Regenerative systems (KERS)

[Scotracer]

According to BMW official specs, the P86 V8 (2006) gets:

- 65l/100km
- 4.34 mpg (UK)
- 3.61 mpg (US)

Compare this with the P85 V10:

- 80l/100km
- 3.53 mpg (UK)
- 2.94 mpg (US)

They are still intending to run the 2.4 V8 passed 2011 so we wont see any really drastic increase in economy for some time to come. But then again, just because an F1 car gets ridiculous economy doesn't mean it can't go across into the regular automotive industry in a beneficial manner (regular road engines don't rev anywhere near as high so that would make a positive improvement right away).

But anyway, this is sort of a moot point as all the increased safety standards in F1 cars still haven't been taken across into the automotive industry. They should think about safety before economy. Global warming is a myth...we are still in the midst of an ice age so of course things are going to continue to warm as we leave it (by definition an ice age is any time during the earth's lifespan when there is ice at the poles). It's all a load of bollocks and Max shouldn't be allowed to get away with this. We aren't running out of oil any time soon and the automotive manufacturers are doing a BETTER job than the introduction of KERS. Making our ICEs more efficient is only delaying the inevitable -- crisis point with resources.

There's nothing wrong with the way a 1.5L turbo 4 cylinder sounds. Flat plane V8's, like what F1 engines have, use a firing order of two 4 cylinder engines firing simultaneously, so they will sound alike. KERS isnt necessarily silent, it might have a unique sound to it that would undeniably be associated with go-fast

Yes, with just one bank and with a turbo it would be quieter, and the v8's and v10's sounded great. But sound energy both signifies and equals wasted energy, and all else being equal, I'd rather have the faster car win rather than a louder car.

But remember the 4 cyl turbos wont rev anywhere near as high as the current V8s so would sound a lot worse. I drive a race-derived Integra Type R and on VTEC is sounds excellent...but it is no F1 car.

Oh and your point about sound energy being wasted energy...well it is, but it is negligable. It takes about 100W to produce the sound that the current cars do (140dB)...compare that with the almost 1MW in wasted heat and it means nothing.

[WhiteBlue]

.... Global warming is a myth...we are still in the midst of an ice age ....

this is irresponsible talk. all serious scientific work acknoledges that human caused CO2 emissions are far in excess of anything ever experienced by the earth atmosphere before and will lead to desaster of unprecedented dimensions if the emissions continues or increases. the cost of engineering for protection against climate change is going to be many trillions of $$. coastal and alpine regions will become inhabitable and much life will be lost in desasters.

I agree that we will not run out of oil because in a market economy the price will simply climb sky high reducing the demand. we have serious predictions looking at 250$/bbl 2009. this from the boss of Russian Gazprom.

[Scotracer]

.... Global warming is a myth...we are still in the midst of an ice age ....

this is irresponsible talk. all serious scientific work acknoledges that human caused CO2 emissions are far in excess of anything ever experienced by the earth atmosphere before and will lead to desaster of unprecedented dimensions if the emissions continues or increases. the cost of engineering for protection against climate change is going to be many trillions of $$. coastal and alpine regions will become inhabitable and much life will be lost in desasters.

I agree that we will not run out of oil because in a market economy the price will simply climb sky high reducing the demand. we have serious predictions looking at 250$/bbl 2009. this from the boss of Russian Gazprom.

But CO2 isn't the worst greenhouse gas. Also, this scientific research is all conjecture because as soon as they start categorically saying something about 10,000years ago or more...well, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There is equal amounts of evidence for and against global warming so to drive an entire industry on the notion that one is correct is stupid.

[WhiteBlue]

.... Global warming is a myth...we are still in the midst of an ice age ....

this is irresponsible talk. all serious scientific work acknoledges that human caused CO2 emissions are far in excess of anything ever experienced by the earth atmosphere before and will lead to desaster of unprecedented dimensions if the emissions continues or increases. the cost of engineering for protection against climate change is going to be many trillions of $$. coastal and alpine regions will become inhabitable and much life will be lost in desasters.

I agree that we will not run out of oil because in a market economy the price will simply climb sky high reducing the demand. we have serious predictions looking at 250$/bbl 2009. this from the boss of Russian Gazprom.

But CO2 isn't the worst greenhouse gas. Also, this scientific research is all conjecture because as soon as they start categorically saying something about 10,000years ago or more...well, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There is equal amounts of evidence for and against global warming so to drive an entire industry on the notion that one is correct is stupid.

