[Tech Issue] Are the 2014 engine regulations too restrictive?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I am not clear what you mean - please give a fuller explanation.

If you can make a V6 1.6 litre engine powerful enough and efficient enough not to need to use the turbo to increase its power, or use very little turbo energy to increase its power, then the turbo can be used to store more power in the batteries. It may be inefficient use of the turbo to make the engine as powerful as you can by using all of the energy to do that from the turbo. This may be one way of doing it, there may be others.

This part of the article sums it all up for me.


“If you want to have more horsepower, you simply need to have more efficiency. Instead of the current race situation where there might be some periods in which you have to compromise between fuel efficiency
and power, in this regulation there will be no compromise – you have to work on efficiency. You will have this amount of fuel and you will need to extract the maximum horsepower from that and you do that by efficiency."

“With a fuel limit, you will push the engineers to work hard on lean mixtures, on very efficient combustion, because they want to have more horsepower for that amount of fuel,” he adds. “Maybe they will work on ignition, or spray-guided combustion, the work of the turbocharger. For the teams, the huge reward will be when you have 1 per cent more efficiency than someone else, and the immediate translation will be that you
have more horsepower,” he added. “This will be the game, which is very different to today where you may have more horsepower, but with higher fuel consumption."

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I was only really looking at the diagram to begin with, and that doesn't seem to indicate that the engine, in that particular configuration, uses forced induction? Maybe it doesn't need to? Maybe it's more efficient use of the turbo to keep recharging the battery, rather than produce more power from the engine? I would imagine that they would want to use as little recouped energy as possible to make the engine perform better? The least amount of fuel you can use combined with the most amount of energy you can store, will be the key to success in 2014. There does seem to be some scope left for engineers to do their own thing.

You could use an electric forced induction system - but that might be less efficient that using the turbo directly.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

You could use an electric forced induction system - but that might be less efficient that using the turbo directly.

Indeed. And this is the challenge that the engine makers face.

[Marbot]

Sam Michael (Williams) explains reasoning for strict 2014 regulations.

http://www.pitpass.com/44484-Michael...er-regulations

I would have to go along with that.

[wnut]

Oh well nice to know there is still a series that is all about speed and power.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93782

The MotoGP guys seem completely miserable a about getting back to 1000cc bikes!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Oh well nice to know there is still a series that is all about speed and power.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93782

The MotoGP guys seem completely miserable a about getting back to 1000cc bikes!

Yes, it's great. But even with 800cc, it was always about having more power than grip.

They have regs that are just as restrictive: 2012 - Maximum engine capacity increased to 1000cc, with a limit of 4 cylinders and a maximum 81mm cylinder bore.

The limit on the bore is just as important (and limiting) as the limit on the bore is in F1 engines.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Oh well nice to know there is still a series that is all about speed and power.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93782

The MotoGP guys seem completely miserable a about getting back to 1000cc bikes!

Very nice...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed, it is the argument. Perhaps, for the upteenth time, unwilling to build yet another engine because its 'V' angle is 2 degrees out for optimum aero efficiency?

Renault spent a fortune on an 111 degree engine for the purposes of weight distribution and aero efficiency. It was a bit of a flop, and maybe a lesson learned.



They would first of all ask Newey to design his car before they designed the engine (which no doubt he would now be doing well in advance, had the regs been more open). Then they wouldn't need to experiment. Job done.

But then you have the problem of selling your 45 degree or 60 degree or even 120 degree, or maybe even a rotary/V5/V7/H16 engine to someone who might not have a chassis/aero designed to use that engine in the same way that Newey has designed his chassis/aero to use it. Or do you tell any prospective buyer what the 'V' angle etc is going to be well in advance? Or do they have to redesign and build their chassis/aero again (not possible under current regs for reasons of cost), even if they were sure their own chassis/aero design was better? Or do they go elsewhere for an engine? Or will someone be brave enough to make an engine that's purpose designed for a chassis that's a dead cert to win first time out (LIFE springs to mind)?

Can you see the pit-falls in allowing that to happen now? And only because of a different 'V' angle, never mind anything else!



Sounds, and probably is expensive, and to what ends? We are, after all, just watching motor racing.

Imagine the state that F1 would be in if the teams were told to go away and turn up in 2012 with whatever they thought would get around a track the fastest on, say, 100 litres of fuel (?) and weighing, say, no more than 1,000kgs. Chaos! And, at the very least, you would be sick of the same car (?) winning all of the time.

Originally Posted by Marbot

I read your 'Divergent Governance of Motorsport' document.

Nice idea. But the teams that are currently the 'haves', are not going to give everything up for the 'have-nots'. Particularly their wind tunnels and relevant personal. And it just wouldn't be F1 if it wasn't like that.

Indeed Marbot, as you have - accidentally, I guess - admitted, the 2014 rules are to be that restrictive because politics instead of economics.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Indeed Marbot, as you have - accidentally, I guess - admitted, the 2014 rules are to be that restrictive because politics instead of economics.

More out of necessity, I think.

The FIA can barely control the teams innovations as it is. I would hate to think what sort of a mess a 'clean sheet' would get it into!

[Oran Park Forever]

So from 2014, Formula 1 shall be known as Formula Sensible! Innovative designers need not apply ! !

The rot has already set in as is clearly seen by the rising stocks of Historic racing world wide. Festival events such as Goodwood & Laguna Seca are pulling larger crowds than some F1 races. Simple reason: the diversity of the sight & sound show where some of the cars are treated like rock stars......& why?.....because innovative designers created these works of art (still within the scope of the rule book!.....most of the time!), meaning each had their own personality & charisma. This also gave the designers themselves a name in history, Chapman, Murray, Ducarouge, Barnard etc....& Newey of course. As new designers filter through, their names will be meaningless as all they can do is follow the recipe in the increasingly strict cook book!

It's human nature to prefer a smorgasbord, rather than baked beans every 2nd weekend!



.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oran Park Forever

So from 2014, Formula 1 shall be known as Formula Sensible! Innovative designers need not apply ! !

The rot has already set in as is clearly seen by the rising stocks of Historic racing world wide. Festival events such as Goodwood & Laguna Seca are pulling larger crowds than some F1 races. Simple reason: the diversity of the sight & sound show where some of the cars are treated like rock stars......& why?.....because innovative designers created these works of art (still within the scope of the rule book!.....most of the time!), meaning each had their own personality & charisma. This also gave the designers themselves a name in history, Chapman, Murray, Ducarouge, Barnard etc....& Newey of course. As new designers filter through, their names will be meaningless as all they can do is follow the recipe in the increasingly strict cook book!

Pretty depressing - Formula Sensible!
It's human nature to prefer a smorgasbord, rather than baked beans every 2nd weekend!



.

Pretty depressing - Formula Sensible!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oran Park Forever

So from 2014, Formula 1 shall be known as Formula Sensible! Innovative designers need not apply ! !

Any suggestions for more open rules?

[Oran Park Forever]

see below

[Oran Park Forever]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Any suggestions for more open rules?

Well, turbo charging should be freed up as the technology is far more advanced than the original turbo era ie: symmetrical twin turbos etc so give the designers a choice. But that would upset the ones that can't make their turbo as powerful or fuel efficient so we can't have that can we?!?!?! Then there is the V angle. Is it not enough already that they specify how many cylinders? Now they demand an across the board V angle. History shows that the shape & design of the engine largely dictated what chassis designers could create......& visa verse. For example: Chapman utilised the shape of the Cosworth's exhaust system to create the ground effect chassis.......leaving Ferrari's flat 12 in the dark ages (at the time). The ground effect era ran for years. Then came the flat bottom rule & once again, designers found ways to overcome the lack of chassis downforce by 'being creative' yet still within the rule book. ie: Postlethwaite's adheadral wing, Oatley's 5 arch diffuser (ended up being too effective for the rest of the car!)

Now, as soon as a designer 'gets creative' & comes up with a blown or double diffuser, or forward exiting exhaust, the FIA croonies stomp on it, almost in the way a teacher gives the naughty kid afternoon detention for speaking his mind. They've created this "Sensible Monster" themselves so it's no surprise the new engine rules are as strict as the rest of the game.


.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

More out of necessity, I think.

The FIA can barely control the teams innovations as it is. I would hate to think what sort of a mess a 'clean sheet' would get it into!

Since when is it required to prevent teams from innovating any way? Allowing teams to introduce complete new innovations are usually the cheapest way to gain performances.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oran Park Forever

Well, turbo charging should be freed up as the technology is far more advanced than the original turbo era ie: symmetrical twin turbos etc so give the designers a choice. But that would upset the ones that can't make their turbo as powerful or fuel efficient so we can't have that can we?!?!?! Then there is the V angle. Is it not enough already that they specify how many cylinders? Now they demand an across the board V angle. History shows that the shape & design of the engine largely dictated what chassis designers could create......& visa verse. For example: Chapman utilised the shape of the Cosworth's exhaust system to create the ground effect chassis.......leaving Ferrari's flat 12 in the dark ages (at the time). The ground effect era ran for years. Then came the flat bottom rule & once again, designers found ways to overcome the lack of chassis downforce by 'being creative' yet still within the rule book. ie: Postlethwaite's adheadral wing, Oatley's 5 arch diffuser (ended up being too effective for the rest of the car!)

Now, as soon as a designer 'gets creative' & comes up with a blown or double diffuser, or forward exiting exhaust, the FIA croonies stomp on it, almost in the way a teacher gives the naughty kid afternoon detention for speaking his mind. They've created this "Sensible Monster" themselves so it's no surprise the new engine rules are as strict as the rest of the game.


.

Turbo chargers usually come from an outside supplier anyway. So the chances of just one team/engine supplier getting a 'one-off' turbo charger made are pretty slim. And maybe the challenge is actually to make just one simple turbocharger do the same job that two elaborate turbochargers used to do?

Engine suppliers also have to supply more than one team, so it's no good building a 60 degree engine for one team if all your other customers have built a chassis for a 120 degree engine. Should they make two engines or spend a lot less cash and find a compromise that everyone can buy and use? Are PURE currently starting work on a turbo engine that won't fit anyone's car in 2014? No, because they have been given a set of regulations to work from, thus saving themselves and anyone else from an embarrassing situation.

Blown diffusers aren't exactly new, neither was the double diffuser or the forward exiting exhausts. They were all things that were already known to F1, but managed to find some way of creeping back in.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Since when is it required to prevent teams from innovating any way? Allowing teams to introduce complete new innovations are usually the cheapest way to gain performances.

For a long time now, the teams have been in a battle with the FIA. One of them tries to make the cars go faster, whilst the other tries to keep lap times at a 'sensible' level. Just how big an engine do you think that F1 cars will be able to use if more of the regulations get freed up in order for teams to gain performance? Bearing in mind that most lap time will come from aero innovations. Or maybe aero will get banned or be subject to further limits?

In order for teams to go forward with some things, they will first of all have to go backwards with some other things.

[Oran Park Forever]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Turbo chargers usually come from an outside supplier anyway. So the chances of just one team/engine supplier getting a 'one-off' turbo charger made are pretty slim. And maybe the challenge is actually to make just one simple turbocharger do the same job that two elaborate turbochargers used to do?

Engine suppliers also have to supply more than one team, so it's no good building a 60 degree engine for one team if all your other customers have built a chassis for a 120 degree engine. Should they make two engines or spend a lot less cash and find a compromise that everyone can buy and use? Are PURE currently starting work on a turbo engine that won't fit anyone's car in 2014? No, because they have been given a set of regulations to work from, thus saving themselves and anyone else from an embarrassing situation.

Blown diffusers aren't exactly new, neither was the double diffuser or the forward exiting exhausts. They were all things that were already known to F1, but managed to find some way of creeping back in.

So Formula Sensible it is then? Good luck with all that.

I guess the designers will have to be content with out doing each other in the "Portable Taj Mahal" race for the largest, most elaborate & expensive paddock facility......I figure their design budget had to go somewhere!


.

[P38 in workshop]

I believe it was the IRL, of all formulae,which stipulated the location of the front engine mounts.This gave some freedom to the designers and ensured that engines from different suppliers were interchangeable.
Why not free things up a bit;even the cylinder bore is tightly controlled under the new proposals.As for spiralling costs,the FIA have caused a lot of this with their insistence on KERS and then limiting the output,truly a zero sum game as everybody gets there in the end and the only advantage goes to those who achieve the best result a bit sooner and it gets wiped out when the others catch up.Has a sensible way to recycle KERS batteries been developed yet?Surely it would be of greater benefit to racing to apply the resource restriction agreement to the creation of gargantuan motorhomes/brand centres and use the saving to develop advanced cars.
In the previous turbo era we had inline fours,V6's and V8's with one or two turbos and there was a V6 with two turbos and a centrifugal supercharger almost ready to race,before the backers decided to do other things.What are we to look forward to this time-clones from an FIA blueprint.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I believe it was the IRL, of all formulae,which stipulated the location of the front engine mounts.This gave some freedom to the designers and ensured that engines from different suppliers were interchangeable.

Which, to my mind, is a good thing.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Why not free things up a bit;even the cylinder bore is tightly controlled under the new proposals.

The cylinder bore basically controls combustion and rpm limit. Since there is to be an rpm limit anyway (no point having engines revving beyond 15,000 rpm) there's not much need to change engine internals for any other reason than to make the engine more efficient (same power at the same rpm for less fuel used)

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

As for spiralling costs,the FIA have caused a lot of this with their insistence on KERS and then limiting the output,truly a zero sum game as everybody gets there in the end and the only advantage goes to those who achieve the best result a bit sooner and it gets wiped out when the others catch up.Has a sensible way to recycle KERS batteries been developed yet?Surely it would be of greater benefit to racing to apply the resource restriction agreement to the creation of gargantuan motorhomes/brand centres and use the saving to develop advanced cars.

