Should F1 Keep the MGU-H
Poll: Should F1 Keep the MGU-H
Total Members Polled: 72
Discussion
Some people in a board room have been debating what we the viewers might want to see from Formula 1 in the future and are nearing a conclusion which they intend to implement from 2021- on this occasion it concerns the power unit specification.
We Formula 1 viewers are apparently simple folk, we want the cars to go ‘wow’ fast and make loud ‘vroom’ noise.
Presumably it is because we are simple folk that F1 decided we wouldn’t be interested in the fact that F1 engines have achieved thermal efficiency unprecedented in combustion engines using a cutting edge technology which has never to my knowledge been scaled down and effectively applied in a similar way before. Certainly I’ve never seen this publicised by the sport. None of the casually interested people I’ve talked to are aware of it.
People aren’t necessarily aware that advances in the technologies, materials and processes which are developed here could one increase the efficiency of the incinerator which burns their waste or the power station which generates their electricity of the refinery which produces the fuel oils and lubricants for the vehicle on their driveway.
The MGU-H has been a major performance differentiator and a significant challenge to engine manufacturers but after 6 years or so of convergent evolution the technology is of course functioning more effectively than ever. The straggling manufacturers are just starting to approach parity with the best of them, and all of those manufacturers have invested hundreds of millions in the overall package.
But apparently we don’t want it. Apparently we want the cars to use more fuel and be loud again.
We fall back on the fact that the cars are still Kinetic energy recovering V6 turbo hybrids. Somehow that all sounds a bit old hat to me in 2018.
Jean Todt say the regulations ‘went too far’. However, the manufacturers have done it. The PUs are a marvel. By the time the MGU-H is written out of the regs it will have been evolving in the crucible of motorsport for more than seven years.
The regs went too far, IMO, when we went down to three power units per season (and only two of the electrical components)
The sport is dumbing down to attract the likes of Aston Martin, a company which to my knowledge hasn’t made its own engines for most of its production cars for decades(?) and which even with the removal of the MGU-H still appears to be sitting on the fence about its future commitment to F1, and which even if the MGU-H is removed will still have to engage an external design house to produce an F1 engine?
It looked to me like F1 was taking a longer view and a more considered approach to future changes but here is a fresh example of the sport bowing to pressure from a vocal minority of people who don’t want the cars to have MGU-H (or, perhaps more accurately, people who never go to F1 races who want the cars to burn more fuel, produce more decibels and generally be more like what they remembered from the 80s so that they can have a slightly less comfortable Sunday afternoon nap).
Or is it?
We Formula 1 viewers are apparently simple folk, we want the cars to go ‘wow’ fast and make loud ‘vroom’ noise.
Presumably it is because we are simple folk that F1 decided we wouldn’t be interested in the fact that F1 engines have achieved thermal efficiency unprecedented in combustion engines using a cutting edge technology which has never to my knowledge been scaled down and effectively applied in a similar way before. Certainly I’ve never seen this publicised by the sport. None of the casually interested people I’ve talked to are aware of it.
People aren’t necessarily aware that advances in the technologies, materials and processes which are developed here could one increase the efficiency of the incinerator which burns their waste or the power station which generates their electricity of the refinery which produces the fuel oils and lubricants for the vehicle on their driveway.
The MGU-H has been a major performance differentiator and a significant challenge to engine manufacturers but after 6 years or so of convergent evolution the technology is of course functioning more effectively than ever. The straggling manufacturers are just starting to approach parity with the best of them, and all of those manufacturers have invested hundreds of millions in the overall package.
But apparently we don’t want it. Apparently we want the cars to use more fuel and be loud again.
We fall back on the fact that the cars are still Kinetic energy recovering V6 turbo hybrids. Somehow that all sounds a bit old hat to me in 2018.
Jean Todt say the regulations ‘went too far’. However, the manufacturers have done it. The PUs are a marvel. By the time the MGU-H is written out of the regs it will have been evolving in the crucible of motorsport for more than seven years.
The regs went too far, IMO, when we went down to three power units per season (and only two of the electrical components)
The sport is dumbing down to attract the likes of Aston Martin, a company which to my knowledge hasn’t made its own engines for most of its production cars for decades(?) and which even with the removal of the MGU-H still appears to be sitting on the fence about its future commitment to F1, and which even if the MGU-H is removed will still have to engage an external design house to produce an F1 engine?
It looked to me like F1 was taking a longer view and a more considered approach to future changes but here is a fresh example of the sport bowing to pressure from a vocal minority of people who don’t want the cars to have MGU-H (or, perhaps more accurately, people who never go to F1 races who want the cars to burn more fuel, produce more decibels and generally be more like what they remembered from the 80s so that they can have a slightly less comfortable Sunday afternoon nap).
Or is it?
What does MGU-H actually add to the racing? Can you see the 50% thermal efficiency, and would you notice if it was suddenly only 40% if the cars went just as quickly? The technological advances are very commendable, but an awareness that it 'could one [day] increase the efficiency of the incinerator which burns their waste' is hardly going to set pulses racing.
As long as there is MGU-H there will only be the same four manufacturers involved. Until one or more of them gets bored and leaves, that is. Then what? Don't think that F1 is too big and important for it to happen. Maybe we're still at the stage where those four manufacturers feel they haven't got their moneys worth out of their billion dollar investments, but that time will come. Just look at LMP1, or indeed F1 a decade ago. The difference with F1 now is that the whole field is entirely dependent on those four manufacturers, and there is no plan B. This proposal is an attempt at a plan B.
If they were to keep MGU-H for another cycle after 2021 then we'd no doubt get to a point of complete convergence between manufacturers, but then what's the point of them continuing to spend and develop if they're all equal because they've all reached the same logical endpoint? As it is there is little to no chance that anybody but Mercedes or Ferrari will win either of the championships under the current rules cycle up to 2021, and Ferrari have yet to prove themselves capable.
Or maybe I'm just a thick old
with dementia 
As long as there is MGU-H there will only be the same four manufacturers involved. Until one or more of them gets bored and leaves, that is. Then what? Don't think that F1 is too big and important for it to happen. Maybe we're still at the stage where those four manufacturers feel they haven't got their moneys worth out of their billion dollar investments, but that time will come. Just look at LMP1, or indeed F1 a decade ago. The difference with F1 now is that the whole field is entirely dependent on those four manufacturers, and there is no plan B. This proposal is an attempt at a plan B.
If they were to keep MGU-H for another cycle after 2021 then we'd no doubt get to a point of complete convergence between manufacturers, but then what's the point of them continuing to spend and develop if they're all equal because they've all reached the same logical endpoint? As it is there is little to no chance that anybody but Mercedes or Ferrari will win either of the championships under the current rules cycle up to 2021, and Ferrari have yet to prove themselves capable.
Or maybe I'm just a thick old
with dementia What really needs to happen to F1 is stop the manufactures dictating the regs to benefit them. There should be an independent body that they have no input to.
It’s wholly wrong that Ferrari get vastly more somes of money than other manufacturers just because their Ferrari.
I for one wouldn’t give two sts if Ferrari said they were going to leave and liberty media told them to Foxtrot Oscar. Good riddance.
It’s wholly wrong that Ferrari get vastly more somes of money than other manufacturers just because their Ferrari.
I for one wouldn’t give two s
ts if Ferrari said they were going to leave and liberty media told them to Foxtrot Oscar. Good riddance. Ferrari don't get "vastly more". They get a bit more for historical reasons in one part of the payment. Other teams who have far less support and hence ticket sales get historical payments as well.
As to the subject it's a tricky one. These engines are incredible feats of engineering and they blow my mind with their efficiency level. To the average fan I expect they couldn't give a monkeys about that and just want to see wheel to wheel racing regardless of what engine is fitted.
