Why 1000bhp cars?

[ScottB]

So I've been thinking about all the hoopla about '1000bhp' cars coming in the next year or two, and it occurs to me, wouldn't we end up with that, or near enough, without much, if any regulation change?

If the Merc powertrain was producing 800-850bhp last year, and are rumoured to be adding at least another 50bhp to the ICE this year, the Mercedes teams could be running 900bhp this season. Surely another two years of enhancements (if given enough tokens) would have the current spec engines at as near as makes no difference, 1000bhp anyway? Or certainly close enough that it won't make a huge difference.


I mean, I get it, 1000bhp is a nice sounding figure, but it doesn't seem a huge jump over where we are, or where'd we'd be by 2017. If they are hoping for a big change, why not derestrict the Energy Recovery systems and get a bigger boost, while still offering a potentially good bit of PR to the wider world?

So I guess my point is, is there any point in doing these new engine regs if they won't make much of a difference in exchange for the costs to implement them? Or is it all just a bit of smoke and mirrors to appeal to those turned off by the 'green' trappings of the current engines introduction?

[turbof1]

I think people are confusing last year numbers with present numbers. Mercedes was probably around 800, but never 850. We'll get pretty close to 1000bhp, but I don't think it is possible to go over that 'magic' number.

There is one thing to add: if the fuel limit gets removed, we'll be looking at figure quite beyond 1000bhp. 1200-1300bhp aren't far off actually. 1000bhp shouldn't be the focus point, just the bare minimum.

[Juzh]

More power will cause more driver errors and more spectacular cars. 400 clicks in monza baby (one can dream).

Unlimited horsepower frenzy on the other hand could become problematic for overtaking, as drag penalty will be severely offset by massively overpowered cars which will run out of straights before any meaningful slipstream can be gained.

[Belatti]

Ehhhhh....

I thought ICE were arround 600HP maybe Mercs 650 and the 800 number was adding KERS and HERS.
The performance gain curve is not linear: the first year you optimize and you get 80HP more, the second maybe 20HP and then just finding 5HP will turn complicated. If you get fuel flow limits a bit loose power will increase but then the 5 engines per year wont be enough... Ive read the extra cost of one more engine per year is quite high for small teams...

[ScottB]

I think people are confusing last year numbers with present numbers. Mercedes was probably around 800, but never 850. We'll get pretty close to 1000bhp, but I don't think it is possible to go over that 'magic' number.

There is one thing to add: if the fuel limit gets removed, we'll be looking at figure quite beyond 1000bhp. 1200-1300bhp aren't far off actually. 1000bhp shouldn't be the focus point, just the bare minimum.

True, but even if we go for the low end, the cars could still have over 900bhp by 2017 if left to progress under the regulations as they are, an extra 100bhp ish doesn't seem a big jump.

As you say, presumably bumping up the fuel limit would be a very big increase. Capping at 1000bhp doesn't seem worth the effort of changing anything, unless it's to be seen to be changing something just to try and draw a line under all the negativity that greeted the current V6 introduction from some elements in the sport / media.

Ehhhhh....

I thought ICE were arround 600HP maybe Mercs 650 and the 800 number was adding KERS and HERS.
The performance gain curve is not linear: the first year you optimize and you get 80HP more, the second maybe 20HP and then just finding 5HP will turn complicated. If you get fuel flow limits a bit loose power will increase but then the 5 engines per year wont be enough... Ive read the extra cost of one more engine per year is quite high for small teams...

Yeah, the ERS is something like 150bhp of the total, I presumed the proposed regs were still the current ERS, plus ICE = 1000bhp, unless I missed something they aren't proposing 1000bhp ICE.

Yes indeed, but let's say Merc are running 850bhp at the moment, they've got this year's tokens, next year's and 2017's, by then, they should be into the low 900's or thereabouts, my point was 1000bhp, while a good soundbite, isn't much of a difference from where things could end up naturally.


