Current F1 Power Supply Units

[Mike Harte]

Interesting article on Motorsport dot com concerning the dilemma facing Formula 1 about the latest power-units.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/an...lure/?v=11&s=1

[Razor]

Does make a lot of sense. Never liked the hybrid-turbo drive trains and this article are the reasons why. With the article suggesting:

Originally Posted by Motorsport.com article

Formula 1's next engine could be a 1,000 HP 2.8 litre turbocharged V8, with capped boost pressure, rev limited at 17,000 RPM and burning exclusively one brand of 110 octane gasoline.

Alternatively the famous 3.5 litre V10 from the mid-2000s period could and should be brought back to life.

Either alternative would cost the manufacturers and the teams only a fraction of what the current hybrid V6 costs.

The original KERS system should be reinstated.

Alongside ethanol based fuels (used in nearly other racing series) is really mouth watering. Come on Bernie and FIA, this is what we want!!!

[chillibowl]

To each their own of course, but the plea for ethanol at the end there is an idea I'm not a fan of.

[Richard C]

First, I think it is good to maybe have a dedicated thread on the current power units without having to embed the discussion within team specific threads. So I hope this thread survives!

Regarding the linked article, it is mostly the thoughts of Francois Castaing (ex Renault from over 30 years ago). In general, I understand where he is coming from, but I think he is out of touch in a few ways.

Random comments...

1. Power Units saving the world by saving fuel. I roll my eye each time someone repeats this and goes on to talk about the amount of fuel used to fly the circus around the world, etc. I am not saying that some PR person at some point didn't say this, but it never was about saving fuel. The same goes for the sound of the unit. While some will disagree with me, it is not the problem.

2. Telemetry. He talks about the number of staff monitoring the data from the car. He is asking for an effective ban other than a few sensors. He is completely out of touch with reality and where the world is going with respect to data.

He proposes a new engine spec (isn't that always the answer!? ), but... totally ignores most everything else that really is the core problem (frozen development, longevity requirements, domination by manufactures and equality for customer teams, etc.)

Richard

[Casper]

The telemetry is totally unnecessary as the data can be retrieved after the car has returned to the pits so the engineers do not lose anything. Engineers are funny creatures, they add complexity for the sake of it when allowed to do so. Been there and seen that and had some monster arguments when I said it was not going to happen and that was only on a club car. Some of the outlandish ideas they come up with can't be imagined by anyone who hasn't been involved and I have yet to figure out why. let them take one laptop to the circuit to manage the car, if they can't do it with that they don't need it on the car, get rid of all the buttons except for the horn on the steering wheel and let the driver do his job.

[wnut]

I think you may find a metaphor for F1 PUs here Casper

[Casper]

Very good WN. Why would a team need hundreds of engineers to design one car of which there are two examples used at any one time. It is a totally bloated overkill approach and they then complain about costs. I can't begin to imagine what 500 engineers do all day in relation to a car that is largely built and slowly evolving during the year. As for hundreds at the race track, that too is ludicrous and totally over the top.

[Mike Harte]

At a meeting today, the 4 PSU suppliers and the FIA agreed to not implement the reduction of tokens for next season (it remains at 32, and will cover all the areas as this year), and to also allow the supply of year old units as done this year with Manor and Ferrari.

This now has to be agreed by all the teams, and then rubber stamped by the World Council.

Now to just sort out a continued supply by Renault to Red Bull, with Toro Rosso going back to Ferrari. But Lotus, who knows?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

At a meeting today, the 4 PSU suppliers and the FIA agreed to not implement the reduction of tokens for next season (it remains at 32, and will cover all the areas as this year), and to also allow the supply of year old units as done this year with Manor and Ferrari.

This now has to be agreed by all the teams, and then rubber stamped by the World Council.

Now to just sort out a continued supply by Renault to Red Bull, with Toro Rosso going back to Ferrari. But Lotus, who knows?

So in other words they have overruled the original agreement and ensured that RBR cannot be fully competitive with a works entry - just as Ron Dennis spelled out apparently.

Here is the original rule:

http://www.pitpass.com/54953/Custome...-works-in-2016

Article 23.5 of the 2016 Sporting Regulations (pdf) states: "Only power units which are identical to the power unit that has been homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 of these regulations may be used at an Event during the 2016- 2020 Championship seasons."

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This now has to be agreed by all the teams,

The fat lady hasn't sung the final words yet.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

So in other words they have overruled the original agreement and ensured that RBR cannot be fully competitive with a works entry - just as Ron Dennis spelled out apparently.

I am confused. Either scenario (2016 only engines in 2016 or combo of 2015 and 2016 engines in 2016) would have not ensured anything with respect to RBR. In both scenarios it is the engine manufactures who are saying "no" to RBR having an identical spec not the rules. I believe the hangup with RBR is not with the mechanical spec, but the software spec which is not part of the engine homologation. RBR didn't want to have a current mechanical spec, but then be hobbled by customer software (and associated parameters that hobble performance).

And maybe I don't get it, but that Pitpass article doesn't make an sense to me when it says that the initial 2016 rules (customers get same mechanical spec as manufactures) would push RBR away. If anything that is in their favor even if it doesn't solve the software issue? With the proposed revision to allow 2015 engines, that just puts that back on the table. Could that open the door for Mercedes to provide RBR a 2015 engine if RBR can't work a fresh deal with Renault and a 2015 Ferrari is not good enough for them?

The Autosport article...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121328

Seems to be more up-to-date as it talks about they are talking about adjustments to the 2016 rules which would allow manufactures to give customers the year old mechanical spec. This may be designed to help STR and also note that is "allows", but does not "require" so to put a positive spin on things it allows more flexibility.