As to the subject it's a tricky one. These engines are incredible feats of engineering and they blow my mind with their efficiency level. To the average fan I expect they couldn't give a monkeys about that and just want to see wheel to wheel racing regardless of what engine is fitted.
thegreenhell said:
What does MGU-H actually add to the racing? Can you see the 50% thermal efficiency, and would you notice if it was suddenly only 40% if the cars went just as quickly? The technological advances are very commendable, but an awareness that it 'could one [day] increase the efficiency of the incinerator which burns their waste' is hardly going to set pulses racing.
As long as there is MGU-H there will only be the same four manufacturers involved. Until one or more of them gets bored and leaves, that is. Then what? Don't think that F1 is too big and important for it to happen. Maybe we're still at the stage where those four manufacturers feel they haven't got their moneys worth out of their billion dollar investments, but that time will come. Just look at LMP1, or indeed F1 a decade ago. The difference with F1 now is that the whole field is entirely dependent on those four manufacturers, and there is no plan B. This proposal is an attempt at a plan B.
If they were to keep MGU-H for another cycle after 2021 then we'd no doubt get to a point of complete convergence between manufacturers, but then what's the point of them continuing to spend and develop if they're all equal because they've all reached the same logical endpoint? As it is there is little to no chance that anybody but Mercedes or Ferrari will win either of the championships under the current rules cycle up to 2021, and Ferrari have yet to prove themselves capable.
Or maybe I'm just a thick old with dementia
I think F1 did an especially poor job of publicising how clever the technology is. With the backdrop of a fuel limit and a flow limit, efficiency is power and power is cool.As long as there is MGU-H there will only be the same four manufacturers involved. Until one or more of them gets bored and leaves, that is. Then what? Don't think that F1 is too big and important for it to happen. Maybe we're still at the stage where those four manufacturers feel they haven't got their moneys worth out of their billion dollar investments, but that time will come. Just look at LMP1, or indeed F1 a decade ago. The difference with F1 now is that the whole field is entirely dependent on those four manufacturers, and there is no plan B. This proposal is an attempt at a plan B.
If they were to keep MGU-H for another cycle after 2021 then we'd no doubt get to a point of complete convergence between manufacturers, but then what's the point of them continuing to spend and develop if they're all equal because they've all reached the same logical endpoint? As it is there is little to no chance that anybody but Mercedes or Ferrari will win either of the championships under the current rules cycle up to 2021, and Ferrari have yet to prove themselves capable.
Or maybe I'm just a thick old
with dementia Sure the applications of the technology aren’t always glamorous but the examples I gave were pretty relevant in the present day so accepting that MGU-H isn’t appearing on road cars I’m just pointing out that it is technology for the future.
Also, F1 seems to have made its mind up already but there’s no sign of an actual commitment from a prospective new engine builder. In the last press release I read, Aston Martin’s spokesman sounded entirely aloof.
Four engine builders is pretty normal looking at the past ten or twenty years?
Sure it could go down to three but no convincing threats at the moment?
I struggle to see the argument for getting rid of it, personally, and I can see several reasons to keep it:
1) It's a genuinely interesting piece of technology.
2) It differentiates F1 from lower formulae in terms of technology.
3) It's one of very few things F1 have done in recent decades which might actually ultimately provide a meaningful benefit to road cars.
4) Changing the rules yet again is not going to make anything cheaper or easier for the existing manufacturers, and as far as I know no extra manufacturers are committed to joining if the engines are simplified.
5) The more F1 can give the impression of pushing an "environmentally friendly" agenda, the longer it's likely to survive.
6) F1 has far more significant problems with the cars that they could put their effort into solving.
1) It's a genuinely interesting piece of technology.
2) It differentiates F1 from lower formulae in terms of technology.
3) It's one of very few things F1 have done in recent decades which might actually ultimately provide a meaningful benefit to road cars.
