Low power with good mechanical & aero grip = easier to drive than a car with an excess of power (which means any half decent driver can do well!).747heavy wrote:Is a car with better traction and less power easier to drive, then a car with more power and less traction?
Sure, everybody would go faster, that was not the point, the point was that the skills needed from the driver are less in a car which has better traction for the same amount of power. IMHO
1. Thanks Djos, no better place for true technical discussions.djos wrote:Welcome back WB.WhiteBlue wrote:I'll reckon they will close the loop. Sensor to be a temperature compensated turbine or differential pressure, actor to be an algorithm that limits injection timing. Injector flow rates are basically fixed by injector nozzle geometry and rail pressure.machin wrote:I guess they'll limit injector flow rates?
Wouldn't they just measure the fuel pressure at the fuel pump exit?
We are dealing with some complicated fluid dynamic physics here. We need to make sure that the mass flow never exceeds 27.78 g/s of a fluid with a complex molecular mix. To get a grip on that problem the FiA will have to standardize the physical fuel properties to very exact tolerances. Actually I think that they will be narrowing the fuel spec down to identical physical properties to make that formula work. To be more precise I think that the future F1 fuel will be a spec fuel. It may be branded by different companies but it will probably come from one single source.djos wrote:As long as the teams dont try to illegally use some sort of accumulators I would have thought that they only way to enforce a maximum fuel flow rate would be at the fuel pump?
viewtopic.php?p=212581#p212581MugenHonda wrote:I would say 1.5L turbo engines, maybe V6. Hopefully the FIA will allow any size cylinder engines to attract more engines in F1???
WhiteBlue to ScarbsF1 wrote:Source
Re: Your information on 2013 turbo engines mandated by the FiA.
It kick started interesting discussions on F1tech and Autosport BBs. Fuel mass flow should create a strong peak power restriction @ appr. 573 hp. What do you think it implies for HERS (turbo compounding?) and KERS (AWKERS?).
December 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I think the 500-600hp mark is what the FIA were aimiing for. I’ve heard that utrbo compounding is allowed and a significant boost will come from KERS (front and rear) and TERS. We’ll end up with the same peak power, when the KERS boost comes in. The engines will be sophisticated bits of kit, certainly compared the the the highly developed but intrinsically simple NA V8s.
Having rules that are too difficult to enforce leads to over regulation and artificial maneuvering of development, when you keep adding letter to the law to cover for unforeseen loopholes. Then everything ends looking quite the same. Have you actually tried to figure out the aero rules from the book, for instance? That's a tough job.WhiteBlue wrote:We are dealing with some complicated fluid dynamic physics here. We need to make sure that the mass flow never exceeds 27.78 g/s of a fluid with a complex molecular mix. To get a grip on that problem the FiA will have to standardize the physical fuel properties to very exact tolerances. Actually I think that they will be narrowing the fuel spec down to identical physical properties to make that formula work. To be more precise I think that the future F1 fuel will be a spec fuel. It may be branded by different companies but it will probably come from one single source.djos wrote:As long as the teams dont try to illegally use some sort of accumulators I would have thought that they only way to enforce a maximum fuel flow rate would be at the fuel pump?
Assuming we have an identical fluid we can now consider the impact of different hydraulic feed systems. You rightly pointed out that pump feed and accumulator feed would create different flow characteristics at the the same hydraulic consumer. Even different pump designs would have a big impact. The same variable volume piston pump with a different control algorithm would have a different characteristic. That would obviously defeat the objective of the regulation in an open loop system. The consequence would be a need to standardize the fluid (fuel), feed system (pump) and the consumer (injectors). That would not be an elegant solution.
The solution is the use of a closed loop system. The fluid properties would be constant and the flow measuring device would be standardized. The feed system and the the consumer (injection nozzle) can be open to competition. The algorithm which controls the fuel valve timing would be subject to common specification. The SECU is already a common part and implementing a common algorithm would not be an obstacle.
I hope this answers the question.
I think the FiA and the EWG are on the right way here with energy restriction. It will address the aerodynamic issues at the root.rjsa wrote:Having rules that are too difficult to enforce leads to over regulation and artificial maneuvering of development, when you keep adding letter to the law to cover for unforeseen loopholes. Then everything ends looking quite the same. Have you actually tried to figure out the aero rules from the book, for instance? That's a tough job.
It also opens the doors to failure to fulfill the purpose, just like we had with the OWG and the resulting ineffective movable front wing and the undesired DDD.
The fuel/oil companies involved in F1 will have a field day, trying to produce fuels with a higher energy density.Fuel consumption will be restricted both by limiting fuel flow and introducing a maximum capacity for races.
The new engines will not do more than 10,000 revs per minute - current F1 engines spin at 18,000rpm.
In subsequent years, complex new turbocharging technology called compounding will be introduced to further enhance efficiency.
The regulations have been framed to encourage the pursuit of efficiency in engine design, dramatically increasing the amount of power that can be produced per litre of fuel burnt.
It is a question of who you trust to be more accurate in the reporting. I agree that the sources are not consistent. I think that Craig Scarborough is very diligent and reliable. And a mass flow limit makes more sense than a volume flow limit regulatory wise because mass is invariable to temperature changes of the fuel. I trust the experts to see the advantage of picking the physically better dimension for their definition.747heavy wrote:from what is said in the article you quote, a volumetric fuel limit seems to be more likely. The fuel/oil companies involved in F1 will have a field day, trying to produce fuels with a higher energy density. We better of, waiting for another week, before we go to far ahead of ourselfs with speculations what they may or may not do.
Will be interesting to see, how a company like Cosworth will be able to foot the bill for the developments needed, if the price for the engine lease will remain at current levels.
The Cosworth V8 was developed for $15m in 2006 and the 2013 Cosworth development is budgeted at €25m. German original sourceTim Routsis interview on GP.com wrote:Q: Looking ahead to the new engine regs in 2013, how much of an investment does that involve?
The investment needed for 2013 is going to be .. a quite reasonable eight figure sum needed to develop the new engine or, more accurately I should say power train. From our point of view it will depend a bit on the relevance of the technologies. If the structure of the rules is such that everything was point designed for F1 and we wouldn't see any applicability outside F1, then we'd have to be pretty hard-nosed and say that if the teams can't afford to pay for it, then we're not going to do it. If we can see more relevance in terms of creating technology that we can move into other areas, obviously we could take a more wide-ranging view of the finances but, generically, I would say most engine manufacturers would want to see three teams as a steady state going forwards. If it drops below that you have to be looking at a quite different model.
Q: 2013 is not finalised but there's a good idea of the direction. As things stand, are they regulations you're happy to work with?
The one thing that's very clear to me after discussions with all of our colleagues in the manufacturers working group is that big or small, nobody can afford to contemplate an out and out spending race.
Q: How are you going to avoid it?
One is to constrain areas where we know you can spend a great deal of money for very little gain and just keep the development focused on areas which are relevant to the future. The other is to look at the amount of resource that each of us deploys on the job.
Q: What do you mean by constraining certain areas - a freeze like today?
We know, for example, that if we were to allow completely free bore and stroke ratios - for a given capacity you can do what you like - we would spend a huge amount of money doing sweeps to find the ultimate bore/stroke ratio and will it actually make any difference at the end of the day? No. Whereas, if we are going to look at getting a lot of efficiency out of the fuel, the way that we can make the engine exchange gas and getting better thermal efficiency out of it is where we need to be putting our development effort.
Q: Is the idea a set amount of fuel or a fuel-flow metre, or both?
We are going to try and do both - a given amount of fuel allocation and also to restrict the fuel flow to stop wacky qualifying engines. If you are given fuel flow you are not going to be able to get stupid amounts of power out for a short period of time. And I think you are going to find that the integration of the waste energy recovery systems will become much more relevant in the future. We have to be mindful of the amount of waste energy that we put down exhaust pipes at the moment. And that is a very fertile ground to look at getting marked improvements in efficiency.
Q: Could 2013 be potentially explosive as some manufacturers do a sensational job while others don't?
For the sport to attract the most important people, the folks who want to watch us, we have to have unpredictability. If we had a situation in 2013 where anybody just drove off into the distance that would actually be very bad for the sport, so we've got to be very sure that the regulations have opportunities for some to be just a bit better but the ideal is that we get to the point we are today where, frankly, if you took the winning car and put more or less anybody's engine in it, I suspect strongly it wouldn't change where they finished. And to some degree that's where we have to get to.
Q: We have a freeze now. Are they thinking about doing that with the new regulations and, if so, how far in?
The intent is to homologate for a year and that the basic architecture will be locked down for probably a period of five years.
I think Cosworth has convinced the other guys to aim for such a budget by resource restriction. They are obviously thinking in that direction. They decided to tackle the core engine in 2013 and focus on the very important aspect of turbo compounding in 2014. It all points to some seriousness in cost containment.Mark Gallagher, Cosworth wrote:Q:How much will it cost to develop the new engines?
“A manufacturer is made between 20 and 30 million € to spend on development. Can we spend 100 million for a motor? Of course we could do this, but we are not going to at this time. Cosworth especially not because we are dependent on the teams we are supplying with affordable engines. This is our business.”
Users browsing this forum: AtOmIc, CCBot [Bot], GroupHigh, mcutdgreat, Roostfactor, shady and 19 guests