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

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

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.

I'm not sure why capacitors are excluded. There is a safety issue, but then there is also a safety issue with batteries, and carrying around 200 litres of highly flammable fluids!

Lotus Engines Development (something like that) are also developing a small constant RPM IC petrol for recharging. Jaguar also have a twin gas turbine prototype using electric transmission.

Lots of stuff out there on the road or almost on the road that will start to make F1 look a bit old hat with its archaic 6 cylinders and gearbox!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by 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?

Not sure why it isn't unlimited. I'd certainly go that way. It might mean a KERS arms race, but then I suppose we have that sort of thing anyway! It would mean there is no choice in when to use it - you use it all the time - but them I guess most drivers use KERS in the same point on the circuit anyway.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Lots of stuff out there on the road or almost on the road that will start to make F1 look a bit old hat with its archaic 6 cylinders and gearbox!

Many still believe that F1 should be about 'escapism'. Big V12 petrol engines with manual gearboxes, and to hell with technology. They have a point.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Many still believe that F1 should be about 'escapism'. Big V12 petrol engines with manual gearboxes, and to hell with technology. They have a point.

I would argue this is exactly what the classic series are for. F1 needs to keep up with modern tech otherwise it will lose its defining characteristic.

Where do you see F1 in 15 or 20 years time? Still with 4 / 6 cylinders, and a turbo doing roughly the same lap times as its too dangerous to go faster?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I would argue this is exactly what the classic series are for. F1 needs to keep up with modern tech otherwise it will lose its defining characteristic.

You could also argue that a series like 'Superleague' provides that as well, but they don't have the top drivers in them. I personally believe that most fans are only interested in drivers (check out the number of 'driver related threads' compared to 'car related threads'). Technology comes way down the list of 'must haves' for the average F1 fan. Bernie knows this, the teams know this, the circuit promoters know this. If there were no car manufacturers in F1, would anyone stop watching because the cars are mostly powered by Cosworth DFVs? *thinks back to 80s*

Originally Posted by luke g28

Where do you see F1 in 15 or 20 years time? Still with 4 / 6 cylinders, and a turbo doing roughly the same lap times as its too dangerous to go faster?

Perhaps more than ever, in 20 years time, people will want to escape to the sound of open exhausted internal combustion engines? Perhaps motor sport can only exist with internal combustion engines? Some already say that the race track will be the last bastion of the internal combustion engine.

Lap times aren't going to get much quicker, unless someone finds a way to break the laws of physics or if F1 cars become super sanitized.

Enjoy it while you can.

[luke g28]

I think far too much is made of the sound. Ultimately as the regulations slowly allow F1 to keep up with current technology then IC engines will disappear as they are more interested in lap time than noise.

Motorsport cannot only exist with and IC engine, that is nothing more than a romanticised whim.

In my eyes F1 should be positioning itself as a technical innovator whereas others would prefer a glory days series.

[JamesH]

Who needs battery KERS when you can have springs made of these...

http://www.natureasia.com/asia-mater...ght.php?id=975

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Many still believe that F1 should be about 'escapism'. Big V12 petrol engines with manual gearboxes, and to hell with technology. They have a point.

But there are a lot of series that give exactly that, that no-one goes to watch.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

But there are a lot of series that give exactly that, that no-one goes to watch.

Yes, I know. So, bearing that in mind, what is it about F1 that people go to watch/hear?

In your order of preference:

Manufacturer teams.

Privateer teams.

Technology.

Drivers.

Noise.

Just because it's F1.

.....

Would more people watch Superleague if Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button et al were driving those cars?

Or would more people watch Superleague if it became the 'techiest' of motor sports?

And if you don't know what Superleague is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mygi6FEDv4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=IormcOflk0o

How many would rather have Vettel, Webber, Button, Hamilton et al going head-to-head in those cars?

[wnut]

F1 would be a way better formula with 4.8 litre V12s wider tyres and less down force.
It would be a way worse formula with a single chassis manufacturer.

I would still retain DRS - I hated the idea, but it has proved very effective.

On a side note:
Superleague not emphasizing the drivers is a big mistake.
The drivers personalise the racing for the fans.

IMO, free to Air TV coverage is essential for the success of an international motor racing formula, it is also the death of any mainline national sport. Yo go to pay TV and your fan base drops, you develop virtually no new fans, the sponsors and advertisers lose interest, and the sport goes into decline.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 would be a way better formula with 4.8 litre V12s wider tyres and less down force.

Because that would be very low tech F1. And you probably wouldn't get too far, at a reasonable pace, on 100 kgs of fuel.

