|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
22 Sep 2009, 01:57 (Ref:2545619) | #1 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,643
|
Engine Equalisation - Are we going about this all wrong?
This thread will probably be drowned with the Renault crap, but I'll give it a crack. Sorry for the long post, but this has bothered me a while and wanted to make sure I explained myself properly.
I read once again we are going to 'equalise' the engines to make it 'fair' for everyone. I have to say upfront, I was opposed to the engine freeze from the word go and remain more convinced now than before. I am against standardisation of F1 cars in any form but appreciate it is the only way we can keep some control on costs, particularly in the current financial climate. I understand the driving force of the engine freeze was to cut costs. Wonderful idea, except all I noticed was teams that had the money put it into aero or other area's instead. Did it really save that much money? In the mean time, much has changed in Formula One. We have more independent teams than ever before, a budget cap of sorts (can someone please show me the details of that BS agreement), and a financial crisis that is likely to see more manufactures depart rather than join. We also have new rules next year that will see fuel economy became a major factor, something the manufactures and the FIA can brag about to the eco friendly. So I put this idea to our wonderful forum. Would we be better off removing this ridiculous engine power freeze and exchanging it for a fixed aero package (that actually assists overtaking)? Engine Suppliers
Spicing up the show
Cost Cutting
Constructors/Teams
Sporting
I have to assume this has already been thought of by the powers that be, and therefore there are valid arguments against it. So please convince me I am way off the mark here, or have a valid point. |
||
__________________
#Keepfightingmichael |
22 Sep 2009, 02:25 (Ref:2545626) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,203
|
I have always thought F1 was going down the wrong track when they dictated 3.5 litre engines, then 3.0L V10, then 2.4 V8s, I think specing it has done the sport a huge injustice.
F1 is not meant to be 'fair' it is F1 - the top. Dog eat Dog. If you want fair, go race in F3 or A1 or something. F1 should be about innovation. The engine and chassis regs should be opened up so we have a lot of different looking and sounding cars and something where a good idea, well executed can mean more than countless hours and millions of dollars spent perfecting the same idea everyone else has |
|
__________________
Careful. We don't want to learn from this - Bill Watterson I'd hate to read what the people who hate the sport have to say... |
22 Sep 2009, 07:26 (Ref:2545716) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
I think rules should impose limits, but only sensible ones. Things which can result in a big performance gain for a small cost should be positively encouraged, as they increase the chance of a capable team beating a rich one. One team dominating is always frustrating, especially if one driver dominates within the team, but past periods of domination have not usually been due to the engine or one specific piece of technology, more a combination of factors.
|
||
|
22 Sep 2009, 08:01 (Ref:2545741) | #4 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Teams don't have to build anything any more to find out if it works or not.Oh no! You can use all sorts of computer programmes to tell you which engine configuration will give you the best power;fuel consumption;reliabilty.Consequently everyone will turn up to the first race of the new 'open' regulations with the same engine,and then spend millions on refining the concept that everyone else has used.Sound familiar? With regard to Wrex's post.I don't think that any innovative regulations will work without the use of a proper 'budget cap'.Personally I think that F1 missed a trick by not adopting the majority of the budget cap rules.If you can't design and build an F1 car,over a season,for £40m then there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere. We were told by FOTA (well,some teams in FOTA that may now regret their decision) that a budget cap would stifle innovation when,in fact,quite the reverse would be true. If you can control overall costs then you can have innovation and close competition.If you allow a "Dog-eat-Dog" situation with innovative regulations then you'll end up with maybe two teams on the grid. |
||
|
22 Sep 2009, 08:40 (Ref:2545760) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
And while computers have dulled everything down in motorsport, I still think some would go with a V8, some turbo, some with V12, some with other combinations, people could be initiative with their car and engine designs, and with the current budgets, find some new, currently unknown engine configurations |
||
__________________
Careful. We don't want to learn from this - Bill Watterson I'd hate to read what the people who hate the sport have to say... |
22 Sep 2009, 10:12 (Ref:2545818) | #6 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,713
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
22 Sep 2009, 10:29 (Ref:2545829) | #7 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Put me down for one control engine,put whatever chassis you want on it and go racing.Worked for the DFV in F1 and the BDA in Formula Atlantic.
