F1technical.net

Juzh wrote:

dans79 wrote:some fans

most

Got a survey to back that up?

I think it does not makes sense to be changing engine rules so drastically so often, manufacturers spend lots of money on R&D and I think that they get the chills when Bernie starts talking about new engines.

I say, stick with the current formula and remove fuel flow limit or increase it lineally after 10,500RPM.

Increasing fuel limit linearly to 15k would produce a ramp-shaped power curve ie very narrow power band just under 15k. Straight increase in the flow limit eg +10% everywhere if more power is needed.

I can't see why Renault says 1000 BHP will skyrocket the costs. 1000 bhp wcould be achieved with a modest increase in the flow limit and race limit - and at low cost. It would need to be a "new season" rule change. Many components from fuel tanks to turbochargers would need to be upsized. OTOH the current PU could easily make the extra power with the fuel increase only - unfreeze fuel system components needed to handle the extra flow. Things like turbo upgrades would only be necessary to wring the last 20hp out of the re-design.

The point of forced induction for 4Ts is that boost substitutes for rpm in making real power..

If aural purists then decry the sound as being muffled, or reduced in tone/pitch & etc..
..due to lower frequency/fewer cylinders/longer firing intervals.. ..tough..

gruntguru wrote:Increasing fuel limit linearly to 15k would produce a ramp-shaped power curve ie very narrow power band just under 15k. Straight increase in the flow limit eg +10% everywhere if more power is needed.

I can't see why Renault says 1000 BHP will skyrocket the costs. 1000 bhp wcould be achieved with a modest increase in the flow limit and race limit - and at low cost.

I'm not so sure about that, The ICE's make something like 625 - 675 HP (maybe 700hp this year). I can't see these engines being over engineered to the point that they could handle a 20% to 30% increase in power without some major re-design.

If the longevity requirement was relaxed/dropped, then surely - they could hack more juice/boost/power..

dans79 wrote:

gruntguru wrote:Increasing fuel limit linearly to 15k would produce a ramp-shaped power curve ie very narrow power band just under 15k. Straight increase in the flow limit eg +10% everywhere if more power is needed.

I can't see why Renault says 1000 BHP will skyrocket the costs. 1000 bhp wcould be achieved with a modest increase in the flow limit and race limit - and at low cost.

I'm not so sure about that, The ICE's make something like 625 - 675 HP (maybe 700hp this year). I can't see these engines being over engineered to the point that they could handle a 20% to 30% increase in power without some major re-design.

The interesting thing about turbo engines is that a power increase of that order does not increase the stress on the engine significantly. In particular, the current breed of F1 engines are running modest boost and significant excess air. The power could be increased significantly simply by running a little more boost and a little richer AFR.

Go back to the turbo era cars and look at the increases in power density they achieved - usually with little or no change to the basic engine. The current F1 engines are very lightly stressed (both mechanically and thermally) in relative terms.

The engines will probably need to be strengthened. Remember that we cannot compare this type of machinery to the "turbo era", as back then team run seperate engines even for qualifying. The expected engine endurance has gone up x10 compared to then. The current breed does get much less momentary stress, but has to endure that lowered stress for a much longer time. The engine has to endure a lot more heat and cool down cycles, something not appreciated by metal.

It'll require some strengthening at the very least, and very, very tight managing over the production process and high standard quality control. Even a single hairline in any of the metallic structures could cause a nightmare in the long run.

J.A.W. wrote:If the longevity requirement was relaxed/dropped, then surely - they could hack more juice/boost/power..

More engines would presumably see costs for the teams rise.


Comes back to my OP, if we leave things alone, in a few years time the engines will be pushing 1000bhp or thereabouts through steady refinement and improvements.

Tell the manufacturers to make a big jump in a year and they'll want to go away and make big changes, again costs go up.


As has been mentioned, somebody needs to pay. Perhaps it could come from the Bernie / CVC share, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that front.

turbof1 wrote:The engines will probably need to be strengthened. Remember that we cannot compare this type of machinery to the "turbo era", as back then team run seperate engines even for qualifying. The expected engine endurance has gone up x10 compared to then. The current breed does get much less momentary stress, but has to endure that lowered stress for a much longer time. The engine has to endure a lot more heat and cool down cycles, something not appreciated by metal.

It'll require some strengthening at the very least, and very, very tight managing over the production process and high standard quality control. Even a single hairline in any of the metallic structures could cause a nightmare in the long run.

Sorry but I don't agree. Mechanical stress in engines is primarily inertial, ie rpm related. 20% MAP increase for example might reduce stress safety margins on critical components by less than 5%. Safety margins that are sitting at 100% or more.

My point about the turbo era engines was to highlight the development cycle rather than qualy' vs race engines (even though the difference there had nothing to do with beefing up failure zones in the qualy' versions - it was all about flowing the additional fuel and air and maybe a CR reduction for det').

