27 replies to this topic

[gruntguru]

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/26943423

 

Some time ago on this forum, an argument was raging about the relevance of F1 technology and the potential for F1 to assist R&D for road going vehicles.

 

Professor Dr Thomas Weber from Mercedes Benz certainly thinks so.

 

"He said technology transfer to road cars from the new F1 engines, with their dual energy recovery systems, was already happening and he hailed the "incredible" achievement of all the engine designers in F1.

 

The new F1 engines have a thermal efficiency of "40% and above" - better than that of a road-going diesel.

 

"Never before did we do such a huge step forward in such a small space of time from a V8 naturally aspirated engine to downsizing, turbocharged, all the technologies with one step," Weber said."

[Greg Locock]

That's nice. As Mandy Rice Davies said, "he would say that wouldn't he".

 

Show us the money.

 

 a thermal efficiency of "40% and above" 

 

Is this brake efficiency? or indicated?

[saudoso]

Well, F1 rule makers must be geniuses then, since they fixed the word's fuel usage problem with one pen strike by when they designed the system in the rules.

[Bloggsworth]

That's nice. As Mandy Rice Davies said, "he would say that wouldn't he".

 

Show us the money.

 

 a thermal efficiency of "40% and above" 

 

Is this brake efficiency? or indicated?

 

It is what it says on the can, thermal efficiency. The % of the output relative to the calorific value of the fuel put in.

[Bloggsworth]

Relevance? JCB and bus manufacturers are incorporating the Williams energy recovery system into their products. A thermal efficiency of 40% transferred to road cars would make battery power pointless.

[Magoo]

That's nice. As Mandy Rice Davies said, "he would say that wouldn't he".

 

 

Exactly. What's he supposed to say?

[saudoso]

Relevance? JCB and bus manufacturers are incorporating the Williams energy recovery system into their products.

 
http://en.wikipedia...._energy_storage
 

In the 1950s, flywheel-powered buses, known as gyrobuses, were used in Yverdon, Switzerland and there is ongoing research to make flywheel systems that are smaller, lighter, cheaper and have a greater capacity. It is hoped that flywheel systems can replace conventional chemical batteries for mobile applications, such as for electric vehicles. Proposed flywheel systems would eliminate many of the disadvantages of existing battery power systems, such as low capacity, long charge times, heavy weight and short usable lifetimes. Flywheels may have been used in the experimental Chrysler Patriot, though that has been disputed.

[Bloggsworth]

 
http://en.wikipedia...._energy_storage
 

 

Fine if they worked, but they didn't work well enough to be adopted wholesale. The point about the F1 developed system is that it is both far lighter and more efficient. Quoting history is to discount the Harrier Jump Jet because the Wright Brothers had flown 400 yards, or Da Vinci had drawn a picture of a helicopter that would never have worked even if he had had access to both modern engines, graphene and carbon fibre - The idea is not the solution.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 20 May 2014 - 13:11.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Exactly. What's he supposed to say?

 

See the quotes attributed to Edsel Ford about Indycar in the past week 

[saudoso]

Fine if they worked, but they didn't work well enough to be adopted wholesale. The point about the F1 developed system is that it is both far lighter and more efficient. Quoting history is to discount the Harrier Jump Jet because the Wright Brothers had flown 400 yards, or Da Vinci had drawn a picture of a helicopter that would never have worked even if he had had access to both modern engines, graphene and carbon fibre - The idea is not the solution.

 

I appreciate Williams has given the technology a shove forward but I find it a bit of a stretch for it to make F1 road relevant given the very low adoption of such systems.

 

It might become a big thing one day, but it isn't right now.

[MatsNorway]

40% efficiency = 692hp

Edited by MatsNorway, 20 May 2014 - 14:52.

[BRG]

I can't think of a single thing of any value that F1 has pioneered and which has transferred to the road.  The current energy recovery stuff is all technology already widely used in the real world.  Many trains used regenerative braking, many buses (let alone cars) have hybrid systems.  There is nothing revolutionary there.

 

However, the current F1 PUs are a bit of a development in that all the ERS systems seem to work autonomously and I can see a similar set-up appearing in road cars in the future..  

[gruntguru]

Damm - I knew I should have asked all the cynics here before I listened to Professor Weber.

 

I think a lot of the posters are missing the point. F1 didn't invent hybrid technology nor turbo compounding, electric anti-lag etc etc, but the packaging, implementation and optimisation of all these technologies has taken a giant leap in the couple of years since the formula was announced.

 

BRAKE thermal efficiency >40% - I don't doubt for a minute especially given MB's clear superiority so far in the drivetrain department. Prius has a clamed 38% without compounding and Toyota claim the next generation Prius will have ICE BTE of 45% (still without compounding).

Edited by gruntguru, 21 May 2014 - 00:33.

[Magoo]

Exactly. What's he supposed to say?

 

 

But if you hypnotized an auto executive and shot him full of sodium pentothol, he might say:

 

"Actually, motor racing is of no engineering value whatsoever, but the marketing people say it does something... though they're not sure what. However, it does allow me to spend my weekends hanging out with glamorous celebrities and visiting the world's great hotels and restaurants on the shareholders' nickel. So it's all good." 

