There is less surprise now because there is very very solid reliability.

The reliability formula is bad for the racing.

1 engine per weekend should be plenty and the engines should be far less expensive to balance it out.

 

It'll be hard to undo the level of reliability. You can't erase the knowledge of how to make these machines so reliable.



#3566 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 4,385 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 10 February 2019 - 14:02

It'll be hard to undo the level of reliability. You can't erase the knowledge of how to make these machines so reliable.

And that just gets me thinking of the Hybrid issues in the heat at Le Mans 2017 and the absolute barrage of criticism they received for being 'too complicated' and 'unreliable'. Even if we did push power-trains harder and beyond the limit to breaking point, there's still going to be complaints.

 

I often feel that motorsport fans are perpetually unable to make up their minds about what they actually want.



#3567 TheGoldenStoffel

TheGoldenStoffel
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: November 18

Posted 10 February 2019 - 14:10

It'll be hard to undo the level of reliability. You can't erase the knowledge of how to make these machines so reliable.

 

By lowering the amount of miles an engine has to do and allowing teams to use more engines a season the chance of an engine failing will get higher though. If only they could get the price per engine down, that's a really important point in my opinion.

 

The current engines have to do about 7 races, the chance of an engine failing is much higher in race 7 than it is in race 1, with three engines a year you'll only get to the life limit of an engine 3 times in a season.

 

If you would allow teams to use 1 engine per race the engines would be pushed a lot more, resulting in a better spectacle but the chance of engine failures get a lot higher as well as you get to the life limit of an engine 21 times in a season instead of just 3 times. That's why we saw so much more mechanical failures in the past, because they were much more on the limit all the time.



#3568 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 February 2019 - 14:14

By lowering the amount of miles an engine has to do and allowing teams to use more engines a season the chance of an engine failing will get higher though. If only they could get the price per engine down, that's a really important point in my opinion.

The current engines have to do about 7 races, the chance of an engine failing is much higher in race 7 than it is in race 1, with three engines a year you'll only get to the life limit of an engine 3 times in a season.

If you would allow teams to use 1 engine per race the engines would be pushed a lot more, resulting in a better spectacle but the chance of engine failures get a lot higher as well as you get to the life limit of an engine 21 times in a season instead of just 3 times. That's why we saw so much more mechanical failures in the past, because they were much more on the limit all the time.

It really won’t - the PUs are built to there expected life cycle - reliabilty won’t change if they have to last one GP or 7 - they would just be engineered differently

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 10 February 2019 - 14:14.


#3569 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 4,385 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 10 February 2019 - 14:21

If you do anything with the aim or intent of decreasing reliability at this point will be an artificial measure. And we all know how well artificial measures go down with 'what the fans want'.

 

As I said before, Le Mans 2017 was an unintended result of pushing power trains hard in relatively high temperatures and all they got was to be attacked for being unreliable.

 

So I can't see decreasing reliability, intentionally or not, as something that will go well.



#3570 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 February 2019 - 15:34

The long life rules were never meant to be about reliability anyway. They were about cost savings because reliability had already reached a point where drivers could realistically finish every race in a season. So the logic was that you might as well use fewer parts. Even before any such rules came about you had Michael Schumacher finishing every race of 2002 (on the podium every time even). At that point reliability became the aim of the game. If anything, forcing extended use of equipment has allowed for a bit of unreliability in recent years. If we went back to single use engines, we’d possibly see even fewer failures.

#3571 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 February 2019 - 15:48

The long life rules were never meant to be about reliability anyway. They were about cost savings because reliability had already reached a point where drivers could realistically finish every race in a season. So the logic was that you might as well use fewer parts. Even before any such rules came about you had Michael Schumacher finishing every race of 2002 (on the podium every time even). At that point reliability became the aim of the game. If anything, forcing extended use of equipment has allowed for a bit of unreliability in recent years. If we went back to single use engines, we’d possibly see even fewer failures.

Then they didn’t think about it - which is normal for F1.

It is obvious that if you want long life parts they will cost more - teams will develop them to last - and use more/more expensive materials to make it last.

If you make the life span shorter than may cost less - but you need more PU’s so it’s a circular arguement really.

#3572 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 February 2019 - 15:50

Then they didn’t think about it - which is normal for F1.
It is obvious that if you want long life parts they will cost more - teams will develop them to last - and use more/more expensive materials to make it last.
If you make the life span shorter than may cost less - but you need more PU’s so it’s a circular arguement really.


What I’m saying is that teams were already building them to last, so the rules were put in place to stop the teams using many of them.

#3573 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 February 2019 - 15:58

What I’m saying is that teams were already building them to last, so the rules were put in place to stop the teams using many of them.

I know... I realised that after I posted... :/

#3574 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,262 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 February 2019 - 17:22

Just some comments ...

