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

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Generally, correct me if I am wrong but from many comments in this thread it looks like people have little experience of high powered turbo engines?

The turbos will use less fuel than an NA and will have more torque throughout the rev range.

This we know. But if you have a fuel load limit and fuel flow limit...........

Originally Posted by luke g28

I just hope they dont bring in different boost limits for different cars ala BTCC

They won't need to, because you have a fuel load limit and a fuel flow limit. So you can have as much boost as you like, but you may be wasting energy and be in danger of running out of fuel by using it.

Originally Posted by luke g28

I disagree with the sentiment that opening up the rules will increase the calls of cheating and rule bending simply because the teams will be spending less time trying to create the perfect solution to the rules.

They will try and push every rule as far as they can. And whilst everyone's attention is drawn to one particular rule........

Originally Posted by luke g28

If the FIA bring in rules to stop Aero bending and then it is found that somebodies Aero appears to be moving then its an obvious rule bending. If however there is a max sustained G or similar then nobody will be able to pick up individual components on the car that are breaking the rules.

The FIA amended the bodywork rules by subjecting front wings to a load test. The Red Bull front wing (and everyone else's bendy front wing) passes this test.

[höller]

Gilles Simon:

“Normally, with a turbocharger when you reach a
certain level of pressure back into the engine you open a waste gate. What we propose is that instead of opening the waste gate as usual you will ‘brake’ the turbine, so you will be able to control the speed of the turbocharger. Doing so when you have an excess of exhaust
energy will recover energy that can be fed to the battery. To give an order of magnitude, this will be a 50kW motor, so it’s huge. This is quite a novel way of recovering energy.”

Sorry Marbot, but I can´t see where there will be no supercharging...
Isn´t the FIA drawing just schematic?

So, it´s just no "PFFFFII!" anymore, instead a too much on exhaust energy the turbocharger will be regulated by electric accesoires when there is sign of overboost and the exhaust gases become converted into electric energy.

A look at the Audi configuration: A single turbo with one intercooler on each side. As the exhaust outlets are based outside the V in F1 there will be enough space for the ERS equipment. I think that´s how it will finally look like.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AudiR18Spa2011-DL1.JPG

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

Sorry Marbot, but I can´t see where there will be no supercharging...
Isn´t the FIA drawing just schematic?

5.1.6 "Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly coupled to the same shaft."

That's the reg...

There is also no reg that says that you must pressurise the intake with the turbo.

Originally Posted by höller

A look at the Audi configuration: A single turbo with one intercooler on each side. As the exhaust outlets are based outside the V in F1 there will be enough space for the ERS equipment. I think that´s how it will finally look like.

Could be.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

This we know. But if you have a fuel load limit and fuel flow limit...........

They won't need to, because you have a fuel load limit and a fuel flow limit. So you can have as much boost as you like, but you may be wasting energy and be in danger of running out of fuel by using it.

They will try and push every rule as far as they can. And whilst everyone's attention is drawn to one particular rule........

The FIA amended the bodywork rules by subjecting front wings to a load test. The Red Bull front wing (and everyone else's bendy front wing) passes this test.

They do pass the test but they have some very interesting wear patterns on their supposedly inflexible floor.

Why is there a fuel flow limit? Is that purely to stop people being able to turn the boost up?

They will not push every rule, a good example is track width or length, how often is this contested now? When the rules are so constricted it leads people to bend them as they have exhausted development within the rules but still want to save more time on track.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

They do pass the test but they have some very interesting wear patterns on their supposedly inflexible floor.

The bodywork passes the required tests. Everything flexes to some degree, so you can't have bodywork that does not move at all. If it does move, it must pass the test.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Why is there a fuel flow limit? Is that purely to stop people being able to turn the boost up?

The fuel flow limit, as you say, is probably there to ensure that the engines don't run with high boost rates, If indeed the turbo is actually going to be used to boost the intake air at all. It's no use boosting intake air if you haven't got fuel to add to it. Running a weak fuel mixture is probably not good for a petrol engine. Maybe that's why direct injection at 500 bar is going to be allowed? Below 10,500 rpm, it looks like you are going to have to supplement your engine power in some other way. Maybe 5. 1. 4 and 5. 1. 5 are there to ensure that engine and electrical power have to be balanced together throughout the race?