|
||
|
22 Sep 2009, 12:06 (Ref:2545919) | #8 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 390
|
I'm for the here is your fuel... *thud* now make a car to run on that fuel and complete this distance around these tracks as quickas you can. You may use less fuel to lighten the car but you may not have more. If you run out... tough. If you want a v8/v10/v12 fine.
|
||
|
22 Sep 2009, 15:46 (Ref:2546057) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
I would suggest an open engine/drivetrain formula with the following restrictions:
1. 800bhp limit 2. No traction control, ABS etc. 3. No fully auto boxes. i.e. when the driver flips the paddle the gear changes. Rules like this would put a premium on either fuel economy or cost effectiveness, or the most effective combination of the two. |
||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
22 Sep 2009, 18:17 (Ref:2546154) | #10 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
More ironically, the Group C manufactures never found it despite (or in my opinion: due to) lack of tight regulations. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
22 Sep 2009, 19:06 (Ref:2546187) | #11 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 218
|
I like this, with a sensible fuel limit it could really open things up in the 'innovation' department and potentially have some real viable use back in the real world, especially if they had a 5yr plan or such like where you were gradually given less fuel each season.
|
|
|
22 Sep 2009, 19:13 (Ref:2546194) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
I might be wrong, but didn't the Group C regulations keep changing? Introduction of 'fuel economy' type race regulations after the cars (particularly Porsche) got too much power (The early cars were faster machines than F1 - which was seen as a crime!) Even now it seems there is continuous fiddling with LMP rules in an attempt to equalise open sports cars, closed sports cars, Petrol against Diesel, LMP1 against LMP2 etc etc etc.
|
|
|
22 Sep 2009, 19:43 (Ref:2546216) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
22 Sep 2009, 22:19 (Ref:2546313) | #14 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
||
|
23 Sep 2009, 00:05 (Ref:2546339) | #15 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
V8 is light;good on fuel,but not too powerful.V12 is powerful,but heavy and thirsty.V10 is a compromise.
Back in the mid-nineties there were V8s,V10s and V12s,but it soon became clear that the V10 was the best compromise configuration. Of course the main obstruction to any new engine development is the enormous costs involved.Something that is to be avoided if F1 is to keep a reasonable number of teams on the grid. |
|
|
23 Sep 2009, 00:32 (Ref:2546346) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,511
|
Quote:
Small specialist manufacturers like Judd and others provided power plants based on simple effective designs but they could not match the few manufacturers involved in the sport and their was a shortage of competitive power plants. That meant small start up teams could compete with the traditional teams who were at the bottom of an engine supply cycle. Now it is quite different and the small specialist firms could not compete because of the large financial commitments and support required. The FIA'equalisation has put all the engine suppliers on a plateau where all engines have a reasonably effective chance of making some inroads and getting a result. There is no way you would have had teams like Brawn, Red Bull, STR (last year) and Force India (this year) getting the results and competitive edges that have demonstrated this year under the traditional rules and ways of working. |
|||
|
23 Sep 2009, 09:48 (Ref:2546504) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
It should be mentioned that the electronics, including the fuel readouts were in their first stages of development at that time. Nowadays fuel consumption is limited the very same way in MotoGP and due to the electronics the races are far from 'economy runs'. Although I wouldn't necessarily oppose them: drivers should both be fast and intelligent.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
23 Sep 2009, 13:37 (Ref:2546642) | #18 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 758
|
Quote:
IMHO Have basic rules such as overall dimensions, engine capacity and any regs that have a direct influence on retaining or improving safety standards and let the teams do what they want in any area as long as the overall budget cap is not passed. The problem is and was what the cap should be. |
|||
__________________
Madness is a normal condition interupted only by spells of sanity. |
23 Sep 2009, 16:26 (Ref:2546737) | #19 | ||
TeaTotal
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 458
|
hmm...I've never actually contributed to one of these tech. reg. discussions but...
Engine capacity:free Engine design:reciprocating pistons(no wankles or turbines,etc...), maximum twelve cylinders.Aspiration free.set maximum external dimensions or internal surface areas for rads and intercoolers. Engine weight:minimum 200kgs(assuming you can clearly define what is/isn't part of the engine). And also keep the 8 per season thing. Fuel:150L max per race Aero: Development frozen during the season with two different front and rear wings (high/low speed)homologated before,say february 28th each year.clear up the loophole about the double diffusers and restrict the shape and profile of wings so they can only really change the angle. Chassis:Tub design frozen for 3 years. There's much,much more of course but my head starts to hurt after a while...Oh yeah,Gearboxes.set a minimum weight a little higher than whatever Minardi were using about 6 years ago.Or better yet,set a component limit within the 'box. |
||
|
24 Sep 2009, 13:12 (Ref:2547326) | #20 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,107
|
I'm curious as to how "equal" the new Cosworth engine will be. Red Bull Racing with their Renault engines have shown this year that it can be an advantage when an engine manufacturer is allowed to update their power plant.
From this perspective, it looks like a Williams-Cosworth might be very competitive combination. But we'll see how Sir Frank decides. |
|
|
25 Sep 2009, 16:16 (Ref:2548055) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
F.O.F. has laid out very nice ideas.
I really like the Rad size limit how hard is it to run F1? the ideas here obviously show Ten-Tenths can do better then Bernie and Max... silly FOA |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
25 Sep 2009, 18:47 (Ref:2548170) | #22 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
It all sounds very expensive though (new engines). Which is one of the things that the FIA recently got slagged off for.
|
|
|
25 Sep 2009, 19:59 (Ref:2548236) | #23 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
A quote by Mario Theissen from todays press conference:
Theissen: "Even as an engine guy I have supported the homologation because almost everything that we have achieved in the past two or three years in terms of cost reduction came from the engine side, through homologation and the extension of engine life, so that was certainly a very important and positive step." I think that F1 has to come to terms with the fact that not all of the teams in F1 will be interested in 'road car technology' or in having to pay more for an engine in order to cover its R&D costs. |
|
|
26 Sep 2009, 11:47 (Ref:2548544) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Yep, some teams are more interested in Aerodynamics. At least it will help them not to get passed by others.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
26 Sep 2009, 17:58 (Ref:2548691) | #25 | ||
TeaTotal
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 458
|
I'm just of the opinion that they should be allowed to develop engines but for efficiency rather than outright power.Of course they were spending stupid money on engines a few years ago but you need to spend that much when you're trying to get massive power gains from an NA engine,you're totally unrestricted in the materials you use and you can chuck the whole thing in the bin after every session.Where would they spend the money if cranks,pistons,turbos or the whole unit had relatively high minimum weights specified? Or like I said,If you restrict the cooling opportunities?
On an aside,has anyone ever thought of mandating steel brake discs,thus lenghtening braking zones and making overtaking easier.Maybe they would melt after a few laps but it'd be the same for everyone.It's something I've always thought would make better racing.lap times would probably be slower than gp2 if you made that change alone but a healthy increase in power would sort that out. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Tech Issue] Engines to undergo "re-equalisation" | Marbot | Formula One | 45 | 22 Sep 2009 04:02 |
[WTCC] Equalisation... | touring fan01 | Touring Car Racing | 130 | 7 May 2009 13:50 |
dunlops+wrong engine | tramp | Kart Racing | 3 | 23 Sep 2004 16:06 |
Have renault made the wrong engine decision? | RWC | Formula One | 13 | 25 Aug 2003 19:39 |