Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑22 Aug 2023, 11:41
Chuckjr wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 17:21
Burning fuel to charge batteries? Wut.
... Does that concept not entirely defeat the whole purpose of having batteries for “clean” energy?
it does not
burning fuel to charge batteries reduces the fuel and plant costs that would otherwise occur
as do the road hybrids
(ok plus these use a cheaper more efficient transmission than the ICEV can)
ie when only partial ICE power is needed for propulsion adding generating load reduces the fuel cost of that power
(because the ICE is less efficient at partial power than at high power)
using stored power saves fuel and plant costs (the alternative being a bigger and more powerful ICE)
(ok plus the F1 transmission is helpful to the efficiency of the electrical side)
F1 and (before that) GP race rules never ignored the road relevance of their times
yes ideally F1 might have been allowed mechanical energy storage
Williams were big in that
Tommy, I have read your posts here for years. You are an extremely valuable contributing asset to this community. I learn from your posts most every time I visit this site. Thank you. Considering your beyond PhD level of knowledge and experience in everything F1 tech, I’ve a general question.
If given the option between a v8 multi-turbo engine, or an equal in power hybrid unit like used in F1 now and coming soon, which is truly greener when considering the whole picture from source to disposal? Honestly. It seems with this F1 hybrid technology, logic and reason aren’t the order of the day, whereas political correctness and pyrrhic victories are — so I want the real skinny.
Meaning, the energy expended to manufacture and then drive/support a hybrid are needlessly excessive. Today’s F1 cars are obese, lengthy, and goofy-proportioned. The carbon based energies used pushing and stopping an oversized, ancillaries laden F1 car that is possibly hundreds of pounds heavier than what a turbo v8 would amount, seems a self-defeating, anti-racing endeavor from the get-go. A force fit at best.
The costs of sourcing, manufacturing, recycling and disposing of batteries — which we know is a sketchy business as far as cobalt and third world sourced minerals are concerned — is exorbitant. Plus the enormous volume of massive trucks & fuel to mine the exotic materials needed for batteries. Hybrids seem a much, much more earth destructive process, while also acting as a needless usury scheme for teams.
Speaking of usury... the amount of very expensive and highly skilled technological personnel required to support a rocket science level power unit is nuts. Hundreds more people are needed for hybrids as compared to support a simple (relatively speaking) turbo ICE. I get the need to have a test bed for manufacturers, but does it take dedicating and arguably destroying a sport to get that job done?
It all seems much more like a globalist pot latch than an honest to goodness attempt to stroke Mother Nature. As you described, they are even looking at burning the very fuel they are attempting to avoid just to have enough umph (which still isn’t enough umph according to some here) to charge these clumsy batteries to make an obese car go fast. Sure, the teams and the FIA are supporting all this, but is not the FIA the de facto guilty party since they impose on the teams the direction they want? It seems painfully similar to when Henry Ford said people could have any color car they wanted so long as they chose black. The teams can choose any power source they want as long as it’s hybrid. The similarities are uncanny. The FIA seems hell-bent to put lipstick on a pig by appearing carbon friendly, when in fact everyone knows racing and carbon friendliness are non-congruent.
Tell me what I’m missing because it seems the hybrids represent and bring about most everything anti-racing: overweight, disproportion, inertia, silent operation, etc.
Watching F1 since 1986.