77 replies to this topic

[MikeTekRacing]

So if it is an order of magnitude worse than electric, way more complicated/complex - why go that route?
Why not use electric and continue investing in storage solutions.

[Beri]

Because not all the world is ready and capable to offer electric charging for the masses.

[Ben1445]

Beri, on 28 Jun 2022 - 09:26, said:

But as it always goes; if there is a market, prices will drop and solutions will be found. Who would have thought some mere 20 years ago that battery powered cars could take people beyond 1000kms of range? Also who would have thought, back then, hydrogen making its entry into the consumer market?
F1 is tapping into a potential market for the future. One that is more needed in over 3/4th of the world rather than creating a "new" solution that needs a completely new infrastructure, which is electric propulsion for the masses. Said market, that F1 taps into, is a market that will be relevant for generations to come. And so; ludicrous amounts of money will be spend and solutions will be found. I suspect that in those same 20 years, from now, both worlds will exist next to one another. The ICE with those sustainable fuels and fully electric propulsion which is being either battery powered or hydrogen powered.

For sure, the market demand works to an extent, but for all the best will in the world market demand can't rewrite the laws of physics and thermodynamics. 
 
I think one of the core reasons I find this example interesting is that a lot of EV-skepticism can be found in believing that adding that level of energy demand to the electricity grid is going to cause problems. Whether that's true or not, the problem would only be magnified in a less efficient PtL hydrocarbon (or to a slightly lesser extent hydrogen) ICE based solution. I do think that's an important piece of understanding to have, especially the implications on viability in certain markets. 
 
Don't mistake me for an ICE-is-dead, fuel-cells-are-pointless, all-hail-EVs kind of person. I'm fully on baord with the view that there's a wide range of solutions to be applied to a wide range of problems. There's absolutely a role for those kind of synthetic sustainable fuels, especially for hard to electrify applications into which something like F1 -  entertainment thought it may be - essentially falls into for the foreseeable. 
 
However, my opinion does remain, at least for now, that synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are not going to be a leading or lasting competitor in personal transport vehicles. I expect it will be introduced to reduce the emissions impact of ageing ICE-using vehicles but that inherently higher energy prices will gradually shift people towards ever improving EV-based options and infrastructure (the speed of which not being constant across all markets). 
 
It's relevant. Just not revolutionary.

Edited by Ben1445, 28 June 2022 - 10:10.

[RedRabbit]

Beri, on 28 Jun 2022 - 08:40, said:

I wholeheartedly believe that those fuels are a step up to more. To fuels that are CO2 neutral. Which would mean that it is to be used as drop in fuel and will also supply the masses in countries that do not have the infrastructure nor the money to supply an electric grid that is steady enough to power millions and millions of electric cars. Because "we" tend to believe that we can change the world by driving electric. But there are tens of millions of old road cars and bikes driving around in countries that are not that developed. Countries who simply can not build a charging network without having to rebuild their electric grid. And if not only for this, then it is because the people of said country are too poor to simply own and maintain an electric car. Most of the people of India and China in the rural countries spring to mind.
Long term benefit is simply having fully synthetic and sustainable fuels, or hydrogen, to be used. Not having an electric car that has to charge on a power grid. Because one is simply stuffing their head in the mud if one believes internal combustion engines are a thing of the past within 100 years from now. Electric can be part of the solution. But it is most certainly not the entire solution.

Finally, someone else understands the real issues with banning ICE. European politicians need to get their heads out their rear ends and realise that Germany, France, UK etc are NOT representative of the rest of the world.

I live in South Africa. Our power grid can't supply enough electricity as it is without several hours of load shedding every day.

Now add just 10 million EVs to that and the country will literally collapse.

[Ben1445]

Meeting necessary transport emissions reduction with an electricity grid which can't support EVs (and by extension synthetic fuel production) likely means importing synthetic fuels at even greater costs. Unless that can be remedied, this would mean governments and/or the population either ascribing a higher proportion of annual budgets towards running personal cars, or using cars less and moving towards more walking, cycling and public transport. 

Edited by Ben1445, 28 June 2022 - 10:42.

