F1technical.net

[media]https://twitter.com/MSM_Christian/statu ... 0716323840[/media]

this is got RBR and AM recruiting the Ferrari guru and Mclaren written all over the place
i really don't like the removal of mgu-H.
thermal efficiency is a very good thing to explore.

CriXus wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2017, 20:57

https://twitter.com/MSM_Christian/statu ... 0716323840

These 10kg will be added again in the race since they will require more fuel for the whole race! Please bring back refueling with fixed amount of fuel for the weekend and standard refueling equipment!

Btw, i don’t believe saving up braking energy for a few laps and deploy it in one is going to happen. This would demand a bigger Energy Storage. It is probably faster to built a minimal ES and use the reduction in weight to go faster around the track.

Removal of the MGU-H could increase noise as well.

With no process to be converting the heat energy into kinetic energy, they should be just dumping the exhaust straight to atmosphere, and I'm sure we all know how good that can sound.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2017, 22:46

Btw, i don’t believe saving up braking energy for a few laps and deploy it in one is going to happen. This would demand a bigger Energy Storage. It is probably faster to built a minimal ES and use the reduction in weight to go faster around the track.

The ES being standard makes it possible.

I'll miss the MGU-H because it's real world applications seem very interesting if only costs could come down.

Well this is kind a stupid. We have at the moment development of current engine. And then they need to develop in parallel another one. So who is going to give up first? Honda? Renault?

As far as RPM goes, it says "running speed" and not rev limit. I would assume that they want to go from the 11000-12000 rpm average running speed to 14000-15000, "intentions of investigating tighter fuel regulations" I think this means, run as little fuel as possible while not ruining the show.

I have never been a fan of this fuel flow regulation, to me double regulating fuel doesn't make much sense. If you limit the tank capacity it already forces the teams to become fuel efficient. The don't want to run any more fuel then is needed to save weight. Drop the flow limit and watch the performance come back.

I would love to see some anti lag fire balls with the removal of the MGU-H

It sounds like they want to remove the TJI technology from these engines as well -- "Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions"

Not remove TJI but limit the gains that can be made with exotic technology. TJI, needs more turbo and more CR to get most gain of it. Limit those and further development of TJI is worth less.

Guys what is your opinion on a single turbocharger vs a twin turbo for anti lag possibilities?

Why not standardize on the whole engine if you're going to limit all interesting areas of development? What is gained by having everyone build basically the same engine that is better than having, say, Renault all of them? (That would be cheaper.)

Racing around with 90:ies turbo technology in cars that are loud before fascinating is completely uninteresting.

ctdrftna wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2017, 11:02

"intentions of investigating tighter fuel regulations" I think this means, run as little fuel as possible while not ruining the show.

No, it means limiting development of the actual fuel.

Allowing Electric Turbo's would have been really neat and Road relavent.

Cost is an interesting angle in this.

I assume that the thinking is to ditch the MGU-H to make it easier / cheaper for new OEMs to get into the sport, but, conversely, doesn't that make things more expensive for the four we already have? I'm guessing this new engine isn't going to be the current V6 with the MGU-H lopped off, as that presumably simply wouldn't work, it's going to need the current manufacturers to develop new engines, sure,their current experience will be invaluable, and there would be some carry over I'm sure, but it seems a bit like a slap in the face to the companies the sport already has, in the hope of attracting some new ones.

Secondly, won't this make the cars much heavier? Higher revs will need tougher, presumably heavier ICE units, the KERS will get bigger, batteries a lot bigger to store a couple laps worth of even more energy than currently, more fuel... It feels like if they left the current regs more or less as they are, but standardised the MGU-H, we have Ferrari pretty close to Merc, and Renault and Honda (hopefully) catching up. By 2020 it's not improbable to think we'd have a reasonable degree of parity, and standardising the MGU-H would simplify things for any new OEMs coming in.

A potential clean sheet of paper surely runs the risk that Mercedes just chuck a whole heap of money and resources at the problem and blast out the traps in 2021 with a newly super dominant engine. Or indeed any of the other manufacturers...

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2017, 20:32

Single Turbo, no MGU-H as an antilag system and even more air needed to compensate for the lost exhaust heat recovery. That will be interesting for drivability.

With the current 120kW MGU-K an average circuitlap will only recover 1-1,5MJ, hardly worth the weight penalty, Again interesting for drivability.

The MGUK is your anti-lag system via torque fill until the turbo is spooled.