To optimize energy consumption, or how to make F1 greener

[Ciro Pabón]

Thirdly, power is force times speed, Downloading 500 kW at 150 km/h means a propulsion force coming from the rear tyres of 12 000 N. Considering CoG far at the back due to accelleration and including aerodynamic downforce, 12000 N on the rear wheels would reguire a friction coefficient of 1.0.
Is that such a big deal?

Hope you get it now, Ciro.

Well, you won't get 12000 Newtons without downforce. That's the top downforce, when (I presume) the car is at 320 kph. That's the point. You cannot accelerate at 100 km/h at 2 Gs. Or if you can, you're using magical tyres.

Heck, I cannot use full power in a Pontiac GTO without the tyres slipping, I suppose an F1 car that weighs half as a Pontiac and has two times the power must behave in the same way.

Of course you can use energy equations (if you assume an energy) to deduce the speed. The point of using the graph to deduce the energy used, was to have real life data. Ehem.

My guess is that your drag figures are not good, you rolling power figures decrease with speed

Because the distance through which the force is applied is diminishing (the difference in speed is less and less every second). I might have an error in distance calculation. Otherwise, I used the same equations you gave.

[xpensive]

Wonder why those F1 engineers are working so hard for all that expensive power, when it can't be used without wheel-spin anyway, they must all be idiots?

[Ciro Pabón]

Because you don't get wheelspin when you're at full downforce levels, dear xpensive. Is in that "speed zone" when you can make full use of the power of the car.

I wouldn't call F1 engineers idiots. I humbly think that they had a reason to developed traction control. By the same token, I could ask why they did develop TC if there's no need for it.

Even with TC, the launch system is devoted to put the power to the wheels without spin.

I would gladly would lend you my old GTO: without launch control, you have to squeeze the throttle with "feeling". You don't stomp on it. The only thing I stomp on while racing in this car is the brake pedal.

Actually, I imagine, that's how you should calculate the size of the wing: you need an area that develops such downforce as the one that allows you to use all the power.

I did not acknowledge that I was wrong about the thermal losses, and, as Belatti and xpensive have stated correctly, for practical purposes (disregarding small losses in the gear train) the full 770 HP are used to impulse the car. That is, when the vertical force in the tyres is enough.

Besides, as soon as I have some time, I'll recheck the equations I used, after Belatti observation about rolling power.

Finally, I would like to add that a race car is never coasting. It's either accelerating at full power or braking at full power. You use any residual force you have left after overcoming air drag to accelerate, until you reach "terminal" speed.

That's why I haven't seen a post that make me change my way of thinking: a way to make more efficient racing cars is to use electric motors for most of the acceleration at low speeds and ICEs to power the car at high speeds. That, or movable wings, as Belatti and xpensive pointed out. In both cases you try to use the power where is more efficient, either using high torque electric motors or low downforce cars (by moving the wing) at low speeds.

[xpensive]

Ciro,
I believe this discussion started with your strange graph showing that when accellerating at Albert park, Fisichella only had 150 Hp at 150 km/h and 400 at 300 km/h from 150 km/h. That I do not belive, but graph is mysteriously gone now.

Try this, make a graph over tyre-to-road Propulsion-force as a function of road-speed in m/s, from 5 to 80 m/s, using the following equations and power as a constant at 500 kW:

* Wheel-power is wheel-torque times angular velocity of wheel.
* Wheel-torque is Propusion-force times wheel-radius.
* Road-speed is angular-velocity of wheel times wheel-radius.

This will explain why an F1-car as well as your GTO spins at standstill.

[Ciro Pabón]

Oops. I used very long names for the image of the worksheet and the image of the graph. My image host cuts the name if very long, so the worksheet had the same shorted name and "erased" the graph at my host. Now it's corrected.

I posted the equations I used and the worksheet. I hope you have the time, right now I have it not. Maybe other day...

[PlatinumZealot]

I think wheel spin also has to do with the shear limits between the Tyre surface and the road surface.

The reason i picked shear, because I can imagine that you can also spin the tyres by overpowering them and Tearing away the surface of it (e.g a Burnout). The wider tyre or greater contact patch the lower the shear stress and the harder it is to spin tyres.

Sounds OK? (i'm a little rusty hehe)

[pipex]

That's why I haven't seen a post that make me change my way of thinking: a way to make more efficient racing cars is to use electric motors for most of the acceleration at low speeds and ICEs to power the car at high speeds. That, or movable wings, as Belatti and xpensive pointed out. In both cases you try to use the power where is more efficient, either using high torque electric motors or low downforce cars (by moving the wing) at low speeds.

Hmmm, why use inefficient ICEs that have inherent thermal efficency limits when you could use only electric motors with far better efficiency?. Just wait for superconductors at room temperature and nanotechnology enhanced fuel cells!.

[xpensive]

I understand that you are a busy man Ciro, please come back when you have been able to find some time for that "tyre-to-road propulsion-force" as a function of "road-speed" graph, which I suggested yesterday.

Even if setting wheel-power as a constant is one of the simplifications one needs to make, I feel that it might be possible that even an enlighted man such as yourself could learn something from such an exersice.

[jamsbong]

There is a few practical things that can be done by changing rules in F1.

Aero parts can be movable to reduce drag when downforce is needed less. at full speed on a straight line, you don't need that much downforce. That will save heaps of energy. This idea is not new at all, Gordon Murray had made such car and it was so good that it was banned. Oh well...

having KERS in theory is a great idea but putting a limit on how much power and how frequently it can be used removes its original advantage of being GREEN. So removing the limits will actually make the car somewhat green.

