F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:LMP1 regulations are more restrictive in terms of fuel flow than F1. On the other side the regulations allow more diversity in terms of engine size and layout. An F1 engine would have to reduce the fuel flow from 27.8 g/s to 23 g/s, but the basic engine is eligible for LMP1. The LMP1 regulations do not allow turbo compounding. You can have 8 MJ KERS instead. There are manufacturer comments, which say that it is not sensible to use an F1 engine for LMP1.

Thank you very Much White blue!
It's a bit sad I think... I was hoping that it could be a new trend, where some of the big formula 1 manufactors teams would join the lmp1 class as well ( like Ferrari).

By the way I have read a lot of your comments and you do know a lot of cool stuff, where do your get all this knowledge from?

richard_leeds wrote:

Hail22 wrote:With the FIA set to announce a provisional schedule at its next World Motor Sport Council meeting in Croatia at the end of this month, the governing body is aware that agreeing to a longer calendar could lead to unintended consequences of having to change sporting regulations to accommodate the need for more engines.

I wonder how a reduced mileage per engine would impact on the design? It'll be too late to change the design, but they could work the engine closer to the limits. Hypothetically what would be the difference if the engines had a reduced mileage?

Im pretty sure they will decide that a season cannot extend beyond 20 races. So that the engine regulations can stay as they are.

Otherwise i think the decreased milage per engine would mean a lighter engine. With a marginal increase in performance because of less internal inertia. But i think weight shaving would be what you could do if the engines should run less milage. But that would be hard to do at the current state.

There is already a minimum weight limit on the power unit, and I'm guessing the teams are hovering right at that limit already. The FiA could just allow one more power unit change a year or something like that. Are there 5 now?

dren wrote:There is already a minimum weight limit on the power unit, and I'm guessing the teams are hovering right at that limit already. The FiA could just allow one more power unit change a year or something like that. Are there 5 now?

Im also sure they are at the weight limit right now. But then you could move the weight around. You would want it as low as possible. And if you could remove some weight from moving parts that would be preferable as well.

dren wrote:There is already a minimum weight limit on the power unit, and I'm guessing the teams are hovering right at that limit already. The FiA could just allow one more power unit change a year or something like that. Are there 5 now?

I'm pretty sure a sporting regulation change would simply be changing the number of engines. Anything else would be seen as inequitable. They would compensate a sporting regulation change by making an adjustment in sporting regulations and not by an adjustment in technical regulations.

Changing the sporting regs does have an impact on the technical design because the sporting regs define the durability requirements and parc ferme.

If the mileage is relaxed then at some point in the season there will be an engine that runs one less race than it would this season. Couldn't that engine can be run with more aggressive settings or kept intact for a track like Monza?

In an extreme case, I'm sure doubling the number of engines would result in design changes. You can imagine Newey thinking he could run them a few degrees warmer so he could shrink the radiators a little bit.

I think this is a very simple problem with one very obvious solution if one is required at all. If they do more than 20 races which is not at all set in stone they will add an extra engine which can only be used for the extra races. Anything else would be complicating a very simple situation.

WhiteBlue wrote:I think this is a very simple problem with one very obvious solution if one is required at all. If they do more than 20 races which is not at all set in stone they will add an extra engine which can only be used for the extra races. Anything else would be complicating a very simple situation.

I'm not sure who would foot that bill, the teams or the manufacturers, but building/buying an engine that can only be used once wont fly.

rjsa wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I think this is a very simple problem with one very obvious solution if one is required at all. If they do more than 20 races which is not at all set in stone they will add an extra engine which can only be used for the extra races. Anything else would be complicating a very simple situation.

I'm not sure who would foot that bill, the teams or the manufacturers, but building/buying an engine that can only be used once wont fly.

I believe what WB is implying is that the extra engine be used for: Sochi, Mexico and the A1 ring?

That's what he meant and that's what I think wont fly. If teams have to pay for an extra engine they will demand to use it to the full extent.

An extra engine won't cost 20% more than the current 5.

Most of the engine cost is in the development - not the manufacture.

Holm86 wrote:

dren wrote:There is already a minimum weight limit on the power unit, and I'm guessing the teams are hovering right at that limit already. The FiA could just allow one more power unit change a year or something like that. Are there 5 now?

Im also sure they are at the weight limit right now. But then you could move the weight around. You would want it as low as possible. And if you could remove some weight from moving parts that would be preferable as well.

In addition to a minimum weight there is a minimum CoG. Assuming that they are at the minimum weight, I woudl suggest that they are close to the minimum CoG as well.

wuzak wrote:An extra engine won't cost 20% more than the current 5.

Most of the engine cost is in the development - not the manufacture.

How much? 10% ? How much is that? 1.5mil?

How many teams can spare that change?

Renault posted this image a few months back, don't know whether someone had posted it here yet.

But it seems this is how their engines will sit in the RBR, STR...and possibly Lotus' cars:

The first thing I notice about the Renault picture is that the exhaust pipe is non compliant, because:

It doesn't have a straight section of 150mm
It isn't anywhere near long enough - the exhaust pipe must extend to a point 170-185mm behind the rear axle line