[Tech Issue] Are the 2014 engine regulations too restrictive?

[Marbot]

Not sure if these have been discussed previously ? (been ill)

5.1.7 All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° “V” configuration and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular.

5.1.9 Engine exhaust gases may only exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder
bore centre line and not from within the “V” centre.

5.3.1 Cylinder bore diameter must be 80mm (+/- 0.1mm).

5.7.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the turbine wheel is permitted.



Interesting additions:

5.18 Starting the engine :It must be possible for the driver to start the engine at any time when seated normally at the wheel and without any external assistance.

5.19 Electric mode :The car must be run in electric mode (no ignition and no fuel supply to the engine) at all times when being driven in the pit lane.

New gearbox rules:

9.6 Gear ratios : 9.6.1 The number of forward gear ratios must be 8.

9.6.2 Each competitor must nominate the forward gear ratios (calculated from engine crankshaft to drive shafts) to be employed within their gearbox. These nominations must be declared to the FIA technical delegate at or before the first Event of the Championship. For 2014 only, a competitor may re-nominate these ratios once within the Championship season, in which case the original nomination becomes immediately void. Ratio re-nominations must be declared as a set and may only be effected by the substitution of change gears.

[wnut]

Basically a spec engine, they might as well just use 1 foundary and they can all engrave their names on the tappet covers for advertising purposes.

Spec formula!

Going to be like building FF engines in a minute.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

A discussion has taken place Here

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

A discussion has taken place Here

To be fair, that should be a discussion about electric powered F1 cars.

It's interesting that the teams have agreed to all of these changes, except maybe the use of electric (KERS) only power in the pit lane.

8 gears should be enough to cover the majority of situations that arise throughout an F1 season. 6 do just fine in my road car.

Obviously FOTA have agreed that the making of up-teen different ratios during a season is an unnecessary waste of time and money, so have agreed to allow an extra ratio into the gearbox, instead. It should also be noted that the new engines will have vastly better torque than the out-going V8s.

I would have liked a little more freedom with the engine architecture, but again, in time, all would end up using the same configuration anyway.

I think we have to realise that current F1 engine manufacturers just don't have the necessary resources any more to be going down any blind allies with engine development.

I think that we also have to realise (and I think that many have) that most car manufacturers aren't interested in F1, no matter how inexpensive it becomes to compete in. Mainly because a very good power plant can be made to look very ordinary if its bolted to the wrong car.

[broadrun96]

Have to agree, the teams already know a good bit about how the engines will be built and the chances a team goes out on a limb are small. Even if they hadn't written the specs into the rules the engines would end up almost being so similar as to be spec anyway; how many solutions could there be to the same problem in a sport of copy what the leader is using? No team that can monetarily afford the risk of something new can afford the PR if it goes wrong, and the teams at the midfield or back can't really afford it either way. There is way too much cash at stake for the wild innovation it seems most fans on here want to see.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

There is way too much cash at stake for the wild innovation it seems most fans on here want to see.

Nail on head.

At least Cosworth will be joining in on the fun. Even so, one sentence still stands out above all others.

"Meanwhile, we have been working alongside our competitors to incorporate a resource restriction agreement on these new regulations to lay sensible and firm foundations for all engine manufacturers in Formula One moving forwards."


MG: "We have welcomed the new regulations and signed up to the V6 along with the other manufacturers. Designing new engines is part of the lifeblood of Cosworth, so we have a highly motivated and hugely experienced team of engineers and designers at Northampton looking forward to bringing this new unit to market. It's not the first V6 Turbo F1 engine we've done, so it's not as though we are moving into uncharted territory even if some of the requirements are indeed unique! Meanwhile, we have been working alongside our competitors to incorporate a resource restriction agreement on these new regulations to lay sensible and firm foundations for all engine manufacturers in Formula One moving forwards. Cosworth has a successful track record when it comes to producing new engines and the technologies being incorporated in the 2014 engine reflect the work we are already doing for car manufacturers in our automotive business. It's a very exciting prospect."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93596

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Have to agree, the teams already know a good bit about how the engines will be built and the chances a team goes out on a limb are small. Even if they hadn't written the specs into the rules the engines would end up almost being so similar as to be spec anyway; how many solutions could there be to the same problem in a sport of copy what the leader is using? No team that can monetarily afford the risk of something new can afford the PR if it goes wrong, and the teams at the midfield or back can't really afford it either way. There is way too much cash at stake for the wild innovation it seems most fans on here want to see.

In other words: restrictive regulations aren't necessary at all?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In other words: restrictive regulations aren't necessary at all?

But having them in place prevents embarrassing slip-ups from the get-go.

Imagine that Adrian Newey wants the V angle of your engine at 60 degrees instead of the 90 degrees that it's currently designed at. And then everyone else suddenly realises that if they don't have a 60 degree engine, then their season is shot.

Pointlessness.

I too wanted more liberal engine regulations, but I can see the reasons for why they wouldn't work any more.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Imagine that Adrian Newey wants the V angle of your engine at 60 degrees instead of the 90 degrees that it's currently designed at. And then everyone else suddenly realises that if they don't have a 60 degree engine, then their season is shot.

Pointlessness.

Not pointless at all, in my book. It would mean that one designer (at least) had bothered to think about, and evaluate, the options....... Isn't that what they are paid for?

Today you can design, build and run an engine completely inside a computer. The risks and costs are minimal compared to days gone by when casting and/or machining metal was unavoidable before you could evaluate the potential of an engine. It's a funny world where the turbo manufacturers of the world

For obvious reasons, I bet there are not many engine designers who would opt for a 90 degree V angle for a V6, given the choice. And ignoring the benefits to engine performance/economy/flexibility available from variable turbine inlet or vane geometry seems to me a step backwards in engineering. It's a funny world where the mainstream turbo manufacturers are technologically ahead of the F1 world, rather than being led forward by the brains inside F1........

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

It would mean that one designer (at least) had bothered to think about, and evaluate, the options....... Isn't that what they are paid for?

The key word in that sentence is "paid".

And, of course, if only one designer has got it right, then that's a whole lot of midnight oil burning for those that got it wrong. Assuming that they want to bother building another engine at all. Here's hoping that the engine bloke at Ferrari knows what he's doing!

Originally Posted by phoenix

Today you can design, build and run an engine completely inside a computer. The risks and costs are minimal compared to days gone by when casting and/or machining metal was unavoidable before you could evaluate the potential of an engine.

Indeed. So the chances of everyone arriving at a similar concept would be far greater today than it was in the past. Variety is killed off at an early stage.

Originally Posted by phoenix

For obvious reasons, I bet there are not many engine designers who would opt for a 90 degree V angle for a V6, given the choice. And ignoring the benefits to engine performance/economy/flexibility available from variable turbine inlet or vane geometry seems to me a step backwards in engineering. It's a funny world where the mainstream turbo manufacturers are technologically ahead of the F1 world, rather than being led forward by the brains inside F1........

Most V6 engines operate best at around a 60 degree angle. The early F1 V6 turbos used various 'V' angles (Honda's RA168E had an 80 degree 'V' angle). No one is going to get too excited about 'V' angles.

To be fair, variable vane/geometry/nozzle turbo technology is a bit 'old hat' now. I think the intention is to have electrically driven/assisted turbos.

And I think that it will probably be the "mainstream turbo manufacturers" that supply the teams with their turbos. Nothing new there.

There are far more "brains" outside F1 than there are in it.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But having them in place prevents embarrassing slip-ups from the get-go.

Imagine that Adrian Newey wants the V angle of your engine at 60 degrees instead of the 90 degrees that it's currently designed at. And then everyone else suddenly realises that if they don't have a 60 degree engine, then their season is shot.

Pointlessness.

I too wanted more liberal engine regulations, but I can see the reasons for why they wouldn't work any more.

I thought the argument was the manufactures lacked resources to experiment. If so, why would they ever agree with Newey's demand for a different V-angle?

The thesis that, so to speak, the V-angle could be the main performance differentiator, is based on the assumption that there's always an absolute point of perfection and that teams well get closer to that by using more resources. With regulations effectively blueprinting the car, this is indeed the case. Teams can only optimise within the regulations. But what if the regulations would lack an absolute point of perfection?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I thought the argument was the manufactures lacked resources to experiment.

Indeed, it is the argument. Perhaps, for the upteenth time, unwilling to build yet another engine because its 'V' angle is 2 degrees out for optimum aero efficiency?

Renault spent a fortune on an 111 degree engine for the purposes of weight distribution and aero efficiency. It was a bit of a flop, and maybe a lesson learned.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If so, why would they ever agree with Newey's demand for a different V-angle?

They would first of all ask Newey to design his car before they designed the engine (which no doubt he would now be doing well in advance, had the regs been more open). Then they wouldn't need to experiment. Job done.