Originally Posted by wnut

It would be a way worse formula with a single chassis manufacturer.

Can you say why?

The teams could build a spec chassis onto which they put their suspension, engine, transmission, etc. Too much emphasis on aero. Not enough emphasis on mechanical bits. Maybe if the emphasis was taken away from aero, teams would maybe be more reluctant to want to spend lots of time/money on a chassis? Other engine manufacturers may want to join the series if they thought that Adrian Newey and several wind tunnels were surplus to requirements.

I bet that the new thing to have in F1 for 2012/13 is something to do with aerodynamics.

Originally Posted by wnut

I would still retain DRS - I hated the idea, but it has proved very effective.

Not that bothered really, but it does provide the race engineers with a headache. I think that the tyres have provided more overtaking/action on balance. I hope that Pirelli go even more radical in 2012.

Originally Posted by wnut

On a side note:
Superleague not emphasizing the drivers is a big mistake.
The drivers personalise the racing for the fans.

Indeed. It is, above all else, the drivers that people want to see. Which is why Superleague is probably nowhere near as popular as it could be.

Originally Posted by wnut

IMO, free to Air TV coverage is essential for the success of an international motor racing formula, it is also the death of any mainline national sport. Yo go to pay TV and your fan base drops, you develop virtually no new fans, the sponsors and advertisers lose interest, and the sport goes into decline.

See appropriate thread.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by marbot

I bet that the new thing to have in F1 for 2012/13 is something to do with aerodynamics.

Of course it will, they arent allowed to develop tyres or their engine therefore what is left? Aero.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Of course it will, they arent allowed to develop tyres or their engine therefore what is left? Aero.

The thing is that F1 has got itself so far down a blind alley (aero) that there doesn't appear to be any way back. Most teams have either got wind tunnels or are currently looking for or building wind tunnels. They didn't want to spend a fortune making irrelevant 20,000 rpm plus petrol engines eat more fuel to make more power and they didn't want a tyre war, so that the power that they had created would have to be limited, anyway.

But!

The 2014 engine regulations, and particularly the fuel load limit, will ensure that F1 cars will need to run with as little drag as possible in order to use what little fuel they have, efficiently.

You could, however, complicate all of that by allowing different kinds of fuel, engine types, different configurations of different engine types, etc. But then you would get into all kinds of difficulty with trying to equalize them all. Lots of protests, provisional race results, popping heads.

Not sure what tyres they will be using, but the chances are that it will be just one supplier. Michelin had the interesting idea of making one set of tyres last for several races. But can you imagine how much fuss just having a flat spotted tyre or a blistered tyre would have made?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

At the moment the FIA have a hard enough job trying to ensure that all of the teams are complying to the regulations in their current restrictive form. I have no doubt that when the 2014 regulations come into force there will be accusations of cheating and rule bending, the likes of which we have never seen before, simply because there's a lot of new stuff in there. So while your proposals may open up the boundaries of technology (at least as far as F1 cars are concerned), they will also, most surely, open up many more much larger cans of worms, when all that most people want to see is a motor race that isn't marred by accusations of cheating and rule bending.

Without regulations any rule bending wouldn't be possible, don't you think? It can't be a coincidence that the biggest scandals and controversies in Formula 1's history took place quite recently: the tighter the rules, the more controversies the sport will have to face. In fact, rule bending, rule breaking and accusing the others to have broken the rules may virtually become the only way to gain an advantage.

To come to a conclusion, what's closer to having no rules: a rulebook (semi-)standardizing the sport or one that allows and even stimulates divergence?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Without regulations any rule bending wouldn't be possible, don't you think?

Can we assume from that statement, that under divergent governance regulations, F1 will still be recognisable as a motor racing series? Can vehicles fly, for example? Or 'must' there be at least one 'regulation' to prevent that? And if we are on the track, how many wheels/tyres/tracks must touch that surface?

Can we also assume that without any regulations, F1 will still be safe?

There will always be regulations, if only to govern safety. And you will find that safety has had a lot of say in F1 regulations over the years. Even just that parameter, by itself, puts a spanner in the works of more open regulations. Because, ultimately, safety is the limit that puts a limit on many things.

People are also going to be pretty p***ed off, having spent fortunes on a certain technology only to be told that: 'Actually, in practice, it is rather dangerous'. Or to be told that: 'Actually, we were going to allow you to use 55% of that, but now we reckon it's more like 40%'. But if it's not regulated, they can use as much of it has they want?