Edited by Magoo, 20 May 2014 - 23:31.

[gruntguru]

"but the marketing people say it does something... though they're not sure what"

" . . . all they can tell us is we should pull out of F1 unless the rules are changed to make drivetrain development relevant to road cars and the global move to fuel efficiency."

 

At least that's what someone at MB and Renault were saying - probably just stupid marketing people - way too much influence.

[bigleagueslider]

While it may be true that a current F1 engine might achieve a BTE of 40%, it would only do so under limited conditions. This comparison to production auto diesel engine BTE is also a bit disingenuous, due to significantly different design variables behind each application.

 

The BTE of current F1 engines is quite good for a couple reasons. First, F1 engines operate mostly at WOT and use turbocharging, similar to a diesel engine. F1 engines also use high compression ratios, close to what modern automotive turbo diesels use. F1 engines also minimize friction losses by using very low mass engine components and design their engine components for very limited fatigue life.

[Greg Locock]

"At least that's what someone at MB and Renault were saying - probably just stupid marketing people - way too much influence."

 

Um, motorsports come under the marketing budget these days. It is their choice whether it is cost effective for marketing, engineering doesn't get involved. 

 

"However, it does allow me to spend my weekends hanging out with glamorous celebrities and visiting the world's great hotels and restaurants on the shareholders' nickel. " And invite people from other companies so they'll invite me to their shindigs. Marketing loved it when we sponsored the tennis, room for any number of industry hanger's on to be invited. Which were naturally reciprocated at much classier events.

[gruntguru]

While it may be true that a current F1 engine might achieve a BTE of 40%, it would only do so under limited conditions. This comparison to production auto diesel engine BTE is also a bit disingenuous, due to significantly different design variables behind each application.

 

The BTE of current F1 engines is quite good for a couple reasons. First, F1 engines operate mostly at WOT and use turbocharging, similar to a diesel engine. F1 engines also use high compression ratios, close to what modern automotive turbo diesels use. F1 engines also minimize friction losses by using very low mass engine components and design their engine components for very limited fatigue life.

 

I think you will find that most ICE only achive their peak BTE under "limited conditions". Why is the comparison disingenuous? Production auto diesel engines are designed with fuel efficiency front and centre. Motorsport engines have traditionally been thirstier than production engines - 2014 is a reversal with F1 powertrains leapfrogging not only production SI engines but diesels as well.

 

The BTE of current F1 engines is good for one reason - the rules impose a fuel flow limit. Peak BTE is the only claim made - time spent at WOT is irrelevant. Turbocharging helps but eg Toyota claims 38% for their current Prius - NA. They also claim over 40% NA in their development engines for the next generation of Prius. They are investigating a turbo alternative with even higher BTE. I don't think the mechanical compression ratio is as significant as you might think. Current F1 engines boast a very high expansion ratio courtesy of turbo compounding.

[bigleagueslider]

I think you will find that most ICE only achive their peak BTE under "limited conditions". Why is the comparison disingenuous? Production auto diesel engines are designed with fuel efficiency front and centre. Motorsport engines have traditionally been thirstier than production engines - 2014 is a reversal with F1 powertrains leapfrogging not only production SI engines but diesels as well.

 

The BTE of current F1 engines is good for one reason - the rules impose a fuel flow limit. Peak BTE is the only claim made - time spent at WOT is irrelevant. Turbocharging helps but eg Toyota claims 38% for their current Prius - NA. They also claim over 40% NA in their development engines for the next generation of Prius. They are investigating a turbo alternative with even higher BTE. I don't think the mechanical compression ratio is as significant as you might think. Current F1 engines boast a very high expansion ratio courtesy of turbo compounding.

I would disagree with your statement that "Production auto diesel engines are designed with fuel efficiency front and centre". The primary drivers today with either gas or diesel auto engines are cost and emissions, respectively.

 

I would agree that the BTE of current F1 engines is good, but designing a thermally efficient F1 is made easier for the reasons I noted: no cost restrictions, no emission control requirements, limited service life requirements, limited operating conditions, etc. Operation at WOT/full load conditions is important for BTE with either gas or diesel engines. Obviously diesel engines do not use an intake air throttle to regulate load like gas engines do, diesels regulate load by controlling fuel mass flow.

 

As for the claim of 38% BTE from a Toyota Prius, once again that is only at limited operating conditions, likely WOT/low road speed/low rpm. I would imagine that a Prius travelling down the highway at 55mph using just the gas engine (ie. at part throttle) would have a BTE of around 20% at best.

[gruntguru]

I would disagree with your statement that "Production auto diesel engines are designed with fuel efficiency front and centre". The primary drivers today with either gas or diesel auto engines are cost and emissions, respectively.

