Formula E

[DaveKillens]

Maybe like this? The Bluebird GTL

[Wideband mindeD]

On the battery side...

Isn't it feasible to simply swap the electrolyte liquid out of a lead/acid type battery (maybe the gel type) with some sort of push/pull refueling rig? Car comes in and stops, hook up rig, suck out old gel as new gel is sucked in, change tyres and release.

I think breaking the charging away from the on board batteries would be key. Then there are so many other KERS type scenarios, especially with individual hub motors. Imagine a differential type MGU that could regen one wheel while driving the other...

The only problem is that this would inherently involve a form of traction control as well as an ABS effect.

The more I read about this new series, the less I am excited about Formula 1, and burning to watch Formula E!

[N12ck]

I am very excited about it, the more I read the rules, the more excited I am, I have had an idea....

[piast9]

Isn't it feasible to simply swap the electrolyte liquid out of a lead/acid type battery (maybe the gel type) with some sort of push/pull refueling rig? Car comes in and stops, hook up rig, suck out old gel as new gel is sucked in, change tyres and release.

It's not the electrolyte itself that causes batteries to generate electricity but the electrochemical reactions at the electrodes. Changing only the electrolyte won't cause the battery to be charged. The charged lead acid battery that you mentioned has one lead electrode and the lead oxide at the second electrode, both of which turn into lead sulfate as the battery is discharged.

[Lycoming]

I've heard a while back that some people at MIT were working on "liquid" batteries that could be replaced in a manner similar to filling up with petrol. It's quite a ways off from being mature enough to see practical use, but it does potentially solve one of the biggest problems with electric road cars as well, which is the inability to make a quick refill when you run out. You can't really roadtrip with an electric car, after all.

[amc]

The 2013 technical regulations are in here: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/eoi-formula-e.pdf.

Summary:

• Bodywork is unlimited, and can be movable but only in steps, i.e. not continuously variable.
  Motors and batteries are unlimited and unregulated, but the batteries cannot weigh more than 300kg. The car is limited to 780kg.
  Traction control is allowed but ABS is not. Energy regeneration under braking is allowed on all four wheels.
  Gearboxes and differentials are unregulated as long as they are reduction ratios. CVTs are allowed as far as I can see.
  Two or Four wheels can be driven.
  The steering and suspension regulations are identical to F1 regulations, as are a large proportion of the impact safety tests.

Despite what I said earlier about battery racing not working I am rather excited by this series. With the lower speeds (on city streets) the endurance may well be good enough for a decent race, and the highly efficient aerodynamic configurations will promote good old-fashioned slipstreaming and overtaking, particularly given that 'movable aerodynamic devices' are allowed. That ought to be interesting. Forget DRS, who knows what someone may come up with.

I think breaking the charging away from the on board batteries would be key. Then there are so many other KERS type scenarios, especially with individual hub motors. Imagine a differential type MGU that could regen one wheel while driving the other...

You may have got carried away here - you can't get more (or even equal) energy out of a system than you put in. That's thermodynamics. Brake harvesting will almost certainly be used, and in theory could recoup a good proportion of the energy put in at the start of a straight, but the batteries will still be gradually discharged. And then they need to be charged, which can't, unlike refuelling, be done in 10 seconds. The liquid batteries are an interesting concept. If they can provide the energy that is required then it has legs.

[DaveKillens]

Each race will consist of about 4 heats per car of 15 minutes each and charging of the cars
will be authorised between those heats. Ideally the charging time should not exceed half an
hour.

This new technical challenge stimulates the gearhead in me. There are many different options right now, closed or open cockpits, moveable aero, and who knows what kind of bodywork. it's going to be quite exciting watching everyone discover the optimal tactical and technical solutions, some designs will die while others will reap fantastic success. I'm going to enjoy the next few years because in most likely hood everything will stabilize and cars will start to look and perform the same.

[Tommy Cookers]

electric drive/braking naturally tends to an inherent ABS and traction control effect

the liquid battery (ie fuel cell that uses a practical fuel, not hydrogen) has been the 'holy grail' for 120 years
(it would change everything, not just cars)

if 'quick-change' batteries are used energy efficiency is discouraged (like present F1)

[Jersey Tom]

Why bother? Nothing particularly green about it. As mentioned the energy for these cars will be coming, at least in major part, from "dirty" sources. Not to mention I'm sure there's immense "carbon footprint" or what have you in the production and then disposal of the battery packs.

IMO many people / organizations / whatever are "going green" in incredibly conspicuous manner just as a marketing tool. Just for image.

[Richard]

It's a fantastic opportunity to experiment with new technologies in a relatively unconstrained formula.

If we need a green debate then let's start another thread and leave thIs one focussed on the cars.

[Jersey Tom]

Even at car specific, I'd argue it's not a great test bed for electric propulsion technology. Racing in general I'd argue is not a great ted bed or breeding ground for new technology. Not enough budget and not enough real development focus. The consumer or OEM world is where the big R&D budgets live.

Racing is a unique venue for creative and precise application of existing technology to a specific problem. Even in refining the electric bits and pieces the focus is going to be on raw performance in racing, whereas there will be a much larger emphasis on longevity when it comes to consumer level products needing to last 50 or 100 thousand miles or what hav eyou.

[P.S.]

Even at car specific, I'd argue it's not a great test bed for electric propulsion technology...Racing is a unique venue for creative and precise application of existing technology to a specific problem...

This is just an allegation... or is it?

For example an aktuell F1 engine is so inefficient in fuel consumtion because the rules don´t give any serous advantage for fuel efficiency. I say, if there was a rule that say "50 liter per race, no restriction in size, cylinder, stroke etc." you would get highly fuel efficient engines and so very usefull technology for the consumer world.

So with the right rules racing can deliver technology.

Strangly the whole world of racing seems to get more and more "balance of performace" sh!t. So no wonder racing deliver more and more weird solutions no one in the consumer world can get a benefit of.

It all depends on how the rules are made.

[autogyro]

It's a fantastic opportunity to experiment with new technologies in a relatively unconstrained formula.

If we need a green debate then let's start another thread and leave thIs one focussed on the cars.

Indeed it does give fantastic opportunities Richard.
It is a first in a very long time.
The FIA Formula E regulations allow input from many new areas of technology in an incentive that can include almost everybody with ideas.
Conventional racing technology has all been done many times, this is all new.
It is difficult to know where to start when designing a car for this formula.
It compares to F1 in the 1950's, at last a proper technical formula.

[skgoa]

You might want to take a look at the new LMP1 regulations.

[P.S.]

The new lmp1 rules indeed allow some benefit by innovative concepts. But they are also limited to 4 stroke etc. but there are other ideas for more efficent concepts. Tight rules protecting bad engineering and that is what the firm need... because they are all very bad loosers.

Porsche for example was one of the leaders in complaining to rules in the past. I Think when they decide to join lmp they have a very clear plan what to do. No risky innovation.

The companies want to get reliable results according to their investments. That does not fit with innovation...