Alternative engine configuration

[bhall II]

Wolff is responsible for his team. He has no responsibility to F1 other than his team winning, and maybe give a couple teams his engines.
That's the problem Ben, there is no incentive to increase anyone's responsibility to other than their own.

Is it any surprise each team follows their own path of interests?

You're aware that you've just rephrased my statement, right?

While I sincerely respect the hell out of his honesty, Wolff's statement emphatically underscores the stark reality that it's a terrible idea to give competitors an abundance of control over the rules.

Here, too...

Why not let the people that design and build these things also have a say in what would be better, cheaper, faster and more entertaining?
No organisation with multiple entities will ever always agree completely, but at least in the teams case, it would be like countries voting for a UN binding resolution rather than Turkeys voting for Christmas.

I think the rules should be devised in consultation with competitors, but ultimately published as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition based solely upon what's best for the sport's long-term health.

C'mon, man.

But, yeah. That's the gist of it.

Tires were brought up as an example of FIA ineptitude. I'm not usually one to defend the FIA, because criticism of its administration of the sport is most often very warranted. Not quite here, though.

The problem with the tires isn't that no one understands the correlation between temperature and pressure; it's that Pireli has been given a remit to supply tires that operate along the razor's edge that separates optimum performance from heavy degradation without any opportunities for meaningful testing with representative machinery. So, of course, they're going to recommend conservative setup parameters for the FIA to enforce. Blowouts are bad PR.

The regulations are chock full of examples like this: things that (maybe) made sense at one point, but have since been superseded without being deleted.

Here's another one: in-season PU updates are now a codified reality, and the limit on the number of PUs that can be raced throughout the season is still in effect. So, what's the point of tokens?

I think the technical details are far less troublesome than the overall framework from which they're defined. That's what needs to be independently addressed more than anything else. Left to the teams, you just wind up with boneheaded, self-serving suggestions like Christian Horner's call for a wind tunnel ban...

It'll save money!

Plus, we probably have the best CFD package in the sport.

[FoxHound]

You're aware that you've just rephrased my statement, right?

For Sure! I got your point, and it was on point.
My reply was that teams have no vested interest to think of the sport other than to beat the next guy.
They probably always will want to see their own team beat the next guy, too. But you could make it more democratic in its machinations, with fans having a say in what they want to see. Namely... racing.

Looking at FOTA, that was a half-hearted stab in the right direction. I mean if we glean anything from that, it was mainly as a political vehicle to counter another round of catastrophic FIA legislation, namely the budget cap.
That was foiled, because most teams didn't want it...and Ferrari threatened to leave.
Now if the FOTA proposal of the RRA was followed through by the FIA, would the cost reduction exercise not have been more balanced and workable?

The examples you gave though, do show some short-sightedness from the FIA. Why not allow Pirelli to test these tyres?
At the start of each GP weekend, give them a set of untried/untested tyres and run them for a session.
Pirelli can the get real time data from tracks in the specification they are raced. 10 teams doing 30 laps would equate to around 600 laps(or 1800km's) of information, job done. Many ways to skin the rubber on that...
The example of the tokens and engine development, was a direct result of poorly worded regulations Ferrari exploited.
However, in that instance I'm happy they screwed up.

In general, I just don't think the FIA are fit for purpose if they are to remain the same. There needs to be more thought involved in what happens if rules are imposed.
There is no real precedent to other sports, as F1 appears to change the size and shape of the ball every few years. If you gonna do that, you need to speak to the fans and teams.

[bhall II]

In general, I just don't think the FIA are fit for purpose if they are to remain the same. There needs to be more thought involved in what happens if rules are imposed.
There is no real precedent to other sports, as F1 appears to change the size and shape of the ball every few years. If you gonna do that, you need to speak to the fans and teams.

You have to remember the process.

It starts in working groups, which are composed of senior representatives from each team. The resulting proposals are then sent to the F1 Commission, in which the FIA commands but 1/3 of the votes. Finally, ultimate approval is granted by the World Motor Sport Council, which tends to be little more than a rubber stamp for the various commissions (every FIA-sanctioned sport has one).

So, how much more control can the teams possibly need?

Remember the Overtaking Working Group, the committee whose proposals made the cars ugly as hell but not much else? It was comprised of Rory Byrne, Paddy Lowe, and Pat Symonds, engineers who have contributed to a combined total of 28 World Championships while in senior leadership positions with various teams.

Gilles Simon - 14 World Championships in senior roles at Ferrari - served as an adviser to the FIA and helped define the composition of the current power units.

So much for expertise.

Give an engineer a problem, and you'll likely get an engineered solution. But, sometimes "problems" aren't problems, and "solutions" aren't solutions. I think the sport needs to learn the difference.

[FoxHound]

I get that,

The FIA cannot dream up racing configs without some form of ideology from the teams. We have DRS to thank or berate for it, KERS etc etc. But how far do these ideas become a 2 way street, until completely taken on by the FIA as gospel?
The ultimate issue here is one of enforcement, and the ability to change tack in light of massive changes.
The FIA may take on these ideas, but it's at the point of inception that any idea will start to create the headache.

