Formula One In 5 Years.

[zeph]

"No army can withstand the power and might of an idea whose time has come"

I don't know who said this, but it is true. It is where we are headed, and no amount of grumbling from traditionalists will turn the tide.

ICE's are horribly inefficient, more than 80% of the energy generated is lost as residual heat. If you operate the engine within it's optimal range only, I think efficiency increases to somewhere around 30-40% (need to read up on this). So it makes sense to have an electric motor do the actual propulsion, with the ICE functioning as a generator only.

I don't find this a problem in F1 at all. I look forward to it! 2014 has lived up to my expectations (although I would have liked to see Alonso be more competitive), and I am not worried about a more hybrid future for F1.

As far as I am concerned, they can reduce fuel loads even further, and/or set a maximum amount of fuel per car per weekend. Tires ditto. Limit the number of parts that can be brought to track and/or replaced. I doubt budget caps would work, but resource caps can be verified. I'd do away with pit-to-driver radio, allowing one-way radio from driver-to-pit, and Race Control-to-driver.

I don't understand why some people seem to have such a hard time with increasing efficiency in F1. That is what is has always been about.

[Andres125sx]

ICE's are horribly inefficient, more than 80% of the energy generated is lost as residual heat. If you operate the engine within it's optimal range only, I think efficiency increases to somewhere around 30-40% (need to read up on this). So it makes sense to have an electric motor do the actual propulsion, with the ICE functioning as a generator only.

That would be quite interesting

Is that what BMW did with the I8? Because 2 l/100km (117mpg) with 360hp is quite impresive


But they should take that route asap, before EV´s receive new batteries that solve range problems. If F1 start using electric configurations with tons of power but also same 2h range thanks to the ICE acting as a generator, that would attract a lot of people I think, including sponsors

[WaikeCU]

I think as times goes by, packaging will be a lot tighter. So I believe the cars will be even more skinnier than they are now. The cars would then look like a lower class single seaters, so that's why I believe cars will be widened just like prior 1998. I also believe that the margin between F1 and road going vehicles needs to be closer. Things like fuel, tyres, clutch and energy harvesting needs to be more based on road going production parts. What would be great is to see them go through pitlane on full electric mode by enabling the pit limiter. As soon the pit limiter is switched off, the 1000 bhp PU should kick in. That would also bring a new exciting experience for the viewers.

[Blanchimont]

The current engine regulations are only in place to advertise hybrid technology, they are not the best drivetrain for a F1 car in terms of minimising laptime or total race time. Mercedes and Renault mainly wanted this!

Cars next season will start with a weight of ~795kg because of stupid minimum weight limits for the power unit and batteries. The past has shown that a minimum weight of 600kg without fuel is possible. What if we take such a 600kg car and add the most efficient(more efficient than than the 1,6l turbo) small displacement, low revving turbo engine to it. If the MGUs, batteries and cooling requirements for these parts would go and the limits on 100kg of fuel and a fuel limit of 100kg/h would be kept, what do you think which car will be faster over a complete race? The current 795kg(~750kg average during the GP) or the 600kg+100kg(650kg average) with a lower engine power output due to the fact that no energy recovery is possible?

The difference in weight is pretty much constant at about 100kg, for the same power that's a difference of 2,5 to 4 seconds a lap, just because of the weight. The smaller power output would of course cost some time above the traction limit and top speeds would be lower.
What are the additional effects of the weight as the tyre force depends on the normal loads? How much faster could the cars go around the circuit because the 100kg weight difference stresses the Pirelli tyres less?

I do not see how the current regulations can be described as efficient when the rules dictate heavy solutions, that to me are not the best available.

[zeph]

@Blanchimont:

I am not sure I understand. But it seems you assume the car without the ERS will still be able to finish the race with only 100kg of fuel? I don't know if or how that is possible, and there are more unaccounted-for variables in your rationale.

In principle, less weight is better. Whether or not the ERS makes up for its own weight in terms of power output, I don't know. What we do know is that the new PU's allow cars to finish a race on ~33% less fuel. I'd say that is nothing short of amazing.

[zeph]

ICE's are horribly inefficient, more than 80% of the energy generated is lost as residual heat. If you operate the engine within it's optimal range only, I think efficiency increases to somewhere around 30-40% (need to read up on this). So it makes sense to have an electric motor do the actual propulsion, with the ICE functioning as a generator only.

