Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
4211 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (468 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (424 votes [90.60%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.60%

  2. Nay (44 votes [9.40%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.40%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (243 votes [51.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 51.92%

  2. Nay (225 votes [48.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.08%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (350 votes [74.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 74.79%

  2. Nay (118 votes [25.21%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.21%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#3451 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,221 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 13 January 2019 - 21:53

The FIA meeting is sporting and tech regs.  Commercial agreements will happen outside the FIA.  In fact the FIA aren't allowed to intervene in commercial matters.  Two of the biggest issues facing the FIA are going to be the reduction in engine costs via proposed elimination of the MGU-Kand the budget cap.


MGU-H

Advertisement

#3452 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,572 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 January 2019 - 23:10

MGU-H

 

Cheers, I appreciate it!.    :up:



#3453 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 13 January 2019 - 23:33

The FIA meeting is sporting and tech regs.  Commercial agreements will happen outside the FIA.  In fact the FIA aren't allowed to intervene in commercial matters.  Two of the biggest issues facing the FIA are going to be the reduction in engine costs via proposed elimination of the MGU-K and the budget cap.

 

MGU-H

 

I would like to see them get rid of both - and the batteries too.



#3454 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,080 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 January 2019 - 23:43

"Now if we can secure those four for me that would be a great achievement." -Todt

 

MGU-H isn't going anywhere because FIA is siding with those four.



#3455 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 2,975 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 14 January 2019 - 07:45

You're right, the latest reports indicated that the K and H remain on the cars. The fuel flow function kg(rpm) might get changed a bit towards higher revs and the total race fuel allowance could be dropped.

#3456 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 10,100 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 14 January 2019 - 08:15

"Now if we can secure those four for me that would be a great achievement." -Todt

MGU-H isn't going anywhere because FIA is siding with those four.


As it should be. Those four have poured billions of dollars into the sport. Fans may not like the outcome but then fans should have been more outraged when Moseley proposed the engines to begin with.

#3457 F1 Mike

F1 Mike
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 14 January 2019 - 16:48

Rules shouldn't be decided based on how much noise we're making anyway. It's not too much to expect that they should know what they're doing...

#3458 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 14 January 2019 - 22:07

Rules shouldn't be decided based on how much noise we're making anyway. It's not too much to expect that they should know what they're doing...

 

Those expectations have not been met.



#3459 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,055 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 January 2019 - 12:09

Those expectations have not been met.

 

What expectations were those exactly?



Advertisement

#3460 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 January 2019 - 15:42

What expectations were those exactly?

 

Read the quote in that post.



#3461 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 22 January 2019 - 07:37

FERRARI AGREE TO A BUDGET CAP?????

 

https://www.racefans...rms-teams-2021/

 

 

The scuderia has previously threatened to leave F1 if it does not approve of the intended shape of the sport beyond 2020. However Binotto was “almost apologetic for some of the things that went down in the past” last week and displayed none of the resistance to regulatory and commercial changes shown by his predecessors, according to our source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 


Edited by RA2, 22 January 2019 - 07:38.


#3462 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 09:33

Well thats something no one predicted what would happen. Who was it that pointed out Binotto not being a good choice for Ferrari because of his lack of skills in deal negotiating?

Edited by Beri, 22 January 2019 - 09:33.


#3463 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,080 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:15

I don't see a big shift compared to this old news for example: https://www.crash.ne...says-arrivabene

 

Ferrari has been agreeing with cost cap for a while. It's just a question of how.



#3464 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:58

And more `great` news....


we're gonna use more fuel within F1.
And as a consequence, due to restrictions on regulations regarding fuel allocation in the car:

WE GONNA HAVE EVEN LONGER CARS THEN THE ONES WE ALREADY HAD !!!!!!



Thought for the atmo fans over here....

I wonder if we would have got got 6 meter long cars in case the gas guzzling and longer V10s would be used again.....

Edited by Henri Greuter, 22 January 2019 - 10:59.


#3465 Whatisvalis

Whatisvalis
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 13:06

Well thats something no one predicted what would happen. Who was it that pointed out Binotto not being a good choice for Ferrari because of his lack of skills in deal negotiating?


