Power output limited formula

[Xwang]

With a power limit the advantage of turbos would be amplified.

This is because the aim would be to have the maximum power across the widest possible rpm band. Which the turbos can achieve.

Without the fuel flow limit and with a maximum power limit, the current PUs could give the maximum power basically across the whole useable rpm range.

Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.

But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.

In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.
Maybe in F1 they went all to the same configuration because there were in any case limits like displacement and displacement ratio between NA and turbo that gave an advantage to a specific solution.
For example in 1950 Alfa used a 1.5 with compressor and the same was the Ferrari 125, but then they went for the NA 375 because at that time the displacement ratio between NA and compressed engine was 3:1. But both engines were competitive.
If the ratio were 2:1, probably Ferrari would have continued using the 125, because a 3000cc NA for sure at that time was not competitive with supercharged engines.

[Jolle]

Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.

But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.

In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.
Maybe in F1 they went all to the same configuration because there were in any case limits like displacement and displacement ratio between NA and turbo that gave an advantage to a specific solution.
For example in 1950 Alfa used a 1.5 with compressor and the same was the Ferrari 125, but then they went for the NA 375 because at that time the displacement ratio between NA and compressed engine was 3:1. But both engines were competitive.
If the ratio were 2:1, probably Ferrari would have continued using the 125, because a 3000cc NA for sure at that time was not competitive with supercharged engines.

You can’t compare 1950 with the current level of engineering... and WEC, quite obvious when there are different configurations, there is also a team far ahead. Only then teams started copying each other (Peugeot and Audi) there was some competition.

In F1, every engineering challenge that says “unlimited” in the rules, is where the big teams make the difference and are extremely costly. Good example I’d the size and flow of the H-Unit, what took Renault and Fiat years to understand and catch up to Daimler.

If you want some kind of equality, you need to restrict almost every part that has influence on performance.

It took 5 years for the others to catch op to Mercedes and with durability they still have a huge advantage. Looser rules only would make this greater.

[FPV GTHO]

Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.

But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.

In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.

They got pretty damn close. Between 2014 to 2017 we already saw Toyota drop their capacitors and Audi drop their flywheel for the Porsche and F1 style lithium batteries. Toyota dropped their naturally aspirated V8 for a turbo V6, and Porsche was about to change their turbo V4 to a turbo V6. Who knows if Audi would have stuck with diesel or not. The planned triple hybrid systems would have likely seen a convergence to 4wd and exhaust harvesting.

[Xwang]

But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.

In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.

They got pretty damn close. Between 2014 to 2017 we already saw Toyota drop their capacitors and Audi drop their flywheel for the Porsche and F1 style lithium batteries. Toyota dropped their naturally aspirated V8 for a turbo V6, and Porsche was about to change their turbo V4 to a turbo V6. Who knows if Audi would have stuck with diesel or not. The planned triple hybrid systems would have likely seen a convergence to 4wd and exhaust harvesting.

Yes, but wec in any case have fuel flow and energy limits and not a power output one.
What I think is that the more strict are the rules higher are the probabilities that only one optimal solution exists. Viceversa with less strict rules there is the possibility to have more than an optimal solution (and moreover a solution slight suboptimal from the power unit side, could be better when integrated in a chassis and so there could be other kind of automatic balance between different configurations). For example in 90's we had v8, v10 and v12 all able to win races and championships.

[Jolle]

In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.

They got pretty damn close. Between 2014 to 2017 we already saw Toyota drop their capacitors and Audi drop their flywheel for the Porsche and F1 style lithium batteries. Toyota dropped their naturally aspirated V8 for a turbo V6, and Porsche was about to change their turbo V4 to a turbo V6. Who knows if Audi would have stuck with diesel or not. The planned triple hybrid systems would have likely seen a convergence to 4wd and exhaust harvesting.

Yes, but wec in any case have fuel flow and energy limits and not a power output one.
What I think is that the more strict are the rules higher are the probabilities that only one optimal solution exists. Viceversa with less strict rules there is the possibility to have more than an optimal solution (and moreover a solution slight suboptimal from the power unit side, could be better when integrated in a chassis and so there could be other kind of automatic balance between different configurations). For example in 90's we had v8, v10 and v12 all able to win races and championships.

The nineties started off with a win in a V10, then Honda build a V12 because the current rules favoured the Ferrari V12 somehow they thought and after that every team wanted a V10. Benneton even bought another team to get their hands on one. Even Ferrari abandoned their V12 for a V10 with great opposition from their fans and ford followed suit. Only then the rule that all engines had to be V10's.

[ACRO]

as long as they go green there will be no better rule than limit flow and total consumption to force developers to make the most out of the fuelamount permitted .

might be synthetic / less toxic fuel in future and catalytic converters .

we can live with it or stop watching f1.

[Xwang]

as long as they go green there will be no better rule than limit flow and total consumption to force developers to make the most out of the fuelamount permitted .

might be synthetic / less toxic fuel in future and catalytic converters .

we can live with it or stop watching f1.

If you limit fuel you still need to use a single type of fuel or to create some equivalence rule between fuels.
With a power limit you permit to run whichever kind of engine (gasoline/diesel/LPG/Methane/H2/fully electric/MrFusion ) a team wants to explore.

[wuzak]

Yes, but wec in any case have fuel flow and energy limits and not a power output one.
What I think is that the more strict are the rules higher are the probabilities that only one optimal solution exists. Viceversa with less strict rules there is the possibility to have more than an optimal solution (and moreover a solution slight suboptimal from the power unit side, could be better when integrated in a chassis and so there could be other kind of automatic balance between different configurations). For example in 90's we had v8, v10 and v12 all able to win races and championships.

If the rules were changed to a maximum output with few, or no other, rules the aim would be to build a powerplant that provides the maximum output over the widest operational range.

A turbo engine seems the most logical choice.

A turbo with MGUK would be better, as the MGUK can compensate for the turbo(S) spooling.

A hybrid with an MGUH and MGUK would work better, because the engine could be on boost very quickly. And when it is not, the MGUK can fill in the power.

You could do a N/A engine with an MGUK to fill out the power curve. But you may need a bigger MGUK than the previous two options.

And you would use less fuel with the turbo engines.

Packaging wise, a simple turbo engine would probably be the best - short, small and light.

A N/A engine would probably be lighter, but physically bigger than the simple turbo.

[wuzak]

equalising the power and equalising the downforce are 2 sides of the same coin - philosophically and practically
so should be considered in combination ie rulemakers deciding to what extent F1 is an aero formula or an engine formula

aero DF cannot be isolated and measured
we must measure weight DF and aero DF combined and 'tare off'' to get aero DF

so rewarding appropriately the benefits of eg low 'motive content' weight and low 'motivated content' weight

Honestly, if you are restricting power* and downforce you may as well make it a single make series.

*The idea of the fuel flow limit is to limit power, but it is not a hard limit. The manufacturers can, and have, improved the power they get from the engine with the same amount of fuel.

[MatsNorway]

Fuel flow is the best rule chance the last 10+ years

[Tommy Cookers]

Fuel flow is the best rule chance the last 10+ years

maybe
but it strictly prohibits fuel energy 'accumulation' (which would help laptime)
whilst allowing/enforcing fuel-burn for electrical energy accumulation (to help laptime)

[gruntguru]

. . . but for good reasons.

[MatsNorway]

main problem with current rules is the MGUH that tames the engine sound as well as the nonlinear fuel flow that forces the V6 to run high rpms. The later causes the engine to never actually be fully optimized for efficiency as it would have run lower rpm and perhaps a bit fatter mixture. Lower RPM with the same fuel flow ++ would improve engine sound not worsen it. And by removing the MGUH they would have run smaller turbos where more of the sound would have gone through. In addition it would have been more street car relevant, lighter, cheaper and better for the show as the drivers then would have to deal with boost delay.

If you made MGUH optional and dropped the weight of the car significantly they would have removed the MGUH right away as the gains in power does not beat out the weight penalty.. Not when you are doing 3-5G in the turns..

[wuzak]

If you made MGUH optional and dropped the weight of the car significantly they would have removed the MGUH right away as the gains in power does not beat out the weight penalty.. Not when you are doing 3-5G in the turns..

The MGUH IS optional. The rule state that one may be fitted, not that one must be fitted.

But removing the MGUH would save no more than 10kg.

EDIT: The choice of whether or not to remove the MGUH would depend on several factors other than peak power. Such as fuel economy, engine response/turbo lag, and probably some others I can't think of now. I imagine the weight saving would have to be compared to the extra fuel that would be needed to be carried over the race, and if the average fuel load over the race distances is greater than the weight of the MGUH, the MGUH would be retained.

[MatsNorway]

If you also allow CoG to be lower, equal to the MGUH removed you claw back some cornering performance

If you allow them to run flat fuel flow from 0 rpm to Max rpm you claw back some efficiency. can you guess how much? i have no ideal.

And if you do that you would also get better sounding engines with turbo lag that could improve overtaking.
Why would they sound better at lower rpm? they would run a fatter fuel mix at times and the turbo will be taking out less of the engine sound as it has to be spun by the engine only.

Add minor tweaks to the engine formula such as free bore and stroke ratio and you could look at a ICE that is more efficient, cheaper, lighter and that sounds better and is more relevant for road car development.

I honestly do not understand why FIA do not go that route for the future. RPM will not improve these engines without increasing fuel flow as well.