question about engines and the two race / engine rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter qwazy|06
  • 19 comments
  • 710 views
Q

qwazy|06

Messages
120
if so many teams are having this problem with developing an engine to last two race weekends (practice, qualy and race), why dont they develope the engine to last more km's?

i understand that it's not as easy "add water and stir" but if people are saying that they're having trouble lasting the two weekends, they cant do too many laps in practice, they dont wanna spend km's during qualifying, etc., why not just develope the engine to last that much longer?

i obviously dont know the in's and out's of engine development so i'm hoping someone can inform on what the performance drop off might be if they were to extend their engines out a little longer.

hypothetical; what's more advantageous?

develop an engine for the absolute bare minimum of km's for two race weekends, do limited amounts of practice laps, scratch for km's for qualifying and then babysit the engine on it's 2nd race lifeplan?

or

develop an engine that could last three race weekends, have a comfortable amount of left over km's so you can run any needed laps in practice, be comfortable running in qualifying and not have to worry about blowing your engine on race 2?
 
As you've already pointed out, it's not as easy as some engineers turning up at work and saying "I think we should make this engine more reliable". It would, of course, be relatively easy to make an F1 engine last 3 races (or 30 for that matter), but to get reliability AND performance is the goal. If a team goes conserative on engine design and works well within the tolerances of the engine they'll be a long way behind the more radical teams in terms of performance and they still run the risk of having problems (Ferrari's engine problem has been widely reported as being caused by the piston rings, not necessarily because they're pushing the engine too far in terms of revs).

I reckon it'd be pretty hard to put actual numbers to the amount of performance lost by being more conservative, F1 is generally fairly secretive about actual power outputs or rev-limits (unless you're Honda trying to show off with 1000bhp last year or Cosworth saying you're revving to 20,000+rpm this year).

In answer to your hypothetical question, in the real world I'd choose option 1. The pace in the second of the two required races isn't compromised that much and the overall performance level of the engine will be very high on average across the two races. In fantasy land I'd choose the second option. I wany my engine to be as strong as possible but also have all the performance it's possible to get from the current format (and a little more), but that's not going to happen. Teams don't have unlimited budgets and the engine package is only one portion of car development. They have to spend time on aero packages, tyres, chassis development, gearbox, suspension etc...
 
i think its not that easy. Its not only the engine you have to think about but you have some parts that maybe not can do many mileage as the engine and every team is improving race after race, so you have to keep up.

that's what i think:)
 
Think about this: from 2003 to 2005 engine mileage was increased by over 400%, yet, engine performance was still increased.
 
qwazy|06
if so many teams are having this problem with developing an engine to last two race weekends (practice, qualy and race), why dont they develope the engine to last more km's?
Click to expand...

Imagine the following line:

Code: 
Performance: 100% __________________________________________   0%
  Longevity:   0%                                            100%


Where do you put your marker down?
 
I'd go 65% power, 35% longevity personally.

Also another matter of trying to design a more reliable engine whilst maintaining or even incresing the performance is the teams budget. Teams like Midland and SA will probably only have 1 engine upgrade all season.

Toyota had loads last year as did BAR/Honda.
 
Well, as Colin Chapman used to say: if it doesn't break down on the slowing down lap then it's over-engineered.

There haven't actually been that many failures. One of the Cosworths, four Ferraris (across both teams), one Toyota, and two BMWs isn't a huge amount for a new formula. Although I reserve judgement on Mark Webber's Malaysia retirement: I'm usually quite sceptical with smoky hydraulics failures.
 
We might also point out that the original stated purpose of the rule was to cut costs. Teams would run sometimes 3 or 4 engines in a car over a race weekend, and a team with a big enough budget treated them as disposable. Whether costs are actually being cut is debatable, though. Those who supposedly know say that the per-engine cost is through the roof because of the enormous expense of ultra-fine tolerances, hand-matching components, tossing marginal parts which would be useful in a short-life engine, etc. So, you have one VERY expensive engine for two weekends (with a qualifying penalty if it doesn't make it), or use less expensive engines as needed and nobody cares.

Then again, that would be the position you would take if you were a big-budget team wanting disposable engines, isn't it?

Personally, I have never liked the durability rule.

