|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Jul 2018, 13:22 (Ref:3836639) | #51 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
A range extender has a power combination just like the electric train but the IC component cannot power the vehicle as a hybrid can, it powers a generator which then charges batteries which are used to drive the vehicle with electric motors. There is huge confusion between the two systems for some reasons. This is an old (2015) video but it explains things well and the speaker is very entertaining. I have posted this before but here it is again for those who missed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4H3FE0Z4QQ |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:04 (Ref:3836644) | #52 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Yes indeed and I agree. But it is not a racing application where the economics just don't work. Nor do they need to work.
Fascinating link though. Thank you. Come back to my basic point. If you can make a NA engine produce 700bhp and burn 100litres of fuel in 200 miles then it is a better proposition than the hybrid simply because it's cheaper and does the job. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:05 (Ref:3836645) | #53 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,399
|
Quote:
Remember, in a NA car, all energy is going one way - from the energy store into kinetic energy. Whenever the car is not applying power to the wheels, there is no energy going anywhere else other than to waste. So the hybrid in comparison does have greater mass to propel, but also recovers energy that initially came from the energy store to use again. As long as the amount of recovered energy is higher than the amount needed to propel the extra weight, it will be more efficient overall. |
|||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:06 (Ref:3836646) | #54 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:47 (Ref:3836648) | #55 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Yes like the man said you are asking the wrong question.
If you add the hybrid drivetrain you add weight which means you have to provide more or different power. This is great for long term requirements. But for racing it's totally unnecessary. Yes Frankel doesn't mention fuel economy because it's irrelevant. If we can do the NA thing you'd obviously need regular rebuilds, again so what? Still cheaper than €20m per unit, or €80m per year and you get the same result. I confess that were I to be looking for another 4×4 to replace my Grand Cherokee I'd look for a hybrid. But my circumstances mean it would be a waste financially since I wouldn't do more than 5k miles per year. Then again I'm trying to stop myself buying a Bullit Mustang because it would be more fun and as my annual mileage as above, is low, it would make economic sense. Can't use it as a tow car though. BTW CRM I agree with you about the green bit but again we are talking about racing and that means green requirements are of lesser importance since the amount of time spent racing is miniscule compared to.the overall amount of time that vehicles are driven on the roads around the world. Last edited by Peter Mallett; 14 Jul 2018 at 14:52. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:52 (Ref:3836650) | #56 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 14:54 (Ref:3836651) | #57 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
If you can do it at the price of the NA then it is good. But if it costs €80m per year to do it, surely even you can see that it is just not viable.
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 15:23 (Ref:3836654) | #58 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
That seems like a very weak argument to me. Of course slower less economical engines are cheaper. Just like slower race cars are cheaper. Going fast costs money, going faster still costs exponentially more. That's always been the case since the dawn of motorracing.
|
|
|
14 Jul 2018, 15:30 (Ref:3836656) | #59 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,977
|
Quote:
If you want to go faster within a set of regulations it'll cost more. But when you're talking about things like differing engine sets you're comparing different regulations, and you can most certainly build a regulation set that'll allow you to go quicker for less money. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 15:45 (Ref:3836657) | #60 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Quote:
But of course it is a much more complex discussion. Watching CRM's video the narrator makes the point that turbines are not efficient when they need to accelerate and decelerate. They are super efficient when running at their most effective and economic speed, which is constant. I believe this was the basis of the Williams technology some years ago where they proposed a constantly spinning gyro to cut in and out at times when power was needed. So in pure racing terms, if we want more competitors we need to reduce the costs and still provide an exciting spectacle. Thus as Akropovic says a different rule set is required. And since, if I am correct, in terms of fuel burn the usage, my idea would be just as green. I know there must be many arguments to this but indulge me I'm enjoying this. Edit: I forgot to mention this point. And this is why personally I find the hybrid or any other alternative power source fascinating, but not for racing. Last edited by Peter Mallett; 14 Jul 2018 at 15:52. |
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
14 Jul 2018, 15:46 (Ref:3836658) | #61 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
It's a moot point anyway, for a long time now F1 regulations have been meant to slow the cars down, not to make them fast (2017 was a pretty big anomaly in that regard). Anyone can draw up a set of regulations on a napkin that would be far cheaper but at the same time much much faster than F1. But that's not the reality. If you want to set up a series like that, who do you envision is going to foot the bill? Even if it is much cheaper than F1. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 15:50 (Ref:3836659) | #62 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 16:32 (Ref:3836664) | #63 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentle...Blower_Bentley. These were the first to take that approach, albeit they only had a petrol engine to play with. Think of the possibilities if you could actually afford to own a car with that proposed Jaguar power train? |
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
14 Jul 2018, 17:04 (Ref:3836669) | #64 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,399
|
Quote:
For my mind, F1 is about many things, technical boundaries being one of them. Current automobile makers are spending a lot of R&D on making a car go further for the same amount of fossil fuel. Some is through small, fuel-efficient ICE. Some is through full-electric. The 3rd way - hybrid - is the area where efficiency, performance and endurance currently meet, both on the road and on the track. So is precisely where F1 should be. When pure electric (or a.n.other) technology gives us the chance to race at current F1 speed and distance, then hybrid will cease to be relevant and the heavy, unnecessary ICE can be dropped. Until then, hybrid is how the likes of MB show they can go further and faster than ICE-alone on the same amount of fuel. |
|||
|
14 Jul 2018, 17:06 (Ref:3836670) | #65 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Yes exactly.
It's the pinnacle of motorsport, not the pinnacle of technical excellence. That epithet belongs to the WEC. Did you see the Roborace going up the hill at Goodwood? Was it exciting? Well in answer to those two questions for me. Yes and NO. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
14 Jul 2018, 17:23 (Ref:3836674) | #66 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,399
|
Quote:
'Engineering technology must remain a cornerstone' '[PUs] must remain road relevant, hybrid...' Liberty Media see technology and road relevance, with a hybrid power train, as more important than being a pinnacle of motorsport. Although isn't pushing technological boundaries part of being at the pinnacle? |
|||
|
14 Jul 2018, 17:34 (Ref:3836676) | #67 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
I know. As a real racing cfan I'm allowed to disagree. And all they are doing is pandering to the big businesses.
I don't really care about the planet as far as racing is concerned and neither should they. To be clear we've allowedourselves to be swayed by an ignorant minority. There are much bigger threats to humankind than twenty cars running around at full tilt for 80 hours per year. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 17:34 (Ref:3836677) | #68 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I kind of agree that Le Mans should be that, but F1s marketing power is too big. They can say whatever they want, people will watch anyway.
|
|
|
14 Jul 2018, 17:36 (Ref:3836678) | #69 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I think it was rather exciting, except for the fact it was full electric. When I think roborace I think of those kind of cars racing at insane speeds on insane tracks where G-Forces don't matter anymore.
|
|
|
14 Jul 2018, 17:49 (Ref:3836679) | #70 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Some irony having fuel saving cars and when all the drivers turn up in private jets....
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 18:16 (Ref:3836681) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,977
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 18:24 (Ref:3836684) | #72 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
I like where you're coming from. Its a very good point.
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 18:37 (Ref:3836685) | #73 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,977
|
I was trying to think of the best example, and tyres is a good one. Formula One tyres are the least road relevant thing in the world. They only get slightly closer when it rains and they stick on wets.
How come the road relevance thing never came up when discussing the halo? Why is it a PU has to be road relevant, but the idea of a roof on a car (possibly the most road relevant idea to be thought of in 70 years) is a non-starter, and the halo is just fine? If road relevance was important, those cars would have LMP style roofs. Seems like we're picking and choosing when coming to road relevance. Almost feels like the manufacturers control the sport in that regard. They have created a situation where nobody can compete with them, as they've forced the series into an impossibly expensive rules set. And since nobody can come in with a cheaper alternative, they now have a huge amount of control over the series. Seems like a political power play by the manufacturers, rather than road relevance. |
|
|
14 Jul 2018, 18:43 (Ref:3836686) | #74 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,391
|
Indeed as a discussion we could take this further.
|
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 18:45 (Ref:3836687) | #75 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Well yes. But that's not a hard thing to explain, when you try to make a car that has to go as fast as possible, the only road relevant thing that's left after all that is the engine. Your point seems valid until you start considering context, history etcetera. And once again, road relevance is not the same as 'having the exact same component on the race car as on the road car'. It seems to me you're confusing two different things here.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Future Rule Changes | Greem | Formula One | 4386 | 31 May 2024 13:10 |
New LMP2 engine - and (more) rule changes | ss_collins | Sportscar & GT Racing | 42 | 4 Oct 2008 14:49 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Engine rule changes planned for 2003 | Mark F1 | Formula One | 47 | 16 Feb 2002 13:05 |