That would be quite interesting

Is that what BMW did with the I8? Because 2 l/100km (117mpg) with 360hp is quite impresive


But they should take that route asap, before EV´s receive new batteries that solve range problems. If F1 start using electric configurations with tons of power but also same 2h range thanks to the ICE acting as a generator, that would attract a lot of people I think, including sponsors

AFAIK, the BMW i8's ICE powers the rear wheels with the electric motor driving the front wheels. The ICE kicks in at higher speeds, and the electric motor operates unassisted at lower speeds, or until the battery is depleted.

The BMW i3 can be had with ICE that functions purely as a range extender, the generator principle I mentioned earlier, with the engine not connected to the wheels.

[Tim.Wright]

I too consider the current hybrid powertrains as an awkward and suboptimal stop-gap until the storage problem is solved for electric powertrains.

From a pure performance point of view, it makes no sense to drag around 2 completely independent powertrain technologies, each one accompanied by its required auxiliaries which are dead weight.

The only reason its the fastest way to go is because the rules have offset the weight penalty in order to force their implementation.

[zeph]

Whether or not the ERS' extra power compensates for the weight increase is anybody's guess. But the question is whether a normal ICE can do a race distance on the same amount of fuel in the same amount of time. The reduction from 150 kgs. per race to 100 kgs. is considerable, and we simply don't know if F1-spec engines could do that without ERS.

I think it would have been fair and interesting to allow different engine formulas with the same set of fuel quantity and flow restrictions. That way, competition would have quickly shown which approach would have been the best. But with cost-cutting big on the agenda it is understandable they didn't opt for this as it would have turned into another arms race.

I am personally not a big fan of batteries, I admire Tesla and all, but to lug around 1000+ lbs. of battery for a 200 mile range seems awkward and counter-intuitive to me. But like I said, the ICE is not terribly efficient either; <20% on average, yikes!

Therefore, I think a gas/electric hybrid is the best short-term solution, with hydrogen as a possible long-term solution.

And it seems that manufacturers have come to this conclusion, too. I believe I recently read that BMW plans to replace all their conventional ICE's with hybrid and/or electric PU's over the next five years or so.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[edit:]
googled last statement, found this link:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-c ... revolution

Now, I don't know how reliable Autocar is, but an excerpt:

This new hybrid powertrain is described by BMW as being “scalable from the 3-series to a V12 Rolls-Royce”. It uses two electric motors, one on the rear axle and one mounted directly behind the engine.

A large battery occupies the centre tunnel and some of the space usually occupied by the fuel tank. The front-mounted engine acts as a generator in most driving situations, creating electricity to help drive the electric motors. The front electric motor is key to the new powertrain.

In normal use, it drives the front wheels via a still-secret new type of transmission. At speeds above 50mph or so, the engine ‘assists’ the electric motor by attaching itself to the new transmission and helping to drive the front wheels at motorway speeds.

BMW won’t reveal the details of this new combined electric motor and transmission system, but company engineers told Autocar that the combustion engine would probably be driving the front wheels only about 10 per cent of the time in a typical journey.

This, they said, allowed them to run the engine at ‘Lambda 1’ for 90 per cent of the time. This means that the engine is run very lean, with no need for any kind of enrichment by the fuel injection system, resulting in reduced fuel use.

Indeed, because the engine works mostly as a generator, it can be totally rethought in its design and operation. And because the engine is only working mechanically at limited times and with substantial assistance from electric motors, it can potentially be much simpler and less expensive to build than today’s complex turbo engines.

Reducing the cost and complexity compared with today’s engines should help offset the cost of the batteries and power electronics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit 2:]

If a company that prides itself on creating the 'Ultimate Driving Machine' is going all-hybrid, how long would F1 stay relevant if it refused to change along with the times?
It would soon be no more than a footnote in the world of motorsport, akin to historical racing.

[Andres125sx]

Reading that now I wonder....

Is a gearbox really worth if you use an ICE as a generator?

