F1technical.net

wuzak wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 03:21

Maritimer wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 03:11

The front motor from a modern P1 hybrids would just about fit into the nose of an F1 car, just widen thr bulkhead a few inches at most

The Audi one shown above looks like it would fit. The problem is what to do with the suspension - where do the torsion bars go, for example.

Regarding all-wheel KERS, it would work best if they had a standard KERS system, front and rear. Then they wouldn't have to limit the energy that could be recovered.

Just freeze the current spec in 2019, minor updates to bring HP parity until the end of 2020, then full freeze for 2021, moving to 6 per season. Same MGU-H/K, but with a front MGU-K that is steering wheel trigger operated. Would allow the drivers another means of car control, and would make driver skill shine again. With this, I would cut the battery by 2/3, and increase fuel to 150L as to encourage high RPMs, making the MGU-H be the primary power source for the F/R MGU-Ks.

MGU tech should be the real, road relevant, battleground. We shouldn't give up the huge efficiency gains of the lean burn tech of the current formula!

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 04:25

...increase fuel to 150L as to encourage high RPMs...

They currently carry about 140 litres of fuel. The battery needs to be bigger, not smaller, if you want to see high RPMs

AJI wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:35

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 04:25

...increase fuel to 150L as to encourage high RPMs...

They currently carry about 140 litres of fuel. The battery needs to be bigger, not smaller, if you want to see high RPMs

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

I would expect more reliance on H would lead to more fuel burning and Higher RPM. The battery increasing in size, thus shrinking the fuel tank seems to run counter to that expectation.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:39

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

100 kg fuel is 140 liters

currently they are allowed 105 kg which is 147 l

next year it could be 110 kgs which is 145 l

considering density of fuel as 711 kg/m^3

roon wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 00:41

Dont see the need for it to be at the T tray, MGU K can just hang below the front bulk head.

Not sure if it needs to be within the crash structure

But if they are allowed to put the MGU K at the front, sure we would see a radiator too somewhere near by

FW17 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 06:27

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:39

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

100 kg fuel is 140 liters

currently they are allowed 105 kg which is 147 l

next year it could be 110 kgs which is 145 l

considering density of fuel as 711 kg/m^3

I had kg and L mixed up, my bad!

FW17 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 06:27

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:39

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

100 kg fuel is 140 liters

currently they are allowed 105 kg which is 147 l

next year it could be 110 kgs which is 145 l

considering density of fuel as 711 kg/m^3

110kg ~ 155L @ SG = 0.711

Though that SG may be a bit low.

FW17 wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 06:35

roon wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 00:41

https://i.imgur.com/RVCklty.jpg

Dont see the need for it to be at the T tray, MGU K can just hang below the front bulk head.

Not sure if it needs to be within the crash structure

But if they are allowed to put the MGU K at the front, sure we would see a radiator too somewhere near by

S duct is the new MGUK-F cooling aparatus!

The differential suggested by Roon will not be necessary

LMP 1 cars I think used a Wheel axial induction motor/generator, which is 2 rotors driving 2 separate shafts but with 1 stator

that sounds like a good recipe for emulating a combination of active differential and traction control and ABS

though this behaviour is also available if using 2 separate motorgenerators (at the front)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 10:48

that sounds like a good recipe for emulating a combination of active differential and traction control and ABS

though this behaviour is also available if using 2 separate motorgenerators (at the front)

Yeah, it is easier to maintain and more efficient at the same time. Hence they need to over write the current ban of 4wd. However we could not see braking skill of F1 drivers, this is the main reason FIA still ban the front assisted brakes.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:39

AJI wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:35

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 04:25

...increase fuel to 150L as to encourage high RPMs...

They currently carry about 140 litres of fuel. The battery needs to be bigger, not smaller, if you want to see high RPMs

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

I would expect more reliance on H would lead to more fuel burning and Higher RPM. The battery increasing in size, thus shrinking the fuel tank seems to run counter to that expectation.

105kg is roughly 140 liters or around 34 gallons. So not only are the cars as long as Chevy Suburbans but also has a gas tank to match.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 15:32

Zynerji wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:39

AJI wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2018, 05:35

They currently carry about 140 litres of fuel. The battery needs to be bigger, not smaller, if you want to see high RPMs

Where do you see 140L in a current car?

I would expect more reliance on H would lead to more fuel burning and Higher RPM. The battery increasing in size, thus shrinking the fuel tank seems to run counter to that expectation.

105kg is roughly 140 liters or around 34 gallons. So not only are the cars as long as Chevy Suburbans but also has a gas tank to match.

@Jean Todt - there's your 'road relevance...'

[/quote]
@Jean Todt - there's your 'road relevance...'
[/quote]

Meanwhile the rest of the world uses normal everyday cars that hold about 50-60l of fuel.

A formula car does not have awd, we should keep that for another 10 years at least.