Return of the V12

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Casper

About what? Do some reading on both points and get back to us.

Not oil, but hydrocarbons. Please do take up your own suggestion and read up on it.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Not oil, but hydrocarbons. Please do take up your own suggestion and read up on it.

There is a difference...where do I get hydrocarbons for to make Hydrogen?

[Taxi645]

The EU commission is aiming for a 25x expansion of wind energy. If they succeed remains to be seen, but that it will increase significantly is very likely. Also Solar energy will expand. That means in the future there will be very large fluctuations in power productions, which needs be addressed. On way of tackling that is to have an overcapacity in renewable energy capacity and use the peaks to produce hydrogen and synthetic fuel.


I'm not knowledgeable enough to say that is realistic or not, we have to wait and see.

[S griffin]

All very well, but I think F1 only worries about wind when it's to do with aero. No need to concern itself with solar power and the like, at least till now. However anything that can help make energy more renewable and keep the fuel powered cars in business. We'll see, I do see why the world is pushing greener technology, but it's a wait and see thing

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Not oil, but hydrocarbons. Please do take up your own suggestion and read up on it.

Originally Posted by Casper

There is a difference...where do I get hydrocarbons for to make Hydrogen?

Right, I don't want to be a dick but this conversation is getting daft - neither of you understand the basics of the hydrocarbons point, which is resulting in you both arguing with each other and not realising you're agreeing with each other. Whilst I'm not an absolute expert, I worked in Oil & Gas for 6 years in control rooms. So -

- Although it has a proper chemical definition, the term hydrocarbons in this case is used to group together fossil fuels into 1 category for easy description. Oil, Gas, NGLs, etc.

- Casper is mostly correct when he says the majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. He said oil, but it's really gas but that doesn't actually matter - you tend to get both at the same time. The majority of the worlds hydrocarbon wells contain both oil and gas - if you get one, you get the other. There are exceptions to this. There are gas only fields where you only produce gas, and there are heavy crude fields where you won't get gas out of the crude - but for the majority, they come together. The gas is usually "in" the oil under pressure, and only separates once it's out of the well due to the release in pressure (or through a Separator vessel on a rig)

- ASCII Man is kinda on point when he points out it's not oil, but hydrocarbons. Technically correct, but does it really matter at that level of detail? It's still fossil fuels.

- Whilst we do use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, it isn't the same as burning them for energy release. It isn't anywhere near as impactful to the environment as running a truck on diesel. However, it does have an impact. It's cleaner but not clean - but it is not a renewable technique for producing hydrogen.

- Casper is kinda correct when he asks "where do I get the hydrocarbons from to make hydrogen?" - pointing out it's fossil fuels. This is technically correct, but misses a very important point - you don't have to get it from hydrocarbons. You can get it from water (H2O - 2 hydrogen atoms). This is electrolysis - using electricity to split water molecules into the oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

- Electrolysis uses massive amounts of electricity to produce hydrogen. It's currently quite inefficient which is why it isn't used more. However, unlike creating it from hydrocarbons, electrolysis will get cleaner and easier over time. As electricity supplies continue to go greener, hydrogen becomes greener to produce. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The problem is getting it in its raw state that we want it.

- The problem hydrogen has with motor vehicles is that every energy conversion is "lossy". When you get hydrogen from water via electricity you get less energy out than you put in. (Someone will point out you can't lose energy, which is true but not that point - you're losing it to things like heat and sound. You're losing it from the end product, not the system as a whole). By the time you have created the hydrogen from the water using electricity, you could've just charged the car on that electricity and ran it much further anyway. You're adding steps to the cycle. Hydrogens road car benefits (fast refuelling) are outdone by the additional steps you have to put in to get there - steps we have not yet harnessed, that electric cars can by-pass.

- To sum up - you're both agreeing that you need fossil fuels to make hydrogen right now. You're just using different words to make your stances seem different. They're basically the same except for pedantic chemistry/industry terms.

-----

In terms of the topic - I love Formula E, but I love it because it's different. I don't want Formula 1 to become electric for the same reason I don't want WRC to become Dakar. These are different series that provide different things. I'd much rather than F1 go the sailing route, drop manufacturer involvement, and continue using petrol engines to produce noise and excitement. I'd much rather have (for example) a Williams Judd vs a McLaren Gibson at the front of the field fighting than a Mercedes and Renault engine technology demonstration (not a criticism of these teams - they have done great things within the rules). I don't believe F1 is any better off with manufacturer "engagement". It is hard to argue that the sport is more popular now than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s when manufacturer involvement was at a minimum.

- Return to big honking petrol engines, but make massive green efforts elsewhere
- Drop the hybrid. F1 may have provided road tech at one point, but it's time to diverge
- Road car manufacturers will leave as it isn't relevant, thus producing costs
- Smaller engine manufacturers will return
- Akrapovic will be happy

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Akrapovic will be happy

<snipped the epic post>

Your point about all the conversions being "lossy" is bang on.

Liquefied, it needs to be below -253C. That itself takes a lot of energy, both to get there and keep it there.

Additionally, hydrogen is an absolute idiot of an element, making it fairly hard to contain for long periods in traditional iron/steel tanks without losing significant quantities of it as it leaks out through the elemental metallic lattice of the thing meant to hold it. And it makes the metal brittle as it does so, meaning the tanks have a relatively short life span. Pipework has to be lined for long lifespan, and even then the hydrogen can trash the lining too. It's a little devil!

Chemistry and engineering aside, once the big petrochemical companies have the technology sorted such that they can milk a big enough profit off of generation/storage/transmission of H2, then we'll see a rapid move to it. Until the £££ is worth the investment, it'll all be small scale specialist usage.

The tipping point to alternate energy sources is coming, but so is nuclear fusion... (I'm now 50 and it's always been 50 years away)

[P38 in workshop]

A few years ago I was having a chat with a fellow who,unknown to me, was an environmental scientist.I was a bit surprised when he told me that both methane and water vapour are much worse greenhouse gases than the demonised carbon dioxide.


For the purposes of this discussion,I fear that any notion of hearing a racing V12-outside an event for historics-is pure fantasy.Even a version of what we have now but adapted to biofuels is a bit fanciful,but surely a more appealing idea than Formula E plus a few bells and whistles.

[Pandamasque]

This is somewhat relevant, albeit the quotes are extremely vague
https://racer.com/2020/11/27/ferrari...sist-red-bull/

It looks like the focus for new 2025(?) regs is mainly to cut cost. I expect HERS to be first in line to the guillotine. Plus, they seem to be keen on moving towards a more guilt-free fuel. That's to start in 2022 with measly 10% ethanol. Big deal, sports cars and GTs ran E85 competitively over a decade ago, while 100% biofuel powered Nasamax ran Le Mans in 2003.

But, I wonder if this is a move prompted by the thinking similar to the OP's. I think, decision makers in F1 realise that the series would lose a lot of appeal if it becomes an expensive version of Formula-E, no matter how quick the cars end up being. And it doesn't matter what the storage technology is. Whether it's battery, capacitor or hydrogen fuel cell EV, without those lovely explosions happening it has a limited sex appeal. A lot of punters seem to believe that combustion HY cars are coming. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems this view is not shared by the industry at all.

F1 is facing the fork in the road between going "OEM-relevant", whatever that even is these days, and pure entertainment. It seems right now it's headed right in between those paths, straight towards the ditch in the middle.

[Adam43]

Water and methane can be worse greenhouse gases, but the thing to consider is what quantities we are discussing. We are at a critical point with CO2, not with H2O and CH4 isn’t really an issue in this discussion.

Another point on emissions. The goal isn’t just to reduce CO2 it is to reduce localized emissions. That’s where EV or hydrogen/EV really score. Tax regimes that encourage diesel hit the first, but missed didn’t really consider the second.

Akrapovic, thanks for the post. I suggest anyone debating that takes approach of developing the ideas rather than nit picking, it’s a long post and it is the easiest thing in the world to take one part, try to find a fault with it. In doing so you will miss the point. Very much so.

Overall, I am very much for V12, less road relevance, etc... I probably come across quite the opposite. Some of the arguments as to why, I believe, do more harm than good.

[crmalcolm]

It's been a while since I've heard complaints about the current PUs being too quiet.
When they were brought in - you couldn't find an F1 thread in which someone wasn't complaining about them (it felt like). Eventually the majority get used to the change and move on to the next gripe.
For some - anything that doesn't look like something Fangio would have driven is short of being a 'real F1 car'.
Whatever direction they take - many will complain, many will say they have a better idea, many will proclaim it the death of the sport. A few years later, the past will assume a pale-reddish hue and we will read about how it was better before. But the sport will continue to draw plenty of fans, plenty of sponsors and plenty of entrants, and the winner will be criticised for having it too easy and that things need to change.

