What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

What would happen if the formula specified a limit for the power that a PU could deliver rather than a fuel flow limit for engine?

For the sake of this thread, it doesn't really matter what engine formula you apply this to. I just wondered if limiting power would mean that all PU manufacturers would be able to produce a PU that could generate this specified amount of power and then the difference between PUs would be primarily the fuel efficiency (they would also have different power delivery characteristics, etc, but I'm imagining fuel efficiency would be the most import differentiating factor).

Would this lead to a closer formula than a fuel flow limited one or does it amount to the same thing?

Would the PU manufacturers still have an incentive to make the PUs more efficient - surely they would as this is the easiest way for them to get a competitive advantage?

May be it does depend on the engine formula. It seems (from my limited knowledge), that the current formula means that if you have an under-powered ICE you also lose efficiency as well as you get less heat to recover in the MGU-H, so you get penalised twice. May be that is too simplistic.

...oh and I've glossed over how you would measure and enforce a power limited engine formula. I'm sure no one would try to pulse their power delivery to fool the sampling of the FIA sensor.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

63l8qrrfy6
368
Joined: 17 Feb 2016, 21:36

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Why not replace the cars with pushbikes so that the driver makes the power?

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Leaving apart the fact that this would be called Formula something rather than Formula 1, I'll try to follow the thought experiment further.

You cap the engine's max power.

They'd still overdesign a bit so that that max power would be delivered over a wider RPM range... until they can cover (current rpm) about 2500 rpm delivering exactly max power. At that point, the different delivery characteristics disappear as you have constant max power from 30km/h to 350km/h, as you go through the gears.

That would leave fuel efficiency as a differentiator. In quali this hardly matters at all. In the race, say there is a 2% difference in fuel efficiency and the drivers are flat out all the time, one car would need 100kg of fuel where te other car would need 102kg of fuel. Not much of a differentiator, which is halved by half race. One can design a slightly smaller tank, sure. The largest differentiator regarding fuel would still be the amount of lift and coast applied or the gambling for a SC phase, as there might be 10kg in there.

So what's left to differentiate between engines? Heat rejection, possibly? There would be a race to have the least possible heat stay in the car, whether by converting fuel to power or by getting rid of the heat by the exhausts rather than by the radiators. This way one can design a slimmer car with drag, CG and floor area advantages.

So you've got yourself a quasi-spec formula with an engine-mediate aero race. Not that different from the 2020 FOM-FIA wet dream, actually, where engine output was supposed to be within 3% from best to worst.

Now, if all of the above holds but one would drop the minimum engine weight and COG limits, maybe then you'd recover the super expensive development race in engines.
I'd rather have that race for power, though. Or for efficiency=power in a fuel limited formula.
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Thanks, Hollus, for indulging me. It's nice to have someone explore these sort of thought experiments - that's part of the attraction to the forum.

I had also come to the conclusion that it would reduce the formula down to one of fuel efficiency as the main driver for development. And as you set out, heat management would be also become an important differentiator - maximising the heat that exits via the exhausts, minimising the cooling required by radiators. I would also add that packaging would remain an important differentiator.

From my understanding, there is a virtuous circle where the most energy efficient ICE would also generate the least heat for the same power output (assuming that other loses, such as friction are comparable). And the ICE that generates the least heat will need the least cooling and this would also help the packaging. This is a bit of an aside but if true, it shows why a set of regulations often lead to one solution rather than a variety of solutions each with their own strengths and weaknesses. In this case the manufacturer that had the most fuel efficient ICE would be able to use this advantage in lots of other areas of the PU design.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Here's a question for anyone who cares to answer:

I know from the responses here that the general feeling is that Formula One should not aim to equalise PUs based on power or some other measurement of performance. But if you had to choose between a freeze on developing the PUs (as is being discussed by the FIA) and a cap on the power that a PU can generate, which would you choose?

I know the proposed PU development freeze is at least in part a cost-control measure but if the aim was only to hasten the convergence of the performance of the PUs, a cap on power output would equalise the PUs on this one metric whilst allowing development in fuel efficiency and the other areas outlined above. Would this satisfy any of the manufacturers? Mercedes would have their advantage over the other manufacturers reduced but not eliminated, Ferrari and Renault could still develop their concepts. If the performance difference between the PUs is now much smaller, the development costs for a given performance gain should shift the focus away from the PUs to other areas of the car where the investment gives greater gains - so reducing PU development costs too?
Formerly known as senna-toleman

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

dave kumar wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 10:00
Here's a question for anyone who cares to answer:

I know from the responses here that the general feeling is that Formula One should not aim to equalise PUs based on power or some other measurement of performance. But if you had to choose between a freeze on developing the PUs (as is being discussed by the FIA) and a cap on the power that a PU can generate, which would you choose?

I know the proposed PU development freeze is at least in part a cost-control measure but if the aim was only to hasten the convergence of the performance of the PUs, a cap on power output would equalise the PUs on this one metric whilst allowing development in fuel efficiency and the other areas outlined above. Would this satisfy any of the manufacturers? Mercedes would have their advantage over the other manufacturers reduced but not eliminated, Ferrari and Renault could still develop their concepts. If the performance difference between the PUs is now much smaller, the development costs for a given performance gain should shift the focus away from the PUs to other areas of the car where the investment gives greater gains - so reducing PU development costs too?
I think you would have to start a whole new thread to establish what would be the measure of 'Power'
If you look at the 'power output' of any machine, particularly ICE, it gives a graph starting well above zero and becoming higher with RPM.

So am engine producing 800 hp at 12000 rpm is not necessarily more powerful than one producing 750 at 12000 rpm if the first engine only got to 800 at 11900 rpm and the second engine got to 750 at 6000 rpm. It has a higher peek power but would be trashed in most races.

I know I am over simplifying things, but it is a difficult thing to pin down, especially when you get to torque/rpm
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

NL_Fer
82
Joined: 15 Jun 2014, 09:48

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

One could limit the maximum kilowatts of the powerunit, but potentially it could still be possible that one powerunit has longer ERS deployment, then another.

User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Big Tea wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 15:31
I think you would have to start a whole new thread to establish what would be the measure of 'Power'...
I know, it's a whole can of worms. Just for simplicity we could say we cap the peak power output of the ICE and as Hollus pointed out, the manufacturers would try and make the power band as wide as possible. Which could lead to an expensive development war and defeat the whole purpose of a cap.

NL_Fer wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 20:42
One could limit the maximum kilowatts of the powerunit, but potentially it could still be possible that one powerunit has longer ERS deployment, then another.
What is the relationship between the power produced by the ICE and the amount of energy that can then be harvested downstream? Is is possible to have two ICEs that produce the same peak power but one burns more fuel than the other and in turn is able to harvest more energy from the exhaust? If so, then we're in trouble as measuring ICE power is meaningless without looking at the rest of the PU.

But back to the point... if you had to choose between a cap on PU power or a freeze on PU development (currently on the FIAs radar), which would you take? A Cornelian dilemma perhaps.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

NL_Fer
82
Joined: 15 Jun 2014, 09:48

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Ok, assume we cap the total output, at every RPM and limit ERS time & MJ.

What would limit the manufacturers to try and squeeze a 1000bhp from a 0.5l inline 3?

User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
20 Oct 2020, 17:25
Ok, assume we cap the total output, at every RPM and limit ERS time & MJ.

What would limit the manufacturers to try and squeeze a 1000bhp from a 0.5l inline 3?
If it helps, the original post assumed all the other PU regulations stay the same - but remove the fuel flow limit and replace it with some kind of power limit.

And then this was extended to ask if a power cap on the PUs would be a more elegant way of achieving the ends that the FIA are pursuing with the proposed PU development freeze. But I accept it's a bit of a stretch to think that just capping the PU's power will result in less investment in PU development. My only argument was that once the power is capped, all other areas that differentiate a PU (fuel efficiency, cooling requirements, packaging, etc), are 2nd, 3rd, 4th order gains and manufacturers would spend their money on other areas where the returns offer greater benefits.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

dave kumar wrote:
21 Oct 2020, 01:42
NL_Fer wrote:
20 Oct 2020, 17:25
Ok, assume we cap the total output, at every RPM and limit ERS time & MJ.

