Is Engine Parity Necessary for 2010?
This week’s Thursday Thoughts looks at the issue of engine parity, a particularly pressing question for Red Bull as they continue to debate the relevant merits of their current Renault engine and those of Mercedes and Cosworth. A recent article on Auto Motor und Sport highlighted the differences with Mercedes being reckoned to be almost 2.5% more powerful than the least powerful engine, that of Toyota. That equates to around 18 hp or something like 3 tenths of a second per lap.
Is parity an achievable goal?
Take the power, it is certainly possible to either reduce the top performers or to allow the stragglers room to catch up. However, there is also the question of how that power is delivered and the torque curves. With the stop-start nature of the street circuits which are currently dominating the calendar, low-end torque to accelerate the car is as important, if not more so, as the theoretical maximum that is achievable.
On the other hand, while McLaren, closely followed by BMW, topped the power league, Renault produced the least thirsty power unit. Estimates, rather conveniently, put the advantage as again 3 tenths of a second per lap over the Mercedes engine. Therefore, surely economy also has to be factored into any consideration of engine parity?
The winners and losers
With the two conflicting sides of economy versus power represented by Renault and Mercedes respectively, there may not be a lot to choose between the two. Therefore, with BMW and Toyota out of the equation, the losers in this debate are Ferrari: A bit more power than Renault but the thirstiest of the three. If Ferrari can’t motivate everyone to tackle the problem, nobody can but how? They need more power AND improved fuel economy – hardly ideal bed fellows. The joker in the pack is of course Cosworth and unrestrained by the development freeze, who knows what they’ll turn up with. Cosworth is believed to be quoting a figure of 770hp, which will give them a similar advantage over Mercedes as the German manufacturer enjoyed over Toyota. Can they manage the fuel economy to match though? And how reliable will the unit be?
Is engine parity necessary for 2010?
With only three engines remaining from the current season, I’d suggest not, especially as the poorest, Toyota, is already out of the equation. Similar steps were attempted last year and the fact this is being debated says they never worked. Moreover, the refuelling ban is going to shift the balance towards fuel economy anyway. However, crucially for me, Cosworth will escape the whole process in any case, and on that basis it seems better to leave the process for another year and tackle all the engines, once they have had a chance to fully assess the benefit of an economical engine.
Still, that presumes they can equalise the engines or, more accurately, agree a way and means of doing so.
Why not keep things simple?
There was a 195 litre rule a long while back, cannot remember the year, but I do remember a few drivers (Senna included) who would run out on the final lap!
If that were to be the target, fuel efficiency would become top dog, and that would be worthy of translating into road cars. That is another F1 goal that is touted but seldom achieved, transfer of knowledge.
If the energy in the fuel is limited to a set amount per race, say equivalent to an ideal MPG value, the engine must then become more frugal, yet still deliver power and torque to suit the demands of the circuit.
Would that not then become self regulating but still allow engineering freedom? I am not sure what lifted the 195 litre rule, perhaps I can be enlightened there. Pitot(Quote)
It’s a reasonable suggestion, but it needs tying in with KERS and a whole new engine design so we’re talking 2012 really.
That said, I always found it frustrating watching drivers run out of fuel a few laps from the end. Maverick(Quote)
Okay, maybe I am about to say something silly (what’s new I hear you say) but if engines were to become standardised so that they actually were equal in power output and fuel efficiency wouldn’t the teams just find another way to make performance differences possible? By that I mean engine oils, differences in fuel composition etc or are those already standardised?
There must be some differences before sponsors like Mobil and Shell make a big fuss about their involvement in Formula One. So, would proper engine homologation require more than just engine equalisation and if they did go down that route, what’s in it for a team like Ferrari or Mercedes GP who use the sport to promote their cars and engines? saltire(Quote)
Saltire is spot on with the ‘develop somewhere else’. It has already happened. Mario Ilien was the first designer to offload the alternator to allow more of the engine power through to the gearbox, the microstructure of materials is considered to keep strength in the desired directions, just as the weave of the carbon fibres are. When the engine freeze came in, they started looking at the ancilliaries and exhaust in ever finer detail. Engineers are, and hopefully always will be, full of innovations to obviate the restrictions of rules. The fewer the rules, the fewer the loopholes, the more scope for good ideas to flourish.
