82 replies to this topic

[imaginesix]

Have we been asleep at the wheel? The 2008 tech regs (available here) clearly state that RPM will be limited in 2008. As it stands the speed will be limited to 19 000 RPM but that may change.

F1 has been dying many little deaths with every new regulation, but this one is like a dagger through the heart. In fact, I don't know anymore how F1 offers any more opportunity for technical innovation than Champcar, IRL, Le Mans...?

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by imaginesix
Have we been asleep at the wheel? The 2008 tech regs (available here) clearly state that RPM will be limited in 2008. As it stands the speed will be limited to 19 000 RPM but that may change.

F1 has been dying many little deaths with every new regulation, but this one is like a dagger through the heart. In fact, I don't know anymore how F1 offers any more opportunity for technical innovation than Champcar, IRL, Le Mans...?

This rule will be brought forward together with the homologation starting after the last race this year. Manufacturers are only allowed to re-tune the engines to the 19000 rpm ceiling during the off season.

[Bill Sherwood]

It won't be a dagger through the heart, it'll just make the engine builder work in a slightly different way.
The class I run in used to be unrestricted, but then rev limiters and other limiations were placed on the new engines, so we had to work hard in other areas to get the power back.
So too will the F1 engine builders, and I imagine it'll be in the areas of compression and engine internal masses.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
It won't be a dagger through the heart, it'll just make the engine builder work in a slightly different way.

Of course the new rules will make engine builders focus their energies on different matters. The more things change, the less they stay the same.

The point is that the 'dagger through the heart' is to the spirit of Formula 1 as it increasingly tends to favour rules fit for a spec series. The fact that this rule change resembles the one that you experienced in another series supports my argument, as F1 no longer offers a greater opportunity for technical innovation than many other series. F1 is dead. Long live Supermods!

[McGuire]

From the strict engineering perspective, an rpm limit is no different from a displacement limit. We are simply regulating the volume of air the engine can process.

Now I will grant you that two rules are worse than one, but now that 300 bhp/liter normally aspirated is the norm, displacement limits alone are no longer sufficient to achieve the desired result. At some point additional regulations will be required, to keep performance within the manageable envelope.

To me rev limiters are a much better deal than the available alternatives, for example inlet air restrictors. Inlet restrictor orifices tend to create engines that are technological freaks... and unless you include a means to measure air mass the restrictor can easily be cheated. There is no way to cheat a proper rev limiter.

[jokuvaan]

One day there wont be combustion engines anymore in F1, transformation gets underway once new energy regs come a live. Then in few years time, F1 will be cutting edge in things like batterys, solar panels, electromotors and so on.

[desmo]

Originally posted by McGuire
From the strict engineering perspective, an rpm limit is no different from a displacement limit. We are simply regulating the volume of air the engine can process.

Now I will grant you that two rules are worse than one, but now that 300 bhp/liter normally aspirated is the norm, displacement limits alone are no longer sufficient to achieve the desired result. At some point additional regulations will be required, to keep performance within the manageable envelope.

To me rev limiters are a much better deal than the available alternatives, for example inlet air restrictors. Inlet restrictor orifices tend to create engines that are technological freaks... and unless you include a means to measure air mass the restrictor can easily be cheated. There is no way to cheat a proper rev limiter.

Displacement limits create technological freaks too- 20,000rpm engines. Fuel quantity limits are not only exponentially more simple, elegant and robust, ensuring regulatory stability, they are cheat proof to a degree that no other power limiting scheme will ever be. You cannot cheat thermodynamics. They also make displacement and rpm limits- and most other regulatory engine controls- wholly unnecessary.

It's so obvious I cannot help but wonder why any other means of controlling engine outputs is or was ever even considered. Give each team x liters of spec pump gasoline per weekend and let the teams sort out the best solution.

[bobqzzi]

I agree that a fuel limit would certainly be more interesting. You'd need to figure a way enforce the limit within each session though, otherwise you'd have the teams turning very few laps in practice and qualifying- and those might be at "dangerous" power levels.

If they started with enough fuel to make 600hp at current BSFC levels I suspect we'd see either 4 or 6 cylinder turbos. I'm sure the engineers would quickly push thee BSFC numbers down quite quickly.

[Timstr11]

The homologated engine to be that used at the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix, subject to retuning for a maximum of 19,000 rpm. Full details of the retuning to be submitted to the FIA no later than December 15, 2006, and the definitive engine to be delivered by March 1, 2007.
Source: FIA

So what are the typical things the engineers will change to 're-tune' to the 19000 rpm ceiling?

[zac510]

Originally posted by desmo
It's so obvious I cannot help but wonder why any other means of controlling engine outputs is or was ever even considered. Give each team x liters of spec pump gasoline per weekend and let the teams sort out the best solution.

I agree a fuel limit volume sounds like it would be more ideal but they might be intending to do both.

[roadie]

A rev limit may be against the spirit of F1 but given the restrictions arouns the current (2006) engine regulations, getting them to run at consistently higher RPM's than 19 000 is extremely difficult. I don't think it means that much TBH. However, I too believe that a fuel limit would be the best way to limit power.

[desmo]

I think an interesting twist one might consider for a fuel limited formula is to randomly purchase roadside pump fuels of the lowest octane rating locally available and use that mixed. The fuel companies virtually all make lubricants as well, so they could still sponsor the teams on that basis.

With a fuel limited formula, the incentives for stratospheric rpms would be largely removed and rpm limits would thus be unnecessary.

[imaginesix]

It occurs to me that auto races would increasingly begin to resemble bicycle races as fuel restrictions become more stringent. That is to say that drafting, pelotons, team orders and breakaways would be the favoured strategy. The comparison makes some sense since cyclist are so highly fuel-restricted themselves, having to pedal nearly the distance of an F1 race using only the energy available from their previous meal and some light refuelling 'on the go'.

Some differences would exist of course, since cyclists don't have the option of regenerating lost energy on the downhill sections. They also have moveable aerodynamic 'devices' that allow them to adjust their output between efficiency and max-power settings.

That's not exactly the kind of racing I would like to see, to be honest. Is the whole concept flawed all of a sudden?

[desmo]

Let's call the average quantity of fuel consumed currently in an F1 race by each car 100. Allow 125 and the cars will be significantly more powerful than current cars; 75 and they will be less so. There's nothing that says fuel limited racing need mean underpowered. The quantity allowed determines that, not the method itself. I'd set the value at 90 or 95, making sure all current equipment remains competitive. I doubt there's anything as a package that could beat a current F1 engine at 95. What would one even consider that would without some disqualifying downside?

The whole idea is that the rules once in place will very infrequently need to be changed as there are no big gains to be had in workarounds like increasing rpm is for a displacement limited formula.

[imaginesix]

'Underpowered' has little meaning in a fuel-restricted racing formula.

As it stands, races are competitions of a set distance against time (the goal being to optimise speed), but with a fuel restriction the definition changes to one of set distance against time and fuel usage (so optimising efficiency). As a result, the cars would be driven at their peak efficiency rather than peak power or risk running out of fuel at the last corner, so they'd all carry around reserves of unuseable power.

Of course, the drivers would love to tap into those reserves as much as possible so they would have to try and save fuel during the race (drafting, pelotons, team orders..) in order to be able to strategicaly utilise that power (breakaway) at some later point when they were confident they could make it to the finish.

Fuel-restricted cars would offer additional strategies for improved efficiency that are not available to fuel- (or oxygen-) restricted cyclists, such as improved brake energy regeneration or smarter deployment of moveable aerodynamic devices. These could change the look of the racing a bit, but we can certainly conclude that very close racing would be a requirement at least until the closing laps when something closer to a pure speed race between the most efficient cars would develop.

