The fuel injectors for a direct injected engine needs to be adapted for the engine in question, so it cannot really be standardized. If you standardize it, you must basically standardize the rest of the combustion system too.godlameroso wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:59 pmThe one thing making these engines expensive, especially in their development, is the combustion technology. If they standardize some parts, like fuel, injectors(this is a big one) it would make the engines much cheaper to develop. The mgu-H Is expensive but it's not the area that consumes the most resources on its own. It's the combustion, as that is the prime mover of everything else.
Removing the MGU-H doesn't address the fact that everyone in the current formula, will have a huge advantage regarding combustion to any newcomers.
MGU-H can probably be standardized (and made by Honeywell, BorgWarner, MHI or some other turbo manufacturer), but it will have an impact on packaging.
If you increase engine allocation, surely the engine manufacturers will see this as an opportunity to gain performance at the expense of reliability. You still need to do the same reliability testing, only with lower goals which leaves room for optimization elsewhere.Zynerji wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:42 pmI feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.
If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.
Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.
After all, there are racing series run with only one engine per season without costs going out of control.
The output of the 1980s turbos were air restricted, not fuel restricted like the current formula. Especially during the later years, when boost limits were introduced high engine speeds were important.