I don’t believe oils or fuel are standardised to the extent that they are the same across all teams, but the fuel at least must match a sample submitted at the start of the season. If standardisation goes to the ridiculous extreme, why would sponsors remain? That is the argument from Michelin for staying out of F1, no competitor, no competition against whom to prove yourself = no point! Pitot(Quote)
Fuels standardised? They actually tune them to match the circuit characteristics within the limits allowed. Maverick(Quote)
I feel the most worrying part is that in 2009 it was all Aero’s Squabbling that made the difference if the Engine is wrong at start of race season 2010 then there is not a lot that you can do to fix it until 2011 …. and the Engine is going to be I think one key lottery ticket if you go with Mercedes there’s lot of teams going to be in that band some with large bank rolls hence finding advantage away from that group is a benefit (if indeed there is a better engine package out there) … From all Engines on offer if Renault 1000% commit id pick that one for next year myself Strekys(Quote)
@Pitot
The 195 litre rule was in the turbo days, and was a method to restrict performance. Very simple, very effective.
This fuel limit only applied to turbocharged cars though, normally-aspirated cars could use as much fuel as they could fit into their car, as a way of trying to equalise things and ease the transition into the new normally-aspirated era (turbos were banned after 1988).
I understand that the fuel limit was 220 litres in 1986, 195 litres in 1987, and 150 litres in 1988. In certain races in 2009, cars used up to 225 litres: 50% more than in 1988. After 20 years, is that progress?
Why were turbos banned? To “reduce costs”. Hmmmmm. Increasing the horsepower on a turbo car is relatively easy – you just increase the boost pressure. Increasing the horsepower on a n/a car is a lot harder and so much more expensive, often requiring a major redesign.
So we went from efficient turbo engines (sometimes produced by independents like Motori Moderni and Zakspeed, and costing maybe $1m for a season – can you imagine that today?) to major car companies spending umpteen tens of millions a year on engines, and using way more fuel in the process.
The best thing they could do is bring the turbos back, as they have even more relevence to today’s road cars (almost every manufacturer who has a car in the “Golf” class now uses a 1.4 turbo that produces more power than a 2.0 n/a but with better economy) Pitmonster(Quote)
@PM
Ah, the sliding scale for fuel. It all comes flooding back!
They also used the fuel as a coolant too as I recall. Just pump it in and take away energy.. What a world, eh?
I don’t suppose a 2.4L v8 diesel would be on the cards from VW in 2012 would it? Was it Audi or Peugeot who blitzed Mans with a diesel entry?
The way I was looking at the engine parity thing, is not so much restrict the output (difficult to quantify which parameter is best), so much as restrict the input (fuel weight is easy). If the fuel is standardised, the total energy per Kg would be all the designers have to work on. If a turbo engine is more efficient in terms of MPG, it should also be more efficient in terms of emissions, both very useful to road cars. What should the FIA be thinking about here? As Patrick Head says, the rule makers should make rules that encourage innovations that are just as useful on the track as they could be on the road.
So, getting back to parity, if we use BHP, and also assuming the engine is down to minimum design weight, fuel efficiency becomes a fairly high priority. However, torque is also very desirable (probably more so on Tilke-tracks), so will we see higher torque engines with less BHP being produced with the whole season in mind?
Not a lot is said about torque in F1 these days. Maybe the commentators think Joe Public knows nothing about torque and only understands red-line BHP!
One other thing about any parity (engines or anything else) is the very first rule of F1. The team shall produce its own chassis. That infers absolute individuality, which is poles apart from parity. So the team makes the best of what is in the rules it it’s own way. That is the main reason I like F1, it is a Team Championship as well as a Driver Championship, all done with prototype vehicles, and a few prototype drivers.
On the turbo front, The Astra 1.7cdti common rail produces the same BHP as the 2.0dti in the previous model, both turbo too! Torque isn’t the same though. Pitot(Quote)
@PM
You got my vote at bringing turbos back .. they should never have been taken off in first place Strekys(Quote)