2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[hurril]

V8 Supercars use a hp limit rule without issue, all engine packages are homologated on the organiser's dyno and must comply with given maximum cumulative power over the useful rpm range. Engine components cannot be changed from the homologated parts, without redynoing and rehomologating.

This rule allows for 4-5 different engine suppliers in the field, but all with interchangable performance. When engine performance was unrestricted, they would use lightweight pistons which developed cracks after one to two race meetings... That is just a waste of money wouldn't you say? Meanwhile, the homologated engines with minimum weights for pistons & conrods can run easily for 5500km and rarely see engine failures.

Actually limiting the power is a really good idea in my opinion (I also had it). It would shift development towards more efficient PUs (and lighter ones without a weight lower limit)
It seems exceedingly silly to me to regulate screws and bores and almost every measure of an engine to get to some power goal, instead of just setting a power cap. They could just open up almost everything (cost permitting) with a power cap, starting with fuel flow limits, so we could have a variety of engines.

What problem is this solving?

Most things engine related.

What things?

[mclaren111]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... SocialSnap


First time in a long time that Gary Anderson made good sense....

Meaning he agrees with you. I don't think there's any chance going backwards to more dated tech will happen.

Yes...

[mzso]

What things?

Runaways costs, substantial power differences, giving a strong drive towards more efficient designs, troublesome fuel flow policing. Hell it might even allow them to remove other restrictions so we could have a variety of engines. (Unless they think it would increase costs)

[subcritical71]

What things?

Runaways costs, substantial power differences, giving a strong drive towards more efficient designs, troublesome fuel flow policing. Hell it might even allow them to remove other restrictions so we could have a variety of engines. (Unless they think it would increase costs)

I’m a bit skeptical... the formula is already an efficiency formula, so how does trading a fuel flow policing headache into power output policing lower costs/headaches? Wouldn’t it be easier to just remove the fuel flow cap and cap fuel quantity (weight), which has also proven to be troublesome. Costs are already fixed for customer and i don’t think F1 has ever been a series that strives for engine equalization. In fact as teams equalize on performance the opposite normally occurs where the formula gets changed and the differences exaggerate again.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Why not equalize the aero?
There's easily over a second per lap pace difference between best and worst car while the difference between best and worst engine is probably less than half that.

It's just not F1 anymore, is it?

[hurril]

What things?

Runaways costs, substantial power differences, giving a strong drive towards more efficient designs, troublesome fuel flow policing. Hell it might even allow them to remove other restrictions so we could have a variety of engines. (Unless they think it would increase costs)

They could just all use the same engine then.

[mzso]

I’m a bit skeptical... the formula is already an efficiency formula, so how does trading a fuel flow policing headache into power output policing lower costs/headaches? Wouldn’t it be easier to just remove the fuel flow cap and cap fuel quantity (weight), which has also proven to be troublesome.

Measure power output, cut fuel/electricity when breached. Easy peasy.

Why not equalize the aero?
There's easily over a second per lap pace difference between best and worst car while the difference between best and worst engine is probably less than half that.

It's just not F1 anymore, is it?

They could (and probably should) very well equalize aero. Not that anyone talked about equalization. Only a power limit. There still would be differences, but more muted.

They could just all use the same engine then.

...
Nope. This is just a silly statement, after I've been detailing how engines could be allowed to be more different with a power cap.

[subcritical71]

I’m a bit skeptical... the formula is already an efficiency formula, so how does trading a fuel flow policing headache into power output policing lower costs/headaches? Wouldn’t it be easier to just remove the fuel flow cap and cap fuel quantity (weight), which has also proven to be troublesome.

Measure power output, cut fuel/electricity when breached. Easy peasy.

.... yeah, I’m sure the person who said let’s use a fuel flow sensor had the exact same thought. Measure fuel flow and penalize anyone that breaches the limit. Should be easy peasy.....

[mzso]

.... yeah, I’m sure the person who said let’s use a fuel flow sensor had the exact same thought. Measure fuel flow and penalize anyone that breaches the limit. Should be easy peasy.....

Doesn't nearly pass as an argument, it's barely a strawman argument, but I'm gonna humor you...
With fuel they measure it with a flaky ultrasonic sensor, and no physical contact with the fuel. Even so it could have worked fine enough if they also implemented a device to restrict fuel flow automatically. Instead they chose to handle it by penalizing...
With measuring engine power it's a little easier, they can measure power (torque/rpm) on the driveshaft for both electric motor and ICE. And then just cust power and/or close throttle for a given time (instant punishment). Cutting electric power is of course cleaner, easier and instantaneous.
No reason to go to the nasty stewardship direction.

By the way. Apart from the initial Ricciardo incident I only remember Gasly getting screwed by the Honda engine taking too much fuel for a fraction of a second in an unusually effective splistream, and Ocon getting disqualified from that strange US GP in 2018. Hardly a huge number of scandalous issues...

[henry]

By the way. Apart from the initial Ricciardo incident I only remember Gasly getting screwed by the Honda engine taking too much fuel for a fraction of a second in an unusually effective splistream, and Ocon getting disqualified from that strange US GP in 2018. Hardly a huge number of scandalous issues...

You may not recall issues but, for some reason, the FIA introduced a verification-by-weighing of the fuel used in the race and a second fuel sensor with concealed sampling frequency.

Would not a torque sensor not also have sampling frequency and smoothing as opportunities for a skilled engineer to push envelopes?

[mzso]

Would not a torque sensor not also have sampling frequency and smoothing as opportunities for a skilled engineer to push envelopes?

More like blatant cheating. (Ferrari's rumored cheating was not quite as blatant)
Because why would teams have wires going through that part of the crankshaft where they would put the sensor other than for cheating?

[henry]

Would not a torque sensor not also have sampling frequency and smoothing as opportunities for a skilled engineer to push envelopes?

More like blatant cheating. (Ferrari's rumored cheating was not quite as blatant)
Because why would teams have wires going through that part of the crankshaft where they would put the sensor other than for cheating?

How is the signal required for monitoring going to leave “that part of the crankshaft”? I would think the teams would need access to the signal to check for themselves how close they are to the limit as they do for fuel flow.

[subcritical71]

Would not a torque sensor not also have sampling frequency and smoothing as opportunities for a skilled engineer to push envelopes?

More like blatant cheating. (Ferrari's rumored cheating was not quite as blatant)
Because why would teams have wires going through that part of the crankshaft where they would put the sensor other than for cheating?

How is the signal required for monitoring going to leave “that part of the crankshaft”? I would think the teams would need access to the signal to check for themselves how close they are to the limit as they do for fuel flow.

This is my point in general with any sensor. At least with fuel flow they have had time to discover ways to work with the sensor and see its vulnerabilities. Any sensor will have vulnerabilities. Why move the headache?

What type of power sensor are you thinking about?

[63l8qrrfy6]

Would not a torque sensor not also have sampling frequency and smoothing as opportunities for a skilled engineer to push envelopes?

The simplest form of torque sensor with a strain gauge orientated to measure shaft shear strain can easily sample at 10 kHz.

The biggest challenge I see is the very wide torque frequency spectrum and the effects of torsional vibration. The torque amplitude can be several times higher than the mean torque transmitted so in order to properly police a torque/ power rule the signal processing will have to be fairly complex. In simple terms only the DC component of the signal should be considered.

The questions are then what happens when the torque measured is purely inertial for example during gear shifts? What is the effect of dead band region for example when a spline moving through its clearance produces a 0 torque reading?

It would be just a matter of time for F1 engineers to find a way of exploiting these and FIA will be too slow to react.

[godlameroso]

What things?

Runaways costs, substantial power differences, giving a strong drive towards more efficient designs, troublesome fuel flow policing. Hell it might even allow them to remove other restrictions so we could have a variety of engines. (Unless they think it would increase costs)

They could just all use the same engine then.

All it takes is a standard fuel supplier after next year, since they'll all have the same layout.