Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Renault push for faster electrification of F1 from 2025 [edited]


  • Please log in to reply
435 replies to this topic

#101 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 October 2019 - 05:30

Electric wouldn't need to match F1 power given the higher torque, but it's still some way off. F1 would probably ditch the single 300km + 1 lap formula if they went full electric.

Advertisement

#102 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 October 2019 - 05:57

Electric wouldn't need to match F1 power given the higher torque, but it's still some way off. F1 would probably ditch the single 300km + 1 lap formula if they went full electric.


Yep. And today’s F1 power is not the norm. Apart from the V10’s at their peak, F1 engines have put out about 700-800hp since the end of the turbo era in the late 80’s. So 1000hp is not required to make fast cars (but it does help to make up for the extra weight by allowing for more downforce).

I guess at the moment you could get an electric F1 car that could put out close to 700hp for about 200km, Assuming of course you could make 3 fast battery swaps to get you there. Whether people would watch that and consider it F1 is a different issue...

#103 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 October 2019 - 06:10

Battery swaps might be redundant in 5+ years depending on how fast charging goes. Or even ideas like conductive lines laid into the track so they can recharge on track.

#104 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 October 2019 - 06:18

Yep. And today’s F1 power is not the norm. Apart from the V10’s at their peak, F1 engines have put out about 700-800hp since the end of the turbo era in the late 80’s. So 1000hp is not required to make fast cars (but it does help to make up for the extra weight by allowing for more downforce).

I guess at the moment you could get an electric F1 car that could put out close to 700hp for about 200km, Assuming of course you could make 3 fast battery swaps to get you there. Whether people would watch that and consider it F1 is a different issue...

If it’s marketed currently and there were no moans (especially by the lack of engine noise) then yes it could...

#105 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 October 2019 - 06:19

Battery swaps might be redundant in 5+ years depending on how fast charging goes. Or even ideas like conductive lines laid into the track so they can recharge on track.

The infrastructure needed to power the track would be a problem... no?

#106 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 October 2019 - 06:36

The infrastructure needed to power the track would be a problem... no?


Probably not. I would imagine they would start small by having the conductive lines in areas similar to where DRS is now.

#107 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 07:03

A majority of the electricity generated today is through technology that produces more carbon pollution than an ICE. :wave:

How is that point even relevant when that has to change as well? It’s not a devastating blow to my argument at all.

Besides, with the current average energy supply you’re better off with the emissions of with least a hybrid over pure ICE anywhere...and in countries/areas with more sustainable energy supplies you are better off still with all electric. Electrification is already the best option and, as the global energy supply becomes more sustainable, EVs will be too. There is no situation in which a pure ICE is better from a total lifetime emissions standpoint.

#108 M66R

M66R
  • Member

  • 82 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 06 October 2019 - 07:58

The ban on non electric/internal combustion cars is never going to happen, it's yet more idealism from EV fantasists.

Such a move would effectively ban the majority of the world's population from owning a vehicle.

It's a policy announced by people who lack the experience to be able to see the real world implications of actually putting it into practice.

EVs have existed for well over a century, and the many drawbacks still exist. They failed then against internal combustion for the same reasons they will fail this time.


Why would it exclude part of the population from owning cars?

The more electric cars are built, the more will flow through to the second hand market and residuals will reduce.

The banning of 4* fuel didn't exclude people from car ownership

#109 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:17

You'd hope that F1, and Renault in particular, would have learned their lesson on forcing experimental technology on everyone, but it seems not.  Renault were the biggest instigators behind the hybrids and look where it got them. This obsession with being road relevant is killing F1



#110 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,132 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:20

Personally I don't expect electric engines to ever overtake petrol engines in terms of speed. But that's not the point here. It's a compromise decision and the changes will have to be made due to ever-growing pressure by factors outside motorsport. Go to a slower technology to comply with the world. Also the point isn't strictly about whether manufacturers are involved or not. Fine if they all ran on Cosworth V8 engines. But the question is who would pay for it? I don't expect to see many volunteers. I think one could see the writing on the wall for F1 frankly, certainly in its current form. Hamilton will remain as the most successful driver of all times, with neither Leclerc nor Verstappen having enough seasons left to catch up with his statistics.  :yawnface:



#111 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:20

You'd hope that F1, and Renault in particular, would have learned their lesson on forcing experimental technology on everyone, but it seems not. Renault were the biggest instigators behind the hybrids and look where it got them. This obsession with being road relevant is killing F1


2019 is a great year for F1 in terms of overall viewing figures, online fan engagement etc.