I'm not sure rolling over and agreeing to the budget cap can be deemed skillful negotiating.

#3466 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 18,029 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 22 January 2019 - 13:07

Is that rolling over or is that putting the sport first and not being stubborn?

#3467 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 9,625 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 January 2019 - 13:22

And more `great` news....


we're gonna use more fuel within F1.
And as a consequence, due to restrictions on regulations regarding fuel allocation in the car:

WE GONNA HAVE EVEN LONGER CARS THEN THE ONES WE ALREADY HAD !!!!!!



Thought for the atmo fans over here....

I wonder if we would have got got 6 meter long cars in case the gas guzzling and longer V10s would be used again.....

 

They would stick out of the pit box at some tracks.



#3468 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 22 January 2019 - 13:59

Is that rolling over or is that putting the sport first and not being stubborn?

Precious.

While holding the sport hostage with the stupid engine rules.

It’s for nothing but the current teams’ bottom lines.

Edited by saudoso, 22 January 2019 - 14:00.


#3469 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 15:42

And more `great` news....


we're gonna use more fuel within F1.
And as a consequence, due to restrictions on regulations regarding fuel allocation in the car:

WE GONNA HAVE EVEN LONGER CARS THEN THE ONES WE ALREADY HAD !!!!!!



Thought for the atmo fans over here....

I wonder if we would have got got 6 meter long cars in case the gas guzzling and longer V10s would be used again.....

 

That is hard to say if the cars would have gotten longer if they went back to V10's.  It certainly would not be BECAUSE of the V10's if they did.  In 2000 the V10 cars were only about 4.5 meters long.  Any length increase would be because the teams believed in some advantage to have longer cars.  It is really a separate issue.



#3470 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 January 2019 - 15:45

Is that rolling over or is that putting the sport first and not being stubborn?

 

Are you suggesting that Ferrari might be putting the sport first? If so, I'll look up and see if I can see that pig.



#3471 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 22 January 2019 - 16:08

And more `great` news....


we're gonna use more fuel within F1.
And as a consequence, due to restrictions on regulations regarding fuel allocation in the car:

WE GONNA HAVE EVEN LONGER CARS THEN THE ONES WE ALREADY HAD !!!!!!



Thought for the atmo fans over here....

I wonder if we would have got got 6 meter long cars in case the gas guzzling and longer V10s would be used again.....

 

 

Nothing stops FIA from mandating a 3.5m wheel base maximum; team will then be forced to make that fuel tank wider rather than longer

 

Or 

 

I would prefer them bringing back refueling 



#3472 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 January 2019 - 18:31

That is hard to say if the cars would have gotten longer if they went back to V10's.  It certainly would not be BECAUSE of the V10's if they did.  In 2000 the V10 cars were only about 4.5 meters long.  Any length increase would be because the teams believed in some advantage to have longer cars.  It is really a separate issue.

 

May be but the info I read at Motorsports,com stated that because of the larger fuel tank permitted, but the current ruels regarding how and where the fuel is permitted to be stored within the car, the conseqeunce was that the cars became longer.

So if those rules are still retained and larger fuel tanks con only be possible by making them longer...

Use your imagination what happes when you have to accomodate a fuel tank for an atmo V10, let alone for an unrestricted one that can rev as fast as possible and use whatever fuel the are able to burn off...

And then you get that longer engine as well....



#3473 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 January 2019 - 18:33

Nothing stops FIA from mandating a 3.5m wheel base maximum; team will then be forced to make that fuel tank wider rather than longer

 

Or 

 

I would prefer them bringing back refueling 

 

Seems that there are rules that describe how wide a fuel tank can be at the max....

 

As for that wheelbase rule,

It would slow the cars down so much that it would result in an outcy of most of the fans..



#3474 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 20:02

May be but the info I read at Motorsports,com stated that because of the larger fuel tank permitted, but the current ruels regarding how and where the fuel is permitted to be stored within the car, the conseqeunce was that the cars became longer.

So if those rules are still retained and larger fuel tanks con only be possible by making them longer...