Article 3.15 springs to mind, as it was designed with the best intentions...with no comprehensive means of testing or changing the test to enforce it.

But so does the surprise that one competitor can outdo their rivals so comprehensively. If you are going to change something, why not do so in a staged manner rather than the paradigm shift we saw in 2014?
This is not the fault of those proposing, but those legislating.

The FIA should have a wealth of experience built up over years of experience, yet flounder each and every time major rules are implemented.
There was a period of domination for pretty much each change.

Now I love them silberpfeile as much as the next Swabian, but it takes something away from the achievement when you get experienced perennials Renault suffering, and engine powerhouses Honda scratching their heads.
If it was a staged process, going from 1.6 turbo's with KERS for a year or 2, to HERS for another year or 2, and then implement the fuel flow restrictions, you get more time to sort out the finer details.

When you throw a quandary to even the greatest minds, time is the most requested commodity of all. The FIA should know this, as they govern the greatest minds in racing.
It aint the rules, it's how they are implemented. The rules are the same for everyone, as is the implementation. But some are more adept at getting things done effectively, more quickly.
And we see that with Ferrari, and to a far lesser extent McLaren Honda whom surprised me this last weekend with some pretty impressive gains in relation to their previous bests.

[NL_Fer]

So now the alternative engine has been shot down, by the f1 commission, game has put at the manufaxtureres again.

Instead, the manufacturers - working with the FIA - will produce a proposal by January 15 2016 that provides solutions to concerns over the power unit, which will focus on:

- Guarantee of the supply of Power Units to teams
- The need to lower the cost of Power Units to customer teams
- Simplification of the technical specification of the power units
- Improved noise

The FIA added that the decision to not pursue the budget engine may be reassessed after the manufacturers have presented their proposal to the Strategy Group.

Within the proposal, there will be a rule that stipulates a minimum number of teams a manufacturer must supply, ensuring all teams have access to an engine.

It is hoped these developments will be ready for the 2017 season at the earliest and certainly in time for 2018.

So what will they come up with. Anyone in favour of dropping the hybrid turbocharger?

I mean, it's great piece of technology. But how much is road relevant, especially for a (sporty) streetcar? And aren't we arriving in a period, where key factor is hiw much fuel kan be converted in exhaust fumes, to drive the mgu-h.

In my opinion, they can drop the hybrid turbo and revert to a conventional twin turbo setup. Without the mgu-h, these turbo's will introduce lag. But isn't that interesting to fight/engineer? also very road relevant, now and in future. Also, turbolag will make the cars harder to drive, and maybe sacrificing power for drivability, will make a very interresting competition. Probably more wheelspin and drifts to see on track.

Keep the fuel flow limiter. Making th combustion more efficient is very usefull to develop and they can recycle the developments already made for the current engine. So not much will be lost.

Reintroduce KERS, but less restricted now. So manufacturers can develop new strategies to use KERS during a race, for example saving up energy, than to deploy it during an ultimate overtake. Also KERS is less integrated with the powerunit, so teams can decide to buy it, from the engine supplier, an external specialist or develop inhouse. Share technology with formula E teams.

Probably all to radical, and i know teams will spent, what they have available. But we fans, deserve a better engine solution.

[wuzak]

Dumping the MGUH is the most likely scenario to "simplify" the power units, while keeping the MGUK.

Without the MGUH they could then reduce the size of the ES from 4MJ to 2MJ. This would help reduce weight, as would leaving the MGUH off (~10kg for an MGU).

I would prefer that they not lose the MGUH. It ties the whole hybrid concept together.

[gruntguru]

I would prefer that they not lose the MGUH. It ties the whole hybrid concept together.

Yup. Its where a big chunk of the amazing fuel efficiency comes from.

[noname]

I mean, it's great piece of technology. But how much is road relevant, especially for a (sporty) streetcar?

Almost all sports car brands are working on such systems. In some cases SOP is already defined.
Brands considering themselves as technology leaders are jumping on this wagon as well.
Systems for commercial vehicles, for both on and off-highway use, are under development.

BTW, KERS is still there. Now it's just called MGUK.

[NL_Fer]

Exhaust heat recovery is interesting for big engines, runnng steady at almost full power, most of the time. Like cargo trucks, diesel trains and marine propulsion. A street car runs at a fraction of it's power capacity, most of the time.

I think for racing fans a loud twin turbo is the better option. While the manufacturers develop combustion and electrical propulsion components. It's much more interesting for a mainstream car manufacturer.

[bhall II]

The FIA cannot dream up racing configs without some form of ideology from the teams. We have DRS to thank or berate for it, KERS etc etc. But how far do these ideas become a 2 way street, until completely taken on by the FIA as gospel?
The ultimate issue here is one of enforcement, and the ability to change tack in light of massive changes.

[...]

But so does the surprise that one competitor can outdo their rivals so comprehensively. If you are going to change something, why not do so in a staged manner rather than the paradigm shift we saw in 2014?
This is not the fault of those proposing, but those legislating.
The FIA may take on these ideas, but it's at the point of inception that any idea will start to create the headache.

