Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1: Future of ICE and Carbon Neutral aims [Merged]


  • Please log in to reply
472 replies to this topic

#101 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 01 January 2020 - 17:16

ElectricBoogie, on 01 Jan 2020 - 17:07, said:

It's crazy that it's taking hybrids so long. 

I blame a lot on the 2008 financial crash...history probably will too. It has held us back more than people realise and bred a simultaneous urgency to change from some and a a belief that it never will from others. 

 

Hopefully the 2020s drag us kicking and screaming into the future... and it will be kicking and screaming at this rate. 



Advertisement

#102 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 01 January 2020 - 17:40

Ben1445, on 01 Jan 2020 - 16:56, said:

30+ years... that'll be 2050 and beyond. The unfortunate reality is that that will be way too late for the climate. 

Analysis of ice cores samples has shown that climate was never stable, multiple degrees of fluctuations back and forth on a very regular (every century or so) basis. The ends of ice ages with raised sea levels and higher temperature actually brought progress to humanity. We've had the thermometer too shortly to gather data on the time scale climate happens to take place at. When we look out of the attic roof window, we see huge climate change on neighboring planets. But then it's called solar made climate change. 
We see the glaciers melting but neglect to remember that they had melted tremendously before humans became such a nuisance to Earth life. Sea levels had risen 100 meters (adding 3 continents or so) before we got serious about agriculture, let alone technology. Life was always on coast lines, so we don't know much about the people who lived before us.
History shows climate hops around all the time, driven by multiple factors. Sun's mood (it's moody), Earth wobble, meteor impacts, floods, etc, etc. The last time sea levels rose, we packed up and moved. But didn't learn to stay away from coast lines.
With the tiny effect humans have on claimed climate factors, we're not going to be turning a global cooling cycle into a warming one. Much greater dangers theaten human life, or any life on earth. And some of them are actually in our own hands. We can fix nuclear energy, make it more efficient and less scary. It's statiscally safe, but incidents make it to history books whereas deaths from coal, oil and gas are easily forgotten or never even acknowledged.
In the hypothetical case that we're on the brink of sliding off a CO2 enduced climate cliff, into a pan of boiling water...we should be banning car production, period. The first 4 years or so, a new BEV is a bigger hit through CO2 emissions than an equivalent ICE car. Only after that, CO2 and heat are lower. New BEVs are a sucker punch to the environment. Especially the fancy ones that have the big batteries. We should not make new cars, espcially BEVs, if we truly believe things are critical. They are critical only in the hypo way. Just ban production. Costs a few jobs, but we get to keep out planet, right? 
Now I do feel and am a proponent that BEVs are the future. I've been a hybrid drivetrain entrepreneur, lost some good money on that. ICEVs are criminally outdated and there is no way forward for them, it's at the end of the line. The very best get 50% thermal efficiency, and those are just 20 ultra costly cars driven sparsely for recreational purposes (F1). Better as ambient air heater than as rotational motors. But let's worry about the CO2, not the heat itself... Everywhere we look out of the window and don't see wind turbines, we're wasting renewable energy available to us. Fix that before we shame people who don't have a fancy new big battery car yet.
Greener F1 would be using last year's F2 engines, used all season or scrapped, fix them up, do a tune and get them racing again. More fuel burned is in no relation to the facilties needed to develop pointless V6 hybrids that have no road relevancy. Too restrictive regulations, efficiency should be better. The F1 tailpipes are not what causes environmental damage. The whole industry running off it, the spectators driving and flying to races, etc, etc.

Now please let's sit together with some people who are not financially connected to cars, oil or racing (anymore) and find a good path for development. Road, Air, Rail, Sea. And racing in each. 
If cars are most like bumber cars and subway trains, they need smaller batteries. Once time investment, forever green. Most ships are large enough (but not too large) for solar and wind farms. New train lines could be largely gravity powered (the one true renewable resource), odd as that might seem. Planes are seeing a future as well. Large distance orbital rockets (a bit over the top?) and hopes of batteries that will enable continental flights without too bad delays. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter as much, the Earth will cool and warm as external factors dictate, but we can stop missing the point and just tax ourselves and hand over liberties to unelected officials who are somehow going to tax us into a safer climate.

Who's willing to join my think tank?



#103 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 6,217 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 01 January 2020 - 17:45

MikeV1987, on 01 Nov 2019 - 18:38, said:

Would like to see them invest in alternative fuels, like hydrogen. I don’t think batteries are the end game that most people seem to think they are.

 

As we know them, perhaps, but long term storing and deploying the sun's energy is probably the best call. 



#104 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 7,036 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:19

BobbyRicky, on 20 Dec 2019 - 09:44, said:

Where does the fuel to your standard ICE come from?

I don’t think petrol production is any where near as damaging to the environment as production the production and recycling of any ICE. (Although Diesel ICE may be pretty close)

#105 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:31

Hydrogen as it is, is very impractical for racing. And imagine what might happen when it goes pear shaped in a crash...

Batteries at least are promising to get better. Hydrogen is just hydrogen. It takes a lot of energy to get it isolated and into the car under high pressure. The recombining with oxygen from the air makes it a big net loss even before the electricity is extracted from the process and gets the same utility as the energy that comes straight out of a battery.
There is a huge opportunity and billions being invested to increased the energy density of batteries. This means electric cars will get lighter or go further, or both. when really, they are very adequate already today.
Hydrogen requires frequent mainterance of on board systems, very costly. The generation from electricity (which is what the motors need) and water is both energy and maintenance intensive. Local on demand hydrogen production poses severe risks, these generation stations do blow up. And that before there's more than a few worldwide.

If we really want to move forward, we need to make cars rely less on larger batteries. Employer facilitated charging halves the needed range for daily commutes, which can already displace most of the civilian petrol demand ON EARTH. Plug-in hybrids barely get to tank for petrol anymore. It's a whole thing. In F1 the battery just help reduce fuel consumption while adding power. In every day life, the ICE needs to be no more than a range extender. But the systems are so costly and complex, why have it at all?
Wireless road surface charging is coming. This would turn tiny battery plug-in hybrids into long range EVs. Just remove the who engine, gearbox and tank, please.
For the price of an early Prius battery, now a similar car can be used as a daily, without an ICE. Prices have fallen and will halve once or twice more. At the same time, batteries will get smaller and lighter, making then more useful for more and more exciting race cars. FE now is like F3 with a low top speed, despite the faux-aero and narrow snow ready tyres.

And while batteries little CO2 bombs in production (aka plant food), their life span goes way beyond use in a car. When the battery is about 20-30% less potent in terms of range, it's considered end of life. But in static storage, it can still perform grid balancing and rewables stories for another decade or more before being recycled into new batteries. Displacing more and more emission throughout its life. If car batteries are already cheap and getting cheaper, use car batteries will become cheaper still. Great for upgrades of houses to being self powered (mainly solar and wind). And for grassroots car building. A "used up" Tesla battery, the first real try, is still a great resource to build our own electric conversion car. It doesn't get greener than that. Existing chassis and interior, remove and recycle drivetrain, substitute one from an "end of life" BEV that already displaced lots of fuel emissions. Conversions, even with fresh batteries, should be the most sold BEVs solutions, but no government wants to incentivise or over easily approve these, even if it's way greener than a BEV let alone hydrogen car.



#106 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:41

ElectricBoogie, on 01 Jan 2020 - 17:40, said:

Analysis of ice cores samples has shown that climate was never stable, multiple degrees of fluctuations back and forth on a very regular (every century or so) basis. The ends of ice ages with raised sea levels and higher temperature actually brought progress to humanity. We've had the thermometer too shortly to gather data on the time scale climate happens to take place at. When we look out of the attic roof window, we see huge climate change on neighboring planets. But then it's called solar made climate change. 
We see the glaciers melting but neglect to remember that they had melted tremendously before humans became such a nuisance to Earth life. Sea levels had risen 100 meters (adding 3 continents or so) before we got serious about agriculture, let alone technology. Life was always on coast lines, so we don't know much about the people who lived before us.
History shows climate hops around all the time, driven by multiple factors. Sun's mood (it's moody), Earth wobble, meteor impacts, floods, etc, etc. The last time sea levels rose, we packed up and moved. But didn't learn to stay away from coast lines.

I feel it prudent to note (for the benefit of everyone) that it is the current pace of the change that stokes the concern, not ignorance to the fact that change has happened in the past. 