Use your imagination what happes when you have to accomodate a fuel tank for an atmo V10, let alone for an unrestricted one that can rev as fast as possible and use whatever fuel the are able to burn off...

And then you get that longer engine as well....

 

I just can't see blaming a V10 engine and the required fuel for making the cars very long.  In 1989, Ayerton Senna and Alain Prost drove for McLaren using a Honda 3.5L V10.  There was No refueling allowed during the races.  The car was 4.47 M long.

 

Remember they can also use the space where the batteries were for other things - like fuel or move something else around to increase the room for fuel.



#3475 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 January 2019 - 08:27

I just can't see blaming a V10 engine and the required fuel for making the cars very long.  In 1989, Ayerton Senna and Alain Prost drove for McLaren using a Honda 3.5L V10.  There was No refueling allowed during the races.  The car was 4.47 M long.
 
Remember they can also use the space where the batteries were for other things - like fuel or move something else around to increase the room for fuel.



You obviously have forgotten the rule that prescribed the current cars to have a given weight distribution over the front and rear axle. I am pretty sure that the current freghtliners have a much more balanced weight distribution and the shorter cars you refer to (which I like much better too BTW) have a much weight bias to the rear.
And as far as I understand there is als a restriction on the maximum width of the fuel tank. As well as prescriptions on wher certain components need to be located.

Because of that rule the PU's have been shifted as much forward within the chassis as possible, but still, in order to achieve that prescribed weight distribution, it has increased wheelbase and length of the cars over the years. Curiously enough thus also enhancing certain aerocrap developments....
BTW, that weight distribution is, as far as I known valid for the car with empty fuel tank. thus having a massife air bell within the center of the car that ads nothing in weight, let alone helps shifting the weight weight distrubution forward.

Now imagine the use of what some belief to be the oily grail of F1: the entirely unrestricted highrevving ultralight and ultracompact 3 liter V10 in a car with the current rules. And use the front end of a monocoque that from the backside to the nosetip of the seat of the driver is identical to that of a current car

A much lighter engine, thus less weight to the front, that requires a far greater fuel load and thus even larger air bubble within the center of the car, pushing that engine even further back, hence even more weight shifted to the back.....

Unlike what you wrote: I don't blame the V10 for making the cars long, the rules as they are written right now make the cars long by default already.
But that is with the current PU. However, should a V10 in the most fetish-like specs as they have been for some out here become mandatory and all other rules regarding maxinmum width of fuel tank and weight distribution remaining identical, a V10 powered car would likely end up being 6 meters long, even longer that the largest regular 4 door production cars on sale, even in LWB versions.

I for one would not mind at all rules being introduced that limits wheelbases dramatically and get cras of less than 5 m long back again. But such won't happen because it would slow down the cars so much. And such a massive speed reduction will only be applied after another season like 1982 and/or 1994 with some dramatic accidents with some serious injuries and fatalities, maybe some within the attending crowd as well.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 23 January 2019 - 08:29.


#3476 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 January 2019 - 09:56

Nothing stops FIA from mandating a 3.5m wheel base maximum; team will then be forced to make that fuel tank wider rather than longer

 

Or 

 

I would prefer them bringing back refueling 

 

The fuel tank is not what is making these cars longer.

 

The wheelbase is extended at the rear, but since 2017 some teams (Mercedes, Toro Rosso) have extended the front wheels forward with fancy forward suspension.



#3477 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 9,625 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 23 January 2019 - 09:58

The weight distribution rules came into play with Pirelli, to prevent another variable into the fray. Only the never done away with the rule so cars keep adding length to balance out.



#3478 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 10:03

I miss those days when a car was towed away with a marshall sitting on the nosecone.

#3479 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 January 2019 - 10:04

I just can't see blaming a V10 engine and the required fuel for making the cars very long.  In 1989, Ayerton Senna and Alain Prost drove for McLaren using a Honda 3.5L V10.  There was No refueling allowed during the races.  The car was 4.47 M long.

 

Remember they can also use the space where the batteries were for other things - like fuel or move something else around to increase the room for fuel.

 

In 1989 the fuel tan was unrestricted, and would have been greater than the 220L specified for 1988 for N/A engines. Today's engines use a maximum of 110kg (~147L) from lights to flag, so the fuel tank size is probably 150-155L.