To the thread starter's question, they are trying to develop longer-lasting engines, but they are completely unwilling to sacrifice performance. RPM=horsepower, simple as that, and incredible RPMs shake things loose sometimes. Steve Matchett, technical commentator on Speed TVs F1 coverage here in the US, points out that the old V-10s had a vibration peak at about 16000 RPM, and would smooth out after that, while the V8 just gets worse and worse with revs. Thus you end up with conflicting engineering goals: you need revs for competitive horsepower, but revs will destroy the engine.
 
This leads to an interesting point. McLaren-Mercedes no longer have a 3rd driver so Kimi and JPM would have to run more laps right, (set up, testing the car, evaluating systems, tyre evaluations)??? So their engines should theoretically have to last slightly longer than say a team who has a 3rd driver and can afford to keep their cars in the garage and save mileage on them.

The slightest percentage of performance matters. Wasn't Minardi 6% behind compared to say Ferrari or something(don't hold me to it)?
 
Back in the 80s, during the turbo era, it wasn't uncommon for teams to have engines for qualifying only - an engine that will provide insane performance (something like 1500hp?), but will only last for 3 laps. Then they'd put a race engine in, which would produce less power but would last a race distance.

Last year, Mclaren had the faster, less reliable engine, and Renault the slower but reliable power plant. Mclaren were constantly faster all season, but Renault built up an uncatchable lead over the first 4 races whilst Mclaren sat smoking on the side of the track.

Another demonstration of the speed/lifespan compramise were the tyres last year. Michelin were much more on the edge than Bridgestone, who were relitively conservative; as a result, the Michelins were ususally faster, but more prone to punctures, as shown at Indianapolis.

I think all the teams would like to have Option 2, but it would be too costly in terms of performance and time, so everyone has an Option 1 engine; just some are further along Giles's performance/longevity line than others.
 
Yeah you're so-so right about the Michelin vs Bridgestone point. Bridgestone have always been extremely conservative and regardless of the US GP you cannot argue that Bridgestone totally had been humiliated.

With regards to the Renault vs Mercedes thing I think it's a bit harder to tell. My feeling is that Renault deserved the constructors. They really built a good car, Japan and Shanghai last year showed what the Renault could do when Alonso unleashed it. Half the time he was nursing the car, pretty much like he did in Malaysia. We have to admit that Alonso and Renault have an extremely smart strategy and are very competitive.

If I was working at the Enstone(sp) factory I'd be really disheartened at how people refer to last year as how "Kimi/McLaren-Merecedes lost the title" instead of how "Alonso/Renault won the title with wits and sheer brilliance".
 
GilesGuthrie
Imagine the following line:

Code: 
Performance: 100% __________________________________________   0%
  Longevity:   0%                                            100%


Where do you put your marker down?
Click to expand...

so pretty much you cant have your cake and eat it too? :P
 
You should also consider that the V8 engines are all new. The V10 from last season was honed race by race, so they all were fairly reliable in the end. The V8s have to gain that status, there have only been two race weekends yet. I guess some teams will at least need a season and the time between this and next season to make their enigne last long enough.

Additionally, the first two races both were under very warm conditions, putting an even higher load on the engines. That's why there have been so many engine changes and failures.

Regards
the Interceptor
 
As most people have said, the amount of power the engine is putting out can affect the reliabilty. As an average rule, the V8's are down about 200hp on the V10's. If we take Honda's 1000hp V10 and assume it becomes an 800hp 2.4L V8, we get an enine that's producing 100hp per cylinder, or 333hp per litre, which is a rather large amount of stress on the engine, especially if its revving close to 20,000RPM. :)

*edit* For comparison, the Bugatti Veyron produces a comparatively paltry 125hp/litre. (approx.)
 
jammyozzy
As most people have said, the amount of power the engine is putting out can affect the reliabilty. As an average rule, the V8's are down about 200hp on the V10's. If we take Honda's 1000hp V10 and assume it becomes an 800hp 2.4L V8, we get an enine that's producing 100hp per cylinder, or 333hp per litre, which is a rather large amount of stress on the engine, especially if its revving close to 20,000RPM. :)
Click to expand...


good example, you cleared some good things for me:) 👍
 
What about rulemaker-set rev limiters?