[chillibowl]

yeah, really informative post Akrapovic! thanks!

about the lossy idea and the notion of using less energy to produce more power...if thats the goal then would pursuing this philosophy also be a defense of KERS? if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I probably come across quite the opposite. Some of the arguments as to why, I believe, do more harm than good.

well that rung true. reading that, i immediately recognized that my opposition to the return to V12s just stems from me not liking the 'because back in day' position.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Right, I don't want to be a dick but this conversation is getting daft - neither of you understand the basics of the hydrocarbons point, which is resulting in you both arguing with each other and not realising you're agreeing with each other. Whilst I'm not an absolute expert, I worked in Oil & Gas for 6 years in control rooms. So -

- Although it has a proper chemical definition, the term hydrocarbons in this case is used to group together fossil fuels into 1 category for easy description. Oil, Gas, NGLs, etc.

- Casper is mostly correct when he says the majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. He said oil, but it's really gas but that doesn't actually matter - you tend to get both at the same time. The majority of the worlds hydrocarbon wells contain both oil and gas - if you get one, you get the other. There are exceptions to this. There are gas only fields where you only produce gas, and there are heavy crude fields where you won't get gas out of the crude - but for the majority, they come together. The gas is usually "in" the oil under pressure, and only separates once it's out of the well due to the release in pressure (or through a Separator vessel on a rig)

- ASCII Man is kinda on point when he points out it's not oil, but hydrocarbons. Technically correct, but does it really matter at that level of detail? It's still fossil fuels.

- Whilst we do use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, it isn't the same as burning them for energy release. It isn't anywhere near as impactful to the environment as running a truck on diesel. However, it does have an impact. It's cleaner but not clean - but it is not a renewable technique for producing hydrogen.

- Casper is kinda correct when he asks "where do I get the hydrocarbons from to make hydrogen?" - pointing out it's fossil fuels. This is technically correct, but misses a very important point - you don't have to get it from hydrocarbons. You can get it from water (H2O - 2 hydrogen atoms). This is electrolysis - using electricity to split water molecules into the oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

- Electrolysis uses massive amounts of electricity to produce hydrogen. It's currently quite inefficient which is why it isn't used more. However, unlike creating it from hydrocarbons, electrolysis will get cleaner and easier over time. As electricity supplies continue to go greener, hydrogen becomes greener to produce. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The problem is getting it in its raw state that we want it.

- The problem hydrogen has with motor vehicles is that every energy conversion is "lossy". When you get hydrogen from water via electricity you get less energy out than you put in. (Someone will point out you can't lose energy, which is true but not that point - you're losing it to things like heat and sound. You're losing it from the end product, not the system as a whole). By the time you have created the hydrogen from the water using electricity, you could've just charged the car on that electricity and ran it much further anyway. You're adding steps to the cycle. Hydrogens road car benefits (fast refuelling) are outdone by the additional steps you have to put in to get there - steps we have not yet harnessed, that electric cars can by-pass.

- To sum up - you're both agreeing that you need fossil fuels to make hydrogen right now. You're just using different words to make your stances seem different. They're basically the same except for pedantic chemistry/industry terms.

Thank you!

In terms of the topic - I love Formula E, but I love it because it's different. I don't want Formula 1 to become electric for the same reason I don't want WRC to become Dakar. These are different series that provide different things. I'd much rather than F1 go the sailing route, drop manufacturer involvement, and continue using petrol engines to produce noise and excitement. I'd much rather have (for example) a Williams Judd vs a McLaren Gibson at the front of the field fighting than a Mercedes and Renault engine technology demonstration (not a criticism of these teams - they have done great things within the rules). I don't believe F1 is any better off with manufacturer "engagement". It is hard to argue that the sport is more popular now than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s when manufacturer involvement was at a minimum.

- Return to big honking petrol engines, but make massive green efforts elsewhere
- Drop the hybrid. F1 may have provided road tech at one point, but it's time to diverge
- Road car manufacturers will leave as it isn't relevant, thus producing costs
- Smaller engine manufacturers will return
- Akrapovic will be happy

Thank you 2!




A atmospheric V10 or V12 run on synthetic fuel would have so many advantages:


Technically:


- Much lighter.
- Much more compact (smaller cars and more aero options).


Fans:


- Much more transparent for the fans: 0 throttle is zero power, full throttle is full power. Now you don't know because you don't know what battery charge state each driver is in.
- Better sound.



Overall:


- Much much cheaper.
- Much much simpler, independents can join.
- With competitive independents, teams won't be politically dependant on the manufacturer any more (cutting them slack as long is they fall in line when it counts).
- With competitive independents independent teams won't be starved from a competitive engine (Mercedes not supplying to Red Bull).


Road/environmental relevance:



- Synthetic fuel research and marketing through F1 could be relevant for low-end ICE mobility where charging infrastructure is impossible hybrids are to complex/heavy. Think developing countries.




In a decade hopefully ICE motorsport run on synthetic fuels will be tolerated as a guilty pleasure.

[Casper]

My answer was both sarcastic and short on detail because I see people proposing Hydrogen and that would be great if it was feasible to produce it from water using renewable energy but that boat hasn't docked yet and isn't likely too in anything like the near future. Some of use think we can use it in an ICE instead of oil based fuels and this is a good explanation of why that is not feasible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c

[Adam43]

Perhaps F1 could put efforts into the Hydrogen production process as well as efficient use?

(Not that I’m desperate for relevance in F1)

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Perhaps F1 could put efforts into the Hydrogen production process as well as efficient use?

(Not that I’m desperate for relevance in F1)

I liken Hydrogen v's Electric the same way the great debate between VHS and Beta video recording ended. If you are too young to remember that reading about it will explain all.

[Adam43]

Nice Trouble with that was that the worse technology became the ubiquitous solution.

I suspect that with electric and hydrogen they may both be used and depend on the application.

[Richard C]

I still don't see a V12 (regardless of it's fuel) making a return.

Richard

[Casper]

Conventional ICE motors of any configuration will never be seen again in F1 and considering it is the top of the ladder for racing it would be a pretty safe bet to assume the lower formulae would follow on. The problem that racing has got is the complex answer F1 is using and that is not tolerable for racing at any level. We are still in the first generation of hybrid cars and I think less complex answers will evolve with more experience. Full electric could be a good thing for class racing as a "roller skate" could be built and supplied to competitors for them to build a body on much the same as coach builders once did.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Casper

Conventional ICE motors of any configuration will never be seen again in F1 and considering it is the top of the ladder for racing it would be a pretty safe bet to assume the lower formulae would follow on. The problem that racing has got is the complex answer F1 is using and that is not tolerable for racing at any level. We are still in the first generation of hybrid cars and I think less complex answers will evolve with more experience. Full electric could be a good thing for class racing as a "roller skate" could be built and supplied to competitors for them to build a body on much the same as coach builders once did.

You're assuming that the role of motorsport and F1 in particular when it comes to manufacturer PR and R&D will remain what it was for the past century or so. I find that highly unlikely. Best case scenario F1 finds commercial success as one of the "extreme sports" funded by energy drink makers and video game publishers. At that point road-relevance is out of the window. But there's a good chance it latches to OEM's ever changing and contradictory interests and replicates the slow agonising demise of the DTM.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

You're assuming that the role of motorsport and F1 in particular when it comes to manufacturer PR and R&D will remain what it was for the past century or so. I find that highly unlikely. Best case scenario F1 finds commercial success as one of the "extreme sports" funded by energy drink makers and video game publishers. At that point road-relevance is out of the window. But there's a good chance it latches to OEM's ever changing and contradictory interests and replicates the slow agonising demise of the DTM.

Obviously no one knows where the future of motor sport will end up as this huge change takes place. We can all express our opinion on that and it will be interesting to see the evolution over the next decade. F1 as it stands will most probably lose relevance to what we drive and the impact of that on its popularity is yet to be seen.

[Akrapovic]

One of the most amusing but awesome stories this weekend has been Alonso driving the R25 around Abu Dhabi. And all we've seen on social media is videos of the sound. We need this back.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

One of the most amusing but awesome stories this weekend has been Alonso driving the R25 around Abu Dhabi. And all we've seen on social media is videos of the sound. We need this back.

Sky did a full in-car lap yesterday, and ran a side-by-side comparison. The R25 looked vastly quicker than today's cars, but was between 5 and 7 seconds a lap slower than the modern cars - even the backmarkers were quicker.

It's a short wheelbase, it's narrow, it's between 100-150kg lighter but it doesn't have the downforce or braking capability of the modern cars.

Still looked - and sounded - brilliant though!

[Adam43]

Presumably the new car has more power too.

[P38 in workshop]

I thought this horse had died a while ago and yet people are still flogging it.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

I liken Hydrogen v's Electric the same way the great debate between VHS and Beta video recording ended.

Market share and convenience for rentals?

Convenience wins. Public BEV chargers seem to be popping up about the place in the UK, not so much in Australia.

Spare a thought for the Philips Video 2000 cassette -- lucky to get one shelf in a video rental store compared to one corner of Beta and a whole floor of VHS, or worse the RCA VideoDisc -- a player-only for video on vinyl could never compete with a video cassette recorder, recalling the "record + time shift TV" market appeared first, before the home movie market.