 

I would agree that the BTE of current F1 engines is good, but designing a thermally efficient F1 is made easier for the reasons I noted: no cost restrictions, no emission control requirements, limited service life requirements, limited operating conditions, etc. Operation at WOT/full load conditions is important for BTE with either gas or diesel engines. Obviously diesel engines do not use an intake air throttle to regulate load like gas engines do, diesels regulate load by controlling fuel mass flow.

 

As for the claim of 38% BTE from a Toyota Prius, once again that is only at limited operating conditions, likely WOT/low road speed/low rpm. I would imagine that a Prius travelling down the highway at 55mph using just the gas engine (ie. at part throttle) would have a BTE of around 20% at best.

Cost and emissions are both limits defined for the engine department before design begins - cost by the bean counters and emissions by the regulators. Things that can be optimised and help sell cars include performance, economy, NVH etc. For many buyers, economy is a primary goal and manufacturers regard their mpg number as crucial.

 

Not sure of your point on F1 engines. My point is - the F1 environment combined with current regulations has given designers the incentive to focus on thermal efficiency and consequently they are succeeding in pushing the envelope.

 

Every claim for peak BTE on every engine only applies "at limited operating conditions" - including diesels. Prius spends very little time at part throttle. That is a major benefit of the hybrid transmission.

[saudoso]

While reading "The Beast" I got aver practical case of road relevance: The Marmon Wasp introduced the rear view mirror during the first Indy 500.

 

Not formula 1 though.

[Powersteer]

I can't think of a single thing of any value that F1 has pioneered and which has transferred to the road.  The current energy recovery stuff is all technology already widely used in the real world.  Many trains used regenerative braking, many buses (let alone cars) have hybrid systems.  There is nothing revolutionary there.

 

However, the current F1 PUs are a bit of a development in that all the ERS systems seem to work autonomously and I can see a similar set-up appearing in road cars in the future..  

BMW i3, i5 and i8 all are going to have carbon fiber chassis, this is straight out of Formula Ones back. KERS can also have a possible impact rather than expensive full blown hybrid with thier huge and expensive batteries. A low budget brake regenerative device. Didn't Honda experimented in variable vane turbo technology prior to the end of 80's turbo era in Formula one?

 

Edited by Powersteer, 23 May 2014 - 13:28.

[BRG]

BMW i3, i5 and i8 all are going to have carbon fibre chassis, this is straight out of Formula Ones back. 

..which F1 got from the aerospace industry, so no pioneering there.  And as F1 started using CF nearly 30 years ago, I think we can safely say that BMW's recent adoption of CF is for its own merits, not from seeing it in F1 (unless they are remarkably slow on the uptake)

[Powersteer]

Paddle shift and automated clutch for manual gearbox maybe or double clutch already been using paddle shifters by Porsche and AUDI int he mid 80's for their prototypes and rally car respectively? I think the only difference between BMW's carbon fibre and 30 years is manufacturing or the difficulty in mass producing it. Aerospace fundermental use included a material that not only is light and strong but has a significant degree in flex, and that arguably would make a large difference between automotive and aerospace. Formula One definitely pioneered it for land use.

 

There might be many other technology transferred to road cars say maybe in testing, jigs and formulations rather than direct material. Ground effect and side skirts...kind of running out of ideas to be honest and you could be right..how about all round double wish bone suspension and mid-mounted engine? But that was pioneered by pre-war Auto Union.

 

Edited by Powersteer, 23 May 2014 - 22:23.

[bigleagueslider]

Not sure of your point on F1 engines. My point is - the F1 environment combined with current regulations has given designers the incentive to focus on thermal efficiency and consequently they are succeeding in pushing the envelope.

 

Every claim for peak BTE on every engine only applies "at limited operating conditions" - including diesels. Prius spends very little time at part throttle. That is a major benefit of the hybrid transmission.

In reality, BTE is not much more of a concern in F1 than it has been in years past when there were restrictions on fuel load carried for the race distance. Engine designers have always sought to make engines efficient by reducing friction, improving airflow, and optimizing combustion efficiency. It's just that the current regulations result in a different set of design compromises.

 

A good example of what a race engine would look like if BTE/BSFC were primary concerns and there were open rules regarding boost/displacement/number of cylinders/etc, look back at the Mercedes 5L V8 M119 Le Mans engine of 1989. It used high boost and only revved to about 7000 rpm.

[Lee Nicolle]

They both have 4 wheels, though the road car wheels these days are often bigger.

Other than that there is no similarity or relevance. And the F1 really has relevance even as a racing car with all its gimmicks with aero yet alone the hybrid? drive.

[gruntguru]

..which F1 got from the aerospace industry, so no pioneering there.  And as F1 started using CF nearly 30 years ago, I think we can safely say that BMW's recent adoption of CF is for its own merits, not from seeing it in F1 (unless they are remarkably slow on the uptake)

So if it didn't first appear on an F1 we can disregard the years of development the concept underwent in F1 to the point where CF can now be seriously as a viable alternative for road car chassis?

Edited by gruntguru, 26 May 2014 - 00:28.

[BRG]

Yes, given all the years that aerospace had already invested in it. The Dreamliner is completely composite.