2009 Engine Freeze Relaxation. How will it work?

[donskar]

ESPImperium wrote;

Ferarri: 795 BHp
Mercedies: 785 BHp
BMW: 790 BHp
Toyota: 770 BHp
Renault: 755 BHp
Honda: 745 BHp

From what im also led to belive, and was confirmed at Fuji, that the Ferarri has alot of extra (redundant) horspower at the top end, thus making the Ferarri very fast at the end of long straights, as Kimi showed when challenging Robert in the closing stages for 2nd place.

Redundant horsepower? Sounds like Ron-speak. Can I get some of the leftovers for my lowly 200SX?

Seriously (though it is SO hard to take any of this seriously!) as someone smarter than me has already " is a favorite here in the US, meaning a very "peaky" engine producing great gobs of power from 18,500 - 19,000 might NOT be as fast over a lap as an engine producing a little LESS power from 15,000 - 18,500.

I hope some of you who have gone much further in your engineering education than I managed will also chime in on factors quite distant from electronics - combustion chamber shape, the impact of exhaust tuning, shape, length, and finish of intake and exhaust tracts, and much more.

Finally, and still trying to be serious, it is quite possible through a variety of non-electronic (not controlled by the ECU) means to tune the same engine to optimize it for Monza (HP uber alles) and then re-tune it to make it a better fit for Monaco. Will the FIA look into THAT as well?

Sigh. When I was more active in racing, making MORE HP was a GOOD thing!

[donskar]

SORRY. No, I did not lapse into unconsciousness. That garbled paragraph should read:

Seriously (though it is SO hard to take any of this seriously!) as someone smarter than me has already said, there are many other important factors beyond pure peak HP. "Power under the curve" is a favorite here in the US, meaning, a very "peaky" engine producing great gobs of power from 18,500 - 19,000 might NOT be as fast over a lap as an engine producing a little LESS power from 15,000 - 18,500.

At Monaco you'd want the latter power band; you might prefer the former at Monza.

[WhiteBlue]

Not sure how you'd control power output to X value with the ECU. You can control fuel and spark... but combustion energy of the fuel, combustion efficiency of the chamber, losses... that's all outside the ECU, no?

pretty simple, you need shaft torque sensor though. but for F1 this is small money. Power is the product of rev times torque. Revs they have and torque they can also measure if they want. You can even calibrate it to the deformation of another component which anchors the torque.

[rjsa]

IMO, the whole idea of the engine freeze is stupid, any amendment to it will be as stupid.

[WhiteBlue]

a very valid personal opinion but totally ignorant of what kind of direction F1 wants to achieve. They want those aereas of technical development which help road cars to become more evironmentally friendly. my BMW certainly needs no 25.000 rpm engine that lunches itself after having taken me downtown once. but technologies to strech the limited supply of fossile fuels are very welcome. and most owners want F1 to leave more money in their pockets and give up some of the strange excesses it committs in engineering. fans mostly care about drivers and good racing and for that purpose cars should be more robust aerodynamically and with close performance like we have seen this year as a result of the engine freeze.

[rjsa]

a very valid personal opinion but totally ignorant of what kind of direction F1 wants to achieve. They want those aereas of technical development which help road cars to become more evironmentally friendly. my BMW certainly needs no 25.000 rpm engine that lunches itself after having taken me downtown once. but technologies to strech the limited supply of fossile fuels are very welcome. and most owners want F1 to leave more money in their pockets and give up some of the strange excesses it committs in engineering. fans mostly care about drivers and good racing and for that purpose cars should be more robust aerodynamically and with close performance like we have seen this year as a result of the engine freeze.

Setting a fixed date and saying that from that day on all engine development must stop is not the way to achieve anything. Allowing reliability changes didn't make it better.

The rule intent would result on freezing the difference between teams. It worked even worse. Relaxing it will just shuffle it, next year other guys will be complaining.

It's like to try placing a very heavy cabinet to the milimiter. You push, push, push, nothing happens. Then it goes too much. You push, push, push the other way and it goes too much again.

I can agree with the cost cutting idea, but the freeze is not the answer. And I don't have an answer for it.

EDIT: On the fuel efficient side the ban of the engine freeze and the use of tight, decreasing fuel amounts availiable for the race would make much more sense. And a 4 or 6 races engine.

[ISLAMATRON]

The Freeze is/was the best answer, allowing changes for reliability or cost reduction turned out to be a mistake.

They are currently evaluating increasing the engine life to 3 or 4 races.

And with the power levels pretty much fixed with the engine life the teams are already maximizing fuel effiency. The less weight you carry the faster you go, and fuel weighs.

[rjsa]

I'll kindly disagree. It failed allowing fixes, it would fail if it hadn't. And more mess is to come after Renault & Honda get a free ticket for updates.

[mx_tifoso]

Ron Dennis:

From our point of view, we are completely receptive to giving everybody the opportunity to improve their engines, but whatever the decision is, it should be the same for everybody.

We're not negative to anything, but we are confused by the constant change in message. Are we saving money? Are we having a technological race? On the one hand we've got KERS, on the other we've got engines that are all the same. We're opening up engines that were sealed for five years. It's very confusing.

Change costs money. We've got very good motor racing at the moment. It's so close and the others will catch up. If we have to do things, we'll do them, but let's do them against an absolute background of understanding about what we're doing and why we're doing it, because we're confused."