I suggest you read a bit about the issue. of course there are other gases that are bad like unburned methane but that is avoidable while CO2 is simply unavoidable using fossile fuels without sophisticated sequestering strategies. scientiest can make 100% accurate asessments back over a very long time like 10,000 years analysing drilling probes from antarctic snow and ice. to my knowledge nobody disputes the methods.

[Scotracer]

But CO2 isn't the worst greenhouse gas. Also, this scientific research is all conjecture because as soon as they start categorically saying something about 10,000years ago or more...well, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There is equal amounts of evidence for and against global warming so to drive an entire industry on the notion that one is correct is stupid.

I suggest you read a bit about the issue. of course there are other gases that are bad like unburned methane but that is avoidable while CO2 is simply unavoidable using fossile fuels without sophisticated sequestering strategies. scientiest can make 100% accurate asessments back over a very long time like 10,000 years analysing drilling probes from antarctic snow and ice. to my knowledge nobody disputes the methods.

I've studied this at university. It is all money-grabbing politics. The media has portrayed it in such a crude fashion that there's no point in listening to any of it anymore. All the data that has been gathered over the past 20-30 years is inconclusive and it is also invalid. For instance, some temperature readings are taken in now urban areas (which anyone should realise have a higher average temperature than a rural environment on the same latitude). Also, this planet is billions of years old...are we to fully understand any cycle it has during our very small area of study? As I said before, we are still in an ice age and temperatures will continue to rise until we leave it. Sure, CO2 levels are at the highest concentration levels ever but in the grand scheme of things...it is still ppm (parts per million) and negligible in my opinion.

[Ciro Pabón]

There is a thread on Global Warming, if you're gonna discuss it more deeply...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3533

The consensus I see in that thread is:

- There is a global warming
- The temperature is higher today than in the last 2000 years, I fail to see the Ice Age Scotracer was taught at the Uni. Here is the wiki graph for temperatures for the last 2000 years, taken from different sources (hence, different curves):



A word of advice (for the thousand time): there is a logic fallacy called "Ipse dixit".

It happens when you argue you're right because somebody very smart said the same thing as you.

So, no scientific consensus nor University teachings are good examples in a thread. I believe it's much better to show the raw data and allow people to reach a conclusion, instead of arguing that "my sources are better than yours"... I copy the Wiki definition of the fallacy:

Ipse dixit (he said so): It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

So, there are no irresponsible posts, just people learning.

If someone is wrong, surely you can convince him or (if you don't have the time) recommend him to read something.

Simple: either you can explain the reasons or you have to confess you simply don't know.

Appealing to authority is bad engineering and worse post etiquette or "tactic": it will lead you to endless arguing about which source of knowledge is better.

About global warming and KERS, well, I don't see one is going to change the other, unless a giant advance in KERS happens.

[WhiteBlue]

well, perhaps irresponsible is better reserved for cases where people lie to the public to protect their interests. I agree that presenting facts is surely more effective in order to deal with a "head in the sand" attitude. I admit that I was just too lazy to research the site for the thread Ciro found. TX for posting the educative post.

[G-Rock]

I think that the manufacturers that have spent billions, and the thousands of people that have invested their lives to be the best in the world would take offense to that.

The commercial side of F1 may be purely for entertainment, but I hightly doubt that the entire premise of the top world formula is only answerable to the people watching it on TV.

And about green racing. Someone, somewhere, at sometime is going to have to develop these fuel efficient technologies because what we have now in the civilian world is not sustainable.

Would you rather that the nmanufacturers in F1 pull out so they can divert the 500M+/yr to developing efficient motive power that is required in the real world, or would you rather see who is the best at developing the next generation of high-power, high-efficiency drivetrains on a worldwide stage?

I don't think F1 has ever really "invented" anything that could be used in civilian automobiles. The average car today is more sophisticated then an F1 car. The only thing that gets done in motorsport is to make things smaller and lighter and that isn't always feasible in the real world. Just look at hybrids. If F1 used hybrids, they would design 1 million dollar battery packs that would never be used in the average Toyota.

Just keep it simple and don't give racing too much responsibility when it comes to solving the worlds problems.

[WhiteBlue]

gearbox technology went from F1 to road cars. paddle shifting.