What ‘killing’ are you talking about?

#112 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:22

Personally I don't expect electric engines to ever overtake petrol engines in terms of speed. But that's not the point here. It's a compromise decision and the changes will have to be made due to ever-growing pressure by factors outside motorsport. Go to a slower technology to comply with the world. Also the point isn't strictly about whether manufacturers are involved or not. Fine if they all ran on Cosworth V8 engines. But the question is who would pay for it? I don't expect to see many volunteers. I think one could see the writing on the wall for F1 frankly, certainly in its current form. Hamilton will remain as the most successful driver of all times, with neither Leclerc nor Verstappen having enough seasons left to catch up with his statistics. :yawnface:


Electric cars are already faster in the road car world.

It’s a much simpler technology, with much less losses of energy in the whole process. ICE has been in development for more than 100 years. It’s very mature. EV is just starting. Within a few years it will be faster than ICE.

FE isn’t a good yardstick, as the PU development is frozen.

#113 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:35

2019 is a great year for F1 in terms of overall viewing figures, online fan engagement etc.

What ‘killing’ are you talking about?

It's taken them 5 years to get to that point and we have a bigger gulf between the top teams and the rest than ever before.  Barriers to entry are higher, as are costs.  I think I could probably list a lot more that's wrong with F1 than what's right and much of that stems from the enforced introduction of the hybrids.  Turning F1 into an R&D showcase only benefits the manufacturers - as long as they are willing to invest heavily - but not F1 as a whole.  The hybrid introduction was poorly planned and executed and nothing I have seen suggests that they have learned from their mistakes and forcing electric on everyone will be any better.



#114 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:57

I don't think that it's realistic to maintain a threshold of validity for an all-electric F1 that inists that current F1 performance is met at identical venues to the ones currently used. F1 itself has evolved massively in these regards over the dacades. Why shouldn't it be allowed to in an electric era?

 

[...] a rough number of where EVs are at: 6 laps of Barcelona at about 1000hp.

I've done my own simple-ish calculations for this taking into account the proportions of the lap at full throttle and under regenerative braking and I agree that 6ish laps at Barcalona is a fairly reasonable estimate. However, using the same model for Monaco and I think that figure could be something more like 15 laps. The point really is that things like circuit characteristics have a big impact becuse a majority EV powertrain behaves quite differently to a majority ICE one.

 

A majority or entriely electric F1 would have to adapt to fit with the times, just like it has been doing since 1950. There was a time when a Grand Prix would be nearly 500km and take over three hours. Today they are more like 300km and are over within two. What's changed is the technology involved and our arbitrary rules on what constitutes a modern Grand Prix. You might say that for what we've lost in the distance/endurance aspects of Grand Prix of old we have gained race pace. Perhaps a similar adaptation is necesary in that what we may lose in distance/pace we gain in being able to run the cars on renewable energy.


Edited by Vielleicht, 06 October 2019 - 08:59.


#115 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:09

You'd hope that F1, and Renault in particular, would have learned their lesson on forcing experimental technology on everyone, but it seems not.  Renault were the biggest instigators behind the hybrids and look where it got them. This obsession with being road relevant is killing F1

 

It's not about being road relevant. It's just about being relevant.



#116 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,396 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:11

Define what F1 is? Because F1 always changes. Hybrids, paddle shifters, Rear wings, halo, etc...

So what do you consider the essentials of F1? What things must be kept or it isn't F1 anymore?

Well said. It's also lost front-engined V12 engines, louvred bonnets, ladder frames, cloth-capped drivers, H-shift gearboxes, narrow tyres and wire wheels - all very much part of F1's image when it started, all things some of us sketched in our school exercise books instead of attending to lessons.