On a positive note, the additional tokens is a good thing

Now my personal opinion is that they still should require the same spec for all (including software), but we are nowhere close to that happening (unfortunately).

Richard

[wnut]

I think the rule was to allow the likes of Mercedes to accommodate competitor like RBR, but like you I think it is hideously wrong. There should only be one spec of PU complete with software.
If RBR did get a Merc engine and threatened the works team, all they have to do is detune the software, it is just plain wrong.

We have got to the point in F1 that if you are not a manufacturer, and can't rely on cross subsidisation you won't be able to produce a PU. The manufacturers have succeeded in obtaining a position, Mercedes mainly, where they can hold F1 to any ransom they please.

Isn't this exactly what Bernie was trying to avoid originally with Cosworth?

They should just dump the token system.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

They should just dump the token system.

MB & Ferrari won't let that happen as they won't let in season private testing happen.

[Pingguest]

It is said that the token system is not Renault's main problem. With only a couple of races remaining, Renault still has not used all its available tokens. A lack of solutions rather than solutions seem to the company's major issue.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is said that the token system is not Renault's main problem. With only a couple of races remaining, Renault still has not used all its available tokens. A lack of solutions rather than solutions seem to the company's major issue.

Renault currently lack investment commitment and interest, which makes them a totally unsuitable partner fro RBR.

I will be very surprised if they follow through on their Lotus letter of intent.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Renault currently lack investment commitment and interest, which makes them a totally unsuitable partner fro RBR.

I will be very surprised if they follow through on their Lotus letter of intent.

Buying Lotus would seem to only increase their problems, I too don't get it. maybe there are a couple of people within Renault who have been allowed to push the deal on condition that they can extract more money out of CVC but if that is not forthcoming the majority within the company won't play???

[wnut]

Here is a thought, if you employed Cosworth/ Illmor / Whoever to make a PU on the basis of just making a really good turbo ICE and the most rudimentary KERS system possible; basically non functioning miniature mock up charging a 1.5 volt nicad, then used depleted uranium ballast to make up the weight.

You would have a good powerful efficient unit that was hugely compact with a very low centre of gravity with no weird brake by wire response in the braking system.
Would you be competitive, I think so Rosberg finished second with carrying his unit for more than 60 of last year's Canadian GP, and he had none of the benefits of a low CG or packaging a specifically designed unit would bring. You have to run a KERS system, nothing more, and the CG of the KERS is not set.

[wolfhound]

Bernie wants V8's next year. Surely its a bit late for next year at this stage both in terms of having sufficient engines ready and the teams having to make major redesigns of their cars I would imagine that the chassis would need to be finalised within the next month for some teams.

But then it was Bernie's favourite scribe that wrote the story.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...n-f1-for-2016/
I am surprised at motorsport.com picking up the story.
Also Bernie has been doing a lot of talking to journalists in recent weeks, I wonder why?


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/m...-a6700696.html

[Razor]

Forget V8's. Bring back the V10's.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

Buying Lotus would seem to only increase their problems, I too don't get it. maybe there are a couple of people within Renault who have been allowed to push the deal on condition that they can extract more money out of CVC but if that is not forthcoming the majority within the company won't play???

Maybe the prize that Renault are really after is not Lotus, but Red Bull. With no-one seemingly happy to supply Red Bull with (competative) PSUs, what value does the team have? That would solve the RBR problem, Ferrari could supply STR, but that would still leave a huge financial hole at Lotus that need plugging.

[bella]

i would imagine the huge montly wage bill and overheads at red bull would very quickly equal the debts lurking at lotus.

[Alfaholic]

Originally Posted by wnut

Here is a thought, if you employed Cosworth/ Illmor / Whoever to make a PU on the basis of just making a really good turbo ICE and the most rudimentary KERS system possible; basically non functioning miniature mock up charging a 1.5 volt nicad, then used depleted uranium ballast to make up the weight.

You would have a good powerful efficient unit that was hugely compact with a very low centre of gravity with no weird brake by wire response in the braking system.
Would you be competitive, I think so Rosberg finished second with carrying his unit for more than 60 of last year's Canadian GP, and he had none of the benefits of a low CG or packaging a specifically designed unit would bring. You have to run a KERS system, nothing more, and the CG of the KERS is not set.

Isn't that what Honda are already doing according to the drivers' comments?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Bernie wants V8's next year. Surely its a bit late for next year at this stage both in terms of having sufficient engines ready and the teams having to make major redesigns of their cars I would imagine that the chassis would need to be finalised within the next month for some teams.

But then it was Bernie's favourite scribe that wrote the story.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...n-f1-for-2016/
I am surprised at motorsport.com picking up the story.
Also Bernie has been doing a lot of talking to journalists in recent weeks, I wonder why?


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/m...-a6700696.html

If Bernie can bring back the V8s, he is absolutely the right man to be running F1! The only person who can sort out the manufacturer monopoly.

"We need an independent engine supplier. I've been on about this now for a year and a half." Bernie

P.S. v10s would be better!

[greentrumpet]

PPS supercharged V16s about 1.5 litres sound best.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

If Bernie can bring back the V8s, he is absolutely the right man to be running F1! The only person who can sort out the manufacturer monopoly.

"We need an independent engine supplier. I've been on about this now for a year and a half." Bernie

P.S. v10s would be better!

And bring back steel brakes also.

Has he been on about an independent engine supplier? One isn't enough there should be more and the engine should only have a capacity limit and the layout should be free. There is nothing AFAIK to prevent anyone supplying an engine at the present time? if that is the case BE should be asking the question why no one wants to do it but he might not like the answer.