[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It looks like there is going to be a new type of power unit in F1 from 2021 but as yet we do not know what it will be.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/128744

The sooner the better, light simple and powerful with no fuel constraints would be very good!

[mikuni]

It seems a strange thing to agree on. Yes it sounds like a perfect solution for all, but how do you create something that ticks all of those boxes? The first says a tech base with road relevance - that is a small capacity hybrid turbo. That's the only directly road cars are going, if not all electric. How could a larger capacity, high revving NA engine be at all relevant? I'd almost consider that a backwards step.

Maybe the answer is just scaling back the current engines a little. I don't know how that would cut costs or make it simpler. I was watching videos of the old MP4-4 this evening and that thing sounds good. That's all they need - why do the current engines have to sound so strangled (rhetorical question - I realise it's due to efficiency).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by mikuni

It seems a strange thing to agree on. Yes it sounds like a perfect solution for all, but how do you create something that ticks all of those boxes? The first says a tech base with road relevance - that is a small capacity hybrid turbo. That's the only directly road cars are going, if not all electric. How could a larger capacity, high revving NA engine be at all relevant? I'd almost consider that a backwards step.

Maybe the answer is just scaling back the current engines a little. I don't know how that would cut costs or make it simpler. I was watching videos of the old MP4-4 this evening and that thing sounds good. That's all they need - why do the current engines have to sound so strangled (rhetorical question - I realise it's due to efficiency).

I am also a bit skeptical. However, it sounds like this is the beginning of the negotiations and at this point it's easy for everyone to agree to broad goals. The devil is in the details! To a degree it's not far off from the goals that created the current solution (road relevancy, etc.). The main difference is reduced cost, noise and (reading between the lines) less fuel restrictions. Not particularly bad goals.

What I find puzzling is where is Ross in this discussion? While there is a great deal of discussion left, I tend to think they should be designing the next set of technical regulations as a combined package.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

There has to be a trade off regarding Road relevance. We all agree that that proposed format is not relevant to Road cars, but it's not like the rest of the cars currently are? When can I buy a Renault Clio with a front wing like the F1 car? You can't even have open wheeled cars on the road in the UK. Maybe Road relevance isn't all its cracked up to be.

[F1Guy]

Looks like 1200+HP V6 twin turbo engines are on their way from 2021!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Looks like 1200+HP V6 twin turbo engines are on their way from 2021!

And you come to that conclusion from the single exploratory meeting that took place only last week?

[chillibowl]

seeing the same thing being mentioned by Tobi Gruner (who does seem fairly reliable but who knows in this day and age) via social media...of course he could also just be speculating, click baiting or just commenting on what one party's agenda is for the upcoming negotiations.

his linked article is a german publication and using google translate didnt really help to clear up for me how much was fact vs opinion.

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/849180174209826816

[Sodemo]

If they intend on sticking to the turbo engines, one thing i'd like to see is anti-lag with the associated "pops and bangs".

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If they intend on sticking to the turbo engines, one thing i'd like to see is anti-lag with the associated "pops and bangs".

But isn't anti-lag just forcing fuel into the turbo to keep it spun up? That'd be 'wasting' fuel which they'll never have now days.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

seeing the same thing being mentioned by Tobi Gruner (who does seem fairly reliable but who knows in this day and age) via social media...of course he could also just be speculating, click baiting or just commenting on what one party's agenda is for the upcoming negotiations.

his linked article is a german publication and using google translate didnt really help to clear up for me how much was fact vs opinion.

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/849180174209826816

Here is the article from the tweet...

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/f...-11955986.html

I can't speak to the quality of the Google translation, but it seems a mixture of facts (direct quotes and lists of those who were involved in the meeting) and opinions (technical direction).

It is good that Ross was part of this discussion (I think he was quoted in the article). I find the comment interesting about how teams may not be setup to handle really high HP engines, so that one option is to keep power limited to what we roughly see today, but with lighter cars instead. I am a bit worried about the push for power without that being a solution for some other goal (i.e. quality of racing). I generally dislike the "we just need them to be faster" sentiment.

My speculation on the future...

