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

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There is little point in comparing the performance of a 'Hyper car' with an F1 car.

There is no point comparing either car with top fuel dragster cars either.

No, but if people are going to do it they might as well get their facts right.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Er, not even close.

F1 car (2006 Renault) did 0-300kmh (186mph) in 8.6s

Fastest accelerating road car over a quarter mile got to 159.2 mph (256.2 km/h) in 8.4 sec.

Not sure where you get the idea that F1 cars are slow accelerating compared to modern road car.

They do have a lower top speed of course, but most people have to go round corners at some point.

My apologies I'm being a retard

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

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.

Divergent governance and not mandating cars to converge doesn't mean there would be no rules. I never proposed nor advocated a revitalized Formula Libre.
In fact, Richard James pointed out correctly that with a totally unregulated series cars would most likely to converge.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Divergent governance and not mandating cars to converge doesn't mean there would be no rules. I never proposed nor advocated a revitalized Formula Libre.
In fact, Richard James pointed out correctly that with a totally unregulated series cars would most likely to converge.

Richard James:

"However, what if one dot had a higher top
speed but the other dot possessed the higher cornering speed?"

"For example, at the most elementary level, the framework of governance must allow a talented designer the opportunity to build the quickest car in a straight line or the quickest car around a bend, but no car must be capable of being the quickest at both, even if the overall lap times of several cars are identical."

No decent F1 designer is going to think that he's designed a good car unless it can do both. They will not design a car that is purposely inferior to another in a specific area. It would break their hearts!

It also reeks of artificiality. And how will anyone ensure that equality between speed and cornering ability is 'fair'? Particularly as performance will vary between the teams anyway.

So, even from trying to address the first of the 'four problems', it falls flat on its face.

What if everyone builds a car that just goes fast in a straight line because the engineers, they being very clever people, figured out early on that over the majority of the circuits a fast car will be the best solution? Result lots of very fast cars in a straight line that are not so fast around corners.

His solution to 'Mechanical homogeny' is also somewhat 'wooly'.

But the real problem that divergent governance has with F1 is that it doesn't factor in that Ferrari must 'always' be somewhere up at the front.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Richard James:

"However, what if one dot had a higher top
speed but the other dot possessed the higher cornering speed?"

"For example, at the most elementary level, the framework of governance must allow a talented designer the opportunity to build the quickest car in a straight line or the quickest car around a bend, but no car must be capable of being the quickest at both, even if the overall lap times of several cars are identical."

No decent F1 designer is going to think that he's designed a good car unless it can do both. They will not design a car that is purposely inferior to another in a specific area. It would break their hearts!

Whereas teams always lack resources, cars will divergent if regulations do not provide an absolute point of perfection. In fact, the above imply there would be an absolute point of perfection.

It also reeks of artificiality. And how will anyone ensure that equality between speed and cornering ability is 'fair'? Particularly as performance will vary between the teams anyway.

There is a very simple solution for that: not allowing an absolute point of perfection to be created.

What if everyone builds a car that just goes fast in a straight line because the engineers, they being very clever people, figured out early on that over the majority of the circuits a fast car will be the best solution? Result lots of very fast cars in a straight line that are not so fast around corners.

Here is the footing of divergence government. If all teams would choose the same solution they would either be reducing their chances of winning or aiming at the then-existing absolute point of perfection.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Whereas teams always lack resources, cars will divergent if regulations do not provide an absolute point of perfection. In fact, the above imply there would be an absolute point of perfection.

How on earth can you ensure that one or more of the technologies allowed does not provide a loophole/point of perfection that means all of the cars will be built the same way?

Or do you suggest that if a loophole/point of perfection is found (and there will be one) that the rules are changed again and again? Sound familiar?

And would Ferrari, for example, use an electric motor to power its car if it thought that was the best solution to use? Would Renault build a V12 petrol engine if it thought that was the best solution? Given their current marketing strategies, no they would not. Neither one would be in F1 if the rules didn't provide them with a reason for being there. So what do you do? That's right! compromise. V6 petrol engines with electrical assistance.

