How about this then:
Allow teams - other than the championship leader - to buy extra fuel flow and give this cash to the to teams in the lowest two position in the championship.
One should accept that having a fair competition, costs may rise from time to time. Having said that, cost reductions have been on the agenda in the past decades and resulted in many changes to the regulations. But they help reducing costs? The opposite seems to be the case.JordanMugen wrote: ↑27 Nov 2020, 22:16That would be expensive!Pingguest wrote: ↑30 Oct 2020, 20:45If 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.
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!
I think there is a bit of confusion here, we were discussing this article
Is 'convergence' also against the spirit of F1? For the record, I don't like the idea of allowing different PUs to have different fuel flow limits as a means of converging their performance. I think all teams should have the same rules applied and race under equal conditions. But what alternative mechanism is there to reduce costs in the lead up to a change in PU regulations?“We have some discussions at the moment with the FIA and F1: Should we consider a mechanism of engine convergence if there is any situation where eventually a manufacturer is really down on performance compared to the others? Because [otherwise] it’s freezing for three years the relative performance within manufacturers.”
Such rules would not be the same as the ‘balance of performance’ regulations seen in other categories, Binotto insisted.
“I certainly don’t think it is ‘balance of performance’ because I don’t think that the aim or the objective is to somehow bring all the manufacturers to the same level of performance,” he said. “That’s not the case.
Sounds like Binotto wants a special deal so they can make their PU f-up disappear. Oh so Ferrari again...dave kumar wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 12:13I think there is a bit of confusion here, we were discussing this article
https://www.racefans.net/2020/11/27/fer ... rformance/
The article was discussing 'convergence' not 'balance of performance' but then BoP got mentioned later on and the two ideas got conflated.
Here's the quote from Binotto from the same articleIs 'convergence' also against the spirit of F1? For the record, I don't like the idea of allowing different PUs to have different fuel flow limits as a means of converging their performance. I think all teams should have the same rules applied and race under equal conditions. But what alternative mechanism is there to reduce costs in the lead up to a change in PU regulations?“We have some discussions at the moment with the FIA and F1: Should we consider a mechanism of engine convergence if there is any situation where eventually a manufacturer is really down on performance compared to the others? Because [otherwise] it’s freezing for three years the relative performance within manufacturers.”
Such rules would not be the same as the ‘balance of performance’ regulations seen in other categories, Binotto insisted.
“I certainly don’t think it is ‘balance of performance’ because I don’t think that the aim or the objective is to somehow bring all the manufacturers to the same level of performance,” he said. “That’s not the case.
So maybe cars in the lower half of the grid should be allowed to run lighter as they can not match the spending of the top few? (irony not ignorance)Mudflap wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 16:13What Binotto specifically proposed is that engines down in power be allowed to increase the fuel flow rate over the normal 100 kg/h limit in order to achieve this so called convergence.
Which ironically is exactly what Ferrari have been doing throughout 2019..
1. This is a silly idea because the rules pertaining to racing hardware should be the same for everyone. Should Williams also ask for more development freedom on aero just because they are behind? No.
2. It is exploitable.
3. It is not fair to teams who spend big money and innovate.
I understand the difference between convergence and equalization and I don't agree with either.
There is nothing wrong with that. Closer field will lead to better racing, better TV ratings, more money for teams and lower cost.Big Tea wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 16:17So maybe cars in the lower half of the grid should be allowed to run lighter as they can not match the spending of the top few? (irony not ignorance)Mudflap wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 16:13What Binotto specifically proposed is that engines down in power be allowed to increase the fuel flow rate over the normal 100 kg/h limit in order to achieve this so called convergence.
Which ironically is exactly what Ferrari have been doing throughout 2019..
1. This is a silly idea because the rules pertaining to racing hardware should be the same for everyone. Should Williams also ask for more development freedom on aero just because they are behind? No.
2. It is exploitable.
3. It is not fair to teams who spend big money and innovate.
I understand the difference between convergence and equalization and I don't agree with either.
