1 2 3 4 5 ... 66
loosecannon
loosecannon SuperDork
12/28/21 10:41 p.m.

I wish Formula 1 would just specify how much fuel could be burned during the race and let the different engine manufacturers figure out how they want to do it. Wouldn't it be great to see all the different engines that would be produced? 

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/28/21 11:06 p.m.

Something based on the rule set that gave us all those cool LMP cars a few years back. I think they just had a fuel flow limit and maybe tank size. So many solutions! Sure, it cost a huge amount of money but the cars were stupid fast and could run for 24 hours.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/29/21 8:51 a.m.
loosecannon said:

I wish Formula 1 would just specify how much fuel could be burned during the race and let the different engine manufacturers figure out how they want to do it. Wouldn't it be great to see all the different engines that would be produced? 

Maybe?  I suspect that without a budget cap that's a recipe for enormous costs on the engine front.  If you leave the cap in place then we'd end up with one manufacturer getting it "more right" and then nobody else able to catch up because they've spent all their budget already going down the wrong path.

 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/29/21 10:22 a.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
loosecannon said:

I wish Formula 1 would just specify how much fuel could be burned during the race and let the different engine manufacturers figure out how they want to do it. Wouldn't it be great to see all the different engines that would be produced? 

Maybe?  I suspect that without a budget cap that's a recipe for enormous costs on the engine front.  If you leave the cap in place then we'd end up with one manufacturer getting it "more right" and then nobody else able to catch up because they've spent all their budget already going down the wrong path.

 

Yea, it seems that creative rules (that include banning specific materials, as they do now) would result in some cool solutions.  But at the same time, if an engine got it wrong, they would be stuck worse than they are now.

Panhandler
Panhandler GRM+ Memberand New Reader
12/29/21 1:13 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to 759NRNG :

All I can find is that they will mention in early in '22 and it will be for '26.

The next big question is - will they keep the e-turbo system?  That's one everyone is heavily invested in, but it's very unlikely to make it to full production.  So there's a real debate to drop that to entice new engine companies.

The other question which I would assume will be confirmed will be- is that for Red Bull Engines, or a new engine maker?

But it sure appears that a big announcement early in '22 about Audi is coming.

It all depends on the '26 power unit regulations which have not yet been finalized.  VW Group is considering entering F1 but it depends on dropping the MGU-H.  The MGU-H harvests heat energy from the exhaust gases. The current players have spent a ton of money developing this system and VW doesn't want to play if the MGU-H is still being used. The other players have agreed to drop MGU-H to get VW to enter but now there are discussions about cost controls, testing and technical rules covering materials. VW wants concessions to ensure it can "catch up" with the current F1 suppliers. There will also be changes to the hybrid power from current 120kW to 350kW and VW has lots of hybrid experience from recent LMP1 racing so the other teams are looking at that too. 

Maybe a partnership with Red Bull Powertrains?  

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/29/21 1:40 p.m.
Panhandler said:

It all depends on the '26 power unit regulations which have not yet been finalized.  VW Group is considering entering F1 but it depends on dropping the MGU-H.  The MGU-H harvests heat energy from the exhaust gases.

It also spools the turbo up electrically, largely eliminating lag.

To me, the MGU-H is the interesting part of the F1 powertrain.  It's the thing that nobody else does, the place where it's genuinely creating new tech, and the reason why the Mercedes F1 race engine is the most thermally efficient internal combustion engine ever made.  Yes, "this is the last generation of ICE cars" and it'll never trickle down to road cars, but it's the coolest part and I'm really disappointed that they're dropping it.

 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/29/21 1:48 p.m.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

The core issue with the MGU-H is that there is no chance of it trickling down to real cars.   From what I understand Fiat, Renault, Daimler, and Honda all know that, but since they had already heavily invested in it for the current engine, they are reluctant to give that away.  And to attract new engine makers, it does have to be relevant.   Increasing the voltages will make it to road cars, since it's more efficient, and increasing the amount of harvesting and returning is also relevant, since it's also in the plan of cars.