But then you have the problem of selling your 45 degree or 60 degree or even 120 degree, or maybe even a rotary/V5/V7/H16 engine to someone who might not have a chassis/aero designed to use that engine in the same way that Newey has designed his chassis/aero to use it. Or do you tell any prospective buyer what the 'V' angle etc is going to be well in advance? Or do they have to redesign and build their chassis/aero again (not possible under current regs for reasons of cost), even if they were sure their own chassis/aero design was better? Or do they go elsewhere for an engine? Or will someone be brave enough to make an engine that's purpose designed for a chassis that's a dead cert to win first time out (LIFE springs to mind)?

Can you see the pit-falls in allowing that to happen now? And only because of a different 'V' angle, never mind anything else!

Originally Posted by Pingguest

But what if the regulations would lack an absolute point of perfection?

Sounds, and probably is expensive, and to what ends? We are, after all, just watching motor racing.

Imagine the state that F1 would be in if the teams were told to go away and turn up in 2012 with whatever they thought would get around a track the fastest on, say, 100 litres of fuel (?) and weighing, say, no more than 1,000kgs. Chaos! And, at the very least, you would be sick of the same car (?) winning all of the time.

[Al Weyman]

Maybe the Beeb are getting out at the right time.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Maybe the Beeb are getting out at the right time.

The Beeb aren't getting out, they have just extended their contract until 2018 albeit in different format.

But there are plenty of other threads about that, lets not knock this one off course and down that route too.

[JeremySmith]

As long as the racing is good then I could give a...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

As long as the racing is good then I could give a...

Indeed. The emphasis now being on what you can see, rather than what you can't.

[wolfhound]

Having the exhausts exit in the centre of the 'V' would seem more logical for a single turbo and with the new exhaust exit high up at the back of the car?

It should not be a major problem for drivers to start the engine, just drive it in electric mode and turn on the ignition, should be able to jump start it and no need for a conventional starter!!!

By restricting the no of potential designs early will force the engine designers down other routes to find more power. Remember we had 1.5 turbos producing 1500 BHP in thte 80's.

[P38 in workshop]

I believe it was the IRL, of all formulae,which stipulated the location of the front engine mounts.This gave some freedom to the designers and ensured that engines from different suppliers were interchangeable.
Why not free things up a bit;even the cylinder bore is tightly controlled under the new proposals.As for spiralling costs,the FIA have caused a lot of this with their insistence on KERS and then limiting the output,truly a zero sum game as everybody gets there in the end and the only advantage goes to those who achieve the best result a bit sooner and it gets wiped out when the others catch up.Has a sensible way to recycle KERS batteries been developed yet?Surely it would be of greater benefit to racing to apply the resource restriction agreement to the creation of gargantuan motorhomes/brand centres and use the saving to develop advanced cars.
In the previous turbo era we had inline fours,V6's and V8's with one or two turbos and there was a V6 with two turbos and a centrifugal supercharger almost ready to race,before the backers decided to do other things.What are we to look forward to this time-clones from an FIA blueprint.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I believe it was the IRL, of all formulae,which stipulated the location of the front engine mounts.This gave some freedom to the designers and ensured that engines from different suppliers were interchangeable.

Which, to my mind, is a good thing.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Why not free things up a bit;even the cylinder bore is tightly controlled under the new proposals.

The cylinder bore basically controls combustion and rpm limit. Since there is to be an rpm limit anyway (no point having engines revving beyond 15,000 rpm) there's not much need to change engine internals for any other reason than to make the engine more efficient (same power at the same rpm for less fuel used)

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

As for spiralling costs,the FIA have caused a lot of this with their insistence on KERS and then limiting the output,truly a zero sum game as everybody gets there in the end and the only advantage goes to those who achieve the best result a bit sooner and it gets wiped out when the others catch up.Has a sensible way to recycle KERS batteries been developed yet?Surely it would be of greater benefit to racing to apply the resource restriction agreement to the creation of gargantuan motorhomes/brand centres and use the saving to develop advanced cars.

KERS was restricted in order that it did not become a huge performance differentiator. However, in 2014, KERS and other energy recovery systems (ERS) will be allowed to be a larger performance differentiator. It will be used for a much greater part of lap time. If your ERS don't work, then you'll be going very slowly. Fans will then complain that KERS plays too much of a part in the cars performance.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

In the previous turbo era we had inline fours,V6's and V8's with one or two turbos and there was a V6 with two turbos and a centrifugal supercharger almost ready to race,before the backers decided to do other things.What are we to look forward to this time-clones from an FIA blueprint.

If the only regulation was that you have 100 Kgs of 'pump' petrol to get you to the end of any race, we 'may' see some very interesting engine designs (not that too many would be that interested anyway), but also some very boring and predictable races. I'm not sure that's what the 'show' needs right now.

[luke g28]

Meh I'm not going to get into the bodywork thing, I shared your opinion originally but have since looked a bit more in depth, by having a flexible front end you can run a lower ride height and still maintain the desired rake due to the flexing effect, suffice to say where rbr's floor is split into 2 sections, there is wear on the leading edge of the 2nd section, suggesting an intentional pivot point.

I can't imagine the turbos won't be used to pressurize the intake air as the electrical motors are nowhere near powerful enough to compensate. I would expect to see the overboost harnessed in this way but that is all.

Yes the rules will always be tested, that's the whole point of having them, however the more prescriptive the rules are the more liable they are to exploitation as the legal improvement avenues are so limited.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Meh I'm not going to get into the bodywork thing, I shared your opinion originally but have since looked a bit more in depth, by having a flexible front end you can run a lower ride height and still maintain the desired rake due to the flexing effect, suffice to say where rbr's floor is split into 2 sections, there is wear on the leading edge of the 2nd section, suggesting an intentional pivot point.

Intentional or not, it passes all the tests.

Originally Posted by luke g28

I can't imagine the turbos won't be used to pressurize the intake air as the electrical motors are nowhere near powerful enough to compensate. I would expect to see the overboost harnessed in this way but that is all.

The overboost from the excess exhaust energy could be quite considerable, depending on the overall efficiency of the V6 engine without any boost whatsoever. More efficient petrol engine = less need for boost pressure. Thereby leaving the turbo to do other things.

Such as.

From FIA document:

" With an increase in available power from 60kW and an energy limit of 400kJ per lap to 120kW and 4MJ, the electrical energy on tap will be ten times greater than the current system, making up much of the shortfall caused by the downsizing of the engine."

The balancing act is to know what is best to do. Increase the power of the petrol engine or save more energy to the batteries? One thing is for sure. The petrol engine, no matter how efficient, will be the least efficient part of the equation. The less you need to make use of it (by using the fuel allotted in a strategical way and also by maximizing your energy recovery), the better your race will be.

Another big energy saver will be the reduction of drag, which will also aid overtaking. You will most certainly not be able to run anywhere near as much drag as the current cars are running.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Yes the rules will always be tested, that's the whole point of having them, however the more prescriptive the rules are the more liable they are to exploitation as the legal improvement avenues are so limited.

It's precisely because the avenues are so limited that we don't have ten protests to deal with at every race. So much fuss has been made about just one thing this season. I'm not sure that ten things is something that the FIA can cope with.

[luke g28]

I don't share your view of turbos being unnecessary hence why they were banned from everything.

yes I get that point that increasing the electrical contribution is important but I feel that the power limits are far too low for it to negate the need for boost.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I don't share your view of turbos being unnecessary hence why they were banned from everything.

You mean, unnecessary for intake air pressurisation? Turbos can be used for many things. They will be used for good things in 2014.

Originally Posted by luke g28

yes I get that point that increasing the electrical contribution is important but I feel that the power limits are far too low for it to negate the need for boost.

Remember that you only have about 100 kgs of fuel. The most efficient car will be the fastest car. Pressurising the intake air may not be the most efficient way to make use of the turbo. If you do that, you'll go faster, but you'll also need to use more fuel to go faster. Is that a good use of fuel? Or is there a better way to use fuel? There won't be enough fuel to continually boost the turbo to any great degree. Also remember that the cars will be running substantially less drag (drag eats fuel), so the cars will be as fast, if not faster, in a straight line than they are now. Efficiency is the key to the 2014 F1 regs.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

You mean, unnecessary for intake air pressurisation? Turbos can be used for many things. They will be used for good things in 2014.



Remember that you only have about 100 kgs of fuel. The most efficient car will be the fastest car. Pressurising the intake air may not be the most efficient way to make use of the turbo. If you do that, you'll go faster, but you'll also need to use more fuel to go faster. Is that a good use of fuel? Or is there a better way to use fuel? There won't be enough fuel to continually boost the turbo to any great degree. Also remember that the cars will be running substantially less drag (drag eats fuel), so the cars will be as fast, if not faster, in a straight line than they are now. Efficiency is the key to the 2014 F1 regs.

Remember, you have to carry all this rubbish around in the car and it limits how you can move the weight around. The performance differentiation will be in how small the battery packs can be made. The energy harvesting will also be mainly effective on the braking and overrun systems. I doubt anyone will try and run a dynamo/motor in the turbo.

Question: are the firing orders set down in the regs?
If not expect the 3 sets of cylinders firing 2 at a time.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by marbot

I bet that the new thing to have in F1 for 2012/13 is something to do with aerodynamics.

Of course it will, they arent allowed to develop tyres or their engine therefore what is left? Aero.