No, the point I was making is that the hardware rules should be the same for everyone.Big Tea wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 16:17So maybe cars in the lower half of the grid should be allowed to run lighter as they can not match the spending of the top few? (irony not ignorance)Mudflap wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 16:13What Binotto specifically proposed is that engines down in power be allowed to increase the fuel flow rate over the normal 100 kg/h limit in order to achieve this so called convergence.
Which ironically is exactly what Ferrari have been doing throughout 2019..
1. This is a silly idea because the rules pertaining to racing hardware should be the same for everyone. Should Williams also ask for more development freedom on aero just because they are behind? No.
2. It is exploitable.
3. It is not fair to teams who spend big money and innovate.
I understand the difference between convergence and equalization and I don't agree with either.
I agree, the appeal of the formula is that the same rules apply to everyone and then you try and build the fastest car to those rules. If we take away that and give a boost (say in max fuel flow) to some teams to try and level the playing field, we lose this essential part of F1's appeal.
this with the existing fuel flow and rev limits.
Doesn't really work because the fuel flow curve is prescribed so that more or less also prescribes the power curve. This means that all engines on the grid have the same shape power curve but scaled up or down as a function of relative thermal efficiency.dave kumar wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 17:08I agree, the appeal of the formula is that the same rules apply to everyone and then you try and build the fastest car to those rules. If we take away that and give a boost (say in max fuel flow) to some teams to try and level the playing field, we lose this essential part of F1's appeal.
But... knowing that we are approaching a PU development freeze, what other ways are there of preventing a team being locked in to a disadvantage because the PU they are using is well below the performance of the others (let's keep it vague, you can fill in your favourite PU manufacturer here)? This is about cost saving as we approach a new set of PU regulations.
The FIA could repeat the V8 engine freeze formula - did this allow limited development for convergence or was it just meant to be reliability only? But could we do better - I like Stu's suggestionthis with the existing fuel flow and rev limits.
This is the same for everyone (no BoP, tick), and saves money (tick), as I believe that once the PUs converge to the same area under the power curve, there will be marginal gains elsewhere in cooling, packaging and that money will be spent elsewhere. Actually I'm not sure the gains will be so marginal in these areas but at least if you are behind on them, it isn't as big a factor as being down on power.
Thanks, I hadn't thought of it like that. Could you replace therefore remove the fuel flow restrictions and only prescribe an area under the power curve and arrive at the same place? The difference seems to me is that (by prescribing the power curve), you would remove the incentive to further improve thermal efficiency which would achieve the cost saving the FIA are looking for as we head towards the change in PU regulations.
It depends what you do about the other fuel related engine rules and the effect they have on other systems. It is a big can of worms.dave kumar wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 18:24Thanks, I hadn't thought of it like that. Could you replace therefore remove the fuel flow restrictions and only prescribe an area under the power curve and arrive at the same place? The difference seems to me is that (by prescribing the power curve), you would remove the incentive to further improve thermal efficiency which would achieve the cost saving the FIA are looking for as we head towards the change in PU regulations.
Yea, I see your point. So we need to control the energy input ie. a fuel flow limit, to encourage the development of thermally efficient PUs (or at least this is what the FIA want from the current engine formula). Any gains made in efficiency, directly translate in to power gains, presumably, as you can produce more power at the maximum permissible fuel flow.Mudflap wrote: ↑16 Dec 2020, 19:02...Say the FIA impose some form of power curve or power curve area and eliminates the fuel flow rules. Now the MGUH harvesting is no longer a crank power compromise so there won't be anything stopping teams from running it hard to extract huge amounts of energy from unlimited fuel flow. This energy can then be used to run the K for much much longer.
So now you have team A with the same ICE output as team B but the former can run the MGUK for most of the lap.
This is just an example but there would be many unintended consequences of removing fuel flow rate regulations.
Last but not least the FIA are very keen on "green" road relevant technologies. The last thing they want is to go back to gas guzzling low thermal efficiency engines.