I've always thought that F1 needed a stricter set of rules when it came to engines. I think we could make them more mechanical, and then we'd be rid of Traction Control and other contreversies.

the other thing, and this might force guys to limit revs more, is to use a bigger engine with fewer cylinders. A 3.0L V8 (Like in the IRL, which mght make for an interesting cross-pollination....) can't rev as hard as a 3.0L V-10, because they have bigger pistons and rods.

another idea to slow down the engines, along the increased-displacement lines of thought, could be a minimum limit on piston stroke.
 
GilesGuthrie
Imagine the following line:

Code: 
Performance: 100% __________________________________________   0%
  Longevity:   0%                                            100%


Where do you put your marker down?
Click to expand...
Where is the 1600km mark?

That’s two races with plenty of room for any running you’d like to do in any session. That is all the longevity you’d ever need—but we both know it isn’t going to deliver 0% power. ;)
 
Jim Prower
What about rulemaker-set rev limiters?

I've always thought that F1 needed a stricter set of rules when it came to engines. I think we could make them more mechanical, and then we'd be rid of Traction Control and other contreversies.

the other thing, and this might force guys to limit revs more, is to use a bigger engine with fewer cylinders. A 3.0L V8 (Like in the IRL, which mght make for an interesting cross-pollination....) can't rev as hard as a 3.0L V-10, because they have bigger pistons and rods.

another idea to slow down the engines, along the increased-displacement lines of thought, could be a minimum limit on piston stroke.
Click to expand...

I don't like it when people say such-and-such performance specification should be limited (nothing personal ! ! !). Formula One is supposed to be absolutely on-the-edge racing technology. Design constraints in the rules should be limited to things like capacities, weight, dimensions, etc., which are all regulated. Performance rules don't have any place in an "unlimited" formula.

On the other hand (and completely off-topic for engine rules, but it could become rules in general. . . . .), if you want more competitive racing, implement the following:

Metal brake discs. Overtaking is impossible because out-braking is so difficult. You can't brake a car length or two deeper, because the total length of the braking zone is too short. (I guess you could say the ratio of car length to braking distance is too high.) By lengthening the braking distances, you'll get more braking dives to pass. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you'd get much more of it.
Maximum spring rate. The car should settle a minimum distance per unit of weight applied. How the designer balances ride height and downforce would be up to him, but softening the suspensions would result in a downforce limit.
Free engine rules, with only displacement specified, i.e. any 3-liter, or any 2.5-liter. Let them bring 8s, 10s, 12s, flat, V, inline, whatever. If you HAVE to limit revs, then specify springs in the valvetrain rather than pneumatics. That's one thing I really liked about the engines up to the start of the turbo era in the 80s, was that so many types of engines were at every race.
 
Jim Prower, bore and stroke are fixed in F1 engine specification.

wfooshee, the metal brake discs theory has been disproved. An F1 car will stop with metal discs just as quickly as it will with carbon discs. They use carbon discs because of the unsprung weight advantage. The reason F1 cars stop so much faster than any other single seater is their combination of high downforce and low mass.

I've heard this idea of "free" engine formulae kicked about for a while. It was binned when the manufacturers signed a Memorandum of Understanding in about 1997 that said that they would only develop V10s to cut costs.
 
GilesGuthrie
the metal brake discs theory has been disproved. An F1 car will stop with metal discs just as quickly as it will with carbon discs. They use carbon discs because of the unsprung weight advantage. The reason F1 cars stop so much faster than any other single seater is their combination of high downforce and low mass.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that, but that doesn't mean anything really. Since braking force is determined by the tire's grip, it's probably true - for a stop or two. Even so, they won't shed heat as fast as carbon brakes will. Yes, the brakes are unbelievably lighter, but cast iron just doesn't have the heat capacity of the carbon discs. I think the brakes would have to be managed better by the driver to get through a race. I certainly wouldn't want it to become a safety issue (the entire field has no brakes after seven laps!) but I think bringing the braking power down to earth would increase passing in F1.

(I know, I just said I don't like limiting performance. I don't. the suggestion was to increase passing opportunities.)
 

Latest Posts

Back