Personally I'd keep the fuel flow limit where it is, and allow teams to get more from the energy recovery, allow innovation there, since it is road relevant. Just bumping up the amount of fuel used seems a bit of a waste after all the effort to produce cars as efficient as the 14 / 15 spec.

[wesley123]

I'm pretty much against 1000bhp engines. Not only is it a complete flip around of the trend followed, it also has no real place anymore in sport. In an environment where more needs to be done with less this is an absolute opposite.

Personally, I like to see stricter limits on fuel consumption. With the changes from 2014 it has shown that, certainly compared to previous years, that drag is of a serious concern, and thus, there are multiple ways to win. Either high downforce or low drag, there is a wider "optimum" to reach.

If you turn the horsepower up to 4 figure numbers you end up in a situation where, just like pre-2014, there is power(or better said, fuel) to overcome the drag, thus, drag is of little concern again.

More power will cause more driver errors and more spectacular cars.

They said the same thing about the 2009 rule change and the removal of TC etc. etc. turned out it didn't.

[dans79]

Personally, I'd be happy if they would stop changing the rules every-time someone gets upset because they finished further back than they think they should. I think the biggest problem with F1, is the constant rules changes.

[Belatti]

More power will cause more driver errors and more spectacular cars.

They said the same thing about the 2009 rule change and the removal of TC etc. etc. turned out it didn't.

True.

People tend to confuse some things: sliding spectacular 70s and 80s cars did not occur because engines had 1000HP. They happened because of turbo lag, more amateurish drivers and badly balanced cars from both aero and suspension.

The sliding so much remembered and praised by fans happened in the 70s with 500HP NA 3.5 liter engines and in the 80s races, were even 1200HP turbos had to be detuned to the 700-800 HP range because of boost limit and 150lts fuel allocation limit.

[ScottB]

Before last year I had little interest in F1 engines, to me they were just pretty dull V8s, that's not impressive technology for me, so I was much more interested in the aero.

The hybrid turbo V6 did get my interest. F1 should be cutting edge, and dumbing down the V6 and letting it guzzle fuel doesn't sound cutting edge to me.

Keep the fuel flow restriction, increase hybrid power, fatter, stickier tyres etc could easily take seconds off a lap. Straight fuel guzzling horsepower is only one route to quicker cars, but it's probably the most dull one for the supposed technological pinnacle of motorsport.

[Juzh]

I'm pretty much against 1000bhp engines. Not only is it a complete flip around of the trend followed, it also has no real place anymore in sport. In an environment where more needs to be done with less this is an absolute opposite.

What trend followed??? What are you on about? No real place in sport? Why? LMP1 cars have over 1000 bhp, why not F1?
More is still being done with less. 1000 bhp or not.

Personally, I like to see stricter limits on fuel consumption. With the changes from 2014 it has shown that, certainly compared to previous years, that drag is of a serious concern, and thus, there are multiple ways to win. Either high downforce or low drag, there is a wider "optimum" to reach.

You're completely in the dark here. Drag is of less concern now than as it was with the V8s. The only reason you see RB running around with half the wing is because their PU is underpowered. They never won on pace.

More power will cause more driver errors and more spectacular cars.

They said the same thing about the 2009 rule change and the removal of TC etc. etc. turned out it didn't.

So your solution is to have less power and more fuel savings? To make them even less spectacular and more artificial? V8s were underpowered as f**k already, coupled with slicks and ultra sick DF levels. Now DF has been trimmed a lot and uber powerful engines would make them much harder to drive. That's a fact, no matter how you spin it.

[wuzak]

What trend followed??? What are you on about? No real place in sport? Why? LMP1 cars have over 1000 bhp, why not F1?
More is still being done with less. 1000 bhp or not.

The trend of the regulators to every few years cut power.

ie 3.5; -> 3.0l ->2.4l

And then with teh 2.4l they started out with unrestricted rpm, then went to a 19k limit and then the 18k limit. Not sure when the limit on number of engines per season was brought in - I think it was during the V8 era, but not sure.

