F1technical.net

wuzak wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2017, 12:24

They are talking of upping the fuel flow rate, so they could just move the fixed point up the scale and follow the same ramp to that point.

An extra couple of thousand rpm should get the engines pretty close to 1000hp without ERS.

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

The more I think about it The more I don't think they will get rid of the MGUH. It just makes no sense.

If anything they will standardize the ES and CE, and fiddle with the fuel flow regs, but I just don't see them abandoning the MGUH.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 11:42

wuzak wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2017, 12:24

They are talking of upping the fuel flow rate, so they could just move the fixed point up the scale and follow the same ramp to that point.

An extra couple of thousand rpm should get the engines pretty close to 1000hp without ERS.

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

wuzak wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 12:59

gruntguru wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 11:42

wuzak wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2017, 12:24

They are talking of upping the fuel flow rate, so they could just move the fixed point up the scale and follow the same ramp to that point.

An extra couple of thousand rpm should get the engines pretty close to 1000hp without ERS.

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

"low rpm" - 10,500?

gruntguru wrote: ↑

09 Jul 2017, 02:01

wuzak wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 12:59

gruntguru wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 11:42

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

"low rpm" - 10,500?

The fear with the current regulations and the MGUH was that the engines would max out at less than 10k rpm, the MGUH would enable full boost to be achieved at pretty much any rpm - even idle, if it was so desired.

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 12:46

The more I think about it The more I don't think they will get rid of the MGUH. It just makes no sense.

If anything they will standardize the ES and CE, and fiddle with the fuel flow regs, but I just don't see them abandoning the MGUH.

I say it is very probable that they ditch it.

What is very sad. because I like the too complexity of those PUs, very mystical. unlike the average ICE.

It would be sad to see the MGU-h go. I think that, next year, they double the engine allocation (to and let the performance disparity do away with itself sooner. My hypothesis is that it is the token system that messed it up for everybody but Mercedes and that is only because they started 2(?) years before everyone else. The equalisations that have occurred are mainly due to lateral moves via experts switching ships, thereby doing away with large swathes of development efforts.

So after such a `next year` I think that what we will see is that all the engines are really close to each other. That brings us to the next part: the current specification leads to cars that are really really fat for a couple of reasons. Let's do away with the minimum weight requirement for the ES and the engines. If --- breaks, then there's going to be a penalty for that.

After having done all of this, we'll have a better view of what should change for 2021.

wuzak wrote: ↑

09 Jul 2017, 03:04

gruntguru wrote: ↑

09 Jul 2017, 02:01

wuzak wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 12:59

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

"low rpm" - 10,500?

The fear with the current regulations and the MGUH was that the engines would max out at less than 10k rpm, the MGUH would enable full boost to be achieved at pretty much any rpm - even idle, if it was so desired.

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

roon wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 16:11

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Cosworth begins work towards 2021 Formula 1 return
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 1472035319

The one thing making these engines expensive, especially in their development, is the combustion technology. If they standardize some parts, like fuel, injectors(this is a big one) it would make the engines much cheaper to develop. The mgu-H Is expensive but it's not the area that consumes the most resources on its own. It's the combustion, as that is the prime mover of everything else.

Removing the MGU-H doesn't address the fact that everyone in the current formula, will have a huge advantage regarding combustion to any newcomers.

Really hoping for a high fuel flow which would raise the rev limit and make the engines sound a lot better. Sounds like a bi-turbo set in going to be it for the new engines which makes sense on dumping the MGU-H.

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

wuzak wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 12:59

gruntguru wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2017, 11:42

wuzak wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2017, 12:24

They are talking of upping the fuel flow rate, so they could just move the fixed point up the scale and follow the same ramp to that point.

An extra couple of thousand rpm should get the engines pretty close to 1000hp without ERS.

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

Would there be incentive to go beyond the current 11k? I mean they would have to face more engine friction for only a small increase in fuel flow which they still have to save in the end to be in the 105kg race limit. Unless they get rid of that rule which I think they should. Flow limit should be the only fuel limit. The rest already has its own penalty in the weight. Efficiency is still the name of the game in those conditions.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2017, 14:42

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

Yep, they pushed it to far. Ofcourse the oldest situations, were teams used 2 quali engines and a racing engine each weekend, it was manufacturing.

But now teams blow the same amount of units on the test benches, to make the 4 engines that go in to the car as perfect as possible. It makes no sense.