[Astandahl]

MikeTekRacing, on 28 Jun 2022 - 09:35, said:

So if it is an order of magnitude worse than electric, way more complicated/complex - why go that route?
Why not use electric and continue investing in storage solutions.

 

Beri, on 28 Jun 2022 - 09:56, said:

Because not all the world is ready and capable to offer electric charging for the masses.

 

Also, investing in storage solutions is extremely expensive. It requires massive economies of scale, and in fact pretty much all the batteries are produced and developed in MEGA FACTORIES in China.

[Ben1445]

Back to the fuels F1 will be using... 

 

The relevant news is perhaps the choice of persuing synthetic fuel over a bio-fuel. This was previously something which was up in the air.  

[Brian60]

Astandahl, on 28 Jun 2022 - 10:52, said:

Also, investing in storage solutions is extremely expensive. It requires massive economies of scale, and in fact pretty much all the batteries are produced and developed in MEGA FACTORIES in China.

I posted an article on Facebook about this very thing. China is happily buying up the worlds supply of lithium to corner future battery markets, they produce all the batteries for Tesla vehicles and man manufacturers in Europe. Just one factory in China has a research and development department that employs 7000 staff, yes just the research department, not the whole factory. While cornering the lithium market they are not standing still but are heavily involved in developing sodium based batteries which seems to be the real long term (50 + years) future.

[Astandahl]

Brian60, on 28 Jun 2022 - 11:33, said:

I posted an article on Facebook about this very thing. China is happily buying up the worlds supply of lithium to corner future battery markets, they produce all the batteries for Tesla vehicles and man manufacturers in Europe. Just one factory in China has a research and development department that employs 7000 staff, yes just the research department, not the whole factory. While cornering the lithium market they are not standing still but are heavily involved in developing sodium based batteries which seems to be the real long term (50 + years) future.

Exactly. There haven't been massive breakthrough in battery technologies in the last few years because the investments costs are absolutely insane and there is no real advantage for consumers, outside the supposed lower carbon footprint.

[AustinF1]

Brian60, on 28 Jun 2022 - 11:33, said:

I posted an article on Facebook about this very thing. China is happily buying up the worlds supply of lithium to corner future battery markets, they produce all the batteries for Tesla vehicles and man manufacturers in Europe. Just one factory in China has a research and development department that employs 7000 staff, yes just the research department, not the whole factory. While cornering the lithium market they are not standing still but are heavily involved in developing sodium based batteries which seems to be the real long term (50 + years) future.

 

Astandahl, on 28 Jun 2022 - 11:39, said:

Exactly. There haven't been massive breakthrough in battery technologies in the last few years because the investments costs are absolutely insane and there is no real advantage for consumers, outside the supposed lower carbon footprint.

 

Did any of y'all ee the recent study that said road tires are emitting 85 times as much carbon as tailpipes do? If it's even 1/20 of that, then it seems likely that the wrong tree is being barked up, and not surprisingly imho.

[Ben1445]

The story citing the study on road tyres (if it’s the same one you’ve shared on the forum before) was about particulate emissions, air pollution which is bad for immediate human health.

Which isn't the same problem as carbon emissions, which is bad for long-term climate stabilty.

Edited by Ben1445, 02 July 2022 - 07:59.

[RA2]

RedRabbit, on 28 Jun 2022 - 10:16, said:

Finally, someone else understands the real issues with banning ICE. European politicians need to get their heads out their rear ends and realise that Germany, France, UK etc are NOT representative of the rest of the world.

I live in South Africa. Our power grid can't supply enough electricity as it is without several hours of load shedding every day.

Now add just 10 million EVs to that and the country will literally collapse.

 

 

There is nothing stopping SA from generating more electricity. 

[Beri]

RA2, on 28 Jun 2022 - 16:50, said:

There is nothing stopping SA from generating more electricity.

There is everything stopping SA in generating more electricity. A higher capacity grid is one to start with.

[RA2]

When SA went from candles to light bulbs what did they do then?

 

If more is needed produce more. Like with all countries wind, sun and water are free.

[Beri]

RA2, on 29 Jun 2022 - 03:00, said:

When SA went from candles to light bulbs what did they do then?