[turbof1]

What trend followed??? What are you on about? No real place in sport? Why? LMP1 cars have over 1000 bhp, why not F1?
More is still being done with less. 1000 bhp or not.

The annoying tendency of the fia cutting in everything: downforce levels, engine power, etc. I don't like the 'trend' either, but I do follow Wesley123 in the sense that F1 has incoherent and inconsistent policy. First we make the car slower only to realise afterwards it wasn't such a great idea after all, so now we throw everything overboard again with the direction reversed. That brings huge costs. I personally don't like an even smaller F1 grid, so changes need to be done with very careful steps.

Where I disagree (with wesley) is that 1000bhp supposedly don't have a place in F1. It has, as long as those are generated within the right circumstances. We obviously can't go back to 8 or 10 cylinders banging out those 1000+ ponies, the emphasis should be that you are given a certain amount of fuel and that it's up to you to get the most out of it. F1 certainly can get beyond 1000bhp within that set of rules. The power units that were introduced have flaws concerning sound and total amount of power (although they are still producing a bit more power then the old V8s), but they are very interesting at the same time due the complexity. Just allow the manufacturers more freedom in this area to create more power, to allow more hybrid systems, and you have very nice compromise between engine power and engine appeal.

I also disagree with keeping a fuel flow limit. Just limit the total amount of fuel, it'll force the manufacturers to deliver an efficient power unit and it'll also force the teams to make more compromises between downforce and drag.

[Juzh]

What trend followed??? What are you on about? No real place in sport? Why? LMP1 cars have over 1000 bhp, why not F1?
More is still being done with less. 1000 bhp or not.

The trend of the regulators to every few years cut power.

ie 3.5; -> 3.0l ->2.4l

And then with teh 2.4l they started out with unrestricted rpm, then went to a 19k limit and then the 18k limit. Not sure when the limit on number of engines per season was brought in - I think it was during the V8 era, but not sure.

The sooner this trend is put to rest the better.

[wesley123]

Sorry, the 1000bhp figure was a bit wrong in my post, I thought it was 1000bhp for the ICE.

The power levels have been cut ever since the Turbo days, and now it suddenly makes a flip around towards hugely powerfull engines.

F1 cars are now energy limited and because of this, there are multiple paths towards the same goal. Previously you could burn fuel to get the power to overcome drag, now not so anymore.

What we saw last year was that low drag was a perfectly viable option, removing the dominant Mercedes from the equasion and we saw the Red Bull with low-drag wings performing very well. Pre-2014 this would have been a no-go, but now, when you are limited in the amount of resources you can turn into power we see that drag is of valid concern. That's why I'd like to see this number limited.

With hugely powerful engines drag becomes of little concern, as there is power to overcome this drag. This pretty much only gives one path to success: lots of downforce.

The comparison to the WEC was made, and here we see the same thing; drag is of serious concern, and it's also the reason why cars like the new Nissan can exist.


This is another attempt into adding a more challenging spectacle to F1, but it will fail to reach it's point. It's still the same drivers driving those cars, drivers that have to adhere to much stricter requirements than that they did in the years we all remember so much(and desperately want to return). When you've got stricter requirements to meet, only a selecter group of people will be present, thus you get only the best of the very best, and they don't make mistakes very often. Not only that, but knowledge about people in general has increased, they can be managed much better and much more efficiently, they are trained better and thus mistakes are less likely.

Such developments don't just magically disappear because their engines have 200bhp more.

[gruntguru]

I agree with the OP. We will get there in a few years under the current rules. I would like to see an increase in MGUK power and per-lap energy limits. Front axle kinetic energy harvesting is also a very exciting prospect - with or without AWD. These changes would get us to 1000+ hp immediately, then taper the fuel flow limit down over subsequent seasons (as ICE outputs increase) to maintain power levels around the 1000 hp mark.