Power output limited formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:21
As far as I know, in every racing series where you can choose your engine configuration, the constructors go for a turbo engine. The only big series with a NA engine, are where they are mandatory.
Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
In practice is that one team with the most recourses (Mercedes) will get it right the first time, because they can just explore any combination they can think of. Think 2014 but worse. The rest will play catchup again...

roon
412
Joined: 17 Dec 2016, 19:04

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

wuzak wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:05
roon wrote:
28 Jul 2019, 20:16
If the current aero and chassis formula remained, and only the engine rules were relaxed, I think we would see a return to NA 4 stroke engines. Likely a vee engine for structure and size, likely small displacement and high operating speed. This is what the engine suppliers are familiar with. In 2005 BMW were making an 82kg V10 with over 900 hp. There is a lot of potential yet with mechanisms and materials.

Exotic engines and systems could be developed, but the immediate, affordable goal, I think, would be something like the above.
I think if the engine rules were relaxed but chassis rules remained the same that it would be unlikely that high rpm N/A 4 stroke engines would return.

Mainly because there is no weight saving in the car (minimum weight being part of the chassis formula), and you would use more fuel.

To get 900hp+, a 3l V10 used roughly 200kg/hr fuel, compared to 100kg/hr under the current regulations.

If the weight limit was reduced you would likely see a V6 turbo, single or twin, or an L4 turbo. With restrictions lifted on the engine rules you would make substantially more power with that setup, considering that they could use a lot of the tricks they have learned in the current hybrids on those. To replace the MGUH they would develop anti-lag systems.

An all up weight of such a V6 turbo ought not be too much heavier than the V10, given the same life expectancy (be that 1 race weekend, as in 2005, or 7).

The turbo engine could run 50% more fuel flow than now and still be substantially less than for the V10, while making considerably more power.

A V6T with 150kg/hr fuel flow, using knowledge from today's V6Ts, could make 1,100 - 1,200hp, or more.

Why does fuel flow matter?

If the races have no refueling, the turbo cars can start lighter, which is an advantage. If there is refueling, the advantage is quicker stops.
Good points. Ultimately the fuel mass difference needs to be similar to the engine (and ancilliaries) mass difference, NA v FI. We are both guessing at these total system weights. I have a feeling the unrestricted NA could be made very lightweight. The heat exchangers should be smaller for the NA.

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

roon wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 21:36
wuzak wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:05
roon wrote:
28 Jul 2019, 20:16
If the current aero and chassis formula remained, and only the engine rules were relaxed, I think we would see a return to NA 4 stroke engines. Likely a vee engine for structure and size, likely small displacement and high operating speed. This is what the engine suppliers are familiar with. In 2005 BMW were making an 82kg V10 with over 900 hp. There is a lot of potential yet with mechanisms and materials.

Exotic engines and systems could be developed, but the immediate, affordable goal, I think, would be something like the above.
I think if the engine rules were relaxed but chassis rules remained the same that it would be unlikely that high rpm N/A 4 stroke engines would return.

Mainly because there is no weight saving in the car (minimum weight being part of the chassis formula), and you would use more fuel.

To get 900hp+, a 3l V10 used roughly 200kg/hr fuel, compared to 100kg/hr under the current regulations.

If the weight limit was reduced you would likely see a V6 turbo, single or twin, or an L4 turbo. With restrictions lifted on the engine rules you would make substantially more power with that setup, considering that they could use a lot of the tricks they have learned in the current hybrids on those. To replace the MGUH they would develop anti-lag systems.

An all up weight of such a V6 turbo ought not be too much heavier than the V10, given the same life expectancy (be that 1 race weekend, as in 2005, or 7).

The turbo engine could run 50% more fuel flow than now and still be substantially less than for the V10, while making considerably more power.

A V6T with 150kg/hr fuel flow, using knowledge from today's V6Ts, could make 1,100 - 1,200hp, or more.

Why does fuel flow matter?

If the races have no refueling, the turbo cars can start lighter, which is an advantage. If there is refueling, the advantage is quicker stops.
Good points. Ultimately the fuel mass difference needs to be similar to the engine (and ancilliaries) mass difference, NA v FI. We are both guessing at these total system weights. I have a feeling the unrestricted NA could be made very lightweight. The heat exchangers should be smaller for the NA.
If TC is unrestricted, you can have a very very small ICE with a big boost. Because TC engines run much more efficient then NA run to the max, they need less cooling (less energy is converted to heat). The only read addition would be the inter cooler. Just look at the side pod intakes from the heavy restricted 2013 cars compared to the cars now (which have much more power)

Xwang
29
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 11:12

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:47
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:21
As far as I know, in every racing series where you can choose your engine configuration, the constructors go for a turbo engine. The only big series with a NA engine, are where they are mandatory.
Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
In practice is that one team with the most recourses (Mercedes) will get it right the first time, because they can just explore any combination they can think of. Think 2014 but worse. The rest will play catchup again...
I think it is more difficult explore a wider range of combination than a smaller one and in any case the wealthier team has to divide its budget in more project losing more money than today (every wrong path does not give returns) so the probabilty that a small team and a bigger one choose the same "optimum" path and have similar budget to explore it is IMHO higher.

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 23:56
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:47
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36


Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
In practice is that one team with the most recourses (Mercedes) will get it right the first time, because they can just explore any combination they can think of. Think 2014 but worse. The rest will play catchup again...
I think it is more difficult explore a wider range of combination than a smaller one and in any case the wealthier team has to divide its budget in more project losing more money than today (every wrong path does not give returns) so the probabilty that a small team and a bigger one choose the same "optimum" path and have similar budget to explore it is IMHO higher.
This isn’t the eighties anymore where a hundred people design an engine with guessing. This is serious engineering where a company like Daimler has thousands of engineers and several super computers just to calculate the best valve diameter and angle on option number 164. F1 isn’t club racing tuning.

gruntguru
563
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 07:43

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
28 Jul 2019, 14:21
and similarly limit the 'downforce' ? - (total contact DF not just aero DF )
I am thinking along the same lines. Why equalise just the engines? You could equalise the downforce, the drag, the lateral grip, the weight, the handling characteristics etc etc. Eventually you could replace the drivers with identical robots with identical programming.

When the crowds stop coming to the races, you could replace them with inflatable dummies. You could fit 200,000 spectators in one aircraft to fly from track to track.
je suis charlie

Xwang
29
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 11:12

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Jolle wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 00:13
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 23:56
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:47


In practice is that one team with the most recourses (Mercedes) will get it right the first time, because they can just explore any combination they can think of. Think 2014 but worse. The rest will play catchup again...
I think it is more difficult explore a wider range of combination than a smaller one and in any case the wealthier team has to divide its budget in more project losing more money than today (every wrong path does not give returns) so the probabilty that a small team and a bigger one choose the same "optimum" path and have similar budget to explore it is IMHO higher.
This isn’t the eighties anymore where a hundred people design an engine with guessing. This is serious engineering where a company like Daimler has thousands of engineers and several super computers just to calculate the best valve diameter and angle on option number 164. F1 isn’t club racing tuning.
I know, but I do not think they have infinite resources or that they can continue to overspend and increase their racing budget to cover all the possibilities that can be opened with a power limited formula.
They too will have to make choices to follow a sub set of developing paths that they think is optimum on the basis of preliminary studies and experience and not by developing all the options and then choose the better one as you seem to suggest.

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Xwang wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 00:20
Jolle wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 00:13
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 23:56


I think it is more difficult explore a wider range of combination than a smaller one and in any case the wealthier team has to divide its budget in more project losing more money than today (every wrong path does not give returns) so the probabilty that a small team and a bigger one choose the same "optimum" path and have similar budget to explore it is IMHO higher.
This isn’t the eighties anymore where a hundred people design an engine with guessing. This is serious engineering where a company like Daimler has thousands of engineers and several super computers just to calculate the best valve diameter and angle on option number 164. F1 isn’t club racing tuning.
I know, but I do not think they have infinite resources or that they can continue to overspend and increase their racing budget to cover all the possibilities that can be opened with a power limited formula.
They too will have to make choices to follow a sub set of developing paths that they think is optimum on the basis of preliminary studies and experience and not by developing all the options and then choose the better one as you seem to suggest.
Not unlimited but far more then, let’s say Cosworth. Even before they start a company like Daimler has a big advantage with all the data within the company, what for instance was also crucial in their 2014 domination.

bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

A simple way to achieve something similar to the original intent of this thread is to use GPS to monitor the overall car accel as a function of car velocity. Then you set a simple accel limit as a function of velocity and you're pretty much home with limiting power. Requires car weight.

This ignores car-to-car differences in rolling resistance and aero drag, but does that matter? Just subtract a typical coastdown curve from the original constant-power limit to generate the final overall limit.

wuzak
434
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

roon wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 21:36
wuzak wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:05
roon wrote:
28 Jul 2019, 20:16
If the current aero and chassis formula remained, and only the engine rules were relaxed, I think we would see a return to NA 4 stroke engines. Likely a vee engine for structure and size, likely small displacement and high operating speed. This is what the engine suppliers are familiar with. In 2005 BMW were making an 82kg V10 with over 900 hp. There is a lot of potential yet with mechanisms and materials.

Exotic engines and systems could be developed, but the immediate, affordable goal, I think, would be something like the above.
I think if the engine rules were relaxed but chassis rules remained the same that it would be unlikely that high rpm N/A 4 stroke engines would return.

