In light of recent comments from those who are against the move away from V8s towards a ‘greener’ engine, including Bernie Ecclestone and Luca di Montezemolo, Parr says that there is no going back on the direction of travel.
He also makes a point I’ve not heard before that with the 2013 engines, when the car is in the pit lane, it will be running on pure electric only, a very interesting step and quite a message, if you think about it.
Criticism of the 2013 plans centres around the lack of noise, but also the notion that it is an empty gesture, paying lip service to sustainability – a ‘greenwash’ in other words. Running on electric only when the car is in the pit lane, would be a big step for the sport.
Parr said the new engine would be turbocharged and turbo-compounded. The KERS (kinetic energy recovery system) will be four times as powerful.
“It will have one fan generating electricity to super-charge the engine, another fan to recover energy from the exhausts which will recharge a battery and then be usable,” he said.
“You are going to have a powertrain generating well over 800hp from four cylinders. I think its going to sound fantastic. It’s going to run on pure electric in the pitlane,” said Parr.
“You’ve got cutting edge technology, I mean really the future of road cars, you’re going to have a very powerful message about environmental performance and what technology can do. And the racing will be just as exciting, if not more.
“Formula One is ultimately defined by its technology and Formula One’s constant reinvention of itself, whether it’s on the chassis side or the engine side, is fundamental to the nature of the sport,” he said.
“The people who don’t want things to change are the people who for whatever reason feel they have an incumbent advantage by not changing things.”
That 4 times powerful KERS must really mean 4 times energy storage and not power. Because if it was 4 times the power that would be a 320hp KERS which is not realistic in that size of a motor. So, ye, 80hp with 24 seconds of energy. That means 720hp engines then.
They are moving to continuous electric power in duel torque mode. That means the power is always there when the engine power is requested and energy is always recovered when the the brakes are pushed. There will be no KERS button. All torque control will come from the pedals.
If Parr says that the engines will have more than 800 hp including the electric power from the brakes and the turbo compounding you better believe it. It sounds like a really convincing plan to me. Finally F1 will come back to the pinnacle of racing technology.
Going purely electric in the pit lane would not bother me. It would be good for communication there and the mechanics would be exposed to less noise. The spectatators can still feel the noise when the cars pass by on track. Good idea.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
As far as I know the SECU disables KERS at a speed below 100 km/h, to prevent KERS to be use a form of traction control. With enabling KERS to be used at lower speeds, will Formula 1 (effectively) lift the traction control ban?
n smikle wrote:That 4 times powerful KERS must really mean 4 times energy storage and not power. Because if it was 4 times the power that would be a 320hp KERS which is not realistic in that size of a motor. So, ye, 80hp with 24 seconds of energy. That means 720hp engines then.
WhiteBlue wrote:Going purely electric in the pit lane would not bother me. It would be good for communication there and the mechanics would be exposed to less noise. The spectatators can still feel the noise when the cars pass by on track. Good idea.
the noise wouldnt be a bad thing though gives warning to personel in the pit lane.
Pingguest wrote:As far as I know the SECU disables KERS at a speed below 100 km/h, to prevent KERS to be use a form of traction control. With enabling KERS to be used at lower speeds, will Formula 1 (effectively) lift the traction control ban?
Nope, with dual torque mode the torque from the engine and the ICE is simply meshed by a digital computer. The whole thing is under the control of the standard ECU. Not possible to apply traction control.
The rule for not using the KERS on the first 100 m or so is due to traction limitation. They cannot effectively put additional electric traction down. Witzh dual torque mode tzhis rule will be abolished because the driver takes 100% control of the syntethic torque by the pedal.
flynfrog wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:Going purely electric in the pit lane would not bother me. It would be good for communication there and the mechanics would be exposed to less noise. The spectatators can still feel the noise when the cars pass by on track. Good idea.
the noise wouldnt be a bad thing though gives warning to personel in the pit lane.
I understand that most teams and reporters would prefer electric torque only in the pit lane.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Pingguest wrote:As far as I know the SECU disables KERS at a speed below 100 km/h, to prevent KERS to be use a form of traction control. With enabling KERS to be used at lower speeds, will Formula 1 (effectively) lift the traction control ban?
Back to the same question......Where do you get that from?
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
Pingguest wrote:As far as I know the SECU disables KERS at a speed below 100 km/h, to prevent KERS to be use a form of traction control.
Yes.
With enabling KERS to be used at lower speeds, will Formula 1 (effectively) lift the traction control ban?
Don't be rediculous. With a SECU and the already excisiting pit-lane limiter button, enabling KERS inside the pitlane only even at low speeds is trivial.
Just one voice of reason. And please consider that the rule making nowadays is done by the majority of the teams. So when the rule says that ICE are banned in the pit lane it is the wish of the majority of the teams.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Here's an idea for electric hybrid power assist, that I've never seen suggested, and might be better for racing than any existing KERS:
My proposed hybrid system would have a battery and electric motor connected to the drivetrain. The battery capacity would be controlled, and would provide a fixed amount of power boost that could be used at the driver's discretion. The unique feature of my proposed hybrid power assist lies in the type of battery it uses. My system would use a "flow battery".
A flow battery uses a type of liquid electrolyte that can be replenished, giving the battery an instant "recharge". This could be done during a pitstop.
Of course, as usual, I have not thought this idea through carefully. I believe there are flow battery designs that have good power density, but I don't know if their other characteristics (toxicity, durability, complexity) would make them suitable for racing.
Think about it, the pitstop would involve changing tires, adding fuel, and replacing electrolyte!
I hope someone with a knowledge of electrochemistry will let me know if this idea is stupid or not.
riff_raff
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
flynfrog wrote:so James Allen is most of the teams and reporters now?
You obviously did not bother to read my post. I quoted Joe Saward, while the original publication of the issue was by James Allan. And the majority opinion of the teams is self evident.
You are perfectly entitled to your personal opinion but don't think it is the only sensible one.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