I think I understand the upside of the concept well enough, but this kind of wholesale change to the regulations would inevitably impact upon all aspects of the sport and the race strategy would necessarily change, for better or for worse.

[angst]

Originally posted by imaginesix
'Underpowered' has little meaning in a fuel-restricted racing formula.

As it stands, races are competitions of a set distance against time (the goal being to optimise speed), but with a fuel restriction the definition changes to one of set distance against time and fuel usage (so optimising efficiency). As a result, the cars would be driven at their peak efficiency rather than peak power or risk running out of fuel at the last corner, so they'd all carry around reserves of unuseable power.

Of course, the drivers would love to tap into those reserves as much as possible so they would have to try and save fuel during the race (drafting, pelotons, team orders..) in order to be able to strategicaly utilise that power (breakaway) at some later point when they were confident they could make it to the finish.

Fuel-restricted cars would offer additional strategies for improved efficiency that are not available to fuel- (or oxygen-) restricted cyclists, such as improved brake energy regeneration or smarter deployment of moveable aerodynamic devices. These could change the look of the racing a bit, but we can certainly conclude that very close racing would be a requirement at least until the closing laps when something closer to a pure speed race between the most efficient cars would develop.

I think I understand the upside of the concept well enough, but this kind of wholesale change to the regulations would inevitably impact upon all aspects of the sport and the race strategy would necessarily change, for better or for worse.

But then.... if a team were to decide that it might be better to understand it's fuel limits, use it's tyres while fresh and build up a lead..... and another team decides to follow your pattern then, straight away you have two entirely differing strategies, and a motor race.

Essentially a motor race is, anyway , already "one of set distance against time and fuel usage (so optimising efficiency)", because if one car uses far more fuel than another it will not be competitive (unless it can produce exponentially more power from it). So the only difference is that you are setting a limit upon that usage. In effect, then, controlling engine power outputs.

[RDV]

We went through this on group C days,,, racing wasnt so bad... and tactics , plus snookering other teams into using more fuel than you was all part of the game... I won LeMans in class by doing this ... great fun...

[Andy Donovan]

I don't think the cycling comparison is really valid, as F1 cars wouldn't be able to form as effective a peloton as cyclists due to the need to keep to the racing line. Unless the aero rules were dramatically changed at the same time, I'm not sure how much you'd get out of drafting another car compared to a bike as the cyclists can get (and stay) so much closer to each other.

That said, I think the breakaway scenario where some go out fast and then get caught later by the more steadily paced cars is quite possible in the early days of such a formula (although I suspect it will quickly centre around the most efficient solution, just as the variable fuel loads in qualifying started off varying widely, but soon tended to settle around a similar level).

If it could work, I'd be all in favour of a fuel-limited formula as it seems like an elegant way of doing things, and provides a simple way of limiting power from year-to-year. It would also be quite a simple concept for casual fans to understand.

[Bill Sherwood]

It's Formula One, not a damned economy run.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
It's Formula One, not a damned economy run.

F1 is dead. See above.

It's interesting that all those in favour of the fuel restricted formula come out of the woodwork now that I suggest it may be a bad idea. I guess if I want people's agreement on an issue I need to post the contrary position from now on!

Not that I see any very strong disagreement with my argument, other than Mr. Sherwood's.

[bobqzzi]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
It's Formula One, not a damned economy run.

True enough, but I don;t see how fuel limts would result in an economy run. The cars would still have xxx HP for the duration of a race.
Currently, there are times when a team will turn the revs down to conserve fuel so as to extend the pitstop window.

Another plus would be it should help with passing.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by imaginesix
Not that I see any very strong disagreement with my argument, other than Mr. Sherwood's.

My Father also agrees, so though your answer is still technically correct, it is now in error by 50%.

;)

[zac510]

Bill, it wouldn't be the first time the racing has been restricted by fuel volume.

