Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Has the WEC done a better job of hybrid innovation than F1?


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#51 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,596 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 February 2015 - 22:58

The Lotus 49 wasn't the first to utilise the concept, just as Dan Gurney didn't invent champagne spraying. Both are urban myths.

On the other hand, Harroun being the true winner of the first Indy is pretty much accepted by all those who are best qualified to know.

Advertisement

#52 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 09 February 2015 - 07:07

The evolution of WEC/LM regulations is about as byzantine as it gets and I know from an acquaintance with 25 years of Le Mans/Endurance experience as an entrant that it can get frustrating at times.

 

However I think there is one thing which helps in the WEC - the races need large fields to put on a  show for 12 -24 hours so the organisers have to respect varying budgets. Hence LM1 and LM2 etc. Also the category has to sustain commercial chassis builders so compromises are esential. Even where diferent series conflct like TUSC vs European LM budgets enforce some compromises.

 

Similarly a much larger driver and sponsor pool is needed so listening to just 2 or 3 top level vested intrests wont work long term

 

I wonder if that different background just gives the WEC/LM/TUSC rule makers a broader mindset than the F1 world?

 

Yes, it does. But just as relevant is that unlike Formula One where individual teams can pressure the rule makers, or exercise power of veto, the ACO do not bow to pressure by anyone with a vested interest. They made rules changes that hurt powerful and well funded teams. And if any one team said "you need to do this or we will leave", guess what, they left.



#53 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 February 2015 - 12:12

For those of us who are old and grey, and may have been to more than one rodeo, could somebody please identify exactly what innovations either series has made in the field of hybrid vehicles?



#54 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 09 February 2015 - 15:22

http://www.imeche.or...to-gkn-010414-2



#55 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 February 2015 - 21:13

Thanks

 

https://en.wikipedia...Gyro_locomotive  (1965)



#56 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 09 February 2015 - 21:34

Sure, no new-from-whole-cloth technologies, but I think it's fair to say that they are helping spur active development of stuff that never saw much daylight in racing or road use — the coordinated turbocharged/turbocompounded/brake regen/electric power delivery powertrains have never really been done before, right?  And they seem to represent the bridge to the future for ICE power.

 

Maybe it's no big deal in a post- BMW i3/i8/LaFerrari/P1/918 world but I still think it matters.

 

Put it this way — if some racing series got the camless engines that Koenigsegg has doing donuts in parking lots out banging around the race tracks of the world, I'd call it innovative, even if we've all heard of it before.

 

Manufacturers and teams will be spending big money on racing year after year, essentially on the marketing budget; anything that gets them pissing with the wind instead of into it is good rule making, IMO.



#57 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 February 2015 - 17:05

For those of us who are old and grey, and may have been to more than one rodeo, could somebody please identify exactly what innovations either series has made in the field of hybrid vehicles?

 

I get your point, but I do think they've done a good job with systems integration and overall performance. They're probably also at the pointy end of the stick in terms of being able to retrieve and dump (relatively) large quantities of energy.



#58 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 February 2015 - 17:06

Incidentally, how did Bathurst go?



#59 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 February 2015 - 17:10

The Lotus 49 wasn't the first to utilise the concept, just as Dan Gurney didn't invent champagne spraying. Both are urban myths.

On the other hand, Harroun being the true winner of the first Indy is pretty much accepted by all those who are best qualified to know.

 

All I can say is read the book. There are pretty good reasons why no one knows who really won the first Indy, and, no, you're not likely to have Donald Davidson agree. If you want to discuss it further, you can start a new thread.



Advertisement

#60 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 10 February 2015 - 19:27

Bathurst -Ford won and as usual made a big thing of it and used it to market their cars, race on Sunday sell on Monday shuffled their feet and went off whistling because hoons and Falcons project the wrong image.

 

Integration, yes I agree, that has come on a lot, but I am disappointed (if not surprised) that they have just stirred the pot of existing technologies rather than innovating. Turbo alternators on cars may not be in the showrooms, but were certainly designed and investigated in 1988, if not before.



