Electric powered F1 cars

[wnut]

You guys are forgetting about the most pointless and wasteful of all human activitues.

War fueled by conscription!

Brilliant population reduction strategy, useful for profiteering too.

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by wnut

You guys are forgetting about the most pointless and wasteful of all human activitues.

War fueled by conscription!

Brilliant population reduction strategy, useful for profiteering too.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by Marbot

According to Bernie, F1 doesn't need to be green at all. Although I'm not sure how banning KERS and battery powered cars will make its environmental credentials better?

KERS requires fossil fuels to be burnt to 'harvest' power. Thus not green. An expensive way of making engine power, but convenient go get "Push-To-Pass" systems into F1.
Battery powered cars require, usually, fossil fuels to be burnt to charge them (although, in theory, better power sources could be used, like Nuclear, with resulting gains in environmental protection), so batteries aren't green. Plus, the nasty metals and processes that are required to make them mean that the batteries themselves are pretty bad for the environment.

Although it could be worse - the power could be generated by really environmentally unfriendly ways like wind power.

But, there are a lot of government handouts to be got from doing stuff that isn't really 'green' but fits in with their vote-generating policies that are based entirely on misinformation. We might as well tax cars based on the quantity of washers used rather than CO2 production - neither actually have anything to do with planetary harm.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

KERS requires fossil fuels to be burnt to 'harvest' power. Thus not green.

KERS harvests the energy the car produces when the car is braking and then adds it to the engine power of the car when required. You essentially get additional power for nothing. Thus green.

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

An expensive way of making engine power, but convenient go get "Push-To-Pass" systems into F1.

It is expensive, but F1 needs to roll with the times if it's not to be labelled a 'Dinosaur' in 5 or 10 years time. It's supposed to be the 'Pinnacle of motorsport'. It's not going to be that if it continues to use only i.c. engines for motive power.

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Battery powered cars require, usually, fossil fuels to be burnt to charge them (although, in theory, better power sources could be used, like Nuclear, with resulting gains in environmental protection), so batteries aren't green. Plus, the nasty metals and processes that are required to make them mean that the batteries themselves are pretty bad for the environment.

All we know for sure is that sooner or later, fossil fuels are going to be too expensive (well before it all runs out) to be used as fuel for motor vehicles. So much of this isn't actually about being 'environmentally friendly'. It's being done out of necessity.

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Although it could be worse - the power could be generated by really environmentally unfriendly ways like wind power.

I actually quite like wind farms.

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

But, there are a lot of government handouts to be got from doing stuff that isn't really 'green' but fits in with their vote-generating policies that are based entirely on misinformation. We might as well tax cars based on the quantity of washers used rather than CO2 production - neither actually have anything to do with planetary harm.

If it's green it uses less fuel, which we don't have limitless supplies of. People are being paid to find different ways of extending the use of what we have left. If it also happens to be 'green', then so much the better.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

KERS requires fossil fuels to be burnt to 'harvest' power. Thus not green. An expensive way of making engine power, but convenient go get "Push-To-Pass" systems into F1.
Battery powered cars require, usually, fossil fuels to be burnt to charge them (although, in theory, better power sources could be used, like Nuclear, with resulting gains in environmental protection), so batteries aren't green. Plus, the nasty metals and processes that are required to make them mean that the batteries themselves are pretty bad for the environment.

Although it could be worse - the power could be generated by really environmentally unfriendly ways like wind power.

But, there are a lot of government handouts to be got from doing stuff that isn't really 'green' but fits in with their vote-generating policies that are based entirely on misinformation. We might as well tax cars based on the quantity of washers used rather than CO2 production - neither actually have anything to do with planetary harm.

CO2 - just an excuse for governments to recover tax bases on economies that they have been damaging for decades.

[JeremySmith]

KERS very expensive way of F1 trying to look green...

Flabio as much as I dislike the man made sense when he said that KERS was rubbish..IMHO

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

KERS very expensive way of F1 trying to look green...

Flabio as much as I dislike the man made sense when he said that KERS was rubbish..IMHO

Is that rubbish in F1 or just generally rubbish everywhere?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Is that rubbish in F1 or just generally rubbish everywhere?

In F1...

[Marbot]

Trouble is that sponsors and manufacturers don't want to be seen (rightly or wrongly) as being associated with a sport that isn't 'visibly' doing anything to combat over use of fossil fuel, whatever the real facts about its actual carbon footprint may be.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Trouble is that sponsors and manufacturers don't want to be seen (rightly or wrongly) as being associated with a sport that isn't 'visibly' doing anything to combat over use of fossil fuel, whatever the real facts about its actual carbon footprint may be.

