What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

[michl420]

An interesting idea, technical side. But i think the races would be the same. I you release that rule in the next race, i think the result of the race will be the same. I am always a fan of great variety which leads to comparable results.

[DChemTech]

I would find it interesting in the broader sense, not just for power unit.
Currently, there's a lot of input limiting (exact dimension specifications of certain geometric parts, of the basic engine, etc.) which means every team has more or less the same car, and the differentiation is in minute differences imperceptible to the casual viewer.

Moving to a situation where there is more design freedom, but limitations on the output, would potentially give a broader range of approaches that are actually distinguishable by the average viewer (until everyone converges on one thing of course). Output of the chassis may be a certain target downforce, target wake characteristics, etc. Focus would be on efficiency of chassis and engine, which fits market demands a bit more, too.

[Stu]

Not sure if they still do this, but V8 Supercars had a parity system between manufacturers that used the area under the power curve as a limit, along with a rev limit (I believe?). It didn’t matter where you made your power or whether you were running a V8 (5.0l), turbo V6 (3.2l?), or turbo I4 (2.0l?). The idea was to balance everyone out in that parameter.

I still think that F1 (or rather the FIA) missed a real trick by not stipulating I4 turbos for the current hybrid cars, it would have fitted perfectly with their ‘world engine’ idea; all the way from F3 to F1 and the assorted rally categories.
That way prototype racing could have nicely worked with a ‘stock-block’ engine formula for manufacturers and race engine builders could have concentrated on single seaters and rally with ‘custom’ designs.

If the FIA had really wanted to push a true hybrid agenda then using a gas turbine as an electrical generator for an electric drive system would have been good, as it would then be a short step to hydrogen fuel cells....

[J.A.W.]

Not sure if they still do this, but V8 Supercars had a parity system between manufacturers that used the area under the power curve as a limit, along with a rev limit (I believe?). It didn’t matter where you made your power or whether you were running a V8 (5.0l), turbo V6 (3.2l?), or turbo I4 (2.0l?). The idea was to balance everyone out in that parameter.

I still think that F1 (or rather the FIA) missed a real trick by not stipulating I4 turbos for the current hybrid cars, it would have fitted perfectly with their ‘world engine’ idea; all the way from F3 to F1 and the assorted rally categories.
That way prototype racing could have nicely worked with a ‘stock-block’ engine formula for manufacturers and race engine builders could have concentrated on single seaters and rally with ‘custom’ designs.

If the FIA had really wanted to push a true hybrid agenda then using a gas turbine as an electrical generator for an electric drive system would have been good, as it would then be a short step to hydrogen fuel cells....

No, no, & no...

V8 supercars considered going to turbos AFAIR, but given how rapidly they shaded atmo-V8s
back in the Group A era, well, its no wonder that idea hasn't flown.

F1 is a 'premium brand', ah, sorry, I mean: 'Premium Brand!!!' - so a mere 4 cylinders, just like what
the peasants in lower classes must race, is simply 'beyond the pale' - & duly, right out of consideration..

Small gas turbines are both woefully inefficient, & ambient sound-wise - will def' offer
no advance over the execrable 'kitchen appliance' noise that FE, ah, currently - emits...

[Big Tea]

Not sure if they still do this, but V8 Supercars had a parity system between manufacturers that used the area under the power curve as a limit, along with a rev limit (I believe?). It didn’t matter where you made your power or whether you were running a V8 (5.0l), turbo V6 (3.2l?), or turbo I4 (2.0l?). The idea was to balance everyone out in that parameter.

I still think that F1 (or rather the FIA) missed a real trick by not stipulating I4 turbos for the current hybrid cars, it would have fitted perfectly with their ‘world engine’ idea; all the way from F3 to F1 and the assorted rally categories.
That way prototype racing could have nicely worked with a ‘stock-block’ engine formula for manufacturers and race engine builders could have concentrated on single seaters and rally with ‘custom’ designs.

If the FIA had really wanted to push a true hybrid agenda then using a gas turbine as an electrical generator for an electric drive system would have been good, as it would then be a short step to hydrogen fuel cells....

No, no, & no...

V8 supercars considered going to turbos AFAIR, but given how rapidly they shaded atmo-V8s
back in the Group A era, well, its no wonder that idea hasn't flown.

F1 is a 'premium brand', ah, sorry, I mean: 'Premium Brand!!!' - so a mere 4 cylinders, just like what
the peasants in lower classes must race, is simply 'beyond the pale' - & duly, right out of consideration..

Small gas turbines are both woefully inefficient, & ambient sound-wise - will def' offer
no advance over the execrable 'kitchen appliance' noise that FE, ah, currently - emits...

But a Small gas turbine driving a generator would be interesting. Anyone remember the Vulcan Howl? it would look good on a racing car

[dave kumar]

https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/27/red ... ne-freeze/

... a full freeze on development would lock in a disadvantage for any manufacturer which is not on par with the competition. Ferrari, who are considered to have the weakest power unit in 2020, potentially stand to lose most from a freeze.

RaceFans understands Red Bull therefore intends to propose a partial freeze incorporating a ‘Balance of Performance’. This would permit manufacturers to continue developing their power units up to a certain level.

One potential balancing mechanism could be to restrict the fuel allocation each team receives based on their performance. This idea was proposed by AlphaTauri team principal Franz Tost in an exclusive interview for RaceFans last month.

“If you calculate that [Mercedes] are currently around three to five tenths faster than the rest, it’s easy to calculate how [much] less fuel you have to give them to balance the field,” said Tost.
...
“Mercedes has done a fantastic job to develop its infrastructure to come to this real high level of performance and normally teams should not be penalised for this because it’s a little bit unfair,” said Tost. “But if someone asks me what I would do, this would be the case.”

Balance of Performance (BoP), words that are guaranteed to upset some people. You can see Tost's logic though, how do you have a freeze on PU development that allows Red Bull to continue to use Honda's PU (post 2021) but avoid locking in a large advantage/disadvantage for a given PU at the point of the freeze. Even if you don't have any sympathy for Red Bull's plight, how do you start to reduce the costs of PU development as we approach another PU regulation change in 2026?

Isn't it starting to look more attractive to cap the output (power) rather than these complicated proposals for freezing part of the development and/or BoP measures?

[Pingguest]

If the power output would be the only limit regarding power units, manufacturers would not only have the incentive for a better packaging, cooling, fuel-efficiency but also to reduce weight and to lower the center of gravity - which are currently restricted by the regulations.

In other words: with a power output limit, manufacturers would still have plenty of work to do.

[Big Tea]

If the power output would be the only limit regarding power units, manufacturers would not only have the incentive for a better packaging, cooling, fuel-efficiency but also to reduce weight and to lower the center of gravity - which are currently restricted by the regulations.

In other words: with a power output limit, manufacturers would still have plenty of work to do.

It could become all about losing weight then

[Pingguest]

If the power output would be the only limit regarding power units, manufacturers would not only have the incentive for a better packaging, cooling, fuel-efficiency but also to reduce weight and to lower the center of gravity - which are currently restricted by the regulations.

In other words: with a power output limit, manufacturers would still have plenty of work to do.

It could become all about losing weight then

Weight in the broader sense then, as it would include fuel as well. Having said that, the thing I mentioned was only from a purely power unit point of view. One might except a different power unit with a flat undertray compared to the case with a ground effect undertray.

[Big Tea]

If the power output would be the only limit regarding power units, manufacturers would not only have the incentive for a better packaging, cooling, fuel-efficiency but also to reduce weight and to lower the center of gravity - which are currently restricted by the regulations.

In other words: with a power output limit, manufacturers would still have plenty of work to do.

It could become all about losing weight then

Weight in the broader sense then, as it would include fuel as well. Having said that, the thing I mentioned was only from a purely power unit point of view. One might except a different power unit with a flat undertray compared to the case with a ground effect undertray.

Do you think any one would not use a tunnel if it was allowed? Seems the most gain for nothing.

[Pingguest]

It could become all about losing weight then

Weight in the broader sense then, as it would include fuel as well. Having said that, the thing I mentioned was only from a purely power unit point of view. One might except a different power unit with a flat undertray compared to the case with a ground effect undertray.

Do you think any one would not use a tunnel if it was allowed? Seems the most gain for nothing.

In a 'Formula Libre' they would also use one or more fans. But having said that, the ideal power unit configuration - if there is any - would depend on other variables, outside the power unit itself.

[JordanMugen]

Isn't it starting to look more attractive to cap the output (power) rather than these complicated proposals for freezing part of the development and/or BoP measures?

Why not have both!

I'd rather have that race for power, though.

But that's expensive. The 2022 engine freeze proposal calls for giving a bit more fuel flow to the (otherwise) lower output power units. That seems a perfect mechanism to achieve equalisation and balance-of-performance of power units.

V8 Supercars works very well with a cap on area under the power curve between (I think) 4000rpm and the 7500rpm rev limit. You bring your engine and homologate it on the category dynamometer. You can still tune the torque how you want within that constraint, but overall the engine suppliers all perform very similarly and development costs are slashed (and durability increased).

While they are it, they can put load sensors on the suspension and do the same for aero. If drag will also be regulated, that would of course be difficult to measure live on track, so some independent CFD or wind tunnel verification may be needed for that?

If the power output would be the only limit regarding power units, manufacturers would not only have the incentive for a better packaging, cooling, fuel-efficiency but also to reduce weight and to lower the center of gravity - which are currently restricted by the regulations.

In other words: with a power output limit, manufacturers would still have plenty of work to do.

That would be expensive!

The whole point is to reduce costs not increase them.

So the point is to freeze the 2022 units and fiddle the fuel flow rates to achieve balance-of-performance.

Similar balancing regulations could then be used for the 2025 units which target a 50% reduction in power unit development and supply cost.

Chasing every last 0.005% of performance is a waste of money, that's why BOP is so popular!

[JordanMugen]

I still think that F1 (or rather the FIA) missed a real trick by not stipulating I4 turbos for the current hybrid cars, it would have fitted perfectly with their ‘world engine’ idea; all the way from F3 to F1 and the assorted rally categories.

Interesting! It would be sensible to align with Super Formula regulations.

On the other hand, V4 engines sound cooler than I4 and are better for structural integration.

[JordanMugen]

F1 is a 'premium brand', ah, sorry, I mean: 'Premium Brand!!!' - so a mere 4 cylinders, just like what
the peasants in lower classes must race, is simply 'beyond the pale' - & duly, right out of consideration..

4-cylinders seems completely fine to me?

[JordanMugen]

Wolff:

I think this would be the beginning of the end. I cannot comprehend that any car manufacturer that trusts in its abilities to develop a power unit and a chassis would want some kind of mechanism that would balance the power units out. I don’t think that anybody would accept such a humiliation in public.

Binotto:

Certainly, the easiest one is by managing or adapting the fuel flow, but I don’t think that there is a conclusion yet.

Budkowski:

A safety net mechanism to prevent someone to be at a massive disadvantage for three years is worth discussing.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/wolff-en ... nd-for-f1/

The wrongness of Wolff's statement in an era where cost-cutting is number one priority defies belief!

It's almost as if Mercedes-Benz do not understand the importance of slashing obscene & irrelevant power unit development costs.