I mean, gearboxes are used on EVs mainly to improve efficiency and improve range, because they are not really needed, EV can be direct drive due to the constant torque delivery, but if you´re using an ICE as a generator wich solve the range problem... is it really worth the extra weight, cost and complexity (increase of failure points, increase of maintenance and decrease of lifespan) a gearbox brings in?

[Tim.Wright]

Constant torque does not negate the requirement for a gear box. If you look at the traction vs velocity "requirements" of a vehicle you will see that neither electric nor ICE powertrains can provide this without a gear box.

The requirement are to provide:
1. Adequate traction at low speed
2. Sufficient acceleration up to a defined top speed

The second point can be satisfied by both ICE and electric power trains with essentially a single final drive reduction. For this you need a power unit which produces moderate torque upto 2000RPM.

However, neither of the 2 are able to generate enough torque at low speed to provide 'adequate' low speed acceleration without a torque multiplication. Adequate is a loose definition, but consider it to mean the same level reached by ICE power trains today, say 0.6g longitudinal acceleration. You need in the order of 3000-4000Nm of torque at the wheels to accelerate a performance car at that rate.

So even a Tesla S motor with 600Nm needs a multiplication of 6 to get the right low speed torque at the wheels. With this multiplication, the motor then needs to be capable of 11k rpm to reach a top speed of circa 250km/h.

In short: constant torque is not an ideal case for throwing away a gearbox. Ideally you need constant power, and this means high low speed torque which reduces with speed.

[MOWOG]

If a company that prides itself on creating the 'Ultimate Driving Machine' is going all-hybrid, how long would F1 stay relevant if it refused to change along with the times?

That is the very same thought that sparked this thread. Can it really be true that BMW is turning away from the core philosophy that made it what it is today - great engines in great cars?

And a subsidiary question is: Are electric/plug in cars REALLY the wave of the future? They are not yet anywhere near 1% of the new car market in the US. Obama said the target was for 1,000,000 of them by the end of this year, but right now at this very moment, the US is about 700,000 short of that goal. Most observers think it will AT LEAST 2018 before it gets to that number.

I make my living - or part of it at least - writing about electric and plug in cars. I see two factors that are going to strongly impact the market for them.

1. The buying public is not all that excited about owning one. Attitudes change very slowly. I think it will take a generation before they achieve general acceptance, so 2030 at the earliest. Were it not for government regulations in the EU and the US, the demand for electrics would be minuscule.

For the moment, electrics cost at least twice as much as a comparable ICE car. They are toys for the wealthy. Ordinary people cannot afford them. Will those regulations even survive when crunch time comes and car sales plummet because no one i buying new cars? Car manufacturing is responsible for a LOT of jobs around the world. If those jobs start disappearing, governments may be forced to back away from their eco-driven mandates.

Add into that the fact that many younger urban dwellers are quite content not to own a car at all. Renting or car sharing schemes appeal to them more than owning. The market is changing rapidly and no one knows exactly how it will evolve over the next 10-15 years.

2. Batteries are the key to electrics/plug-ins. They will have to be much smaller, lighter and cheaper than they are today. $100's of millions are being spent on research, but chemistry is chemistry. Cubic dollars cannot force changes in the periodic table. Batteries may not even be the final solution, Supercapacitors may get to the finish line before batteries do.

Given all this turmoil in the underlying automobile market, how can Formula One continue to be "relevant"? Relevant to what?

We all know that Formula One is just a business like any other. To us, it is the holy grail of motorsport, but to the those inside, it is a giant marketing machine with no soul, a place where people with egos the size of Pluto can play "mine's bigger than yours" while jet setting around the world to glamorous places.

The "heritage" tracks are giving way to street races. Mighty engines have been silenced in the name of "relevance". Can Formual One survive the electric car era? That's the real question.

[CBeck113]

The idea of using a ICE as a generator is being used today, in a very F1 relevant form: construction equipment, specifically excavators. The ICE isn't running a generator, but a hydraulic pump at a specific speed (usually 1600 - 2200 rpm). The engine itself does not transfer power to anything else - the hydraulic oil does the work. Development will go towards replacing the hydraulic components with electrical ones, beginning with the motors for the drivetrain and swing functions.
The engines are relatively efficient for diesels, but this solution is only being used because of the energy source - find batteries that can maintain at least 10 hours of energy for the excavator to work, while fitting in the excavator, and you will not see a single ICE again. If (more like a when, but still) a better energy storage is found, which can be transfered to an electrical motor easliy and can also be packaged in a car for the necessary distance, then the ICE will die. But the truth is that we're not even close to finding a better energy storage than fuel, whihc is why hybrids are being pushed: develop, gain experience, redesign, gain experience...until it works well. All the while you're earning some money on the side and governments are changing laws to insure this.
Summary: ICEs are inefficient and will someday die, being replaced with a different concept. What is stopping this is the inability to store enough energy within the packaging constraints of an automobile - there is no better solution than fuel at this time...or in the near future.