Sorry Scott with all due respect I think that is complete nonsense.. They will still be there as it's huge if for no other reason..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Sorry Scott with all due respect I think that is complete nonsense.. They will still be there as it's huge if for no other reason..

Ross Brawn recently said:

“I think there is a justification for relevance in the type of engines we have in the future,” he added. “We don’t want to end up as a dinosaur in five or ten years and the technology we’re working on with these new engines is the technology that is going to become commonplace in road car engines in the future: small-capacity, turbocharged engine; direct injection; KERS. When we do this, we can generate a lot more interest with a manufacturer, and we want to try to get some more manufacturers back in F1. We won’t get that if we continue with a V8 normally aspirated engine."

He knows only too well that manufacturers and sponsors come and go if F1 no longer suits their purpose. F1 is currently struggling to hang on to the ones it has.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ross Brawn recently said:

“I think there is a justification for relevance in the type of engines we have in the future,” he added. “We don’t want to end up as a dinosaur in five or ten years and the technology we’re working on with these new engines is the technology that is going to become commonplace in road car engines in the future: small-capacity, turbocharged engine; direct injection; KERS. When we do this, we can generate a lot more interest with a manufacturer, and we want to try to get some more manufacturers back in F1. We won’t get that if we continue with a V8 normally aspirated engine."

He knows only too well that manufacturers and sponsors come and go if F1 no longer suits their purpose. F1 is currently struggling to hang on to the ones it has.

And that's exactly what happened to open wheel racing in the US, it didn't suit the sponsors purposes and they all went to NASCAR.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

And that's exactly what happened to open wheel racing in the US, it didn't suit the sponsors purposes and they all went to NASCAR.

It was snapped in half and lost it's appeal for the fan as much as anything else..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

It was snapped in half and lost it's appeal for the fan as much as anything else..

I don't know about half, as the big problem the IRL faced was the initial lack of race sponsorship and that stupid season thing; CART pretty much had it all but as CART gradually self-destructed some team sponsors went with Champ Car and others went with the IRL and as neither was really viable, the sponsors most familliar with US motorsport went to NASCAR.

[JeremySmith]

So compared to what open wheel racing was in the USA, it's a shadow of it's former self and not very good..

It's just rather lame...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

So compared to what open wheel was racing in the USA, it is a shadow of it's former self and not very good..

Tell me about it. There are some great drivers out there, in IndyCar land but the machinery is past it's sell by date. Tony George's great vision for US open wheel racing was as visionless as he was or his team.

He set out to destroy CART, which they did themselves but Tony really had nothing to offer in its place from the outset except the 500; hence the lack of sponsors for other events at cookie cutter ovals.

This rant probably belongs elsewhere....

[tristancliffe]

Originally Posted by Marbot

KERS harvests the energy the car produces when the car is braking and then adds it to the engine power of the car when required. You essentially get additional power for nothing. Thus green.

The energy still comes from burning petrol. Not 'green'.

Originally Posted by Marbot

It is expensive, but F1 needs to roll with the times if it's not to be labelled a 'Dinosaur' in 5 or 10 years time. It's supposed to be the 'Pinnacle of motorsport'. It's not going to be that if it continues to use only i.c. engines for motive power.

Rolling with the times should not be confused with copying a Prius, which isn't going to "Save The Planet". If F1 started to use a Hydrogen Fuel Cell (including onboard generation of the hydrogen) then that might be a start. Or if they had a tiny nuclear reactor onboard. Or if they used a Flux Capacitor. But sticking a big alternator/starter motor onto an engine doesn't make it clever or green.

Originally Posted by Marbot

All we know for sure is that sooner or later, fossil fuels are going to be too expensive (well before it all runs out) to be used as fuel for motor vehicles. So much of this isn't actually about being 'environmentally friendly'. It's being done out of necessity.

The expense aspect is true. Humans currently know of more oil than we've ever known about, but it's harder to get. Not so much harder that it justifies the cost of crude at the moment, which is just profiteering rather than passing on extraction costs.

Originally Posted by Marbot

I actually quite like wind farms.

Few things are worse for the environment.

Originally Posted by Marbot

If it's green it uses less fuel, which we don't have limitless supplies of. People are being paid to find different ways of extending the use of what we have left. If it also happens to be 'green', then so much the better.

KERS and battery vehicles are not the way forwards then. Because both require the same (pretty much) amount of petrol to be burnt. If the use of petrol/diesel/alcohol/batteries/etc fuels are banned, then more progress would be made more quickly.

[Marbot]

I posted this mag in another thread (about the 2014 engines), but it's also relevant to this thread. Particularly the article entitled "Charging Forward". The "Formula For Change" article shows where F1 will be in 2014.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf

[wnut]

Great summary tristancliffe #67 above.

KERS is just a load of toxic heavy metal rubbish combined with very old and inefficient technology, which it seems serious steps have been made to stop the development of!

Heres your problem from

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf

on p13/33

“Petrol provides something like 13kWh/kg (kilowatt
hours per kilogram) and the best batteries
considered safe and rated for racing provide
something like 0.25kWh/kg.
“It’s a little more favourable than it sounds,
as the efficiency of a petrol engine is around 25
per cent, so the usable figure is something like
3.5kWh/kg whereas battery-to-ground efficiency
of an electrical system might be over 90 per cent.”
he continues. “Add in the capacity to regenerate
electrical energy when decelerating, and the real
energy-per-kilogram performance of a battery is
probably one-sixth of what you are likely to get
from petrol.”

[Marbot]

Well, it is a problem. But then, so was trying to get 120 bhp and 50mpg from a 600cc petrol engine, back in the early 20th century. Got there in the end, though.

[JeremySmith]

Maybe the FIA need to have a conversation with this car company..

http://www.teslamotors.com/

[Marbot]

I did mention earlier in the thread that the FIA were going to start a new 'Formula E' series. Possibly, the above car manufacturer will take an interest in that?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I did mention earlier in the thread that the FIA were going to start a new 'Formula E' series. Possibly, the above car manufacturer will take an interest in that?

I remember that Scott, and I think that is wonderful that they are going to do this..

Joe Saward seems to have the best handle on the whole electric F1 conversation..I spoke via e-mail with him today, what a super smart and very nice man he is..

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by wnut

Great summary tristancliffe #67 above.

KERS is just a load of toxic heavy metal rubbish combined with very old and inefficient technology, which it seems serious steps have been made to stop the development of!

Heres your problem from

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf

on p13/33

“Petrol provides something like 13kWh/kg (kilowatt
hours per kilogram) and the best batteries
considered safe and rated for racing provide
something like 0.25kWh/kg.
“It’s a little more favourable than it sounds,
as the efficiency of a petrol engine is around 25
per cent, so the usable figure is something like
3.5kWh/kg whereas battery-to-ground efficiency
of an electrical system might be over 90 per cent.”
he continues. “Add in the capacity to regenerate
electrical energy when decelerating, and the real
energy-per-kilogram performance of a battery is
probably one-sixth of what you are likely to get
from petrol.”

This analysis misses some fundamental points and simply isn't worth the paper it is printed on, there is at least one simple thing that the writer has missed.

Petrol you carry for the whole race and use once whereas the KERS system is cycled once per lap, say 50 times. That means the energy you recover from your KERS system is 50 times greater than the the writer has allowed in his comparison so if you get one sixth the energy per weight from the electrical system you actually get eight times as much energy per weight carried over the course of a race compared to the petrol you'd need to achieve the same thing, of course because you gradually burn the petrol so on average you carry half the amount whereas you have to carry the whole KERS system all the way so using the figures in the article correctly we have KERS giving four times the energy per weight than Petrol does, and if the race was longer the difference would be bigger, in a road situation over the life of the car it would be HUGE!.

As for KERS energy originally coming from Petrol that's irrelevant too. It is energy from petrol already burnt to accelerate the car, fitting cars with KERS is a decision to re-use energy that would otherwise be wasted (at some engineering cost too) as heat. Apart from carrying the kit around harvesting it has zero cost in fuel, the energy is genuinely "free".

Whether KERS has anything to do with motorsport is another question but people should at least take the trouble to get the facts right.

[browney]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

The energy still comes from burning petrol. Not 'green'.

This argument makes no sense to me. The kinetic energy the car has carries no bias from where it came from. KERS recycles the energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat. This, in concept (recycling otherwise wasted engery), is incredibly environmentally friendly. I actually can't see your point unless you mean

1. That the KERS device itself contains detrimental material or the energy required to construct it requires more than it saves (these are possible but can improve with development).

2. The devices are bulky and require additional cooling so create more drag.

3. The devices, themselves, are not painted green.