New engine regs for 2016 - again?!

[ECW Dan Selby]

I understand this, for sure.

If there's no teams to compete, fuel saving etc needs to step aside for now.

Selby

[cokata]

I was sure the new engine rules will cause a lot of problems and sure enough they were bad for the spectacle and destructive for the small teams.

Almost all (if not all) hardcore f1 fans will continue to watch and invest in the sport no matter what, but for the casual fan the sound and the speed were a big pull. F1 was always about the "wow" factor you see this crazy machines that had 900+ hp weighted less than 600kg and were loud enough to make your ears bleed.

The most surprising thing though was really just how terrible the cars sound especially offboard. They are plenty of great sounding turbo engines and V6 engines. I don't know is this because of the single turbo, the MGU-H or something else, but excluding diesels i think this were the worst sounding racing engines that i have ever heard.

[Paradise City]

It is a curious thing to see these odd sounding aardvarks circulating around.

I don't want overstate it though. I liked the variety on the grid - and the Mclaren looked nice. The engine controversy completely passes me by as I didn't attend a race this year and the TV doesn't convey any wild difference - not to me anyway.

As for moar engine regs - it's no doubt Bernie, Horner..et al playing politics. But if they really want to go back, hell, knock yourself out guys. Glad its not my money though.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I did really enjoy the difference in car shapes, aside from those ugly noses. Well, the more phallic ones, anyway.

Selby

[ECW Dan Selby]

And the engine noise was a big deal for me.

When I first heard them properly on TV, I realised I had to really whack the volume up, and then had to endure Crofty (who is shouty at the best of times) shouting at me.

Saying that, I welcomed the change.

But, with the promises of finding means of making it sound louder not being met, the novelty wore off and the volume became an issue for me. Even moreso was the fact the cars sounded slow.

It was just a low octave drone as oppose to a scream.

I loved the way the cars were being wrestled for the first time in a while, but the soundtrack unfortunately didn't match.

I'd welcome a return to high horsepower and loud noise! It IS Formula One, and it SHOULD be fast and loud.

It was a bold move this season, but if teams are dropping like flies due to costs, lets look at simplifying and going back to what bought us to the dance.

Selby

[Casper]

If the manufacturers stay in F1 they will gradually take it in the direct Formula E has arrived at already. I saw it predicted the other day that the ICE has an effective life span of about twenty years. While that may not be entirely accurate the writing is on the wall and eventually FE & F1 are a good bet to arrive in the same place, FE already has arrived I suppose but the technical war in that category has only just begun. If anyone doubts any of this have a look at Tesla, what they are doing and who they are licensing to is mind boggling and their cars are awesome. Trying to stop the advance of alternate power sources is finger in the dyke stuff.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

If the manufacturers stay in F1 they will gradually take it in the direct Formula E has arrived at already. I saw it predicted the other day that the ICE has an effective life span of about twenty years. While that may not be entirely accurate the writing is on the wall and eventually FE & F1 are a good bet to arrive in the same place, FE already has arrived I suppose but the technical war in that category has only just begun. If anyone doubts any of this have a look at Tesla, what they are doing and who they are licensing to is mind boggling and their cars are awesome. Trying to stop the advance of alternate power sources is finger in the dyke stuff.

To me the whole KERS technology episode is pure fiction, the technology is not cutting edge, and is clearly unfit for use on a racing car, especially an F1 car!
The minimum weight of the car and driver should be set at 450kg, and the KERS should be carried as penalty weight allowing the car to develop more power, then if it is truly a competitive or relevant technology it will be added to the cars.

Rosberg's KERS failed completely at 40% of the race distance in Canada, yet the car finished the race carrying about 100kg of totally useless ballast, and still finished second in the race narrowly beaten by Ricciardo.

So much for the KERS boost in performance or its enhancement of fuel economy, it isn't even worth its weight in ballast!
Complete joke pulled by the manufacturers to try and legitimise a dodgy hybrid technology with their customer base.

