Current F1 Power Supply Units

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And this assertion is based on what exactly? When the 2,400cc V8's were introduced in 2006, they were not at all popular among fans. Personally, I never liked them. They produced a sound that was loud but awful as well, lacked torque and were in no way relevant to anyone.

As I understood it at the time, the 2400cc V8 formula was brought in purely to cut costs.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As I understood it at the time, the 2400cc V8 formula was brought in purely to cut costs.

No, the 2,400cc V8's were introduced to reduce speeds. In 2004, it was - quite rightly, in my opinion - thought the cars were becoming too fast. In that year, a number of high speed crashes occurred, cars were becoming almost impossible to correct and g-forces were almost too high to continue without special clothing.
For this very reason, I doubt the strive for more downforce by 2017.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And this assertion is based on what exactly

Have a look at any forum or social media page for F1 and count the supporters of the current hybrids and get back to us with the numbers for and against them. The vast majority want a return to a normal IC motor package and if not V8 then something else that does not include energy conservation and fuel limits. What makes you say the V8's lacked power? If you drove one you wouldn't as they were very quick cars artificially held back power wise by the rev limiter. V12's were relevant? That is another problem, fans want the hybrids gone but no one can decide what they want and neither can management.

[Adam43]

I demand something NOW! Otherwise!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I demand something NOW! Otherwise!

I second that, all in favour raise their hands. Throw out that man in the front row, he raised two hands!!

[old man]

On the noise question , I watched a highlights programme of the TT races and found the Zero bikes quite surreal going at those speeds in almost complete silence, still a fantastic sight.

Note to self: Must watch FE

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Casper

Have a look at any forum or social media page for F1 and count the supporters of the current hybrids and get back to us with the numbers for and against them. The vast majority want a return to a normal IC motor package and if not V8 then something else that does not include energy conservation and fuel limits. What makes you say the V8's lacked power? If you drove one you wouldn't as they were very quick cars artificially held back power wise by the rev limiter. V12's were relevant? That is another problem, fans want the hybrids gone but no one can decide what they want and neither can management.

It is quite doubtful social media and discussion boards actually represent most fans. As far as they do, various and constantly changing opinions can be read at them. One (set of) engine regulations that was proposed by many throughout the years, was a Group C-styled regulations in which engines were to be controlled by fuel consumption. Now, as Formula One have adopted a new set of regulations in which fuel consumption is a major performance differential, it is suddenly all wrong.

It is very difficult to determine what the fans truly want. And is also hard to say everyone oversees all possible options and their consequences. Sticking with the obsolete V8's would have caused Formula One being left behind with just one or two engine manufacturers. One cannot say such would have been good for the series.

[Armco Bender]

Who wants zero emission low fuel consumption hybrid engines?.
Petrol has never been cheaper,the hole in the ozone layer fixed itself and who cares if Monaco goes under the rising sea level.
Give us loud fuel guzzling oversteering,understeering,four wheel drifting,manual gear box,V8 powered race cars.....

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Give us loud fuel guzzling oversteering,understeering,four wheel drifting,manual gear box,V8 powered race cars.....

Provided of course they don't shake the foundations and those islanders find somewhere else to go.

[Adam43]

Someone needs to tell all those Taxi drivers they don't know anything about running their own businesses and they need to sell those Priuses now. Which might not be a bad idea as they have held their value well. Get the application right and these cars are spot on.

What perhaps we need is a mix of diesel, petrol, hybrids and full EV in the world then sensible progressive people can make the right choice. Motor racing has since very early on had artificial regulations, limiting or encouraging a particular direction. At the moment they specify hybrids (with two recovery types) and turbos. Cool.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Sticking with the obsolete V8's would have caused Formula One being left behind with just one or two engine manufacturers. One cannot say such would have been good for the series.