 

Reliability comes out of reliable design and manufacture. Most of that comes out of computer modelling, manufacturing and testing. If you can limit that, then you will get the unreliability returning. Having said that, it's difficult/impossible to do and would, for some, fall into the 'artificial' category. One aspect could be possible, though - the time allowed to do things. Of course, the argument there is that the costs will go up. However, a simple solution is to fix the sale price.

 

Some may bemoan the complexity of the current PUs. But I think that's a red herring. I think what they actually dislike is the price, the fact that some manufacturers have got it right and the others cannot catch up, the way they are nursed to maintain the reliability AND the lack of noise that they produces. Do not confuse complexity with these other issues.


Edited by pdac, 10 February 2019 - 17:24.


#3575 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,520 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 10 February 2019 - 17:33

Just some comments ...

 

Reliability comes out of reliable design and manufacture. Most of that comes out of computer modelling, manufacturing and testing. If you can limit that, then you will get the unreliability returning. Having said that, it's difficult/impossible to do and would, for some, fall into the 'artificial' category. One aspect could be possible, though - the time allowed to do things. Of course, the argument there is that the costs will go up. However, a simple solution is to fix the sale price.

 

Some may bemoan the complexity of the current PUs. But I think that's a red herring. I think what they actually dislike is the price, the fact that some manufacturers have got it right and the others cannot catch up, the way they are nursed to maintain the reliability AND the lack of noise that they produces. Do not confuse complexity with these other issues.

a la Formula E? 



#3576 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,822 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 February 2019 - 19:04

What I’m saying is that teams were already building them to last, so the rules were put in place to stop the teams using many of them.

The original rule was to get rid of the qualifying engines. One engine a weekend was fine.

#3577 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,822 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 February 2019 - 19:09

Just some comments ...

Reliability comes out of reliable design and manufacture. Most of that comes out of computer modelling, manufacturing and testing. If you can limit that, then you will get the unreliability returning. Having said that, it's difficult/impossible to do and would, for some, fall into the 'artificial' category. One aspect could be possible, though - the time allowed to do things. Of course, the argument there is that the costs will go up. However, a simple solution is to fix the sale price.

Some may bemoan the complexity of the current PUs. But I think that's a red herring. I think what they actually dislike is the price, the fact that some manufacturers have got it right and the others cannot catch up, the way they are nursed to maintain the reliability AND the lack of noise that they produces. Do not confuse complexity with these other issues.

They have limited that on the aero side, but there are no limits on the engine side, other than the rules obviously restrict on track testing. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the computer time and amount of dyno time was restricted in the same manner as aero.

#3578 Touchdown

Touchdown
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 February 2019 - 20:51

If we did move back to the one engine per weekend engine formula, surely we would see them pushing the envelope much more as performance would become more of a priority than mileage, and would thus lead to more unreliability?

 

This would require a fixed sale price for the customer teams though, as I would imagine this development race would drive costs up for the OEMs.



#3579 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 February 2019 - 21:09

I think it's reached the point that getting an F1 engine to last a single weekend won't be much of a challenge technically, no matter how much you pushed the envelope. As I said above, even in the early 2000s most engine builders were getting the hang of it.

 

But if it turned out to be more cost effective for the manufacturers, then it would be worth going for it.



Advertisement

#3580 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,504 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 10 February 2019 - 22:16

If we did move back to the one engine per weekend engine formula, surely we would see them pushing the envelope much more as performance would become more of a priority than mileage, and would thus lead to more unreliability?

 

This would require a fixed sale price for the customer teams though, as I would imagine this development race would drive costs up for the OEMs.

 

While it is possible to argue (and I have myself at times) that unreliability is desirable as it makes for less predictable results we have to be mindful of the following:-

  • Engine manufacturers invest in F1 to promote their engineering skills and technical ability. Seeing your PU's blew up publicly week in week out is not a good advert for your products and could cause manufacturers to leave the sport. I'm not sure what would happen if one or two engine manufacturers left or how good the competition would be if there were only one or two works teams and everyone else were customers. 
  • PU's are a large part of team budgets. Not all teams woulds be able to afford a new PU every race and I don't think that we want to write rules that give the "haves" an increased advantage over the "have nots."


#3581 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:39

It will happen. People used to want to buy CD's but many are now happy to subscribe to a streaming service. Already many in the cities, especially younger people are happy not to have a car. That will only get more normal when insurance continues to rise and when governments start to make petrol scarce and expensive - which will happen once the alternative is established.

 

Like a lot of things, businesses and governments will promote a new way of doing things and people will start to adopt it. Once sufficient numbers have adopted it willingly, disincentives to continue with the old ways will start to appear and more people will adopt the new idea. Eventually, most will be doing things the new way and governments will then start to restrict or ban the old ways.