I'm all in favour of fuel volume restriction if they deregulate other aspects of the drivetrain.

[JwS]

If I understand correctly, isnt the engine design also frozen as of a specified date, which means no development.... That is the death of interest.
I'd rather watch a bicycle race then.
JwS

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by bobqzzi
True enough, but I don;t see how fuel limts would result in an economy run.

Fuel restrictions shouldn't change anything if the other rules are kept in place. If the cars are given an allotment of fuel equivalent to 100% of the average race fuel currently used, then nothing will change as the other regulations would continue to be the performance limiter.

On the other end of the spectrum, if you give the cars 100% of their current fuel but free up all other engine regs as zac510 suggests, then you can imagine that engines would clearly have scope to output more power as long as they don't use more fuel. The ideal power output would be acheived with the most fuel efficient engine, and that would be at it's torque peak. That means more power would be available beyond that point, so drivers would not be racing flat-out but within the constraints of the torque curve (unless they could save up some fuel for a last-lap dash to the finish).

If we assume that a fuel restriction equivalent to 90% of the current average race usage, with no other engine restriction, equates to the same power levels as are currently being developed then engine regulations can be tailored with a combination of mechanical and fuel restrictions (from 90-100%) to create the type of racing that is desired, from full economy run to flat-out speed race.

[desmo]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
It's Formula One, not a damned economy run.

Homologation, spec ECUs, engine configuration and even bore centers specced... it's F1 in name only any more. Far worse things have already been done to the sport, this was proposed as a way to perhaps undo some of the more grevious insults perpetrated upon F1 be Max and co.

[jdi]

Instead of giving teams a set amount of fuel for a weekend, why not just restrict the rate at which the engines can use that fuel.

Mandate a restrictor in the fuel system. It's pretty easy to do - section of pipe of a specified diameter in the fuel system, pressure sensor in the middle of it, pick a diameter and maximum allowable pressure that gives enough fuel flow for the desired horsepower level. Or mandate a spec fuel pump that can't deliver more than the predetermined fuel limit.

Then get rid of all the limitations on how much fuel a car can carry and how much fuel a team can use in a weekend, since they would be redundant. We wouldn't have to worry about fuel conservation strategies being the most important part of the race with a method like this, so racing would be like a car race, not a bicycle race.

[RDV]

jdi - why not just restrict the rate at which the engines can use that fuel.

Substantially what Keith Duckworth had proposed some time ago.

[phantom II]

Each car gets 35 gallons and who ever goes the farthest in two ours wins. What was the formula when Senna and Prost drove for Mc Laren? That was the best racing ever.
Id like to see Kimi and Heikki at Mclaren. I'm afraid Kimi has made a huge mistake. Thank God Schumacher has gone.

Originally posted by RDV


Substantially what Keith Duckworth had proposed some time ago.

[desmo]

Duckworth's solution would cap peak engine outputs more robustly than a fuel quantity limit or rev limiting, but seems a less interesting tactical excercise than managing a fixed fuel quantity to me. I read somewhere years ago that Duckworth convinced the FIA brass to actually commision Mercedes to do a feasibility study of a fuel flow limiting device, and it turned out to be a considerably more subtle and complex challenge than it would first seem. Does anyone else remember that?

[imaginesix]

The teams would find all the grey areas in the rules to store fuel at some point past the restrictor, as there would be a surplus of fuel available when the engine is at less than full load.

I don't think the challenges are insurmountable, but whatever the challeges are, implementing a fuel debit restriction would definitely negate the issues I was having with a total fuel quantity restriction. A perfect solution!

First of all, there wouldn't be any reserves of unuseable power available as the fuel limiter would deny the option of driving the engine beyond it's designed efficiency peak. Secondly, teams could use an unrestricted amount of fuel at all times, so there would be no need to drive an 'economy run' at any stage of the race.

[Greg Locock]

I quite like one or other of the fuel limited suggestions.

Fixing the maximum flow rate seems to me to be fraught with technical difficulties On the other hand Duckworth seems to think it would work. It does at least guarantee that each car has a good shot at finishing the race.

The fixed amount of fuel for the race, or qualifying plus the race, seems to me to be the best engineering approach. I think a fixed time race is a bit of a cop-out, but it certainly seems manageable. I think the idea of the front running F1 car running out of juice on the last lap/just before the two hour mark would actually make the rest of the race irrelevant. Rather like the local marathon runner in any international event, who takes off in a blaze of glory in front of the home crowd, only to quietly retire after 10 miles.

However the quid pro quo would have to be a substantial relaxation of many of the other rules. I guess you have to keep open wheels of a specified size, and an open cockpit.

[imaginesix]

Would it be possible to restrict fuel flow at the injector level? Could the rules mandate a standard controller that would limit the duration of injection based on fuel pressure and injector orifice size?

[zac510]

Originally posted by jdi
Instead of giving teams a set amount of fuel for a weekend, why not just restrict the rate at which the engines can use that fuel.

But this is much the same as an air restrictor as the engineers will strive for the same a/f ratio. I'm not sure that Duckworth suggested the fuel flow limit at a time when 500+ psi injection pressures were the norm.

I presume the regulators will be a little cautious of opening up the ruels to innovations like pneumatic valve springs; brilliant, but not really useful for much else but F1. Somewhere along the line people got the idea that F1 was a development ground for commuter motoring - side effect of some short sighted marketing yutz I presume. If you go back to the 50s, flow on to commuter motoring seemed to be simply a convenient side-effect of racing.

[Terry Walker]

I don't know . . whiy not encourage engine designers to get more and more power? Then cut aero, and soon you will have power exceeds traction, and real racing again.

Of course, that's dumb.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by Terry Walker
I don't know . . whiy not encourage engine designers to get more and more power? Then cut aero, and soon you will have power exceeds traction, and real racing again.

Of course, that's dumb.

Pfffft .... real racing?
Crazy talk!

[imaginesix]

There has to be SOME limit, else we'd end up with 5000hp cars in a Top Fuel Formula One race. The point is that fuel flow restrictions are the smartest way to set that limit. Then if you want power to exceed traction, you should first spend some time trying to figure out how to specify and implement an effective ban on traction control, otherwise the point is moot.

[Terry Walker]

I don't think a 2.4 litre engine could give 5000 hp. Even on "fuel", and certainly not for a full F1 race length. I can't help thinking of Graham Hill's comment years ago when he was asked if he thought the Porsche 917 had too much power (then qbout 1000 bhp).

"There's no such thing as too much power," he replied.

[imaginesix]

The idea of a fuel flow rate limit is that it takes the place of ALL other engine regs, including displacement. So without that one rule, engines would be 'unlimited' in the truest sense of the word.

I crunched the numbers, and assuming 110% V.E. and 12.5:1 A/F ratio, current F1 engines are ingesting 52cc/sec fuel at 19800 rpm. Though that is not likely the rpm at which power peaks, it is the rpm that are actually used which likely require the greatest fuel flow (if anybody wants to double-check my calculations I would very much welcome it).

So a mandated fuel injector controller intended to limit debit rate could 'free up' 52 cc of fuel per second up to a maximum of say, 10 ms (to deny the potential for accumulating fuel allowance when the throttle is lifted). That would be 100% equivalent to the current fuel usage, and only the 52 cc value would need to be reduced in order to reduce engine performance.

Of course, a change in fuel allowance would result in a complete engine redesign, but I think F1 can manage it.

[Bob Riebe]

If the Formula One boys are so worried about horse power, speed, or some other component that makes racing-racing, heck eliminate the wings, put the engines back up front and go back to basic minimul formula guidelines.

With the engine up front and no wings the cars will be slower, and Formula One will not be reduced to a high priced SCCA spec. forumula.
Bob

[phantom II]

Now it is 2 hours or 200miles which ever comes first. Together with no fuel stops and no Schumacher, we will have racing again. You know? Like it used to be.

