Adrian Newey on quitting F1

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

@McMrocks

Bang on perfect!

Where did I say I was looking forward fuel consumption? I want engine develpment and freedom for the engineers. That´s what F1 used to be

Can you read or you´re happy criticizing anything I say no matter if you have to invent reasonings like this one or talking about poor africans who are forced to emigrate like on the other thread?

Seriuosly, stop, now.

Just saying ever smaller displacements are an erroneous, purely Eurocentrical view and not a technical veracity. Read SAE papers on technical measures and decisions about efficient engines examples. Except if forced by regulations, they never EVER aim for the smallest size. There's always a sweet spot calculated free from corruptions of freedom and truth such as politics and excess of alternative thought

Engineering became the maximum expression of scientific method nowadays. Other way round world...

[Andres125sx]

Where did I say I was looking forward fuel consumption? I want engine develpment and freedom for the engineers. That´s what F1 used to be

Can you read or you´re happy criticizing anything I say no matter if you have to invent reasonings like this one or talking about poor africans who are forced to emigrate like on the other thread?

Seriuosly, stop, now.

Just saying ever smaller displacements are an erroneous, purely Eurocentrical view and not a technical veracity. Read SAE papers on technical measures and decisions about efficient engines examples.

And you continue insisting on same wrong subject nobody had talked about....

When F1 started to be a competition about efficiency?


Third try, let´s see if this time you get it... I want engine development and freedom for engineers, no efficiency.

Did you get it now or I´ll have to repeat it a fourth one?

What´s technically wrong with that?

Did you realice F1 cars are not american bulky and heavy vans and they weigh below 650kg?

[Richard]

All sport is focussed on efficiency, ie making more of your resources than your opposition. In the case of F1, the goal is to extract minimum time to the chequered flag while staying within the limits of the regulations.

Also I think Agenda's point is that a 1.0 litre engine would be an ineffective use of materials, volume and fuel. Yes it would be technically fun to maximise the output from such a small engine, but it might be sub-optimal for a motorsport application.

[xpensive]

...
Also I think Agenda's point is that a 1.0 litre engine would be an ineffective use of materials, volume and fuel. Yes it would be technically fun to maximise the output from such a small engine, but it might be sub-optimal for a motorsport application.

I could hardly disagree more distinguished moderator, xtracting only 600 Hp from a 1.6 turbo at 10.5 - 15 kRpm is nothing but pathetic, when it could easily deliver twice that. A 1.0 litre turbo engine for 600 hp would be far more efficient in every which way, but this is what you get when you turn F1 into a quasi-endurance championship.

[Andres125sx]

All sport is focussed on efficiency, ie making more of your resources than your opposition. In the case of F1, the goal is to extract minimum time to the chequered flag while staying within the limits of the regulations.

Agree, but there are many regulations that go against efficiency, they only try to equal team perfomances and avoid too high perfomances that may be dangerous

Tyre size is an example, they´re not best efficiency wise. Smaller engines would be the same

Also I think Agenda's point is that a 1.0 litre engine would be an ineffective use of materials, volume and fuel. Yes it would be technically fun to maximise the output from such a small engine, but it might be sub-optimal for a motorsport application.

May I ask the reason?

An unlimited 1.0 turbo engine may easily outperform current 1.6 turbo engines wich are limited every way, turbo, valves, displacement, fuel... Every single part is limited

Most powerful F1 engines ever were 1.5 turbo in the 80´s. 25 years later engines can provide much more power, so if FIA want to keep total power under 1000hp I don´t understand why reducing engine size would be sub-optimal. It would be normal evolution to keep power at desired level

Even if that´s not best size, they would allow much more development, and to me that´s much more important for a motorsport application than using most efficient engine size

Motorsport applications try to make the most of every single part, as Expensive stated, using 1.6 turbo engines to provide 600hp is quite far from using that engine to its max.

Anycase I said 1.0, but they could be 1.2 or wathever size that allow more freedom for the engineers and staying within logical power levels

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

I could hardly disagree more distinguished moderator, xtracting only 600 Hp from a 1.6 turbo at 10.5 - 15 kRpm is nothing but pathetic, when it could easily deliver twice that. A 1.0 litre turbo engine for 600 hp would be far more efficient in every which way, but this is what you get when you turn F1 into a quasi-endurance championship.

A Lancer Evolution may extract 900hp from a mere 2 liter displacement. All the catch resides in the fact no one reaches that without abandoning driveabilily. Useful for drag only

All things considered, they could reach 800 or more hp out of a 1 liter for sure. Were they going to choose that displacement for that amount of horsepower? Probably no, unless regulations enforced that measure

Even sending fuel efficiency to bollocks, an optimal measure for displacement still exists

An unlimited 1.0 turbo engine may easily outperform current 1.6 turbo engines wich are limited every way, turbo, valves, displacement, fuel... Every single part is limited

[...]

Even if that´s not best size, they would allow much more development, and to me that´s much more important for a motorsport application than using most efficient engine size

[...]

Anycase I said 1.0, but they could be 1.2 or wathever size that allow more freedom for the engineers and staying within logical power levels

That's a surprise

Weren't aware you were focusing on engineering freedom. Then you are correct, a smaller engine (along with unlimited rules) would be better and loads more fun for everyone.

There's still an optimal size even then. Maybe FIA should agree on a maximum horsepower (around 900 to 1000 for safety maybe? or elevate crash protection and allow 1200...) and establish a maximum size for the engine based on that along with teams agreement.