And to quote Martin Whitmarsh, again: "Nothing frightens off manufacturers more than there being too much variety". I guess he would know.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

There is a very simple solution for that: not allowing an absolute point of perfection to be created.

How would you ensure that does happen? Give examples. In fact, give a typical scenario as to what could happen in F1 if divergent governance were to be taken up in 2013.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Here is the footing of divergence government. If all teams would choose the same solution they would either be reducing their chances of winning or aiming at the then-existing absolute point of perfection.

If they choose the same solution it's because there is only one solution because designers are cleverer than rule makers, however clever they think that their rules may be.

If you have rules, any rules, however clever, you'll always have people who will find ways around them.

[höller]

Here are some pictures of the Alfa Romeo V8 CART engine, with a configuration that could come close to what we will see from 2014 onwards (with a V6 of course):

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...10794&start=60


As the turbine shaft angle was mentioned, as obviously the turbo shaft has to be also 90° to the engine, for what reason this rule was enforced??? Why the turbine shaft angle is not free to choose for the teams?

[Marbot]

Could be something like that.

Except: 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.

Maybe there are configurations that teams could use that would not be practical for any other applications except F1? Maybe the FIA just want to rule out as many loopholes as possible before someone spends too much on something that might get protested and then banned?

[höller]

Possible, but I cannot imagine any reason why the angle should be protested? As F1 obviously is taking over the former IndyCar engine configuration (and IndyCar taking over the former F1 configuration ) remember the Indy V 8 turbos had the common shaft angle between 45 like the Alfa Romeo or 90 degrees to the engine block as it revealed to be the best solution for the pressure admission. And if it is the best solution everybody would use it. If you are searching an answer for the question of this thread you will have to say "yes" facing this rule imo.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

If you are searching an answer for the question of this thread you will have to say "yes" facing this rule imo.

But then you would have to ask: 'Is it restrictive for a reason?'

[Marbot]

Mercedes are ready to test their new 2014 engine (which also kind of kills off any Honda/McLaren rumours).

A couple of paragraphs to explain why the engines won't sound so bad and the reasons for the technical regulations.

Mercedes-Benz engineering director Andy Cowell said: "The engines are high revving. You don't get the maximum fuel flow rate until you are above 10,500rpm, and the maximum revs are at 15,000rpm. Plus, with six pipes going into one turbocharger, a single tail pipe from six cylinders revving at 15,000rpm I think will sound very nice."

...................................................................................

Thomas Fuhr, managing director of Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines, said: "The biggest achievement with this, irrespective of a physical RRA, was to get sensible technical regulations.

"The FIA, together with the manufacturers, did a great job. A lot of things are pre-defined, so you don't spend money developing it - you know there is a single turbo, so it makes things much, much easier. That is the biggest benefit out of these regulations.

"If you control it technically, it is much easier saying you can control it here and there. You see on the chassis front how complicated it has got. The FIA has it in hand with the engines, and there is no way you can go around this topic."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96694

[MJones94]

"For example, at the most elementary level, the framework of governance must allow a talented designer the opportunity to build the quickest car in a straight line or the quickest car around a bend, but no car must be capable of being the quickest at both, even if the overall lap times of several cars are identical."

That's why I wish they would allow the engine regs to be less restrictive. There was an interesting dimension in the late V10 era in which there was a definite power group in the shape of BMW,Mercedes and Honda and then a handling group, Renault, Ferrari. Now think of since we have had v8s, due to the regs being more restrictive we have seen a decrease in an advantage of engine performance and more dependence on aerodynamic efficiency. The Renault engine is the most tractable of the engines, but the least powerful whereas the Mercedes is the most powerful, but not by the margin that we saw in the early 2000s.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by MJones94

That's why I wish they would allow the engine regs to be less restrictive. There was an interesting dimension in the late V10 era in which there was a definite power group in the shape of BMW,Mercedes and Honda and then a handling group, Renault, Ferrari. Now think of since we have had v8s, due to the regs being more restrictive we have seen a decrease in an advantage of engine performance and more dependence on aerodynamic efficiency. The Renault engine is the most tractable of the engines, but the least powerful whereas the Mercedes is the most powerful, but not by the margin that we saw in the early 2000s.