Mainly because there is no weight saving in the car (minimum weight being part of the chassis formula), and you would use more fuel.

To get 900hp+, a 3l V10 used roughly 200kg/hr fuel, compared to 100kg/hr under the current regulations.

If the weight limit was reduced you would likely see a V6 turbo, single or twin, or an L4 turbo. With restrictions lifted on the engine rules you would make substantially more power with that setup, considering that they could use a lot of the tricks they have learned in the current hybrids on those. To replace the MGUH they would develop anti-lag systems.

An all up weight of such a V6 turbo ought not be too much heavier than the V10, given the same life expectancy (be that 1 race weekend, as in 2005, or 7).

The turbo engine could run 50% more fuel flow than now and still be substantially less than for the V10, while making considerably more power.

A V6T with 150kg/hr fuel flow, using knowledge from today's V6Ts, could make 1,100 - 1,200hp, or more.

Why does fuel flow matter?

If the races have no refueling, the turbo cars can start lighter, which is an advantage. If there is refueling, the advantage is quicker stops.
Good points. Ultimately the fuel mass difference needs to be similar to the engine (and ancilliaries) mass difference, NA v FI. We are both guessing at these total system weights. I have a feeling the unrestricted NA could be made very lightweight. The heat exchangers should be smaller for the NA.
Depends on how long the engine is supposed to last.

An 80kg V10 might last 1 race weekend, but 5, 6 or 7? And how will its performance stack up?

As for radiators, a lot of these relate to the electrical systems in current cars - MGU cooling, battery cooling, CE cooling.

For a non-hybrid turbo engine you'd probably end up with a similar cooling package - smaller radiator than the N/A but with the intercooler about the same size for a similar total.

wuzak
434
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:21
As far as I know, in every racing series where you can choose your engine configuration, the constructors go for a turbo engine. The only big series with a NA engine, are where they are mandatory.
Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
With a power limit the advantage of turbos would be amplified.

This is because the aim would be to have the maximum power across the widest possible rpm band. Which the turbos can achieve.

Without the fuel flow limit and with a maximum power limit, the current PUs could give the maximum power basically across the whole useable rpm range.

Xwang
29
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 11:12

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

wuzak wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 04:37
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36
Jolle wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:21
As far as I know, in every racing series where you can choose your engine configuration, the constructors go for a turbo engine. The only big series with a NA engine, are where they are mandatory.
Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
With a power limit the advantage of turbos would be amplified.

This is because the aim would be to have the maximum power across the widest possible rpm band. Which the turbos can achieve.

Without the fuel flow limit and with a maximum power limit, the current PUs could give the maximum power basically across the whole useable rpm range.
Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

Xwang wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 14:04
wuzak wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 04:37
Xwang wrote:
29 Jul 2019, 18:36


Maybe, but with a power output limit you could have different engine displacements and configurations like in the WEC even though all turbo engines.
This could give use some championship variability because different power units from different manufactures might be more or less performant with respect to rivals changing from one track to the other* (as happened when in F1 there where v8, v10 and v12) then they could also converge, but meantime we as fans would have a lot to speak about IMHO.

* better if track which requires diffrent cars characteristics will be mixed in the championship, but it is another aspect that I hope FIA and F1 will address in the future.
With a power limit the advantage of turbos would be amplified.

This is because the aim would be to have the maximum power across the widest possible rpm band. Which the turbos can achieve.

Without the fuel flow limit and with a maximum power limit, the current PUs could give the maximum power basically across the whole useable rpm range.
Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.
But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.

izzy
41
Joined: 26 May 2019, 22:28

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

gruntguru wrote:
30 Jul 2019, 00:19
I am thinking along the same lines. Why equalise just the engines? You could equalise the downforce, the drag, the lateral grip, the weight, the handling characteristics etc etc. Eventually you could replace the drivers with identical robots with identical programming.
Yes this is the issue. What exactly are they competing about with their engines, if it's not power?

It could be weight, I suppose, if they took away all the weight limits, but that's not too appealing probably to the oem's, like "my 1000hp engine is lighter than yours" :? .

It's an interesting idea but as you say it begs the question of why they're going racing in the first place

Tommy Cookers
617
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: Power output limited formula

Post

equalising the power and equalising the downforce are 2 sides of the same coin - philosophically and practically
so should be considered in combination ie rulemakers deciding to what extent F1 is an aero formula or an engine formula

aero DF cannot be isolated and measured
we must measure weight DF and aero DF combined and 'tare off'' to get aero DF

so rewarding appropriately the benefits of eg low 'motive content' weight and low 'motivated content' weight
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 30 Jul 2019, 15:49, edited 1 time in total.