 

Unlimited fuel usage would be ~150kg/200L for a 90 minute race (ie 1.5 hours @ 100kg/h). But that would be for full fuel flow rate for the entire race.

 

http://www.snaplap.net/mclaren-mp4-5/

 

No way the V6T is longer than the V10 in that.



Advertisement

#3480 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 January 2019 - 10:07

Are you suggesting that Ferrari might be putting the sport first? If so, I'll look up and see if I can see that pig.

 

I'd suggest that the budget cap and money distribution proposals pretty much guarantee Ferrari a profit before they get sponsorship.

 

Considering that Ferrari is a public company, that would be attractive to the owners.



#3481 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 19:15

In 1989 the fuel tan was unrestricted, and would have been greater than the 220L specified for 1988 for N/A engines. Today's engines use a maximum of 110kg (~147L) from lights to flag, so the fuel tank size is probably 150-155L.

 

Unlimited fuel usage would be ~150kg/200L for a 90 minute race (ie 1.5 hours @ 100kg/h). But that would be for full fuel flow rate for the entire race.

 

http://www.snaplap.net/mclaren-mp4-5/

 

No way the V6T is longer than the V10 in that.

 

No, in 1988 the fuel capacity was unrestricted for NA engines, not 220 L.  For forced induction engines it was limited to 150 L.

 

Edit - I used the term 'forced induction' because the fuel tank capacity regulations say "supercharged" but I think all of the engines used were either turbocharged or NA.  Maybe they didn't know the difference.   :)


Edited by nonobaddog, 23 January 2019 - 19:48.


#3482 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 19:28

Unlike what you wrote: I don't blame the V10 for making the cars long, the rules as they are written right now make the cars long by default already.
But that is with the current PU. However, should a V10 in the most fetish-like specs as they have been for some out here become mandatory and all other rules regarding maxinmum width of fuel tank and weight distribution remaining identical, a V10 powered car would likely end up being 6 meters long, even longer that the largest regular 4 door production cars on sale, even in LWB versions.

I for one would not mind at all rules being introduced that limits wheelbases dramatically and get cras of less than 5 m long back again. But such won't happen because it would slow down the cars so much. And such a massive speed reduction will only be applied after another season like 1982 and/or 1994 with some dramatic accidents with some serious injuries and fatalities, maybe some within the attending crowd as well.

 

I did not write that you blamed the V10 for making the cars long.  It would be pretty hard to blame the V10 since there are no V10's around.  What I said was that I, myself, can't see blaming a V10 engine and required fuel for making a car long because it did not make the cars long in the past.  It is other things that make the cars long.  Then I gave an example of a V10 with unlimited fuel tank capacity and no refueling that was only 4.47 meters long.

 

I agree completely that it is the current regulations that either make or allow (depending on ones viewpoint) cars to be so long.  But regulations are just paper things and would almost certainly change if the V10's were allowed back.  The weight distribution thing is just a regulation and that would change too.  I won't even guess what they would come up with.



#3483 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 January 2019 - 19:48

I did not write that you blamed the V10 for making the cars long.  It would be pretty hard to blame the V10 since there are no V10's around.  What I said was that I, myself, can't see blaming a V10 engine and required fuel for making a car long because it did not make the cars long in the past.  It is other things that make the cars long.  Then I gave an example of a V10 with unlimited fuel tank capacity and no refueling that was only 4.47 meters long.

 

I agree completely that it is the current regulations that either make or allow (depending on ones viewpoint) cars to be so long.  But regulations are just paper things and would almost certainly change if the V10's were allowed back.  The weight distribution thing is just a regulation and that would change too.  I won't even guess what they would come up with.

 

Perhaps it is in the words  that we misunderstoood eachother but I get the feeling we do think similarly in a a number of things. But I'm sure we'll keep on diagreeing on the answer on the question to go back to V10s.  ....

 

But I agree with you that should you get t your way, it should require massive rule changes because as they are now, I can only foresee cars becoming even longer then the are right now with the current rules. The weight distribution ruel, as already mentioned was because of Pirelli, if they would appreciate a massive change in distribution, hence tire use, hence tire construction....



