FIA and teams agree on hybrid engines from 2010 on

There has to be a way to strike a balance between technology, driver control, and spectacle. Right now its too heavily weighted on technology, the driver is not in as much control as he used to be, and the spectacle comes from all of us not accepting the fact that we watch F1 because we're loyal to the concept (and the teams in some cases) if not the current manifestation of the sport.

 

If I wanted to see green racing, I'd watch those solar powered electric cars gliding through an Arizona desert. Well guess what, I don't.

Remember when sex was safe and racing was dangerous?

 

+1
Are we on the endangered list..

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through..

 

+++DmnStraight on that!

There is also a great deal of hypocrisy being expressed in this F1 greenness. For one thing, this business of F1 actually producing real technology for today's cars in city traffic stop & go (the only place a hybrid helps you) is demonstrably total BS. The place to develop hybrids is in the laboratory, not the racetrack. The money spent on this nonsense is, in a sense, money NOT spent on reasonable daily driving technology. 60HP electro-boost on a 640HP car? - what a brave step forward into fuel efficiency, gentlemen!

There is also the issue of actual fuel use gain vs. loss in the whole F1 spectacle...how about the carbon imprint of moving the circus all around the world in jumbo jets, the thousands of idling (non hybrid for the most part) cars and busses, etc. for the crowds to attend these events? No amount of PC with a few energizer batteries is going to make this an environmentally friendly event.

It is what it is - top end racing in cars so outrageous that no sane mind would ever consider getting one near a public road.

So, I say this: build them to race, build them to highlight driver talent, and then let them race. You greenies looking forward to the new technology can go watch some stirring sailplane racing or perhaps the electric motorcycle drags.

 

Not when the majority of the fuel savings is actually from having the car engine off at stop lights or when idling along at 5 mph in a gridlock. Think that an 8.5 second pitstop with the engine off and then a restart is going to save much?

The rest of the time you are just fooling yourself and carrying the freight of a useless and heavy battery pack.

The ratio of the boost power to the real power tells the true story of the lie - if they were serious about this it would be the other way around...but then the cars would all get run over by the AMG Mercedes that paces the race!

I will say it again, with Tifosi, that if you want this kind of race, then by all means stage one with reasonable rules to highlight this kind of technology.

Just not Formula One, thank you.

 

LOL

Well the safety car would have to be replaced too. With a Smart.


PS: Ever seen the Topgear episode where Clarkson tries to powerslide a Smart? His comments: "You can't. You need more than 1 horse power to do that."

 

Just because you say it it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I assume you have no more direct influence on the way F1 goes than the rest of us and it seems to be going 'green' despite your opposition. It looks like it will be the 'greenies' who will be watching F1 and the petrolheads will have to watch something else. However, market forces will, as always, prevail - if a 'green' F1 draws the crowds and TV audiences it will continue to go that way, if not it won't.

 

You're right about the market forces, which is why I doubt F1 will go green.

Every time I'm in Europe I'm stunned about all the talk over green issues. It is a HUGE topic in the UK, no question. But F1 is a global sport (albeit its roots are in the UK) and the green topic is not that much of a concern outside of Europe.

 

Smart AMG hybrid...it would still be Mercedes, and with plenty of amperage for the safety lights!

OK - before we get into the Dinosaurs vs. the Progressives, let me give a couple of (what I think are) reasonable points given as subjects for argument:

a) Should F1 racing REALLY be viewed as a forum for environmental car development, or actually for ANY kind of reasonable passenger car development? Remember how they used to say that the Indy 500 was worth all the deaths because they developed the rear view mirror for Ray Harroun (in the first race) so he did not have to have a riding mechanic? Even the old-timers now mostly admit that really, not much of anything for consumer cars came from this race, only the entertainment value...I will submit that in the real world, passenger car technology (or even aerospace practice) is much more likely to be modified and adapted onto the racing cars these days than the other way around.

b) Does F1 racing REALLY need to make this kind of political grandstanding to support valid environmental issues? Maybe it would be more effective (not to mention better for the sport) to provide a publicly visible contribution to bona-fide research and development from all the big money they are making from the venue?

Just a thought - you don't necessarily have to be anti-environmental to want to keep multi-cylinder high performance internal combustion engines in F1.

James

 

True, they do not listen to me very much at all.

Nevertheless, I stand as King Canute before the oncoming tidewaters.

 

I think it's a HUGE topic nearly everywhere except the US, but you're slowly beginning to get there

 

I did I read that an on-board started will also be required soon? If so, I now understand the teams agreeing to the hybrid concept.