[rjsa]

BMW has announced that ALL of its cars, including Rolls Royce and SUV's, [except MINIs and 1 Series] will be electrics or plug in hybrids with a front and rear electric motor. Engines will be strictly for range extender duty and as such will not require turbocharging or variable valve systems. No 14 speed or DSG transmissions, either. There will be no central driveshaft or rear differential.

So my question to you is this: IF Formula One pretends to be "relevant" to production cars and if production cars are all going to be electric or phev's in 5 years, what possible reason would any engine manufacturer have for getting involved with Formula One now? And what reason would any current engine manufacturer have for staying in the sport?

Even Bernie cannot twang his magic twanger and prevent the future from happening. To quote Robert Zimmerman of Hibbing Minnesota: "There's a battle outside and it's ragin'. It will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, for the times, they are a'changing."

Thoughts?

I'd say these plans are going to be postponed.

[zeph]

Constant torque does not negate the requirement for a gear box. If you look at the traction vs velocity "requirements" of a vehicle you will see that neither electric nor ICE powertrains can provide this without a gear box.

.............................................................................

So even a Tesla S motor with 600Nm needs a multiplication of 6 to get the right low speed torque at the wheels. With this multiplication, the motor then needs to be capable of 11k rpm to reach a top speed of circa 250km/h.

The Tesla Model S has a single-speed fixed gear with 9.73:1 reduction ratio.
http://www.teslamotors.com/support/mode ... ifications

[zeph]

That is the very same thought that sparked this thread. Can it really be true that BMW is turning away from the core philosophy that made it what it is today - great engines in great cars?

Why not? As long as it is great to drive, who cares where the power comes from?

1. The buying public is not all that excited about owning one. Attitudes change very slowly. I think it will take a generation before they achieve general acceptance, so 2030 at the earliest. Were it not for government regulations in the EU and the US, the demand for electrics would be minuscule.

I don't think the public cares much what powers the vehicle, as long as it does what they want it to do, at a reasonable price, and does not look like a prop from an SF movie.
This quote was attributed to Henry Ford: "If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If you had asked the people what kind of phone they wanted in 2006, they would have told you a Blackberry, because those horrible touch screen phones (like the HTC's with Windows) and styluses were no good, you need a proper keyboard. And the list goes on. If the electric/hybrid/hydrogen car is affordable and looks like a normal car, I doubt anybody would object in principle.

For the moment, electrics cost at least twice as much as a comparable ICE car. They are toys for the wealthy. Ordinary people cannot afford them. Will those regulations even survive when crunch time comes and car sales plummet because no one i buying new cars? Car manufacturing is responsible for a LOT of jobs around the world. If those jobs start disappearing, governments may be forced to back away from their eco-driven mandates.

Yes, but as always, with large-scale implementation the cost of production comes down. And whether they make gasoline-powered cars or electric ones, jobs are jobs. I bet there were manufacturers 50 years ago that specialized in carburetors, they either went out of business or changed along with the industry. Old jobs disappear, new jobs appear. Thus it ever was.

Given all this turmoil in the underlying automobile market, how can Formula One continue to be "relevant"? Relevant to what?

We all know that Formula One is just a business like any other. To us, it is the holy grail of motorsport, but to the those inside, it is a giant marketing machine with no soul, a place where people with egos the size of Pluto can play "mine's bigger than yours" while jet setting around the world to glamorous places.

The "heritage" tracks are giving way to street races. Mighty engines have been silenced in the name of "relevance". Can Formual One survive the electric car era? That's the real question.

Well, horse racing is still around. Perhaps F1 is not sustainable as it is today, but there is other facts that come into play there as well. Motor racing will survive.