There are also some unwritten technical regulations in F1. Such as the engines 'must' be high revving and 'must' make a suitable noise. Which will no doubt be written into the next concorde agreement, which, as we all know, has the final say on everything in F1.

[höller]

At least, it should have been possible to allow two various engine configurations, as discussed before, which would be a far better way to attract more manufacturers (eg from WTCC or rally). It would create a technical more interesting championship and the 4 inline is NOT more expensive than a V6 and a frame is NOT a problem as Ulrich Baretzky told us:

"It was shown in F3 and Ulrich Baretzky has said that it is no problem to make the design stiff enoug with the necessary frame extensions to the block. You can also do a semi stressing like BMW did in FBMW and it is as rigid as required with a lot less weight than a V6."

And I don´t know if they would "eat alive" a V6 in terms of fuel consumption. Remember the BMW M10 was plagued by unbelievable thirst so they had to pit for refuelling in 1983. We can´t predict that now.

If Le Mans is able to handle a far more complicated mix of various engine types FIA should be able to handle at least two. But I know, one unwritten tecnical regulation is not to harm Ferrari..... Did you now by the way that for a short period in 1985 Ferrari itself was considering building a 4 inline because they were considerably in the s... facing the new 195 ltr formula? The whole fuzz about the 4 bangers was not created because of the "noise" in first place, but its main purpose was to build up Bernies position in the future CA talks.


Another point: Reading the current technical regulations, could it be possible that a supercharged V6 could be launched in 2013, as obviously App. 4 ends in 2012 ?:

28.5

Only engines which have been homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 may be used at an Event during the 2008-2012 Championship seasons.

[luke g28]

If we had such strict regulations you would never have seen the turbo era, 6 wheeled cars or the huge fan cars. Infact most of peoples best f1 memories would simply never have been allowed. Personally I love the divergence and still hold that fewer regulations mean fewer rule exploits and bending as there would be legal development avenues available.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

At least, it should have been possible to allow two various engine configurations, as discussed before, which would be a far better way to attract more manufacturers (eg from WTCC or rally). It would create a technical more interesting championship and the 4 inline is NOT more expensive than a V6 and a frame is NOT a problem as Ulrich Baretzky told us:

The one thing that keeps manufacturers away, as Martin Whitmarsh as said, is too much variety in F1. No one wants to research and develop a V6 only for it to become more obvious as the season wears on, that an in-line 4 was the way to go. And if it was the way to go, then all engines (and probably less of them) in the season after, will be in-line 4s.

Originally Posted by höller

And I don´t know if they would "eat alive" a V6 in terms of fuel consumption. Remember the BMW M10 was plagued by unbelievable thirst so they had to pit for refuelling in 1983. We can´t predict that now.

I think that it would be all too predictable with modern technology. Which is why Ferrari not only said 'no' to four cylinder engines, but also 'no' to anyone else having one.

Originally Posted by höller

If Le Mans is able to handle a far more complicated mix of various engine types FIA should be able to handle at least two. The whole fuzz about the 4 bangers was not created because of the "noise" in first place, but its main purpose was to build up Bernies position in the future CA talks.

Le Mans has had a devil of a time trying to make sure that the rules are equalized, so as not to favour any one car. No one thinks that they have got it right yet.

As for the noise. I seem to remember that when the 4 cylinder rules were first announced that many servers on numerous F1 sites, crashed. I don't think that Bernie needed to make much of a fuss about it, himself. Even now, many 'fans' are still rather wary of the V6 engines, never mind the 4 cylinder ones.

Originally Posted by höller

Another point: Reading the current technical regulations, could it be possible that a supercharged V6 could be launched in 2013, as obviously App. 4 ends in 2012 ?:

I'd very much doubt that the regulations for 2013 will be much different to the regulations for 2012. And I would also doubt that any engine manufacturer would agree to having a one-off engine regulation just for one season. I can't see any sense in that.

And do you mean "supercharged" as opposed to turbocharged?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

If we had such strict regulations you would never have seen the turbo era, 6 wheeled cars or the huge fan cars. Infact most of peoples best f1 memories would simply never have been allowed. Personally I love the divergence and still hold that fewer regulations mean fewer rule exploits and bending as there would be legal development avenues available.

The turbo engines of the eighties only served to prove that you can't run even only two different things together without there being lots of changes made to regulations before, during and after a season has ended. Which is why they went back to a simpler Formula, allowing only 3.5 litre petrol engines. A lesson learned?

Even then, the number of cylinders wasn't restricted, but it soon became obvious to most that a V10 was the way to go. So, F1 has a way of cutting down on variety all by itself.

And what do you mean by "legal development avenues" ?

