Full Version: Return to turbos...2013 Engine Regulations? (Merged)
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
I don't know how it'd work, but I wonder what would happen if they dropped the engine freeze and just gave them fuel and emission limits...
QUOTE (Scotracer @ Jun 30 2010, 14:35) 
Okay it's frankly ridiculous that they see the need to turn F1 in to Eco-Marathon then.
Not really. F1 is heavily dependent on marketing, and going by that one would start off by working on the focal point. Which are the cars. It's also the most relevant point to focus on considering the nature of the sport which has been about automobile development (Yes I know there are other series out there, some which are much closer, but that still doesn't change anything about F1)
Don't know why people have the attitude of "Who cares about the cars, fix everything else" an attitude which is completely at odds with the sport.
Great, just what we need to spice up the racing, an even larger grip:power ratio...
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jun 30 2010, 15:14)
All of this is superfluous.
"Going green" means one thing: electric. That's the future, I've said it before and I'm saying it again. One of the first times I said it I can be quoted as saying "one day fans will be pulling up to the racetrack having gotten there driving electric cars". Which is the case now.
Racing cars with IC engines *of any sort* is an anachronism, and should be regarded as such. It's a waste of time to try to equate it 1:1 with road cars at this point, obviously - road cars are now more technologically advanced in the area of efficiency in fuel and things like TC/LC, etc.
In American football they still throw around pigskin balls, despite there being better alternatives. In golf they still swing at balls instead of firing them from air propelled cannons. Marathons - the most idyllic example of an anachronistic pursuit in the 21st century, when obviously there's more efficient/better ways of getting from point A to point B.
I think Formula 1 has to face the reality that *it's an anachronism*. What makes the sport appealing is the NOISE, the brute power, and the extraordinary exceeding of typical bounds.
1,000 hp, Swiss-watches at 140db loud V10's accelerating HARD is what I like to see.
You can have the same thing now - minus the sound, running all electric, and it would be green and make relevant sense to the current auto market.
Anything else is a oil-industry illusion.
At the very least, there should be an emphasis on energy *storage* systems - batteries - rather than recovery systems. We've already got that going: it's battery size/weight that would benefit *the whole planet* the most from having F1 scale dollars thrown at it.
It *would* be baffling as to why that's not the case, except for the nature of the relationships involved to the oil industry. Which is why I fear F1 is going to continue to become the wishy-washy
half "green" weirdo half-assed "solution" it's becoming now. Weaker IC engines, some oddball hybrid aspect, stranger/more artificial methods to "improve" the "racing".
I want 1,000 hp electric cars that run off of laptop sized batteries, that do 3gs LINEAR acceleration. That would be cool, maybe even worth have basically silent cars.
Otherwise - I want loud V10s, manual shifting, proper CARS. We're headed towards a mediocre non-solution.
"Going green" means one thing: electric. That's the future, I've said it before and I'm saying it again. One of the first times I said it I can be quoted as saying "one day fans will be pulling up to the racetrack having gotten there driving electric cars". Which is the case now.
Racing cars with IC engines *of any sort* is an anachronism, and should be regarded as such. It's a waste of time to try to equate it 1:1 with road cars at this point, obviously - road cars are now more technologically advanced in the area of efficiency in fuel and things like TC/LC, etc.
In American football they still throw around pigskin balls, despite there being better alternatives. In golf they still swing at balls instead of firing them from air propelled cannons. Marathons - the most idyllic example of an anachronistic pursuit in the 21st century, when obviously there's more efficient/better ways of getting from point A to point B.
I think Formula 1 has to face the reality that *it's an anachronism*. What makes the sport appealing is the NOISE, the brute power, and the extraordinary exceeding of typical bounds.
1,000 hp, Swiss-watches at 140db loud V10's accelerating HARD is what I like to see.
You can have the same thing now - minus the sound, running all electric, and it would be green and make relevant sense to the current auto market.
Anything else is a oil-industry illusion.
At the very least, there should be an emphasis on energy *storage* systems - batteries - rather than recovery systems. We've already got that going: it's battery size/weight that would benefit *the whole planet* the most from having F1 scale dollars thrown at it.