 

Things change, and F1 is facing possible existential threats, so it needs to change again. I'm not too bothered whether it heads down the electric route, or becomes an Indy-like retro series with limited technology. Either way it should go back to basics: it's a sport. It needs to be cheaper, simpler, and probably slower. If, in the process, we lose the manufacturers and a few million TV fans, who cares? And so long as there's a World Championship for Drivers, there'll be a top series which drivers want to be in, and enthusiasts want to watch.



#117 Roadhouse

Roadhouse
  • Member

  • 517 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:13

Electric cars are already faster in the road car world.

It’s a much simpler technology, with much less losses of energy in the whole process. ICE has been in development for more than 100 years. It’s very mature. EV is just starting. Within a few years it will be faster than ICE.

FE isn’t a good yardstick, as the PU development is frozen.


Faster in what aspect? Pure acceleration perhaps and a short hill climb. My Fiesta Econetic still annihilates a Tesla in long distance 'racing'. For now EV has it's place in sprint racing, but both EV's and your average GP have to adapt towards eachother before it becomes viable for F1.

#118 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,132 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:16

 

A majority or entriely electric F1 would have to adapt to fit with the times, just like it has been doing since 1950. There was a time when a Grand Prix would be nearly 500km and take over three hours. Today they are more like 300km and are over within two. What's changed is the technology involved and our arbitrary rules on what constitutes a modern Grand Prix. You might say that for what we've lost in the distance/endurance aspects of Grand Prix of old we have gained race pace. Perhaps a similar adaptation is necesary in that what we may lose in distance/pace we gain in being able to run the cars on renewable energy.

 

The regulations about 300 km and 2 hours would certainly go out of the window were F1 to turn effectively into FE. The ramifications would be massive on every aspect of the sport.

 

However, before we reach that point in which the entire F1 get re-defined, I'd expect there to be a crisis meeting or something during the 2020's. What would trigger that crisis meeting could well be manufacturer pull-out. A bit like happened in World Rallycross before this season. It would be enough if Renault and Honda pulled out for F1 to ask "oh sh*t, what's next?" F1 is on a very shaky ground. It takes for a bit of an economic recession for manufacturers to pull out of this expensive enterprise. Interesting times ahead, at the very least.



#119 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:25

I can sort of see F1 heading for a major pull-out crisis, worse than anything most of us would have seen in our lifetimes. Forget 2008/9. That was managed without any major problems. In fact, thanks to forward thinking from Max Mosley we had more teams coming out of the pull out than going in.

 

I'm thinking we could be in for a 1952 like situation, where F1 would have to be redefined very rapidly in order to bolster entrants.



Advertisement

#120 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 12,987 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:34

If Renault is really pushing this, then goodbye and don't come back.

People already hate the hybrids, imagine this...it won't fly with fans and no fans no interest etc etc.

I don't hate the hybrid. Please do not speak for me. 



#121 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:39

Faster in what aspect? Pure acceleration perhaps and a short hill climb. My Fiesta Econetic still annihilates a Tesla in long distance 'racing'. For now EV has it's place in sprint racing, but both EV's and your average GP have to adapt towards eachother before it becomes viable for F1.


My EV does between 400-550 km on 1 charge. It also does 0-100 in 4.8seconds.

The range is not thát different then petrol cars. It’s relatively new tech, and if F1 teams would have unlimited development, the improvements in range and power would be insane.

#122 JavierDeVivre

JavierDeVivre
  • Member

  • 982 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:44

Why would it exclude part of the population from owning cars?

The more electric cars are built, the more will flow through to the second hand market and residuals will reduce.

The banning of 4* fuel didn't exclude people from car ownership

Cost and lack of infrastructure.

I couldn't own an EV where I live because of the on-street parking, and the fact the scrotes would damage the chargers and cables if you left them on charge anyway. They already do that to cars, so you can't own a nice car here.

The idea that the public could switch to EVs is an idealistic one. It is just backwards bullsh!t pushed by climate alarmist propagandists.

#123 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:48

Cost and lack of infrastructure.