 

ElectricBoogie, on 01 Jan 2020 - 18:31, said:

In every day life, the ICE needs to be no more than a range extender. But the systems are so costly and complex, why have it at all?

 

I think this really should be the kind of future for the ICE in F1 we would be seeing. Perhaps a spec unit ICE range extender on an otherwise EV platform. But alas, I fear F1 lacks the vision to do it. 



#107 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 02 January 2020 - 01:48

Ben1445, on 01 Jan 2020 - 18:41, said:

I feel it prudent to note (for the benefit of everyone) that it is the current pace of the change that stokes the concern, not ignorance to the fact that change has happened in the past. 

 

 

I think this really should be the kind of future for the ICE in F1 we would be seeing. Perhaps a spec unit ICE range extender on an otherwise EV platform. But alas, I fear F1 lacks the vision to do it. 

Pace of change we have no records of. The thermometer is new, the way we use data is novel. There is no way to know. And we had climate gate 1 and climate gate 2 which are easily brushed aside. Measuring is like statistics. The one holding the thermometer impacts the outcome. Selective data use, thermometer placement, etc. Anyway, weather changes, climate changes. Some glalciers shrinks, some grow. 12,800 years ago the ice caps were humongous compared to the start of the industrial revolution, yet mammoth grazed very high up North.

ICE is just outdated. It was fun for a while when they made them light and then had light fuel that got the car far and fast.
Now we have a heavy expensive powerunit that is still very restrictive when it comes to exploiting the potential of the hybrid side. We brag with 50% thermal efficiency, but really, if you reduce fuel flow even more, the efficiency will be higher. Let alone when you increase the battery size and MGU-K power. Even if spec.
So the best hybrid ever are kind of meh considering they've been here for a while and are being resticted like crazy.

A battery focused design with swappable battery, clever parts sharing (cells used in a weekend need to be availble to competitors the same evening in sufficient quantities) and good balance of maximum power and race length should together with largely spec but very efficient aero should get us plenty fast cars. How fast does a car need to lap to be F1 worthy? What's the top speed we need in Monza? Weaker brakes will help a battery powered car out a good bit. Shorter straights effectively by say up to a whole second each, with strong regenerative braking all the way until positive power is needed to drive the car.
We don't like one pitstop races, do we? Well, with a battery car that would not be an option for most races, two or even three would be fastest. Mika Salo once did Monaco without refueling. Maybe someone could do Monaco on just one pitstop if it were wet with a few FSCs. Enforcing just two compounds per race would keep that eventuality open.

I'd REALLY want to work with some experienced engineers to design a partially spec car to get the very most out of the batteries that can be procured, even if just from labs, today. Dual chemistry with the power cells staying on board, the high energy cells swapped, why not. No need to be shy with the aero, it will have to be really slick and high downforce to drag ratio, the cars will not be light at first and energy a bit sparse for the pace needed, which is good. Exotic materials, F1 can afford it when losing hybrids for electric. Especially when motors would be sealed for 1/3 a season for instance. The power limit approach in FE is not my favorite but could be tweaked (and of course more than doubled) to be more natural and exciting. Weight limit is with maximum weight power battery but excluding swappable range batteries, 2 sizes, with minimum and maximum weight. Different batteries each race? Why not, it's the key of development and teams that fall behind can buy the competitors' cells of the last race on an FIA managed marketplace. Which (mix of) cells is used could even be kept a secret. But the best teams get to have a head start as testing and implementing cells takes time.
My goal would be to get to F2 times with today's battery tech, for a long enough race. Ideally a full GP. 3 or 4 stops would be fine I think as with two range battery weights, it would get really tactical. Stretch a stint and you can try to hang it out on a 100kg lighter car. As if the others are back to full tanks for the last short stint only.
The batteries would be cutting edge and getting better quickly, without making the car faster in terms of straights nor cornering. Just fewer stops for a flat out race. Battery swaps being slower would make the tires less of a challenge and allow for really low cost spec guns and nuts. The spec battery casing and body cover would be rolled out sideways I imagine. On a 10-20 second pit stop, 3 or 4 per race, pit crews would find something to train for... Which in itself might negate the need for power differentiation. Better batteries just allow you to harder closer to quali pace and be more flexible with your stops. If all cars get 500 kW for as long as they want to use it, it's more down to their inverters and motor efficiency plus pit strategy.
Weighing an extra pit stop with a stint on a much lighter battery, pushing hard early, against taking it easy and finishing the race on the heavy one, could be fun. More than everyone coasting halfway down the straight as there are not options if you want to be classified.



#108 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 02 January 2020 - 05:11

My electric car works great! But, I don't ask it to do what it wasn't designed to to. It's my daily commute driver. For long distance trips we use our old ICE car. That's even better, because now the majority of its miles are at highway speeds where it tends to max out efficiency. So, our electric car indirectly makes our ICE car more efficient. 

 

It's just about using the right tool for the job. 



#109 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 January 2020 - 10:53

ElectricBoogie, on 02 Jan 2020 - 01:48, said:

Pace of change we have no records of. 

We have enough evidence in geological records to piece things together (e.g. https://phys.org/new...nted-earth.html). We have an unprecedented situation, the effects of which are therefore highly uncertain. To me, assuming best case is irrational. 

 

ElectricBoogie, on 02 Jan 2020 - 01:48, said:

My goal would be to get to F2 times with today's battery tech, for a long enough race. Ideally a full GP. 3 or 4 stops would be fine I think as with two range battery weights, it would get really tactical. Stretch a stint and you can try to hang it out on a 100kg lighter car. As if the others are back to full tanks for the last short stint only.
The batteries would be cutting edge and getting better quickly, without making the car faster in terms of straights nor cornering. Just fewer stops for a flat out race. Battery swaps being slower would make the tires less of a challenge and allow for really low cost spec guns and nuts. The spec battery casing and body cover would be rolled out sideways I imagine. On a 10-20 second pit stop, 3 or 4 per race, pit crews would find something to train for... Which in itself might negate the need for power differentiation. Better batteries just allow you to harder closer to quali pace and be more flexible with your stops. If all cars get 500 kW for as long as they want to use it, it's more down to their inverters and motor efficiency plus pit strategy.
Weighing an extra pit stop with a stint on a much lighter battery, pushing hard early, against taking it easy and finishing the race on the heavy one, could be fun. More than everyone coasting halfway down the straight as there are not options if you want to be classified.

None of the large automotive companies are really pursuing battery swap technology for their road products. They're all in on fast charging, which is why FE has gone down the route of adding that rather than a battery swap. In addition, I've yet to hear solid reasoning as to why battery swaps are viable in a large scale civilian transportation system beyond something the size of a moped. 

 

Setting up an experimental and unproven racing series is not easy, even if FE largely made it look like it is. The very amazing thing is that it seems to be supporting itself as a standalone series, though that is likely grounding its technological ambitions firmly in industry reality.

 

The ideal place for such an experimental battery swap EV series would perhaps have been a MotoE style thing within the F1 circus and supported by FOM. Problem is right at the optimum time to be having that discussion it had Mr Ecclestone in charge and was arguing with itself about how rubbish the hybrids were and how the 'eco-crap' was entirely unwanted because it must be 'All Prise to the Heavenly V12' or something. Instead, FE snatched an exclusivity contract out from under their noses. Now setting that up would involve buying FE out of that contract or (the risky option) testing it in court. 

 

Maybe IndyCar can make a move and set something like it up. Roger Penske has bought it all now, right? He has ties to GM (who have more EVs in the pipeline) and his son runs an FE team in Dragon. No FIA exclusivity contract issues to worry about. Get some of the retiring big names and young upstarts into it... why not? 



#110 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 4,062 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 02 January 2020 - 13:11

Ben1445, on 02 Jan 2020 - 10:53, said:

We have enough evidence in geological records to piece things together (e.g. https://phys.org/new...nted-earth.html). We have an unprecedented situation, the effects of which are therefore highly uncertain. To me, assuming best case is irrational. 

 

None of the large automotive companies are really pursuing battery swap technology for their road products. They're all in on fast charging, which is why FE has gone down the route of adding that rather than a battery swap. In addition, I've yet to hear solid reasoning as to why battery swaps are viable in a large scale civilian transportation system beyond something the size of a moped. 

 

Setting up an experimental and unproven racing series is not easy, even if FE largely made it look like it is. The very amazing thing is that it seems to be supporting itself as a standalone series, though that is likely grounding its technological ambitions firmly in industry reality.