4) Changing the rules yet again is not going to make anything cheaper or easier for the existing manufacturers, and as far as I know no extra manufacturers are committed to joining if the engines are simplified.
5) The more F1 can give the impression of pushing an "environmentally friendly" agenda, the longer it's likely to survive.
6) F1 has far more significant problems with the cars that they could put their effort into solving.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 6th June 08:06
thegreenhell said:
What does MGU-H actually add to the racing? Can you see the 50% thermal efficiency, and would you notice if it was suddenly only 40% if the cars went just as quickly?
If you drop the thermal efficiency by 10% the cars WON'T be just as quick. Sure if you keep the power unit output the same the single, flying lap time would be the same. But if the engine is less efficient it's getting less power out of each drop of petrol so either needs more fuel to last a race distance (which means they start the race with more fuel in the tanks, which means more weight at the start, which means slower lap times) or greater fuel saving during the race (which means less time on the power, which means slower lap times).When the current engine rules were being written, it was assumed that Hybrid technology would have a period of dominance before EVs became the norm.
F1 has been overtaken by events. Genuine Hybrids are few and far between - a plug-in Hybrid is simply a heavy vehicle with two transmission systems. The future regulations of being able to drive in EV mode for 50 miles effectively rules out a family type Prius car. The big R&D money is now being spent of autonomous electric vehicles.
Mercedes and Renault have jointly developed a new 1.3 turbo engine for the Megan and A-Class family cars. There is nothing in this unit that has trickled down from the 8-years of developments in F1 PU technology. It is simply not road relevant to the sort of everyday cars that we buy, not even Supercars, and maybe, only a very few Hypercars. The often quoted 1000bhp is probably only achieved for a few seconds on the Dyno in the factory. In most engine modes they are probably producing way less than that figure. The thermal efficiency is only achieved using modified fuels and lubricants. The oil-burn on fireup of the Ferrari rubbishes any notion of its green credentials.
The technology that makes PUs interesting is just way too expensive and dulls the 90min race. During qualifying they are only limited by the 100l/min fuel flow rate and a full battery charge to maximise speed and so are phenomenal. However, during the race the opposite happens, fuel and engine life all need to be conserved, so when they switch engine modes after the start, the cars become hobbled. This simply does not happen in any other form of motor racing. It is imperative that it does not happen at the pinnacle of motorsport.
I believe the proposed new regs are exactly the right way to go. We don’t need to know who has the biggest budget. Force India do brilliant things with a fraction of the resources of Mercedes, so we only need to know who are the best drivers and which team has been cleverest with their limited resources.
I don’t think Ferrari will ever quit, but being seen to be a midfield player will not be good enough for the real Dr Z, or Ghosn. I think if Red Bull could actually turn a profit from their racing activities then even Mateschitz would be happier.
The world created by Bernie was never sustainable, race promoters need to show a profit from their huge investment in F1. The days of mega expensive cars racing in deserts with empty grandstands is about to change. Dumping MGU-H is a step in the right direction.
F1 has been overtaken by events. Genuine Hybrids are few and far between - a plug-in Hybrid is simply a heavy vehicle with two transmission systems. The future regulations of being able to drive in EV mode for 50 miles effectively rules out a family type Prius car. The big R&D money is now being spent of autonomous electric vehicles.
Mercedes and Renault have jointly developed a new 1.3 turbo engine for the Megan and A-Class family cars. There is nothing in this unit that has trickled down from the 8-years of developments in F1 PU technology. It is simply not road relevant to the sort of everyday cars that we buy, not even Supercars, and maybe, only a very few Hypercars. The often quoted 1000bhp is probably only achieved for a few seconds on the Dyno in the factory. In most engine modes they are probably producing way less than that figure. The thermal efficiency is only achieved using modified fuels and lubricants. The oil-burn on fireup of the Ferrari rubbishes any notion of its green credentials.
