The Hybrid/NA Engine Debate (moved from Future Rule Changes)

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I'm starting to think whether something is 'green' or not is not even important to you at all, considering your comment about the V8s.

Actually I don't agree with green in terms of racing since it seems to me to be a contradiction.

If you are going to burn fuel then at least do it efficiently. Doing it to power a lump of qubbins that goes on to drive the car forward seems a waste of that energy.

You are of course correct thst the power unit is more or at.least as economical as an engine on its own. It's just necessarily heavier and to do that burns as much fuel as a lighter NA engine for the same result. If a Ford Fiesta 993cc turbo can easily produce 134bhp think what powera1500 turbo race engine could produce and still not burn as much fuel per mile raced.

[Peter Mallett]

I feel like expanding on this so my apologies but:

Taking the example of the railways. Steam power produced massive amounts of torque but was quite messy. But it was/is great for pulling heavy loads and also gave a smooth delivery of power. During the transition from steam to diesel it was recognized that diesel was also a bit smelly and furthermore, needed an awful lot more power per cc than the equivalent steam engine, thus they developed Diesel Electric units. Similar to the current F1 PUs. These provided the torque of the steam locos but needed the diesel engine to generate the electricity.

Now as has been recognized, the need for clean air has reduced the diesel electric units and increased the pure electric powered units. But of course they can't provide that power without being connected to the grid constantly. However it is very efficient and clean/green or at least green as far as the output is concerned. So, whilst a large amount of freight is still pulled by diesel electric locos, the vast majority of mileage in the UK railway system is pure electric.

So, harping back to my point. You either have all electric (Formula E) or fossil fuel power for your race performance. To combine the two in hybrids, similar to the diesel electric locos, is a very inefficient way of producing power.

I'm enjoying the discussion so happy to be corrected.

[Armco Bender]

You either have all electric (Formula E)

If F1 goes electric I'll jump...

[Casper]

F1 has emerged from a time that that mandated the use of bespoke engines due to the state of the ICE development not being advanced enough in road vehicles so using a road vehicle motor was out of the question. Any half decent V8 or turbo V6 motor will now produce the thick end of 700ish HP for the road so it is not inconceivable that a stock block could get to around 1000hp so why do we need bespoke motors? 200k to build a LS stock block beats how many million? Just because it has always been done that doesn't seem a good reason to keep head butting the same brick wall.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So, harping back to my point. You either have all electric (Formula E) or fossil fuel power for your race performance. To combine the two in hybrids, similar to the diesel electric locos, is a very inefficient way of producing power.

I'm enjoying the discussion so happy to be corrected.

The problem is that you're decidedly incorrect about the above. I don't like repeating myself and you don't seem to read my posts anyway so I'll just leave it at that.

[Peter Mallett]

It is but up to you.

[Mike Harte]

Are they that inefficient, though? Given the power output of the current F1 Hybrid, could a purely fossil fuelled ICE with the same power output complete the same distance at the same speed with exactly the same amount of fossil fuel?


I am assuming that the answer is no, given that the Mercedes team had to give the directors an undertaking that the current PUs would provide a considerable fossil fuel saving. And I believe that they have done so.


I understand the argument that the current PU may not be the most efficient power unit that could produce that power output, but a pure electric motor is not the answer currently. One only has to look at Formula E, where the power output is around 245 HP in race trim, and can only last about 25 minutes or so, with a top speed of around 140 mph. Well, back in the 80s, my road car could cruise at that speed for around 4 hours or so before a refuel, and I didn't need to lug those heavy old batteries around either!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I understand the argument that the current PU may not be the most efficient power unit that could produce that power output, but a pure electric motor is not the answer currently. One only has to look at Formula E, where the power output is around 245 HP in race trim, and can only last about 25 minutes or so, with a top speed of around 140 mph. Well, back in the 80s, my road car could cruise at that speed for around 4 hours or so before a refuel, and I didn't need to lug those heavy old batteries around either!

The short stints and limited power output are purely down to the battery tech the series chose. Formula E has a 54kW battery, approximately half of what's currently on offer from an electric performance car, and a quarter of what's currently in the pipeline.