 

The ideal place for such an experimental battery swap EV series would perhaps have been a MotoE style thing within the F1 circus and supported by FOM. Problem is right at the optimum time to be having that discussion it had Mr Ecclestone in charge and was arguing with itself about how rubbish the hybrids were and how the 'eco-crap' was entirely unwanted because it must be 'All Prise to the Heavenly V12' or something. Instead, FE snatched an exclusivity contract out from under their noses. Now setting that up would involve buying FE out of that contract or (the risky option) testing it in court. 

 

Maybe IndyCar can make a move and set something like it up. Roger Penske has bought it all now, right? He has ties to GM (who have more EVs in the pipeline) and his son runs an FE team in Dragon. No FIA exclusivity contract issues to worry about. Get some of the retiring big names and young upstarts into it... why not? 

 

They are viable, just not poplar.

All Tesla Model Ss are battery swap compatible. It just was never popular so the canned the project. 

Range anxiety is like Shark attack anxiety - it can happen, but to few people on few occasions.


Edited by Calorus, 02 January 2020 - 13:13.


#111 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 2,017 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 January 2020 - 15:01

I think that in the near future ICEs (even hybridized ones) will be gone from F1. Civil society and policy makers will soon turn hard against ICEs. Electricity lines, Hydrogen and BEVs all have issues (need more development) but they can already replace ICEs for all transportation needs except air travel (and NASA is working on hydrogen fuel cell systems for commercial flight as we speak).

 

I acknowledge that there is a lot of debate and skepticism around climate change. In today's world Joe Bloggs is an expert regardless of whether of not the topic at hand is in his field of study/specialization. So irregardless of what the "true" experts say, some people "just know" that climate change is made up.

 

To me, aside from listening to the experts, it's common sense that all of the billions of humans—with all of their many forms of pollution and wasting of earth's resources—are having a pretty negative effect on the planet and its weather systems.

 

There are two related (but separate) concerns of environmentalists.

 

Firstly, to reduce/stop the polluting and environmental damage caused by humans—plastic, garbage, deforestation, contaminated water... etc.

 

Secondly, there is concern over the increasing amounts of emissions from the human race which is contributing to the warming of the planet. Even if climate change is happening independently, the human pile on is just making things worse and more imminent. If a ship is slowly sinking from holes in the bottom, what should the crew do? try to plug them or punch more holes for the water to get in faster?

 

I was in Washington DC a few days ago (on December 30th, 2019) and the temperature was 19.5c—that's pretty insane. The planet is going through some pretty negative changes and for our own well being (and that of future generations) we need to be doing our part to move things in a better direction.


Edited by F1Lurker, 02 January 2020 - 18:53.


#112 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 02 January 2020 - 15:31

F1 has been reaching a crossroads and at some point it will have to choose a direction IMO: remain "road relevant" (if it really has or should ever been) or become pure entertainment, with no other objective or agenda than to present the best auto racing show possible. Auto racing and road driving, not to mention passenger transportation itself, have been moving, and will increasingly move, in very different, and possibly even opposite, directions. With increasing use of public transportation and self-driving cars, the rift will only widen.

 

So, at some point, the stakeholders of racing series, especially, non-endurance racing, including F1, will have to decide if they want to continue with the kind of fake racing spectacle that the conservation paradigm creates or switch full-on to a new model where the racing spectacle, in and of itself, is the reason for the series to exist. For that, in a similar, but much clearer process than the one that has been happening for 2021, a new set or rules, nay, a new formula, will have to emerge. It occurs to me that the best engines in terms of costs, sound, power, etc. will have to be chosen and the pure ICE may have a future there. Of course, along with having an power unit that has the potential to create the best racing possible, the new series should re-think almost everything, from how many components can be used per season and race to racing-friendly aero to racing-maximizing rules.

 

Will auto manufacturers  be interested in a series like this? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that they should not be necessary in order to create a racing series that has great and true auto racing in it. 



#113 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 2,017 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 January 2020 - 16:02

THEWALL, on 02 Jan 2020 - 15:31, said:

F1 has been reaching a crossroads and at some point it will have to choose a direction IMO: remain "road relevant" (if it really has or should ever been) or become pure entertainment, with no other objective or agenda than to present the best auto racing show possible. Auto racing and road driving, not to mention passenger transportation itself, have been moving, and will increasingly move, in very different, and possibly even opposite, directions. With increasing use of public transportation and self-driving cars, the rift will only widen.

 

So, at some point, the stakeholders of racing series, especially, non-endurance racing, including F1, will have to decide if they want to continue with the kind of fake racing spectacle that the conservation paradigm creates or switch full-on to a new model where the racing spectacle, in and of itself, is the reason for the series to exist. For that, in a similar, but much clearer process than the one that has been happening for 2021, a new set or rules, nay, a new formula, will have to emerge. It occurs to me that the best engines in terms of costs, sound, power, etc. will have to be chosen and the pure ICE may have a future there. Of course, along with having an power unit that has the potential to create the best racing possible, the new series should re-think almost everything, from how many components can be used per season and race to racing-friendly aero to racing-maximizing rules.

 

Will auto manufacturers  be interested in a series like this? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that they should not be necessary in order to create a racing series that has great and true auto racing in it. 

I agree with much of what you say. The issue for F1 is that auto manufacturers have traditionally carried much of the cost of the F1 spectacle. I personally doubt that any major automakers will support and "fund" a global historical racing series. But, perhaps with limited to no development on power trains automakers wont be needed. I personally have strong doubts about the success of that model.



#114 absinthedude

absinthedude
  • Member

  • 6,224 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 02 January 2020 - 16:05

In an ideal world, we'd all have the funds and space to have several vehicles...the small EV for the commute to work, shopping, popping round to friends in a neighbouring town etc. The bigger, ICE-based car or hybrid which can carry a family, their luggage and tow a trailer for 400-500 miles without refuelling and which can be refuelled from zero to full in well under 5 minutes. Unfortunately most of us don't have the space or funds to do this. I can certainly say that if my wife and I didn't have a petrol car we'd have to give up one of our favourite hobbies, and I am unsure how we'd have driven to our friends for NYE and back the next day - especially when two other groups of people drove from other parts of the country and surely not everyone could use the the same friend's charging point - if they had one. The village in which they live does not have a single EV charging point of any description.

 

Battery swapping has appeal, in that it could be designed to be done quickly at similar cost to filling up a petrol tank - perhaps even cheaper and in similar time. Though people might not like the idea that it's not "their battery"...worrying that the replacement battery has been hammered and isn't as good as their old one? I dunno...the idea seems quite good to me as a way of solving one of the biggest problems with EVs. 



#115 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 02 January 2020 - 16:24

Actually, after Tesla made battery swaps too expensive for people to want to use them, NIO in China is actually doing better with them. 

But do motorists care about 2-second tire swaps when they've worn out? No, you make an appointment and at best you're in for a long wait sipping tea. No-one swaps complete wheels for you unless they are your summer and winter wheels.
With battery and hydrogen, for at least the coming decade and assuming rechargable batteries, we're not going to get fast quickly on just one charge. And while fast charging exists, pit stops are going to make only a small impact until there is a battery that will take a lightning bolt.
We had and have racing with refueling, what would we have against battery swaps, exactly? They'd barely need to be more frequent than at Le Mans. Panoz was/is developing a battery car that would do 300 kph and normal stint length. It's all not that horrible. The fast cars can't last an hour of hard racing anyway. F1 can do it, but 110 kg of fuel is triple that of a typical road car and the fuel is more potent.
In F2 we have a tyre stops. In F1 most fans would like to see more than just one per race. Again, what would be against a battery swap if it makes cars fast and exciting? Battery swaps are more road relevant than wheel swaps!
With fuel, we can stick in a large tank (220 liters in F1 in the past, nice and safe) to make it 305 km in a hurry with a V12, but with batteries for now that's just cumbersome. Swap allow for weight reduction AND race length+speed increase. 

It would be great to have F1 level engineering care about optimizing regen. Not just using a spec FE battery but a battery they designed for the purpose. Road relevant? Timing your charge stops. To make the race continue, just make that battery swaps. Or do you want interviews with drivers as they recharge for saw a minimum of half an hour per race? Get into the intricacies of charging an extra minute and trying to make up for lose time as the other guy need to take it easy to make the finish line? Skip the charging part, just stick in another battery. Different weight units to choose from would really mix things up I think. Gambling on satefy cars, weather, etc. Not too much emphasis on having to coast half the lap to make it to the line. Faster to stop for a battery and hammer on. barely different from the refueling era of F1, just smaller "tanks" that have a bigger effect on race pace.

