2017 F1 engine dream configs

[kooleracer]

The ideal 2017 engine configuration is:

- No fuel flow limit

- 50kg fuel maximum on board, refueling allowed. But DTM fuel rig system, so safety is guaranteed. No minimum fuel allocation for race start. Teams can choose how much kg they want to start with.

- 1.6L V6 Bi-turbo with MGU-K 4MJ battery unlimited use of K/battery during lap , drop the MGU-H.

- max turbo pressure 5.0 bar.

- max weight for car: 650kg

- max RPM 15.000
- Max of 5 engines per year

- Max price for engine 15m dollar.

- Engine development with tokens system. But all parts of the engine can be changed. Manufacturers will get opportunity the change half of the parts of the engine every year. No updates during the season.

[wuzak]

The ideal 2017 engine configuration is:

- No fuel flow limit

- 50kg fuel maximum on board, refueling allowed. But DTM fuel rig system, so safety is guaranteed. No minimum fuel allocation for race start. Teams can choose how much kg they want to start with.

- 1.6L V6 Bi-turbo with MGU-K 4MJ battery unlimited use of K/battery during lap , drop the MGU-H.

- max turbo pressure 5.0 bar.

- max weight for car: 650kg

- max RPM 15.000
- Max of 5 engines per year

- Max price for engine 15m dollar.

- Engine development with tokens system. But all parts of the engine can be changed. Manufacturers will get opportunity the change half of the parts of the engine every year. No updates during the season.

So, you are replacing one power control (fuel flow limit) with two (rpm and boost limit). Well, reaaly two and three - they both have the capacity limit. And the current rules have an rpm limit, but it is superfluous.

Why so much hate for the fuel flow limit? It works and could, if so desired, allow for competition between disparate engines.

[riff_raff]

5 engines per car times 2 cars is 10 engines per year, and at $15M each that would come out to $150M per year per team. That is a staggering amount of money just for engines.

Frankly, i'd prefer engine/drivetrain rules that place more emphasis on driver skill. Large displacement N/A engines, that must use steel valve springs, with controls over the number of rebuilds for each engine and how often the engine can be replaced. Requiring the use of steel valve springs and minimum service life rules will impose a de-facto limit on engine rpm. Get rid of the electronic rev limiters. Also bring back manual shifting systems, where the driver must use one hand to steer, one hand to shift, and one foot to work the throttle without over-revving the engine.

[gruntguru]

SB Chev with Hewland 5 speed eh riff_raff?

Maybe even a new name for the series - how bout "F5000"?

[kooleracer]

The ideal 2017 engine configuration is:

- No fuel flow limit

- 50kg fuel maximum on board, refueling allowed. But DTM fuel rig system, so safety is guaranteed. No minimum fuel allocation for race start. Teams can choose how much kg they want to start with.

- 1.6L V6 Bi-turbo with MGU-K 4MJ battery unlimited use of K/battery during lap , drop the MGU-H.

- max turbo pressure 5.0 bar.

- max weight for car: 650kg

- max RPM 15.000
- Max of 5 engines per year

- Max price for engine 15m dollar.

- Engine development with tokens system. But all parts of the engine can be changed. Manufacturers will get opportunity the change half of the parts of the engine every year. No updates during the season.

So, you are replacing one power control (fuel flow limit) with two (rpm and boost limit). Well, reaaly two and three - they both have the capacity limit. And the current rules have an rpm limit, but it is superfluous.

Why so much hate for the fuel flow limit? It works and could, if so desired, allow for competition between disparate engines.

Wuzak you can't have it all there has to be a limit otherwise you can never produce an engine for 15m dollars. All those "limits" are quite lenient 5.0 bar is really a lot and 15k RPM is also a lot. I wouldn't call that a limit that the manufacturers would achieve easily. It's just a limit so that other manufacturers know what to shoot for and not spend silly money on getting higher RPM like they did in the old days. So same for max. turbo pressure.

The fuel flow limit restricts the engine capability to much its a hindrance. Manufacturers should be allowed to run as much fuel is possible at any giving moment. The have 50kg onboard so they should be the ones controlling the fuel usage. With out the fuel flow you its easier to go for fast 3 stop stint or 2 stop with longer stints and less fuel usage, so more strategy calls for the teams in the race.

But I also removed the KERS limit usage per lap. So its not all restrictions or limitations. Its more sensible and a way to ensure that we don't get a spending war again.

[dren]

Set a fuel flow limit, get rid of the RPM relation, just a max flow rate. Remove all other regulations. It directly promotes efficiency. Allow teams to fuel how they want at the start, but no refueling due to safety concerns.

[garrett]

1. Current engine formula with a slightly modified fuel flow limit or even fuel capicity, but vice versa max. rpm 14.000 for cost saving reasons. That´s all. To change the current engine formula as little as possible is the cheapest way. After that, further main changes up to 2020+ should be prevented in advance to try to lure new manufacturers into F1 and give them a secure investment.