My Ford Fiesta will do double an F1 race distance before a refuel.

[Peter Mallett]

I see the points here and indeed agree to the extent that you either want FE or you want Formula 1.

Lugging loads of weight around simply to provide short bursts of power is somewhat inefficient. Which is my point. The amount of fuel burnt by these hybrids is more per minute than a pure NA engine.

For a road car it works because we look at fuel cost in terms of money. Look at it in terms of burn per minute then perhaps you understand my point.

Like I said I'm happy to be proved wrong. But so far all I've heard is "It's the current thinking so it must be right." Which is why I made the example of the railways.

If you could get 8mpg out of a 700bhp NA engine in a car that's 600kg. Then surely it makes sense. Don't forget, part of the reason the cars are so heavy is because they have to allow for the recovery units.

If you can legislate.fpr NA engines, more companies would be involved because an NA engine is far less complex than the wasteful power units we have now.

Perhaps then Williams and McLaren would survive.

But what do i know?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My Ford Fiesta will do double an F1 race distance before a refuel.

But not at the same sort of speed, though. Which sort of proves my point, that this is a pointless argument because we can all produce different statistics to prove whatever point that we want to make.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The short stints and limited power output are purely down to the battery tech the series chose. Formula E has a 54kW battery, approximately half of what's currently on offer from an electric performance car, and a quarter of what's currently in the pipeline.

But those batteries are also a lot heavier and require a lot more cooling. Next year FE will have a bigger battery, increasing the weight of the car by a lot. Speeds will go down and race lengths will be shortened but at least they won't have to swap cars anymore. Whether that's progress or not is anyone's guess.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But what do i know?

Clearly not very much, but ignorance doesn't seem to stop you. Maybe you should actually think about how much a hybrid system weighs and how much power it generates.

[Peter Mallett]

Thanks for that. indeed I have and that's why I take my position.

You have yours which seems to be that you are right and everyone else's opinion is wrong. A bit sad really.

So far all I've seen is that hybrid is good and.everything elasenis bad. Yet the.manifacturwrs are moving away from hybrid for road cars and either going for small turbo engines or ev.

As we know EV doesn't work due to battery life in racing so surely it has to be more efficient lower cost fossil fueled engines?

Thereby allowing more people into the sport.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As we know EV doesn't work due to battery life in racing so surely it has to be more efficient lower cost fossil fueled engines?

I'm ignoring Captain Sprinkles, but this is an interesting question which raises about a hundred more. It really defines how you measure efficiency. In the vehicle itself, an electric motor manages to turn approximately 60% of the electrical energy into kinetic. But a ICE tends to be around 25-40%. So in terms of converting the fuel to motion, an EV is much more efficient.

When it comes to efficiency you can go as far back as you want in the discussion - right up to extracting the oil from the well or burning the coal to boil the water to produce steam for electricity, etc. Efficiency is a hard one to talk about as it depends where you set the boundaries for the system.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So far all I've seen is that hybrid is good and.everything elasenis bad. Yet the.manifacturwrs are moving away from hybrid for road cars and either going for small turbo engines or ev.

As we know EV doesn't work due to battery life in racing so surely it has to be more efficient lower cost fossil fueled engines?

Thereby allowing more people into the sport.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, because my interest in F1 might be rekindled if we returned to the V8s, 10s, 12s and even the Ws. But I believe that I am a realist, and that it ain't going to happen, certainly not in the near future.


As for the manufacturers going to EVs, I think that that is driven more by governmental edicts (from various directions) than by any desire of the manufacturers themselves. However, no government has yet been able to confirm how all the electrical power is to be generated to charge/run all machinery that will dependant on the grid on a sub-zero night in winter when there is insufficient wind to turn the turbine blades within the wind farm!


And before anybody poo-poos that, I live on the top of the Pennines and I see this every year. The wind blows up here almost permanently, but in the dead of winter when the temperature really plummets, so usually does the wind and the turbines are then as useful as a chocolate teapot.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I don't necessarily disagree with you, because my interest in F1 might be rekindled if we returned to the V8s, 10s, 12s and even the Ws. But I believe that I am a realist, and that it ain't going to happen, certainly not in the near future.


As for the manufacturers going to EVs, I think that that is driven more by governmental edicts (from various directions) than by any desire of the manufacturers themselves. However, no government has yet been able to confirm how all the electrical power is to be generated to charge/run all machinery that will dependant on the grid on a sub-zero night in winter when there is insufficient wind to turn the turbine blades within the wind farm!


And before anybody poo-poos that, I live on the top of the Pennines and I see this every year. The wind blows up here almost permanently, but in the dead of winter when the temperature really plummets, so usually does the wind and the turbines are then as useful as a chocolate teapot.

It's not as simple as using turbines to charge all the cars. That's why there's a mix of offshore wind (North sea doesn't have many windless days, and has a lot more area to put them!), onshore wind, solar, tidal and storage (battery and mass).

[Greem]

I may be a bit late to the party here, but...

Am I mistaken in thinking that current cars can travel 30-50% further for a given amount of fuel, at the same (or higher) speed than the previous generation of engine?

Surely that means regardless of instantaneous fuel burn, the current crop of PU designs are simply more efficient than the old ones. Doesn't it?

Going back to Pete's diesel-electric locomotive comment; the diesel engines can run at a more or less constant rate which happens to be their most efficient conversion point to keep the generators running and batteries charged. They're not as efficient at the point of use as pure electric, but they are both more powerful and efficient than pure diesel.

In terms of F1, (and LMP1 by extension), despite me wishing for a basic ruleset which restricts the energy consumption for the weekend there's a huge political elephant in the room: reducing energy consumption reduces consumption. Reducing consumption reduces profit. Reducing profit means a loss of power to those already have it. Sorry to bring world politics in at this point but you simply can't get away from the fact that F1 has been built on a model which encourages consumption of everything to line the pockets of those who already have the money.

Meanwhile, having stood 6 feet from the cars doing 150mph+ at Silverstone, I don't care whether they have V12 NA or V6 turbo or modern hybrid PUs: they're bloody awesome up close.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Lugging loads of weight around simply to provide short bursts of power is somewhat inefficient. Which is my point. The amount of fuel burnt by these hybrids is more per minute than a pure NA engine.

This is the stage where, for me, your argument falls down.

Peak power is irrelevant, it is the total sum of power delivered to the driven component (the wheels) over a certain time frame that matters, from a certain level of stored energy.



Currently F1 start with a maximum energy store of 100litres of fuel.
If you put a current hybrid power train alongside a pure NA - the hybrid would complete the race distance in the fastest time.

Therefore, from an equal starting point of available energy, the hybrid is more efficient at providing energy - so greener.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm ignoring Captain Sprinkles, but this is an interesting question which raises about a hundred more. It really defines how you measure efficiency. In the vehicle itself, an electric motor manages to turn approximately 60% of the electrical energy into kinetic. But a ICE tends to be around 25-40%. So in terms of converting the fuel to motion, an EV is much more efficient.

When it comes to efficiency you can go as far back as you want in the discussion - right up to extracting the oil from the well or burning the coal to boil the water to produce steam for electricity, etc. Efficiency is a hard one to talk about as it depends where you set the boundaries for the system.

If you set the system simply as the car itself, a hybrid wins by quite a lot. And even if you expand that I would wager that would also still win, especially looking at how the current energy generation systems are set up in the world.
If everyone in the world would get a hybrid car emissions would be drastically reduced along with petrol and electricity use.
Unfortunately shortsighted goverments and semi-messianic figures like Musk have started a big cult that believes simply ignoring the problems electric drivetrains bring with them is the way forward...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Greem

Surely that means regardless of instantaneous fuel burn, the current crop of PU designs are simply more efficient than the old ones. Doesn't it?

Yes indeed. There have been made enormous strides in making ICE more efficient, and there's a lot more left in that tank. Electric motors are never going to get better than what they are now, and only perform at their best in very specific conditions anyway. You don't want to start driving an EV when it's below freezing...

EVs saving grace might be hydrogen fuel cells which is definitely an interesting concept so far.

[Peter Mallett]

I'll have to read all the responses later but for now perhaps this piece by Andrew Frankel will explain my position better. https://www.goodwood.com/grrc/column...fast-cars/amp/

Also as an aside, one of my cars will do a two hour race burning between 110 and 120 litres of fuel. It's a V8 3.5litre. Now if in historic racing we can do that in a car that weighs over 1000 kg then surely modern technology in a lightweight more nimble car will provide good racing and burn the same fuel as the hybrids.

And the point is the same amount of fuel.

There are plenty of reports on line that support the argument for hybrid in a road car but the requirements are somewhat different.

Anyway just a bit more food for thought.

[Peter Mallett]

I've taken the liberty of moving these posts since we were going way off topic. But it is an interesting debate.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As for the manufacturers going to EVs, I think that that is driven more by governmental edicts (from various directions) than by any desire of the manufacturers themselves. However, no government has yet been able to confirm how all the electrical power is to be generated to charge/run all machinery that will dependant on the grid on a sub-zero night in winter when there is insufficient wind to turn the turbine blades within the wind farm!

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's not as simple as using turbines to charge all the cars. That's why there's a mix of offshore wind (North sea doesn't have many windless days, and has a lot more area to put them!), onshore wind, solar, tidal and storage (battery and mass).

As much as I'd like to agree with Mike's point, I know that there are massive strides being made in battery technology to the extent that the power provided during windy periods will be available to release at any time it is convenient.

Originally Posted by Greem

I may be a bit late to the party here, but...

Am I mistaken in thinking that current cars can travel 30-50% further for a given amount of fuel, at the same (or higher) speed than the previous generation of engine?

You may well be correct but I'm not talking about returning to old technology. See my post above concerning my particular experience.

Originally Posted by Greem

Going back to Pete's diesel-electric locomotive comment; the diesel engines can run at a more or less constant rate which happens to be their most efficient conversion point to keep the generators running and batteries charged. They're not as efficient at the point of use as pure electric, but they are both more powerful and efficient than pure diesel.

In terms of F1, (and LMP1 by extension), despite me wishing for a basic ruleset which restricts the energy consumption for the weekend there's a huge political elephant in the room: reducing energy consumption reduces consumption. Reducing consumption reduces profit. Reducing profit means a loss of power to those already have it. Sorry to bring world politics in at this point but you simply can't get away from the fact that F1 has been built on a model which encourages consumption of everything to line the pockets of those who already have the money.

Meanwhile, having stood 6 feet from the cars doing 150mph+ at Silverstone, I don't care whether they have V12 NA or V6 turbo or modern hybrid PUs: they're bloody awesome up close.

I don't like the idea of restricting power usage since it would introduce even more technology and more cost. I prefer the thought that an independent engineering house could produce an engine that provided the necessary BHP for a much lesser cost and at the same time do it on 100 litres of fuel.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

This is the stage where, for me, your argument falls down.

Peak power is irrelevant, it is the total sum of power delivered to the driven component (the wheels) over a certain time frame that matters, from a certain level of stored energy.

Currently F1 start with a maximum energy store of 100litres of fuel.
If you put a current hybrid power train alongside a pure NA - the hybrid would complete the race distance in the fastest time.

Better look at Andrew Frankel's report about the experience of Porsche which I posted above. We are of course talking about racing which is not the same as aggressive driving or normal road driving. If you read the science for those types of driving the hybrid does indeed show more "economy".

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

If you set the system simply as the car itself, a hybrid wins by quite a lot. And even if you expand that I would wager that would also still win, especially looking at how the current energy generation systems are set up in the world.
If everyone in the world would get a hybrid car emissions would be drastically reduced along with petrol and electricity use.
Unfortunately shortsighted goverments and semi-messianic figures like Musk have started a big cult that believes simply ignoring the problems electric drivetrains bring with them is the way forward...

Perhaps a read of the science would assist, since it appears that under aggressive driving the difference between a hybrid and a normally aspirated engine reduces significantly? This report is just a sample, there are others.
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/...vity_style.pdf

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Yes indeed. There have been made enormous strides in making ICE more efficient, and there's a lot more left in that tank. Electric motors are never going to get better than what they are now, and only perform at their best in very specific conditions anyway. You don't want to start driving an EV when it's below freezing...

EVs saving grace might be hydrogen fuel cells which is definitely an interesting concept so far.

Well as I said above I know there are great strides being made in battery and power storage systems. Eventually these will be lighter and longer lasting. However right now it's difficult since even in cold (-2c) conditions a battery will fail quite quickly. Just try using your mobile phone in severe cold weather.

Ultimately we know the manufacturers want to hold the sport to ransom and this technology is just the start. Also why does the car have to be 734Kg? Again I ask you to imagine a 500Kg NA engine powered formula one car. How nimble and fast, would that be?

[Oldtony]

Good to have this discussion in a special thread of it's own.
I doubt there is some sort of dastardly plot to create some sort of monopoly on the sale of race engines. Not exactly a mass market


I think that the reason the current engine manufacturers are keen on the present regs. is because it provides a research platform, and a PR demonstration, for the pure science in converting a given amount of hydrocarbon fuel into the maximum delivery of achieved work ie.mass x distance x speed.

That function will probably be a requirement even when EVs take over the major functions of personal and frieght transport. Until a small source of electrical power, or an almost infinite life battery comes along there will always be a need for vehicles which do not need access to the grid. Think remote locations, emergency or security operations, low volume long distance etc. Research is therefor needed to conserve the stocks of hydrocarbon fuels and abate their emission levels when used.

Mercedes are claiming an energy recovery level of around 50% (Kj to Kw) from their F1 power units. Compare that to diesel cars around 33% and petrol at around 27% (Prius does better). The only forms of transport doing anything similar are Greems diesel electric locos, (which by the way are the original users of KERS) and very large diesels in shipping.

My feelings on F1 are that we are very lucky that the formula is being used as a research platform by the big manufacturers in their efforts to maintain the viability of personal transport systems. The fact that they are willing to supply the engines to other teams is to be admired.


In terms of cost it is a matter of this being a competitive sport. Unless you can compete it is wasting your time and money being in F1. There have been many great teams that are no longer around but if you can't keep up that's the way it goes.

I go back to a variation of Greems original suggestion. I would suggest that the regs. should stipulate a 300km or 2hr race and allocate a given number of Kilo Joules of energy with which to complete the distance. No other power unit restrictions need apply.


Standards of safety would have to be paramount but other regulations regarding aero, tyres, dimensions etc could be set to enhance the competition and spectacle.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

I go back to a variation of Greems original suggestion. I would suggest that the regs. should stipulate a 300km or 2hr race and allocate a given number of Kilo Joules of energy with which to complete the distance. No other power unit restrictions need apply.

Standards of safety would have to be paramount but other regulations regarding aero, tyres, dimensions etc could be set to enhance the competition and spectacle.

This is pretty much how the current rules are in LMP1H, by the way. Well, were anyway. As usual the organizers got scared by success and speed and imposed lots of silly restrictions. But the general idea with the EoT was (and to an extent still is) you get x amount of energy, if more of that is non-petrol power from the hybrid then you get less petrol energy and vice versa, with a built-in incentive for more hybrid power. It has been one of the most open rulebooks we've seen in forever and it led to what I would call a golden age that unfortunately got ended by Dieselgate. And Nissan's extreme foolishness. But we also saw at least 4 entirely different solutions to both hybrid systems and ICE. I don't think we've seen that amount of innovation in any motorsport since about the 1970s F1 innovation era.

The problem is that this would not work well with F1 unless you force manufacturers to also sell their drivetrains and power units to customer teams, and then you end up with the same problems as now. Then again, I'm really not opposed to getting rid of the privateer teams and just have 20 factory cars on the grid but then again I'm less of an F1 enthusiast than most.