FE is so restrictive, even if they do offer some upgrades every few seasons. Today's cars are not visually faster than the first ones, in part due to the first ones onely having to do 23 minutes or so. Spec battery, simply power limit, not so much for the brands to play with. Yes, racing is close but depite the huge coasting and regen, overtakes not all that easy thanks to the mickey mouse tracks designed to deal with the vastly too slow batteries. Long straights would drain the measly FE battery like mad. On Monza, it would be over after 20 minutes of less even with gen 2 cars, I reckon. And pace would be well below that of F3 and even F4.

Electrification is difficult when it needs to compete with fuel. The main series then crippling the concept with small fixed batteries, faux aero and road tyres just doesn't make it "exciting" unless you're into slow motion squeels. The racing is intrinsically good though, just needs to be scaled up. And it can be, with today's tech. Next year's tech may well be twice as good. Saving hundreds of kilos or doubling range.
Imagine a 2022 car that pack 100+ kWh in a swappable battery, aero much like a Group C with loads of ground effect. Modern LMP1-like rubber. At least dual motor. Fixed on board power battery for regen and acceleration, while the swappable pack takes care of the straights while aiding the power pack as necessary. Without LMP1's ban on exotic materials, a lot is possible.

Think of a more slick ground up iteration of 919 Evo level downforce and mechanical grip. Dump the ICE, box and tank, insert big battery. Add lightness. See it?



#116 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 02 January 2020 - 17:17

absinthedude, on 02 Jan 2020 - 16:05, said:

In an ideal world, we'd all have the funds and space to have several vehicles...the small EV for the commute to work, shopping, popping round to friends in a neighbouring town etc. The bigger, ICE-based car or hybrid which can carry a family, their luggage and tow a trailer for 400-500 miles without refuelling and which can be refuelled from zero to full in well under 5 minutes. Unfortunately most of us don't have the space or funds to do this. I can certainly say that if my wife and I didn't have a petrol car we'd have to give up one of our favourite hobbies, and I am unsure how we'd have driven to our friends for NYE and back the next day - especially when two other groups of people drove from other parts of the country and surely not everyone could use the the same friend's charging point - if they had one. The village in which they live does not have a single EV charging point of any description.

 

Battery swapping has appeal, in that it could be designed to be done quickly at similar cost to filling up a petrol tank - perhaps even cheaper and in similar time. Though people might not like the idea that it's not "their battery"...worrying that the replacement battery has been hammered and isn't as good as their old one? I dunno...the idea seems quite good to me as a way of solving one of the biggest problems with EVs. 

The biggest problem in EVs is home/work charging availability to the masses, I think. Most people don't know where they will be parking for work nor the night and don't control the land it would be on.
The second biggest problem, charging on longer trips, is one that's diminishing at rapid pace. It's becoming hard to come up with a realistic drive where the time loss for a safety conscious driver would be all that significant. This is, for the high end BEVs on the market today. Older and lower end ones may not have the charging speed and cooling/heating to make it work well.
Charge speed of EVs over the whole is improving at a high rate while there are more and more charging stations making it easy to time the drive and speed just as you like. A Tesla Model 3 did 2,871 km in so-so weather over 24 hours, before some upgrades to the charge speed were implemented. And that was a first attempt for the team, on public roads.
Tesla's are well above the median price, but such convenience will become available to more cars soon enough.
The points which most people miss about BEV and charging:
- you never leave home with less than half a tank and you didn't go for a late night drive to fill up
- you don't spend time holding the charging gun waiting for it to charge, you get more from your stop. Safety mandated rest during a long drive.
- over 1000 km, a Model 3 beat a Porsche 911. It was a pretty fair race, adhering to speed limits plus a margin and reasonable relief/food stops.

Towing changes it all. For an ICEV it adds mere minutes and money spent on costly fuel, for the BEV is adds charge cycles. There is no cure for that, but it will only get lots better from here. With ICEV, it doesn't look like any advancements will come.



#117 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 6,166 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 02 January 2020 - 17:38

ElectricBoogie, on 02 Jan 2020 - 16:24, said:

We had and have racing with refueling, what would we have against battery swaps, exactly? They'd barely need to be more frequent than at Le Mans. Panoz was/is developing a battery car that would do 300 kph and normal stint length. It's all not that horrible. The fast cars can't last an hour of hard racing anyway. F1 can do it, but 110 kg of fuel is triple that of a typical road car and the fuel is more potent.su

In F2 we have a tyre stops. In F1 most fans would like to see more than just one per race. Again, what would be against a battery swap if it makes cars fast and exciting? Battery swaps are more road relevant than wheel swaps!

This is a point well made. DTM is obviously thinking along these lines in its considerations for what it thinks an EV series would look like if it ran one.

 

I personally think endurance racing is a promising place for it really owing to the typically long pit stops. The Panoz project has been discontinued, but there is a more recent Bertone project which wants to enter Le Mans Garage 56 with a battery swapping supercar.

 

I can't begrudge FE for what it is. Carrying the entire weight of EV racing on it's shoulders from day one has baked into its core something of a compromise between competing factors - it simply can't be everything everyone wants it to be at once, so they chose the best combination they could to achieve success. That's an incredibly hard job and they have done incredibly well to get to where they have. Let's make no mistake, it's been the gamechanger we needed it to be. What we need now is EV racing variety and I think we are on course to get it this decade.

 

I think F1 has kind of missed the boat on all this to be honest and painted itself into the hybrid corner more out of necessity than choice. It's no longer leading the way but reacting to change.


Edited by Vielleicht, 02 January 2020 - 17:38.


#118 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 02 January 2020 - 19:58

FE is needlessly slow, races as if BEVs can't handle proper circuit and thus hold back the progress of the sport in this field. 
Imagine F1 would still be on V10's and unlimited fuel. Would any other classes have an incentive to got 4-cilinder hybrid?
We hold F1 to high standards, and should keep FE to high standards. It's a charade with main advantage that we get to see great drivers take on a complicated challenge that's being well documented.

A decent garage 56 supercar effort would probably lap quicker than a Formula E car, let alone on wide open circuits. A more prototype/single seater all-out design as I stated should aim at F2 times today, albeit more at LPM1-H cost level.
I didn't know about Bertone, very cool. One-hour stints are extremely ambitious, depending on the pace they intend to maintain. FE needs to nurse it for 47 minutes on very regen-happy tracks and very low full throttle rate.
Going for a 35-minute stint would allow a BEV to be vastly faster through weight savings, losing time on ICE cars only by pitstop count. Ideally stops would be shorter than tank stops to compensate.



#119 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 January 2020 - 00:45

F1Lurker, on 02 Jan 2020 - 16:02, said:

I agree with much of what you say. The issue for F1 is that auto manufacturers have traditionally carried much of the cost of the F1 spectacle. I personally doubt that any major automakers will support and "fund" a global historical racing series. But, perhaps with limited to no development on power trains automakers wont be needed. I personally have strong doubts about the success of that model.

It would not have to be a historical racing series. At some point, sooner than later IMO, a show/sport/spectacle of simply watching drivers and cars racing will have to be able to stand on its own.

 

If you think about it, do you think people would prefer to continue watching Mercedes, Ferrari's and other manufacturers' corporate strategy, be it marketing, promotion, PR, R&D, or all of them (which just happens to be taking place in a track among other manufacturers and teams and in front of TV cameras), masqueraded as racing, or a series optimized for racing, where the racing itself is the attraction and all the rest serves it.

 

Do other sports which are successful, both as entertainment and commercial enterprises, have to be related to manufacturers or corporations? 



Advertisement

#120 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 03 January 2020 - 01:53

GrumpyYoungMan, on 01 Jan 2020 - 18:19, said:

I don’t think petrol production is any where near as damaging to the environment as production the production and recycling of any ICE. (Although Diesel ICE may be pretty close)

Lately, it takes a lot of barrels of oil to produce one net barrel of oil. More than ever and not going to get better. We're extracting oil faster than it can be replenished.
And as the production and distribution of oil costs more and more oil in itself, it's a bigger and bigger impact versus what you pump out the exhaust pipe.