It *would* be baffling as to why that's not the case, except for the nature of the relationships involved to the oil industry. Which is why I fear F1 is going to continue to become the wishy-washy
half "green" weirdo half-assed "solution" it's becoming now. Weaker IC engines, some oddball hybrid aspect, stranger/more artificial methods to "improve" the "racing".
I want 1,000 hp electric cars that run off of laptop sized batteries, that do 3gs LINEAR acceleration. That would be cool, maybe even worth have basically silent cars.
Otherwise - I want loud V10s, manual shifting, proper CARS. We're headed towards a mediocre non-solution.
Are we talking about the same electric cars that charge up on the electricity made from power stations? Electric cars are a stop-gap solution until more advanced technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are fully developed and ready for use. Although they may improve local air quality, more electricity will need to be produced to keep them running, effectively negating the benefit.
I'm guessing these new engines will require constant development to keep with the fuel limit, which is great to have engine development back again.
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jun 30 2010, 15:14)
All of this is superfluous.
"Going green" means one thing: electric. That's the future, I've said it before and I'm saying it again. One of the first times I said it I can be quoted as saying "one day fans will be pulling up to the racetrack having gotten there driving electric cars". Which is the case now.
Racing cars with IC engines *of any sort* is an anachronism, and should be regarded as such. It's a waste of time to try to equate it 1:1 with road cars at this point, obviously - road cars are now more technologically advanced in the area of efficiency in fuel and things like TC/LC, etc.
<snipped>
"Going green" means one thing: electric. That's the future, I've said it before and I'm saying it again. One of the first times I said it I can be quoted as saying "one day fans will be pulling up to the racetrack having gotten there driving electric cars". Which is the case now.
Racing cars with IC engines *of any sort* is an anachronism, and should be regarded as such. It's a waste of time to try to equate it 1:1 with road cars at this point, obviously - road cars are now more technologically advanced in the area of efficiency in fuel and things like TC/LC, etc.
<snipped>
Electric and "going green" are not necessarily the same thing. How does one generate that electricity? There is undoubtedly a need to shift to renewable sources of energy but forcing F1 to go all electric would kill the sport stone dead. Hybrids are a stepping stone technology to fully electric cars, so will be with us a while yet. Electric powerplants will never to be suitable replacements for all IC-engined vehicles anyway, so the IC engine is along way from dead. We'll see vehicles with bio-fuel power engine/hybrids for decades to come alongside the battery/supercap/fuel cell powered runabouts that most people will use day to day. So going all-electric is a non-starter for F1, but freeing up the regs on KERS type systems would really stimulate innovation which might well have a trickle down effect to future road cars.
the main reason i see electric as the main power of the future is its the easiest to generate, and in some ways store. if we could produce cheap, enviromentaly friendly solar panels, maybe not really effiecent, but so cheap you plaster them everywhere 
and and global energy grid, as storing the amount of energy we use with batteries isnt really feasable
and and global energy grid, as storing the amount of energy we use with batteries isnt really feasable
QUOTE
Formula One teams’ CO2 emissions hit 215,588 tonnes in 2009 of which 0.3 per cent came from fuel emissions during racing and testing.
0.3%...
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
QUOTE (BigWicks @ Jun 30 2010, 18:55)
0.3%...
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
I know, it's complete shite. 'Green' is a brand companies and individuals like to associated with, nothing more.
I mean if you really wanted to be green, you'd stop expanding the calender, because more races means more travel means a LOT more pollution.
i guess the greenest thing f1 has done in recent times is shut all the f1 factories down in august, that must make a huge saving.
i guess the greenest thing f1 has done in recent times is shut all the f1 factories down in august, that must make a huge saving.
QUOTE (BigWicks @ Jun 30 2010, 18:55)
0.3%...
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
The 0.3 is the most important bit though, from an image/marketing standpoint and on the basis of what the sport actually is. Makes sense to start at the point of focus and the sport in itself (the cars/races) and then go on from there.
Obviously like what we saw at the Japanese GP with the green tyres or Honda's "Earth Dreams" livery is all nonsense greenwash, but striving for more efficient engines and such really isn't.
Sponsors are the main driving factor behind F1 wanting to adopt a more green image (emphase more rather than simply green, F1 will never be green) and the cars/race weekends are where the sponsors are getting the most run for their money. So that's another reason.
