New engine regs for 2021
Discussion
London424 said:
Sounds like the engine manufacturers aren't overly impressed. Not that surprising, as any change will mean a load more money spent on R&D.
Not sure why they don't just keep them as they are now.
Because 'they' (that is most people who aren't a current F1 engine manufacturer) want to make the engines simpler and cheaper so that more manufacturers might be tempted to join in. The current engine tech is maturing now, so there's no chance of anyone else coming in under the current rules, especially after seeing how Honda have struggled. A clean-sheet (although this isn't completely clean) will level the playing field somewhat for potential new entrants. Of course it will cost the current manufacturers more as they have to invest R&D in the new rules, but that is always the case when rules change, as they do periodically anyway. Change is not a new concept.Not sure why they don't just keep them as they are now.
The other thing is that LM have realised that all the current tech doesn't add anything to the show, and it's only there for the manufacturers' own ends. LM care about the show because that is the product they are trying tot sell to the world, and for the long-term benefit of the show (and their shareholders) they see the need to shake up the engine rules.
thegreenhell said:
London424 said:
Sounds like the engine manufacturers aren't overly impressed. Not that surprising, as any change will mean a load more money spent on R&D.
Not sure why they don't just keep them as they are now.
Because 'they' (that is most people who aren't a current F1 engine manufacturer) want to make the engines simpler and cheaper so that more manufacturers might be tempted to join in. The current engine tech is maturing now, so there's no chance of anyone else coming in under the current rules, especially after seeing how Honda have struggled. A clean-sheet (although this isn't completely clean) will level the playing field somewhat for potential new entrants. Of course it will cost the current manufacturers more as they have to invest R&D in the new rules, but that is always the case when rules change, as they do periodically anyway. Change is not a new concept.Not sure why they don't just keep them as they are now.
The other thing is that LM have realised that all the current tech doesn't add anything to the show, and it's only there for the manufacturers' own ends. LM care about the show because that is the product they are trying tot sell to the world, and for the long-term benefit of the show (and their shareholders) they see the need to shake up the engine rules.
t load of cost for a new engine, while still paying to continue developing the current versions. That clean sheet means we are have just as much a chance where one of the companies is miles out front and we spend the next few years with the others spending fortunes to catch up again. With these engines we are almost there with most of them (Merc, Ferrari and Renault aren't that far apart anymore).
To me there is little wrong with the current engines except the noise. They should wail. This comes from revs so simple fix is to increase the fuel rate. Why mess with other things that increase the development costs when removing a rule restriction is effectively free? Change is expensive regardless of whether the resulting unit is 'cheaper' or not.
Don't like it. Surely with the removal of the MGU-H, the retention of the fuel load / flow limit, and the new multi-lap strategic MGU-K deployment we're going to end up with cars which are both heavier and less powerful on average than they are now?
I echo others who are saying that the 2014> engine formula was just beginning to work.
I would heartily endorse any change which was going to allow the cars to be lighter while still incorporating waste heat / energy recovery. I think that if we are to keep the current fuel usage limits in place, refuelling should be brought back.
Take weight and downforce out of the cars and then give them tyres which can tolerate the resulting slip / wheelspin.
I echo others who are saying that the 2014> engine formula was just beginning to work.
I would heartily endorse any change which was going to allow the cars to be lighter while still incorporating waste heat / energy recovery. I think that if we are to keep the current fuel usage limits in place, refuelling should be brought back.
Take weight and downforce out of the cars and then give them tyres which can tolerate the resulting slip / wheelspin.
fatbutt said:
To me there is little wrong with the current engines except the noise.
Apart from they're too complex therefore too expensive to attract independent engine suppliers. The new regs were supposed to address that very point but obviously haven't.Edited by Norfolkit on Thursday 2nd November 02:02
thegreenhell said:
A clean-sheet (although this isn't completely clean) will level the playing field somewhat for potential new entrants.
Recent history hasn’t exactly shown this has it?Standardised parts are the only sure fire why if making such a complex formula equal but in reality, how enthusiastic would Ferrari be about fitting a Mercedes heat recovery system?
The only other way is to simplify the architecture but there seems to be zero want from any party (apart from the fans) to return to a N/A basic engine.
I’ve said this before but my biggest issue with the current formula is it’s all too secret. The engines are jewel like in their mechanical beauty but the only time you get to see much of them is an angled shot through the garage or when that Toro Rosso’s engine cover fell off!
They’ve made F1 an engine formula and forbidden everyone from talking about it.
Ask most armchair fans about an F1 engine and they might say the Mercedes burns oil and has a different turbo.
El Guapo said:
I don't understand the thinking behind getting rid of the MGU-H. It seems at odds with making the drivetrains as fuel-efficient as possible.
...but, It is also at odds with making PU’s road-relevant. They are just way too expensive to be used in a car that the average family can afford to buy. It is as relevant as Concorde was; its a clever bit of history.
robinessex said:
F1 needs to adopt the moto we used to have on the Engineering office wall. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Hence, 5ltr NA engines. Almost anyone can make one of those.
I agree – keep it simple and make it cheaper.Less than $16,000 dollars buys this, with 720 HP (normally aspirated) on 110 octane fuel.
Would sound better than the farty little motors we have now.
(Yes, I know it will never happen and I am an idiot……)
I'd suggest the less prescriptive the rules, the more innovation we'd see.
Give them an energy allocation of, for example, 5200 MJ ( current 110 kg of petrol gives approx 5038 MJ ) - and leave it up to them how they supply and use it.
Just specifying total energy would allow use of various alternate fuels like diesel, methanol etc. and a wide range of engine designs
Give them an energy allocation of, for example, 5200 MJ ( current 110 kg of petrol gives approx 5038 MJ ) - and leave it up to them how they supply and use it.
Just specifying total energy would allow use of various alternate fuels like diesel, methanol etc. and a wide range of engine designs
El Guapo said:
I don't understand the thinking behind getting rid of the MGU-H. It seems at odds with making the drivetrains as fuel-efficient as possible.
Noise. Without the electrical charge load, they need to open up the wastegate to control boost, which means more noise out the wastegate pipes.These new regs are really disappointing. They need to give us more information, because if its basically more of the same they will have failed massively in fixing the problems.
Plinth said:
robinessex said:
F1 needs to adopt the moto we used to have on the Engineering office wall. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Hence, 5ltr NA engines. Almost anyone can make one of those.
I agree – keep it simple and make it cheaper.Less than $16,000 dollars buys this, with 720 HP (normally aspirated) on 110 octane fuel.
Would sound better than the farty little motors we have now.
(Yes, I know it will never happen and I am an idiot……)
The Moose said:
Plinth said:
robinessex said:
F1 needs to adopt the moto we used to have on the Engineering office wall. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Hence, 5ltr NA engines. Almost anyone can make one of those.
I agree – keep it simple and make it cheaper.Less than $16,000 dollars buys this, with 720 HP (normally aspirated) on 110 octane fuel.
Would sound better than the farty little motors we have now.
(Yes, I know it will never happen and I am an idiot……)
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff