Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
JordanMugen
68
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:43 pm
I doubt they would allow that, the sound is considered dim now, although I find it ideal.
Formula 3 is louder than Formula 1 at the moment... No turbos on those V6s (and no mufflers like all three classes).

If F1 is ideal does that mean the F3 cars are uncomfortably loud and raspy for spectators? :?: If so, should mufflers be fitted to F3 to make the experience more pleasant for spectators? :)

Given the 2026 power units propose to lose the MGUH, they will inevitably be a bit louder and need to open the wastegate more, which will displease those who prefer the quiet sounds of the existing power units. :| Again, could the FIA consider requiring mufflers to make the F1 cars more muted and pleasant sounding?

Stu wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:05 pm
I won’t be sorry to see the MGU-H go, but would like to see these engines run as NA with a good electrical output.
Indeed, if there is no MGU-H, why do the engines even need to be turbo? A 1.6L V6 revving to 18,000rpm would be a lot of fun IMO. Such a 550hp ICE paired with a 450hp plug-in hybrid system (MGUK) would be a good balance for a partially electrified F1 car IMO.

Bring back pneumatic valves! :D

I guess the MGUK is on the front of the engine now, but it could be moved between the engine and transmission like a road-going hybrid car (NSX etc), so Grand Prix cars could drive down the pitlane and so forth in EV mode.

I guess there could be front axle harvesting and motors like the NSX too... AWD F1 cars: yes or no? Front drive could always be banned, with harvesting only.

Dernie Ecclestone
Dernie Ecclestone
2
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:26 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Stu wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:55 am
The answer is front axle ‘harvesting’ - which would make physical brakes almost redundant (really only required in pit stops).
Pure motor braking should require something like 400-600 hp on the front axle alone. The current battery pack is fed by a pair of motors with a maximum combined output of 220 hp (?) currently, so the pack would need to withstand higher charge and discharge rates if it is to be reduced in size to compensate for the addition of a high output generator on the front axle. CG of the generator unit on a high nose chassis would need to be considered.

It would be novel to strictly use motor braking, but physics says friction brakes are much more efficient.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
590
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Dernie Ecclestone wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:33 am
Stu wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:55 am
The answer is front axle ‘harvesting’ - which would make physical brakes almost redundant (really only required in pit stops).
Pure motor braking should require something like 400-600 hp on the front axle alone.
more like 4000-6000 hp on the front axle alone
a 1 ton car braking at 5g at 100 m/sec is 5 MW - that's 6700 hp
peak values of course ie what is needed unless they brake 1/4 mile earlier than presently

the electrical system will need about 50 times the present peak power capability
the ES isn't going to be smaller
and eg the rotational inertia of the 'brakes' will be high

aerodynamic braking would be handy
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
ispano6
141
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:56 pm
Location: my playseat

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Stu wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:05 pm
...

That was my line of thinking, smaller batteries (or super-capacitor storage), very high C-rating for fast charge and enough longevity to be considered a ‘boost’ that needs to be deployed strategically.
I won’t be sorry to see the MGU-H go, but would like to see these engines run as NA with a good electrical output.
The other option (if front axle harvesting doesn’t make it) could be to utilise a GU-H in the exhaust.
I'm actually disappointed that the MGUH is being dumped. It would seem to be a waste of a decades worth of development and innovation only to fall the wayside. Surely there is a practical way of utilizing it, say for road cars. Otherwise how else would you retain thermal efficiency?

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
65
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

ispano6 wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:09 am
Stu wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:05 pm
...

That was my line of thinking, smaller batteries (or super-capacitor storage), very high C-rating for fast charge and enough longevity to be considered a ‘boost’ that needs to be deployed strategically.
I won’t be sorry to see the MGU-H go, but would like to see these engines run as NA with a good electrical output.
The other option (if front axle harvesting doesn’t make it) could be to utilise a GU-H in the exhaust.
I'm actually disappointed that the MGUH is being dumped. It would seem to be a waste of a decades worth of development and innovation only to fall the wayside. Surely there is a practical way of utilizing it, say for road cars. Otherwise how else would you retain thermal efficiency?
Agreed

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
590
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

ispano6 wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:09 am
I'm actually disappointed that the MGUH is being dumped. It would seem to be a waste of a decades worth of development and innovation only to fall the wayside. Surely there is a practical way of utilizing it, say for road cars. Otherwise how else would you retain thermal efficiency?
exhaust recovery doesn't work at low % powers

unless some suitably novel engine could be designed
high exhaust pressure turbine but crankshaft power controlled by induction side recovery ??
non-standard valve timings of course

User avatar
Big Tea
92
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:47 am
Big Tea wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:43 pm
I doubt they would allow that, the sound is considered dim now, although I find it ideal.
Formula 3 is louder than Formula 1 at the moment... No turbos on those V6s (and no mufflers like all three classes).

If F1 is ideal does that mean the F3 cars are uncomfortably loud and raspy for spectators? :?: If so, should mufflers be fitted to F3 to make the experience more pleasant for spectators? :)


Stu wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:05 pm
I won’t be sorry to see the MGU-H go, but would like to see these engines run as NA with a good electrical output.
Look around at these events. Everyone (almost) has ear defenders, so yes, I think there should be some reduction.
In 'the old days' the loss of power due to baffles was significant, today it is not. It is also a contributing factor to objections to building new tracks.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
560
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:56 am
JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:47 am
Big Tea wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:43 pm
I doubt they would allow that, the sound is considered dim now, although I find it ideal.
Formula 3 is louder than Formula 1 at the moment... No turbos on those V6s (and no mufflers like all three classes).

If F1 is ideal does that mean the F3 cars are uncomfortably loud and raspy for spectators? :?: If so, should mufflers be fitted to F3 to make the experience more pleasant for spectators? :)


Stu wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:05 pm
I won’t be sorry to see the MGU-H go, but would like to see these engines run as NA with a good electrical output.
Look around at these events. Everyone (almost) has ear defenders, so yes, I think there should be some reduction.
In 'the old days' the loss of power due to baffles was significant, today it is not. It is also a contributing factor to objections to building new tracks.
Having been around V12, V10 and V8 F1 cars, they're great noise but only briefly. They are uncomfortably loud after a few minutes and it becomes tiresome. It's not necessary and, as you suggest, in these modern times where people moan about stuff, loud exhaust noise increases the risk of circuits being restricted / closed and new ones being refused. I well remember being a few miles from Silverstone on a test day. The sound was distinctive and one could tell it was F1 cars on track even from that distance. I also remember standing near the entry to Stowe corner in the V10 days - the back firing on the over run was worse than being near a shotgun going off. Ridiculously loud. Again, great fun for a brief moment and then it was just really unpleasant and I had to move.

The old DFVs were bloody loud too - if you hear one at a historic day, they really sound like someone tearing spacetime asunder. Amazing sound but, again, only briefly.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
Big Tea
92
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 10:05 am
Big Tea wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:56 am
JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:47 am


Formula 3 is louder than Formula 1 at the moment... No turbos on those V6s (and no mufflers like all three classes).

If F1 is ideal does that mean the F3 cars are uncomfortably loud and raspy for spectators? :?: If so, should mufflers be fitted to F3 to make the experience more pleasant for spectators? :)




Look around at these events. Everyone (almost) has ear defenders, so yes, I think there should be some reduction.
In 'the old days' the loss of power due to baffles was significant, today it is not. It is also a contributing factor to objections to building new tracks.
Having been around V12, V10 and V8 F1 cars, they're great noise but only briefly. They are uncomfortably loud after a few minutes and it becomes tiresome. It's not necessary and, as you suggest, in these modern times where people moan about stuff, loud exhaust noise increases the risk of circuits being restricted / closed and new ones being refused. I well remember being a few miles from Silverstone on a test day. The sound was distinctive and one could tell it was F1 cars on track even from that distance. I also remember standing near the entry to Stowe corner in the V10 days - the back firing on the over run was worse than being near a shotgun going off. Ridiculously loud. Again, great fun for a brief moment and then it was just really unpleasant and I had to move.

The old DFVs were bloody loud too - if you hear one at a historic day, they really sound like someone tearing spacetime asunder. Amazing sound but, again, only briefly.
I live 20 miles from a track, and if the wind conditions are right We can hear most of the events. Not loud, but enough to hear occasional complaints in the pub. Dont get the idea I want phantoms floating past mind :mrgreen:
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Bring back the older sounding cars. Modern ones are virtually silent. Even the F2 cars (and the safety car) sound better than the current F1 cars.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

Dernie Ecclestone
Dernie Ecclestone
2
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:26 am

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:56 am
Dernie Ecclestone wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:33 am
Pure motor braking should require something like 400-600 hp on the front axle alone.
more like 4000-6000 hp on the front axle alone
a 1 ton car braking at 5g at 100 m/sec is 5 MW - that's 6700 hp
peak values of course ie what is needed unless they brake 1/4 mile earlier than presently

the electrical system will need about 50 times the present peak power capability
the ES isn't going to be smaller
and eg the rotational inertia of the 'brakes' will be high
i neglected to consider downforce; the folly of doing a head calc whilst typing. At very low speeds and/or absent aero loads the figure I gave should be able to exceed tire grip. 1 - 1.5 g decel. You well illustrate how efficient CC friction brakes are considering a 5 MW EV drivetrain would be rather heavy compared to ~20(?) kg of braking hardware.

.poz
.poz
38
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

ispano6 wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:09 am

I'm actually disappointed that the MGUH is being dumped. It would seem to be a waste of a decades worth of development and innovation only to fall the wayside. Surely there is a practical way of utilizing it, say for road cars. Otherwise how else would you retain thermal efficiency?
I would like a engine with MGUH and an electric powered compressor not connected with the turbo

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
25
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 5:46 pm
drc wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:39 pm
Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks
Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all :P


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car



Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...

But none with a brain will claim neither of them was faster or better than Giles, but this is F1, they got dominant cars so their statistics are much better.

I could argue something similar about Hamilton. One of the greats ever, period. But is he really better than Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, etc. as statistics show? No way, he just drove the most dominant car ever. No other car dominated for so many consecutive seasons, as FIA usually change rules at 4th season when any team dominate the grid. Not this time. Is that delay from FIA an evidence of Hamilton greatness? Obviously not.

IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant
I have watched every race of Prost, Senna, Schumacher's and Hamilton's career, Hamilton is the best of that bunch, he is fast as Senna, and as versatile as them and most importantly made less mistakes than them all.

The FIA greatly changed the car regs in 2017 for the wide regs, after the 2014 engine change, and then changed the aero regs again in 2019 and then again in 2021(those regs specifically targeted to hurt long wheelbase cars by the reference point of the regulations(front axle versus rear axle), contrary to your above false assertion. The anti Hamilton brigade loves to make up their alternative facts, but here is a real fact, Schumacher had tires made to suit his car and driving preference(also unlimited testing on a factory adjacent track) and when the regs were changed for 2005 and he no longer had that bespoke tire advantage he only won 1 race, 2005 usgp with 6 cars competing.

The FIA changed the regs for 2017, so Hamilton had stable rules from 2014, 2015 and 2016, not much different than any other champ.

User avatar
Andres125sx
161
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:10 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 5:46 pm
drc wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:39 pm
Those stats showing wins, poles, fl's and what not, they'll soon be needing a whole new kind of asterisks
Actually, that asterisk is needed in F1 since... well, always, this is F1 after all :P


Any good driver with a dominant car will get better statistics than a real talent who never drove a dominant car



Just as an example, Rosberg or Button have better statistics than Giles Villeneuve, not only because they´re World Champions while Giles wasn´t, also on victories, poles, fast laps...

But none with a brain will claim neither of them was faster or better than Giles, but this is F1, they got dominant cars so their statistics are much better.

I could argue something similar about Hamilton. One of the greats ever, period. But is he really better than Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, etc. as statistics show? No way, he just drove the most dominant car ever. No other car dominated for so many consecutive seasons, as FIA usually change rules at 4th season when any team dominate the grid. Not this time. Is that delay from FIA an evidence of Hamilton greatness? Obviously not.

IE, driver statistics in F1 are almost irrelevant
I have watched every race of Prost, Senna, Schumacher's and Hamilton's career, Hamilton is the best of that bunch, he is fast as Senna, and as versatile as them and most importantly made less mistakes than them all.
Lewis as fast as Senna, or as reliable as Prost? Did you really watched their races? :shock: :shock:

Point me to one single Qualifying where Lewis beated his teammate, a talented teammate (comparable to Alain Prost) with 1.4 seconds difference, and I´ll take your statement as serious. Otherwise...

About reliability, I can point many mistakes from Lewis wich Alain Prost would have never committed, period.


Oh and I´m far from any anti-Hamilton brigade mate, actually Lewis is one of my favourites :wink: But the Hamilton fanboys like you can´t cope with anyone stating Lewis is not the greatest from the greatest of all time, for fanboys there´s only two options, being the best of the best, or being mediocre... but in real life things are far from black or white.

I like Hamilton driving, a lot, actually I even think he´s one of the greatest of all time. Even if I don´t think he´s faster than Senna or more reliable than Prost (or Alonso btw). Anycase I´ve always hated direct comparisons as comparing drivers from different eras is comparing apples to oranges, I do prefer to say they´re one of the greatest of all time, without direct comparisons or asigning positions.

But I don´t think he´s faster than Senna, nor more reliable than Prost or Alonso.


ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:10 pm
The FIA greatly changed the car regs in 2017 for the wide regs, after the 2014 engine change, and then changed the aero regs again in 2019 and then again in 2021(those regs specifically targeted to hurt long wheelbase cars by the reference point of the regulations(front axle versus rear axle), contrary to your above false assertion. The anti Hamilton brigade loves to make up their alternative facts, but here is a real fact, Schumacher had tires made to suit his car and driving preference(also unlimited testing on a factory adjacent track) and when the regs were changed for 2005 and he no longer had that bespoke tire advantage he only won 1 race, 2005 usgp with 6 cars competing.

The FIA changed the regs for 2017, so Hamilton had stable rules from 2014, 2015 and 2016, not much different than any other champ.

C´mon, 2017 changes were minor, it changed nothing in the grid, not in the title fight, and neither on any other midfield or bottom of the grid fight so that was far from a mayor change. Not comparable to 2005 to stop Ferrari domination, or in 2014 to stop RBR domination, or on any other domination period wich was finished by FIA with a mayor rule change.

I was talking about mayor rule changes like this season, not about minor changes that do not change anything on the grid´s status quo

mendis
mendis
2
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:12 pm

Re: Opinion on 2022 regulations

Post

This thread is opinion on 2022 regulations, not "My driver's di** is bigger than yours". Stop the nonsense.