• "Mwoah" - Kimi Räikkönen
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest. Follow RaceDepartment on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Steam and YouTube.

Featured Formula One: First Step Made Towards New Engine Formula

Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by Paul Jeffrey, Oct 31, 2017.

  1. Paul Jeffrey

    Paul Jeffrey
    RaceDepartment Editor-in-Chief Staff Premium

    Messages:
    7,051
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    F1 Engine Regs.jpg
    The FIA have made solid strides towards new engine regulations for 2021, laying down proposals for the next generation of Formula One Power Unit.

    Having presented to Formula One team representatives earlier today, the FIA have made a commitment to develop on the current and generally unpopular engine regulations currently in play within Grand Prix racing as they look to reduce costs, increase the audio experience and attract a new wave of manufacturers to the sport in future years.

    “We’ve carefully listened to what the fans think about the current PU and what they would like to see in the near future, with the objective to define a set of regulations which will provide a powertrain that is simpler, cheaper and noisier and will create the conditions to facilitate new manufacturers to enter Formula 1 as powertrain suppliers and to reach a more levelled field in the sport,” said Ross Brawn, F1’s MD, Motorsports.​

    “The new F1 has the target to be the world’s leading global sports competition married to state of the art technology. To excite, engage, and awe fans of all ages but to do so in a sustainable manner. We believe that the future power unit will achieve this.”

    Although undoubtedly an exceptionally impressive piece of engineering excellence, the current hybrid PU solution employed within Formula One has met with general apathy from Formula One fans brought up on the brutal sounds of V12, V10 and V8 high revving machines of yesteryear. Although the sport must remain relevant to the direction of modern automotive trends, it appears that Brawn and the Formula One group are not closed to the idea of changing a formula that has been in place since 2014 as they look to address some of the main concerns raised by the vocal Formula One community and the teams themselves, as well as looking to attract new manufacturers to a sport drastically lacking in variety on the engine front.

    Although initial meetings have taken place, it is expected the full and comprehensive details around the new regulations will be released toward the end of 2018. As for the meeting held earlier today, the FIA has confirmed the following outline features that will form the basis of the new regulations:


    The key features of the proposals presented to manufacturer representatives at Tuesday's meeting:
    • 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
    • 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
    • Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
    • Removal of the MGUH
    • More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
    • Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
    • Standard energy store and control electronics
    • High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
    • Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

    Today was a key step in the development of the Power Unit regulations for 2021," added Peter Bayer, FIA Secretary-General for Sport. "The FIA has been working with the Commercial Rights Holder to define a positive step forward for these regulations which maintain Formula One’s place at the pinnacle of motor sport technology whilst addressing the key issues facing the sport such as cost, road relevance and fan experience at the racetrack. We felt it was important to bring the teams into the discussions today and explain the direction we are taking and I’m pleased with the response we have received.”


    For more news and discussion from Grand Prix racing head over to the Formula One sub forum here at RD and get involved in the action yourself today.

    Like what you see here at RaceDepartment? Don't forget to like, subscribe and follow us on social media!

    RaceDepartment YouTube
    RaceDepartment Twitter
    RaceDepartment Facebook
    RaceDepartment Twitch
    RaceDepartment Instagram

    Happy to see the FIA are willing to address the current PU regulation concerns? Can the sport attract more manufacturers with the new regs? Let us know in the comments section below!
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. samcar304

    samcar304
    Premium

    Messages:
    543
    Ratings:
    +336
    Great news! Never been a fan of the MGU-H. always thought it caused a bit more trouble than good. Cost and Reliability wise. Look forward to these new engine regulations and hope they encourage more Manufacturers to join the sport. Happy they stayed with the V6 Turbo too, Shame its not a twin turbo though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. formidable

    formidable

    Messages:
    160
    Ratings:
    +27
    Return to NA engines please!
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 5
    • Haha Haha x 1
  4. Rhian

    Rhian

    Messages:
    17
    Ratings:
    +11
    Ok... I don't know much about actual race cars, but isn't tighter fuel regulations somewhat in conflict with a higher revving engine?
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  5. Nick Milton

    Nick Milton
    Nick Premium

    Messages:
    925
    Ratings:
    +263
    Better still,
    V8,v10,v12
    Turbo a choice
    No engine managment systems.
    DRS to stay.
    Introduce another tyre company, two choices.
    Allow testing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 16
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Nick Hill

    Nick Hill
    Premium

    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +200
    I understand and even sympathize with where you are coming from, but it ain't happening. It's just not where engines are headed so it's not where F1 should be headed either.

    It just does not fit the F1 brand image of being at the cutting edge. Contrast that with NASCAR who still run big displacement, pushrod V8's that bear very little resemblance to the engines you can purchase in the real world versions of the cars...but ultimately they are being consistent with their brand image as a rebellious throwback to bootlegger days.
     
    • Agree Agree x 9
    • Angry Angry x 4
  7. MoerasGrizzly

    MoerasGrizzly
    Premium

    Messages:
    884
    Ratings:
    +424
    I was honestly expecting a twin turbo configuration like you see in a lot of cars these days.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. IMrIMike

    IMrIMike

    Messages:
    145
    Ratings:
    +193
    Only took 4 replies, congrats.
     
    • Haha Haha x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Terry Rock

    Terry Rock

    Messages:
    1,063
    Ratings:
    +359
    "Want to drive cost down?"
    Take all that complex hybrid crap off the cars and give the guys enough fuel to race.
    I'm not against development.
    When you spend 'un-Godly' sums to travel to a race and the cars are stuck up on high-stands instead of running on track, due to a sensor buried somewhere...that's robbing the audience.
     
    • Agree Agree x 13
  10. Andrew Scott

    Andrew Scott
    "Ye Old Convict" Premium

    Messages:
    1,567
    Ratings:
    +650
    Doesn't matter what they do to the PU, F1 will still be boring while they continue to allow high downforce wings that create so much dirty air you can't set the guy in front of you up for an overtake 2 turns before the straight, going back to basics doesn't mean they can't innovate.
     
    • Agree Agree x 17
    • Haha Haha x 3
    • Love Love x 1
    • Angry Angry x 1
  11. Mark Aalberts

    Mark Aalberts

    Messages:
    661
    Ratings:
    +296
    I think with tighter fuel regulations they most likely mean Fuel development and amount of times they can bring an update for the fuel being used. And most likely also the burning oil issue that comes along with this.

    The higher revs is only for the purpose to let the engines sound better. Just not sure if they will achieve that though, since I think one of the problems is the fuel flow limit and indeed the hybrid systems that's causing them to apply the "lift and coast" technique since this is the faster way to get to the finish line. Potentially they can run these engines in much higher rpm if they want to but it is not beneficial to do so.

    Im pretty sure the rules around fuel consumption will change to because if they stay as they currently are you will not see the intended increasement of 3k rpm they looking for.

    And driving the cost down, erm well its F1 that's just a fairy tale. When a team has 500mil to spend it will spend it one way or the other, that will never change.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Rob

    Rob
    XBO: OctoberDusk06 Premium

    Messages:
    8,464
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    None of this matters a whit (congrats for following IndyCars' lead though F1) as long as they bolt on the halo. When a driver is trapped upside-down and can't get out while being eaten alive by battery acid or fire, maybe they will reconsider. Then again, when have they ever cared about drivers over profits? F1 will be all but dead by 2021.

    Prediction #2: This idea, tested by F1 at Silverstone, but scrapped because it could not "stop" a tire going 100 mph, will be adopted, sensibly (you can see through it after all) by IndyCar and then stolen back by F1 once their fan base tells them to fu*k off. It does not take much of a shield to deflect *everything* because helmet technology can be improved too. And the fans don't get screwed in the process. Also, Vettel said he could not see through it adequately. This was either a ruse to get back to the godawful halo, or some kind of mechanical issue (after all, car design is much more important than having an effective safety measure that both works and will not destroy the sport). If it works in IndyCar, it will work in F1, because F1 contains about 1/2 the danger of IndyCar.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Haha Haha x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Nick Hill

    Nick Hill
    Premium

    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +200
    Oh crap, I forgot about that damned halo! :mad:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Sad Sad x 1
  14. JayOTT

    JayOTT

    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +4
    People who want the old, loud engines back are going to be forever disappointed. Natural aspiration is obsolete technology, it's never coming back to F1 now that turbocharging is finally back in the regulations. I wouldn't be surprised to see even NASCAR go down the turbocharging route within the next decade.

    Not that it matters regardless. Formula One is about to choke on the halo when 2018 hits, and Formula E will become the new top dog. Unless of course Formula E makes that same halo error. If that happens, IndyCar wins.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Rinax89

    Rinax89

    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +4
    I for one would love to see a return to V8 , V10, V12 NA engines, but I guess it is merely wishful thinking at this point.

    In season testing, refueling, and more than one tyre company, like the old days; the latter two can provide for interesting strategies in the race between stints - cars can find their sweet spot in different points of the race.

    Reducing costs can ultimately entice new teams to join in, but honestly, I don't mind having 10 teams with a higher cap, just to make better engines for way better racing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. wombat999

    wombat999
    Premium

    Messages:
    140
    Ratings:
    +99
    Totally underwhelmed!
    As for 'cutting edge' technology, it's not.
    Aero is ridiculous and negates mechanical grip, restrictions on engines strangles innovation.
    The turbo era did a great deal for fuel efficient power plants (as did Croup C) by restricting fuel quantities season by season.
    Aside from the 'one set of regulations to rule them all' which doesn't work, reducing aerodynamics would save millions and concentration on mechanical grip would vastly improve racing.
    The 'pinnacle of motorsport engineering' disallows Turbines, Rotary engines, diverse engine configurations and more thermal efficient solutions than I have time to cover.
    'New' regulations three years off?
    Epic fail.
    :roflmao:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Rob

    Rob
    XBO: OctoberDusk06 Premium

    Messages:
    8,464
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    Bang on. It's not rocket science. All you have to do, like IndyCar will see next year, is introduce ground effects (get rid of that "legality" plank) and that combines two elements that F1 desires...innovation and the ability to race close behind. Is there any rationale for not allowing ground effects besides the FIA who may think they can't police them?

    Another dead accurate comment. Refueling adds so so much to a race and the strategy if you limit the tanks. Tire choice is limited 100% by kickback/insider deals that reward the monopoly tire company. Ever notice how many Pirelli ads you see at every track? That's not promotion, that's censorship and anti-competition. Tires and fuel shoudl be the first things they chance. Great point. NASCAR and IndyCar are guilty of the same tire folly.

    NASCAR ruined themselves by abandoning the core base of short tracks and southern US races. Plus a million other things. True, they still have primitive equipment, but nobody in their right mind equates a car running in NASCAR with showroom. They aren't even close. In fact, a Toyota in NASCAR is almost identical to a Ford because of the spec rules. Plus, NASCAR has sold out in other ways. NASCAR cars bear no resemblance to what you can buy in the showroom.

    You have to either (F1) relax the rules and let the best man win or create more of a spec car that still retains the awesome technical advantage and speed F1 is known for. They could do either in a heartbeat.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. wombat999

    wombat999
    Premium

    Messages:
    140
    Ratings:
    +99
    Q:Is there any rationale for not allowing ground effects besides the FIA who may think they can't police them?:U/Q.
    Actually Rob, there is.
    "Ground Effects" are part of the Aero debacle and IIRC contributed to extreme driver discomfort, injury and deaths to both drivers and spectators, aside from being irrelevant to road car development.
    My 40+ year old 911 out handles most current generation road cars and delivers excellent thermal efficiency without any weird aerodynamic tweaks.
    ;)
     
  19. ronniej

    ronniej
    The dude Premium

    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +185
    LOL, sweet sounds of N/A! I actually didn't like it at first, but I do agree with Fuel Injection and could live with it:p
     
  20. Rob

    Rob
    XBO: OctoberDusk06 Premium

    Messages:
    8,464
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    This itself is irrelevant. F1 actually, according to Toto, is the opposite of road car development since it is a spec that is so far distanced from real cars. If a real life Renault failed as much as F1 Renaults do, nobody would buy it.

    I call bullsh*t. Driver discomfort? Injury? Death? Please cite your source. Ground effects, if done right, simply produce downforce that does not deter passing. If it was a death trap, IndyCar would not even consider it, since F1 is like playing tiddlywinks compared to oval racing. You can regulate downforce very easily. The era you are talking about was largely unregulated, and now the FIA does not want to be bothered.

    Spectators are 92% of the time injured by tires and cars that flip. Go to NASCAR and IndyCar to figure out how to prevent that kind of scenario. It's easy...except on ovals, unless you do what NASCAR did (which may out-innovate any series) by deploying roof flaps.IndyCar for next year has done something similar, but not as dramatic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    • Haha Haha x 1