QUOTE (BigWicks @ Jun 30 2010, 15:10)
i guess the greenest thing f1 has done in recent times is shut all the f1 factories down in august, that must make a huge saving.
If you come to consider that electricity represents 30% of those figures, then yes, it's great amount of saving.
Edit: I figure that I'd like to have is hoe much of those emissions are related to tyres.
QUOTE (BigWicks @ Jun 30 2010, 10:55)
0.3%...
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution by a quite simply miniscule amount.
fact is, none of FOTA's proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.
As has been discussed many times, the point, according to some camps, is that if Renault, Mercedes, (and until recently Honda, Toyota, BMW) etc, figure out in F1 how to make an engine twice as efficient and then put some of that technology into the millions of engines that they make every year that run every day all over the world, the effect is enormous.
The point is not to reduce F1's emissions. The point is to make F1 a useful R&D lab for efficiency or emissions-related technology.
QUOTE (Scotracer @ Apr 21 2010, 02:32)
Turbos make sense...but it doesn't mean I like them. N/A power is the best sounding type of engine.
I don't care particularly for the engine sound but I know it is an issue for many. At least they are going for petrol engines and not the quiet diesels with the catalytic soot converters.
BBC Source
QUOTE (BBC)
One option the FIA and engine manufacturers are considering from 2013 is increasing engine efficiency through limiting the amount of fuel that each car can use. Currently, each car will burn about 160kg of petrol in an average race in its 2.4 litre normally-aspirated V8 engine.
Under this scenario, engines would be made much smaller - about 1.5 litres, in either a straight 4-cylinder or V6 configuration - and turbocharged. Then the amount of fuel allotted to each car would be progressively decreased over successive seasons, perhaps down to about 80kg within five years, with manufacturers aiming to hold power output at current levels - which would imply a virtual doubling of energy efficiency from today's standard.
Under this scenario, engines would be made much smaller - about 1.5 litres, in either a straight 4-cylinder or V6 configuration - and turbocharged. Then the amount of fuel allotted to each car would be progressively decreased over successive seasons, perhaps down to about 80kg within five years, with manufacturers aiming to hold power output at current levels - which would imply a virtual doubling of energy efficiency from today's standard.
In principle I-4 and V6 downsized turbos with direct fuel injection or even HCCI could be a huge efficiency break through leading to lighter and more compact engines that allow for the full AWKERS to fit. It could entice more manufacturers into F1 and get us out of the engine freeze.
Even more important in my view is the change they intend to introduce to the sporting regulations. Running under a fuel budgets will control - and restrict - the average power that designers will be able to spend on aero forces. If it is properly handled it could do away with the problem of excessive aero and bring back slipstream racing.
F1Technical invades BB, be welcomed WB.
I'd like to see an AWKERS or even an front wheels only solution, or maybe a mix of both. I try to imagine how the cars would look like with an straight-4.
One thing about fuel vs drag is that it will only be a real compromise without movable aero.
I'd like to see an AWKERS or even an front wheels only solution, or maybe a mix of both. I try to imagine how the cars would look like with an straight-4.
One thing about fuel vs drag is that it will only be a real compromise without movable aero.
The turbo era killed Elio de Angelis.
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
Terrible..
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
Terrible..
QUOTE (highdownforce @ Jul 1 2010, 23:20)
One thing about fuel vs drag is that it will only be a real compromise without movable aero.
I don't think that both things are necessarily connected. Movable aero IMO is a good thing if it is same for all. The fuel budget would be beneficial even right now. It simply is the right thing to do irrespective of the engine formula.
QUOTE (Kovalonso @ Jul 2 2010, 05:02)
The turbo era killed Elio de Angelis.
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
They did not have the sophisticated safety fuel cell legislation that we have now. IMO such a thing could not happen now. Compare the turbo fires that killed all the Peugeot's at LeMans this year. Your get a moment of fire and in less than a minute all the escaped oil has burned. Fuel does not even get involved.
Good answer to question #2 at 2:11 and question #3 at 3:02 in the video.
Whitmarsh explaining which power train technologies will be embraced and confirming that all teams are of one mind to do so. The bracketed items were not explicitly mentioned by him but could be to be under consideration.