#3484 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 19:58

Perhaps it is in the words  that we misunderstoood eachother but I get the feeling we do think similarly in a a number of things. But I'm sure we'll keep on diagreeing on the answer on the question to go back to V10s.  ....

 

But I agree with you that should you get t your way, it should require massive rule changes because as they are now, I can only foresee cars becoming even longer then the are right now with the current rules. The weight distribution ruel, as already mentioned was because of Pirelli, if they would appreciate a massive change in distribution, hence tire use, hence tire construction....

 

Yes.  I certainly did not mean to imply anything about what you said and I apologize if I caused that misunderstanding.

I agree we will probably always disagree on the V10's.  I know their volume was like an assault on you and others but I can't help it.  Those engines were spectacular and I will always miss them.



#3485 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 January 2019 - 20:04

Yes.  I certainly did not mean to imply anything about what you said and I apologize if I caused that misunderstanding.

I agree we will probably always disagree on the V10's.  I know their volume was like an assault on you and others but I can't help it.  Those engines were spectacular and I will always miss them.

 

Apologies accepted and the ones from me offered in return for my share in the misunderstanding.

 

I agree about the V10s being spectacular and there are certainly achievements made with them that even I rate as breathtaking and bloody impressive, But appreciating them for that, no.



#3486 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,080 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 January 2019 - 20:04

Perhaps it is in the words  that we misunderstoood eachother but I get the feeling we do think similarly in a a number of things. But I'm sure we'll keep on diagreeing on the answer on the question to go back to V10s.  ....

 

But I agree with you that should you get t your way, it should require massive rule changes because as they are now, I can only foresee cars becoming even longer then the are right now with the current rules. The weight distribution ruel, as already mentioned was because of Pirelli, if they would appreciate a massive change in distribution, hence tire use, hence tire construction....

Pirelli wouldn't have (more of) a problem making 40-60 bias or whatever.

 

Pirelli can't guarantee a precise ideal distribution for their tyres. That's why it has to be in the rules. Otherwise a team that guesses right gains a lasting advantage.



#3487 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,560 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 23 January 2019 - 22:27

I would like to see them get rid of both - and the batteries too.

I do not.

 

The future trend far as  automotive propulsion is ==>Electric. Fossil fuels  have zero future and current trends suggest so. ..And F1 does not live in a void. It lives in the real world  weaning away from fossil fuels.



#3488 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 January 2019 - 00:56

Just curious, how do you propose the millions of semi trucks on the roads will move?   and trains?   and planes?


Edited by nonobaddog, 24 January 2019 - 01:06.


#3489 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 January 2019 - 01:18

No, in 1988 the fuel capacity was unrestricted for NA engines, not 220 L.  For forced induction engines it was limited to 150 L.

 

Edit - I used the term 'forced induction' because the fuel tank capacity regulations say "supercharged" but I think all of the engines used were either turbocharged or NA.  Maybe they didn't know the difference.   :)

 

You are correct, no fuel limit for NA engines in 1988. My mistake.

 

That, potentially, makes the tank size even bigger.

 

Turbocharger is a contraction of the original term of turbo-supercharger, which describes a supercharger driven by an exhaust gas turbine.

 

Supercharging was allowed in 1966 so that teams may upgrade their 1961-1965 F1 cars to the new regulations by simply bolting on a supercharger. This didn't happen until 1977, when Renault debuted their turbo car.



#3490 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 January 2019 - 01:23

Just curious, how do you propose the millions of semi trucks on the roads will move?   and trains?   and planes?

 

Trucks and trains can also move with electricity - be it battery electric or fuel cell electric.

 

Trains can also use electrified rail systems, or overhead catenary systems, as are often used in passenger light rail systems.

 

Aircraft are more problematic, particularly for commercial aviation. A move to bio-fuels is possible. 

 

There are some (very) light aircraft that have been developed with electric power existing now. It may be that electric aircraft go more toward fuel cell than battery systems, simply because of the weight of batteries.

 

EDIT: Nikola is a company that has developed fuel cell electric semi-trucks https://nikolamotor.com/

Though they seem to be having trouble delivering.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla trucks are undergoing testing.


Edited by Wuzak, 24 January 2019 - 01:31.


#3491 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 January 2019 - 02:21

Trucks and trains can also move with electricity - be it battery electric or fuel cell electric.

 

Trains can also use electrified rail systems, or overhead catenary systems, as are often used in passenger light rail systems.

 

Aircraft are more problematic, particularly for commercial aviation. A move to bio-fuels is possible. 

 

There are some (very) light aircraft that have been developed with electric power existing now. It may be that electric aircraft go more toward fuel cell than battery systems, simply because of the weight of batteries.

 

EDIT: Nikola is a company that has developed fuel cell electric semi-trucks https://nikolamotor.com/

Though they seem to be having trouble delivering.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla trucks are undergoing testing.

 

Battery trucks have all the obvious problems - no sense repeating them here.  They are simply not viable for the trucking industry now.

 

Fuel cell electric trucks seem promising but so far they are very expensive to buy and very expensive to operate and you can't fill them up except for an extremely limited number of places.  Last year at this time there were only 31 retail places where you could fill your vehicle.  That is not currently viable.

 

Nikola has not delivered one truck yet and won't for at least a year.  They must be living off their cough drops.    :)

 

Trains are bigger and heavier so all the problems above are that much bigger, but there could be potential in the distant future.

 

For planes this is all at the dream stage.

 

So while it is OK to say it can be done - much will have to happen before it will be done.  I think your pronouncement of the death of fossil fuels is greatly exaggerated.



#3492 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,560 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 24 January 2019 - 02:43

Just curious, how do you propose the millions of semi trucks on the roads will move?   and trains?   and planes?

More efficiency. BTW trains have been electric for how long again?...As for planes..Of course people of your mindset will say no.Yet We can faff around in space...How did that happen then?



#3493 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 January 2019 - 02:51

More efficiency. BTW trains have been electric for how long again?...As for planes..Of course people of your mindset will say no.Yet We can faff around in space...How did that happen then?

 

There are only a very few electric trains in the US and they are all short-run commuter trains.  All the real trains, long distance freight trains and passenger trains, are diesel-electric which get all their energy from diesel fuel.



#3494 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 January 2019 - 03:22

Trucks and trains can also move with electricity - be it battery electric or fuel cell electric.

 

Trains can also use electrified rail systems, or overhead catenary systems, as are often used in passenger light rail systems.

 

Aircraft are more problematic, particularly for commercial aviation. A move to bio-fuels is possible. 

 

There are some (very) light aircraft that have been developed with electric power existing now. It may be that electric aircraft go more toward fuel cell than battery systems, simply because of the weight of batteries.

 

EDIT: Nikola is a company that has developed fuel cell electric semi-trucks https://nikolamotor.com/

Though they seem to be having trouble delivering.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla trucks are undergoing testing.

 

 

More efficiency. BTW trains have been electric for how long again?...As for planes..Of course people of your mindset will say no.Yet We can faff around in space...How did that happen then?

 

I have absolutely no doubt that a new technology will come along, or is here already at the fringes, and develop into mainstream for transportation given enough time.
To say it is here now is just hyperbole and a lie, because it isn't.


#3495 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 January 2019 - 04:04

Just curious, how do you propose the millions of semi trucks on the roads will move? and trains? and planes?


The willpower of the hipsters will keep’em going.

#3496 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,572 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 January 2019 - 04:12

Battery trucks have all the obvious problems - no sense repeating them here.  They are simply not viable for the trucking industry now.

 

Not for long hauls just yet.  Over here a diesel truck can have a 1000 mile range with the right sized tanks and only take 30-45 mins to fuel.  Even if there was a 1000 mile range semi battery it's not going to charge in the same time it takes to fuel.  Where they can be used now is for mule and short haul operations.  For example this summer Freightliner is launching a program at both the Long Beach and San Pedro ports in So Cal, the two largest/highest capacity container ports in the US.  Thousands of trucks a day work at each of these ports.  They'll use them to mule around the port and for short hops to the vast network of distribution warehouses in the Inland Empire.  Of course how long it will take to convert the bulk of the fleet over is another matter.  UPS will also launch a medium duty truck program for route deliveries which seems possible it could implement at scale within the next couple of years.  Just by starting to phase out local haul and delivery trucks with EV trucks is a good start.