It's cool, but if we want more than 3 engine makers (for real cars, I don't count Red Bull- if they team up with someone who will translate the tech to cars... well), it needs to be dropped.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/29/21 1:57 p.m.
alfadriver said:

The core issue with the MGU-H is that there is no chance of it trickling down to real cars.   From what I understand Fiat, Renault, Daimler, and Honda all know that, but since they had already heavily invested in it for the current engine, they are reluctant to give that away.  And to attract new engine makers, it does have to be relevant.   Increasing the voltages will make it to road cars, since it's more efficient, and increasing the amount of harvesting and returning is also relevant, since it's also in the plan of cars.

None of this is trickling down to road cars.  It takes 5-10 years to do that, and 10 years from now nobody's expecting to be designing new ICE road cars.

 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/29/21 2:08 p.m.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

ICE only, no.  But ICE Hybrids, yes.  They are not going away anytime soon.   We were working on MGU-H tech a few years ago, and one the cost-benefit was really nailed down, it's was very apparent that it was not worth the cost.  For all of the e-boost, it was far more efficient to just put that power directly to the wheels.  

There's still a lot going on in ICE research.  It's just not sexy enough to get the headlines.

loosecannon
loosecannon SuperDork
1/2/22 8:32 p.m.

Mercedes must be pretty confident in their 2022 car. They have posted a video if it starting up and have had some mildly disguised pictures of it.

adam525i
adam525i GRM+ Memberand Dork
1/2/22 10:01 p.m.

In reply to loosecannon :

Maybe the mind games are already starting, post some blurry pics with some odd bits you or I wouldn't pick up on but force the other teams to spend time trying to figure out what is going on.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/5/22 1:56 p.m.
z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
1/5/22 2:39 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

ICE only, no.  But ICE Hybrids, yes.  They are not going away anytime soon.   We were working on MGU-H tech a few years ago, and one the cost-benefit was really nailed down, it's was very apparent that it was not worth the cost.  For all of the e-boost, it was far more efficient to just put that power directly to the wheels.  

There's still a lot going on in ICE research.  It's just not sexy enough to get the headlines.

It's interesting you brought that up, I wanted your opinion since you're in the business. I still don't think the transition to EVs is going to happen nearly as quickly as the press would have us believe. 

They are either expensive or boring. 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/5/22 3:12 p.m.

In reply to z31maniac :

I think a lot of "100% electrification" means 100% either hybrid or BEV.  And I know that PHEVs are considered BEV's to many, even though they have an ICE in them.  And when you start hearing the line of OEM's that are interested in a "simplified" F1 powertrain- you get more of an indicator that ICE's are still part of the new fleet.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
1/5/22 4:24 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. 

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter)
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
1/5/22 5:14 p.m.
alfadriver said:
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
loosecannon said:

I wish Formula 1 would just specify how much fuel could be burned during the race and let the different engine manufacturers figure out how they want to do it. Wouldn't it be great to see all the different engines that would be produced? 

Maybe?  I suspect that without a budget cap that's a recipe for enormous costs on the engine front.  If you leave the cap in place then we'd end up with one manufacturer getting it "more right" and then nobody else able to catch up because they've spent all their budget already going down the wrong path.

 

Yea, it seems that creative rules (that include banning specific materials, as they do now) would result in some cool solutions.  But at the same time, if an engine got it wrong, they would be stuck worse than they are now.

It will never happen, non of the manufacturers will sign up for that.  We showed back in the 3.5L NA days when things were free that different manufacturers started with V8, V10 and V12 engines of different angles, firing orders etc.  Eventually they all morphed into very similar V10's as that's what worked best for that size and style of car.  No one wants anything too open as if you make the wrong initial choice you have to go back to your BoD and say, "Yes I know we just blew $300,000,000 on this cool new engine and I know we're 50hp and 2 seconds a lap down on the rest of the field, so now we need another $200,000,000 to re-engineer a copy for the Merc/Ferrari/whoever engine".  One way trip to your company existing F1 and getting your ass fired.  Also these days we wine and complain that the cars are too far apart on track and the back end teams are miles of the pace, despite the fact that there's only 2-3% diff between pole and the back of the grid.  20-30 years ago it was not uncommon, even in the pre qualifying days of 30 cars turning up, for the spread to be more like 5% front to back for those 26 cars that made the race.  30% not finishing and cars off the podium being 1-2-3 laps behind was also common.  That wont fly these days in the board room or for the spectators.  You need to specify capacity, # of cylinders, V angle, crank height plus a million other parameters to get people to sign up.