To quote some numbers we know, the Honda RA167E had 50% more power than the engine that replaced it - the RA168E. Did Honda save significant weight by paring down critical components in line with the reduced power? I don't think so.

gruntguru wrote:The current F1 engines are very lightly stressed (both mechanically and thermally) in relative terms.

Nonsense. The engines and their components will be designed on the limit. Components will only be a durable as is required to enable the greatest weight saving or increases in performance. You have no idea how close to the edge they are on individdual components and to claim otherwise is folly.

gruntguru wrote:20% MAP increase for example might reduce stress safety margins on critical components by less than 5%. Safety margins that are sitting at 100% or more.

How far over 100% safety do you think they are? And did they design it right in the first place?

More performance is going to increase stresses, both thermally and mechanically. It's going to require a redesign of some of the major components. The likely way to increase power will be to lift the 100kg/hr limit which will lead to peak perforamce at higher rpm, i/e/ they will run at higher rpm with high gas pressures and temperatures.

gruntguru wrote:

turbof1 wrote:The engines will probably need to be strengthened. Remember that we cannot compare this type of machinery to the "turbo era", as back then team run seperate engines even for qualifying. The expected engine endurance has gone up x10 compared to then. The current breed does get much less momentary stress, but has to endure that lowered stress for a much longer time. The engine has to endure a lot more heat and cool down cycles, something not appreciated by metal.

It'll require some strengthening at the very least, and very, very tight managing over the production process and high standard quality control. Even a single hairline in any of the metallic structures could cause a nightmare in the long run.

Sorry but I don't agree. Mechanical stress in engines is primarily inertial, ie rpm related. 20% MAP increase for example might reduce stress safety margins on critical components by less than 5%. Safety margins that are sitting at 100% or more.

My point about the turbo era engines was to highlight the development cycle rather than qualy' vs race engines (even though the difference there had nothing to do with beefing up failure zones in the qualy' versions - it was all about flowing the additional fuel and air and maybe a CR reduction for det').

To quote some numbers we know, the Honda RA167E had 50% more power than the engine that replaced it - the RA168E. Did Honda save significant weight by paring down critical components in line with the reduced power? I don't think so.

Safety margins equal performance losses in F1, either in power output, aero or centre of gravity. For instance, the fia introduced a minimum mass (I believe 125kg) for the ICE to ensure they are safe and reliable enough. Have the manufacturers designed them this way? No, they design these engines to hold out just long enough and shift the remaining mass to the absolute bottom of the engine, keeping as low a CoG as possible.

Same with cooling. Teams just hate cooling since giant radiators block airflow. They'll install just enough radiators and cooling outlets to keep everything working fairly close to the temperature limit.

What I'm getting is that safety margins are very marginal, just enough to barely cover a hot race. The safety margins aren't at 100%. Let's reduce that to 3-4% and we are much closer to the reality.

If you then have for instance a small manufacturer error, something almost impossible to notice, it can escalate very fast into a disaster. One just has to look at Hamilton's 'race' in Melbourne last year.

To quote some numbers we know, the Honda RA167E had 50% more power than the engine that replaced it - the RA168E. Did Honda save significant weight by paring down critical components in line with the reduced power?

Not a fair comparison since the reduced boost and fuel restrictions forced Honda to start with a blank sheet of paper concerning its engine. It was a very conservative approach, of which I'm sure they were able to cut weight by a lot later on. Naturally, since they were allowed to make as many updates as they liked at any time. That's something you can't do anymore. Manufacturers got a heads up on the new engine rules 3 years before introduction, and are only allowed to change half of the PU in the second, progressively freezing the PU over the years. There is no scope to play it conservative as Honda did because of the restrictions on development, so you are automatically starting with much smaller margins.

An increase from 650hp to 1000hp without an increase in displacement, number of cylinders or rpm would mean an increase in BMEP/torque of over 60%. This would also mean much higher pressure and thermal loads on the engine.

The 1,5L turbo engines that made 1000hp back in the late 80"s were a bit different than current engines. First, they did not have the same electronic fuel and ignition control systems used today. Second, the engines mostly used steel valve springs which limited their speed to about 12,500 to 13,000 rpm. Third, the aerodynamics, suspensions, drivetrains and tires were nowhere close to what they have today. So even though they had up to 1000hp available, they could not always take full advantage of all that power.

Are we talking about increasing the ICE to 1,000bhp or the PU?

This years PUs are estimated at over 900bhp which is a much smaller step than the 600bhp that is being bandied about.

riff_raff wrote:An increase from 650hp to 1000hp without an increase in displacement, number of cylinders or rpm would mean an increase in BMEP/torque of over 60%. This would also mean much higher pressure and thermal loads on the engine.

Power is estimated at around 850hp for the PU.

Which means about 690hp for the ICE. To get 1000hp they need to raise the ICE to 840hp - a 21% increase.