Framework for Discussion - F1 2011 Regulations

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:53 pm

The "Framework for Discussion" enunciated by the FIA for future regulations has a number of troubling concepts. The two principal reasons for changing the regulations are:1. To lower the costs; 2. To react to public concern about the environment.

To lower the costs, the basic principle is to have new F1 technologies come "from the mainstream R & D of major manufacturers." In other words, the technologies will be road relevant.

Regarding the environment, the primary approach is to reduce fuel consumption and to reformulate fuel to include a bio component.

The framework is divided into two sections, drivetrain and chassis. Let's first look at the drivetrain, as the chassis is dependant on the constraints forced on it by drivetrain design.

A 30% reduction in fuel usage is proposed. To accomplish this, a reduction in power from 560,000 watts to 450,000 watts is suggested. One horsepower is 746 watts, so we go from current power levels of 750hp to 603hp.

To convert wasted energy into horsepower, turbos are suggested, but not compulsary. It could be direct or indirect, i.e. power the engine, or a battery charging system. This can add back 50,000 watts.

Regenerative power systems are allowed, and are likly to be electrical storage systems, as the manufacturers prefer that method (because of hybrids). This will be fed through a four-wheel drive system. This my provide up to 60,000 watts.

Unconstrained electronic controls will be allowed in order to control the interface between the engine, turbo, and the regenerative drive.

The weight minimum will be raised to 640kg to facilitate the batteries and other regenerative hardware.

And to save money, the engines must last 5 races.

What do you think about that?
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:57 pm

I don't want them to destroy this sport. Mi opinion about those ideas is that the will destroy F1 unless they create something coeherent, not like Diesel+5 races engines...

Those are...
Image
Tifoso
 
Joined: 11 Feb 2007

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:06 pm

My concern is that manufacturers, run by car selling men in board rooms, are at any time, just one vote away from deciding that F1 is not a good global marketing expense. The "Framework for Discussion" shows that it those manufacturers that are, in fact, in charge of F1's future.

That scares me.
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:09 pm

How can forcing engines to be developed and tested to last 5 races reduce cost?
Cyco
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2005

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:28 pm

The overall concept is to have an overlapping of the manufacturers' road car R & D budget with their racing R & D budget. There is a chart on page 8 o the "drivetrain framework" document that illustrates this. The total budget of F1 development won't go down. But, it will be an integral part of the road car budget and will affect a reduction in overall R & D costs to each manufacturer.

Well, that's their plan. I'm not a proponent of this approach, or an opponent. I'm just trying to understand the details.
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:40 pm

Deluge, a good thing

that you opened a thread for the 2011 proposals ... I thought of doing the same, but the documents are extensive and I've been swamped with other things so I won't post very precise comments in the next couple of days at least. Let's just say that I've got an opinion or two in store and if I am to contribute, I will do it here.

This issue has been discussed earlier, too, but in bits and pieces as information has trickled out from various sources. I'll provide a few links, if you haven't noticed those threads earlier ... I think, given your concerns and questions, they're worth reading through if you haven't already.

Max wants to bring back overtaking
10000 rpm only!?!?!
The future of Aerodynamics in Formula One
4 cylinders?
KERS revs up
Regenerative systems

... and I'm sure there are more relevant points hidden in discussions that I can't remember at the moment. On a KERS related story, it seems that manufacturers want to delay the introduction of the device to 2011 (or perhaps they just need time to replace that idea with something else) and bring biofuels forward to 2009 instead. I was wondering about the rationale behind the two tier approach to reforming F1 technology anyways.

Autosport: Teams hope to delay KERS introduction
checkered
 
Joined: 2 Mar 2007

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:03 pm

Checkered, I have seen a few of those posts you listed, but I'll look at them all.

I was a little confused about the four cylinder talk, I know that Autosport said 4 cylinders at 1.3 to 1.5 litres, but on page 4 of the "framework" it says "V6, 2.2 litre, 4 valves per cylinder."

Where did the 4 cylinder talk originate?
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:07 pm

I'll sum up my views on the chassis side.

-50% Reduction in drag:

I find it quite good actually, i think not going for this was a little bit of illusory as this is already the trend.
To do it of course radical concept are to be allowed, the main one being the moveable aeros and the second the Ground effects and thus removal of the flat bottom, both i think are great.

One thing i like about that departement is that while the 50% reduction will occur only in straight, a significant part of the proposal is about managing better laminar aerodynamic efficiency mainly by the means of morphing or plasma.

This will help preserving the downforce while decreasing the drag wich will surely lead to very efficient cars, maybe we'll see the comeback of very high lift to drag ratio cars like the GE era ones.


-50% reduction in downforce over 2009 levels(themselves being 50% less than the 2007 ones):

This proposition seems a bit scary until you get that this reduction is aimed for straights and high speeds thus it is a maximum downforce level achievable.

Because of moveable/active aeros the downforce in low speed and medium corner will increase over the current levels and the tyre efficiency is to be increased by 3% added to new suspensions possibilites all in one the plans are to have decreased lap time over 2009, the question will be what will be thoses lap times?