Always have in mind 650 kg lacks around 50 kg to reach a Citroen AX mass. The cars are not that light anymore that a motorbike engine (1000 cm³ and under) would be the best choice

Unless they come up with some new tech that changes all. Making an 1 liter turbo/hybrid with enough power all the rev range so that at all times it surpasses the current 1.6 liter. That would be awesome and allow such an small engine to be adequate!

[Andres125sx]

Weren´t aware I was focusing on engineering freedom???

First

...to keep same power level without artificial restrictions like fuel flow limits, the only way is reducing engine size. Then there could be a lot more freedom for the engineers

Second try

Where did I say I was looking forward fuel consumption? I want engine develpment and freedom for the engineers. That´s what F1 used to be

Third

Third try, let´s see if this time you get it... I want engine development and freedom for engineers, no efficiency.

Did you get it now or I´ll have to repeat it a fourth one?

And looks like I had to repeat it a fourth one for you to realice....

Even if that´s not best size, they would allow much more development, and to me that´s much more important for a motorsport application than using most efficient engine size

And then....

That's a surprise

Weren't aware you were focusing on engineering freedom. Then you are correct, a smaller engine (along with unlimited rules) would be better and loads more fun for everyone.

Finally! =D> =D>

[Andres125sx]

Always have in mind 650 kg lacks around 50 kg to reach a Citroen AX mass. The cars are not that light anymore that a motorbike engine (1000 cm³ and under) would be the best choice

But a F1 car is actually lighter than a Citroen AX!

We´re talking about F1 engines, aren´t we?

Unless they come up with some new tech that changes all. Making an 1 liter turbo/hybrid with enough power all the rev range so that at all times it surpasses the current 1.6 liter. That would be awesome and allow such an small engine to be adequate!

V8 didn´t have more power all the rev range than current 1.6 turbos, so I don´t see the necessity for that with some smaller engine.

If 1.0 is too small, then 1.2, but what I see completely absurd is using 1.6 turbos limited to provide less power than 1.5 turbos from 80´s. F1 used to be pinnacle of something (can´t remind what ) but these engines, even when they´re pretty awesome efficiency wise, power/litre ratio (don´t know the english term) is pathetic, 25 years back it was much better, smaller engines and more powerful

I also think efficiency is important, but not that much to use engines so limited a smaller engine 25 years old would outperform them

[langwadt]

...
Also I think Agenda's point is that a 1.0 litre engine would be an ineffective use of materials, volume and fuel. Yes it would be technically fun to maximise the output from such a small engine, but it might be sub-optimal for a motorsport application.

I could hardly disagree more distinguished moderator, xtracting only 600 Hp from a 1.6 turbo at 10.5 - 15 kRpm is nothing but pathetic, when it could easily deliver twice that. A 1.0 litre turbo engine for 600 hp would be far more efficient in every which way, but this is what you get when you turn F1 into a quasi-endurance championship.

yeh, look at wtcc, also 1600cc direct injected turbos, minimum weight ~80kg, if what you can read is to be believed they are close to ~380hp@6000rpm

[Pingguest]

What would be wrong about the FIA limiting the engine power in terms of an absolute bhp-limit and letting the entire drivetrain free? Of course, it might be difficult to enforce but in principe I fail to see any objection.

[Cold Fussion]

I don't think it's possible to enforce, but in principal it is just taking the current formula and looking at it backwards. In a power limited formula, fuel efficiency would save you fuel weight and thus drive performance to look for that efficiency. In a fuel rate limited formula like we have now, fuel efficiency would push you for higher efficiency in search of more power. If you had purely a limit on peak power, it would also potentially push the designers into producing constant power engines, and then doing away with the gearbox entirely. This may not desirable from the viewers stand point, as the shifting aspect may be part of the spectacle.

[andartop]

I'm not an engineer, but here's a crazy idea: if F1 is after efficiency, how about ensuring no radical rule changes over a few years at a time, and in between allowing teams to test and develop their engines and cars? I mean, is it possible that something like this might even allow teams to play catch up and close the gap to the front since there will be diminishing returns for further development of a given design the closer it gets to maximum performance? And while at it, how about getting rid of all the silly KERS, ERS, DRS etc.? Thanks.

[Andres125sx]

What would be wrong about the FIA limiting the engine power in terms of an absolute bhp-limit and letting the entire drivetrain free? Of course, it might be difficult to enforce but in principe I fail to see any objection.

Theoretically, nice

Practically.... How would you prevent from different mappings? One for homologation, another one for race/qualifying.

I´m not an expert, but I think engine mappings is quite difficult to control, you can program something wich only is active after some procedure (push button C while turning knob B three positions ccw). If you´re not the programer or know the procedure, you simply can´t know that option exist, thus FIA couldn´t control if the measured power is the power provided in race

[thedutchguy]

I don't think that measuring engine output it that difficult at all. There are very good non-contact torque sensors (already occasionally used during testing) which can be mounted on the drive shafts leading to the rear wheels. If you know torque and RPM, calculating (engine) power is easy. Just have the measurements done in real time during the races, and there will be no way to cheat.

http://articles.sae.org/5872/

[acosmichippo]

...xtracting only 600 Hp from a 1.6 turbo at 10.5 - 15 kRpm is nothing but pathetic, when it could easily deliver twice that.

Not when the engines have to last 5 races. Let's not forget that the 1.5L turbos in the 80's were dead after one race, and they even had separate qualifying engines. There is less sponsorship (no tobacco), and more GP's than the 80's. Costs need to be reduced, therefore higher part reusability, therefore fewer RPM's, therefore higher displacement. So the formula isn't a simple design choice, but an economic one.