And before people start saying it works in GT and prototypes, those classes all have BoP, and while it may be more restrictive these days, there was still eliments of BoP back in 80's despite the fact people pretend otherwise.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/6/22 9:49 a.m.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

It will never happen, non of the manufacturers will sign up for that.  We showed back in the 3.5L NA days when things were free that different manufacturers started with V8, V10 and V12 engines of different angles, firing orders etc.  Eventually they all morphed into very similar V10's as that's what worked best for that size and style of car. 

Yeah, early 90s you have Ferrari with V12s, Benetton with Cosworth V8s, and McLaren and Williams with V10s.  By the end of the 90s everyone's got a V10 because that seems to be the ideal solution at that displacement, then Toyota starts a new team and is rumored to be building a V12.  Nobody in the sport wants to have to redesign all of the other engines, so they change the rules to mandate the V10, screwing Toyota.

bmw88rider
bmw88rider GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
1/18/22 11:02 p.m.

So interesting gauge on how popular the Miami F1 race will be this year.

We know tickets are already sold out. Found out that there were over 1500 applicants for the approximately 250 marshal positions that are open. Mind you, this is a purely volunteer position with no camping available so you need to have a hotel or a place to stay and it is a 4 day commitment. 

Crazy. Oh well, I got my position on the fun side of the fence as the Lead Intervention Marshal for my 9th GP. 

stroker
stroker UberDork
1/19/22 7:56 a.m.

Can't say I'm a fan of F1 any longer.  Seems way too contrived, complicated and rule-bound.   I'd be up for a new series in a heartbeat. 

bmw88rider
bmw88rider GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
1/19/22 8:00 a.m.

In reply to stroker :

IndyCar? Tons of talent and great racing. Better to me than F1 most weekends.

stroker
stroker UberDork
1/19/22 8:10 a.m.
bmw88rider said:

In reply to stroker :

IndyCar? Tons of talent and great racing. Better to me than F1 most weekends.

Spec series, although I trust Roger Penske to allow it to evolve unlike the previous owner.  I would like at least three different chassis, engines and brands of tires.

Short version, there's too much frikkin' money in both series.  We need to get a legitimate open wheel series with a cost structure more in line with Sprint Cars to get the true grassroots involved.  I could live with a series-provided spec carbon fiber safety chassis and then allow the teams to hang whatever suspension/powerplant they want on both ends, though.  

wvumtnbkr
wvumtnbkr GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/19/22 8:27 a.m.
stroker said:
bmw88rider said:

In reply to stroker :

IndyCar? Tons of talent and great racing. Better to me than F1 most weekends.

Spec series, although I trust Roger Penske to allow it to evolve unlike the previous owner.  I would like at least three different chassis, engines and brands of tires.

Short version, there's too much frikkin' money in both series.  We need to get a legitimate open wheel series with a cost structure more in line with Sprint Cars to get the true grassroots involved.  I could live with a series-provided spec carbon fiber safety chassis and then allow the teams to hang whatever suspension/powerplant they want on both ends, though.  

So, cheaper, but also make the teams develop all the parts.

 

Having the teams develop the parts is what costs money!

stroker
stroker UberDork
1/19/22 10:07 a.m.

In reply to wvumtnbkr :

Suspension is cheap compared to "power units", energy recovery systems and in-house wind tunnels.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/19/22 12:14 p.m.
stroker said:

Suspension is cheap compared to "power units", energy recovery systems and in-house wind tunnels.

Unfortunately aero is where you get the most lap time improvement and historically it seems to be very difficult to regulate it in a low cost way that isn't just "here's a spec aero package".

wvumtnbkr
wvumtnbkr GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/19/22 4:33 p.m.
stroker said:

In reply to wvumtnbkr :

Suspension is cheap compared to "power units", energy recovery systems and in-house wind tunnels.

Unless you are designing them in a wind tunnel (which they would).

1 2 3 4 5 ... 66
Our Preferred Partners
buhrIFJiyN4Xfh7NCJDQzxuMp52DWHPeoNpMKqLFTwP8O1iSFVEfiylCcgVZawFw