The initial framework for the rules, devised in consultation with the sport's manufacturers, was published in May of 2007 with the idea that the rules would be introduced in 2011. If you read through it, you'll likely be surprised by how sensibly everything was laid out.

For instance, you'll note that a sort of progressive implementation was indeed mooted:



To an extent, the framework even anticipated the Red Bull power unit saga...


(There were six manufacturers in F1 when that was written.)

...and the dangers of homologation:



So, what happened? How did the sport forget what it seemed everyone already knew?

self–interest

noun | self–in·ter·est \-ˈin-t(ə-)rəst; -ˈin-tə-ˌrest, -ˌtrest; -ˈin-tərst\

: concern only for getting what you want or need and not about what happens to other people

: your own interest or advantage

From battles over layout (four or six cylinders) to implementation (Renault/Mercedes threats to quit) to development strategy (Ferrari's threat to quit), and all points in between, the rules got pulled in so many different directions that what was once cohesive became the mess we have today.

This is just about the only time I've ever agreed with Christian Horner...

But on Tuesday [Horner] said: "What we need to do is all get on to the same page. It’s a key element. I think rather than trying to achieve consensus, the structure of the [strategy] group is that the majority carries. The FIA and commercial rights holder need to close in on a position. That’s them more than the teams. A team has different interests to the promoter and there’s an awful lot of self-interest.

"It’s time to take some action now. We’ve talked a lot, and now we need to dictate a strategic direction for the sport. That’s what we need to focus on and achieve out of tomorrow’s meeting.

Asked about the lack of leadership from Todt, Horner said: “I think the problem Jean has is he’s trying to keep a lot of camps happy. And inevitably that’s an impossible thing to do. I think he needs to do what’s best for the sport rather than what’s best for certain teams.”

[turbof1]

self–interest

I've been hammering on that for over a year now. You are looking at a primal instinct from entities to preserve either their existence or their advantage.

I hate to say it, but I really miss Max Mosley. As cruel, weird and stupid (in his private life) he was, he actually tried to steer the sport in the right direction.

Guys, the discussion in this topic is more about the management crisis this alternative PU brings, then really about the technical specifications. My proposal is to split the topic and keep this topic for the political/managerial side of it, and have seperate topic about the hardware only. Let me know if you agree or disagree.

[Tommy Cookers]

I would prefer that they not lose the MGUH. It ties the whole hybrid concept together.

Yup. Its where a big chunk of the amazing fuel efficiency comes from.

yes of course, it's a big chunk in an SI engine at WOT
(but, fuel efficiency and (thermal) efficiency being different things, are we assuming this latest info is based on 44.64 MJ/kg fuel ?)

but of course only a small chunk in a CI engine or an SI engine at partial power
the fashionable CI recovery systems give a conspicuously small chunk
though the mgu-h has an anti-lag benefit useful to the road car

in F1 without mgu-h, the mgu-k would be used for anti-lag benefit
even without that the lag would anyway be small (with twin turbos) ? as with the 1988 2.5 bar cars

[FoxHound]

The issue with your example there, Ben, is that the FIA held out for longer than was ideal.

I mean if 2011 was the date, why did it have to leave it to 2014?
4 Cylinders appeared to be the nom de guerre but this was then switched to V6's when VW lost it's balls.
The overall impression I get is that the FIA let the frozen engine monster grow, with lower engine costs in a cost pressured environment. That's sticking your head in the sand.

Then there's this....

Ten FOTA teams wrote to the FIA expressing their dismay about the lack of cost control for the new V6 Turbo Hybrid era – but Red Bull had decided to leave that collective of FOTA, because Bernie Ecclestone provided them with a pot of gold beyond anything they deserved – the price being that Red Bull immediately sign a bi-lateral agreement with FOM.

http://thejudge13.com/2015/12/02/christ ... mination/?

So, what happened? How did the sport forget what it seemed everyone already knew?

A lack of leadership, and an almost astonishing array of abject apathy.
Why did they not follow their own mandate?

Turbo, probably best to split it....The alternative engine has been kicked into touch....praise the lord!

[bhall II]

The issue with your example there, Ben, is that the FIA held out for longer than was ideal.

I mean if 2011 was the date, why did it have to leave it to 2014?

The framework anticipated that the rules would be introduced in 2011, not implemented in 2011. That was scheduled for 2013, but was subsequently delayed until 2014 at the behest of the manufacturers.

I agree with you about the FIA's lack of leadership, though. I think Mosley sowed the seeds for the federation's demise when he sold the sport's commercial rights to Ecclestone for a tiny fraction of what could have been realized in an open market sale. And when the sporting/technical working groups were replaced by the current Strategy Group, a body in which the FIA wields little control and can be overruled by a simple majority, whatever was left of its authority vanished.

As it stands, the FIA can do nothing without consent.

Correction: Earlier, I said the FIA has 1/3 of the votes in the F1 Commission. It's actually the Strategy Group.

[turbof1]

It has even less voting power in the commission.