Williams F1

Though this is discussed on other thread, I thought maybe it deserves a new one.

So what we've learnt about the new concept is :

-Revs. limit would be increased 3000rpm to create a louder engine.
-MGUH-H will be removed.
-MGU-K will get stronger.
-There would be a bigger storage for hybrid power, drivers can keep the energy for a number of laps to use it at once on a desired occasion.
-Turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits.
-Mercedes looks to be against it.
_Renault is not impressed either.

-------------------------------------------

To me, the changes are good ones.Specially the one about usage of MGU-K power which will give possibility of removing DRS for overtaking.
Both Toto and Abiteboul comments (not only their concepts are against each other), sound lame.Abiteboul says removing revs. limit completely and fuel qty too.Toto says keeping current form cause higher revs. means more fuel and more weight on already heavy cars.though he does not mention removing MGU-H motor will save some weight and also there are pointing at weight limits on some parts.
All in all, to me, though I would like to see engines without a revs. limit back, the new form looks quite exciting and between Toto/Abiteboul vs. Brawn, I will always take Ross' opinion on racing rules.

---

Quote:

Mehryar
Though this is discussed on other thread, I thought maybe it deserves a new one.
So what we've learnt about the new concept is :

-Revs. limit would be increased 3000rpm to create a louder engine.
-MGUH-H will be removed.
-MGU-K will get stronger.
-There would be a bigger storage for hybrid power, drivers can keep the energy for a number of laps to use it at once on a desired occasion.
-Turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits.
-Mercedes looks to be against it.
_Renault is not impressed either.

-------------------------------------------

To me, the changes are good ones.Specially the one about usage of MGU-K power which will give possibility of removing DRS for overtaking.
Both Toto and Abiteboul comments (not only their concepts are against each other), sound lame.Abiteboul says removing revs. limit completely and fuel qty too.Toto says keeping current form cause higher revs. means more fuel and more weight on already heavy cars.though he does not mention removing MGU-H motor will save some weight and also there are pointing at weight limits on some parts.
All in all, to me, though I would like to see engines without a revs. limit back, the new form looks quite exciting and between Toto/Abiteboul vs. Brawn, I will always take Ross' opinion on racing rules.

In the paper it looks good Mehryar DRS removal is still not on the proposal, it does make races a bit more artificial and requires less effort from the drivers to overtake.

Louder engines it's essential to F1.

---

I do feel as though the 'scant detail' means that there is a lot still up for grabs and that mercedes/ferrari are not going to simply lie back and enjoy themselves. If we take the proposed increase in permitted rpm, it is woolly. They say an increase of 3000rpm? We currently have a 15000K limit that never gets achieved because the fuel flow limitation means that the torque curve is reached at approx 11000rpm. Why haven't they simply said that the new limit will be 18000rpm? There is reason to think that we may be looking at 11000rpm with an additional 3000rpm taking it up to approx 14000rpm.Less than they started with. To achieve this they will have to lift the fuel levels and the fuel flow rate. One of the biggest stumbling blocks was, i believe the MGH-H which is the prize in mercedes PU's. It has been rumoured that Mercedes were requested to have that unit become a standard item supplied by mercedes to all teams but they refused so it was eliminated. Mercedes will fight this direction i believe and i wouldn't be surprised to see in back in play over the next 6 months or so. What has been announced is, IMO, only a very sketchy outline.

So what is Williams long term engine plans, are they going to stick with Mercedes engines or look elsewhere?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2017 04:13 by Carbon Industries.

ATPIT...why would Williams even consider changing engine suppliers? The mercedes engine is the cream of the crop and has been for the past four years. There is no reason to assume that it won't continiue to dominate for the next three years either. William's problems are not hiding behind the driver.

I have noticed stories on the internet saying that teams are not happy and are not liking the 2021 engine rules.

Honestly K1, did you believe your own tripe about engines actually reducing in revs? You are daft if you did. You much have been joking around right?

---

Obviously you haven't read my post thoroughly otherwise you wouldn't post such nonsense. Kindly show us all, the evidence that Ross Brawn [anyone] has actually said that the max rev limits have been reset at 18000 RPM. That is what i alluded to in my post.

K1, your point is well known about the problem with turbo efficiency rpm, so I wonder if Ross and his team are not aware of that and introduce a 3000rpm increase without finding a way to cure that.
The fact is after a long time, someone is taking decisions who is not looking for benefit of his own team, knows the sport to the bone and addresses weight of cars, aerodynamics, high price/low sound engines and drs as problems of the current formula...so, no I'm not as pessimistic as you when I read through his ideas.

---

@ Mehryar, thanks for the response and your comments. Basically what i was saying was 'why didn't Brawn simply say that they have increased the RPM limit from 15000 to 18000? To obfuscate by saying an additional 3000RPM engine speed seems to be a rather clunky statement from such an F1 luminary. As for all the other changes posited i am wary as to the ability of Liberty to really take on the Manu's and deliver. The MGU-H is a perfect case in point. That little gem is fundamental to Mercedes staggering performance advantage, or so i'm led to believe. One noted journal said that Mercedes had been requested to agree with making it an ECU like 'standard' item and Mercedes would be required to supply it equally to all teams. Naturally they declined. Liberty then deleted it as a part of the new engine specs. I am not so enthusiastic as some as i believe that the final product will change dramatically from what we've just seen.The manufacturers wield massive strength and Liberty will be fully aware that once the current Concorde expires they will have to face the possibility of a diminished business if the manufacturers play hardball.

Ffs, an increase is an increase. It is for noise. They would harldy decrease. And ther is no way they will give away detail in case somebody starts working on something.

---

Simplifying engines in F1 will take away power from engine manufacturers teams and get their muscle controlled. It's a good thing for F1!

Double FFS...where did i suggest a decrease? You really are a total pain in the A$$, If the new max is 18000 then say so.That is simply all i'm saying. When you show me a confirmation of that figure then we can close the issue. Until then keep your tripe to yourself you ill mannered moron.

Quote:

Duffer
Ffs, an increase is an increase. It is for noise. They would harldy decrease. And ther is no way they will give away detail in case somebody starts working on something.

Duff, the engines are already regulated at a maximum of 15.000rpm at this moment. Name me one time where you have seen an overlay on TV showing that they actually hit 15.000rpm.
They are not because the maximum is 12.000rpm. The reason why is what K1 has said. But also the maximum fuel flow of 100kg/hr. That is one of your main culprits. Ban the fuel limitation in total and you will get noise. Even with these current engines.

---

In any case, turbo charged engines will be quiet.

K1 loves a conspiracy theory. Us government knock down the twin towers then?

---

Lol save it Duff.

But have you heard the new turbo charged V6 engines of the Australian Supercars Series? Turbo charged engine CAN be loud. But the pure sound, yes that will always be muffled.

---

@ Duffer...what a weak response. What conspiracy? There's no conspiracy implied. A simple question was posed and you chose to respond in an ill mannered and objectionable manner. Sure, let's have robust debate, i'm all for it but have a bit of respect for other opinions, observations and viewpoints. It's not all about you, you know.

Quote:

AlanJones
Lol save it Duff.
But have you heard the new turbo charged V6 engines of the Australian Supercars Series? Turbo charged engine CAN be loud. But the pure sound, yes that will always be muffled.

The new turbo engines in the Australian Supercars Series sound so much better than the turbo engines in todays F1 cars....The Australian Supercars Series got it right.

Well one part of it being not restricted in it's fuel flow. The other two major differences are the V6 being a 3.6 liter and a twin turbo. But it does prove that with a proper concept, a turbo charged engine can sound good.

---