2. legalisation of water injection with water/alcool (methanol) emulsion (kinda MW 50 resp. HFS6 system). Reasons could be
- fuel saving effect because of a leaner mixture
- engine is better protected e.g. against thermic problems which correlates with the tighter restriction of engine numbers
- the emissions can be further reduced (NOx) which correlates with the "eco" badge of the PU
- intercoolers could be spared/optimized packages
- higher boost pressure, earlier ignition timing ->more power which correlates with the ominous "1000 hp" engines some require

plus
- broader tyres, bigger cars width

WI is outdated some may say; wasn´t also direct fuel injection??

3. the Honda idea of additional electric generators at the wheels sounds interesting

4. additionally, the architecture of the sport has to be revamped as there is no sense in letting in the McKinsey squad analysze which mechanic, tool, coffee machine or toilet paper could be spared in F1 when in contrary money is driven out of F1 constantly. Equalize the distribution key, so many restrictions due to "money saving" will become unnecessary (jokes like no spare front wing for RBR at Jerez test, no spare cars so the billion dollar test is finished after some laps etc.). Do it, despite of red herrings like the "sound discussion".

[wuzak]

Set a fuel flow limit, get rid of the RPM relation, just a max flow rate. Remove all other regulations. It directly promotes efficiency. Allow teams to fuel how they want at the start, but no refueling due to safety concerns.

Then listen to the sound lovers squeal!

[Blanchimont]

With such a simple engine rule set, there'll be no moans about engine sound or volume because nobody would use a MGUH(the real reason why the sound is what it is today) to recover energy under these circumstances. Free engine regs would probably result in a highly charged two stroke engine that is very light(a=F/m) and with more kinetic energy recovery than today.

You did some calculations on this(kinetic energy), wuzak, if i remember correctly!?

[gruntguru]

As long as there is a fuel flow limit (as in dren's proposal) everyone would use a MGUH (turbocompounding) if permitted - it simply means more power.

[gruntguru]

The ideal 2017 engine configuration is:
- No fuel flow limit
- 50kg fuel maximum on board, refueling allowed. But DTM fuel rig system, so safety is guaranteed. No minimum fuel allocation for race start. Teams can choose how much kg they want to start with.
- 1.6L V6 Bi-turbo with MGU-K 4MJ battery unlimited use of K/battery during lap , drop the MGU-H.
- max turbo pressure 5.0 bar.
- max weight for car: 650kg
- max RPM 15.000
- Max of 5 engines per year
- Max price for engine 15m dollar.
- Engine development with tokens system. But all parts of the engine can be changed. Manufacturers will get opportunity the change half of the parts of the engine every year. No updates during the season.

You do realise your formula is a 1,500 hp engine plus KERS don't you?

[wuzak]

You did some calculations on this(kinetic energy), wuzak, if i remember correctly!?

Yes I did.

The fact is that at most tracks recovering 2MJ during braking zones id difficult or near impossible. To get more recovery per lap you will need to up the power of the MGUK in generator mode and/or use an MGU on the front wheels.

[Blanchimont]

As long as there is a fuel flow limit (as in dren's proposal) everyone would use a MGUH (turbocompounding) if permitted - it simply means more power.

I don't think so. The gain in power is true with turbocompounding, but at the same time the use of a MGUH(energy recovery in general) means:

- the car is heavier
- increased cooling requirements
- the tyres are stressed more because of the additional weight
- tyre load sensitivity decreases the available tyre force
- additional source for engine failure
- added costs of development

The simple solution is to raise the minimum weight to force everyone into the use of energy recovery systems. The underlying reason being Mercedes and Renault wanted to create a marketing tool to push hybrid technologies, seems it didn't work as intended for Renault.

[gruntguru]

As long as there is a fuel flow limit (as in dren's proposal) everyone would use a MGUH (turbocompounding) if permitted - it simply means more power.

I don't think so. The gain in power is true with turbocompounding, but at the same time the use of a MGUH(energy recovery in general) means:
- the car is heavier
- increased cooling requirements
- the tyres are stressed more because of the additional weight
- tyre load sensitivity decreases the available tyre force
- additional source for engine failure
- added costs of development

If you read dren's proposal again(Set a fuel flow limit, get rid of the RPM relation, just a max flow rate. Remove all other regulations. It directly promotes efficiency. Allow teams to fuel how they want at the start, but no refueling due to safety concerns.) the optimal solution would be a small capacity highly supercharged engine with turbo-compounding. The compounding would add little weight or cost whether mechanical or electric, and add considerable power (at least 20%).

[dren]

Yes, that's my thoughts too gruntguru. The complexity would remain since there is much to gain with turbo compounding. They would likely downsize the ICE even more. I don't know what layout they would prefer. v-twin, I4, stick with the v6? I would expect the ICE to be downsped if the RPM relationship is removed.