That worked just fine in the 70's.
All we'd need is a modern DFV.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

On hybrid economics did everyone watch this video? https://youtu.be/F4H3FE0Z4QQ

He makes some very good points on why cars and hybrids are not good economics.It is really an excellent and entertaining overview of hybrid technology and its use.

Originally Posted by Casper

The link was posted earlier in the thread by someone else but it seemed to be ignored by most and not commented on so I thought it needed to be put up again.

I just got around to watching that video. He makes valid points on small vehicle hybrid economics but then goes on to champion large vehicle hybrid economics! So it is actually very pro-hybrid. He just doesn't talk up the hybrid side because his focus is on the small turbine engine part even if his concept still is a classic combustion engine+battery+electric motor hybrid vehicle. Overall I agree and support the concept he is pushing. While he talks "garbage trucks" in his presentation, it clearly also would apply to long haul trucking (however see comments below about fuel infrastructure challenges).

I have some issues with his presentation however. I think the concept is naturally good, but instead of building up his idea he tears down others via things that I think are somewhat of a red herring. For example coal fire plants are a real issue, but while you "can" link coal to pure electric vehicles (i.e. Tesla), they are not destined to always be tied together. There is no way to argue that electric vehicles are NOT the future. So why tear down electrics? Sour grapes via his exit from Tesla or just a need to differentiate his new company from Tesla?

He talked to how this is not a new idea and show the example of large ships that use turbine engines to power electric motors, but he also glossed over the mixed history of this concept (turbine electric) usage in trains. It is my understanding that this exact concept was tried with long haul trains decades ago (same positive aspects such as efficiency was the driving force), but there were issues that prevented success. There still seems to be experiments today in turbine power for trains but it hasn't quite caught on. I believe most trains that use carbon fuel are diesel electric. Why is turbine electric not working with trains given what appears to be significant interest in making it work? It should be an environment in which it should shine and be easier to solve than in large road vehicles. Will will his solution not have the same issues?

He also glosses over some of the challenges such as costs of small turbine engines. That is real, and solvable, but still needs to be solved. I suspect it is more than just units sold will drive down cost. I also wonder about fuel infrastructure. What fuel would be used in these engines? He doesn't say and also doesn't say on his website. A bit of searching does find other articles that mention it might support multi-fuel such a diesel, propane, CNG, etc. which is a good thing, but details would be good. I have to wonder if the efficiency and low costs still can exist in a small turbine that also supports multi-fuels? While multi-fuel is a good selling point, I think long term a more realistic solution would be to settle on a single fuel as it reduces complexity with infrastructure as well as the engines. What would that be and how much infrastructure changes would be needed?

Regardless of the issues I bring up, the TED talk is his sales pitch so he is not going to talk about all of the challenges. I still think it is a good idea and hope he is able to make it work.

As to F1... I see nothing in that video that invalidates the usage of hybrid technology in F1. In fact I would say it endorses it. Now, he clearly is not a fan of piston engines, but he clearly realizes that if you are using some type of combustion engine to generate power for electric motors, that this is a hybrid solution that includes battery packs for temporary power storage. And do we really see turbine engines being used in F1? I don't.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

The problem, as you say Richard, is that a turbine engine requires some form of fuel to drive it's movement. That brings it back to either fossil fuel, bio or nuclear, I would have thought.

No propulsion system in the world is totally carbon neutral, apart from wind blown sailing vessels. Possibly one day, unfortunately unlikely in my lifetime, a solution will be arrived at, but at this moment the cleanest fuel is nuclear, granted that the drawback is what to do with the spent fuel.

And, for what it's worth, my view is the Ecclestone and Todt need to wake up and smell the coffee. They cannot carry on ignoring the rest of the world's desire to cut back on fossil fuel emissions; they should be championing F1's attempts to reduce fuel consumption, and start reducing the hours the F1 circus spends flying around the world to places where the local population has no interest in Formula cars.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I just got around to watching that video. He makes valid points on small vehicle hybrid economics but then goes on to champion large vehicle hybrid economics! So it is actually very pro-hybrid.

His concept is not a hybrid as used today, it is a range extender. The IC motor in most if not all hybrids is controlled by the driver's right foot where his concept takes that control away as the turbine operates at a constant speed controlled by demand from the electric motors. If I was in his shoes I would be vague about a lot of ideas he is applying also. Why give others a leg up, he is in business to make a lot of money after all. The motor car industry is at a cross roads just as it was when petrol finally became dominant over electric, steam and horses.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As to F1... I see nothing in that video that invalidates the usage of hybrid technology in F1. In fact I would say it endorses it. Now, he clearly is not a fan of piston engines, but he clearly realizes that if you are using some type of combustion engine to generate power for electric motors, that this is a hybrid solution that includes battery packs for temporary power storage. And do we really see turbine engines being used in F1? I don't.

Richard

I can't figure out how to do multiple quotes. F1 uses the ICE under direct control of the driver, his concept is the ICE or PU should drive the generator to power electric motors and this is not the same concept as F1 currently uses as we know. A motor or turbine running at a set speed as in his concept is way more efficient in all aspects than one that has to provide power to the wheels as it is today. His concept is diametrically opposed to what F1 is doing in every respect IMO.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

His concept is not a hybrid as used today, it is a range extender. The IC motor in most if not all hybrids is controlled by the driver's right foot where his concept takes that control away as the turbine operates at a constant speed controlled by demand from the electric motors. If I was in his shoes I would be vague about a lot of ideas he is applying also. Why give others a leg up, he is in business to make a lot of money after all. The motor car industry is at a cross roads just as it was when petrol finally became dominant over electric, steam and horses.

He calls it a "range extender", but that name makes little sense to me. While it's possible it might have some plug in capabilities (size of battery pack dependent), it still runs off fossil fuels. And that is OK. The core of his pitch is that it is efficient use of carbon fuel until something better comes along (which I agree with) .

Originally Posted by Casper

F1 uses the ICE under direct control of the driver, his concept is the ICE or PU should drive the generator to power electric motors and this is not the same concept as F1 currently uses as we know. A motor or turbine running at a set speed as in his concept is way more efficient in all aspects than one that has to provide power to the wheels as it is today. His concept is diametrically opposed to what F1 is doing in every respect IMO.

Wikipedia (for a lack of a better source) calls it a "series hybrid" in that there is no mechanical connection between the IC motor and the wheels. It is a concept that Porsche invented (The "Lohner-Porsche" of which I was luck enough to see some of the original components at the Porsche museum a few years ago) over a hundred years ago. It is not the style of hybrid commonly used today, but still a hybrid. Regardless, I think we are on the same page on this.

Regarding turbine use in F1... I think one downside of Formula E is energy capacity (really energy density of the batteries) and ultimately performance (speed) and longevity (race length) that would be sufficient for the "pinnacle of motorsports". So I can imagine that until some type of magic battery technology appears that maybe something like a hydrogen (high energy density) turbine in a parallel hybrid setup might exist before a pure battery system shows up in F1.

Originally Posted by Casper

I can't figure out how to do multiple quotes.

I opened up a browser window for each of your two replies. You can copy-n-paste those into a single reply textbox/post. Then if you want to break up a single reply into different quotes you just copy-n-paste the bits you need (the quote tags and text you are replying to) if that makes sense.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

I can't figure out how to do multiple quotes. F1 uses the ICE under direct control of the driver, his concept is the ICE or PU should drive the generator to power electric motors and this is not the same concept as F1 currently uses as we know. A motor or turbine running at a set speed as in his concept is way more efficient in all aspects than one that has to provide power to the wheels as it is today. His concept is diametrically opposed to what F1 is doing in every respect IMO.

Plus one!

Good post.

[Oldtony]

I tend to think that this discussion is taking a too simplistic view of the terms hybrid or range extender.
The video suggesting the use of a constant speed turbine is interesting although where economy really counts above light weight and performance (trains and merchant ships) the preference has drifted back to diesel electric.
The F1 system is much more than just a range extender as it incorporates recovery of both kinetic (braking) and exhaust turbine energy through the MGU-H and MGU-K route and using both sources of energy to provide both extra power to the wheels and "spin up" the turbo tho provide no lag throttle response. Other forms of storage are also incorporated for instance capacitors for part of the instant response storage.
The big advances in F1 have been in the development of control and inter-operability between the ICE, Kinetic and heat recovery and the storage and delivery of power in a controlled manner. The control and software systems are the big advance and form a foundation for future development in medium and high performance personal transportation systems. (cars).
Now whether the regs give sufficient room for the greatest possible benefit from development (type of ICE, power delivery limits and development freezes and tokens etc.) is worth debating, but if we are going to continue to have cars we can drive (and enjoy doing so) this is probably the best route for the next 30-40 years.

[Casper]

I doubt that the technology being used in F1 has any future at all as it is too expensive to implement. If Mercedes implement it in the S600 then it might have a limited future but I doubt they will. The S600 has in general terms been the test bed for all sorts of technology that has drifted down to the family car level. A range extender has far more future than a hybrid with the wheels driven by an IC engine, it is more simple, more fuel efficient and the emissions are nowhere near an IC motor used conventionally. There are still a few attempts to use Hydrogen as well which must not be forgotten. get the fuel storage and dispensing right and Hydrogen is from this distance a winner.

I have a question, did Todt decide on his own that hybrids were the future and talk everyone else into it or did the manufacturers persuade him to go down this path?

Anyone want to have a punt on what technology will be in use in 15 years time in F1? I am not that game.

[Oldtony]

The move to KERS and the Hybrid was actually down to Max Moseley who put together a group of manufacturers to come up with an agreed solution.
As I recall Ford, VAG, BMW, Toyota as well as the current manufacturers were involved. The initial move was for 1600cc 4cyl ICE and all the turbo and recovery gear. Ferrari held out for the V6 and got their way. BMW and Toyota dropped out at the KERS stage and VAG and Ford never made a serious eff ort ( as far as we know).
This is based on reports and my memory.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The move to KERS and the Hybrid was actually down to Max Moseley who put together a group of manufacturers to come up with an agreed solution.
As I recall Ford, VAG, BMW, Toyota as well as the current manufacturers were involved. The initial move was for 1600cc 4cyl ICE and all the turbo and recovery gear. Ferrari held out for the V6 and got their way. BMW and Toyota dropped out at the KERS stage and VAG and Ford never made a serious eff ort ( as far as we know).
This is based on reports and my memory.

I think you are referring to the FIA's 1.5-litre, in-line four-cylinder GRE, or Global Racing Engine, which it was hoped F1 would debut in 2013.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think you are referring to the FIA's 1.5-litre, in-line four-cylinder GRE, or Global Racing Engine, which it was hoped F1 would debut in 2013.

You are right! That's the beastie.
As I recall Max put the manufacturers group together before he went and Jean dealt with the outcome and the move to V6.
By the way we are talking about the future of F1 but does F1 have a future if club level motorsport is strangled by fuel and emission rules.
I guess electric Karts could provide entry level but where to from there???

[bjohnsonsmith]

Ferrari say Bernie should pay for budget F1 engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122436

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Ferrari say Bernie should pay for budget F1 engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122436

To this I'd say, the sooner Bernie brings his independently supplied 2.4 litre turbo on stream the better!


the engine manufacturers must not be allowed to dominate F1 for F1s own good!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

To this I'd say, the sooner Bernie brings his independently supplied 2.4 litre turbo on stream the better!


the engine manufacturers must not be allowed to dominate F1 for F1s own good!

Is the 2.4 turbo a V6?