Idea's for the next engine formula

[Tim.Wright]

Max HP is a terrible idea. If you don't want a spec series, this is what you should be really scared of.

How would a HP limit create a spec series? It would be anything but by definition.

Being a spec series has nothing really to do with everyone using the same components. The core is that everyone has the same specifications limiting teams in a particular specification simply means that all teams will develop to that specification and stop, resulting in... a spec series. Limiting max horsepower is effectively equal to setting the horsepower of all of the engines.

I think you are missing the concept of a spec series bob. Spec series means spec parts. With a power limit, there would ideally not be any spec parts.

If a power limit is such a terrible idea, why haven't anyone said anything about the ERS power limits in the current rules? Also, how is a power limit any different to a bodywork deflection limit, a mass limit or a dimensional limit??

[beelsebob]

Being a spec series has nothing really to do with everyone using the same components. The core is that everyone has the same specifications limiting teams in a particular specification simply means that all teams will develop to that specification and stop, resulting in... a spec series. Limiting max horsepower is effectively equal to setting the horsepower of all of the engines.

I think you are missing the concept of a spec series bob. Spec series means spec parts.

Yes, that is... parts made to a specification.

With a power limit, there would ideally not be any spec parts.

A power limit is by definition, a specification. This is the very core of what a spec series is.

If a power limit is such a terrible idea, why haven't anyone said anything about the ERS power limits in the current rules?

I have, repeatedly, I've repeatedly suggest that the limitation should simply be "you can carry 4.2GJ of power at the start of the race, in any form, how you use it is entirely up to you"

Also, how is a power limit any different to a bodywork deflection limit

Because a team can still design whatever aero they like producing as much force as they can imagine within that deflection limit. A power limit would be akin not to a bodywork deflection limit, but instead to a maximum force generated by all bodywork, which all teams would hit exactly

a mass limit

It's not - as you can see in the current series, all teams will just hit that limit as exactly as they can. This is the only year in over a decade where not every single team has been sat exactly on that mass limit, and I can bet you heavily that by next year every single team will be sitting exactly on it, with their essentially spec car in that regard.

or a dimensional limit??

Because again - there's plenty of scope within that dimension limit to do all kinds of crazy things, again, a dimension limit is not a downforce limit.

[Cold Fussion]

How can you be against a power limit but at the same time promote an energy limit? I can't see how you can rationalise such a contradictory opinion.

[Drewd11]

Also, if you want to see even slightly competitive racing, a maximum amount of energy would be impossible. People would turn up and turn down their engines throughout the race to levels of power which simply wouldn't be safe, qualifying would have to be entirely rethought, and the optimal application of power around a track would be fed from some laptops to a driver to make certain that he got the most speed out of the least energy.
Wheel to wheel racing would be impossible without some kind of constant delivery restriction on the energy usage which is... wait for it:
power.

[beelsebob]

How can you be against a power limit but at the same time promote an energy limit? I can't see how you can rationalise such a contradictory opinion.

Because an energy limit allows the teams to design their cars however they want, and extract as much of the energy from that limit as they possibly can. That way, we get the teams genuinely striving for better tech to extract a higher percentage of energy from their fuel. Meanwhile, a output power limit gets us to a position where the teams have no incentive to develop anything (because they're already at the output power), and where none of the teams are ever able to produce a better engine.

One leads to technical advancement, and interesting results, the other leads to a spec series, and no tech advancement.

[beelsebob]

Also, if you want to see even slightly competitive racing, a maximum amount of energy would be impossible. People would turn up and turn down their engines throughout the race to levels of power which simply wouldn't be safe, qualifying would have to be entirely rethought, and the optimal application of power around a track would be fed from some laptops to a driver to make certain that he got the most speed out of the least energy.

And you think that's different from today how?

All I'm proposing here is allowing the teams the exact same amount of fuel as they have today (4.2GJ corresponds to 100kg of fuel), but more flexibility in how they put it on the road, design their engine, etc.

Wheel to wheel racing would be impossible without some kind of constant delivery restriction on the energy usage which is... wait for it:
power.

And yet, we have a season with that kind of rule set with the most racing we've seen in a decade.

[Cold Fussion]

How can you be against a power limit but at the same time promote an energy limit? I can't see how you can rationalise such a contradictory opinion.

Because an energy limit allows the teams to design their cars however they want, and extract as much of the energy from that limit as they possibly can. That way, we get the teams genuinely striving for better tech to extract a higher percentage of energy from their fuel. Meanwhile, a output power limit gets us to a position where the teams have no incentive to develop anything (because they're already at the output power), and where none of the teams are ever able to produce a better engine.

One leads to technical advancement, and interesting results, the other leads to a spec series, and no tech advancement.