I couldn't own an EV where I live because of the on-street parking, and the fact the scrotes would damage the chargers and cables if you left them on charge anyway. They already do that to cars, so you can't own a nice car here.

The idea that the public could switch to EVs is an idealistic one. It is just backwards bullsh!t pushed by climate alarmist propagandists.

I think the biggest barrier to people swapping to EV is the cost. The price is much higher to buy, and unless your a high mileage user your unlikey to make up the difference in running costs. Although in the UK I would guess the biggest takeup is in cities where congestion charging is in place.

Edited by Clatter, 06 October 2019 - 09:49.


#124 JavierDeVivre

JavierDeVivre
  • Member

  • 982 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:57

My EV does between 400-550 km on 1 charge. It also does 0-100 in 4.8seconds.

The range is not thát different then petrol cars. It’s relatively new tech, and if F1 teams would have unlimited development, the improvements in range and power would be insane.

It's not relatively new tech at all, that is just the bullsh!t you have bought hook, line and sinker.

Vehicle electrification has existed for a very long time, this idea that they are a new invention that will be developed quickly and surpass anything ICE vehicles have achieved is EV propaganda.
EVs may have become an obsession recently, but they pre-date the modern ICE.

If there was going to have been any major leap in battery technology it would have already happened by now. Batteries may not have been used in vehicles that often, but they have been used in a range of applications elsewhere. If there was going to be a large scale advancement in battery technology, it wouldn't need the automotive sector to be involved for it to come about.

The industry is tapping in to the market because it is another revenue stream for them, they can sell a car with a premium price tag to someone becaise they believe they are 'saving the planet' by buying an EV. It means increased sales for them.

The idea that EVs are eco-friendly is ironic, considering the major increase in power generaration that any large scale move to EVs would require.

Edited by JavierDeVivre, 06 October 2019 - 09:58.


#125 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 October 2019 - 09:59

My EV does between 400-550 km on 1 charge. It also does 0-100 in 4.8seconds.

The range is not thát different then petrol cars. It’s relatively new tech, and if F1 teams would have unlimited development, the improvements in range and power would be insane.

Range of a petrol car is just what is assumed convenient for the customer. It could multiply for no cost by increasing tank size. What's the volume of your cars battery pack? 300-400 litres?

 

Similarly F1 engine performance is not limited by capability of ICE technology, but by what is safe and reasonable.



#126 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,942 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:00

The assumption is that EVs will take over 100% of the market like ICE did before.  I don't think that's going to happen.  However from today's viewpoint EVs will take a much bigger share of the market.  Not only is there pressure to do so from a CO2 perspective, the drive to improve urban air quality will be powerful too.

 

The manufacturers will inevitably favour pushing spend towards raising their profiles in EVs and hybrids over other mature forms of propulsion.  F1 will have to adapt to make itself relevant not for the real world itself but for the needs of the manufacturers if it is to survive.

 

The market is going to change in other ways too.  I don't think car ownership will be much of a thing for the young and those in town centres.  There are plenty of car sharing and short term rental services available already.  The idea of spending a significant amount of money in a car that supposedly reflects some of your personal identity through its brand is gradually diminishing, and thus attachment to car brands will fall too.  How motorsport remains relevant in that environment will be key.



#127 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:08

Maybe the rules have to be opened to allow alternatives that are not ready yet.

In theory a team could come up with an EV faster than the current cars, but because the rules dictate what has to be used, they would not be allowed to use such a car. Of course, it’s safe to assume the rules would be changed to use EV’s if they moment ever came. But as it is at the moment, current F1 rules focus on optimisation of what’s already being used as opposed to innovation of what could be.

Rear engines, wings, turbos, driver aids, etc, all came about not because the rules insisted on them, but because the rules didn’t forbid them. Perhaps the rules should already allow for EVs or hydrogen expecting no one to use now, but when the cross over point arrives, we will know it’s ready because a team will give it a try. As it is, Formula 1 is set up to wait for the technology to mature and be proven before they will even talk about implementing it.