* Teams are not particularly interested in radical differences than what we have today. Such as keeping a basic v6 turbo format would be attractive. I wouldn't count out a return to a v8. But don't count on something like a modern NA BRM V16 (as cool as that might be)!
* Engine manufacturers would like to have some road relevance, so again, something like a low displacement turbo fits more inline with what is going on today. But at the same time they are not locked into total road relevance because... what will be going on in 2021? Probably less and less focus on ICE cars. So if we want to keep ICE in F1, road relevance will have to be less and less of a factor.
* Cost reduction by overall system simplification. Hence the suggestion of ditching MGU-H system and only using MGU-K (odd that the article talks about front axle regeneration only, given it is rear axle today and I think rear axle setup is probably easier to do?)
* Less or maybe full abandonment of "instantaneous" fuel flow restrictions. Maybe even a healthy allocation for race distance fuel level. All of this to remove the need for lift and coast and extensive fuel management. Teams may still run fuel levels low and have to manage pace at the ends of the race, but the decision will be up to the teams. This alone may help with the "noise" side of things. More fuel being burnt outside of the combustion chambers?
* No opinions on refueling during race or not.
* High efficiency engines and current concepts that allow for that (such as TJI) will likely remain in place because the flip side of low consumption via high efficiency is higher power for a lesser amount of fuel used and stored on the car. They can't unlearn what they have learned with respect to increased thermal efficiency. There is the potential for something like TJI to be banned however. Even if by 2021, it should be well understood within F1, but the question is will it just be an expensive item that everyone has, but is hidden away from the viewer? And will we see TJI in production road cars or will manufactures spend development resources elsewhere (electrics). So all of this is arguments to ban TJI. An interesting, complex and expensive innovation for a dying technology.
* Exhaust layout that allows for more noise. A combo of removing MGU-H from the exhaust path and less restrictive fuel consumption requirements may allow for a return of noisier engines.
* No token system
* Maybe even a relaxing of the number of power units per season. This can be seen as a way to prevent the Honda situation for someone new entering the series and allow teams to do more mid season development (at the expense of some extra costs)

All of the above allows current manufactures to utilize what they have learned with the current spec, and at the same time reduce cost, put less restrictions on the drivers and make it easier for other manufactures to join in via lower cost of initial development.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am a bit worried about the push for power without that being a solution for some other goal (i.e. quality of racing). I generally dislike the "we just need them to be faster" sentiment.

Agreed.


Also as you say anything that reduces efficiency increases the amount of fuel weight and/or lift and coasting needed in a non refuel scenario. Which is the opposite of what we need.

If the choice would be between:

a) more noise and lower cost through a removal of the MGU-H, but more fuel weight and lift and coasting due to reduced fuel efficiency

b) the current noise levels, but reduced cost through a standardized MGU-H.


my personal preference would be b). But I could fully accept option a) as a good option.


Personally I find it extremely low tech and inefficient to push these extremely draggy cars down the straights. If we wanna reduce the fuel weight having flexible aero would be a good thing to explore when looking at future regulations to both reduce fuel weight and lift and coasting, reduce laptimes and give the aero guys something to do when aero is more simplified/made less fragile in the future in order to let cars follow each other.

[Greem]

Some good points being made in the latter parts of this thread.

I keep reading them and seeing three worlds described:

1. Not dissimilar to what went before
2. Not dissimilar to what we have now
3. Radically different from anything that's gone before

If F1 is to keep hold of the special place it's clinging onto as the 'pinnacle' of motorsport, option 3 is the only feasible way forward. Some massive step similar to the appearance of the German aero-engined cars in the 30s, or stressed member engines in the 60s, or ground effect aero, or the acceptance of massively overboosted turbo motors. We haven't had a step change like that for some years although that's partly down to regulation keeping the engineers in check.

The biggest problem for Messrs Carey and Brawn is to get option 3 in full flow before the 'competition' does, without alienating the incumbents, and without making F1 totally inaccessible to the watching public. What a balancing act that's going to be!

When I say 'competition', I mean the number of series that are growing in popularity - maybe not here, mind! - while F1's popularity wanes. Endurance racing is on the up even if it is still a small niche, electric racing is here to stay whether you/we like it or not, and then there's all the other sports and pastimes competing for attention.

