Future and current technology discussion thread.

[CTD]

Hello.

It accurred to me that we have no dedicated thread where we discuss the current and future technologies in Sportscar Racing.

Subjects which sometimes take over other dedicated threads, can be placed here instead, and hopefully end up being a thread filled with technology debates from the many knowledgable members .

If the subject is found useless, please delete the whole thread .

A technology i would like to kick of with is this:
Aerographite
A "brand new" material which is 99,9% air, and 00,1% Carbon, put together in a structure similar to the EiffelTower, is super strong and super conductive.
The inventors mentions this material to, first off, being ideal for batteries and Supercapacitors. But with a lighter mass and possible same or stronger structure than Carbonfiber, it might also be the future chassis and monocoque material.

[Purist]

Its usefulness is going to be very dependent on the cost of producing this stuff. Also, is the strength largely along one plane, or will it hold up well under load from all three dimensions?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Purist

Its usefulness is going to be very dependent on the cost of producing this stuff. Also, is the strength largely along one plane, or will it hold up well under load from all three dimensions?

Yes of course. But like all material, the higher demand, the lower price (remember its carbon and air, so no costly materials). If it's able to lower the weight of batteries in general I think we will see a huge investment from all sectors, especially Space, Aviaton, Military and all forms of transportation. This should lower the cost significantly.
However this is often a long process, which Carbonfiber is a good exampel of.
But i do see the potential in it, as a future technology in sportscar racing.

[Purist]

Carbon fiber, of the scale and complexity needed to make a chassis, is still very difficult to manufacture. The equipment required to make it in complicated forms is itself quite expensive, and even aircraft companies often mess up the process. On top of all that, there is the tooling/moulds to be considered as well.

At the end of the day, advanced composites will always be cost/skill prohibitive compared to metal working.

[The Badger]

Moulds are not the issue , You just need some good carpenters or model makers to manufacture those . I make moulds for forming aluminium , shrinking and stretching aluminium I do too . Its takes time but no more expensive that any other mould . The process , involving autoclave could be the cost issue here , as well as not being able to perform a field repair , as the damaged tub needs to be shipped back to the factory for grafting in a new section . Clever as it is , it could be the ruination of our sport .

Oreca has said that they are not really interested in building a new tub for the new rules , as its not cost effective , and that , needs to be addressed .

Lola obviously couldnt make a profit ..... Oreca is not interested ..... so why would/should anybody else be prepared for fork out for something thats not cost effective .

Here lies a root to one of the issues .

I believe factories should be made supply a given amount of chassis , thus offsetting their production costs .

Carbon firbe isnt so expensive at all . Sometimes the problem with Carbon fibre is also supply . Boeing had huge amounts of this bought up , leading to increased cost .

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Purist

At the end of the day, advanced composites will always be cost/skill prohibitive compared to metal working.

Agreed ..... Carbon fibre isnt technology anymore ..... its been about since the early 80's ..... however , it does seem to be a lot safer .

Maybe the direction prototype sportscars should be going in back towards metal and finding new ways to use it . Metal has come a long way since the 1980's too .

Aluminiun lithium to name just one example .

[Icarus_nz]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I believe factories should be made supply a given amount of chassis , thus offsetting their production costs .

Yep. That would get them lining up in droves (NOT)
You're halfway to understanding why spec classes abound.

Lets be honest. Carbon Fibre and its attendent issues has largely killed widespread innovation except in the mega dollar classes

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Icarus_nz

You're halfway to understanding why spec classes abound.

And your half way to understanding that the sport is facing a lack of chassis constructors , or havent you been keeping tabs on currant threads .

You dont believe , that if Pug had offered what was left of their sportscar programme to a well run privateer , for a price , it wouldnt have been snapped up ..... Believe me , there is lots of money out there , just look at what Rebellion have from watch sales !!! Maybe not everyone has it , but some do ........

Your having a laugh ..... anyway , back on topic I guess .

[ger80]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Maybe the direction prototype sportscars should be going in back towards metal and finding new ways to use it . Metal has come a long way since the 1980's too .

Aluminiun lithium to name just one example .

Would be interesting to see the weight of an optimised aluminium lithium tub ...

[CTD]

Is there any exotic and expensive materials used in producing Carbon fiber!? (Either the glue or in the manufacturing process).

Because, in my mind, the biggest weakness of using metals compared to using carbon fiber is the exotic state of some of the materials. And the more there is used, the more expensive it gets.
If Carbon fiber doesn't use any exotic materials, but "only" got a expensive fabrication process. The higher demand, would eventually force manufactures to optimize the fabrication to a point where it's relatively affordable.

[MagVanisher]

Say, I wonder if the teams can use the "drive-by-wire" on their prototypes?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Say, I wonder if the teams can use the "drive-by-wire" on their prototypes?

I'm not sure the weight saved by such a system is enough compared to the loss of feel with the car.
A "drive-by-wire" system would mean that the driver no longer has direct input from the wheel to how the car reacts.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by CTD

Is there any exotic and expensive materials used in producing Carbon fiber!? (Either the glue or in the manufacturing process).

Because, in my mind, the biggest weakness of using metals compared to using carbon fiber is the exotic state of some of the materials. And the more there is used, the more expensive it gets.
If Carbon fiber doesn't use any exotic materials, but "only" got a expensive fabrication process. The higher demand, would eventually force manufactures to optimize the fabrication to a point where it's relatively affordable.

Its not expensive (CF) , but the design , and stress analysis of the weave layup and obviously the autoclave shove the price up , and of course the fact thats when its knackered , it will need freighting back to the factory , in some cases air freight from across the pond .

With metal , you can do a field repair . Plus CF is difficult to crack detect .

[CyberMotor]

Good thread. I'm really interested in the Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) and the different technological paths this is taking: battery storage; flywheel storage or super-capacitor storage. Batteries can store large amounts of energy but are generally slow to charge and in delivering the energy on demand.

This year's 24 Hours of Le Mans had the Audi version of the flywheel pitted against Toyota's super-capicator system. Not sure this matchup provided us with enough data to indicate which is the superior system. It was Toyota's first attempt with a new car plus the new technologies. Plus, there is a question of when these systems were actually functioning in their ultimate performance mode?

One of questions about the KERS systems is how effective they are in normal driving situations? Is there enough high-energy braking to recharge the systems? I am thinking that a hybrid-hybrid system might be in order. This would couple the most efficient IC engine with direct-injection, etc. running on biofuels with either the flywheel or the super-capicator systems driving electric motors either at the wheels or the drive train. Then include a smaller than normal high-efficiency battery pack storing excess energy or energy derived from the engine for the times when the KERS does not have enough energy to be effective. Of course weight and complexities are issues but with the newer materials and higher-efficiencies, I'm thinking this could work and would be more directly beneficial to road-going cars.

[MagVanisher]

In regards to KERS, would it be possible to create a ramjet air duct to gather energy using wind, then use that energy as a "push to pass" in conjunction with Drag Reduction System?

[TRuss]

Cost is not the only issue in determining the viability of new technologies. The governing bodies have to allow them first.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by TRuss

Cost is not the only issue in determining the viability of new technologies. The governing bodies have to allow them first.

The ACO has indicated in their proposed 2014 regulations that they want to encourage more new technologies that can be tested and evaluated under racing conditions which can then be transferred to road cars. I think we will begin to see a lot of new development of technologies like this... I hope. Should be interesting.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

One of questions about the KERS systems is how effective they are in normal driving situations? Is there enough high-energy braking to recharge the systems? I am thinking that a hybrid-hybrid system might be in order. This would couple the most efficient IC engine with direct-injection, etc. running on biofuels with either the flywheel or the super-capicator systems driving electric motors either at the wheels or the drive train. Then include a smaller than normal high-efficiency battery pack storing excess energy or energy derived from the engine for the times when the KERS does not have enough energy to be effective. Of course weight and complexities are issues but with the newer materials and higher-efficiencies, I'm thinking this could work and would be more directly beneficial to road-going cars.

