To optimize energy consumption, or how to make F1 greener

[xpensive]

I just thought this subject was rewarded a thread of its own.

I have amused myself with cracking some numbers on how much energy an F1 car consumes around the track, as well as pondering opportunities to make it "greener".
Nice even values are used in order to simplify things.

At racing speed, most of a car's losses are to overcome air-resistance, where an F1 car with a Cv-value of more than 1.00 should need some 250 kW at 220 km/h, (Cross-section area*(density*(speed^3)/2), which with a 90% drivetrain efficiency including rolling resistance means 280 kW. If you took that car around the track for one minute and 20s, the energy used would be 23 MJ.

Important note: When the power needed to propel an object through the air increases with the cube of the speed, the above is very much a rough estimation.

Other than that, we need to accellerate the 700 kg car from 100 to 250 km/h FIVE times over that one lap, which is another 7 MJ for a 700 kg object.
A total of 30 MJ of energy roughly equals 0.8 liter of gasoline (at 10 kWh/l), but with an estimated 20% mechanical efficiency of the engine, we would need 4.0 liters for that one lap.

The end result seems reasonable to me, though greatly simplified of course, but how would you go about it to make F1 "greener"?

To my mind anyway, reducing aerodynamic losses through an adaption of a full bodywork is obvious, though it will never happen as Ciro would regard such an F1 car a "square-donut"?

[McMacca]

Ok so heres a thought, how about the MotoGP model of a maximum amount of fuel allowed at the start of the race, with the ammount allowed being calculated to be 'X' less than required to complete the race forcing the teams to use KERS systems to make up the shortfall.

So now we have two competitions; who goes fastest outright, against who can use least fuel (so be lightest on the grid). It may also be possible that it will be track dependant as to which strategy is best.

[Kester]

I've always been one for scrapping engine regs and issuing an amount of fuel for either each race or the entire season, and then the teams can do whatever they like with that. Be it a 2.4l V10, or supercharged 1.8 V8, or any other type of engine.

That would also have relevance to road cars as the teams would aim to increase efficiency which could be used in all cars, cutting not only the amount of fuel used in racing, but used by people all round the world.

[ISLAMATRON]

F1 needs a total paradigm shift.

If they instate a maximum downforce level then the teams will work to lower the Cd and thus make the cars easier to push thru the air. Right now KERS is only implemented on the rear wheels, when we all know a majority of the braking is done by the fronts, imagine if they were to abolish braking altogether and the only reduction in speed could be accomplished by regen braking. Together with DI turbo'd engines with a set maximum amount of fuel HERS, KERS, movable aero, and whatever other effiency ideas the engineers can think of would lead to a next level formula which would finally take us out of the technology of the mid nineties into today's technology. That formula would lead to cars just as fast as todays and be several orders of magnitude more efficient than the current formula.

Xpensive, the problem is not that KERS will never be as big as some percieve it to be, the problem is that the current paradigm to which F1 cars are designed is too constrictive to allow it to thrive. Finally the FIA is allowing new tech to enter the sport, instead of banning it as it did with active suspension, TC, LC, ABS, ground effects, moveable aero, mass dampers and so much more. But yet many of the fans of F1 are opposed to the addition of the new tech after complaining that the sport was stagnant for so long. Pick a side, do you want F1 to be stuck in the mid nineties for decades to come like how NASCAR tech is stuck in the sixties or do you want progress, regardless of how little fuel it will save?

[vall]

Everything is governed by the laws of Physics and I do not see how you can do much batter in terms of saving energy if you want to accelerate and drive these cars fast. You need energy, and unless a new suitable energy source/engine is developed I don't see how F1 could become 'greener'?

Do we need 'green' F1 anyway?

As a side note, my preferred way limit the spending in F1 but at the same time not stop the the technological development is Max' idea for budget cap. But, leave the teams develop whatever engines, GBox, etc they want, within the limit, and ban all exotic materials, etc.

[ISLAMATRON]

The end result seems reasonable to me, though greatly simplified of course, but how would you go about it to make F1 "greener"?

Simply said, Set a max downforce level, say 2000 Kg, at whatever speed you want and then the teams will all strive to lower their cd's to make their cars faster than the opposition. Ground effects is the most efficient way to create downforce, re allow it and movable aero, possibly flexible aero if can be proven safe.


Allow all forms of HERS & KERS, I want them to develop a header wrap that will make electricity, because the headers/manifold/Turbo/downpipe on my Rotary are hot as fruck.

Turbo the engines, I say 2L 4 banger cause that can be found every car manufacturers line up. Direct injection is something F1 needs to look into. Ban pneumatic valvetrains and bring the revs back to earth. Allow a certain amount of fuel at the start of the race and ban refueling. 100% cellulose based bio-fuel from lawn clippings.

But the most ungreen part of F1 is not so much on the track but the whole circus itself... plant some more damn trees at the tracks, especially Bahrain! I dont really care much for a greener F1, but more for a less wasteful high tech F1 with a new paradigm shift.

Everything is governed by the laws of Physics and I do not see how you can do much batter in terms of saving energy if you want to accelerate and drive these cars fast. You need energy, and unless a new suitable energy source/engine is developed I don't see how F1 could become 'greener'?