[höller]

And do you mean "supercharged" as opposed to turbocharged?

Sorry for misspelling, of course I meant the exhaust driven turbocharger! No new regulation was meant, but the possibility to start with the V6 turbo one season earlier. Maybe one manufacturer chooses one of his slots as a "test car" for the upcoming season towards the end of the season? The Ferrari 126 C was first presented at Imola 1980, the BMW first at Silverstone 1981, just for test purposes. It would be good advertisment, benefit for the new season and of course a bonus for the fans. A little bit ironic: If this year people like Karthikeyan or Chandok get a free ride on Friday it would also make sense to run a new "show" car in 2013. The regulation would allow it. Or am I wrong?

Even now, many 'fans' are still rather wary of the V6 engines, never mind the 4 cylinder ones.

This is a sad chapter. Unfortunately, we are talking about people who in some case do not even know which capacity the current V8 engine has, but it makes "noise" they are accustomed to. In fact, they didn´t witness turbo era. People who are well versed with the different F1 engines are a minority. I cannot remember anyone being wary about of the BMW M 10 because of his "noise" (which wasn´t that bad imo), but I remember many people being happy about the first german F1 engine after 20 years! But smart Bernie tries to profit from a popular stream as he did 20 years ago when there was WW 1 between FISA and FOCA.
Now it would be difficult to reverse after everybody is on V6 already; but I wouldn´t see it that fatalistic. I think it could have been possible. You can be sure the FIA would invent some equivalence factor for a possible inline 4 as soon as the Ferrari V6 is in trouble...

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

And what do you mean by "legal development avenues" ?

Routes for the teams to work on to increase performance that are allowed by the rules.

It seems to me that currently the only way to gain performance is by exploiting the rules as performance within the rules has been maximized.

i.e.
Double diffuser, banned.
Fduct, banned.
Blown diffusor, banned.
Fduct front wing? Banned?

There hasn't been a recent performance increase that hasn't been an exploit, everybody has already got the max they are allowed hence the view that the regulations are too strict.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

Sorry for misspelling, of course I meant the exhaust driven turbocharger! No new regulation was meant, but the possibility to start with the V6 turbo one season earlier. Maybe one manufacturer chooses one of his slots as a "test car" for the upcoming season towards the end of the season? The regulation would allow it. Or am I wrong?

I just don't think that the rules will allow it. Testing of any new vehicles is not allowed out of season.

Maybe Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Lotus and Renault can wheel out some of their 80s cars in 2013 ?

Originally Posted by höller

This is a sad chapter. Unfortunately, we are talking about people who in some case do not even know which capacity the current V8 engine has, but it makes "noise" they are accustomed to. In fact, they didn´t witness turbo era. People who are well versed with the different F1 engines are a minority.

Unfortunately for F1, it seems to have acquired a much younger audience over the past few years. An audience that seems to be more personality fixated than technology fixated.

And as you said, many were not even aware of the previous turbo cars.

But in any case, the petrol/diesel engine as we know it, will soon be taking a back seat to more efficient/sustainable/cleaner forms of motive power. Perhaps reduced to the task of merely extending the range of electric vehicles, which is the idea that F1 in 2014 will be trying to get across to people.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Routes for the teams to work on to increase performance that are allowed by the rules.

If the cars go faster the rules get tighter. Simples.

[höller]

I just don't think that the rules will allow it. Testing of any new vehicles is not allowed out of season.

Maybe Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Lotus and Renault can wheel out some of their 80s cars in 2013 ?

It wouldn´t be testing imo as the car should be launched during a F1 weekend in free practice. The time would be official.

Btw you lead me to an idea: Why not a support race with the vintage turbo cars as it´s done successfully in Le Mans on Saturday?


Concerning BMW maybe could this be a point?

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/09/b...engine-design/

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

It wouldn´t be testing imo as the car should be launched during a F1 weekend in free practice. The time would be official.

It's just not allowed under current regs. It could change, but probably not.

Originally Posted by höller

Btw you lead me to an idea: Why not a support race with the vintage turbo cars as it´s done successfully in Le Mans on Saturday?

That would be good, but transport costs might get in the way for some of those guys that run those cars.

Originally Posted by höller

Concerning BMW maybe could this be a point?

Yes, it's possible that BMW could come back into F1 if it starts to market a V6 road engined car.

But it's not really the petrol engine configuration that should be attracting the car manufacturers. It should be the opportunity to show that they can make a comparable petrol engine (or any other type of fossil fuel engine) to another manufacturer run faster and more efficiently by using its regenerative technologies.