In the real world a hybrid powertrain is good for a 10-40% fuel economy improvement. If you keep the same engine and have a mild hybrid setup the improvement could be quite small closer to 10-15%. If you use a smaller/atkinson cycle/less powerful gasoline engine and stick the electric motor between the engine and the gearbox you get more improvement and get closer to 20-25%. If you use a CVT system that Toyota and I think Ford use (completely different from their race car) you get even more improvement. With any system the improvements are much better in the city than on the highway because of no idle time and more regeneration/assist chances. With any system the key is to use the gasoline engine as little as possible (shut it off) and when necessary to use it less (rely as much as possible on electric motor assist) hence a battery system is the best setup. Even fairly mild hybrid systems promise up to around 3 minutes of pure electric drive under the best conditions (which I don't think a flywheel or a supercapacitor setup allows for) which is why you see batteries in road cars.

The system you are talking about is called a series hybrid. The Chevy Volt is closest to that but for road going car parallel setups are the go to system.

[ss_collins]

What a fun thread. I like this a lot. Not gonna throw my hat in yet beyond saying like drunk in the corner "Methanol lad, I tell ya Methanol".

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

What a fun thread. I like this a lot. Not gonna throw my hat in yet beyond saying like drunk in the corner "Methanol lad, I tell ya Methanol".

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/132014...s_alcohol_car/ Like this?

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Purist

At the end of the day, advanced composites will always be cost/skill prohibitive compared to metal working.

Here is a new twist on steel that is pretty cool.

http://www.nanosteelco.com/breakthrough/index.php#video

I read an article a while back about a Japanese company that has a new low cost composite that GM is partnering with as well.

BMW has a partnership with a California cf company too; so there is a push to make the material more mainstream.

[Félix]

Your tub could be worth 5000$, as long as you need to hang an engine that's in the 6 figure$, a gearbox that takes weeks to cast and all kinds of components that are very rare and thus very easy to price absurdly so that the few specialists that are left in the market can make a profit - well it's always gonna be expensive. (and of course the alternative is something akin to mid-engined NASCAR/Daytona Protoypes. And while we're on that subject, the RACES worth watching now are for the lead in Grand Am; probably just as good as ALMS GT but with TV coverage)

I guess it was better when Porsche was making huge runs of identical 962s and parts were available and paid in 1985 money... but that was still very expensive and it only works when the economy is good and the SPORT is attractive. Look at the (somewhat) standard 997 RSR and it still costs over half a million!

[Tim the Grey]

I think things will be re-trenching for a while, then SOMETHING turns up that goes like stink, yet doesn't cause you to empty a biro writing the zeroes...
Think about McLaren GTR. LM winner, that was an expensive road car, but compared to a then current pure racer, was a bargain...
Until then, it's a reducing market.
Meantime, Energy Recovery will be THE mantra, with all sorts of systems appearing, being discussed, then dropped as too expensive, complicated, heavy, or all 3!

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

What a fun thread. I like this a lot. Not gonna throw my hat in yet beyond saying like drunk in the corner "Methanol lad, I tell ya Methanol".

Thats the crap that goes on fire , but with an invisable flame ..... thats nasty crap and should be banned under safety grounds .

[Purist]

I have to disagree there. i certainly can't recall methanol being any worse in terms of frequency of fires. Also, on the whole, I would have to say it's easier to put out. I've seen multiple gasoline fires at races that were VASTLY harder to put out than the most virulent methanol incident I can think of.

Probably the incident involving dope fuel that comes to mind most for me, in recent years, is Tony Kanaan's incident at Mexico City in 2002.

As for gasoline fires that were a nightmare to put out, there was Ricardo Paletti's car after it hit Pironi's stalled Ferrari in Montreal in 1982. There was a serious fire in the Rothmans Porsche pit during the 1985 Hockenheim 1000km; Norbert Singer went to the hospital after that one. Finally, the distinctive #80, Ferrari-powered Camel Lights car sheered off the right side against the concrete at San Antonio, and that thing just would not go out.

Also, except herhaps for recent Indy Cars, I can't recall a modern tank burst for an alcohol-laden race car.