BEV evangelists are happy to forget that their holy wheels are more harmful coming out of the factory (at least for now, diminishing actually) than an equivalent ICE car and that break-even takes a number of years.
Thing is though, because cars go multiple times around the world before they are scrapped, the way they propel themselves ends up the biggest factor, be it cleaner or dirtier.

Oil extraction in itself cannot remain without penalty. Some call it tectonic lubrication, some call it dino juice. But it would be naive to think it good or neutral for Earth's crust. In my country we have earthquakes from natural gas mining.



#121 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 03 January 2020 - 02:10

THEWALL, on 03 Jan 2020 - 00:45, said:

If you think about it, do you think people would prefer to continue watching Mercedes, Ferrari's and other manufacturers' corporate strategy, be it marketing, promotion, PR, R&D, or all of them (which just happens to be taking place in a track among other manufacturers and teams and in front of TV cameras), masqueraded as racing, or a series optimized for racing, where the racing itself is the attraction and all the rest serves it.

 

Do other sports which are successful, both as entertainment and commercial enterprises, have to be related to manufacturers or corporations? 

Cars are big to use. Next to our home, the largest things we'll own and extend our identity with. We are very attracted to brands. As ball sports fans with their favorite teams. It takes a lot to take a loyal away from a terrible club or car brand.

 

F1 fans are aging. FE fans are young. 
Sure, F1 has Mercedes and Ferrari, Renault, Honda.
But Mercedes is in FE already as well. With Porsche, Jaguar, Nissan, BMW, Audi. But also newer brands like NIO, Mahindra, ZS. Notice the length of that list?

The BEV scene is bringing new brands into our daily car reality. And some of these brands come racing. 
Now FE is mostly spec of course, but wait until it gets more exciting technically. F1 is going to look ancient. No Ferrari in FE, they don't even make battery cars, but will the next generation care as much? F1 has less and less going for itself, viewed from the future. Now I want my racing fast so I'm not going anywhere, but 2021 better work out and pave a new road for F1, because ICE's are going out of style like cigarettes. One day they'll have a race in the worng place, stroke the local EV fans just the wrong way and it will be awkward. 6 figure crowds against the on-going GP awkward. No need to tell anyone that environmentalist are getting a bit foamy around the mouth of late. It's two trains on the same track in opposite directions. F1 can try to stay as it was or become relevant again, whether we like it or not.
 



#122 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 08:43

THEWALL, on 03 Jan 2020 - 00:45, said:

It would not have to be a historical racing series. At some point, sooner than later IMO, a show/sport/spectacle of simply watching drivers and cars racing will have to be able to stand on its own.


My question here then is why IndyCar has felt the need to add a ‘hybrid’ for 2022? Of all the established major series it was perhaps best placed to stand on its own.

#123 absinthedude

absinthedude
  • Member

  • 6,224 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 03 January 2020 - 08:59

ElectricBoogie, on 03 Jan 2020 - 01:53, said:

Lately, it takes a lot of barrels of oil to produce one net barrel of oil. More than ever and not going to get better. We're extracting oil faster than it can be replenished.
And as the production and distribution of oil costs more and more oil in itself, it's a bigger and bigger impact versus what you pump out the exhaust pipe.

BEV evangelists are happy to forget that their holy wheels are more harmful coming out of the factory (at least for now, diminishing actually) than an equivalent ICE car and that break-even takes a number of years.
Thing is though, because cars go multiple times around the world before they are scrapped, the way they propel themselves ends up the biggest factor, be it cleaner or dirtier.

Oil extraction in itself cannot remain without penalty. Some call it tectonic lubrication, some call it dino juice. But it would be naive to think it good or neutral for Earth's crust. In my country we have earthquakes from natural gas mining.

 

One "barrel" of crude oil contains a lot of useful stuff....not just petrol and diesel but kerosene, naptha, lubricating oil, jet fuel, fuel for ships, tar and so on...all mixed up in that horribly, black gunky stuff. We're going to keep drilling for oil due to requiring all of these substances, and having no other viable source. It has been said that the country which keeps enough oil for it's military forces will eventually rule the world, if everyone else gives up oil.

 

You are correct that we are currently depleting oil supplies much faster than we are discovering new supplies....hence the interest in fracking, though it is far from clear how safe fracking is and the evidence is pointing to it having significant problems. Curiously, in the 80s when I was at school my chemistry books pointed out the same problem and predicted we'd run out of oil around the year 2000. Of course we then discovered much more oil and for a time were discovering new oil reserves faster than we were depleting them. That is certainly not the case currently. So we do have to wean ourselves off oil....but currently do not have the technology so to do.



#124 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 09:43

absinthedude, on 03 Jan 2020 - 08:59, said:

So we do have to wean ourselves off oil....but currently do not have the technology so to do.

Yes we do. We could wean ourselves off of oil on existing technology. Renewable energy these days is cheap, electric cars meet the needs of a vast majority of journeys, computational power can deal with mass interconnectivity and system management. We do have alternatives to single use plastic. We can build highly efficient zero carbon homes. We can get on trains, we can walk and cycle. The list goes on and on and on. And on.

It’s societal/political reasons - sometimes a general ‘not a big enough problem yet’ apathy to it all, other times a misguided belief that a sustainable society must seamlessly replace our current one with no noticeable change - that poses a bigger barrier in my opinion.

#125 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 09:45

I still think the biggest issue facing ICE based racing is simply going to be funding. It is going to get harder and harder to find commercial backers, either to build the equipment or to put money forward as a sponsor.

#126 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 January 2020 - 10:11

F1Lurker, on 02 Jan 2020 - 15:01, said:

I think that in the near future ICEs (even hybridized ones) will be gone from F1. Civil society and policy makers will soon turn hard against ICEs. Electricity lines, Hydrogen and BEVs all have issues (need more development) but they can already replace ICEs for all transportation needs except air travel (and NASA is working on hydrogen fuel cell systems for commercial flight as we speak).

I acknowledge that there is a lot of debate and skepticism around climate change. In today's world Joe Bloggs is an expert regardless of whether of not the topic at hand is in his field of study/specialization. So irregardless of what the "true" experts say, some people "just know" that climate change is made up.

To me, aside from listening to the experts, it's common sense that all of the billions of humans—with all of their many forms of pollution and wasting of earth's resources—are having a pretty negative effect on the planet and its weather systems.

There are two related (but separate) concerns of environmentalists.

Firstly, to reduce/stop the polluting and environmental damage caused by humans—plastic, garbage, deforestation, contaminated water... etc.

Secondly, there is concern over the increasing amounts of emissions from the human race which is contributing to the warming of the planet. Even if climate change is happening independently, the human pile on is just making things worse and more imminent. If a ship is slowly sinking from holes in the bottom, what should the crew do? try to plug them or punch more holes for the water to get in faster?

I was in Washington DC a few days ago (on December 30th, 2019) and the temperature was 19.5c—that's pretty insane. The planet is going through some pretty negative changes and for our own well being (and that of future generations) we need to be doing our part to move things in a better direction.

"Civil society and policy makers will soon turn hard against ICEs."

If you think that's true, then how do you think airliners and cargo ships will be powered?

Chevron for example think there will still be a huge demand for fuels for aviation and shipping for a *very* long time to come.

So far, AFAIK most established car makers have a *severe* lack of battery material supply available and are only planning to build the bare minimum number of EVs to meet their EU/CAFE fleetwide emissions target.


The CEO of Honda even came straight out and said Honda will only by building the minimum number of EVs to meet their fleetwide emissions target, and they plan to mostly manufacture hybrid models for decades to come.. Whether that decision will cause the demise of Honda -- be it forced by being unable to get battery materials to build anymore than that, or due to Honda's vested interest in ICE manufacture -- remains to be seen.

Only Chinese makers like NIO are apparently unconstrained by battery materials supply limitations.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 January 2020 - 10:17.


#127 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 4,062 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 03 January 2020 - 10:12

Ben1445, on 03 Jan 2020 - 09:45, said:

I still think the biggest issue facing ICE based racing is simply going to be funding. It is going to get harder and harder to find commercial backers, either to build the equipment or to put money forward as a sponsor.

 

Very true - personally I want a no holds barred spending war for manufacturers in FormulaE and garagistes given strict limits in the the single millions to make explosions in F1.