How much more efficient would lightweight materials and lighter cars be?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

To me the whole KERS technology episode is pure fiction, the technology is not cutting edge, and is clearly unfit for use on a racing car, especially an F1 car!
The minimum weight of the car and driver should be set at 450kg, and the KERS should be carried as penalty weight allowing the car to develop more power, then if it is truly a competitive or relevant technology it will be added to the cars.

Rosberg's KERS failed completely at 40% of the race distance in Canada, yet the car finished the race carrying about 100kg of totally useless ballast, and still finished second in the race narrowly beaten by Ricciardo.

So much for the KERS boost in performance or its enhancement of fuel economy, it isn't even worth its weight in ballast!
Complete joke pulled by the manufacturers to try and legitimise a dodgy hybrid technology with their customer base.

How much more efficient would lightweight materials and lighter cars be?

It does not matter what you or I think it is the way things are going. If F1 as a category chooses to utilise what is fast becoming a mainstream technology poorly then it is F1's problem. What will be interesting is how long it takes for the ICE engine to be the back up to electric power.

[VIVA GT]

OK, I admit that I love (have loved) the sound of 'proper' racing engines. The first time I heard the V16 BRM for example (no, I'm not that old, it was a historic by then!) I was amazed.
As an engineer, I also like the technology in motorsport.

My own experience, as a big Touring Car Racing fan from the late 70's to the early 90's, we went from the wailing ford (Capri) V6, through the rumbling SD1 Rivers, finally to the quieter (but phenomenally quick - eventually) turbo cars like the Sierra Cosworth RS 500, I enjoyed each different phase, for different reasons, but accepted that (at whatever time), that was the pinnacle, and irrespective of what they sounded like, if they were quick & spectacular, they made good racing.

Also using my Touring Car comparison example, when the 2 litre Super-Touring era started we had what I think a lot of people think they want now. Screaming & noisy engines fitted to cars that looked similar to last years, but weren't anywhere near as quick (in a straight line), cornered on rails (due to relaxed suspension regulation) and all went at about the same speed, to the only what the car behind could overtake was to bump the car in front out of the way. (This was when it became known that BTCC stood for Bash The Car Clear).

The only 'mistake' I see with the new (and sorry, but road relevant - this is what brings the manufacturers in) engines, it that there was never a cost cap put on them. This wouldn't stop the manufacturers spending £gazillions developing the engines to ensure dominance (if they wanted to), it would just ensure that these engines (or to be more correct, Power Units) would be available at what id considered to be a reasonable cost for the lesser funded teams.
Changing the engine regulations will only alienate the major manufacturers who are currently involved, but this time when they leave, there are no Judds or Cosworths (I know the company is still going, but they're not producing F1 type engines anymore) to pick up the pieces and keep the sport going.

We've had just one season of the new regulations, and OK, Mercedes have been pretty dominant, but the other manufacturers should now start to catch up. We've all seen examples of where drivers have struggled to control the combined power of these Power Units, and compared to 'The Good Old Days', mechanical reliability has been pretty damned good.

Personally I'm amazed that there is so much antipathy toward these new engines just because they sound funny!, surely there is more to Motor-Racing than that?

[Greem]

Although I'd use the word "different", not "funny".

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

To me the whole KERS technology episode is pure fiction, the technology is not cutting edge, and is clearly unfit for use on a racing car, especially an F1 car!
The minimum weight of the car and driver should be set at 450kg, and the KERS should be carried as penalty weight allowing the car to develop more power, then if it is truly a competitive or relevant technology it will be added to the cars.

Rosberg's KERS failed completely at 40% of the race distance in Canada, yet the car finished the race carrying about 100kg of totally useless ballast, and still finished second in the race narrowly beaten by Ricciardo.

So much for the KERS boost in performance or its enhancement of fuel economy, it isn't even worth its weight in ballast!
Complete joke pulled by the manufacturers to try and legitimise a dodgy hybrid technology with their customer base.