We live in interesting times, that's for sure.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

High efficiency engines and current concepts that allow for that (such as TJI) will likely remain in place because the flip side of low consumption via high efficiency is higher power for a lesser amount of fuel used and stored on the car. They can't unlearn what they have learned with respect to increased thermal efficiency. There is the potential for something like TJI to be banned however. Even if by 2021, it should be well understood within F1, but the question is will it just be an expensive item that everyone has, but is hidden away from the viewer? And will we see TJI in production road cars or will manufactures spend development resources elsewhere (electrics). So all of this is arguments to ban TJI. An interesting, complex and expensive innovation for a dying technology.

when it comes to road relevance im a bit dumbfounded that they do not talk more about the gains they have made in thermal efficiency in the current generation of engines and why is this a path they would be willing to walk away from with the next generation of f1 engines.

i may be off base with this, but if this is something they can bring to road cars then that is something that could have a truly transfromative effect on modern society via a massive decrease in consumption which could in effect kill off demand for electric or at the least stave off conversion towards it for a generation or two. as Greem alludes too, wouldnt this be a similar massive step forward?

i can only suspect that the costs of filtering this tech down is far far too expensive (or even too late in the game) and ultimately its cheaper for road car companies to move towards cheaper hybrid solutions and/or all electric.

but if thats the case why are they even bothering with an ICE aspect at all?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

If F1 is to keep hold of the special place it's clinging onto as the 'pinnacle' of motorsport

Sorry for a very selective quote, but it did trigger a thought. And this is a topic well travelled here on this forum. It boils down to "What is F1?" Things like high technology, best racing, best drivers, is it sport, show or both, etc. all get tossed around.

While the current power unit spec results in quite high tech to be competitive, the next spec may not be that way. The same goes for the chassis. It used to be that something like F1 was the place you saw technology born that eventually shows up in road cars. Today road cars have technology that is not allowed in F1.

I think F1 might be about to switch off the gold standard. We have been sneaking up on this for a long time. It will no longer be the "pinnacle" by objective measure, but rather will be an "artificial pinnacle" (such as "paper money"). It will be the top (have value) because we say it is the top (because we treat it as if it has value). Accepting that definition would allow it to continue to pull the best drivers, sponsorship money, etc. even if objectively it is not the best it could be (at least on the technical side of things). And this problem applies to other "top level" series as well. The realities and economics apply to them as well. The only exception might be Formula E, but it's too early to say and the spec nature of that currently excludes it from being an objective pinnacle IMHO.

So as much as I would personally like it, I just don't see your option #3 happening in the near future.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

when it comes to road relevance im a bit dumbfounded that they do not talk more about the gains they have made in thermal efficiency in the current generation of engines and why is this a path they would be willing to walk away from with the next generation of f1 engines.

As I mention on the prior page, I think they will walk away from "some" of it for the sake of improving the show and reducing cost. Otherwise, I expect they are very proud of the technological accomplishments with respect to the efficiency gains. I think at this point it is sort of "Been there, done that". Mercedes won that battle.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i may be off base with this, but if this is something they can bring to road cars then that is something that could have a truly transfromative effect on modern society via a massive decrease in consumption which could in effect kill off demand for electric or at the least stave off conversion towards it for a generation or two. as Greem alludes too, wouldnt this be a similar massive step forward?

i can only suspect that the costs of filtering this tech down is far far too expensive (or even too late in the game) and ultimately its cheaper for road car companies to move towards cheaper hybrid solutions and/or all electric.

but if thats the case why are they even bothering with an ICE aspect at all?

Time will tell but my current thinking is along the lines you say above about "too late in the game". Which is why I made the comment about improvements to a dying technology. I am not an economist, but I believe in the concept that something such as fossil fuels will NEVER reach its development end before it is replaced. There will always be some room left for improvements, but they will be harder and harder to achieve. That when you start to experience diminishing returns, that changes the economics enough that the "next thing" starts to become economical. So electric cars today is expensive but we are at that point where the cost of overcoming the detrimental impacts of fossil fuels (environmental concerns being the largest and a finite supply being the other) is driving the future. The "up and to the right" curve of fossil fuels is crossing (or about to cross) the "down and to the right" curve of renewable energy.