#128 SonGoku

SonGoku
  • Member

  • 5,553 posts
  • Joined: July 17

Posted 03 January 2020 - 12:41

F1 will follow, just like they did with the hybrids. I still remember people complaining that F1 in 2013 was too fast too soon with the hybrides and look at it now six years later...
totally different views.

Edited by SonGoku, 03 January 2020 - 12:42.


#129 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,812 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 January 2020 - 13:28

Seriously, F1 will follow whatever the manufacturers that are paying the bills want them to do. I suspect they will fight to keep ICE as long as possible and hybrid seems to be the way to get the manufacturers on board at the moment.



#130 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 899 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 January 2020 - 13:44

CO2 neutral synfuels will make BEVs a waste of time and money. Long live the ICE. 



#131 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 13:48

pizzalover, on 03 Jan 2020 - 13:44, said:

CO2 neutral synfuels will make BEVs a waste of time and money. Long live the ICE. 

If only it were actually that simple... 



#132 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 14:05

V8 Fireworks, on 03 Jan 2020 - 10:11, said:

Chevron for example think there will still be a huge demand for fuels for aviation and shipping for a *very* long time to come.

There is a famous example of industry forecasts in that AT&T was poised to be an early leader in mobile phone technology when in 1980 it commissioned a consultancy to predict the number of phones in the US by the year 2000. The consultancy said 900,000 and so AT&T decided not to pursue the opportunity. By 1990 AT&T spent billions on re-entering the market and the actual number of mobile phones in the US in the year 2000 was over 100 million. 
 
The moral of the story? Industry predictions can get it astonishingly wrong. 
 
I think the situation we face over the next two decades with the climate threat makes the chances of large companies, one way or there other, getting their predictions astonishingly wrong are very high. As for who they are and what predictions will be incorrect... time will tell.

Mild case in point:

SonGoku, on 03 Jan 2020 - 12:41, said:

I still remember people complaining that F1 in 2013 was too fast too soon with the hybrids and look at it now six years later...
totally different views.


Edited by Ben1445, 03 January 2020 - 14:07.


#133 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 03 January 2020 - 15:24

Ben1445, on 03 Jan 2020 - 09:45, said:

I still think the biggest issue facing ICE based racing is simply going to be funding. It is going to get harder and harder to find commercial backers, either to build the equipment or to put money forward as a sponsor.

Hence we get to the final truth of the matter:

 

Petrol ICE racing will continue indefinitely into the future. BUT, once the major manufacturers drop away it will only be 'garagistas', and eventually hobbyists, that have teams. The engineering cutting edge will necessarily blunt because they will be, effectively, amateurs.

 

The future will be in whatever the major manufactures are building and selling, therefore, having money to support racing to keep their brand in the public eye. Precisely what will be that future power system for well-supported racing is subject to speculation at this point. Formula e is making a good play to be first on the market with a well-developed series and brand. 


Edited by BalanceUT, 03 January 2020 - 15:25.


#134 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 January 2020 - 19:06

ElectricBoogie, on 03 Jan 2020 - 02:10, said:

Cars are big to use. Next to our home, the largest things we'll own and extend our identity with. We are very attracted to brands. As ball sports fans with their favorite teams. It takes a lot to take a loyal away from a terrible club or car brand.

F1 fans are aging. FE fans are young.
Sure, F1 has Mercedes and Ferrari, Renault, Honda.
But Mercedes is in FE already as well. With Porsche, Jaguar, Nissan, BMW, Audi. But also newer brands like NIO, Mahindra, ZS. Notice the length of that list?

The BEV scene is bringing new brands into our daily car reality. And some of these brands come racing.
Now FE is mostly spec of course, but wait until it gets more exciting technically. F1 is going to look ancient. No Ferrari in FE, they don't even make battery cars, but will the next generation care as much? F1 has less and less going for itself, viewed from the future. Now I want my racing fast so I'm not going anywhere, but 2021 better work out and pave a new road for F1, because ICE's are going out of style like cigarettes. One day they'll have a race in the worng place, stroke the local EV fans just the wrong way and it will be awkward. 6 figure crowds against the on-going GP awkward. No need to tell anyone that environmentalist are getting a bit foamy around the mouth of late. It's two trains on the same track in opposite directions. F1 can try to stay as it was or become relevant again, whether we like it or not.


How is F1 relevant? Or how should it be relevant? Are, for example, football and basketball relevant aside from entertainment?

#135 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 03 January 2020 - 19:10

Ben1445, on 03 Jan 2020 - 08:43, said:

My question here then is why IndyCar has felt the need to add a ‘hybrid’ for 2022? Of all the established major series it was perhaps best placed to stand on its own.


I don’t know but it could be just because it’s fashionable right now. It also comes to mind that the transition to a 100% show auto racing series is a process that takes longer to mature, at least until the separation between racing and transportation is more tangible.

#136 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 20:49

THEWALL, on 03 Jan 2020 - 19:10, said:

I don’t know but it could be just because it’s fashionable right now. It also comes to mind that the transition to a 100% show auto racing series is a process that takes longer to mature, at least until the separation between racing and transportation is more tangible.

I think the way I was reading it was that IndyCar was at a good point to switch paths with the 2022 car. Almost everything about the series is spec other than, what is it, dampers and the choice of two really quite similar engines (for the most part anyway)? With 2022 it could have just said 'hey, we're going to stick with a pure V6 twin turbo and heave at least one specialist engine builder make it' and not care if the manufacturers were onboard or not. It has a history of practically legacy pre-war Offenhauser racing engines still winning into the 70s so hardly against heritage. 

 

I mean maybe enough money flows from the likes of GM to Penske Honda to Andretti for them to choke at the thought of loosing that income, hence the hybrid in 2022. So maybe you are right in that the separation isn't yet enough. I just wonder how easily IndyCar could feasibly shake off the manufacturer link now it has made a commitment to keep this way for that much longer? 

 

What is the path to success for a pure ICE racing, manufacturer-less series? Maybe manufactures in racing is what give audiences the most recognisable, tangible link. A1 GP tried to make that link nationality and failed to make it stick, but that was a while ago. There was Super-league Formula which tired to make the link football for some reason. There's the new S5000 down under which wants to make that link about... thundering V8 nostalgia? ..which seems like going after a diminishing audience potential to be brutally honest. Jury is still out. 

 

Even when we had more specialist race car builders it was in a time when tinkering on your own car in your garage was much more normal. The link was perhaps in that hobby and seeing private race car builders as the creme de la creme of that hobby, but at the end of the day still linked to the transport people used every day. Now the small builders seem to be professional engineering outfits who happen to build racing cars which is much less of a tangible link. 



#137 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 January 2020 - 22:23

Ben1445, on 03 Jan 2020 - 20:49, said:


What is the path to success for a pure ICE racing, manufacturer-less series?

Drivers are the key. So long as you have the World Chamionship, which every up-and-coming driver wants to compete in, then your series will be popular. If, as THEWALL suggests, you focus first and foremost on the quality of racing, then F1 could be a hugely successful sport without any need for road relevance or manufacturers.

 

Racing has always contained the seeds of its own destruction, and every formula has sought to restrain technical development, speed, and cost. Why? Because those things spoil the racing. They spread out the field and reduce the number of competitors, while safety concerns ruin the circuits.

 

We're reaching the stage now where it has to change, especially since the always questionable "relevance" bit is likely to disappear.

 

Like all change it's full of risks. One is that slower/cheaper/less sophisticated cars might turn those ambitious drivers away. But if that can be managed there's great potential for a sustainable sport.

 



#138 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2020 - 23:56

Sterzo, on 03 Jan 2020 - 22:23, said:

Drivers are the key. So long as you have the World Chamionship, which every up-and-coming driver wants to compete in, then your series will be popular. If, as THEWALL suggests, you focus first and foremost on the quality of racing, then F1 could be a hugely successful sport without any need for road relevance or manufacturers.

I don't think you are entirely wrong, per se... but

 

My first thought is that up-and-coming drivers are young - largely born after the year 2000 now - and they are only going to get younger. On the whole, I would say it is a generation which has a much sharper focus on the environment and climate than the preceding ones. Will a pure ICE series continue to be seen as a desirable place to make a career by enough of them?

 

The next thought comes back to money. I've already said I think it is going to be harder to find financial backing for pure ICE series. The flip side of that is that series with notably sustainable qualities, ranging from the most advanced hybrids to something Formula E, are going to find it easier. The more money there is, the higher the prize funds and driver salaries. Are the young, environmentally minded drivers of the future going to want to eschew higher financial rewards just for the sake of racing an old ICE vehicle? 