#3497 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,743 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 January 2019 - 14:53

Battery trucks have all the obvious problems - no sense repeating them here.  They are simply not viable for the trucking industry now.


Maybe not on range.

But then again, a truck's range is often not the limiting factor. That is, there often is a regulatory limit for which a driver can drive before requiring a rest/meal break, by legislation.

 

eg: "In the United States, the hours of service (HOS) of commercial drivers are regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers are limited to 11 cumulative hours driving in a 14-hour period, following a rest period of no less than 10 consecutive hours. Drivers employed by carriers in "daily operation" may not work more than 70 hours within any period of 8 consecutive days."

https://en.wikipedia...r#United_States

 

Which would suggest that a truck with a 1,000 mile range can't be driven to the end of its range in a day. 

 

Tesla's 500 mile range truck could possibly fulfill the 11 hour day, with battery charge top ups during breaks. 

 

Commercial operators have other factors to consider that may not apply to private use for cars. That is, the expense of maintenance to the vehicle, in addition to fuel costs (cheaper for battery electric) against purchase cost and payload (likely reduced in battery electric truck).

 

Fuel cell electric trucks seem promising but so far they are very expensive to buy and very expensive to operate and you can't fill them up except for an extremely limited number of places.  Last year at this time there were only 31 retail places where you could fill your vehicle.  That is not currently viable.


Once upon a time petrol cars were expensive, expensive to operate, didn't have range and had limited locations where you could fill up the tank.

 

Nikola has not delivered one truck yet and won't for at least a year.  They must be living off their cough drops.    :)


I did find that after a bit of a search.

 

I had seen them before, but not realised how far they were to actually making something that works.

 

Trains are bigger and heavier so all the problems above are that much bigger, but there could be potential in the distant future.


Bigger, but not worse.

 

The engine in a Diesel-Electric locomotive can weight 20t, or more. That's basically 10 entire Tesla model S's. With 8 to 9 times the power required.

 

And another 10-15t worth of fuel, depending on the locomotive.

 

 

So maybe the short term solution is to electrify the system around transport hubs, to power the locomotive when pulling away from rest and to charge the battery as well.

 

My figuring may be out a little.

 

Here's a report by GE on using a battery-electric locomotive to assist Diesel-Electric locomotives achieve superior fuel economy. Savings of 10-15% are predicted.

https://www.ge.com/r...freight-trains/

 

They say 30 minutes at full power, which obviously isn't much.

 

The battery cell is 2,400kWh, which is equivalent to 24 Tesla P100D batteries. Power must be ~4,800kW.

 

For planes this is all at the dream stage.


For commercial aviation, yes. For light aviation - no.

 

You can buy electric light aircraft now.

 



 

So while it is OK to say it can be done - much will have to happen before it will be done.  I think your pronouncement of the death of fossil fuels is greatly exaggerated.


It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, gradually.

 

Edit: removed dodgy mathematics!


Edited by Wuzak, 24 January 2019 - 20:26.


#3498 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 2,975 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 January 2019 - 17:09

The solution for bigger planes might come from algae in the future. As of now it is already possible to produce the fuel from them, it's just too expensive to compete with conventional kerosene. Near Munich, there's a research facility to find suitable sorts: https://www.munich-a...he-tank-1458739

I've read an article earlier where one side of a airline operated with algae fuel and the other one with standard kerosene.

#3499 FLB

FLB
  • Member

  • 9,708 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 January 2019 - 18:56

Nico Rosberg:

 

'F1 has to go electric'

 

https://www.gpfans.c...to-go-electric/



Advertisement

#3500 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 January 2019 - 20:10

Nico Rosberg:

 

'F1 has to go electric'

 

https://www.gpfans.c...to-go-electric/

 

F1 has to go electric if it wants to be relevant to manufacturers. But, if it does, it won't be F1.