An example of diminishing returns might be TJI technology. It is my understanding that TJI is such a complex technology that it may never show up in road cars. That the cost side may never drop low enough to make it work in mass produced and lower end cars to make it worth further development. Who wants to dump cash into perfecting a technology that may have a very short lifespan? I may be wrong about TJI (and I expect Mahle would say I am wrong given they clearly developed it with the idea of selling it on a larger scale). But if it is not TJI, it will be something else that is maybe yet to be invented.

The quantity of road relevant ICE (and chassis) development that may come out of F1 in the future is likely very slim. Of course all of this depends upon when the tipping point (that intersection of curves) between fossil fuel and renewable energy happens. And we are likely to only really know for sure "when" it happens after it has passed, in the rear view mirror and no longer debatable. I fully expect it to be within my lifetime and likely within the next 20 years (if not much sooner).

Richard

[chillibowl]

well explained Richard!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think F1 might be about to switch off the gold standard.

TBH, I think that's happened already. The world is comfortably moving away from noisy, polluting, internal combustion engines with limited efficiency to... well, somewhere else.

It'll take some time - two or three generations, maybe? - but when I look at my immediate family, running back from myself I only have two direct ancestors (my dad and grandad) before I reach a point where the car *did not exist*. I appreciate that I'm in my late 40s and my grandad was fairly old by the standards of the 1940s when my dad was born, but still... three generations.

In three more generations, with the incessant acceleration of technological development, who knows where we'll be?

If the Liberty folks have their eyes on the ball, they need to be thinking two generations out at the very least. This type of investment is a long game, or it fails.

[wnut]

TJI (Turbulent Jet Ignition) quick summary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHJWPFoE5uY

I see no reason TJI would not be adopted in road cars, all the injectors and electronic controls necessary are already available and as we see Mercedes have been running it since the inception of the "hybrid" era.
Looks like they have been having one over on the rest of the field, the performance gain is in the ICE and NOT in the eye wateringly complex and expensive hybrid recovery systems!

[JABWOA]

Originally Posted by Greem

If the Liberty folks have their eyes on the ball, they need to be thinking two generations out at the very least. This type of investment is a long game, or it fails.

I think they do, which to hardened, loyal fans such as us, will mean they will do terrible things to our sport. Mr E will turn in his grave (surely he's got a nice plot already put aside.)

[dsg]

Originally Posted by wnut

Looks like they have been having one over on the rest of the field, the performance gain is in the ICE and NOT in the eye wateringly complex and expensive hybrid recovery systems!

Do you think this is because the hybrid recovery system is too tightly controlled by FIA? If the teams were allowed more freedom, (such as in WEC) would teams be able to achieve performance gains in these other areas?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by dsg

Do you think this is because the hybrid recovery system is too tightly controlled by FIA? If the teams were allowed more freedom, (such as in WEC) would teams be able to achieve performance gains in these other areas?

Pretty much dsg, the maximum power has been set, so the only real development avenue is to make it lighter, and then the axle weights are set.
I think that the whole system was just inserted into F1 as a marketing gimmick, and to exclude outside suppliers like Cosworth, WEC has them so we must too, the WEC version is a way better method of introducing KERS type systems.

Knighty also had a good point in one of his posts that trying to recover energy from a turbo is just daft.

[GasperG]

Here is a nice article why it will be difficult to overtake and why we will see some dull racing:
https://drivetribe.com/p/auZby7jDQhu...S1q_tlPfldCSgQ

IMO, going with higher downforce and higher cornering speed this is inevitable. In the WEC they always wan't to rob prototypes of cornering speed, because of GTE traffic, this IMO has made racing more interesting.

[F1Guy]

'T' wings to be banned before next race? Hope so.
They're becoming ridiculously big and ugly. The one on the McLarens reminds me of an radar detector.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

'T' wings to be banned before next race? Hope so.
They're becoming ridiculously big and ugly. The one on the McLarens reminds me of an radar detector.

Maybe it is? Otherwise, it doesn't look like RBR are running a T-Wing today.

[bjohnsonsmith]

That's Verstappen out with brake failure, very unexpected.

[bjohnsonsmith]

It's the first FCY as it looks like Sainz and Stroll came together and Vettel has got the lead, as Mercedes pit and Hamilton has a rather long pit stop.