 

Maybe it's all good news for the purists. Maybe it means pure ICE racing will be a real sport of passion with lower budgets and drivers who do it for the sheer love of it above all else. But that means it would inevitably become more of a niche thing, like BalanceUT says in post #133. Or it just will be the sport of the rich, even more so than it already is. 



#139 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 04 January 2020 - 00:34

Ben1445, on 03 Jan 2020 - 23:56, said:

I don't think you are entirely wrong, per se... but

My first thought is that up-and-coming drivers are young - largely born after the year 2000 now - and they are only going to get younger. On the whole, I would say it is a generation which has a much sharper focus on the environment and climate than the preceding ones. Will a pure ICE series continue to be seen as a desirable place to make a career by enough of them?

The next thought comes back to money. I've already said I think it is going to be harder to find financial backing for pure ICE series. The flip side of that is that series with notably sustainable qualities, ranging from the most advanced hybrids to something Formula E, are going to find it easier. The more money there is, the higher the prize funds and driver salaries. Are the young, environmentally minded drivers of the future going to want to eschew higher financial rewards just for the sake of racing an old ICE vehicle?

Maybe it's all good news for the purists. Maybe it means pure ICE racing will be a real sport of passion with lower budgets and drivers who do it for the sheer love of it above all else. But that means it would inevitably become more of a niche thing, like BalanceUT says in post #133. Or it just will be the sport of the rich, even more so than it already is.


If it makes the exercise clearer, forget about ICEs. Why is, for example, European football so successful? Because they have managed to create an exciting spectacle with good entertainment and because they have the best players. Ice hockey is basically football with skates, sticks and a puck and it can also be very entertaining and commercially successful.

Point being: if the racing is good, the engine can be an ICE, a hybrid, an electric engine or a hydrogen one; it doesn’t matter. What will soon become unsustainable is F1 being primarily a vehicle for corporations to achieve their objectives, ignoring the fans by creating bad entertainment.

The divorce between F1 as a testing ground/corporate objective, and F1 as pure entertainment will have to come sooner than later, especially in a time when racing and transportation are less related than ever before.

Advertisement

#140 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:39

THEWALL, on 04 Jan 2020 - 00:34, said:

If it makes the exercise clearer, forget about ICEs. Why is, for example, European football so successful? Because they have managed to create an exciting spectacle with good entertainment and because they have the best players. Ice hockey is basically football with skates, sticks and a puck and it can also be very entertaining and commercially successful.

Point being: if the racing is good, the engine can be an ICE, a hybrid, an electric engine or a hydrogen one; it doesn’t matter. What will soon become unsustainable is F1 being primarily a vehicle for corporations to achieve their objectives, ignoring the fans by creating bad entertainment.

The divorce between F1 as a testing ground/corporate objective, and F1 as pure entertainment will have to come sooner than later, especially in a time when racing and transportation are less related than ever before.

You’re absolutely right in that such a hypothetical, manufacturer-free series focussing purely on the entertainment of the racing and driver skill can use any form of propulsion that it likes. So let’s run with that for a moment.

F1-like performance could be achieved by lightweight, electric single seater streamliners making use of quick-change battery swaps and displaying insane levels of torque, power and acceleration. It would be a spectacle and a half. It would not necessarily be road relevant and focus on the pure entertainment of the driver skill in insane machines, just like its equivalent pure ICE series. However, it would retain the advantage of being environmentally more acceptable and so we’re back to my point about what is more likely to attract more money from sponsors, tv deals etc. and therefore command higher driver salaries and pull in the best drivers.

Ironically, perhaps the road-relevance of the hybrid is what is keeping and will continue to keep the ICE going in motorsport. We aren’t seeing a whole load of new/proposed, ICE only series ready to leap free from the shackles of manufacturers. Instead, waiting in the wings for 2020-2022 we are seeing either pure ICE based series turning hybrid (Indy, WRC, BTCC) or new electric based series (ETCR, eWRX, Extreme E).

#141 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:10

Ben1445, on 04 Jan 2020 - 03:39, said:

You’re absolutely right in that such a hypothetical, manufacturer-free series focussing purely on the entertainment of the racing and driver skill can use any form of propulsion that it likes. So let’s run with that for a moment.

F1-like performance could be achieved by lightweight, electric single seater streamliners making use of quick-change battery swaps and displaying insane levels of torque, power and acceleration. It would be a spectacle and a half. It would not necessarily be road relevant and focus on the pure entertainment of the driver skill in insane machines, just like its equivalent pure ICE series. However, it would retain the advantage of being environmentally more acceptable and so we’re back to my point about what is more likely to attract more money from sponsors, tv deals etc. and therefore command higher driver salaries and pull in the best drivers.

Ironically, perhaps the road-relevance of the hybrid is what is keeping and will continue to keep the ICE going in motorsport. We aren’t seeing a whole load of new/proposed, ICE only series ready to leap free from the shackles of manufacturers. Instead, waiting in the wings for 2020-2022 we are seeing either pure ICE based series turning hybrid (Indy, WRC, BTCC) or new electric based series (ETCR, eWRX, Extreme E).


Are we sure electric is really more environmentally friendly than fuel though? I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that yet from what I’ve read.

And I think you are missing an important variable in the potential success of an electric series: the sound and, with it (or, rather, without), you lose a large part of the fans, potential sponsors, tv deals, etc.

I don’t think we have seen a series really trying to break away from manufacturers and market as pure entertainment yet. The umbilical cord joining racing series and manufacturers is still too thick. The real question from a market research perspective would be: is there a big enough target market to make racing as entertainment profitable?

#142 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,594 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:04

THEWALL, on 04 Jan 2020 - 05:10, said:

Are we sure electric is really more environmentally friendly than fuel though? I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that yet from what I’ve read.

We must be reading different sources then. 

 

THEWALL, on 04 Jan 2020 - 05:10, said:

And I think you are missing an important variable in the potential success of an electric series: the sound and, with it (or, rather, without), you lose a large part of the fans, potential sponsors, tv deals, etc.

Well, I did consider it - I just don't believe it to be nearly as important as some people think it is. It's always talked about as a fundamental feature of what makes motorsport good. The reality is the sound has also put off potential fans, it's limited profitably of racing venues, generally forcing them to be in the middle of nowhere. Circuits have had to close over the years because of noise complaints, or had restrictions out on their operational hours because of it. Excessive noise is actually as much of a drawback as it is a draw. 

 

You talked about European football being a success - that's just people running around a field kicking a round object about. There's nothing about the noise of the actual activity connected to success there. Horse racing is hardly a particularly noisy affair either. Or downhill skiing. I could go on. 

 

And anyway, electric motorsport is not silent - people who've been to see a Formula E event know that. You just don't need earplugs. 

 

THEWALL, on 04 Jan 2020 - 05:10, said:

I don’t think we have seen a series really trying to break away from manufacturers and market as pure entertainment yet. The umbilical cord joining racing series and manufacturers is still too thick. The real question from a market research perspective would be: is there a big enough target market to make racing as entertainment profitable?

I did touch on things like A1 GP - that was a while ago sure but if they weren't trying to break away from manufacturers and be pure entertainment I don't know what else you'd describe it as.  Maybe they were too early. More up to date I have also mentioned S5000, which as far as I am aware is making itself about the racing and the drivers over anything else but it's not exactly arrived with much impact. Again, maybe it is too early. Or maybe it is that the links between transport and racing will never be truly severed. 

 

Is there a big enough market make racing as an entertainment profitable? Yeah, I believe there is. I'm just not so sure the same market research is going to say that such a series would be best served by ICEs. 


Edited by Ben1445, 04 January 2020 - 10:18.


#143 absinthedude

absinthedude
  • Member

  • 6,224 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 04 January 2020 - 11:35

Regarding electric being better for the environment.....the answer is "it depends". 

 

It depends a lot on the battery technology, what they batteries are made of, how the materials are obtained (lithium mining, anyone?) and how they are disposed of when no longer useful. It also depends on how the electricity is generated. If we're going to "go electric" regarding private vehicles, we're going to be doing a hell of a lot of cabling...ripping up roads and pavements, installing cables, installing chargers....we also need to invest in producing *much* more electricity than we currently are. We can barely keep up with demand now...with fossil fuel generation of electricity quite rightly going out of favour, we not only have to make up for the loss of coal/gas burning power stations but also add capacity for all these (currently hypothetical) EVs that people want us to drive. 