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5

Originally Posted by luke g28

They will not push every rule, a good example is track width or length, how often is this contested now? When the rules are so constricted it leads people to bend them as they have exhausted development within the rules but still want to save more time on track.

Track width is an easy one to fall foul of if you push it over the limit. It's easy to check. But if you open up the rules, there may be some things that aren't so easy to check. Maybe some things that no one ever thought would need checking. The more of those things there are, the more protests you will see.

[luke g28]

Meh I'm not going to get into the bodywork thing, I shared your opinion originally but have since looked a bit more in depth, by having a flexible front end you can run a lower ride height and still maintain the desired rake due to the flexing effect, suffice to say where rbr's floor is split into 2 sections, there is wear on the leading edge of the 2nd section, suggesting an intentional pivot point.

I can't imagine the turbos won't be used to pressurize the intake air as the electrical motors are nowhere near powerful enough to compensate. I would expect to see the overboost harnessed in this way but that is all.

Yes the rules will always be tested, that's the whole point of having them, however the more prescriptive the rules are the more liable they are to exploitation as the legal improvement avenues are so limited.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Meh I'm not going to get into the bodywork thing, I shared your opinion originally but have since looked a bit more in depth, by having a flexible front end you can run a lower ride height and still maintain the desired rake due to the flexing effect, suffice to say where rbr's floor is split into 2 sections, there is wear on the leading edge of the 2nd section, suggesting an intentional pivot point.

Intentional or not, it passes all the tests.

Originally Posted by luke g28

I can't imagine the turbos won't be used to pressurize the intake air as the electrical motors are nowhere near powerful enough to compensate. I would expect to see the overboost harnessed in this way but that is all.

The overboost from the excess exhaust energy could be quite considerable, depending on the overall efficiency of the V6 engine without any boost whatsoever. More efficient petrol engine = less need for boost pressure. Thereby leaving the turbo to do other things.

Such as.

From FIA document:

" With an increase in available power from 60kW and an energy limit of 400kJ per lap to 120kW and 4MJ, the electrical energy on tap will be ten times greater than the current system, making up much of the shortfall caused by the downsizing of the engine."

The balancing act is to know what is best to do. Increase the power of the petrol engine or save more energy to the batteries? One thing is for sure. The petrol engine, no matter how efficient, will be the least efficient part of the equation. The less you need to make use of it (by using the fuel allotted in a strategical way and also by maximizing your energy recovery), the better your race will be.

Another big energy saver will be the reduction of drag, which will also aid overtaking. You will most certainly not be able to run anywhere near as much drag as the current cars are running.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Yes the rules will always be tested, that's the whole point of having them, however the more prescriptive the rules are the more liable they are to exploitation as the legal improvement avenues are so limited.

It's precisely because the avenues are so limited that we don't have ten protests to deal with at every race. So much fuss has been made about just one thing this season. I'm not sure that ten things is something that the FIA can cope with.

[luke g28]

I don't share your view of turbos being unnecessary hence why they were banned from everything.

yes I get that point that increasing the electrical contribution is important but I feel that the power limits are far too low for it to negate the need for boost.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I don't share your view of turbos being unnecessary hence why they were banned from everything.

You mean, unnecessary for intake air pressurisation? Turbos can be used for many things. They will be used for good things in 2014.

Originally Posted by luke g28

yes I get that point that increasing the electrical contribution is important but I feel that the power limits are far too low for it to negate the need for boost.

Remember that you only have about 100 kgs of fuel. The most efficient car will be the fastest car. Pressurising the intake air may not be the most efficient way to make use of the turbo. If you do that, you'll go faster, but you'll also need to use more fuel to go faster. Is that a good use of fuel? Or is there a better way to use fuel? There won't be enough fuel to continually boost the turbo to any great degree. Also remember that the cars will be running substantially less drag (drag eats fuel), so the cars will be as fast, if not faster, in a straight line than they are now. Efficiency is the key to the 2014 F1 regs.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

You mean, unnecessary for intake air pressurisation? Turbos can be used for many things. They will be used for good things in 2014.