Back before the V8 engines were introduced, the budget for engine R&D plus building and maintainance was 50% of total budget, and the total budgets were much much larger back then!

There are many more relevant and cost effective ways to differentiate the performance of F1 cars.

[MJones94]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Back before the V8 engines were introduced, the budget for engine R&D plus building and maintainance was 50% of total budget, and the total budgets were much much larger back then!

There are many more relevant and cost effective ways to differentiate the performance of F1 cars.

Oh I didn't realise that. That is some kind of a percentage! Mind you the engines are the most interesting element and one that most can understand as supposed to intricate suspension geometry.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There are many more relevant and cost effective ways to differentiate the performance of F1 cars.

How exactly is aero more relevant than engine development?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

How exactly is aero more relevant than engine development?

I'm not in favour of aero development either. Take all the wings off, as far as I'm concerned!

But if F1 cars didn't have aero, then they wouldn't be particularly quick around your typical F1 circuit, regardless of the amount of horse power that you have. It seems to have become a necessary evil. In order for F1 to remain at the pinnacle of motor sports, it should also be quicker than other motor sports, according to some. It's not something that I think is necessary in order for F1 to be at the pinnacle of motor sport. F1 should be about building the quickest car that conforms to a certain set of regulations, and that's all. It's the unwritten rule that F1 cars should always be faster than other types of sports cars that's causing the problem.

[MJones94]

I feel like a simpleton when it comes to mechanical terms but I have a few questions that I hope people on this thread will be able to answer.

Is the 15000 rev limit going to be the maximum or the foundation and then teams can raise the limit throughout the season?
Also do we reckon there will be the opportunity to increase the power output with the new regulations?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by MJones94

I feel like a simpleton when it comes to mechanical terms but I have a few questions that I hope people on this thread will be able to answer.

No one knows everything.

Originally Posted by MJones94

Is the 15000 rev limit going to be the maximum or the foundation and then teams can raise the limit throughout the season?

The 15,000 rpm limit will be the maximum throughout the season. It may change from season to season, but that's something in the future.

Originally Posted by MJones94

Also do we reckon there will be the opportunity to increase the power output with the new regulations?

The engines will be allowed to produce at much bhp as they possibly can within the regulations, but they will have around 30 to 40% less fuel than they have currently on which to complete a race distance in 2014. So there is no power limit as such, but there is a fuel load limit.

[browney]

The low fuel limit has been blamed for a lot of the problems with the competitiveness of MotoGP. Are we going to see the same thing in F1?

Low fuel limit racing doesn't seem to produce a great result, with the emphasis on saving fuel rather than driving hard and overtaking (no sliding on the bikes, etc).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by browney

The low fuel limit has been blamed for a lot of the problems with the competitiveness of MotoGP. Are we going to see the same thing in F1?

I don't think it has been blamed for that. The cost of competing with the top teams takes most of the blame, which is why MotoGP is adopting the CRT (Claiming Rules Teams) rules from 2012 0n. Without the CRT rules, MotoGP would have been looking at a 12 bike grid!

Originally Posted by browney

Low fuel limit racing doesn't seem to produce a great result, with the emphasis on saving fuel rather than driving hard and overtaking (no sliding on the bikes, etc).

There was a fuel limit when MotoGP bikes were "sliding". You can blame the recent adoption of technologies such as traction control for any lack of that.

[juicy sushi]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

How exactly is aero more relevant than engine development?

It isn't, but the FIA could get the manufacturers together for a compromise on this. They couldn't with aerodynamics, although they did try (with the low-drag, ground effect proposal).

Red Bull would be a very strong opponent to any attempt at cutting back on the importance of aerodynamics. That's their only competitive advantage.