#61 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 February 2015 - 20:39

You missed my joke, Greg. The Nissan won the 12 hour. I was just poking the bear a bit. It has nothing to do with this thread, but I couldn't resist.

 

I think you're right on the 'stirring the pot' notion. At the end of the day, I think all designers try to get as creative as they can while taking as few a chances as possible. The LMP1 Audi was an evolution of that line and won. You'll only take the big chances if the big pay-off looks like it's a potential outcome. From a designer's perspective, this Nissan is about as big of a departure as I'd venture anyone would attempt. Disappointing, maybe, but just an economic reality.



#62 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,596 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 February 2015 - 22:31

All I can say is read the book. There are pretty good reasons why no one knows who really won the first Indy, and, no, you're not likely to have Donald Davidson agree. If you want to discuss it further, you can start a new thread.


I would if there was any evidence worth taking seriously. But there isn't. The faked moon landing conspiracy theories are on a par with anything Catlin or Leerhsen presented on the subject. Catlin knew motorsport but has a terrible reputation as a historian, whilst Leerhsen knew nothing about motorsport at all (but did have a book to sell).

Edited by E.B., 10 February 2015 - 22:33.


#63 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 February 2015 - 01:04

The thing that the delta really accomplished for nissan was a return on its investment in terms of press exposure. They were probably never going to compete in any other meaningful metric.

#64 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 February 2015 - 04:11

I started off as a hater, or at least piss-taker, BECAUSE I didn't read the design brief. I doubt, honestly, that the shape is much better for aero, since the skin friction drag is almost as high, and the pressure recovery drag is likely to be as high, and the potential for ground effect downforce  is less.



#65 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 11 February 2015 - 10:21

For those of us who are old and grey, and may have been to more than one rodeo, could somebody please identify exactly what innovations either series has made in the field of hybrid vehicles?

And what relevance it has to practical usefull motor vehicles. Sure it can be done. Many already are usefull shopping trolleys. but way too expensive to buy and maintain and are as green as a waste dump at the end of their life.

as for F1 with the dumb fuel flow rate. Give them X amount of fuel for a race.  Though currently teams are disapearing at a rapid rate.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 11 February 2015 - 10:23.


#66 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 February 2015 - 19:26

I am a huge fan of fuel flow rate. The engine formula is the problem if you want to make F1 interesting. Free up the engine formula for more cylinders and bigger engine volume.

 

The fun element about F1 is that going for a bigger engine in volume could create issues with the aero. The Le Mans cars have less of a concern for such things.. Im all for lower engine volumes too if someone thinks that the hot ticket.

 

I and many others just want some variation. That and more speed with less aero.


Edited by MatsNorway, 11 February 2015 - 19:29.


#67 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 February 2015 - 23:10

If the current rules remained but displacement and cylinder numbers were unestricted the engines would get smaller and cylinders fewer. Initially i would guess about 1 litre and either 3 or 4 cylinders. Boost would be about 5 or 6 bar absolute. With time and technological development, the displacement would reduce and the boost would increase.



#68 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 February 2015 - 23:21

At some point the piston engine becomes the combustion chamber and first expansion stage of a gas turbine engine



#69 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 February 2015 - 00:24

Yes - if you bother with a crankshaft. Otherwise the piston becomes the second stage compressor and the expander to drive it(self).

 

EDIT. Forgot to say, the current rules limit compounding in that the MGUK max is 120 kW. MGUH is unlimited but anything above 120 kW has to be stored.


Edited by gruntguru, 12 February 2015 - 00:27.


#70 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,416 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 February 2015 - 00:53

as for F1 with the dumb fuel flow rate. Give them X amount of fuel for a race. 

 

Is the fuel flow rate any dumber than a capacity and rpm limit. Or boost limit?

 

One of the biggest bitches of last season was that they were fuel saving too much. Which wasn't actually the case. What you would have with a race fuel restriction but no fuel flow rate is a recipe for major fuel saving mode.

 

Drop the fuel race limit then you would have no more fuel saving during the race, or no more than the teams themselves chose. Which, for many races, was the case in 2014.



#71 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 12 February 2015 - 02:32

Exactly, I think fuel wise, flow rate restriction is all you need — it sets a theoretical power limit, and lets the engine designers go bananas getting the most out of the fuel.  In a perfect world, everything else would be free, but I get why that is totally impractical.  But as for the current regs, I really don't see what total capacity limits offer on top of a rate limit other than leading to economy runs (however frequently).



#72 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 February 2015 - 06:57

If you remove the race limit, teams will then use fuel to maintain 100% charge in the ES. I wonder what the best solution to that would be? I guess for starters they can only drain the ES at 2MJ/lap.



#73 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 12 February 2015 - 14:01

Yep, but a) you needn't keep the same flow limit we have now if keeping the ICU loaded and delivering power through the ES/MGUs gave you enough total system power output, and b) that sounds like a step further towards truly hybridized powertrains.  It would probably keep the turbos spooled up nicely!

 

Now that you have me reflect on it, it also sounds like an even more expensive/complex system for customer teams to develop or pay for, so maybe it isn't the right answer for the current climate.  Maybe your ES output limits are the way (or perhaps the race capacity limit is the best compromise after all).



#74 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,703 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 12 February 2015 - 21:32

This is a very good topic. In an attempt to do it justice, I will carefully read all the posts so far before contributing. 



#75 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,703 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 13 February 2015 - 23:24

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Formula One currently operates in a much smaller design box than WEC? That is, doesn't the audience have a much stricter idea of what is a proper F1 car, compared to an endurance sports car? 

 

What are your views? 



#76 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 February 2015 - 16:57

If there is a smaller box in which an acceptable F1 design is acceptable to the general audience, isn't that a result of the regulations? If developments and daydreams like fan cars, turbines and 6-wheelers had been permitted, I suggest our idea of what makes an F1 car would be vastly different.

I admit to having a preference for open wheel / open cockpit and an ICE powertrain, but that's been shaped by years of exposure. If the exposure had been different, doubtless my preference would be too.

#77 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 February 2015 - 22:01

F1 for me is simply the fastest cars on most race tracks. Open cockpit and full bodies does not matter. I am in favor of anything that allows the speed to go up. Closed cockpits and lazier fuels for less fire hazard for instance. They can run on crude oil for all i care if they are faster than the current generation.


Edited by MatsNorway, 14 February 2015 - 22:02.


#78 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 February 2015 - 06:13

NissanGTPZX-T8805-RoadAtlantaMittyHSR200

Love that picture. I did some of the design work on that car's engine and gearbox.

 

Here's an interesting story about this car and what is required from a race car design to win the different types of road races (sprints, 12 hour, or 24 hour) in IMSA or other sports car series. The second season I was with Nissan, the 3.0L V6 single turbo engine made awesome power even with the intake restrictor. We won the Sebring 12 hour race but not the Daytona 24 hour race. The problem was the crankshaft did not have adequate fatigue life to always survive 24 hours at race conditions, but it could usually handle 12 hours. The problem with the  60deg V6 crankshaft was that it was a split-pin design. This was what Nissan wanted to use because that's what their production sports car used. Eventually we tweaked the crank, rods and block designs enough to make it last for 24 hours, and then we won both the Daytona 24 hour and Sebring 12 hours races.



#79 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,394 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 15 February 2015 - 15:02

Split crank journals have always looked like stress risers waiting to break to me.  The design can obviously be overengineered into reliability, but still...



Advertisement

#80 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 February 2015 - 02:36

Split crank journals have always looked like stress risers waiting to break to me.  The design can obviously be overengineered into reliability, but still...

The thing that seemed to help the most was increasing the diameter of the rod journals so that there was more overlap area at the pin offset. We also did quite a bit of work to optimize the journal fillet geometry. We used a custom aluminum block design, but the 4V DOHC heads we used later on were made from high-performance factory castings we got from NISMO. I was impressed at how durable they were on this engine.