Remember that you only have about 100 kgs of fuel. The most efficient car will be the fastest car. Pressurising the intake air may not be the most efficient way to make use of the turbo. If you do that, you'll go faster, but you'll also need to use more fuel to go faster. Is that a good use of fuel? Or is there a better way to use fuel? There won't be enough fuel to continually boost the turbo to any great degree. Also remember that the cars will be running substantially less drag (drag eats fuel), so the cars will be as fast, if not faster, in a straight line than they are now. Efficiency is the key to the 2014 F1 regs.

Remember, you have to carry all this rubbish around in the car and it limits how you can move the weight around. The performance differentiation will be in how small the battery packs can be made. The energy harvesting will also be mainly effective on the braking and overrun systems. I doubt anyone will try and run a dynamo/motor in the turbo.

Question: are the firing orders set down in the regs?
If not expect the 3 sets of cylinders firing 2 at a time.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

Remember, you have to carry all this rubbish around in the car and it limits how you can move the weight around. The performance differentiation will be in how small the battery packs can be made. The energy harvesting will also be mainly effective on the braking and overrun systems. I doubt anyone will try and run a dynamo/motor in the turbo.

Well, it's not rubbish. It's very hi tech equipment designed to improve fuel economy, and, just for once, may have an impact of actual road car tech.

Not sure why you doubt that a generator will be bolted to the turbo - that's lots of free HP on the overrun. They also have two years to figure out how to do it. F1 teams achieve a lot in 2 years.

In two years we may have much better ultra capacitors instead of battery packs, and they have a much higher energy density.

In effect, a generator on the turbo (in addition to any forced induction), means that you can move horsepower around. For example, you can move the HP you don't need in a braking zone in to the acceleration zone after the corner by using the turbo to charge up something. You can run the engine at peak efficiency (a certain RPM) for longer round the circuit. (If the rules allow it)

I like these new regs, think it's going to be quite interesting.

[Marbot]

If the rules say that you can run a harvester on the turbo, then, in all likelihood, turbo manufacturers will run a harvester on the turbo. It's too obvious a trick to miss.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Well, it's not rubbish. It's very hi tech equipment designed to improve fuel economy, and, just for once, may have an impact of actual road car tech.

Not sure why you doubt that a generator will be bolted to the turbo - that's lots of free HP on the overrun. They also have two years to figure out how to do it. F1 teams achieve a lot in 2 years.

In two years we may have much better ultra capacitors instead of battery packs, and they have a much higher energy density.

In effect, a generator on the turbo (in addition to any forced induction), means that you can move horsepower around. For example, you can move the HP you don't need in a braking zone in to the acceleration zone after the corner by using the turbo to charge up something. You can run the engine at peak efficiency (a certain RPM) for longer round the circuit. (If the rules allow it)

I like these new regs, think it's going to be quite interesting.

I thought capacitors were specifically banned in the new regulations.

Turbines have as little centripetal mass as possible to reduce lag, so I really doubt anyone will connect a dynamo/motor to them. The engine actually produces very little gas on overrun with the throttle closed, although if desperate you could use it as an air pump with the slides open and the fuel and ignition off, but simply not really worth it, the turbo really uses the heat expansion energy left over from the power stroke not just air.
The braking system absorbs all the energy from the whole car and it is easy to organise this on only the overrun, so it is here you will get the best return for your efforts.

This is really junk technology being forced on the consumer by the car industry under the false pretence that it is green, it is highly inefficient and hugely polluting. Make the mininmum weight exclusive of the KERS system, make its use optional, and see how many people bother to run it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If the rules say that you can run a harvester on the turbo, then, in all likelihood, turbo manufacturers will run a harvester on the turbo. It's too obvious a trick to miss.

Very good give old technology a new name and sell it to the suckers for a fortune, "harvester" indeed.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

I thought capacitors were specifically banned in the new regulations.

Turbines have as little centripetal mass as possible to reduce lag, so I really doubt anyone will connect a dynamo/motor to them. The engine actually produces very little gas on overrun with the throttle closed, although if desperate you could use it as an air pump with the slides open and the fuel and ignition off, but simply not really worth it, the turbo really uses the heat expansion energy left over from the power stroke not just air.
The braking system absorbs all the energy from the whole car and it is easy to organise this on only the overrun, so it is here you will get the best return for your efforts.

This is really junk technology being forced on the consumer by the car industry under the false pretence that it is green, it is highly inefficient and hugely polluting. Make the mininmum weight exclusive of the KERS system, make its use optional, and see how many people bother to run it.

I think your last paragraph is basically wrong. Can you enlighten me as to why this is junk tech? And what's the point of excluding KERS from the weight limit? You cannot faff around with the rules just to prove your point, facts would be better. Would be interested to see how much slower the cars this are compared with last year - if you are correct the use of KERS should have slowed laps times (as would ban on DDD). If they are about the same it wcould be argued that KERS has compensated for the lack of DDD's

Of course the braking system is the best source of energy, but there are other sources as well (the turbo being an obvious one)- and it would be foolish of the designer not to investigate all sources. After all, F1 spends colossal amounts of money on microscopic improvements in aero, they will do the same with the engine as well, if allowed.

Don't know about capacitors and the rules - but I think as they improve (order of magnitude improvement this year apparently) the rules will have to accommodate them.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

Very good give old technology a new name and sell it to the suckers for a fortune, "harvester" indeed.

Are you saying old = bad? The oldest *technology* in an F1 car is the engine. First patent for the 4 stroke 1861. About time we thought of something else, don't you think? Or do you want to stick with something 150 years old?

Happy birthday btw to the 4 stroke engine!

[Marbot]

There does seem to be a lot of resistance to new technologies in general. Particularly with regard to the good old internal combustion engine. Its last place of refuge will no doubt be the race track.

There is little point in trying to discover new ways of reinventing the internal combustion engine since many car manufacturers are now looking at internal combustion engines as simply a means with which to extend the range of their electric vehicles.

F1, in 2014, will be doing it slightly differently. Looking at a means with which to extend the range of their petrol engines. If those devices aren't working, you will not finish the race.

[wnut]

If you want to develop a new technology, you have to free up the regulations and allow people to explore various options.
My real point is the technology that is being forced on F1 is not new, efficient or green, has low limits imposed on possible outputs and does not offer any realistic chance of going anywhere.
Dynamos and batteries are just a joke!
At least let them explore other avenues, someone may actually surprise us!
Ban batteries, and let them find alternative energy storage methods, capacitors being the most obvious.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you want to develop a new technology, you have to free up the regulations and allow people to explore various options.
My real point is the technology that is being forced on F1 is not new, efficient or green, has low limits imposed on possible outputs and does not offer any realistic chance of going anywhere.
Dynamos and batteries are just a joke!
At least let them explore other avenues, someone may actually surprise us!
Ban batteries, and let them find alternative energy storage methods, capacitors being the most obvious.

Damn. Think I might have to agree with wnut. The regs do need freeing up.

Give them a certain amount of fuel for the race.

That's it.

Everything else is 'free'.

(Gas turbine powered generators charging capacitors which in turn are running 4 in wheel electric motors, plus KERS would be my vote. Acceleration would probably be a bit mental, as would the jet plane noise)

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Damn. Think I might have to agree with wnut. The regs do need freeing up.

Who will govern them? How many protests will there be at the first race? How many exploding heads on this forum?

Originally Posted by JamesH

Give them a certain amount of fuel for the race.

The FIA have done that for 2014, but only with petrol. You will also be able to recover and use much more power than is currently done by KERS.

What fuels would be allowed in freed up regs? How would you equalize each fuel to another to ensure that no one gains an advantage or opts for the obvious choice of power plant by merely choosing the right fuel?

Originally Posted by JamesH

That's it.

Everything else is 'free'.

Can they fly? (tongue in cheek) Will it still appeal to F1 fans if the cars don't make the right noise?

Originally Posted by JamesH

(Gas turbine powered generators charging capacitors which in turn are running 4 in wheel electric motors, plus KERS would be my vote. Acceleration would probably be a bit mental, as would the jet plane noise)

Lotus tried a gas turbine F1 car back in the 70's. Not much good, and not a very practical solution for road cars. They are expensive to make and very unresponsive to throttle input.

Interestingly, some companies are developing micro gas turbines to be used as range extenders on electric vehicles. Again, it's not particularly new technology, but there may be room for it somewhere.

But even so, they apparently don't make 'the noise' that is required for F1 use. The V6 petrol engine for 2014 appears to be the minimum power-plant that is acceptable to most petrol heads on which the sport depends upon.

It wasn't that long ago that there was uproar because the FIA had deemed that four cylinder petrol engines were the way to go!

Even the circuit promoters were up in arms, because they know that one of the main attractions of F1 is 'the noise'.

So, anything you like, but it has to make 'the noise'.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Lotus tried a gas turbine F1 car back in the 70's. Not much good, and not a very practical solution for road cars. They are expensive to make and very unresponsive to throttle input.

Was it direct drive via a gearbox or electric drive? My recollection is gearbox. A quick search didn't find the info. The Lotus was very fast in the wet apparently, fastest in the field.

Run the turbine at a constant and optimal RPM for fuel consumption. Use electricity as the transmission, with capacitors to smooth out the supply/load issues and to bolt in KERS. Sweet.

I don't care about the noise.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Was it direct drive via a gearbox or electric drive? My recollection is gearbox. A quick search didn't find the info. The Lotus was very fast in the wet apparently, fastest in the field.

Not sure about the drive. But the reason for the 56Bs good performance in the wet has to go down to its 4 wheel drive system and very good aerodynamics. It was uncompetitive in F1 because it required much larger fuel tanks than other F1 cars to ensure that it made it to the end of a race. This made it much slower and much heavier.

Originally Posted by JamesH

Run the turbine at a constant and optimal RPM for fuel consumption. Use electricity as the transmission, with capacitors to smooth out the supply/load issues and to bolt in KERS. Sweet.

As I alluded to in my previous post, this is already being researched, but with battery technology. The turbine does not respond well to throttle inputs, so running it at an optimum rpm is the only way to use it for road going motor vehicles. Capacitors just aren't getting a 'look in' for some reason (and there must be a good one). They can certainly be very dangerous little beasties! I believe that the FIAs 'Alternative Fuels' series allows their use, but under very strict safety regulations.

The new Vauxhall Ampere runs a small petrol engine as a means to charge the batteries after their charge reaches a certain point. The petrol engine does not directly drive the wheels. It is only there to extend the range of the batteries.

Originally Posted by JamesH

I don't care about the noise.

But it would appear that Bernie, the circuit promoters, and millions of 'fans' world-wide, do care about 'the noise'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Damn. Think I might have to agree with wnut. The regs do need freeing up.

Had to happen one day!


I really like your solution - fuel limit, open regs!

In the interum:


How about you keep the rules as they are (fuel is limited already), and make KERS only completely free.
Save the costs on developing new engines and spend the money on energy recovery systems.
These systems will then have to pass the competition test, and the most efficient one will win - that is technology development!

Don't impose artificial limits, and don't force development down blind alleys to try and validate current automotive practice, it is window dressing rubbish.

[luke g28]

Why does KERS power need to be limited? Give them as much KERS as they can use in their car. Wheres the problem with that? In the past the team with a much stronger engine had an advantage, why not have the team with the most efficient electrical engine?

In hillclimbing gas turbines have been used to power the turbo at max boost for the duration of the climb, it sounds pretty awesome and would be great to see a team trying something way out there, like they used to.

I love the fuel limit plans, it just drives for the most efficient car you can get which is the nature of f1 afterall? Would be shocked if some road relevant tech didnt filter down from that. I think we are already seeing cars that turn off some of their cylinders when not required..

I agree with wnut also

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

(fuel is limited already)

No it isn't. You can have as much as you like, in as big a tank as you like, to use as you like. It's not the same as having a fuel load limit.

The 2014 regulations already allow the teams to have 10 times the level of energy on tap than the current systems do. That's going to take some achieving, especially when reliability is taken into consideration. And you can only recover so much energy anyway, depending on the track layout.