#128 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:14

The market is going to change in other ways too.  I don't think car ownership will be much of a thing for the young and those in town centres.  There are plenty of car sharing and short term rental services available already.  The idea of spending a significant amount of money in a car that supposedly reflects some of your personal identity through its brand is gradually diminishing, and thus attachment to car brands will fall too.  How motorsport remains relevant in that environment will be key.

Thought about this before and I think brand identity will still be a thing regardless. Lets say that physical car ownership diminishes and most car usage is from short term rental/subscription/car-sharing/leasing services. What type of car and how nice that car is still says something abut your personal identity. A premium brand will still be a premium brand and a basic, no frills entry level brand will still be a basic, no frills entry level brand. 

 

I think motorsport will still be used to say 'We make the best/most efficient/coolest looking/most capable vehicles the you can rent/lease/access/use' 



#129 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:15

It's not relatively new tech at all, that is just the bullsh!t you have bought hook, line and sinker.

Vehicle electrification has existed for a very long time, this idea that they are a new invention that will be developed quickly and surpass anything ICE vehicles have achieved is EV propaganda.
EVs may have become an obsession recently, but they pre-date the modern ICE.

If there was going to have been any major leap in battery technology it would have already happened by now. Batteries may not have been used in vehicles that often, but they have been used in a range of applications elsewhere. If there was going to be a large scale advancement in battery technology, it wouldn't need the automotive sector to be involved for it to come about.

The industry is tapping in to the market because it is another revenue stream for them, they can sell a car with a premium price tag to someone becaise they believe they are 'saving the planet' by buying an EV. It means increased sales for them.

The idea that EVs are eco-friendly is ironic, considering the major increase in power generaration that any large scale move to EVs would require.

There has been a leap in battery technology, and there is a huge amount of research looking at different materials to make the next leap. Most of this is driven by the electronics industry for their mobile devices. Let's not try to pretend it's not happening.

Edited by Clatter, 06 October 2019 - 10:15.


#130 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:18

What I want to know is what separates EV propaganda from anti-EV propaganda... 



#131 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 12,987 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:28

The idea that the public could switch to EVs is an idealistic one. It is just backwards bullsh!t pushed by climate alarmist propagandists.

You are so right, NASA is such a Left-Wing, hippy organisation that just wants to force us back into the Stone Age. 



#132 JavierDeVivre

JavierDeVivre
  • Member

  • 982 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:32

There has been a leap in battery technology, and there is a huge amount of research looking at different materials to make the next leap. Most of this is driven by the electronics industry for their mobile devices. Let's not try to pretend it's not happening.

I'm not denying that advancements haven't happpened, just that the supposed advancements that are going to vastly improve battery technology to make it a suitable replacement for ICEs in vehicles are not going to materialise in the way some claim it will.

Battery technology hasn't stood still until recently. It has been in constant development, and still it is not a viable alternative for vehicle propulsion.

There is a lot of people who are deeply in denial about EVs, because they have chosen to believe the marketing bull about them.

One of their greatest achievements has to be getting people to believe that EVs are green.

#133 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,942 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:47

I'm not denying that advancements haven't happpened, just that the supposed advancements that are going to vastly improve battery technology to make it a suitable replacement for ICEs in vehicles are not going to materialise in the way some claim it will.

Battery technology hasn't stood still until recently. It has been in constant development, and still it is not a viable alternative for vehicle propulsion.

There is a lot of people who are deeply in denial about EVs, because they have chosen to believe the marketing bull about them.

One of their greatest achievements has to be getting people to believe that EVs are green.


You seem to think in absolute terms, that EV will replace ICE. The future is likely to be far more complex than that with different propulsion systems having a market share. I think EVs are superior to ICE cars for urban commuting. I wouldn’t want an EV for rural conditions or for long distance travel. People will buy according to their needs.

There are other systems like fuel cells that are yet to make an impact, they might disappear without trace or become the default choice, maybe something in between.

Also you cannot discount the possibility of a near instantaneous charging technology emerging for EVs that would make it a much stronger contender. You talk about EVs being an old technology, you would therefore be aware that petrol was not seen to be the obvious winner against electric and steam driven cars until the starter motor transformed its fortunes. Such a similar transformative technology could do the same for electric and there is enough money being ploughed into overcoming that hurdle.