- Downsized small capacity engines
- Turbo charging
- Kinetic energy recovery - KERS
- Heat energy recovery - HERS
- Direct injection with very high pressure
- (reduction of cylinder count)
- (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition - HCCI)
- (variable intake, exhaust and valves)
- (lift restriction to poppet valves)
- (Exhaust gas recirculation - EGR)
Jock Clear explaining why F1 is right to pursue fuel efficient engines from its fundamental ethos and the racing rational.
QUOTE (Fastcake @ Jun 30 2010, 16:23)
Electric cars are a stop-gap solution until more advanced technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are fully developed and ready for use.
How is a car going to use a hydrogen fuel cell and *not* be electric?
QUOTE
more electricity will need to be produced to keep them running, effectively negating the benefit.
There's nothing cleaner than solar power.
"Hydrogen fuel cells" are tossed around because it's a last ditch effort by the energy companies to try to get something they can meter. They're terrified of the notion of households running off the grid on $2,000 solar panels, charging their their electric cars for nothing to go to work.
QUOTE (threep @ Jun 30 2010, 16:29)
Electric and "going green" are not necessarily the same thing. How does one generate that electricity?
Solar.
QUOTE
forcing F1 to go all electric would kill the sport stone dead.
That's my point. "Car racing" is an anachronism, like kicking an air bag around made out of pig skin, or having two guys in a ring beating each other up. No one is suggesting in the NFL "hey, we need to use a urethane ball inflated with argon, and the players should wear shoes that only have recycled materials in them" or some such. It's too far apart to be relevant.
QUOTE
Electric powerplants will never to be suitable replacements for all IC-engined vehicles anyway,
Will NEVER be? This is based on what info? That technology will sit where it's at indefinitely?
Just wait. China has now mandated their "green" technology to only have Chinese origin: there will be cheap Chinese solar panels, and there will be cheap Chinese electric cars.
Not that electric cars aren't here, anyhow - I know a guy that drives one, and there's a company in my town that sells them. Plenty of people convert cars to electric. GM *made and electric car*, and a truck for awhile - that worked fine, and people are still driving them.
*Why* should IC engines stay around, except to give the energy companies something to meter out to us?
QUOTE (pingu666 @ Jun 30 2010, 16:57)
if we could produce cheap, enviromentaly friendly solar panels, maybe not really effiecent, but so cheap you plaster them everywhere
We can. Look up the company Nanosolar, then look up the new trade agreement with China where they've stipulated Chinese manufacture for their green technology. It won't be too long before they'll be churning thin-film panels out. It will be interesting to see what it does to trade relations; if a private western company can make them for the price of coal energy, China will be able to do it for a 100th of the cost. There won't be any reason not to roof your house with it - unless you're not allowed to import it.
They're picking up another western market, and it's no surprise - it's just sitting there, waiting to be had. It hasn't, and it's another indicator of how sold out the west/U.S. government is.
.. and if one MUST use a "fuel" - TURBINES would be the best solution. That's not going to happen, either.
/ although I'd prefer the SOUND of that to a quiet diesel or silent electric
/ although I'd prefer the SOUND of that to a quiet diesel or silent electric
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jul 5 2010, 09:20)
*Why* should IC engines stay around, except to give the energy companies something to meter out to us?
And energy companies aren't going to meter electricity?
puhleeeze
I live smack dab in the middle of one of the largest windfarms in the world.
It's a farce, only half of them work at any one time, when the computers that control them fail, it's a disaster scene.
It take barrels of lubricants to keep them spinning and most of them have blown seals, so the oil leaks out and is scattered across the landscape, the fields should be declared superfund waste sites. The most impressive thing is that they were built by a bunch of scam artists with government money and as soon as maintenance costs exceed output, they abandon the fields, there are probably 15 or 20 fields out here completely abandoned.
It takes over 3 tons of copper for the windings, transformers and cabling per unit, smelting copper is probably one of the biggest energy hogs in the world, to recoup the energy and materials to make one windmill means it has to produce trouble free for years.
"Green Energy" is a freakin' joke.
Here's some pics of two recent crashes...
The field in the backgound is the one from Mission Impossible
This is from a field that was abandoned after the owner, Enron, went BK. It's recently been fired up and has been the scene of at least 5 crashes in the last 3 years.
QUOTE (Atreiu @ Jun 30 2010, 16:15)
I don't know how it'd work, but I wonder what would happen if they dropped the engine freeze and just gave them fuel and emission limits...
An interesting option although you give very little detail in your proposal. What about keeping or liberating the current V10 formula? Let's assume they keep the formula with a moderate liberation of the injection, valve, ignition and exhaust system.
I think it would not be cost efficient for two years. The engine suppliers would remain the same club and no new suppliers would be attracted. The most radical options for fuel efficient technologies would be missed and the suppliers would be denied to showcase them. The cost for your option would be likely to be very similar to a new formula. Now lets look at the benefit side for four years.
I. We would have single digit fuel savings for four years compared to today's status like: 2011=5%, 2012=3.5%, 2013=2.5%, 2014=2% (2015=1,5%, 2016=1%). Reduction would be 13%. Six year reduction would be 15.5%
II: Now you go radical and use all the new stuff from 2012 and just switch to a fuel cap from next year to practise on the sporting side. The reductions would first be very limited but then jump up like: 2011=1%, 2012=1%, 2013=25%, 2014=9% (2015=8%, 2016=7%). Total reduction would be 36% and almost exceed your option by a factor of three. Six year reduction would be 51% and meet the objective.
With option two we would attract more new engine suppliers and push AWKERS and HERS due to the weight saving and integration advantages of the new turbo downsize formula. So I think the cost/benefit curve of the new formula would be significantly improved versus a simple drop of the freeze with a moderate liberation. But the most damaging aspect of your proposal would be the lack of marketing and advertising of the new technologies for the three automotive suppliers we have today. So it would not be attractive to those teams. There is also McLaren to join the automotive club next year with the MP4-12C increasing the political power of the automotive teams. Keep in mind that the teams make the rules and that in this case the FiA (Jules Simon & Jean Todt) pull in the same direction.
My final opinion on your option would be: Unfavorable cost/benefit potential, unfavorable political factors, some limited advantages for fans of multi cylinder N/A engines with conservative sound aspects. -> unlikely to be selected by the PTB
QUOTE (Kovalonso @ Jul 2 2010, 04:02)
The turbo era killed Elio de Angelis.
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
Terrible..
EdA was testing the Brabhan Turbo when he crashed.
It was reported that Elio survived the crash, but the gasoline kept falling over the steaming carcass of the turbo making it impossible to extinguish the fire.
Terrible..
That could happen today with a brake disc. The only issue with turbos in the past was that at points they generated as much as 1100hp.
QUOTE (whitewaterMkII @ Jul 5 2010, 04:17)
And energy companies aren't going to meter electricity?
puhleeeze
I live smack dab in the middle of one of the largest windfarms in the world.
It's a farce, only half of them work at any one time, when the computers that control them fail, it's a disaster scene.
It take barrels of lubricants to keep them spinning and most of them have blown seals, so the oil leaks out and is scattered across the landscape, the fields should be declared superfund waste sites. The most impressive thing is that they were built by a bunch of scam artists with government money and as soon as maintenance costs exceed output, they abandon the fields, there are probably 15 or 20 fields out here completely abandoned.
It takes over 3 tons of copper for the windings, transformers and cabling per unit, smelting copper is probably one of the biggest energy hogs in the world, to recoup the energy and materials to make one windmill means it has to produce trouble free for years.
"Green Energy" is a freakin' joke.
puhleeeze
I live smack dab in the middle of one of the largest windfarms in the world.
It's a farce, only half of them work at any one time, when the computers that control them fail, it's a disaster scene.
It take barrels of lubricants to keep them spinning and most of them have blown seals, so the oil leaks out and is scattered across the landscape, the fields should be declared superfund waste sites. The most impressive thing is that they were built by a bunch of scam artists with government money and as soon as maintenance costs exceed output, they abandon the fields, there are probably 15 or 20 fields out here completely abandoned.
It takes over 3 tons of copper for the windings, transformers and cabling per unit, smelting copper is probably one of the biggest energy hogs in the world, to recoup the energy and materials to make one windmill means it has to produce trouble free for years.
"Green Energy" is a freakin' joke.
A lot more than 3 tons of smelting goes into a single SUV.
There are many countries that have successfully implemented wind technology, just because the US is corrupt and incompetent, doesn't mean the technology doesn't work.
You honestly cannot make comments about unreliable wind energy when the BP still can't plug the hole in the Gulf of Mexico, and may not until September.
There is only one way to get petrol. Currently in Canada, they pollute 5 barrels of water and burn two barrels of natural gas to make one barrel of oil.
There are many ways to generate electricity besides wind, and the entire electricity grid in the US has failed twice in the last 80 years.
Current autos are about 8% efficient, they throw away a lot of energy in heat. They basically have not evolved in any meaningful way since the 50-60s. One main problem is weight, and the continued use of steel to make most cars.
The other problem is that alternative engine technology simply has not been seriously addressed, because no one cared.
It's a tough sell to get into F1 engine development to a Board of Directors in 2010, if it could be seen as an R&D venture with good marketing potential, then one could argue that F1 engine development is cheap, relative to TV advertising, which sucks most of the overhead costs of a vehicle.
There is recent technology that allows the generation of electricity directly from heat, which means that both kinetic and thermal wasted energy in autos can be recovered, stored, and used back.
The future of autos with gasoline-only engines is dinosaur thinking, ironic from a country where 1/3 don't believe dinosaurs ever existed.
The rest of the world buys small cars and efficient cars. While the #1 selling vehicles in the US, despite high gas prices and a depression, are V8 pickups.
Other factoid: if you generate your own electricity, you can actually make money selling it back to the grid -the metering works both ways. Try that with petroleum.
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jul 5 2010, 02:09)
"Hydrogen fuel cells" are tossed around because it's a last ditch effort by the energy companies to try to get something they can meter. They're terrified of the notion of households running off the grid on $2,000 solar panels, charging their their electric cars for nothing to go to work.
Hydrogen is a real joke.
The main problem GM had with electric cars was the 5 year reliability results: they don't break, and they have a fraction of the moving parts of an IC car.
Basically, all you need to do is swap out the batteries every 4-5 years and one car can last a long, long time. Who wants that?
Israel is investing in a plan to make batteries rental and hot-swappable.
Cars cost $8,000, and you don't own the battery, you rent them and swap them automatically in 20 seconds in centers all over the country, thus infinite range and full recycle-bility.
Even with conventional technology, the FIA had to ban electric karts because they were faster than the 135s.
Imagine kart races in urban areas without any noise issues.
QUOTE (Villes Gilleneuve @ Jul 5 2010, 21:55)
You honestly cannot make comments about unreliable wind energy when the BP still can't plug the hole in the Gulf of Mexico, and may not until September.
I certainly can comment on them, I live with them, do you?
There are approximately 60,000 wells drilled a year, and there has not ever been a blowout like this one.
The ineptitude of BP not listening to the experts that told them they were drilling and casing this one well wrong has NOTHING to do with what a farce'Green Energy' is, particularly when it comes to wind power.
We have some very efficient wind farms here, they are yhe ones at about the GenIV stage, the fact is however the Gen I, II and III units are not being replaced, they are being abandoned. It's as if the freeway shoulders were littered with Pintos or Le Cars, when the owner decides to move on to a newer model. Even the Gen IV units are only operating at peak efficiency about 17-24% of the time, due to wind conditions.
"Green Energy" is only the name the government has made up for another program in order to take my hard earned money and spread it amongst their freinds and falsely look altruistic doing it. If the government that funded these projects gave a rats ass about them, they would out here making the fat cat owners maintain them so they work, and make certain they didn't scatter lubricants over thousands of acres, in addition to replacing the older ones with newer ones.
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jul 5 2010, 02:20)
Solar.
PV systems are not that efficient right now (15-20%), at least for the types which are mass produced commercially. The more exotic versions which have higher efficiencies cost a lot to manufacture owing to the exotic materials and complicated manifacturing process, so they are not commercially viable, we'll have to wait to see if they become viable. This is especially true of the UK where we are comparitively far north so have less solar power to harvest anyway, so cost is vital. I think solar concentrators in say southern Europe or Africa have a big role to play, generating steam to feed turbines and pump electricity into the European grid.
QUOTE
Will NEVER be? This is based on what info? That technology will sit where it's at indefinitely?
Fair point, never say never. But Aircraft engines are one example where no-one isees a realistic alternative to carbon based fuels, not in the next century. You cannot get near the energy density required for large passenger aircraft from battery power or hydrogen fuel cells. Leisure aircraft, sure. UAVs (Uninhabited Air Vehicles), sure, but not large passenger or cargo aircraft, the range and payload would be too small. That's why they're concentrating on creating fuel from more green sources, such as third generation bio-fuels. Ship propulsion is another area where IC engines will be around for many decades to come. Even if you have the surface of a freighter covered in PV cells, it's not going to provide enough electricity to keep its contents refridgerated and propel thousands of tonnes of vessel for thousands of miles, its just not feasible.
on the windfarm thing, imo you should leave the old ones going, and put the new ones up somewhere else, or relocate the old ones
personaly, i just see it as we have to just everything we can get
I also wonder why wind turbines arent covered in solar panels
personaly, i just see it as we have to just everything we can get
I also wonder why wind turbines arent covered in solar panels
QUOTE (pingu666 @ Jul 6 2010, 11:16)
on the windfarm thing, imo you should leave the old ones going, and put the new ones up somewhere else, or relocate the old ones
The old ones are junk, at the most they were in the 100K range, the new ones are in the 1.3mw region.
Besides the older fields are mostly abandoned, and theives have stripped them of their cable.
In reality, that my biggest beef, they *could* be efficient, but are mismanaged and take up hundred and hundreds of acres.
The 1.3mw unit can provide enough electricity to run 12-15K homes a year, each, and some of the newer fields will have 30-40 units.
That's a boat load of power. One other downside to wind power is generally, at least here, the wind is highest at night, when the power is needed least.
Most other forms of electrical generation can be governed, hydro, gas or coal. With wind or solar, there is no control, it is either on or off.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece
Early days yet, but a '205 sq mile' facility able to provide enough oil (at current consumption rates) isn't that large taken in the context of America's ~3.8M sq mile area.
Early days yet, but a '205 sq mile' facility able to provide enough oil (at current consumption rates) isn't that large taken in the context of America's ~3.8M sq mile area.
Guys, can we please get back to discussing the topic "Return to turbos...2013 Engine Regulations?".
Alternative energy and dwindling fossil fuels can be discussed in the PC. Thanks.
Alternative energy and dwindling fossil fuels can be discussed in the PC. Thanks.
I wonder what can be done technically to turbo's by sound engineering to make them more acceptable to noise lovers. I mean some people will always complain but perhaps there are reasonable things one could do to make the turbos more aggressive acoustically. If it is detrimental to power output it could be mandated even.
Not a chance in hell.
From what I get, green also means quieter.
From what I get, green also means quieter.
QUOTE (Atreiu @ Jul 6 2010, 13:00)
Not a chance in hell.
From what I get, green also means quieter.
From what I get, green also means quieter.
The physics requires it. Less energy wasted = less noise.
Lower displacement = less volume.
What's happening with the rev limit?
QUOTE (OwenC93 @ Jul 6 2010, 17:40)
What's happening with the rev limit?
I guess that is completely up in the air. If they want to prevent an expensive arms race they will keep an rpm limit which should be much lower for turbos. But then I would not know if there are natural limits for turbos that would make an artificial limit unnecessary.
QUOTE (Atreiu @ Jul 6 2010, 15:00)
Not a chance in hell. From what I get, green also means quieter.
I don't think so. Sound energy is on an extremely low level compared to heat or kinetic energy. I just think that the exhaust turbo arrangement with the long tubes and the wheel is a natural damper for the frequencies the working strokes emit. Perhaps something can be done to design the air volume between the turbo and the engine to keep the sound.
QUOTE (Rubens Hakkamacher @ Jul 6 2010, 17:37)
The physics requires it. Less energy wasted = less noise. Lower displacement = less volume.
They do sound engineering to road cars to generate a sporty sound inside the car and comply with the legal requirements outside. So why can't they do something for turbos to keep the sound up, like trumpets or such.
QUOTE (WhiteBlue @ Jul 6 2010, 13:55)
I wonder what can be done technically to turbo's by sound engineering to make them more acceptable to noise lovers. I mean some people will always complain but perhaps there are reasonable things one could do to make the turbos more aggressive acoustically. If it is detrimental to power output it could be mandated even.
