1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

2021 fisticuffs

Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by BrightLampShade, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. BrightLampShade

    BrightLampShade Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,495
    Likes Received:
    2,568
    We all know this will drag and drag so why not just have it all in one place.

    A quick summary: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech-analysis-behind-f12021-engine-row-974447/
    Tech analysis: What’s behind F1’s 2021 engine row?

    Earlier this week, Formula 1 made its first step towards what it hopes is a bright new future, when the FIA and Liberty Media revealed initial ideas for the engine they want to see from 2021.

    But if there had been any hopes of a smooth introduction for what initially sounded like a subtle change to the current power units, they were quickly dashed.

    Less than 48 hours after the meeting with teams and manufacturers, Renault and Mercedes voiced fears of an unnecessary arms race, while Ferrari threatened to quit F1 completely.

    But why has an idea to solidify the FIA and FOM's vision for the sport, reduce complexity, lower the barrier for entry and put more control back in the drivers' hands caused such controversy?

    Clean sheet of paper

    Having detailed knowledge of the development path required for the current engines, Renault and Mercedes are under no illusions that what has been proposed is not a minor tweak – it means an all-new power unit for 2021.

    The V6 turbocharged architecture proposed gives the appearance of a like-for-like change with little to do in terms of redevelopment.

    However, both manufacturers disagree and know that while they cannot unlearn the lessons of the hybrid era, they will undoubtedly be starting from a blank piece of paper when designing what has been proposed.

    Thermal efficiency and intricate combustion processes that have been a hallmark of the hybrid era will be further complicated by a need to increase the fuel-flow characteristics and match the new rev limit profile.

    Meanwhile, the loss of the MGU-H will require a rethink on the size and performance window of the turbocharger, as with the MGU-K reverting to a 'boost on demand' overall, power is already down 120kw (160bhp) all things being equal.

    Having already stuck their head above the parapet, the current engine suppliers also suggested that the proposals are heavily weighted toward any new manufacturer wishing to enter the sport - while those already participating will be forced to run parallel development programmes in the next three years, as they develop the current power units and design entirely new ones for 2021.

    As an alternative, bridging solutions for the current power unit have been offered, such as a relaxation of the fuel-flow limit and less restrictions on the fuel quantity that is carried, both of which are development barriers for manufacturers wanting to join the fray.

    Not all is bad

    Despite the concerns about costs, it is fair to say that the current manufacturers are not unhappy with all the ideas that have been put forward. Indeed, some proposals - like lifting the revs to improve the noise - have complete backing.

    Manufacturers have also been clear in their opposition to a return to a larger engine displacement in recent months. Under the new roadmap, a 1.6 litre V6 ICE and single turbocharger will remain, which should in theory limit the development costs needed for the future.

    Noise, much to fans' and the promoters' approval, will be higher, as a 3,000rpm increase in revs and the removal of the much maligned MGU-H, which naturally quells the turbocharger as it recovers energy from it, will change the engine's pitch.

    The plans also include having just a kinetic motor generator, meaning F1 can return to a KERS-style boost deployed by the driver, rather than being preordained as part of an algorithm that F1 currently has.

    There will also be cost reduction through a standardised energy store and control electronics, which will undoubtedly go some way to ensuring the likes of Aston Martin, Porsche, Cosworth and Ilmor can at least seriously consider an entry.

    It is most likely hoped that the standardisation of some parts and the simplification of others will also have a positive impact on the reliability of the new units, further limiting the issues and penalties faced by some of the current manufacturers.

    The bad news

    From a technological point of view, though, the plan marks a move away from the super high-tech push that F1 had adopted since the turbo hybrid era came into force. It also means less separation between the car makers on their own engine identity, thanks to the increase in standard parts.

    There have also be questions raised about whether a change is needed at all, for power convergence appears to be happening and the reliability niggles that have marred recent seasons will certainly improve over the next two years.

    The KERS-style boost the FIA and Liberty wish to introduce may also become irrelevant if the driver is simply tasked with deploying energy out of each corner to overcome the turbo lag that's more or less guaranteed, given there is no MGU-H to help keep the turbocharger spooled up.

    Then there is the issue of weight, something that should be a major consideration when framing these new regulations. F1 cars are already heavier than they have ever been, and that's before the Halo is added from 2018 onwards. Extra weight means more mass to accelerate.

    The outline put forward does not openly take the weight issue into account, aside from the removal of the MGU-H.

    But if you have to add a larger energy store to achieve KERS deployment targets, and increase the ICE's bulk to achieve the increased horsepower necessary, then we may not be better off at all in terms of laptime.

    What is the solution?

    Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between what has been proposed and what the manufacturers want.

    Some rule tweaks could prove popular and tick most of the boxes for those concerned, allowing a retention of the current power units, with a gradual roadmap toward 2021 that also encourages others manufacturers to join the series.

    An answer could include:
    • An increase in the fuel mass flow and the removal of the calculation below 10,500rpm that artificially limits revs to around 12,000rpm, allowing the manufacturers to rev to the currently unachievable hard limit of 15,000rpm - improving performance and noise.
    • Giving more freedom in regard to the amount of fuel that can be carried, allowing more varied strategy decisions both before and during a race.
    • KERS overboost - Energy store capacity increased to 6mj to allow for a driver-deployable boost of 120kw (160bhp) on top of existing MGU-K delivery.
    • An entirely standardised ERS and turbo - including MGU-H, MGU-K, energy store and control electronics - reducing unreliability and perceived complexity, and allowing incoming manufacturers the opportunity to focus on just the ICE.
    Such changes should successfully address the identified issues of cost, noise, reliability, performance and barrier for entry for new manufacturers, whilst maintaining a common goal with those already involved.

     
    #1
    EternalMSC, El_Bando, Big Ern and 2 others like this.
  2. DHCanary

    DHCanary Very Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    16,836
    Likes Received:
    5,767
    I was thinking about setting up a thread like this in the week. It'll be interesting to look back at the start of this thread when we know what the final regulations look like!
     
    #2
  3. BrightLampShade

    BrightLampShade Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,495
    Likes Received:
    2,568
    I saw the article on Motorsport.com and thought it looked a good summary to start it all off :)

    I imagine it'll be nothing like what's been suggested now. Although I'm not sure if they'll end up just making it worse...
     
    #3
  4. Number 1 Jasper

    Number 1 Jasper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    24,143
    Likes Received:
    14,856
    Fisticuffs .

    I have not heard that comment in ages <laugh>
     
    #4
  5. Smithers

    Smithers Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    811
    Increasing fuel capacity and flow is an interesting one, it makes sense but from an engineering perspective it’s fundementally flawed. Less fuel equals less weight, which equals more performance and with the cars currently 20% heavier it’s just seems contradictory.

    So the whole rev increase and removal of any recovery device for performance reasons seems to be at odds with itself.
     
    #5
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  6. Smithers

    Smithers Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    811
  7. BrightLampShade

    BrightLampShade Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,495
    Likes Received:
    2,568
    An argument to bring back refuling. If they're FIA standard then the cost of refuling isn't major. Plus adds more strategy intreague.
     
    #7
  8. Smithers

    Smithers Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    811
    Ive always been a fan of refuelling myself, but can’t see the sport reverting back to it.
     
    #8
    Number 1 Jasper likes this.
  9. allsaintchris.

    allsaintchris. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    It was fine for a while when the teams had different strategies, but it became pretty boring when all teams had worked out the best number of stops each race, or would use the pitstops to overtake, so the on track racing was shockingly bad as no one would risk a move knowing there was a pitstop coming up.
     
    #9
    DHCanary and cosicave like this.
  10. cosicave

    cosicave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    5,277
    Likes Received:
    660
    As per ASC's post (above): even with an occasional intrigue, refuelling tends to spoil on-track action. I warned against it at the time of its introduction and popped a good Champagne when the era ended.

    Refuelling is for endurance racing; and that's how it should remain.
     
    #10

  11. Big Ern

    Big Ern Lord, Master, Guru & Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    23,534
    Likes Received:
    17,781
    re-fueling? meh, it depends on what rules they change along with it that makes it work or not as an on-track specatcle. Personally I think it was a decent season for action, just sadly lacking at the sharp end, they'll all be closer next year.
     
    #11
  12. Smithers

    Smithers Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    811
  13. BrightLampShade

    BrightLampShade Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,495
    Likes Received:
    2,568
    3 out of 4 years Mercedes have been utterly dominant. Hopefully that's starting to change.

    In the V8 era Red Bull were only really utterly dominant for 1.5 of those 4 seasons. The rest they were just plain old the best.

    We mustn't forget how 2013 ended, had the rules not changed Red Bull would have gone into 2014 highly likely to dominate.
     
    #13
  14. Smithers

    Smithers Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    811
    It would be interesting to see if it would work better with the compound differences in the tyres now?
     
    #14
  15. happyal

    happyal Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    197
    The problem with a huge rule change is that 1 team always nails it, and we are left with at least 2-3 years of utter dominance. I'm so bored of that and just want racing.

    I honestly think that for the time being, just leave everything alone and look again in 5 years or so.
     
    #15
  16. Big Ern

    Big Ern Lord, Master, Guru & Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    23,534
    Likes Received:
    17,781
    how it ended wasn't how it started though, if Pirelli hadn't made licorice tyres it could've been a fantastic season
     
    #16
  17. allsaintchris.

    allsaintchris. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    And that's where fans view differ wildly about what is best for the sport.

    When the tyres were hard and not wearing out the racing was rubbish. When the tyres were made from paper the racing was rubbish. When they tyres are like they are at the moment which is somewhere in between, people say the racing is generally rubbish.

    My issue with the tyres, is any form of lock up flat spots them immediately to the point they are useless. Back in the day......... if a driver locked up a tyre it never seemed to be that much of a problem and the driver would continue his race with barely any ill effect. Now, a small lock up puts a ruddy great flat spot and hole into it.
     
    #17
  18. SgtBhaji

    SgtBhaji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    14,403
    Likes Received:
    5,570
    It's not the tyres that are rubbish, it's that the cars can't follow each other closely without burning them up in a handful of laps.
     
    #18
    Big Ern and El_Bando like this.
  19. allsaintchris.

    allsaintchris. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    7,655
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    That's an aero issue, which is even harder to sort out than the tyres. Very few single seater series don't have problems with cars following each other because they either lose the air off the wings and the car behind slides more.

    How many times has F1 changes the rules to try and reduce the aero issue, and pretty much each time it as failed as the design of the cars just cancel themselves out all the time?

    Unless you take away the wings, in which case you may as well just have Formula Ford from the 90's cars, there will always have to be compromises.
     
    #19
  20. SgtBhaji

    SgtBhaji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    14,403
    Likes Received:
    5,570
    The current aero regs just don't work. There needs to be a reduction in wings and an increase in ground effects to reduce turbulent air. I don't think it would be particularly hard for them to address this issue.
     
    #20

Share This Page