#134 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 10:54

For anyone who wants a well balanced, sources cited and conflicts of interest declared explanation of the emissions of ICE vs Hybrid vs EV lifetime emissions, one can be found here. Spoiler alert: it does not reach the conclusion that EVs are greener in all situations. 

 

 

I just can't let unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim about EVs being worse for the environment than ICEs go unchallenged. That would be irresponsible.


Edited by Ben1445, 06 October 2019 - 10:55.


#135 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 October 2019 - 11:47

For anyone who wants a well balanced, sources cited and conflicts of interest declared explanation of the emissions of ICE vs Hybrid vs EV lifetime emissions, one can be found here. Spoiler alert: it does not reach the conclusion that EVs are greener in all situations. 

 

 

I just can't let unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim about EVs being worse for the environment than ICEs go unchallenged. That would be irresponsible.

Very informative video. Mind you he is taking all the maximum values (worst for EV) in his calculation to be safe. Reality I think would be a lot more nuanced. Besides that, some things haven't been accounted for. For instance parts production also has its own emmissions. Driving an electric car with a lot less parts to be replaced during its lifetime will also have an -albeit relatively small- impact. And most importantly (which he does give insight in): when as a society we transition to green emissions-free energy production, electric cars will immediately be by far the best option for the environment under any circumstance. 



#136 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:13

My EV does between 400-550 km on 1 charge. It also does 0-100 in 4.8seconds.

The range is not thát different then petrol cars. It’s relatively new tech, and if F1 teams would have unlimited development, the improvements in range and power would be insane.

 

But you're not going to get a range of 400 km if you're driving it with the 0-100 in 4.8 s in mind all the time, like in a race.



#137 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:25

I'm not denying that advancements haven't happpened, just that the supposed advancements that are going to vastly improve battery technology to make it a suitable replacement for ICEs in vehicles are not going to materialise in the way some claim it will.

Battery technology hasn't stood still until recently. It has been in constant development, and still it is not a viable alternative for vehicle propulsion.

There is a lot of people who are deeply in denial about EVs, because they have chosen to believe the marketing bull about them.

One of their greatest achievements has to be getting people to believe that EVs are green.

 

Technology doesn't advance at a constant rate. It relies on interconnected breakthroughs and on industrial, commercial and political pressures.

 

Battery technology has lept forward recently because of the huge increase in demand for ever more powerful portable electronic devices. Now the demand for battery development is going to increase even more as the demand to move away from internal combustion engines increases.

 

It's like how EVs will be much greener once their supporting infrastructure is green, and it can and will be. Petrol and diesel will eventually left behind because we can produce electricity without burning coal. Without early adopters the technology won't move forward, and neither will it move forward without the pressures I mentioned above.

 

Just look at the rate of technological development in the ultimate high pressure environment, war. The technology commonly about in 1945 would have been daydreaming in 1939.



#138 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 33,517 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 06 October 2019 - 12:55

Let's face it, a lot of motorsport fans are very traditional - drivers and fans glamorize the past on a regular basis. Just look at the reaction to Vettel's V12 comment as evidence of that. I just imagine that as soon as rally cars, touring cars, Le Mans cars, and yes, even F1 cars start sounding more like Formula E cars there's going to be quite a lot of pitchfork raising going on. Hell, look at the discussion we saw when F1 introduced the V6Ts several years ago. It'll be that, all over again, but probably on a much bigger scale.

I honestly think that a lot of this is circlejerking and a minority being louder. I reckon that the majority dont really care about this. And even if not they'll get used to it, i.e. see the discussions before the halo introduction.

#139 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 October 2019 - 13:57

How is that point even relevant when that has to change as well? It’s not a devastating blow to my argument at all.

Besides, with the current average energy supply you’re better off with the emissions of with least a hybrid over pure ICE anywhere...and in countries/areas with more sustainable energy supplies you are better off still with all electric. Electrification is already the best option and, as the global energy supply becomes more sustainable, EVs will be too. There is no situation in which a pure ICE is better from a total lifetime emissions standpoint.