How much more efficient would lightweight materials and lighter cars be?

At least in Europe, the authorities are very keen on reducing emissions for reasons of our climate and public health. And one cannot deny the case for hybrid technology regarding fuel-efficiency. The current engines consume about a third less fuel than their predecessor with only a small loss in terms of performances.

[Pontlieue]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

At least in Europe, the authorities are very keen on reducing emissions for reasons of our climate and public health. And one cannot deny the case for hybrid technology regarding fuel-efficiency. The current engines consume about a third less fuel than their predecessor with only a small loss in terms of performances.

And the performance loss is mostly down to the aero restrictions as well, not due to the new engines.

But I still think that WEC have done a much better job with their efficiency regulations. Formula 1 regulations mandate a V6 turbo, as well as the kind of ERS. The LMP1 rules allow much more variety.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Rosberg's KERS failed completely at 40% of the race distance in Canada, yet the car finished the race carrying about 100kg of totally useless ballast, and still finished second in the race narrowly beaten by Ricciardo.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification.

One team was completely dominant. They had a considerable lead. One of the two energy recovery systems broke, the car slowed significantly. One of the other cars was able to close the gap for a pass before the end of the race.

A more accurate test would be the change in lap time. Or, what happened when one of the lesser teams had a failure.

If they could have achieved a 30% efficiency increase with the old powertrains, don't you think somebody would have done it?

[Moneyseeker]

Interesting to see that Ilmor are working on the Renault engine for next year.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Interesting to see that Ilmor are working on the Renault engine for next year.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but I didn't think that Ilmor were involved according to the original press releases a couple of weeks ago; it was just Mario Illien acting as a consultant to Renault F1. I must admit that I thought that Illien had sold on Ilmor, and retired from engine preperation.

Another thought that crossed my mind is that the original Ilmor are the source of the Mercedes power-units, and are now a fully owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. Would not that association with Renault lead to a certain amount of conflict of interest?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but I didn't think that Ilmor were involved according to the original press releases a couple of weeks ago; it was just Mario Illien acting as a consultant to Renault F1. I must admit that I thought that Illien had sold on Ilmor, and retired from engine preperation.

Another thought that crossed my mind is that the original Ilmor are the source of the Mercedes power-units, and are now a fully owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. Would not that association with Renault lead to a certain amount of conflict of interest?

Illmor was formed with four interests: Illien, Morgan, Penske, and GM. Mercedes later bought into Illmor after they started F1 engines when Illmor were contracted to build an engine for Sauber.
Theyb later bought 55% and in 2005 completed total ownership and by then called it Mercedes High Performance Engines.

Illmor has continued as an independent engine designer/builder
However Illien and Penske retained the special projects division, still named Illmor and has continued to design and build engine projects.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Illmor was formed with four interests: Illien, Morgan, Penske, and GM. Mercedes later bought into Illmor after they started F1 engines when Illmor were contracted to build an engine for Sauber.
Theyb later bought 55% and in 2005 completed total ownership and by then called it Mercedes High Performance Engines.

Illmor has continued as an independent engine designer/builder
However Illien and Penske retained the special projects division, still named Illmor and has continued to design and build engine projects.

MB first involvement with Illmor was as the sponsor of the Indy push rod motor when GM decided to withdraw from racing.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Casper

MB first involvement with Illmor was as the sponsor of the Indy push rod motor when GM decided to withdraw from racing.

Yes, Penskes idea, Mercedes Benz funding and when Chev left the Indycar series in 1994, Mercedes picked up the name badge on the same engine, and they worked on Honda's Indycar 2003-2006 engine too.

[wolfhound]

Our friend Mr Sylt has been writing on Pitpass recently, he quotes Bernie "the biggest problem we have is this current power unit which we don't need and does nothing in the world for Formula One. It's expensive, in fact it's very expensive, and this is probably what has caused most of the problems."

