planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:38 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Which type of engine do you prefer
Poll ended at Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:23 pm
Current V6 Hybrid 21%  21%  [ 15 ]
Previous V8 17%  17%  [ 12 ]
Whichever is the most powerful and/or makes the cars fastest 29%  29%  [ 21 ]
Whichever is noisiest and/or least fuel efficient 10%  10%  [ 7 ]
Whichever are most affordable for the non-factory teams 24%  24%  [ 17 ]
Total votes : 72
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 216
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I fear we may have different starting points! I'm saying that if we'd had unrestricted regulations years ago then the likelihood is that we'd never have had the MGU-H in the first place. We only have it because the rules enforced it. We'd more likely have had simpler technologies, and the likes of e.g. Honda wouldn't have spent years just trying to make their engines get to the end of a race

Regulations were never unrestricted

1950–1953
Engine specs set at 1500 cc maximum size for engines with a compressor (supercharger or turbocharger) or 4500 cc for normally aspirated engines. No weight limit.

Meaning single turbo never in the history of F1 has the suggested twin turbo solution that was suggested been allowed.

I'd guess these regs wouldn't allow the mgu k to power the driveshaft but the way the teams manage to get around grey areas in the rules they may even have been able to sneak the mgu k through as I doubt they were written in a way that this couldn't be done.

I'd have thought the mgu h would have been allowed in these rules (though may be wrong) even if the mgu k wasn't as it could be used to spool up the turbo for better range and less lag...

regulations never mandated a specific, untried technology before, either. Point is that the MGU-H is a direct product of FIA intervention: it's highly doubtful we'd have it as a result of natural evolution. Not yet, anyway, as not everyone is getting them right even though they are forced down that path.

Also I'd assume something along the lines of a motor spooling the turbo would have naturally appeared and having energy recovery to keep batteries charged to power it makes sense to keep weight down. F1 teams always like to find complicated untried ways to get an advantage, part of what I like about the sport!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
Well it looks like Ross is not going to be browbeaten by the teams...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41986411

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said. "It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."

Couldn't agree more.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20985
ALESI wrote:
Well it looks like Ross is not going to be browbeaten by the teams...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41986411

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said. "It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."

Couldn't agree more.

I also agree, wholeheartedly. But a bit further in the article there's this:

The engines must be:

- less expensive to develop and produce

- simpler

- road-relevant and hybrid

- have a better sound

- fitted with some standard parts

-used by a driver at its full potential all of the time


which I'm less sure about. I really don't get why those who run the sport insist that anything in F1 has to be road relevant. Why? What is the benefit to the racing? It's a ridiculous obsession that serves absolutely no purpose. same with having to be hybrid. Whatever for?

I'm also a bit hesitant about the standard parts bit. Manufacturers should be free to develop their own concepts, not be saddled with ones which may not suit their design philosophy. I want an engine in a Ferrari to be a Ferrari engine, not some lovely individual love child of different manufacturers.

Finally, "used by a driver at its full potential all of the time" seems diametrically opposed to the obsession with reducing the number of units every year. If you want an engine you can push constantly, then I don't see how you can expect it to last several races at the same time. There's bound to be some nursing involved the longer the expected shelf life of the unit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 216
Zoue wrote:
The engines must be:
-used by a driver at its full potential all of the time


Never going to happen, even in Brazil Ferrari didn't fill the fuel tank which will probably have meant summer fuel saving needed. This under fueling has occurred throughout F1 leading to drivers not pushing the engine all of the time as it's quicker over a race distance to do this...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2897
ALESI wrote:
Well it looks like Ross is not going to be browbeaten by the teams...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41986411

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said. "It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."

Couldn't agree more.


Exactly. That is how I feel about this 100%. It's not a racing engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1699
I have a backwards reason for not wanting stupid amounts of noise.

Firstly, it is wasted energy. To think unregulated teams wouldn't come up with some way to harvest this wasted energy is madness.

My main reason though is, I'm only 31. I want to be watching F1 when I'm 81. In the year 2067, petrol engines will be long gone and we'll have almost silent electrical engines or some other leap we've not dreamt up yet. A steady decrease in volume might make that silent more palatable to the 81 year old me, who will be much less mobile and have more spare time than 31 year old me during which he'd like to watch a lot of F1. Preferably 365 races a season thanks to genetically modified engineers and drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1582
Location: Miami, Florida
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The FIA made it a priority to raise the decibel levels as a solution and there's only one reason to seek solutions, and it's not for kicks and giggles.

Sure, because a vocal minority did what a vocal minority does best: convince people they're not a minority at all. It's the same reason we have an orange turd in the White House now instead of a real leader.

Now you're just talking NONSENSE. If that were the case (which is most certainly NOT) the top people within the sport wouldn't been calling for LOUDER ENGINES moving forward, and I'm not talking about the FIA. I hear caroline's is having an open-mic night soon.

I don't even think you believe that load of nonsense and just post to disagree with me. I mean the official press release announcing the proposed changes for 2021 even states that "THEY CAREFULLY LISTENED TO WHAT THE FANS THINK ABOUT THE CURRENT POWER UNITS".

You don't actually believe that the FIA would listen carefully to "a vocal minority" and implement changes to appease a select few, out of, oh, I dunno… literally several millions of fans? Do you?

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Last edited by F1 MERCENARY on Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1582
Location: Miami, Florida
RaggedMan wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
To you and everyone whining about loud noise, buy a pair of these and get on with it.

https://www.opticsplanet.com/walkers-ra ... -muff.html

The FIA made it a priority to raise the decibel levels as a solution and there's only one reason to seek solutions, and it's not for kicks and giggles.

To you and everyone whining about not enough noise, buy a couple of these and get on with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_trumpet

You act as if people were complaining about too much noise before and the regulations were changed to cater to that when that is far from the case.

The problem is that NO ONE knew what the new regulations and developments the teams were building around would produce. However, the minute they heard the new Units "roar" it became an issue. And in case anyone doesn't remember, Bernie Ecclestone made a significant stink about it, saying the new units sound terrible. Then it was Mallya come the first tests, and then again during races.

The biggest thing I think you guys are missing is the fact that I do like how the engines sound currently, but that doesn't mean they can't be louder to better communicate what the cars are doing. The experienced petrol head can gather far more information as to what the driver is doing and how the car is reacting to input, but that requires a certain decibel level that is not yet met by the current units. THEN ON TOP OF IT ALL, if you're states side, you've been contending with Leigh Diffey SHOUTING the entire damn time, and usually about nothing!

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Last edited by F1 MERCENARY on Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1582
Location: Miami, Florida
Ennis wrote:
I have a backwards reason for not wanting stupid amounts of noise.

Firstly, it is wasted energy. To think unregulated teams wouldn't come up with some way to harvest this wasted energy is madness.

My main reason though is, I'm only 31. I want to be watching F1 when I'm 81. In the year 2067, petrol engines will be long gone and we'll have almost silent electrical engines or some other leap we've not dreamt up yet. A steady decrease in volume might make that silent more palatable to the 81 year old me, who will be much less mobile and have more spare time than 31 year old me during which he'd like to watch a lot of F1. Preferably 365 races a season thanks to genetically modified engineers and drivers.

It's not wasted energy. Some things just produce sound. Nothing more, nothing less. The current Units are vastly louder than they were when they debuted in 2014 yet no more energy is being "wasted" in any capacity in order to create the sound. Just some modifications were made to increase volume whilst still improving the units year to year.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8889
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The engines must be:
-used by a driver at its full potential all of the time


Never going to happen, even in Brazil Ferrari didn't fill the fuel tank which will probably have meant summer fuel saving needed. This under fueling has occurred throughout F1 leading to drivers not pushing the engine all of the time as it's quicker over a race distance to do this...

This could be fixed by having a fixed fuel amount among the teams, but on the other hand it doesn't promote developing fuel efficient engines.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1531
Zoue wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well it looks like Ross is not going to be browbeaten by the teams...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41986411

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said. "It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."

Couldn't agree more.

I also agree, wholeheartedly. But a bit further in the article there's this:

The engines must be:

- less expensive to develop and produce

- simpler

- road-relevant and hybrid

- have a better sound

- fitted with some standard parts

-used by a driver at its full potential all of the time


which I'm less sure about. I really don't get why those who run the sport insist that anything in F1 has to be road relevant. Why? What is the benefit to the racing? It's a ridiculous obsession that serves absolutely no purpose. same with having to be hybrid. Whatever for?

I'm also a bit hesitant about the standard parts bit. Manufacturers should be free to develop their own concepts, not be saddled with ones which may not suit their design philosophy. I want an engine in a Ferrari to be a Ferrari engine, not some lovely individual love child of different manufacturers.

Finally, "used by a driver at its full potential all of the time" seems diametrically opposed to the obsession with reducing the number of units every year. If you want an engine you can push constantly, then I don't see how you can expect it to last several races at the same time. There's bound to be some nursing involved the longer the expected shelf life of the unit.


Ross seemed to be open to discussion with the teams about the various 'requirements'.

I'm pleased to see that he is emphasising that Liberty want a good RACE engine - ie. one that is designed to be good at the purpose of F1 racing.

Some of the teams pushed for the current engine for their own purposes outside of F1. I don't know if anyone has done research on whether the supposed 'road relevance' of the current engines can be proved to have been a suitably big factor in increasing sales of production cars? How much do the manufacturers just benefit from winning in F1 - or being in F1?

An F1 where there was exciting racing which entertained for most of the 2 or 3 hour program might make F1 a more attractive advertising platform and therefore Liberty could make more money because more companies would want to sponsor in F1?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9717
Location: Ireland
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MGU-Hs are not mandatory on the 1.6L V6s, but you don't see manufacturers running without them because they are the game changing element.

Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.

I find it a weird regulation to have in place if the part isn't mandatory. I would be of the belief that only mandatory components should have limits on the number used

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MGU-Hs are not mandatory on the 1.6L V6s, but you don't see manufacturers running without them because they are the game changing element.

Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.

I find it a weird regulation to have in place if the part isn't mandatory. I would be of the belief that only mandatory components should have limits on the number used

It's also not mandatory that they have KERS fitted, but they do because it makes them go faster.

It's a component allowed as part of the engine. If they decide to use it then they are allowed to use it within the limitations of the regulations.

Wings are mandatory in the design of the car, but if they do add a wing to the car it has to be within a certain dimension and subject to certain deflection tests. It's not exempt from regulation because it's not required.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9717
Location: Ireland
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MGU-Hs are not mandatory on the 1.6L V6s, but you don't see manufacturers running without them because they are the game changing element.

Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.

I find it a weird regulation to have in place if the part isn't mandatory. I would be of the belief that only mandatory components should have limits on the number used

It's also not mandatory that they have KERS fitted, but they do because it makes them go faster.

It's a component allowed as part of the engine. If they decide to use it then they are allowed to use it within the limitations of the regulations.

Wings are mandatory in the design of the car, but if they do add a wing to the car it has to be within a certain dimension and subject to certain deflection tests. It's not exempt from regulation because it's not required.

I never suggested that an optional component be exempt from regulation. I find that limits on the number of optional components to be used is odd. If running 0 optional components is allowed by the regulations, then running any number of optional components should be allowed by the regulations. If there's no minimum then there should be no maximum IMO

Limit the number of mandatory components no problem - ICE, gearbox, tyres, etc. And if you're going to put a maximum limit on the number of a particular optional component to be used - then make it a mandatory component

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8889
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

[color=#000057]How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.

I find it a weird regulation to have in place if the part isn't mandatory. I would be of the belief that only mandatory components should have limits on the number used

It's also not mandatory that they have KERS fitted, but they do because it makes them go faster.

It's a component allowed as part of the engine. If they decide to use it then they are allowed to use it within the limitations of the regulations.

Wings are mandatory in the design of the car, but if they do add a wing to the car it has to be within a certain dimension and subject to certain deflection tests. It's not exempt from regulation because it's not required.

I never suggested that an optional component be exempt from regulation. I find that limits on the number of optional components to be used is odd. If running 0 optional components is allowed by the regulations, then running any number of optional components should be allowed by the regulations. If there's no minimum then there should be no maximum IMO

Limit the number of mandatory components no problem - ICE, gearbox, tyres, etc. And if you're going to put a maximum limit on the number of a particular optional component to be used - then make it a mandatory component

I don't think it's mandatory they use a single drop of fuel during a race, so they should be able to use as much as they want? :D

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9717
Location: Ireland
Covalent wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.

I find it a weird regulation to have in place if the part isn't mandatory. I would be of the belief that only mandatory components should have limits on the number used

It's also not mandatory that they have KERS fitted, but they do because it makes them go faster.

It's a component allowed as part of the engine. If they decide to use it then they are allowed to use it within the limitations of the regulations.

Wings are mandatory in the design of the car, but if they do add a wing to the car it has to be within a certain dimension and subject to certain deflection tests. It's not exempt from regulation because it's not required.

I never suggested that an optional component be exempt from regulation. I find that limits on the number of optional components to be used is odd. If running 0 optional components is allowed by the regulations, then running any number of optional components should be allowed by the regulations. If there's no minimum then there should be no maximum IMO

Limit the number of mandatory components no problem - ICE, gearbox, tyres, etc. And if you're going to put a maximum limit on the number of a particular optional component to be used - then make it a mandatory component

I don't think it's mandatory they use a single drop of fuel during a race, so they should be able to use as much as they want? :D

There has to be a minimum sample!

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
kleefton wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your logic.

The engine manufacturers could elect to not put an MGU-H on their current engines if it was a hindrance to the engine design, just put a regular turbo on it. The fact is the MGU-H makes a huge difference to the performance of the engines. We have a Mercedes engine pushing out nearly 1,000bhp now, which means if you take away the 160 coming from the KERS, the MGU-H is making that engine significantly more powerful than the 2.4 V8s.

And that's with 2/3rds of the fuel and having to do 5 races on an engine.

Why wouldn't you put an MGU-H on the 2.4 V8? Or whatever engine design you went for?

mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MGU-Hs are not mandatory on the 1.6L V6s, but you don't see manufacturers running without them because they are the game changing element.

Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.


Sorry but what you are saying is completely new to me. From what I could gather the power unit's output basically comes from the ICE+turbo+160hp from the MGU-K. The Mgu-H is just there to harvest exhaust energy, convert it to electrical power and feed that power to the MGU-k, batteries, and spool the turbo. I've never heard that it delivers power to the driveshaft as well, which is what you are saying by referencing 200-250hp? I mean, the amount of electrical power that can be delivered to the driveshaft as per the regulations is limited to 160hp and only for 33 sec.
So what gives?

I'm not referring to the MGU-K, I am referring to the MGU-H which increases the power from the ICE. Forget about the 160 from KERS, I'm talking about the the power generated from the engine, and the levels they achieve are thanks to the MGU-H forcing in more air at the lower RPMs than a naturally aspirated or regular turbo engine can achieve.

When they first released the specs for the 1.6L engines,they said that a Turbo 1.6L engine running to the fuel flow limit would be able to achieve 600bhp, with the MGU-K taking it up to 760bhp -
meaning it would be 'roughly equivalent' to the 2.4L V8s in terms of power.

The fact is,we are 200bhp to 250bhp above that AND they started off above that 600bhp anyway. I think the Merc engine was around 700bhp from the ICE at the start of 2014, now they are around 800-850. This is because of the difference the MGU-H makes on the power output they are able to achieve from the ICE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7796
What we need is freedom for the teams to be different. There has to be some control of course, but why put a rigid template on it?
There is only a set amount of power available from a fixed or maximum volume of air and weight of fuel. Set that, and maybe some rule about nasty metals, and let them go. I do think though that the engine should be separate from the recovery and no recovered energy should be usable immediately. Other than that, I really dont care if the engine is steam 2stroke or atomic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
More common sense talk from Ross regarding solving the problem of grid penalties.

“If we go towards a different design of turbocharger, an homologated turbo, and it costs $2-3,000, why would you bother to even worry about limiting the number you use? It is not worth it in terms of the scale of the racing."

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Quick engine poll
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2897
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your logic.

The engine manufacturers could elect to not put an MGU-H on their current engines if it was a hindrance to the engine design, just put a regular turbo on it. The fact is the MGU-H makes a huge difference to the performance of the engines. We have a Mercedes engine pushing out nearly 1,000bhp now, which means if you take away the 160 coming from the KERS, the MGU-H is making that engine significantly more powerful than the 2.4 V8s.

And that's with 2/3rds of the fuel and having to do 5 races on an engine.

Why wouldn't you put an MGU-H on the 2.4 V8? Or whatever engine design you went for?

mcdo wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MGU-Hs are not mandatory on the 1.6L V6s, but you don't see manufacturers running without them because they are the game changing element.

Wait then why is there a limit in the amount of MGU-H components you can use in a season? If it's not mandatory then why should the FIA care how many one car uses?

How does that follow?

I mean, the manufacturers COULD design an engine without an MGU-H, but they don't because they'd be about 200 - 250bhp down.


Sorry but what you are saying is completely new to me. From what I could gather the power unit's output basically comes from the ICE+turbo+160hp from the MGU-K. The Mgu-H is just there to harvest exhaust energy, convert it to electrical power and feed that power to the MGU-k, batteries, and spool the turbo. I've never heard that it delivers power to the driveshaft as well, which is what you are saying by referencing 200-250hp? I mean, the amount of electrical power that can be delivered to the driveshaft as per the regulations is limited to 160hp and only for 33 sec.
So what gives?

I'm not referring to the MGU-K, I am referring to the MGU-H which increases the power from the ICE. Forget about the 160 from KERS, I'm talking about the the power generated from the engine, and the levels they achieve are thanks to the MGU-H forcing in more air at the lower RPMs than a naturally aspirated or regular turbo engine can achieve.

When they first released the specs for the 1.6L engines,they said that a Turbo 1.6L engine running to the fuel flow limit would be able to achieve 600bhp, with the MGU-K taking it up to 760bhp -
meaning it would be 'roughly equivalent' to the 2.4L V8s in terms of power.

The fact is,we are 200bhp to 250bhp above that AND they started off above that 600bhp anyway. I think the Merc engine was around 700bhp from the ICE at the start of 2014, now they are around 800-850. This is because of the difference the MGU-H makes on the power output they are able to achieve from the ICE.


Ah...understand a bit better. But I thought the gains were mostly due to the new combustion techniques they used. Thanks for the reply though.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], owenmahamilton and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group