 

Like it or not, sooner rather than later I will be getting a water meter installed. I don't want one. I don't believe it will save me money or make my life easier in the long run, but I will be obliged to take one because it will be forced upon me. Same thing with cars, I think.

Water meter on what? For what?



#3582 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:49

Water meter on what? For what?

The water supply.

In the UK we pay for the water we use - it has a meter on the water supply! So we pay per cubic meter...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 11 February 2019 - 07:04.


#3583 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:33

The water supply.

In the UK we pay for the water we use - it has a meter on the water supply! So we pay per cubic meter...

Yeah, we do here in the U.S. as well.  I thought everyone did. I'd be shocked to find that he didn't already have a water meter. That's why I wondered what he meant.



#3584 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:34

Yeah, we do here in the U.S. as well. I thought everyone did. I'd be shocked to find that he didn't already have a water meter. That's why I wondered what he meant.

:) There will still be a few houses in the UK without a meter, although they are trying to force them upon us...

#3585 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:35

:) There will still be a few houses in the UK without a meter, although they are trying to force them upon us...

Wow. That's pretty surprising.



#3586 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,624 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:58

In the Netherlands the same. Most dwellings have a water meter, but in old cities they usually pay a fixed sum/adress because the buildings and streets are way older than the water system.



#3587 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 3,877 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:27

Feels like everyone has gotten obsessed with overtaking stats in recent years rather than the entertainment of the race as a whole.

There is less surprise now because there is very very solid reliability.

The reliability formula is bad for the racing.

1 engine per weekend should be plenty and the engines should be far less expensive to balance it out.

 

The cars aren't more reliable because they need to do more races. That logically doesn't follow. The engines are required to perform for X distance, therefore the teams design them around that (X could be anything you want, within reason - sometimes there just isn't the material available within the weight/package/cost constraints to meet a particular number).

 

What HAS changed is the design approaches and the money thrown at the problem. Instead of a bunch of guys in a shed designing engines, you now have hundreds of people spending $100Ms doing so. That amount of serious design engineering, with simulation and testing facilities gets rid of the failure modes. It doesn't matter if the engines were to last 1 race or 10, they would still be reliable.



#3588 F1 Mike

F1 Mike
  • Member

  • 664 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:47

The water supply.

In the UK we pay for the water we use - it has a meter on the water supply! So we pay per cubic meter...


Saying "the UK" isn't quite right here.

In Scotland I'm pretty sure we don't have any meters for residential at all, there's a small charge in the council tax.

#3589 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,428 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:07

The cars aren't more reliable because they need to do more races. That logically doesn't follow. The engines are required to perform for X distance, therefore the teams design them around that (X could be anything you want, within reason - sometimes there just isn't the material available within the weight/package/cost constraints to meet a particular number).

 

What HAS changed is the design approaches and the money thrown at the problem. Instead of a bunch of guys in a shed designing engines, you now have hundreds of people spending $100Ms doing so. That amount of serious design engineering, with simulation and testing facilities gets rid of the failure modes. It doesn't matter if the engines were to last 1 race or 10, they would still be reliable.

10 1-race engines will be closer to that X 9 more times than 1 10-race engine. Each engine wouldn't be more or less reliable, but there would be more failures over a season. It wouldn't be a big difference, because the failure probability is so low these days, but it's logically there.



#3590 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:24

I consider the bulletproof reliability of the current engines a problem as well. That we have top 10 scoring points instead of top6 in the past, I never tried to convert the results of the seasons 15-18 into a top 6 point score system. Should that be done, I wonder if there would be a season with more than 12 drivers scoring at least one point for 6th or higher. When I think about the number of races with at least 4 of the Top3 teams within the top 6, how much other drivers have a chance for just a single point, let alone better than that?

 

The reduced number of engines allowed over the year, as already stated, it ws an attempt to reduce costs but I wonder how many engines have been built that never saw the Pitlaane yet turned dyno time, all comined for hundreds of hours....

"Party mode" made up for the lack of dedicated qualifying engines....

 

Also als already written down, it is impossible to `uninvent` technology. There are only a few solutions for that for starters. And then there will be ways found to work around the problem. Such has been done in the past already so it would be tried again under whatever new rules put up.

The most promising thought I can think of is to put a ban on all kind of superlight materials for internal moving parts and deliberately assure they will become more vulnerable. And forbid certain construction details that enhanced reliability. Lenghtening of the stroke, reducing bore, in order to put more strain on some components could be another option. To encourage teams to get into this more dangerous operation mode, make it worth the while by ensuring the engines having something of a power advantage within those conditions by either allowing more boost and/or fuel. More performance at the risk of a larger risk to retire.

But such would no doubt lead to a development race in order how to make the engines as reliable as possible witin those conditions, just like the development of the 'Party modes".

And of course it would be major step back in technology, within a category of racing that aims to be the non-ultra-plus in emplyed technology.

Not even mentioning the artificial manner of how to spice up the race, even more advanced and complicated than DRS....



#3591 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 11 February 2019 - 14:16

Are we really discussing how to make the cars less reliable? What's exciting about a car rolling to a halt? How is a race improved when we lose cars from an already small field? What's great about a battle falling apart when one car slows? Yes, cars used to be less reliable, but that wasn't a good thing.



#3592 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 11 February 2019 - 14:48

You are right it doesn't make the racing better.  But I kinda like the big smoky blow-ups - and then the ensuing carnage from the oil on track can be fun too.  It is just something different from the standard parade.



#3593 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,428 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 11 February 2019 - 16:18

It's drama and unpredictability. I remember how nervous last few laps were in the 90s when rooting for a McLaren driver.



#3594 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 February 2019 - 16:19

Are we really discussing how to make the cars less reliable? What's exciting about a car rolling to a halt? How is a race improved when we lose cars from an already small field? What's great about a battle falling apart when one car slows? Yes, cars used to be less reliable, but that wasn't a good thing.

 

I agree with you that less reliability looks odd to support! The more if we think about cases of drivers who lost a world title due to unreliability. (Senna '89, Mansell, '87, Prost '82 and '84, Andretti '77 stand out for me in this). And I can't see it happen too. But I agree with nonobaddog that it could end up in something different again.

 

On the other hand, the current reliability rate makes it almost next to impossible for the 2nd level or even third level teams to have their day in the sun thanks ot a unexpected result that makes their year.

 

Just to let it sink in: in 2018 within 21 races there was only one driver on the podium who did not belong to Mercedes, RedBull or Ferrari. (Perez @Azerbeidjan)

In 2017 Lance Stroll was the only driver not in either of those teams who had a podium, and only once, also in Azerbeidjan.

In 2016 there were 2 drivers not driving for the Top 3 teams who scored podiums, Perez twice and Bottas (still wit Williams at that time) once.

 

In the last three season all the first and second places of every race have gone to those three teams and all but 5 third places (of the 60 or so) as well.

I quit looking up the other hybrid years. I haven't gone over it either but I suppose it is a bit better for 4th 5th and 6th places.

 

Anyway, with the current rate of reliability it is better to have at least 10 drivers scoring points, had only the top 6 scored points I think there is a dcent chance that a number of teams that now at least scored points thansk to the positiosn 7-10 wound never have appeared on the scoring board at all

 

 

 

Anyway, there is one other source of amusement, (and/or annoyance) I could see if Mercedes factory cars retire more often, especially if it happens to Hamilton. Remember how he could deal with the rare occasions the cars let him down and showed off that nasty "Why poor poor poor little me??" behaviour of him????

Imagine Hamilton having a season like Ricciardo had in '18 or Verstappen in '17 ..... 



#3595 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 February 2019 - 17:51

this seems stupid.

 

3000rpm higher decrease fuel efficiency and engine reliability.  Also gives a headache at the track side as it will be too noisy, are some racing fans like those idiots who like to listen to an engine at full rev or something?

 

Engines that run at lower rev's are better technology and F1 is a showcase for technology.



#3596 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 18:01

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between those who want F1 to entertain and those who want it to be a technological showcase, however irrelevant.



#3597 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 February 2019 - 18:05

I want it to entertain but an extra 3000rpm isnt there for that purpose tho.  It seems to be to just satisfy those who want to listen to engines.



#3598 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,262 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 18:15

:) There will still be a few houses in the UK without a meter, although they are trying to force them upon us...

 

I thought it was more like 50/50 now (50% have a water meter, 50% pay a fixed annual charge).



#3599 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 4,385 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 11 February 2019 - 18:24

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between those who want F1 to entertain and those who want it to be a technological showcase, however irrelevant.

Absolutely this.

 

I'd say neither side is particularly wrong either. It's F1 being overly indecisive and trying to please both that's making it a big deal.


Edited by Vielleicht, 11 February 2019 - 18:25.


Advertisement

#3600 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,262 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 February 2019 - 18:26

Water meter on what? For what?

 

off-topic:

 

Traditionally, UK consumers have paid a fixed annual charge for fresh water supply and sewage services. These services were original provided by the state. In 1989 the UK government privatised the service. Since then, the companies have been keen on metering customers. Over the years, companies have been trying to get their customers to take on a metered service. Originally, the offer was to pay for a meter to be installed and receive a tariff that would provide an overall financial benefit. Now, though, with government pressure, companies are starting to make them compulsory (albeit, swallowing the installation costs themselves).

 

We are constantly being told that we should all install 'smart' meters for all services (water, electricity, gas). With my "nobody gives you something for nothing" hat on, I wonder what the motivation behind this all is. If everyone is going to save on their bills, then surely they are charging too much right now. If not, who are the ones who are going to get larger bills? It all smells foul to me.