[Mikey_s]

Just a few, mainly philosophical, points to throw into the ring;

Climate change; As Ciro said, there is general acceptance within the scientific community that climate change is happening. What is not agreed is why and whether the cause is anthropogenic. There is also no doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 correlates extremely well with the increase in global temperature - cause, or effect????? no concensus as yet. Irrespective of that it is common sense that we should strive to use finite resources responsibly and search for more efficient ways of using the resources that we have.

As for how much oil is left.... A favourite saying of mine is that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones... The amount of oil left is a function of the oil price; there is no more $10 oil left... but there is a shedload of $200 oil and plenty more "oil equivalent" left - natural gas, gas hydrates, oil sands... we are not going to run out of oil anytime soon, but the price will not stay the same. By the way, 'empty' oil fields aren't empty at all; typically they still have about 40-50% of the oil left in them, but it is not economic to continue production, so they move on.

And onto F1;
(Motor) racing is not necessarily anti-efficiency; there are very smart people working in this game and they undoubtedly realise the trade-offs between increasing fuel efficiency and increasing power delivery - you can be sure that they have looked at the compromises and the rule book and concluded that 70 - 80 l/100km is about the right level to provide the power they need - and they do work with the fuel and lube suppliers to optimise the composition (within the rules) to get the best mileage and the most flexible strategy. If you want to see fuel efficiency improve then change the rules to limit the mass of fuel they can use over a race distance... and make it a stretch and stretch it further the following year and the one after.

Unfortunately, if you want to see really fuel efficient cars they will be slow; drag squares with speed, so going fast takes energy. The Shell mileage marathon is delivering over 10000 mpg at the moment, but it isn't very exciting to watch!!

If the FIA was serious about translateable technology they might do something about the 60-70% of thermal efficiency that goes straight out the tailpipe - that is the low hanging fruit, but apparently the cars go fast enough, so a more powerful engine isn't on the cards either... hence they will need to significantly reduce the engine size to significantly increase the efficiency. I liked the V10 noise (especially at 21000rpm) - but I was also in awe of the 1500cc turbos throwing out 1200 bhp in quali trim...

My 2 cents at the end... let the innovators innovate; how about changing the rules to say "In 2011 you will have 100kg of fuel to finish the race - not 1g more, and in 2012 it'll be 90kg, and 10kg/a less thereafter" - specify the composition of the fuel and let the clever guys rip... then we'll see the innovators earn their money.

Rant over....

[G-Rock]

gearbox technology went from F1 to road cars. paddle shifting.

Not quite so. It went from industrial equipment (many farm tractors have had full on semi automatics since the late 80's) to F1 to road cars but didn't do anything for efficiency. Just makes you feel like Schumi every once in a while (even while driving a tractor as you rifle through the gears up to 30 km/hr)
About ten years ago, Cadillac was racing (or supposed to race) a hybrid Lemans racer with flywheel energy storage. What ever happened to that?

[mx_tifoso]

With KERS set to be introduced next season, and being a completely new technology for Formula One, how will it compare to the changes in aerodynamics as far as the 'overall effect' goes? With KERS being a revolutionary step and the aero changes evolutionary ones.

I guess many teams are waiting for next season anxiously since it is expected to lessen the gap between teams, but with the addition of KERS it is very likely that at least one or two teams will suffer from the lack of preseason development. So it may just mix up the field as expected by many, with some teams taking a step up the ladder, and some taking one down, or maybe simply keeping the teams down low where they have been all along.

[flynfrog]

gearbox technology went from F1 to road cars. paddle shifting.

Not quite so. It went from industrial equipment (many farm tractors have had full on semi automatics since the late 80's) to F1 to road cars but didn't do anything for efficiency. Just makes you feel like Schumi every once in a while (even while driving a tractor as you rifle through the gears up to 30 km/hr)
About ten years ago, Cadillac was racing (or supposed to race) a hybrid Lemans racer with flywheel energy storage. What ever happened to that?

while it may not have been paddle --- Chrysler had push button shifting on there letter cars

[simdel1]

About ten years ago, Cadillac was racing (or supposed to race) a hybrid Lemans racer with flywheel energy storage. What ever happened to that?

You might be thinking about the Chrysler Patriot.



From what i've heard, there were major concerns about the containment of the flywheel in the event of an accident, so it wasn't allowed to race. I've also heard that it had some reliability issues. Someone else probably knows more than I do though.

[simdel1]

more on the patriot: http://www.rqriley.com/sld010.htm