If they build the starter/generator into the flywheel, it theory you could hit the starter button anytime you please, as long as the rules allow it. Also it theory you could reverse the polarity and brake the rear wheels, reducing the size/weight required for the rear brakes, again if the rules allow it. It sounds like the “hybrid” idea is creative marketing some the teams would want to do if they are required to lug around a started and battery anyway….which they want to do to be able to re-start after an incident, but only if everyone needs to lug around a starter and battery.

I saw that the corvette endurance race team fits 2 starters to the car and can drive back to the pits if the engine stalls and won’t fire….I’d guess the f1 cars would have that ability too with a 60 or 80 hp starter motor.

 

It's a silly topic where all of the solutions proposed to date are more poluting than what they are supposed to replace.......

 

All true enough, but let me beat my dead horsie a little more, please.

Does everyone fully see how totally futile a 60hp reverse generation starter motor would be as an assistance to F1 brakes? Don't they already pull about as many G's as an aerobatic plane on braking? How many 'HP' does that represent as a reverse heat engine in those high-tech composite brakes? More than 60hp, I will surely wager you.

Also on the starter motor point - well enough made, and in fact this is exactly what this scheme would result in - a 60hp starter motor with the Diehard from hell. Does anybody know what a regular american V8 starter motor puts out (momentarily, to be sure) to start your hemi?

Just some points to ponder from here in the wilderness...

 

Not true. Go to Asia, Africa or South America and check for yourself where the political priorities lie. It is only a topic in Europe and I would say even within Europe there are varying support levels from nation to nation.

 

...a lot more, good point. But, if you have to carry it anyway, you might as well use it I would think.

right around 50-60hp I believe

 

Not so. Most countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty commiting them to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. The major exceptions are the USA and Australia.

 

Kyoto treaty doesn't automatically translate into hybrid engines nor does it necessarily reflect the beliefs and values of the citizens.

 

I wasn't talking about hybrid engines or even what citizens think, I was responding to your erroneous statement that climate change was solely an issue in Europe and nowhere else in the world. The Kyoto treaty demonstrates that it is, to use your own phrase, a 'political priority' for most countries. The US is pretty isolated on this issue, although Al and Arnie are doing their bit

 

The Kyoto treaty? Here all this time I thought it was an Accord. Anyway, will it be running at Suzuki this weekend?

I still put my money on Ferrari.

PS - I just had this terrific idea for the electric car and motorcycle drags - just use the motors as a dynamic brake to recharge the batteries at the end of the run. Then you won't have to delay your next runs for that excruciating charge time (like at the last few minutes before the track closes for the night).

Then, to keep them all honest, just make them run the first run on external charge, the next runs for the day on whatever they can recover from the braking zone without any other recharge at all -

Then, make them match race a gas bike or car and if the gas car beats them, charge the guy a formulaic amount by whatever time/distance he stomped the poor little harmless electric eel and how much nitrous oxide fumes they wasted into the air. This will make the gas/fuel car guys NOT want to beat them and create some real even racing, no matter how slow.

It will make for some real edge-of-your-seat racing, I tell you...

 

I maintain my "erroneous" statement that green topics are not top priorities for the folks living outside of Europe. Whether their government signed the treaty or not.

Seriously, watch the news from other continents and see how much coverage this gets. It is a Euro topic.

 

you forgot, nor are the goals obtainable.....which is way a few countries had the sense not to sign the foolish thing.

...oh , and this thread looks like the moderator will have to move it to P&R soon....

 

Yes, it is funny that China signed the treaty yet happily goes on to pollute the world more than anybody else. Like they give a darn.

True about the move. Time to get back onto the topic.

 

He is right. Now, on my electric drag bike charge recovery idea - it is one more point of demonstration of why I think this FIA/Max rule is deceptive and foolish: to wit -

a) - the amount of power to be recovered/recycled is so small compared to the real power/fuel budget that it is in fact vanishingly small.

b) - to actually run re-drags at a strip after only a dynamic recharge would not be at all a bad analogy to the hopeful theory that you could get a good electric boost down the next straight after a hard-pressed electronic braking point in the last turn. You would get to see the real effect without the nasty gas burning engine covering up the action. (and without its weight, as a matter of fact). I will still say that the next run will not be a pretty thing to watch.

c) - a personal note: like many small boys with mechanical inclinations, I was deeply impressed with the knowledge that a DC motor could also act as a generator. I developed a theory for a perpetual motion machine at the age of about 9 or 10 years. I had two little DC perm-mag motors and a tiny piece of rubber tubing to connect their output shafts. I carefully wired them for correct charge/boost polarity. As hard as a tried, I just could not get them spinning fast enough...

d) - thermodynamics: You cannot get ahead, You cannot break even, and the Big Pit Boss of the Universe will not let you out of the game.

As MK E points out, this is an environmental green dress and lipstick on a starter motor system.

IMHO, of course.