F1 shake up? 

"415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)" (415s30) 11/18/2015 at 01:25 • Filed to: None

4

13

Details about the specification of F1’s alternative engine for 2017 have emerged.

Previously, it was believed independent outfits like Ilmor or Cosworth were being invited to bid to exclusively supply a 2.2 litre twin-turbo V6, with the regulations to run parallel to the existing 1.6 litre ‘power units’.

The specifications now say the new engine will be a 2.5 litre V6 or smaller, with one or two turbochargers producing “greater than” 870 horse power.

The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.

Mercedes, the double world champion team of 2014 and 2015, has made clear its dissent.

“I think many of us share the opinion that the ‘balance of performance engine’ does not work. It doesn’t work in any other category,” said team boss Toto Wolff.

“We hear about the aggravation in GT racing and it does my head in hearing these ideas,” he added.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Former Formula One driver Stefan Johansson says current power unit regulations are “ridiculous”, as these prevent Mercedes’ rivals from closing the gap.

The double world champions have been ruling the F1 roost since the sport switched to 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged power units in 2014. Rival manufacturers Ferrari, Renault, and Honda can only enhance their unit within the scope of development provided for in the token system.

Johansson, whose own F1 career spanned 11 years (1980-1991), believes this makes the situation farcical.

“The real problem is this incredibly complicated engine formula that F1 has with penalties for this and that, and you’re not allowed to do any development,” !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

“It continues to make no sense to me. The development ban was initially implemented to keep the cost at a sensible level, but that concept is already completely broken.

“The manufacturers have spent so much money on these engines it’s obscene. Why not just let them carry on developing them and at least be able to fix them? It’s ridiculous to have a formula where there’s only one successful engine and the others are not permitted to do the development they obviously need to become competitive.

Power unit development rules relaxed for 2016

Johansson says these restrictions are made even more preposterous considering that work and research on the chassis have continued unabated.

“Yet you can bolt 500 new pieces on to the chassis every weekend if you want. The top teams do that of course, with crates of aero-parts flown in everyday in a never-ending development war with their chassis but you still can’t touch the engine. It’s nonsense.

“If you were allowed to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the engines as you are on the chassis, I am sure that Renault, Honda and Ferrari would all be better, maybe not as good as the Mercedes but certainly a lot closer.

“With these rules if you don’t get the engine right out of the box there’s really almost no way to catch up and you’re just screwed. If your engine is as wrong as the Honda is, what do you do? You’re only allowed X-amount of upgrades. On top of that, you’re not allowed to go testing.”

AddictedToM3s - Drives a GC > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 11/18/2015 at 01:38

0

So why not just remove the token system and allow testing again within a strictly regulated budget for all teams?

I like race craft as much as the next person but I also enjoy seeing all the crazy ideas the engineers can come up with to circumvent the FIA’s regulations.

samssun > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 11/18/2015 at 07:08

1

“The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.”

This would be a step in the right direction, I just don’t believe it for a second since it’s the opposite of their “regulate everything to death” philosophy.

I say give them a fixed fuel count and let them do whatever they want with it. Instantaneous fuel flow limit is the most ridiculous rule imaginable.

Axel-Ripper > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 11/18/2015 at 07:27

3

The idea of locking in a brand new and obscenely complicated engine with no room for development after having no testing allowed was, and remains, asinine.

ChooChooMotherFudger > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 11/18/2015 at 07:42

0

I am not sure I belive this.

DasWauto > Axel-Ripper 11/18/2015 at 07:59

1

It’s not really locked in though. The token system, as it currently is, has enough room in it for the manufacturers to change every component in the engine completely more than once over the course of aa season. The tokens only really become restrictive in 2018 when the number available is reduced to 18 (IIRC) from the current 51 and 43 for 2016 and 2017 (again IIRC).

Mercedes is so far ahead because they started work on the engine and the philosophy of the car designed around it much earlier than the other teams and manufacturers.

There’s an excellent article on the development of these engines and the ongoing struggles of Ferrari, Renault and Honda to catch up in this month’s RACER magazine. I highly recommend finding/buying that issue.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > DasWauto 11/18/2015 at 08:08

1

The token system was great in theory, but after 2 seasons, it’s quite clear it isn’t enough to ensure equal competition in a timely manner, since all tokens must be used up by Feb before the season even starts (2015 had in season token use because of a loophole, one that the FIA wasn’t pleased it let happen)

The biggest problem of course is the lack of track testing. Teams have spent so much more on lab testing their developments that parts confirmation on track just isn’t that much cost effective.

I’ll pick up that RACER mag. Is it Dec issue? Jan?

DasWauto > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 11/18/2015 at 09:24

0

I would argue that the token system has only really been relevant in this discussion for 1 year. The engine were frozen during last season, which I would argue is worse than the ongoing development of this year. They are allowing in-season development next year as well, I think. Ultimately performance should even out as a theoretical maximum for the formula is reached (like the v8s basically did when those regs were frozen) but with the number of factors in play, that could take a while. I’m tempted to argue that the number of tokens should be correlated to performance, with those lagging behind being given more room to develop. That will bring up discussions fairness and it would be a tough balance to strike. I guess I don’t have a solution either.

I agree that a lack of on track testing has hampered development of the power units. In the article I referred to it says that Renault especially have had problems getting power unit performance in the car to correlate with what they’ve seen in engine dyno testing.

It is the fall 2015 issue. It’s got an illustration the Mercedes AMG cam cover diagonally on the cover.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > DasWauto 11/18/2015 at 09:46

1

I don’t believe in-season dev was originally gonna be allowed, but they changed it (maybe?).

I like your point about the token system being rationed out by performance but I think it’s against the nature of F1 to punish success directly like that.

The token system as it’s currently set up indirectly punishes bad design too much. Especially when you consider than everything other that engine has umlimited upgradability (within of course limits by rule, and not by amount of changes), it makes the token system (and limiting engine development at all) seem self-defeating.

There’s a lot to be said about simulation, but I know of NO ONE in the auto industry using simulation as the only tool to confirm a design. A design will never be validated until it’s confirmed on a car in actual conditions. Renault’s F1 problem you mention certainly fits neatly in that bubble, a bubble I’m very familiar with in my professional career

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > samssun 11/18/2015 at 10:00

2

Well, rev limit isn’t really a problem currently. Engines currently are revving up to 12k RPM (maybe?) and not anywhere close to the rules-mandated 15k RPM. Why? Because they just aren’t getting enough air/fuel to need to go past the 12k RPM or so.

And we’ve done the fuel load limit at the beginning of the race coupled with no fuel flow limit in the late 80s. It was a relative shit show

The current formula is upwards of 750bhp (I’m being conservative here) as it sits with basically zero lag because of the torque-fill provided by the electric motors during the lag region as the turbo spools up.

I think teams should push for keeping the hybrid systems because it’s fantastic technology with capabilities we’re still (as humans in general) discovering. With WEC and F1 pioneering these things, companies like Magnetti Marelli, Borg Warner, IHI etc will develop tech that will trickle down much quicker to road cars.

Going to a “simplistic” (relative terms here to ICE/electric pairing) turbo and ICE only does nothing (again, relatively here) to provide awesome new tech.

The current formula has a solid base and really only requires the opening up of Power Unit development and testing bans lifted to shine. Fuck the complaints on sound levels as far I’m concerned, that’s inconsequential from a technical nerdgasm standpoint

uofime-2 > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 11/18/2015 at 10:59

0

pardon my ignorance, but how do they limit teams testing? are they just not allowed to use F1 tracks? it seems like it’d be really hard to police that.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > uofime-2 11/18/2015 at 11:10

0

teams are allowed 2 in-season test days only, plus 2 “filming” days for commercial advertisement use where mileage is limited to 100km

uofime-2 > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 11/18/2015 at 11:21

0

Seems like there’s a lot of race tracks in the world and it would be easy to cart your F1 car (with no logos) to one of them (in an unmarked trailer)for some illegal track testing. I would be shocked if teams didn’t do this.

DasWauto > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 11/18/2015 at 12:48

0

I don’t think the system punishes bad design too much actually. This year and next they have enough tokens to change every part of the engine, even fundamentals like the engine block so they can change design philosophy if they so wish. What does punish inherently bad design is how tightly the cars are packaged around the power unit. This makes it difficult to make large fundamental changes like moving or changing the size of the compressor or echust turbine, rerouting or resizing water and charge cooling components, etc. This is the big advantage Mercedes have - they have the fundamentals right in the power unit and have developed the car’s aerodynamics specifically around and with that. When you pick up that Racer issue you’ll read about Honda’s choice to run a smaller compressor with the goal of running it at a higher speed to make up for it and the problems that result from that as well as Renault’s issues with the combustion unit, its’ piston design and the limitations that put on them. It’s fascinating.