The technology that makes PUs interesting is just way too expensive and dulls the 90min race. During qualifying they are only limited by the 100l/min fuel flow rate and a full battery charge to maximise speed and so are phenomenal. However, during the race the opposite happens, fuel and engine life all need to be conserved, so when they switch engine modes after the start, the cars become hobbled. This simply does not happen in any other form of motor racing. It is imperative that it does not happen at the pinnacle of motorsport.
I believe the proposed new regs are exactly the right way to go. We don’t need to know who has the biggest budget. Force India do brilliant things with a fraction of the resources of Mercedes, so we only need to know who are the best drivers and which team has been cleverest with their limited resources.
I don’t think Ferrari will ever quit, but being seen to be a midfield player will not be good enough for the real Dr Z, or Ghosn. I think if Red Bull could actually turn a profit from their racing activities then even Mateschitz would be happier.
The world created by Bernie was never sustainable, race promoters need to show a profit from their huge investment in F1. The days of mega expensive cars racing in deserts with empty grandstands is about to change. Dumping MGU-H is a step in the right direction.
I'd open up the engine regulations.
No limit on cylinders, capacity and no requirement for a turbo or a hybrid.
The only limits are the 100kgs fuel for the race, 100kg/hr fuel flow limit, 4MJ a lap energy release. They'd have to sell each one to 2 privateer teams for no more than 250,000EUR a unit and a unit should last 5000kms without needing replacement.
Allow manufacturers to develop whatever they want. If that includes an MGU-H, then so be it.
No limit on cylinders, capacity and no requirement for a turbo or a hybrid.
The only limits are the 100kgs fuel for the race, 100kg/hr fuel flow limit, 4MJ a lap energy release. They'd have to sell each one to 2 privateer teams for no more than 250,000EUR a unit and a unit should last 5000kms without needing replacement.
Allow manufacturers to develop whatever they want. If that includes an MGU-H, then so be it.
kambites said:
I struggle to see the argument for getting rid of it, personally, and I can see several reasons to keep it:
1) It's a genuinely interesting piece of technology.
2) It differentiates F1 from lower formulae in terms of technology.
3) It's one of very few things F1 have done in recent decades which might actually ultimately provide a meaningful benefit to road cars.
4) Changing the rules yet again is not going to make anything cheaper or easier for the existing manufacturers, and as far as I know no extra manufacturers are committed to joining if the engines are simplified.
5) The more F1 can give the impression of pushing an "environmentally friendly" agenda, the longer it's likely to survive.
6) F1 has far more significant problems with the cars that they could put their effort into solving.
Is the correct answer, in my opinion. Not only does the MGU-H provide an intelligent solution to battery charging, but it can also function as an electric powered supercharger to eliminate turbo lag, which is another reason why the technology could be carried over for road use. The MGU-H has already been developed, and earlier reliability problems largely overcome, so it's hardly going to demand much more in the way of R&D. Why not keep it?1) It's a genuinely interesting piece of technology.
2) It differentiates F1 from lower formulae in terms of technology.
3) It's one of very few things F1 have done in recent decades which might actually ultimately provide a meaningful benefit to road cars.
4) Changing the rules yet again is not going to make anything cheaper or easier for the existing manufacturers, and as far as I know no extra manufacturers are committed to joining if the engines are simplified.
5) The more F1 can give the impression of pushing an "environmentally friendly" agenda, the longer it's likely to survive.
6) F1 has far more significant problems with the cars that they could put their effort into solving.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 6th June 08:06
Kraken said:
Ferrari don't get "vastly more". They get a bit more for historical reasons in one part of the payment. Other teams who have far less support and hence ticket sales get historical payments as well.
I would call $68 million (in 2017) vastly more considering it is more than any of the bottom 4 teams got in total that year, and nearly as much as the teams in 5th and 6th got in 2017. No other team gets this 'Long-standing team' bonus. The top 4 teams in the list also get Constructors Championship Bonus'2017 figures:
Ferrari - $180m (including the 68)
Mercedes - $171m
Red Bull - $161m
McLaren - $97m
Williams - $79m
Force India - $72m
Torro Rosso - $59m
Renault - $52m
Sauber - $49m
Haas - $19m
In my view it is vastly wrong and simply accelerates the differences in performance between the top teams and the 'make up the numbers' teams who have no hope of winning.