 

One of the problems with renewable energy sources is that they're very geographically dependent. Solar power isn't a whole lot of use in the UK or further North. Wind can work but it does come with problems. Off-shore wind farms may well be a big part of solving those issues. Geothermal only works in a few areas. Hydroelectric generally requires large bodies of water and the right environmental circumstances and has since (in some cases) been found to cause wildlife problems. A global strategy whereby every region generates "green" electricity in the way that works best for itself, and whereby we pool our resources would be the ideal way forward. That way solar in desert regions gets pooled with wind from windy regions and so on....but I can't see the human race actually cooperating on this level. 

 

I still say that nuclear power has a huge part to play. It doesn't contribute to global warming/climate change, the death toll from nuclear power even with the handful of highly publicised disasters is still lower than that from renewables....and while the waste is very nasty, the actual volume of waste produced is very low per power station and *can* be dealt with. People just get scared when the word "nuclear" is mentioned - mostly because they don't actually know anything about it. 

 

I will always have my doubts about EVs replacing our private cars because I don't see the evolution of the EV resulting in a vehicle anything close to one as convenient and versatile as a petrol or diesel car. But they will play a part, and I do see that we need to wean ourselves off coal and gas generation of electricity (though you will take my gas cooker from my cold, dead hands thank you very much). 

 

 

Regarding motorsport in general and F1 in particular, electric will find it's places. Rallycross seems almost tailor made for EVs. Other forms of competition will either be invented or adapted for EVs. FE is an interesting proof of concept and clearly has a future. ICE in F1 will continue to play a dominant role for the foreseeable future because there *is* no alternative available and nothing on the horizon which is remotely comparable. 



#144 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,812 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2020 - 12:33

absinthedude, on 04 Jan 2020 - 11:35, said:

Regarding electric being better for the environment.....the answer is "it depends". 

 

It doesn't really matter, though. The climate situation and is not going to be turned around. So it really just comes down to which technology is going to make the most money for those involved.



#145 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 January 2020 - 13:08

See, racing is never going to be very viable. 
In F1, the races add up to around 6,500 km. That's the core. Plus some practice and testing. Overall, the same as a typical car owned by a person with a normal job.
But, it takes 1-2 chassis, 4 PU's and lots of spare parts, especially tyres. In that sense, Racing is just utter hooligamism.
How much fuel does an F1 team burn anually, for the cars and testing thereof alone? We need to include fuel burned on the bench.

Batteries are a real hit to the environment initially, but then they tend to have a long life. even beyond its use in the car. Say, a range battery outlived its racing performance. It could still power a motorhome for years to come. Or serve as battery for a vehicle used at the factory. Good luck using an F1 engine for anything else than F1 racing. Ask Mercedes how their One car is coming along.

Idea for battery swaps: you need to use at least one of your batteries from last race again in sealed spec. So if there is a big improvement, the impact om performance is somewhat slowed.
If 3-stop is standard or a minimum, the battery rule could simply become that you can add only so many packs over a season and per race you can use only one new on.



#146 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,812 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2020 - 14:11

ElectricBoogie, on 04 Jan 2020 - 13:08, said:

See, racing is never going to be very viable. 
In F1, the races add up to around 6,500 km. That's the core. Plus some practice and testing. Overall, the same as a typical car owned by a person with a normal job.
But, it takes 1-2 chassis, 4 PU's and lots of spare parts, especially tyres. In that sense, Racing is just utter hooligamism.
How much fuel does an F1 team burn anually, for the cars and testing thereof alone? We need to include fuel burned on the bench.

Batteries are a real hit to the environment initially, but then they tend to have a long life. even beyond its use in the car. Say, a range battery outlived its racing performance. It could still power a motorhome for years to come. Or serve as battery for a vehicle used at the factory. Good luck using an F1 engine for anything else than F1 racing. Ask Mercedes how their One car is coming along.

Idea for battery swaps: you need to use at least one of your batteries from last race again in sealed spec. So if there is a big improvement, the impact om performance is somewhat slowed.
If 3-stop is standard or a minimum, the battery rule could simply become that you can add only so many packs over a season and per race you can use only one new on.

 

All nice arguments, but no one is going to go that way. That's not what people are talking about as interesting to them.



#147 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 6,166 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 04 January 2020 - 14:22

I'll put in a small note that World Rallycross's 2021 electrification plan involves conversion kits wich fit into existing WRX chassis. STARD, who are doing the 2020 trial run of all this with Projekt E want to expand this kit into rally and touring applications.

 

There's discussion on it here: https://forums.autos...2020/?p=8926000

 

Why mention it? Because the elecrificaiton kit purchase and support package cost is less than the ICE option. Electric powertrains are much more simple than ICEs and require far less maintenence. Now that battery pack costs have come down dramatically, they are incredibly cost competitive with ICEs. That has huge implications for every low-cost national, club, grassroots or privateer heavy series where keeping costs of entry low is key.



#148 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 04 January 2020 - 18:11

pdac, on 04 Jan 2020 - 14:11, said:

All nice arguments, but no one is going to go that way. That's not what people are talking about as interesting to them.

I'm usually ahead of the curve. I posed a new wheelsize to a bike brand and they launched, to a T, 8 years later. And was a hit.
Tell me I was full of it, 8 years from now ;-)



#149 BobbyRicky

BobbyRicky
  • Member

  • 1,596 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 04 January 2020 - 18:23

pdac, on 04 Jan 2020 - 14:11, said:

All nice arguments, but no one is going to go that way. That's not what people are talking about as interesting to them.

 

I think it sounds very interesting actually.



#150 djr900

djr900
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: July 17

Posted 04 January 2020 - 18:44

absinthedude, on 04 Jan 2020 - 11:35, said:

Regarding electric being better for the environment.....the answer is "it depends". 

 

It depends a lot on the battery technology, what they batteries are made of, how the materials are obtained (lithium mining, anyone?) and how they are disposed of when no longer useful. It also depends on how the electricity is generated. If we're going to "go electric" regarding private vehicles, we're going to be doing a hell of a lot of cabling...ripping up roads and pavements, installing cables, installing chargers....we also need to invest in producing *much* more electricity than we currently are. We can barely keep up with demand now...with fossil fuel generation of electricity quite rightly going out of favour, we not only have to make up for the loss of coal/gas burning power stations but also add capacity for all these (currently hypothetical) EVs that people want us to drive. 

 

One of the problems with renewable energy sources is that they're very geographically dependent. Solar power isn't a whole lot of use in the UK or further North. Wind can work but it does come with problems. Off-shore wind farms may well be a big part of solving those issues. Geothermal only works in a few areas. Hydroelectric generally requires large bodies of water and the right environmental circumstances and has since (in some cases) been found to cause wildlife problems. A global strategy whereby every region generates "green" electricity in the way that works best for itself, and whereby we pool our resources would be the ideal way forward. That way solar in desert regions gets pooled with wind from windy regions and so on....but I can't see the human race actually cooperating on this level. 

 

I still say that nuclear power has a huge part to play. It doesn't contribute to global warming/climate change, the death toll from nuclear power even with the handful of highly publicised disasters is still lower than that from renewables....and while the waste is very nasty, the actual volume of waste produced is very low per power station and *can* be dealt with. People just get scared when the word "nuclear" is mentioned - mostly because they don't actually know anything about it. 

 

I will always have my doubts about EVs replacing our private cars because I don't see the evolution of the EV resulting in a vehicle anything close to one as convenient and versatile as a petrol or diesel car. But they will play a part, and I do see that we need to wean ourselves off coal and gas generation of electricity (though you will take my gas cooker from my cold, dead hands thank you very much). 

 

 

Regarding motorsport in general and F1 in particular, electric will find it's places. Rallycross seems almost tailor made for EVs. Other forms of competition will either be invented or adapted for EVs. FE is an interesting proof of concept and clearly has a future. ICE in F1 will continue to play a dominant role for the foreseeable future because there *is* no alternative available and nothing on the horizon which is remotely comparable. 

I would agree with most of what you say,

except the Nuclear bit - I am sure the residents of Chernobyl & Fukashima  don't think Nuclear is very "green"  +  I think we were actually very lucky with both those situations as they could both have been much worse