What would limit the manufacturers to try and squeeze a 1000bhp from a 0.5l inline 3?
If it helps, the original post assumed all the other PU regulations stay the same - but remove the fuel flow limit and replace it with some kind of power limit.

And then this was extended to ask if a power cap on the PUs would be a more elegant way of achieving the ends that the FIA are pursuing with the proposed PU development freeze. But I accept it's a bit of a stretch to think that just capping the PU's power will result in less investment in PU development. My only argument was that once the power is capped, all other areas that differentiate a PU (fuel efficiency, cooling requirements, packaging, etc), are 2nd, 3rd, 4th order gains and manufacturers would spend their money on other areas where the returns offer greater benefits.
One possible way, which they would never consider, is to supply crap tyres. No point developing 1000hp if you spin the wheels at half throttle.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Craigy
84
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 10:20

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
20 Oct 2020, 17:25
Ok, assume we cap the total output, at every RPM and limit ERS time & MJ.

What would limit the manufacturers to try and squeeze a 1000bhp from a 0.5l inline 3?
What makes you think they aren't already putting out 900bhp from a 0.8l inline 3 that has a faked twin on the other side of the car?

NL_Fer
82
Joined: 15 Jun 2014, 09:48

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

dave kumar wrote:
21 Oct 2020, 01:42
NL_Fer wrote:
20 Oct 2020, 17:25
Ok, assume we cap the total output, at every RPM and limit ERS time & MJ.

What would limit the manufacturers to try and squeeze a 1000bhp from a 0.5l inline 3?
If it helps, the original post assumed all the other PU regulations stay the same - but remove the fuel flow limit and replace it with some kind of power limit.

And then this was extended to ask if a power cap on the PUs would be a more elegant way of achieving the ends that the FIA are pursuing with the proposed PU development freeze. But I accept it's a bit of a stretch to think that just capping the PU's power will result in less investment in PU development. My only argument was that once the power is capped, all other areas that differentiate a PU (fuel efficiency, cooling requirements, packaging, etc), are 2nd, 3rd, 4th order gains and manufacturers would spend their money on other areas where the returns offer greater benefits.
Ok so we have the same 1.6 V6T hybrids with capped power output. Identical torque delivery curve, specified by the FIA.

In that case, the most efficient engine will win again. High efficiency will result in smaller cooling requirements, smaller radiators, less drag and better aero. The most efficient powerunit, will put the car on pole. Also the most efficient powerunit, needs less fuel to race. So it will start with less weight and also be fast in the race.

Ringleheim
9
Joined: 22 Feb 2018, 10:02

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

An absolute power limit for F1 is the worst idea I can possibly think of.

It's bad enough as it is, where we have a "virtual" power limit due to such tight controls over the PE side of things.

Who here remembers when they took 10 engines to an F1 weekend, and had motors that blew after a few laps in quali?

I remember when engine development was constant and a development of maybe 6 more horses was worth bringing to the track.

That F1 is dead. Now we get hybrid lawn mowers. Really fast lawn mowers, but lawn mowers.

User avatar
dave kumar
12
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 14:16
Location: UK

Re: What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

Post

Ringleheim wrote:
21 Oct 2020, 22:21
An absolute power limit for F1 is the worst idea I can possibly think of.
It's bad enough as it is, where we have a "virtual" power limit due to such tight controls over the PE side of things.
Who here remembers when they took 10 engines to an F1 weekend, and had motors that blew after a few laps in quali?
I remember when engine development was constant and a development of maybe 6 more horses was worth bringing to the track.
That F1 is dead. Now we get hybrid lawn mowers. Really fast lawn mowers, but lawn mowers.
But the question is not whether a power cap is bad (I completely understand the sentiment that it is anti-F1) - but is it worse than an PU development freeze?

https://www.racefans.net/2020/05/25/f1- ... nits-2023/
Formula 1 intends to freeze teams’ power unit designs from the 2023 season, ahead of the introduction of new engine regulations.

RaceFans understands new rules are under discussion which will progressively limit how often power units can be upgraded, leading to a full freeze of the designs in 2023.
Formerly known as senna-toleman