I assume Bernie was at the F1 commission meetings when these engines were first proposed by his old mate Max. I seem to remember they were delayed a year and changed from a four cylinder to a six for Ferrari but otherwise we have got what has been proposed.
Bernie is blaming the cost of the engines for the loss of Caterham and Marussia. I suspect the loss of Marussia is as much to do with its Russian owner as anything else. Tony Fernades wanted out of F1 and the sale of the team turned into a big mess.

Bernie conviently forgot the inequitable distribution of money from FOM was a big part of dissapearence of the two teams. If somebody could buy in without having to spend £100million with no prospect of significant FOM money why would you? If my recollection is correct the 11th placed team gets about £6million from FOM while Ferrari gets over £100million and possibly closer to twice that figure.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Pontlieue

And the performance loss is mostly down to the aero restrictions as well, not due to the new engines.

But I still think that WEC have done a much better job with their efficiency regulations. Formula 1 regulations mandate a V6 turbo, as well as the kind of ERS. The LMP1 rules allow much more variety.

The balancing of performances is problematic in my view and would be even more problematic in Formula One, a series in which a lot more interests are at stake.
However, no regulation actually mandates the use of any energy recovery system.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The balancing of performances is problematic in my view and would be even more problematic in Formula One, a series in which a lot more interests are at stake.
However, no regulation actually mandates the use of any energy recovery system.

The regulations do however mandate the axle loadings 314 kg and 370 kg front to rear, so in effect have ruled out any weight saving or redistribution of the equivalent ballast, to my mind demonstrating that the KERS and ERS systems are not even worth their weight in ballast.
If the regulations in regarding the energy harvesting and recovery systems were open and made carrying such systems a weight penalty, we may actually see something worthwhile developed. The current regulations are just allowing the manufacturers to try and legitimise dodgy technology by paying money to F1 to run the systems, on top of which nobody outside an inside group has any idea what is actually going on, everything is top secret.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

The current regulations are just allowing the manufacturers to try and legitimise dodgy technology by paying money to F1 to run the systems, on top of which nobody outside an inside group has any idea what is actually going on, everything is top secret.

First things first, it is not dodgy technology and is used widely and successfully in production cars around the world. If it is being used badly in F1 that is the fault of the category participants and rule makers and does not make the principle of the technology dodgy or less valid in the automotive world. Get used to it as the next large step will marginilise the ICE component in F1 as battery and recovery systems improve.

[MCWB]

Originally Posted by wnut

The current regulations are just allowing the manufacturers to try and legitimise dodgy technology

Interesting that you find it dodgy. Over in sportscar land the LMP1-H regulations have four different manufacturers developing four different hybrid drivetrains... they don't seem to think it's dodgy?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MCWB

Interesting that you find it dodgy. Over in sportscar land the LMP1-H regulations have four different manufacturers developing four different hybrid drivetrains... they don't seem to think it's dodgy?

My point is that generators and batteries are not new technology, particularly advanced or the way of the future.
It is not currently not a particularly efficient in road cars; the most economic of which are not hybrids; and most certainly has no legitimate place on an F1 car.
Just really expensive and inefficient junk used to gouge eye watering subsidies from governments and create largely artificial barriers to third world manufacturers trying to enter first world markets.

Perhaps something may come out of the LMP regulations, as they are better and more openly drafted; and I'll bet most of them are not hung up on batteries.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

My point is that generators and batteries are not new technology, particularly advanced or the way of the future.
It is not currently not a particularly efficient in road cars; the most economic of which are not hybrids; and most certainly has no legitimate place on an F1 car.
Just really expensive and inefficient junk used to gouge eye watering subsidies from governments and create largely artificial barriers to third world manufacturers trying to enter first world markets.

Perhaps something may come out of the LMP regulations, as they are better and more openly drafted; and I'll bet most of them are not hung up on batteries.

Look at Tesla and do a bit of research before labelling energy recovery systems as junk. You are just bitter and twisted because the concept has been used in F1 and you do not approve. As I said, get used to it as the next change will marginilise the ICE engine.