Heat energy recovery system may some good in theory but seeing the added weight of KERS alone would make me think twice about using HERS. A racing car oughta be light and nimble. Honestly I don't see much advantage that can be done with HERS. I would rather use a low REV, large capacity engine to achieve the same result.

in Summary
1. Use movable (less restricted aero) so that downforce can be achieve at low speed while low drag is achieve at high speed.

2. Use a low revving, large capacity engine instead of a high rev small capacity engine because the former is more fuel efficient.

3. Use of Energy recovery system but I honestly question if the extra weight could hinder the overall performance for the sack of a saving fuel.

Thats all. I doubt that fancy ideas such as efficient electric motors will make sense because electric motors may be efficient but combine with battery, the whole system is too heavy to be practical. Other things that green ideas such as wind power, solar power are just illusions and do not work with racing.

[Belatti]

There is a few practical things that can be done by changing rules in F1.

...

2. Use a low revving, large capacity engine instead of a high rev small capacity engine because the former is more fuel efficient.

wowowowwww stop! [-X
Whats wrong with you buddy?
Are you a NASCAR fan? Havent you ever see and listened a F1 engine?

You almost gave me a heart stroke writting that mate!

The topic title must be changed to: "To optimize energy consumption, or how to make F1 greener, without making F1 engines look like truck engines"

[jamsbong]

There is a few practical things that can be done by changing rules in F1.

...

2. Use a low revving, large capacity engine instead of a high rev small capacity engine because the former is more fuel efficient.

wowowowwww stop! [-X
Whats wrong with you buddy?
Are you a NASCAR fan? Havent you ever see and listened a F1 engine?

You almost gave me a heart stroke writting that mate!

The topic title must be changed to: "To optimize energy consumption, or how to make F1 greener, without making F1 engines look like truck engines"

I get it... I won't want F1 to sound like a frequency --- either but that is one practical solution to make things green. it sucks to be green...

Oh hang on, just do what WRC is doing. just ask FIA to commit to plant trees to have a carbon neutral F1 GP. that is so simple and practical that it should be in place now!! Also, blend more percent of biofuel. This increases the octane number and is green fuel. hehe... no engineering mod needed, just be a bit more proactive.

[PlatinumZealot]

F1 will never be green.. Burning any kind of fuel and Tyres for a weekend is not green .. no matter what anybody says

Formula 1 itself is like Monster Trucks! it's just for entertainment and showcase..

So if you want Greener.. It has to be a showcase.. You have to showoff your green technology. 20 Greener cars in Formula 1 will not Help the earth. But it's the image of greenness that is more important.

The energy should be put into SHOWING Off the Green technology.
So lowing the horsepower will not do much in that respect, It has to be something you can show off.

[alelanza]

Relevant to this topic:

Q. (Mike Doodson) I suppose this is for all of you. As I understand it, you don't know the full technical regulations for next year, especially the tank size. I wondered if since this impinges on costs that if you each think it is realistic for the President of the FIA to be imposing a budget cut before you even know the rules.

PH: I think teams are having to take a fairly strategic view and maybe cover a number of options. I think at the moment everybody is pretty clear that there is no refuelling next year. I think that was something that FOTA supported way back in December last year, so it is not as if there is any conflict at all about that position. I think there has been some talk about races changing in distance. Really I think everybody is working on the assumption that the races will be of the same length next year and they are doing their numbers on that basis.

But there are all sorts of factors, if you are able to move your rear wing and lower your drag level going down the straight obviously has a number of interesting effects both on lap time but also on your fuel consumption as well. But I think most people will be having to say 'well, we will have to work out our fuel consumption on the basis that we won't be able to move our rear wing and if we are able to move our rear wing we will probably have a little bit too much capacity,' so there is quite a lot of strategic thinking. It is a difficult one.

It is certainly not a comfortable position where rules can be changed without any consultation, without any passing through the technical working group and to me it seems unfortunate that Formula One rules seem to come about through change a lot of the time, through confrontation, rather than through consultation. I think very often Max (Mosley) might say ‘well, I have given them the chance and they haven't come up with what they wanted.' But the teams are very open to realistic and practical ways of saving money. It is not as if the teams, and this goes for the manufacturer teams and the smaller teams, as if they are all rushing around wanting to spend more money. They're not.

They're wanting to spend less money, so I think the environment is very positive towards a less costly Formula One but I don't think anybody, and this goes for Williams certainly, I don't think anybody thinks that a two-tier championship is a good idea. Even on the basis of being able to adjust the rear wing alone, that is going to be very significant. I mean it depends whether any additional things come in that limit how far you are able to adjust it, but on the basis of a completely adjustable rear wing with a single flap moving you are going to be talking about, I don't know, a second-and-a-half, two seconds a lap.

Now, no amount of expenditure on more expensive, more fiddly hydraulic blocks, no amount of expenditure anywhere else will make up for that difference. It is certainly a difficult environment at the moment but I think everybody, Ross, Pat, Aldo, are all having to sit in strategic meetings where you decide what possible option might come through and how you cover it and how, if that doesn't go through, you then don't find yourself significantly embarrassed by having made a wrong decision. It is a bit of a gambling imposition on what should be a logical design process but all part of the fun and the same for everybody.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75148