|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Nov 2017, 14:42 (Ref:3778362) | #2376 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Could it be that the reason the larger players are complaining is because... it may not benefit them as much as it might the smaller fish? And ANY change to the spec (which will happen) will result in some level of additional cost. And given that the specifications seem to be to move to simpler solutions... I take some of the complaints with a grain of salt. Lastly... lots of complaints, what solutions are they offering up on their own?
Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
3 Nov 2017, 16:17 (Ref:3778375) | #2377 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,177
|
Quote:
"Renault's proposal for six months now has been to keep the current engine but waiving any restriction in terms of fuel quantity, plus moving the fuel flow limitation and also the rev limit," added Abiteboul. "The great thing about that proposal is you could do that without having to wait until 2021. "The world is changing quickly; by 2022, a number of car makers will have moved to something that's more electrified than today, so I think the timing to decide now what we want for the period 2021 to 2026 is maybe not appropriate." https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...risk-arms-race |
||
|
3 Nov 2017, 17:51 (Ref:3778394) | #2378 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 270
|
It's Possible by 2021 formula-e may have overtaken f1 in terms of interest to Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault and they all may indeed quit
|
|
|
3 Nov 2017, 17:56 (Ref:3778395) | #2379 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,189
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Nov 2017, 19:26 (Ref:3778400) | #2380 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,339
|
|||
|
3 Nov 2017, 19:49 (Ref:3778403) | #2381 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,189
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Nov 2017, 20:07 (Ref:3778405) | #2382 | |||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
3 Nov 2017, 20:55 (Ref:3778417) | #2383 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
My understanding is that much of these engines are very much optimized to generate as much power as they can given the constraints such as current maximum fuel flow limits, displacement and other key factors in the technical regulation. This generates side effects. Such as the engines tending to run below the maximum RPM limits because to run higher RPMs (and to make efficient power) you actually need a higher fuel flow rate than what is allowed. Additionally, I expect things like turbines and the entire ERS-H system is sized based upon the expected maximum flow through the engine. I think some of the combustion concepts "might" be optimized for the current RPM range. Substantially increasing the flow rates (which will also push up the RPM range actually used) should result a number of changes to the engine. Particularly with anything related to moving gases in and out of the engine... which is quite a lot of stuff. So... could you take the current engines and just increase flow rate and RPM. I am sure you could. Would it be an optimal solution given the new higher flow rate? I expect not. Would a manufacturer that does reengineer the solution for the new higher flow rate create a better solution? I expect so. And given how Mercedes has proven that showing up with an optimal solution is the way to win, who in their right mind would try to use the current solution without reworking it? Any new spec that has substantial changes (and I can't see the new spec not having substantial changes given what the fans are looking for) will trigger a new arms race. Is that not competition? Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
3 Nov 2017, 21:05 (Ref:3778419) | #2384 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,339
|
Quote:
But - is it just opening up flow rate, or are we also talking about certain elements having to meet current specification, and is total fuel capacity proposed to change? |
|||
|
3 Nov 2017, 22:09 (Ref:3778425) | #2385 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 270
|
||
|
3 Nov 2017, 23:40 (Ref:3778436) | #2386 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
While much of the engine spec is tightly controlled, there is still plenty of room for unique solutions (such as differences between the current manufacturers) within the current technical specifications. So I am saying his "simple" solutions would trigger significant work if you expect to be competitive. Tank increase alone is not inconsequential. Think of the existing tight packaging, increase in car weight, etc. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 Nov 2017, 00:26 (Ref:3778440) | #2387 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Nov 2017, 08:27 (Ref:3778490) | #2388 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,164
|
My understanding is that the engines can already rev higher than they do, but the drivers / teams choose not to because it wouldn't benefit them in terms of power band or fuel usage.
|
||
|
4 Nov 2017, 08:32 (Ref:3778492) | #2389 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,651
|
Isn't there talk of raising the engine speed limit by 3000 RPM? Despite the flow modifications that will be required for this the engines will need significant physical strengthening in order to hold together. The forces within the engine will increase dramatically!
|
||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
4 Nov 2017, 10:44 (Ref:3778507) | #2390 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Nov 2017, 11:51 (Ref:3778513) | #2391 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
I am also curious how much of this proposal has its roots in Ross Brawn's technical team? Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 Nov 2017, 20:11 (Ref:3778598) | #2392 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,467
|
Why is it surprising that hybrid stuff takes a lot of development? There has been huge development of the engines over the last hundred or so years. The base technology in some the hybrid systems has been around as long, if not longer, but not developed to the wonderful extreme that the internal combustion engine has.
Good init?! |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Nov 2017, 20:36 (Ref:3778606) | #2393 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 809
|
I may be a contrarian,but I fail to see the point of higher revving engines making more noise and burning more fuel.It gets even more bizarre if they further restrict the number of engines per season.By limiting the number of engines,it is essential to do yet more dyno testing to reduce the risk of failure or grid penalties and it also means that in season developments are much more widely spread as the engines are brought into use.
Can't Ross Brawn and his sidekicks do something a bit more creative?Perhaps losing DRS or if you are willing to permit moveable aerodynamic features why not allow a spec computer to run active suspension?It could mean eliminating the increasingly complex front wings and bargeboards that are now prevalent. |
|
|
4 Nov 2017, 21:03 (Ref:3778616) | #2394 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,189
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
4 Nov 2017, 21:55 (Ref:3778627) | #2395 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
Regarding the active suspension idea, I championed something like that as well previously. Spec computer (to set level playing field for compute power), plus limit number of actuators and sensors. Should be a way to both level the playing field and reduce costs. However, I can imagine teams would be against it as they have legacy knowledge on how to optimize complex mechanical systems. It would invalidate the advantages enjoyed by the rich teams. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 Nov 2017, 22:10 (Ref:3778628) | #2396 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,189
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
5 Nov 2017, 02:56 (Ref:3778698) | #2397 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
5 Nov 2017, 07:03 (Ref:3778737) | #2398 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Here's an idea from left field....what about slick tyres,a DFV engine and a wing on the front and the back?...
|
||
|
5 Nov 2017, 10:38 (Ref:3778775) | #2399 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
So the manufacturers want to increase weight even further by keeping the MGU-H and increasing the fuel allowance... .
Increasing the rpm while keeping the MGU-H will not nearly as much increase the sound as removing MGU-H altogether, let alone combining it with an increase in rpm. Furthermore the engines would get too powerful. By 2020 the cars would perhaps go too fast even; the aero improvement, plus efficiency improvement plus greater fuel allowance would result in a further massive performance increase. I fear it would get too much. I think Brawn's proposal makes sense. Unless the manufacturers come up with better ways to improve the sound while keeping the MGU-H which doesn't seem likely given the basic physics behind it. |
|
|
5 Nov 2017, 11:19 (Ref:3778787) | #2400 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,374
|
At least they are getting rid of the T wings next season. That's a start. Now if only they got rid of the other ugly winglets too, that would be even better
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |