planetf1.com

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13277 ... mp-details

I'm glad they are planning on getting rid of the MGU-H as that seems to be the part of the PU that fails the most and clearly isn't up to the job.

Agreed, the MGU-H was probably a bit too soon. Only Mercedes and Ferrari could make it work well enough, and it took Ferrari quite some time.
A little dissapointing that there will still be only 1.6L, they could increase that to atleast 2.0. An increase in RPM is welcome though.
The sound they make now is one that I like, it's only the volume that is too low.

They state that they listen to the fans but, I'm sure most fans are asking for a return to the V10's, or (please no!) the V8's. Ugh, what a puny enginesound those V8's had when you were used to the V10's.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC

They want to listen to the fans, but 2 things:

1. They need to balance emotional fans with what is realistic for the greater good of the sport
2. Fans often don't communicate what they want very well. When they say V10, they usually mean 'more noise'. They're delivering more noise.

Wonder if this will actually come to pass... so often F1 announces things and then later on changes it's mind. In fact sometimes it's hard to believe that F1 is actually a professional entity!

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

This part sounds really interesting, could be the end of DRS if this works well -

"More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps give a driver controlled tactical element to racing"

I guess the battery will be capable of having maybe twice the charge it can usually deploy in 1 lap. Therefore a driver can do a lap without deploying at all and and then double drop then next lap in order to pass. Sounds interesting and less artificial than DRS. It would be especially interesting if the battery was able to hold say 3 laps of charge to all be deployed in one lap.

A step in the right direction imo but why not 6k rpm more instead of just 3k?
I like the return of manual electrical power deployment.
Would have liked to see twin turbos since its seemingly impossible to see a v8 or v10 again.
Now will the teams agree to this?

"In order to try to simplify the internals of the power unit, the MGU-H will be removed, and several prescriptive design parameters will be introduced to "restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions".

It will be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences will apply to the cost cutting measures. Engineers love to find ways through "prescriptive design parameters". They move beyond all kinds of constraints as a matter of course.

Question now remains will this be good enough for new entrants such as Porsche to enter F1?

_________________
Feel The Fourth

Anyone with a good understanding have any idea how high the engines will actually rev?

I know the limit will be 18K but the current limit is 15 and the engines only actually rev to about 12.

Right now they are strangled by the fuel flow rate, i've read elsewhere that they are debating ramping that right up which will also mean the engines can rev higher without it being pointless. I imagine that will also mean moving the power band up, something that will have an impact on throttle control, and anything that makes it harder for the driver is a good thing in my book.

I'm a bit down on the MGU-H going for a walk, because technologically its a fantastic bit of kit and the amount they managed to increase the thermal efficiency with it was very, very impressive. It directly flew in the face of engine noise though, so I can understand why it's gone in that respect.

Cracking down on the fancy fuels is going to get interesting too.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: =7th | 2 Podiums | 0 Wins

The end of your 2nd sentence is the nail on the head, it's more efficient to do it that way hence the lower revs. I guess what they are really proposing is moving that efficiency vs performance curve up the scale to the point where you get the best bang for your buck(revs).

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: =7th | 2 Podiums | 0 Wins

Wasn't there a little more to this? I though some of the issues were the new engines not fitting into the bodywork. Who is to say a smaller team doesn't choose to run an older engine version to save costs. It might not be the manufacture refusing to supply current technology. Just looking at it from a different perspective.

Was a cooling issue.... to a point. Sauber knew they could cool the year old engine with parts(and pretty much car) they already had (doing it on the cheap) so went down that road, effectively writing the year off save a good result via unreliability (something that isn't beyond reason tbh). It was a Sauber led choice dictated by funding.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: =7th | 2 Podiums | 0 Wins

I guess there is something in that... low revving CVT cars whooshing round a track making the same noise an annoying fridge would make would be very underwhelming.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: =7th | 2 Podiums | 0 Wins

Aliens post covers my thoughts almost to a tee. Nothing more to add.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

Seems a bit halfarsed again. For instance, now teams do not hit the rev limit as there is not enough fuel flow to produce more power for more RPM. They are not going to rev 4 or 5 k rpm higher just to produce noise and lose fuel economy. Or will they allow more fuel and flow?

Save up power nad allow the driver to use it, I like, as long as it is the driver who manes the judgement call.

Removal of the H? Does this mean no electric drive on the turbo? The design spec and allowed size of the turbo is going to be critical here.

STILL the limit of a V6? why? this cannot be cost saving as a l3 would be far cheaper lighter and more simple, and more likely to get independents, or other manufacturers involved using a road car block/crank/head (but highly modified of course).

I suspect there will be quite a bit of fiddling to do next year.

The irony is they'll probably be dropping the MGU-H about the time that manufacturers are starting to perfect it.

I kinda wish they could just dub some noise onto huge track side speakers and the TV coverage to appease people, rather than actually hobble the engines (EDIT: Power Units ) to fit some superficial idea of what race cars should sound like. But that's just me

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===

Driver controlled energy deployment as a replacement for DRS is something that I would support. I certainly have an open mind to that idea and if it really becomes too hard to overtake then we can go back to the gimmick but I think there should be a goal of ditching DRS if possible.

With regards to the revs increasing; sounds great and all but are we coming up with a consistent concept here or are we, once again, doing something disjointed and halfassed? I'm actually okay with them doubling down on this more advanced technology if they want to but make sure you do so with no reservations and with a wholehearted embrace of the technology (minus the artificial limits). The engines are amazing in terms of performance already and they are being hamstrung by artificial limits. If, on the other hand, they choose to embrace engines that are not on the cutting edge (and this is the important part) I hope they do that wholeheartedly as well. If they, in any way, want to use obsolete engine tech, they should go full force to V10s or V12s and just let go of all the pretense.

I'm a little disappointed that the MGU-H is going but if they're going to try to simplify the engines and drop the costs then it's the most sensible change to make as it's probably the element that adds the least performance for the cost and has the least applicability to road cars.

Upping the revs just to make more noise when there's no performance advantage to be gained from doing so is nearly as artificial as blasting engine noises out of speakers if you ask me. I'm disappointed that they're taking that route. I wonder if the people lauding that move are the same ones who thought that mandating titanium skid blocks to generate sparks to improve the spectacle was a silly artificial idea, because in my mind it's essentially the same thing.

Overall... I'd rather they kept them as they are.

Apparently this is a proposal put forward without consultation with the engine manufacturers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

As long as they have fuel restrictions - they have bovine droppings for a plan!

_________________

You have that the wrong way around. CVT revs high straight from the off. They would make more noise.

Small scooters and mopeds are usually CVT, if you know the way they rev. The engine goes to high revs and stays there and the gearing adjusts to fit the road speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

I can’t remember the previous regs but why did the V8s rev to 18,000 rpm when less would have been better?

I remember reading in 2014 about a comparison between Kmag and Button at McLaren. Kmag changed gears earlier vs Button used to revving out the engine from V8 days. The 160hp electric engine with flat torque curve was so good that the lap difference between the 2 drivers was negligible.
So the extra power gained by revving out the combustion engine was negated by having the electric engine delivering at any rev.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max

Let's do away with geared transmissions. ICE hooked direct to generator to supply all electrical power to electrical motors on each wheel - regenerative braking from each wheel's electric motor to supply all braking.

ICE has two positions - idle or WOT

_________________

Can you explain your reasoning behind this? Not the case as far as I'm aware.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany

I would like for f1 to keep the current engine design and keep developing the technology as it is the "pinnacle" of motor sports. But i do understand that removing the most complicated system component will lower cost for teams.

Lets not forget f1 has already tried a manual kers system that was originally introduced in 2009 but it wasnt mandatory. It was reintroduced in 2011 with all but 3 teams using it. It was then ditched again.

Heres a quick over view as to how kers works

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kinetic_Energy_Recovery_System.gif

Kers was a great way to counter drs when a trailing car was attempting to over take using both kers & drs. Drs might be better recieved if it wasnt limited use and drivers could deploy it at there discretion similar to the kers system.

What get me is how fans see drs seen as a gimmick overtake system. kers adds 120-160bhp at the touch of a button for a certain amount of time to allow for over taking and is seen as "tactical racing" but pushing another to remove drag to increase straight line speed is seen as a "cheap ploy"?

Both devices give an artificial advantage that wouldn't be there without the system in place.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)

The difference is that DRS leaves the defending driver totally helpless. There's nothing you can do about it. With KERS it actually is just another tool that the drivers have to manage throughout the race. Use it up on the front straight and the car behind can get you on the back straight. DRS just gives the trailing car an advantage that can't be managed or countered in any way.

Kers had a strategic element to it. There is no real strategy involved in using DRS because the defending car cannot use it unless another car is in front of it and it can only be used at certain predetermined sections of the track.

And Kers was never 120-160hp. It was 80hp.

Thanks! I need clarification also! I had some trouble understanding his previous post btw..

As far as I understand, and I am no engine guru here. Fuel rate does not limit RPM, A/F Ratio might, so if at 12K RPM you are maxing out your fuel flow for a given CFM's (Boost), then one would think that the only way to get above that 12K RPM ceiling, is to reduce the amount of boost to keep control of the A/F ratio and temperatures in case you start leaning out. The engine will still produce power, but it will produce less. Engineers might think that it is not worth the risk to push for more RPM's when the advantage given by running more RPM's is negated by a loss of power as a result of boost reduction due to fuel starvation. Introduce fancy fuels and oils here to help a bit!

If you look at the HP/Tq formula HP=RPM*T/5252, a engine running at 12,000RPM producing 400Tq will give you about 900Hp, if Tq remains the same, usually peak Tq occurs at peak engine V.E. (Volumetric Efficiency), the same engine running at 15000RPM producing 350Tq will give about 1000Hp. So with an increase of 3000K RPM our make believe engine lost 50Tq but gained 100Hp. F1 engines are designed for good VE at high RPMs, so your Tq curve will be somewhat flat, in which case your main driver of power is RPM, more RPM = More Power for more time = faster lap times. Turbos help in keeping that Tq curve flat. So by allowing more fuel, you increase the RPM range where you can still produce power, if more fuel will allow the engine to stay flat on the Tq curve at 15000 RPM and still produce 400Tq we are in the range of 1142Hp!!!! How can that be bad for the sport???

If what you say is true, that freedom of design will takes us to lower RPM's, then the only way to produce power will be by producing a lot of Tq down low in your RPM range, and that will be unsustainable by current F1 engine design and it will mean more weight, you will have to engineer an engine that will have is peak VE down low, with a long stroke to help turn your crank shaft, long stroke means high piston speeds which limits peak RPM, basically we are talking about Chevrolet LS1 engine philosophy. You will have to run a very low final gear or a transmission with 15 gears to keep the engine on the sweet spot.

Then new engine proposed for 2021 will loose the MGUK, in my opinion this is the way to go, again I might be completely wrong or missing something but you will have to better explain your reasoning because I am lost.

Bingo and most of the proposed changes are just to add specific set of regs to the PU just as they do with the Chassis which just makes things more expensive, thereby likely costing the teams the same amount of money on trying to extract the maximum possible performance, exploiting loopholes and oversights by the FIA that is projected to be saved by implementing set limits to everything.

Personally most fans who want V10's tend to know why that is what they want, myself included. And while the current tech is pretty advanced compared to the V10's of that era, a V10 today would likely be technological marvels for today's times, offering staggeringly increased fuel efficiency compared to the last time the configuration was run in the sport, and they would likely be matching the current PU's more closely than most people think.

It's just like EVERYTHING in F1, although they've implement stricter rules over the last 4 or more generations of cars, engineers have been able to consistently find their way around those strict guidelines to develop cars that continued to get faster and faster. The same would be true if the decision was made to return to V10's.

And for anyone who thinks the V8's sounded puny, no way. Either you don't have surround sound, or the one you have really sucks, or you've never heard them live. You can literally FEEL them through your bones which is something that automatically denounces the opinion of them sounding puny or poor in any capacity. That will never be true no matter how much that statement is repeated. They might not match the v10's & 12's, but that's the same as saying those don't sound like General Electric F404 turbofan engines. They're never going to but it doesn't mean the V10's sound lesser.

F1 V8 Sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTTMxtv2PY

I don't hear anything puny or lacking and I listened intently to see if I notice any one of them sounding less than awesome.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY

Pretty disappointed they're getting rid of the MGU-H. Seems pushing tech comes second to 'DA NOIZE!!!!11!'

I think that's a bit simplistic. They're getting rid of the MGU-H for cost and complexity reasons, not because they are anti-tech. At the same time, they are trying to address the noise issue that many have been very vocal about, which is completely unrelated. It's not a binary choice between tech or noise.

I'm ambivalent about the noise. I do prefer the old, but it's not a game changer for me. But there's no denying it has caused a huge storm and I think it's not cause for complaint that they appear to be trying to address fan concerns where they can, in a manner that has no immediately obvious detrimental side effects (that I can see, anyway)

Should a team running in top flight be choosing to save money by running an uncompetitive engine? What sort of message does that send. I understand it, but the FIA should legislate against it (and ensure parity of engine supply between teams).

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

I suspect I'm in the minority but I'm content with the fact that this is just what F1 sounds like now. It will change again as it has changed many times before, and hopefully it falls within your personal preference at some point. Having said that it would be nice to have microphones which pick up the unique sound of each PU. In person there are subtle but noticeable differences, and getting that variety through on TV may help bring people around.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany

Sauber claimed that in 2016 when they needed to sign off certain elements of their design, the dimensions of the 2017 PU were not known. Lack of funds causes long lead times, so forcing an underfunded team to use an up to date PU can cause problems even if its cost is capped.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany

You are 100% spot on. The V-8 engines sounded glorious in person. Ear shattering noise, that simply was amazing to hear live. No, they didnt sound as good as the previous eras, but they were very very similar. That kind of soul stirring noise is dearly missed in F1.

TV is never going to be able to transmit the subtleties of engine noise. It couldnt do that back in the day when the engines were loud as hell and they wont be able to do that today.