The payments should be simplified, a fixed fee for every team, let's say $50m, then a payment based on championship points gained in the previous season. No 'special' payments whatsoever.
There's a place for every type of engine.......
WEC LMP1 - Full Hybrid, MGU-K, MGU-H, ICE. Ephasis on efficiency, both mechanical and aero, to do the most laps / least pit stops in 6hrs / 24hrs
Formula E - Full Electric. Shorter races. emphasis on battery and motor technology. Limited aero.
F1 - Balls out Horsepower from ICE and MGU-K. Noise, power and who gives a damn about the environment! Aero generated grip, but from ground effect rather than extragavent wing designs.
The feeder series for each. F2 and LMP2 should be toned versions of the bigger series.
There's room for everyone.
WEC LMP1 - Full Hybrid, MGU-K, MGU-H, ICE. Ephasis on efficiency, both mechanical and aero, to do the most laps / least pit stops in 6hrs / 24hrs
Formula E - Full Electric. Shorter races. emphasis on battery and motor technology. Limited aero.
F1 - Balls out Horsepower from ICE and MGU-K. Noise, power and who gives a damn about the environment! Aero generated grip, but from ground effect rather than extragavent wing designs.
The feeder series for each. F2 and LMP2 should be toned versions of the bigger series.
There's room for everyone.
The 'get rid' crowd seems to be winning if the poll is anything to go by!
But the voting split reminds me of Brexit all over again!
I think the motivation for getting rid is to simply make the engines louder. Seeing the power produced by the different PUs this year, I've changed my mind that the MGU-H needs to be removed to create some sort of parity between the PUs. I think the original road map for these PUs was quite ambitious, in expecting the manufacturers to have a good handle on the various technologies by now. It's amazing that it has taken the different manufacturers this long to do it albeit with restricted development for 2014/2015, but now I think it's clear by 2020 we could have all four manufacturers absolutely on par with each other in all aspects of the PU tech.
It will be a big shame then to reset that immediately. The power levels will reduce considerably, but what is the motivation for the manufacturers to continue supporting F1? The combustion tech is one area that could receive more development effort. Ultimately, I strongly believe that the sport needs to be less reliant on the whims of the big manufacturers.
But the voting split reminds me of Brexit all over again!
I think the motivation for getting rid is to simply make the engines louder. Seeing the power produced by the different PUs this year, I've changed my mind that the MGU-H needs to be removed to create some sort of parity between the PUs. I think the original road map for these PUs was quite ambitious, in expecting the manufacturers to have a good handle on the various technologies by now. It's amazing that it has taken the different manufacturers this long to do it albeit with restricted development for 2014/2015, but now I think it's clear by 2020 we could have all four manufacturers absolutely on par with each other in all aspects of the PU tech.
It will be a big shame then to reset that immediately. The power levels will reduce considerably, but what is the motivation for the manufacturers to continue supporting F1? The combustion tech is one area that could receive more development effort. Ultimately, I strongly believe that the sport needs to be less reliant on the whims of the big manufacturers.
This is what is being specified. It is hardly just about making things noisier.
1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
Removal of the MGUH
More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
Standard energy store and control electronics
High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used
Yes, there will be more noise, but the main thrust is about dramatically reducing cost. This is key to bringing in a workable cost cap and creating more exciting racing. Hopefully, it will also attract new entrants from the current lamentable number of just 10 teams.
1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
Removal of the MGUH
More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
Standard energy store and control electronics
High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used
Yes, there will be more noise, but the main thrust is about dramatically reducing cost. This is key to bringing in a workable cost cap and creating more exciting racing. Hopefully, it will also attract new entrants from the current lamentable number of just 10 teams.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff