F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

Formula 1 is undergoing a revolution this winter.

The cars that emerge at the end of January for the start of pre-season testing will look very different from those of the last few years - and they will be even more radically changed under the skin.
There are significant changes to the chassis regulations and even bigger ones to the engine, which together amount to probably the biggest change in rules in a lifetime.

Read more: BBC Sport - F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

 

Interesting.

I'm quite concerned about the ERS failing, although it could make races quite interesting if a driver far in front develops an ERS failure, costing him around 120hp and trying to hold off the rest....

Ferrari's KERS has been quite reliable over the seasons so that's a small advantage. Red Bull will need to work on heat management in that regard IMO...that thing broke a lot. Lotus also had plenty of failures in that regard.

 

I stopped reading here:

The power train in a car has always been and will always be the power train, and the engine has always been and will always be the engine, and if an engine powers the car, it is part of the power train and not succeeded by the latter. It's a bit like saying "Kitchens are now referred to as houses".

 

The only thing that concerns me about next years changes, and the future of F1 is that they're trying to be PC and "relative" to road cars. It's going to turn into a fake wrestling if the drivers aren't racing all out due to restriction of tire durability, fuel restrictions constant penalties for "racing incidents", etc.

 

...except when it was supplied by Cosworth and was affectionately referred to as "the lump", as in, "it's a little soft above 10,500...time to replace the lump".

 

Seems Charlie agrees with you. From the 2014 regulations;

However, I've now read more than one article where they refer to the lump + ER systems as the powertrain.... In your considered opinion, what *should* we call the whole mess?

Cheers,
Ian

 

What nobody has quoted from that story;

So, yes, the lump itself is smaller and less powerful, but the ES will get it back, hopefully up to (or more than) what they've got now. If they're projecting 840hp at this stage someone will probably figure out almost 900 over time.

I think they'll be just fine......

Cheers,
Ian

 

In my part of the engineering world, which I consider rather picky when it comes to nomenclature, there is no rock solid and commonly agreed on word that groups engine and electric machine(s). The powertrain consists of those and the transmission / drive line, ie gearbox and any shafts, like in Charlie's definition. There are a few German terms which I'd use, but there is no equivalent in English, or at least none that I know of. We'll have to stay with "engine" and "electric machine", I fear

 

I wouldn't read to much into what Gary is saying there, he's just trying to explain it to ''the masses'' who don't understand the terms you use for the same thing...

 

As a side note, I *love* words like that. they're part of what makes the world interesting. My wife tells me all the time there are phrases and words in Korean that cannot possibly be translated to mean the depth they have in that particular language. Love it

 

Even worse, that way he's teaching people who are not (yet) in the know wrong stuff. No excuses for such a lack of precision without need!

Writing papers etc, I use "Antriebsaggregate" as a collective term for engine and electric machines, if you want to add that to your collection

 

"Drive aggregate"..... Hmmm....

Seems Charlie is happy with 'powerunit'. Again, from the 2014 regs;

1.27 thru 1.29 included in the interests of completeness.

I guess 'power unit' is about as good as we're gonna get, at least in English......

Cheers,
Ian

 

Power unit sounds good to me. We should inform the mods that the F1 Forum Committee for Technical Language Hygiene has decided on "power unit" and usage of any other words will lead to a ban