[donskar]

mx_tifosi, you beat me to it! The entire interview in Autosport.com is well worth reading: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71420.

I've never like Ron D, probably because I spent 20 years in US high tech working with guys who talked like he does, but he makes a lot of sense on this subject. Change costs money. Fluctuation - by which I mean change after change, a state of flux - costs a LOT of money.

And I might ask whiteblue and others, what problem is F1 trying to solve? Focus on these three points if you will. Responses invited:

1) Has there been an outcry that F1 wastes resources? I haven't heard one. Night races use more energy than the race cars. Spectators use more energy than the race cars. The VENDORS use more energy cooking trackside food than the race cars!

2) Has anyone said that F1 technical brainpower is wasted on race car design and instead should be turned toward environmental concerns? I haven't heard that (misguided) comment. I think we'll agree that F1 engineers are NOT specialists in environmental matters.

3) If F1 ceased to exist (ghastly thought!) by what percentage would pollution be reduced? If F1 goes 100% electric, solar-powered or wind-powered, what percentage of petroleum-based fuels would be saved?

Can you REALLY believe that Ron or Max care about ANYTHING more than they care about making more money and gathering more political/organizational power?

[ISLAMATRON]

donskar, you and the people who think like you are the reason the world is in its current financial & environmental crises.

F1 is the world's ultimate R&D arena, does it not make sense to use towards improving fuel effiency in road cars? No the F1 cars do not use alot of fuel over the course of a weekend or even a season for that matter, but they could use alot less and maintain current performance levels, and that exact technology is what is needed throughout the auto industry today. And that is why all the F1 manufacturers are excited about KERS and its future implications.

[modbaraban]

This whole 'freeze relaxation' thing sounds like one of those deseases that people aviod discussing in public It makes just as much sense though... Lately I started laughing more often reading new regs related proposals by FIA in the F1 news sites. If F1 survives this era of senile management it'll survive any economic crysis!

[rjsa]

donskar, you and the people who think like you are the reason the world is in its current financial & environmental crises.

F1 is the world's ultimate R&D arena, does it not make sense to use towards improving fuel effiency in road cars? No the F1 cars do not use alot of fuel over the course of a weekend or even a season for that matter, but they could use alot less and maintain current performance levels, and that exact technology is what is needed throughout the auto industry today. And that is why all the F1 manufacturers are excited about KERS and its future implications.

An engine freeze will not improve fuel efficiency.

Above you wrote teams would work on efficiency after the freeze. No way. You can improve efficiency by improving the engine's thermal efficiency. You can't improve an engine's thermal efficiency if it's development is frozen.

And on the performance side, lets use a hypothetical (and generous) situation when a lap of fuel is worth 0.2" in lap time. One lap of fuel in a 20 lap stint is roughly 5%. So by carrying less 5% of fuel you shave 0.2" of the lap time. If you did carried it and just burned it, you would have 5% more power available, right? 5% of 750hp sums up to 37.5hp. I'm sure 37.5hp will shave much more from the lap time than 0.2". Just look at the RBR/STR very straightforward comparison.

So you can rest assured, no one will carry less fuel over a race distance with the intent of runnig lighter and being faster.

[ISLAMATRON]

An engine freeze will not improve fuel efficiency.

Above you wrote teams would work on efficiency after the freeze. No way. You can improve efficiency by improving the engine's thermal efficiency. You can't improve an engine's thermal efficiency if it's development is frozen.

And on the performance side, lets use a hypothetical (and generous) situation when a lap of fuel is worth 0.2" in lap time. One lap of fuel in a 20 lap stint is roughly 5%. So by carrying less 5% of fuel you shave 0.2" of the lap time. If you did carried it and just burned it, you would have 5% more power available, right? 5% of 750hp sums up to 37.5hp. I'm sure 37.5hp will shave much more from the lap time than 0.2". Just look at the RBR/STR very straightforward comparison.

So you can rest assured, no one will carry less fuel over a race distance with the intent of runnig lighter and being faster.

You are forgetting there are many ways to enhance the fuel effiency of an engine other than changing the internals. Better fuel management & delivery, both of which have been continued under the engine freeze & SECU. The turning off of several cylinders, something first used to overcome overheating problems, but now used behind the safety car to save fuel. And now the joining of the engine with the KERS system, with any excess power the teams may remap the engines to save weight on fuel while making up for it with the energy from KERS. There is only so much power the tires can put down, the teams will choose to put out that power in the most effiencient way. As the battery & flywheel technology advance the teams will require less & less fuel to be carried on board.

And furthermore your simple calculations left out the increased tire degredation from carrying the excess fuel. So at lap 1 the difference maybe 0.2 tenths, but at lap twenty it might be 1 full second or probably more.

[donskar]

donskar, you and the people who think like you are the reason the world is in its current financial & environmental crises.

F1 is the world's ultimate R&D arena, does it not make sense to use towards improving fuel effiency in road cars? No the F1 cars do not use alot of fuel over the course of a weekend or even a season for that matter, but they could use alot less and maintain current performance levels, and that exact technology is what is needed throughout the auto industry today. And that is why all the F1 manufacturers are excited about KERS and its future implications.

I'll refrain from responding except to say that I learned as a college professor that there is no force strong enough to overcome ignorance. You know zero about me; therefore your opinion of me has equal weight - zero.