In anyway the maximum downforce level for 2009 is 1250kg.
For a 5G turn at 250km/h (like magny cours turns 6 and 7 or Corpse at silverstone) it requires actually about the 1600 kg of downforce but all depends on the Tyre efficiency and the weight on the tyres so because thoses points are to be increase in efficiency i'm not that worried about high speed possibilities.

As far as lateral acceleration are concerned, the minimal weight system is to be removed so it seems cars are to be lighter (but the drivetrain proposal is conflicting on this point as the drivetraine will be heavier).
If car are lighter= more lateral acceleration aviable.


-Overtaking:

the move for adaptative aeros is definitevely the way to go if you want to have long straight low drag/low downforce and in corners high downforce with still low drag.

The frequencies choosen by the FIA are quite okay and the ride height adjustement is quite okay.

Now on a personnal note i'd like to see pilots being able to control even on a linear basis the set ups, choosing in corner between high downforce/more drag or less dowforce/less drag.

As an auto racing corner is not regular (requires different G's) this could be interesting.
Ogami musashi
 
Joined: 13 Jun 2007

Post Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:47 pm

deluge wrote:Where did the 4 cylinder talk originate?


It's something that the

FIA appointed think tank threw in the air, I think, after the manufacturers weren't so thrilled with the 10.000 rpm limit accompanying the 2.2L configuration and were even less sympathetic towards racing with diesel based technology. If it were up to me, I'd go with limiting the Joules available per race first and foremost and start considering energy flow limits as a secondary matter. Equally, I can't see why in an energy restricted series it's so important for everyone to race with exactly the same powertrain configuration or a standardized engine block.

The cost issue is tricky of course, but there's a pretty good argument in putting a great deal of investment in big things rather than details if the money is gonna get spent anyway. Or that's at least where I'd start my logic in considering what's "spendworthy". But as said, I won't go into details just yet.

Edit - Here's one more thread link:
F1 engines 2011
checkered
 
Joined: 2 Mar 2007

Post Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:41 am

Ogami, I'm now reading the sections on the aero regulations. So, I'm about a day away from comment. But, I appreciate the info you've offered and will reply with an informed comment tomorrow. Interesting developments however.

Deluge

Oh, and by the way. I'm new here, but this should probably be posted in the aerodynamics section. I suggest the mods move it there with a new topic heading, or I could just copy it over to a new topic started by myself.
Last edited by deluge on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:46 am

checkered wrote:
deluge wrote:Where did the 4 cylinder talk originate?


It's something that the

FIA appointed think tank threw in the air, I think, after the manufacturers weren't so thrilled with the 10.000 rpm limit accompanying the 2.2L configuration and were even less sympathetic towards racing with diesel based technology. If it were up to me, I'd go with limiting the Joules available per race first and foremost and start considering energy flow limits as a secondary matter. Equally, I can't see why in an energy restricted series it's so important for everyone to race with exactly the same powertrain configuration or a standardized engine block.

The cost issue is tricky of course, but there's a pretty good argument in putting a great deal of investment in big things rather than details if the money is gonna get spent anyway. Or that's at least where I'd start my logic in considering what's "spendworthy". But as said, I won't go into details just yet.

Edit - Here's one more thread link:
F1 engines 2011


So the 4 cylinder idea followed the 23/5/2007 publication of the "Power-Train Regulation Framework"? Is there a publication revision that includes this, or some other source?
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
deluge
 
Joined: 2 May 2007
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:22 pm

deluge: Ogami musahi contributed a link to both chassis and engine sections of FIA Discussion Pages.
Original link:

http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/ ... _2011.html

Derived link:

http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/ ... _2011.html

Note - Discussion points. I read them when link was orignially posted. They appear to be a work in progress and have gone through at least 1 evolution. Ricardo Company had been retained as a consultant. I specifically remember Ricardo remarking 1.3L>1.5L 4 cylinder engines as a possibility. Perhaps other Forum member can confirm this detail. This is a personal deduction , as I do not recall reading any other material. This is no longer mentioned in file. File reread with brevity - as my interest was mainly to kindly provide deluge with the link. Alternatives to 2.2L V6 is still part of document. Thank you Ogami musahi for posting the original link. On an off topic personal note - may I welcome Ogami musahi to the Forum; your breathe of knowledge and interests is a valuable addition to F1T; as often said - "your reputation precedes you." Although you have posted over 30 entries - may I extend my " Welcome; well met."
Carlos
 
Joined: 2 Sep 2006
Location: Canada

Post Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:43 pm

thank you for your welcome.

I suggest trying to follow the dicussion in the thread opened by deluge:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=55835#55835

We have to check the docs, you're right, they're provisionnal so they may (and if i understood some teams technicians, they should) evolve.
Ogami musashi
 
Joined: 13 Jun 2007

Post Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:00 pm

Speaking about "PUSH TO PASS BUTTONS", does someone remember Raikkonen┬┤s qualy lap in monza last year?

What happened in his car before Parabolica?
That in-car camera was showing RPM and I though in that time that the car suddenly boost!

Please, if someone has the video of that, let me know, I would like to see that again...
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
Belatti
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Location: Argentina

Post Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:34 pm

It was just a small 'hickup' in the feed.
Saribro
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2006


Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], jcp, the EDGE and 6 guests