KERS was restricted in order that it did not become a huge performance differentiator. However, in 2014, KERS and other energy recovery systems (ERS) will be allowed to be a larger performance differentiator. It will be used for a much greater part of lap time. If your ERS don't work, then you'll be going very slowly. Fans will then complain that KERS plays too much of a part in the cars performance.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

In the previous turbo era we had inline fours,V6's and V8's with one or two turbos and there was a V6 with two turbos and a centrifugal supercharger almost ready to race,before the backers decided to do other things.What are we to look forward to this time-clones from an FIA blueprint.

If the only regulation was that you have 100 Kgs of 'pump' petrol to get you to the end of any race, we 'may' see some very interesting engine designs (not that too many would be that interested anyway), but also some very boring and predictable races. I'm not sure that's what the 'show' needs right now.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

More out of necessity, I think.

The FIA can barely control the teams innovations as it is. I would hate to think what sort of a mess a 'clean sheet' would get it into!

The FIA has done an absolutely superb job when it comes to eliminating any innovation by the engines, tyres, electronics and transmissions. Despite the aerodynamics already being semi-standardized, only in this area innovations are to some extent still possible.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The FIA has done an absolutely superb job when it comes to eliminating any innovation by the engines, tyres, electronics and transmissions. Despite the aerodynamics already being semi-standardized, only in this area innovations are to some extent still possible.

Maybe they think that 'innovation' should done elsewhere other than F1?

The mere sight of the words 'electric motor' are now already enough to put your average F1 fan into deep shock. The words 'in-line four' had already done that.

Whatever it is that you want, there will always be compromises to be made.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe they think that 'innovation' should done elsewhere other than F1?

The mere sight of the words 'electric motor' are now already enough to put your average F1 fan into deep shock. The words 'in-line four' had already done that.

Whatever it is that you want, there will always be compromises to be made.

However, the 2014 engine regulations are very strict and no compromise was made to the engine manufactures. No wonder Formula 1 has very little value for money and the manufactures are shunning the series.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

However, the 2014 engine regulations are very strict and no compromise was made to the engine manufactures. No wonder Formula 1 has very little value for money and the manufactures are shunning the series.

The 2014 engine regulations were agreed to by all parties - including Ferrari. What they didn't want to sign up to were regulations that could send manufacturers down avenues that might benefit an F1 car, but be of limited or of no use to road cars.

What Ferrari had also realised was that there was no way any kind of 8-12 cylinder NA engine could compete with an in-line four turbo, particularly if you have a specified amount of fuel to use. If you have engine builders like Ferrari and Renault in the sport, and only one of them is selling road cars to customers that actually care about fuel economy and efficiency, then some sort of compromise has to be made. Renault wouldn't want to build a V12, even if it was the best way of being first at the flag, and Ferrari wouldn't want to build an in-line four, even if that was the best way of being first at the flag. Ferrari would almost certainly not want to be in F1 if it couldn't use an engine that appealed to its customers. Compromises have to be made.

The manufacturers are mainly concerned with the current expense in the sport. Opening up the regulations (aero, engine, chassis) will only accelerate that.

And you only have to look at what's going in in BTCC (turbos vs non-turbos) to know that keeping everyone in parity would be a total nightmare if the regulations were any more open than they are already.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The 2014 engine regulations were agreed to by all parties - including Ferrari. What they didn't want to sign up to were regulations that could send manufacturers down avenues that might benefit an F1 car, but be of limited or of no use to road cars.

Ironically, engine technologies that could be useful for today's and future road cars are to be banned right from the very beginning of 2014.

What Ferrari had also realised was that there was no way any kind of 8-12 cylinder NA engine could compete with an in-line four turbo, particularly if you have a specified amount of fuel to use. If you have engine builders like Ferrari and Renault in the sport, and only one of them is selling road cars to customers that actually care about fuel economy and efficiency, then some sort of compromise has to be made. Renault wouldn't want to build a V12, even if it was the best way of being first at the flag, and Ferrari wouldn't want to build an in-line four, even if that was the best way of being first at the flag. Ferrari would almost certainly not want to be in F1 if it couldn't use an engine that appealed to its customers. Compromises have to be made.

I can't remember Ferrari proposing a V12-configuration for 2014 and onwards, can you?

And you only have to look at what's going in in BTCC (turbos vs non-turbos) to know that keeping everyone in parity would be a total nightmare if the regulations were any more open than they are already.

I'm not familiar with the current situation in the BTCC, but assume there are effectively two classes with each having their own, unequal geometric limitations. That's exactly the opposite to what I propose. In fact, I think regulations full with geometric limitations are the very reason for cars to become increasingly the same and expensive to develop, as the regulations provide the absolute point of perfection I mentioned earlier.