What the environmental damage to get the materials and to dispose of the batteries?

Advertisement

#140 Roadhouse

Roadhouse
  • Member

  • 517 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:04

My EV does between 400-550 km on 1 charge. It also does 0-100 in 4.8seconds.

The range is not thát different then petrol cars. It’s relatively new tech, and if F1 teams would have unlimited development, the improvements in range and power would be insane.

 

Like I said, u'd win on acceleration, which performance wise is the only positive part of an EV right now.

As soon as range comes into play you're toast, because the weight of current battery packs offset any other performance advantage you might have.

 

Energy storage is an EV's main weakness, untill we find a solution for that EV's won't compete above a certain distance. Perhaps hydrogen is the (long term) answer for F1?



#141 BobbyRicky

BobbyRicky
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:14

But you're not going to get a range of 400 km if you're driving it with the 0-100 in 4.8 s in mind all the time, like in a race.

 

And a Bugatti Veyron can only go full-speed for 6 minutes before running out of fuel.

I dont get this EV-hate at al. 



#142 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:18

What I want to know is what separates EV propaganda from anti-EV propaganda... 

Fanboyism! :cat:



#143 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:18

What the environmental damage to get the materials and to dispose of the batteries?

Physical, direct damage to environments in battery mineral extraction as opposed to emissions produced during production? Well, that’s a conversation that cannot be had without also thinking about the physical, direct environmental damage of oil extraction...

Perfection can’t be the enemy of progress.

#144 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:22

And a Bugatti Veyron can only go full-speed for 6 minutes before running out of fuel.

I dont get this EV-hate at al. 

Gasoline still has around 50x(!) the energy density of batteries, and we only see small incremental improvements. F1 won't go fully electric anytime soon ...


Edited by Hyatt, 06 October 2019 - 18:08.


#145 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:24

I can imagine in the not too distant future an incorporated  solar panel on a race car making the difference between winning or losing a race! :eek:



#146 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:28

And a Bugatti Veyron can only go full-speed for 6 minutes before running out of fuel.

I dont get this EV-hate at al. 

 

It's the practical stuff we're talking about. An F1 car can go 300 km at near full speed without running out of fuel. EVs aren't at that level yet.

 

Though I don't think you're paying attention. I'm pro-EVs.



#147 NixxxoN

NixxxoN
  • Member

  • 2,200 posts
  • Joined: June 17

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:32

F1 should push for battery development, they really should... its a key thing for the european car industry for the future.

#148 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 12,987 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:32

Very informative video. Mind you he is taking all the maximum values (worst for EV) in his calculation to be safe. Reality I think would be a lot more nuanced. Besides that, some things haven't been accounted for. For instance parts production also has its own emmissions. Driving an electric car with a lot less parts to be replaced during its lifetime will also have an -albeit relatively small- impact. And most importantly (which he does give insight in): when as a society we transition to green emissions-free energy production, electric cars will immediately be by far the best option for the environment under any circumstance. 

We are already transitioning towards much lower carbon forms of electricity.

Renewable energy technologies are getting cheaper, through technological change and through the benefits of mass production and market competition. A 2018 report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), found that the cost of renewable energy is quickly falling, and will likely be equal to or less than the cost non-renewables such as fossil fuels by 2020. The report found that solar power costs have dropped 73% since 2010 and onshore wind costs have dropped by 23% in that same timeframe.[105]


#149 Claymore25

Claymore25
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: August 19

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:33

This was always the plan. Making f-1 boring with this rules and then destroy it so they could put Formula E in our mouthes.



#150 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 October 2019 - 14:49

Gasoline still has around 50x(!) the energy desity of batteries, and we only see small incremental improvements. F1 won't go fully electric anytime soon ...

Sure, but not that massive a difference when you take into account the relative efficiency of electric motors vs gasoline engines. 

Obviously you need a much bigger battery than you would need a tank, at the current technological state. But battery to wheel efficiency compared to tank to wheel efficiency is a factor 5-7 higher.