Originally posted by Greg Locock
I quite like one or other of the fuel limited suggestions.

The fixed amount of fuel for the race, or qualifying plus the race, seems to me to be the best engineering approach. I think a fixed time race is a bit of a cop-out, but it certainly seems manageable. I think the idea of the front running F1 car running out of juice on the last lap/just before the two hour mark would actually make the rest of the race irrelevant. Rather like the local marathon runner in any international event, who takes off in a blaze of glory in front of the home crowd, only to quietly retire after 10 miles.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by phantom II
Now it is 2 hours or 200miles which ever comes first. Together with no fuel stops and no Schumacher, we will have racing again. You know? Like it used to be.

What about no aero, then we will have competitive F1?

[phantom II]

Aero sorts the boys from the girls. Fangio may not have been competitive with modern day aero packages. Faster is always better in racing. Completely different skills are required. Right now, I like my corners to be 70 to 100 mph, but when I was 18, heck, who knows? At present, F1 cars are too slow for most of the drivers now. Where ever the limit is, there is a driver that will find it and exploit it. A group of those drivers must compete. Restrictions belong to all the other forms of auto racing not F1. F1 should belong to the 'Extreme Sport' catagory.

Originally posted by cosworth bdg
What about no aero, then we will have competitive F1?

[imaginesix]

I think I know what you mean. Part of the reason F1 has had a strong claim to being the pinnacle of motorsports is that the competition seems so much tougher. It sorts the boys from the girls as they used to say in the 50s. Top drivers who emigrate from F1 seem to wipe the series they end up in, à la Mansell. On the other hand, top drivers who imigrate from other series tend to get their asses handed to them in F1, with the possible exception of JV. I can see why you support the guy.

And it's not just that the competition is tougher, but it seems as if the cars are actually harder to drive. There may be a few reasons for that, such as the billiard-table smooth tracks, the exceptionally advanced aero, or the exceptionally low mass of the cars relative to the accelerations they can acheive (which is my favourite theory).

Any successful changes to F1 regs would have to maintain that level of driving difficulty in the cars, which if I am right means that the minimum weight stipulation should be kept very low (or removed altogether). Ah... to dream.

[Stian1979]

FIA should pay the team the cost off v8 development.

They have wasted money on developing the bloody v8 that is going rev limited when they could rev limit the v10's in the first place.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Stian1979
FIA should pay the team the cost off v8 development.

They have wasted money on developing the bloody v8 that is going rev limited when they could rev limit the v10's in the first place.

Surely that wouldn't have been much more than they would have spent on engine development anyway?

As to the fuel restriction idea, I think that limiting the fuel flow rate is a good idea.

Would it be too simplistic to suggest that the FIA could mandate a fuel pump and regulator which has fixed flow rates?

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Stian1979
FIA should pay the team the cost off v8 development.

They have wasted money on developing the bloody v8 that is going rev limited when they could rev limit the v10's in the first place.

A rev-limited V10 would have required a significantly lower limit in order to acheive the power reductions of the 2.4L engine. With a much lower rpm limit the engine would have require a complete redesign anyways. The FIA are off the hook this time I think.

[Powersteer]

Rpm limit in F1, lame. It shuts down differences of set up between engineers approach like Renault who are not running the highest revving engine but are still quick and other teams who cannot get more power so they go for rpm. As the rules cave in the sport is getting more blunt. Probably this is another of thier cost cutting plan.

[Canuck]

What's become of the manufacturer's (less Ferrari IINM) threats to start their own series?

[imaginesix]

Money.

In March this year, carmakers Toyota Motor Corp., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Honda Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG's Mercedes unit and Renault SA agreed to stay in Formula One in 2008, ending threats to form a breakaway series unless they received more of the sport's revenue.

Are you surprised?