Formula 1 - The Eco Friendly Motorsport!

[Simon F]

Turbos why? They make the engine much less responsive.

Really? I don't think I'd like my car so much without its turbo (except, perhaps, every year at insurance renewal time ).

 

[DJ12]

There is very little lag in my car. Of course if you are a complete tool and only drive in top gear, put your foot down and expect it to just go then yes there is lag, but if you use the gears it's barely noticeable.

My car is at full boost at about 2,500 rpm.

Anyway, I have just found this......

Max Mosley, president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), recent comments to the sporting press have finally brought us long-awaited evidence of the “greening” of the sport. Mosley envisions three distinct, overlapping sets of regulations, two of which should emerge by the 2010 season. First, in 2009, they’ll introduce “energy-recovery and re-use from braking.” Then, in 2010, teams must work on “recovery and re-use of excess heat or waste heat from the engines.” In the longer term, Mosley wants “a completely new F1 engine reflecting the industry tendency which is to have a downsized, turbo-charged engine.” That’s right; the Turbo’s back.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2701

I hope it's true, get some speed back into F1. Wastegate chatter, I just love it.

 

[_xxx_]

Maybe so, but a variable vein turbo would be enough. The gain would far outweigh the loss in my opinion.

In terms of raw power, could be. But think about fuel consumption

Also, you'd need heavier engines and bigger tanks etc. It's not that easy.

 

[Simon F]

In terms of raw power, could be. But think about fuel consumption

Are you basically saying that if you want a high power output all of the time (as is typical with a racing car), you are simply better off with a bigger ( normally aspirated) engine? (Unless, I suppose, F1 starts running on high-altitude circuits)

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I hope it's true, get some speed back into F1. Wastegate chatter, I just love it.

I woulnd't hold my breath... FIA will find a way to limit the power to unnecessary low levels.

 

[_xxx_]

Are you basically saying that if you want a high power output all of the time (as is typical with a racing car), you are simply better off with a bigger ( normally aspirated) engine?

Not bigger, but higher rpm.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I hope it's true, get some speed back into F1. Wastegate chatter, I just love it.

Engery regeneration schemes have been bubbling up to the surface of the FIA discussions for a few years now and as far as I'm aware this report is correct. In the old Turbo era, just before they went normally aspirated, the Turbo was not full on, but used as a driver operated boost in order to provide shorter burst of power - obviously useful for overtaking - and I believe this is how they will implement the energy regeneration schemes. The teams will be able to harness otherwise wasted energy, store it and the driver can choose when to use it. Effectively it is a turbo, but the energy is harnessed by other means.

 

[_xxx_]

I woulnd't hold my breath... FIA will find a way to limit the power to unnecessary low levels.

I dunno what you mean by that. They'll limit the power, but what is unneccessary about that? Last year's cars ran faster then cars with much more hp (and slicks) some 10 years ago AFAICR.

Less power --> less weight, smaller, lighter car --> higher speed with the given amount of power.

 

[Dave Baumann]

So it's about as green as the paint on a Ferrari then? (unless they are planting a lot of trees each year).

The report points out that the FIA are buying "credits" not just for the races, but also all the transport to the races.

"It is understood that the offsets include not only the emissions of the competing cars but also, and more importantly, the worldwide travel of personnel involved in both championships."

 

[_xxx_]

The teams will be able to harness otherwise wasted energy, store it and the driver can choose when to use it. Effectively it is a turbo, but the energy is harnessed by other means.

How will you store the energy in the car? Only one possibility - battery. It will go the way of "soft" hybrid, the electro will help when accelerating, while the energy is recovered while braking and in shear/thrust (while rolling).

 

[Dave Baumann]

That's a good point. They have all those massive trucks, mobile homes and media centres in the paddock, so I presume they don't ship them by air, although a lot of the people must travel by air. Even so, the point was about the cars themselves, which was what was being criticized at the time.

All the European races are driven to by the trucks - AFIAK Turkey is as far as they will go. The FIA have special chartered flights for the Asia Pacific and transatlantic races whereby all the cars and equipement is containerised and packed into a set number of planes (I can't remember how many). Where the drive-to races the teams will take their own motorhomes (or, rather, transportable buildings in the case of McLaren and RBR/TRR), the tracks that are selected for fly-away races are supposed to provide their own facilities for the teams to have these hosting areas.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I share your sentiment though, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, I doubt the cars these days are that much faster than indycars.

If you are doing a 2.5 mile super speedway an Indycar will almost certianly outperform an F1 car. Put any types of twists and a track and an F1 car will wee all over them! F1 cars are really built for acceleration, braking and cornering - i.e. ideally suited for the type of circuits they visit - and they are vastly good at doing it.

 

[Dave Baumann]

How will you store the energy in the car? Only one possibility - battery. It will go the way of "soft" hybrid, the electro will help when accelerating, while the energy is recovered while braking and in shear/thrust (while rolling).

I've not got my head around that yet. Electronic power would certainly seem to be the most obvious, however the weight associated with the storage may be an issue.

 

[DJ12]

An "economical" turbo engine producing roughly 1000bhp (or much less know the FIA) would be the most effective use of waste products wouldn't it?

I cannot see them adding weight and more additional costs (for electric motors and batteries and such), not to mention the added safety issues that could arise.