KERS recovers some of the energy you already spent, Turbos have already been proven to be more efficient than N/A, The internal combustion engine is inefficient at low rpm's whereas electric motors create gobs of torque down there, a hybrid would be much more efficient. F1 has massive headroom in terms of efficiency, and would defiantly not be any slower, possibly be faster, and definatly have much more interesting technology.

[McMacca]

I must say that the issue needs to be how to 'optimize energy' rather than making F1 greener. 'Greener' will be a natural bi product of the energy race as teams create better KERS / HERS / WTF you wanna call it.

There is one great fear among all of this, we may come to a point where one team developes a great peice of kit, goes 3s a lap faster than everyone else and ruins the show. Dont forget that true wheel to wheel racing is usually found in one make series.

But in principal many of the ideas being discussed here would make for some great innovations.

[Belatti]

Efficiency = less energy used
Speed = lots of energy needs

We want both.

We need downforce for speed in corners, but...
Why do we need downforce in the straights? That kills efficiency.

The solution is at sight: movable aero. The technology is not unknown, we have been flying planes since Wright brothers.

However, I think 2009 regs are missing one point: aerodynamic balance.

[WhiteBlue]

I find myself in agreement with Belatti and Mod in some points. If we want to run F1 on less fuel with the same performance we ought to have variable aero and fixed max downforce. We had an FIA proposal towards that goal already 4 years ago and the teams did not agree. As a result we now have the OWG cars with the funny wings. Perhaps it just takes time for those ideas to come through. On the issue of KERS I advocate a more radical course with the caveat that AWKERS must not re introduce traction control in some form. That would be contrary to the entertainment mission of the sport.

[ISLAMATRON]

TC, LC & ABS must never be allowed back into the sport, If there are drivers putting their lives on the line to display their skills, then those skills must be showcased by the sport. Death to all driver aids.

[mike]

maximum fuel(control energy), no refueling, open engine development maybe like a variable compression turbo, HCCI. make the teams work between starting fuel weight/engine size weight/power/cooling. KERS for braking and control downforce.

so if the team has a more efficient KERS they can run a more powerful engine setup
and if you have a more efficient engine u can in the same way make more power from the same amount of fuel

so if F1 is to operate this way the more efficient you are the faster you are

while most people will jump on the massive costs teams have to spend, but bear in mind that the regulations now gives the return of about 250mil/2s per lap, by taking away the restrictions teams don't have to send millions to develop special flexible carbon fibre wing, if you just let them have movable aero

i dont think currently we have 1 green technology that stands out from the rest and F1 is the perfect competitive platform to develop it, who knows hydrogen F1 car maybe the best solution or maybe HCCI

[Mikey_s]

Hi all,
my first post after a looooong break.
I think most of the major points have been made, suufice to say that the regulations currently force the sport to be inefficient; the engine size and technology is fixed by the regs and the engineers have almost no freedom to make any improvements.

I have had several rants in the past about this; the engineersa work in accordance with the regulations that are in force at the time and interpret those regulations to the maximum extent possible until the FIA steps in and intervenes. In order to make F1 greener there must be criteria in the regs that reward innovation to use less energy, or maximise the available energy. Obvious candidates are limits on the fuel available and energy recovery.

By far the largest waste of energy is the thermal efficiency of the engine; there is no appetite from the regulator to perrmit increases in power, so the logical consequence is smaller, more fuel efficient engines (turbo, or supercharging). Fixed aero geometry is another energy compromise nd therfore another candidate for some serious energy saving, and then recovery of braking losses.

... of course racing is never going to be 'green' as such, but it could certainly be greener.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I agree with Mikey_s: engine efficiency is low (around 30%, I think). However, F1 abandoned engine development, because of its cost. Imagine if they're going to invest in more efficient engines without any incentive, like limited fuel.

I don't know what to think about variable aerodynamics: the cars would look and behave like aircraft racers. I think that's the reason why no series has tried that path.

[xpensive]

As I tried to explain with the draft numbers on top, was that with today's F1 cars and their hopeless aerodynamics, energy is not spent so much on accellerating to a certain seped as much as on maintaining it. In the process heating up the air and increasing entropy of the universe, causing long-term havoc in the global climate.

Full bodywork along with retractable and/or moveable aerodynamic devices should be the way to go, aided by incentives to increase engine-efficiency of course.

[Conceptual]

As I tried to explain with the draft numbers on top, was that with today's F1 cars and their hopeless aerodynamics, energy is not spent so much on accellerating to a certain seped as much as on maintaining it. In the process heating up the air and increasing entropy of the universe, causing long-term havoc in the global climate.

Full bodywork along with retractable and/or moveable aerodynamic devices should be the way to go, aided by incentives to increase engine-efficiency of course.

Wouldn't that make it FORMULA ZERO?

I like the 65M Euros/year and anything goes formula. That levels the resources, and lets brilliance make the difference. Although, if you wanted to make it close racing, you would have to make the teams share all design data at the end of the championship. That way we can see enormous year to year developments, and more pioneering paths taken, that can then result in something for the masses.

In any marketplace, there is always a buyer for "The Best". I think that F1 is the proving platform for this determination.

Anyways... Who knows, someone may fine a piezeo-askari linkage, and use the noise left over from the big bang to generate energy.

We will only find out if they cap the money, and uncork the regulations.