If you have a maximum power limit, then the incentive to develop is the same. The incentive is that more efficient your engine is, the less fuel you can carry, as well potentially designing engines with flat power curves and getting rid of the gearbox entirely, improving efficiency further. Both methods lead to exactly the same design goal, greater efficiency.

[FoxHound]

If you put some thought into it instead of being so short sighted you will see it has some merit. Ironically you have +1'd an energy limit which in the end is bascially the same thing.

To rehash what I said a couple of pages ago....
then congratulations to motorsport because it would have just found a true optimum powertrain solution for weight, range, efficiency (aero and mechanical), driveability... For the first time in modern history it may have solved a real problem for the automotive industry instead of pissing copious amount of cash up against the wall to make a little carbon element bend a bit more to get around some arbitrary rules.

Here's the thing.
Some people can extract more from a set limit of energy than others.
Are you suggesting that having a limit on fuel is the same as having a limit on power? That is not true Tim.
This is where real innovation takes place and has real world relevance. Energy use and Energy recuperation can be improved by huge amounts, as can other forms of harvesting energy be explored and implemented.

If I give a litre to Mercedes and another to BMW, you can rest assured they will have a different idea on how to best utilise that litre. And you can also rest assured that one is going to be better than the other.
It is because they aren't artificially limited as to what they can do with that litre.

In your example you mention having a power limit will improve weight, range, efficiency (aero and mechanical), driveability.
How will it change drive-ability if power is limited(bhp and torque)?
All teams will in time converge on a single engine map and then what.....staleness set's in.

Mass, range and efficiency are solutions that are not unique to your proposal either, with an energy limit providing the same. And when I say energy limit, I mean what fossil fuels you put in. Energy recuperation would be outside of any limit, as it should be.

And to be clear, an energy limit is in no way the same as a power limit if the fuel you are using has not reached it's full potential. It sounds like you are working on the assumption that ICE's are as efficient as they get, and that is very far from the truth.
So while a power limit will always be static, an energy limit will not.

[Tim.Wright]

How can you be against a power limit but at the same time promote an energy limit? I can't see how you can rationalise such a contradictory opinion.

Because an energy limit allows the teams to design their cars however they want, and extract as much of the energy from that limit as they possibly can. That way, we get the teams genuinely striving for better tech to extract a higher percentage of energy from their fuel. Meanwhile, a output power limit gets us to a position where the teams have no incentive to develop anything (because they're already at the output power), and where none of the teams are ever able to produce a better engine.

One leads to technical advancement, and interesting results, the other leads to a spec series, and no tech advancement.

In your opinion Bob.

In my opinion there is no great difference between a power limit and an energy limit except that from a safety point of view, a power limit is going to better control the racing speeds better than an energy limit. It will be easier to implement too since you only need to add 2 torque sensors to the front wheels (since everyone already have them on the rear wheels as well as 4x wheel speed sensors).

Both limits (power and energy) are going to force development in the direction of efficiency. There is no way, in the short term that either limiting method is going to end up as a spec series of which I'm convinced you are not sure of its definition:

With a power limit, there would ideally not be any spec parts.

A power limit is by definition, a specification. This is the very core of what a spec series is.

A spec series uses spec parts. Such parts are typicall made by a few approved manufacturers to the same drawing as the corresponding part on every other car.

Stretching that definition to include an entire powertrain with no restrictions on design whatsoever except for a torque and speed limit at the output shaft is just hyperbole.

[Tim.Wright]

Mass, range and efficiency are solutions that are not unique to your proposal either, with an energy limit providing the same. And when I say energy limit, I mean what fossil fuels you put in. Energy recuperation would be outside of any limit, as it should be.

Who said anything about using only fossil fuels?

Did you not read my original idea properly? The proposal was that any energy source could be allowed. Electric, combustion, hybrid, fuel cell, rubber bands, compressed air, what you want.

For a combustion only powertrain, then yes I agree that a power limit would cause a convergence but don't kid yourself into thinking an energy limit won't.

[FoxHound]

I'm working on the assumption we all still want ICE's.
With energy recuperation.

[Tim.Wright]

Well thats not what I said...

In the original post and the quote on the previous page it is clear that the powertrain implmentation would be open.

[autogyro]

Internal combustion and liquid fuel will only continue until electrical energy storage reaches a level capable of meeting range and sustained power requirements.

[Tim.Wright]

If we want to stick with ICE's then the next formula will be whatever trickles down from the road car industry in the next 10 years.

[Tim.Wright]

Internal combustion and liquid fuel will only continue until electrical energy storage reaches a level capable of meeting range and sustained power requirements.

I think thats pretty obvious though...

The main killer for me is not range but the recharge time. A 300km range would be acceptable if it didnt take several hours for a proper recharge. It doesn't look like this will change in the short term though.