Simply whacking a turbo on the engine (I know it isn't that easy before someone says something ), reducing the capacity and number of cylinders seems to be the only real way for them to reuse waste products in a sensible, safe and cost effective fashion.

 

[_xxx_]

I've not got my head around that yet. Electronic power would certainly seem to be the most obvious, however the weight associated with the storage may be an issue.

No, the regular battery is used, no extras there. The electro motor is usually inside the gearbox. If you're interested in that, take a look here:

http://rb-k.bosch.de/en/automotivetechnology/overview/newsspecial/hybridtechnology/index.html

EDIT: BTW, I'll be working on one upcoming soft-hybrid engine soon, so I'll be able to tell you more sometime next year

 

[Dave Baumann]

Turbos are a known quantity now. My understanding is that part of the rationale for including energy regeneration scheme is for F1 to effectively pioneer something new again, in the hope that it will be applicable to future road cars.

 

[Dave Baumann]

No, the regular battery is used, no extras there. The electro motor is usually inside the gearbox. If you're interested in that, take a look here:

F1 cars do not have a battery in the same way a road car does - starter motors are not included in the cars and so they don't currently have the need for electrical power storage sufficient to even turn one.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I dunno what you mean by that. They'll limit the power, but what is unneccessary about that? Last year's cars ran faster then cars with much more hp (and slicks) some 10 years ago AFAICR.

Less power --> less weight, smaller, lighter car --> higher speed with the given amount of power.

I mean that FIA is working too hard to make the cars slower/safer = less exciting. They should have just keep those 3 liter V10 engines, slick tyres and let the companies spend enormous fortunes on making the cars faster, instead of changing the rules every year and crippling the car development process while at it.

 

[_xxx_]

F1 cars do not have a battery in the same way a road car does

Ohhh, forgot that! You're right, that will be additional weight then.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Ah-Ha! This is what I thought - basically it sounds like there is not going to be no single ratified solution for regernerative energy, but rather the teams can choose their own method of storage (hydrolic, kinetic, electrical) within certain parameters set by the FIA:

http://www.fia.com/automotive/issue5/sport/article10.html

So far, the FIA proposal on 'energy storage devices' merely consists of a willingness to lift the existing ban on such devices, plus a requirement to limit each unit's weight to 20 kilograms (44 lbs). It has been suggested that the FIA originally intended a capacitor-based system, with single-source procurement of a standard capacitor which would be sold on to the teams, who would then implement their own controllers and electric motors. However, some teams preferred alternative solutions such as hydraulic or kinetic energy systems, and the current FIA position is that the technology should be 'completely free', provided it is demonstrably safe.

As the fuel tanks, batteries and pressure cylinders in conventional racing cars are all 'energy storage devices', this article adopts the term 'surge power unit' to describe the device the FIA has in mind. 'Surge power' accurately reflects the FIA's desire to enhance the spectacle and appeal of Formula One by enabling more overtaking. It is also consistent with the forecast by Max Mosley (the President of the FIA), that 'in the next 30-50 years it is absolutely certain that every vehicle on the public road will be fitted with a device that will enable it to recover all the energy released when the brakes are applied and store it and use it again to drive and accelerate the vehicle'.

The FIA predicts that the first F1 surge power units will deliver some 60 bhp for up to nine seconds, with the power output eventually doubling to over 120 bhp. Race cars will built up energy in their surge power units by using regenerative braking into each corner for up to three seconds a time, building up enough energy for a tactical burst of up to nine seconds of extra acceleration, once or twice a lap.

As surge power units evolve in terms of power and capacity, the issue of 'combined power' will loom. For example, what if a 'functionally stabilized' engine of 2010 running on a mixture of gasoline and biofuel is able to deliver almost 800 bhp, to which is added 120 bhp from the surge power unit? This may well be regarded by the FIA as 'excessive' power. If the FIA eventually imposes a limit on total power, will it be on 'combined power', with the teams free to determine the balance, or just on the engine or just on the surge power unit?

The FIA has never suggested limiting ordinary braking power, and surely wouldn't contemplate limiting eco-friendly regenerative power. Consequently, regenerative power is the key attribute in racing hybrids, more so than either energy capacity (above a sensible minimum of at least one braking event) or accelerative power. Hence the interest, ultimately, in linking the surge power unit to the front wheels as well as the rear. If the 2011 regulations relax the weight (and hence power) limit on surge power units, the potential for super-efficient race cars will rise markedly, and have a major impact on engine requirements, not just in Formula One but in most other forms of motor sport.

Now that Formula One engines will be 'functionally stable' until 2011, race engineers can begin to focus on the new source of competitive advantage, the surge power unit. The FIA envisions that 20 kg surge power units will eventually have an available energy capacity of some 900 kiloJoules, or some 250 Watt-hours. By 2008 the minimum weight of a Formula One car, complete with driver, will have dropped from its current limit of 605 kg to only 550 kg (1213 lbs). To put that 250 Watt hours of extra energy into perspective, it's equivalent to the difference between the kinetic energy of the car at 100 mph (152 Whr) and at 160 mph (390 Whr). In other words, enough energy to accelerate the car from 100 to 160 mph without the engine running, if there were no aerodynamic and other losses.

Its sounds like the rules for "surge power units" will need to be ratified by the end of this year, for initial introduction in 2009. The 2011 rules they are talking about is where they are looking for a major engine rule overhaul that will like take into account biofuels and rules based not just on capacity but efficiency as well.