F1technical.net

ENGINE TUNER wrote:Again
Why would they change the part if they had no intention to introduce the improved part onto the race spec? It would be a waste of resources.

or

Whey would they change the part if they had no intention of using tokens for that part?

You only spend tokens on parts you declare to race.

You dont spend tokens on prototypes you have running the backroom. You an run as many iterstions on the dyno. Do as many cfd sims as you like.. You only spend tokens on parts that you declare to be introduced into a race car. And the interesting bit is that you can even declare parts to be raced and never actually fit them to the car. I think Mercedes and honda did something like this once.

ringo wrote:Where will the gap increase end?
It's getting ridiculous how the media keeps adding big chunks of horsepower to these engines. We are probably at 1100 by the looks of things. I think the redbull has all reason to exaggerate the power gap.
Its probably more logical to work backwards. Use what is physically possible as mercedes benchmark then deduct these power chunks and see where the other engines lie.

We've done this exercise already, a 1.6 running on 3.5 bar of boost or around 50psi, at 1.7 lambda is right around 1,000hp.

Mercedes expects to be well over 1,000hp next season, These power units in 2014 had ~820hp combined, and every year they've increased that by ~50hp each season. In 2015 there was speculation that Mercedes was at 900hp and that seemed crazy, now we know for sure they're over 900hp and closer to 1,000 than 900. Next year I have a feeling they'll all be at more or less 1,000hp and any increase from there comes from widening the power band.

What was limit on compression ratio again?

18:1 next year.

Juzh wrote:18:1 next year.

I don't understand why this has to be regulated. What would a reasonable reason for this be?

Blackout wrote:The power figures according to http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/11 ... er_30.html
Seems much more credible than the 50hp delta BS

I think the values above are pretty credible, it aligns pretty well with the analysis I have posted from qualifying lap times / speed traps.

Muulka wrote:Believe what you will, but the teams have access to an awful lot more data for competitor analysis; audio traces and GPS data in particular.

Yes the 2016 Renault is clearly much better than the 2015, but that's not saying much. The power differential is definitely much much bigger than the 15 hp mentioned above.

Do you have anything to rely on for your assertion other than PR statements and hearsay?

hurril wrote:

Juzh wrote:18:1 next year.

I don't understand why this has to be regulated. What would a reasonable reason for this be?

So they don't spend tens of millions pushing it even higher

hurril wrote:

Facts Only wrote:You need to completely disengage 'tokens' from 'phases' a Phase (PH) is an internal design iteration, a 'token' is the BS fed to the public about engine changes. The token system has no bearing on the phases, or the designation of parts.

Why would you put it like that? I mean, sure, so you don't like the token system but you are implying here that it isn't really being used anyway. Is this a burp on your part or what are you on about here?

It's because the token system is disingenuously presented at as a cost saving exercise, where the logic only works if 'token part' introduced is the only revision of the outgoing part.

Cold Fussion wrote:
It's because the token system is disingenuously presented at as a cost saving exercise, where the logic only works if 'token part' introduced is the only revision of the outgoing part.

I think that sums its up perfectly.

Pierce89 wrote:

hurril wrote:

Juzh wrote:18:1 next year.

I don't understand why this has to be regulated. What would a reasonable reason for this be?

So they don't spend tens of millions pushing it even higher

I think that's also the trick to how much power they get using the direct injection and the jet ignition. It's hard for me to explain now and i may need to think about what i would write to bring the theory across properly, but it's in the interest of the engine maker to increase compression ratios as much as possible to exploit the direct injection. The ratios of excess air that we are seeing (boost levels) also is indicating to me that CR are really high; as the initial ignition wont have high as possible flame temperatures if that localized area isn't stoichiometric. The little cup areas in the pistons is what we normally see on the road car engines to ensure these high temps.

Are you talking about diesel engines? Or pre-chambers cast into the cylinder head or injector?

PlatinumZealot wrote:

ENGINE TUNER wrote:Again
Why would they change the part if they had no intention to introduce the improved part onto the race spec? It would be a waste of resources.

or

Whey would they change the part if they had no intention of using tokens for that part?

You only spend tokens on parts you declare to race.

You dont spend tokens on prototypes you have running the backroom. You an run as many iterstions on the dyno. Do as many cfd sims as you like.. You only spend tokens on parts that you declare to be introduced into a race car. And the interesting bit is that you can even declare parts to be raced and never actually fit them to the car. I think Mercedes and honda did something like this once.

Prototypes are all part of the R&D process. Mercedes is likely going to hit the limits of what it can do with the current Power Unit, so may well be looking at more exotic ideas. Some might make it out onto a track and others will be binned or shelved for future use. Who knows how many experimental Power Units Mercedes have had on dyno's over the last couple of years.

Even if they hit the limits of the theoretical engine power, there's still the ability to widen the power band.

Friction and heat loss are still the big enemies of power. So the limits would be material restrictions at that point. There is not much can do with the regs stay the same. One can only hope that over time when the prices come down FIA loosens up the material and architectural constraints on the engines if not the fuel limits.

Well without the token system, critical things like port angle, crank pin offset, bank stagger and valve seats can be changed. The past two years making big changes to the cylinder head have been severely restricted. So there's still scope for some gains.