Very good idea; as good as the turbos sounded back in the 80s, they're just too damn quiet.
Well, I know zip of the physics of it. But these questions about noise instantly take me to Brands hatch the the neighbors complaining. They won and, IIRC, there are all sorts of restricitons for Brands now.
QUOTE (Atreiu @ Jul 6 2010, 19:58)
Well, I know zip of the physics of it. But these questions about noise instantly take me to Brands hatch the the neighbors complaining. They won and, IIRC, there are all sorts of restricitons for Brands now.
Noise is a very delicate question. It is hated by rational people and loved by motor sport traditionalists. Personally I don't care a rat's ass but there is probably a majority or at least a significant part of the race spectators who would kick up a huge stink if the cars would go as quiet as the LMP1 diesels.
On the other hand you have Brands Hatch which would have resolved the dilemma of the British GP 10 years ago if they could have achieved planning permission. It is perfectly located near London and the necessary upgrades would have been very affordable.
So diesels are out of question but petrol turbos without the need of catalytic converters appear very possible with some sound engineering.
According to Motorsport-Total (http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2010/09/Reglement_2013_Comeback_von_Ground-Effect_und_Turbo_10090209.html), the working group headed by Rory Byrne, Patrick Head (Chassis) and Gilles Simon (Engine) made the following proposals to the teams during the summer break.
QUOTE
- 1,6-Liter four-cylinder Turbo with 650 horsepower and 3 bar boost
- KERS for 30 seconds for an extra 150 horsepower
- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'
- An Increase of wheel rim dimension from 13 to 15-18 inches
- There is talk of increasing the amount of downforce generated by the diffuser. This will in effect be like a ground-force car.
- Sidepods will be moved further forward
- Cars may have to use KERS when in the pitlane (to increase awareness of the technology).
- KERS for 30 seconds for an extra 150 horsepower
- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'
- An Increase of wheel rim dimension from 13 to 15-18 inches
- There is talk of increasing the amount of downforce generated by the diffuser. This will in effect be like a ground-force car.
- Sidepods will be moved further forward
- Cars may have to use KERS when in the pitlane (to increase awareness of the technology).
QUOTE (Spa95 @ Sep 2 2010, 15:20)
According to Motorsport-Total (http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2010/09/Reglement_2013_Comeback_von_Ground-Effect_und_Turbo_10090209.html), the working group headed by Rory Byrne, Patrick Head (Chassis) and Gilles Simon (Engine) made the following proposals to the teams during the summer break.
All that was here first:
http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/3018
650 hp? I know there is KERS but...
QUOTE (Felix @ Sep 2 2010, 16:23)
Who cares who was first? Dieter Rencken writes for both sites - and not everyone here is a subscriber anyway.
650hp + 150hp(KERS) = 800hp (for 30 seconds)
That's not dreadful.
That's not dreadful.
QUOTE (highdownforce @ Jun 30 2010, 20:17)
If you come to consider that electricity represents 30% of those figures, then yes, it's great amount of saving.
Edit: I figure that I'd like to have is hoe much of those emissions are related to tyres.
Edit: I figure that I'd like to have is hoe much of those emissions are related to tyres.
Unless they are able to run the factories harder after the August break to catch up!
QUOTE (MadYarpen @ Sep 2 2010, 15:24)
650 hp? I know there is KERS but...
Power, whether too much or too little, isn't the issue, there's currently too much grip for the power available.
QUOTE (WhiteBlue @ Jul 6 2010, 16:56)
I guess that is completely up in the air. If they want to prevent an expensive arms race they will keep an rpm limit which should be much lower for turbos. But then I would not know if there are natural limits for turbos that would make an artificial limit unnecessary.
From what I've heard in various different places, a Turbo engine of that size would not be capable of doing 18000+ rpm... even 15000 would be 'high' as the speed of the Turbocharger itself would become too high and ineffective..
The teams might also find there is no power up that high in the rev range, and tune the engines to work within a more meaty part of the power curve..
I like the idea of ground force.
what is Fuel-Flow-Meter for?
what is Fuel-Flow-Meter for?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.