 

If more is needed produce more. Like with all countries wind, sun and water are free.

 

Oh dear, that is short sighted. And no the sun, wind and water are not free. It requires a tonne load of money just to be able to harvest it for energy. And then the energy also has to be put on a grid that can handle it. And it does not only have to handle the load of more electricity generated, but also the power peaks of charging cars.

And then we have only discussed the grid. Not even the sub stations or neigbourhood dividing stations. All which will cost billions and billions of dollars. 

 

So yes, SA may be able to get it done, same as China or India in the rural area's, but reality is that it doesnt evolve that fast in such mentioned area's or countries. It will take decades to get it done. And even then there is absolutely demand for an ICE. Can you imagine driving your electric car through the Sahara or the Gobi and running out of juice? A reserve battery back is not that compact as a jerrycan. And charging in the middle of the desert is an utopia. But gas stations in the Sahara do exist. So there will always be a certain demand for an ICE in our lifetimes.

And thus the step the FIA is undertaking with its sustainable fuels in 2026, has merit and most likely be a part of a solution that is not whole right now. As explained; electric cars are not the complete solution.

[RA2]

Beri, on 29 Jun 2022 - 12:36, said:

 

Beri, on 29 Jun 2022 - 12:36, said:

Oh dear, that is short sighted. And no the sun, wind and water are not free. It requires a tonne load of money just to be able to harvest it for energy. And then the energy also has to be put on a grid that can handle it. And it does not only have to handle the load of more electricity generated, but also the power peaks of charging cars.

And then we have only discussed the grid. Not even the sub stations or neigbourhood dividing stations. All which will cost billions and billions of dollars. 

 

So yes, SA may be able to get it done, same as China or India in the rural area's, but reality is that it doesnt evolve that fast in such mentioned area's or countries. It will take decades to get it done. And even then there is absolutely demand for an ICE. Can you imagine driving your electric car through the Sahara or the Gobi and running out of juice? A reserve battery back is not that compact as a jerrycan. And charging in the middle of the desert is an utopia. But gas stations in the Sahara do exist. So there will always be a certain demand for an ICE in our lifetimes.

And thus the step the FIA is undertaking with its sustainable fuels in 2026, has merit and most likely be a part of a solution that is not whole right now. As explained; electric cars are not the complete solution.

 

 

So the existing grid was free, but the one required for EV charging will cost billions? 

 

I wonder what the suits are doing with my tax money, o wait, buying and supplying guns!!!!

 

And if you fancy the sahara, take this

 

Edited by RA2, 29 June 2022 - 13:47.

[Beri]

Stop twisting and bending what is being written to make a point which is irrelevant.

Here is the Sahara for you. Mauritania to be precise.

[RedRabbit]

RA2, on 28 Jun 2022 - 16:50, said:

There is nothing stopping SA from generating more electricity.

Oh wait, why didn't we just think of that some 15 years back. Not all countries or politicians are the same.

[Wuzak]

J2NH, on 27 Apr 2022 - 00:36, said:

V-10,  No batteries or energy recovery.  Continue with ground effects downforce.  Similar electronics and standardized engine management systems.  Set a max wheelbase and lower the minimum weight by 200 kg.  Cover the whole green thing with "biofuel".  I want to see, hear and FEEL the cars.  Never happen but how cool would it be?

 

I doubt F1 could reduce the weight by 200kg.

 

Simply because they have higher safety requirements, such as Halo, side impact bars and harsher crash tests, and larger wheels and tyres. F1 cars have increased by 100kg over the hybrid V6 era.

 

The wheels and tyres could be reduced in size, but I doubt the rim diameter will be reduced, and will remain at 18". Some weight will be removed by narrowing the wheels and tyres, but not the amount you are looking for.

 

If your V10s have to last 7 or 8 races as the current power units do, then they will be heavier than historically.

 

The current rules have a maximum wheelbase rule (3600mm). This is likely to reduced in 2026, if not before. The cars will still be longer than years past because of required front and rear impact structures.

[Henri Greuter]

Wuzak, on 30 Jun 2022 - 06:15, said:

I doubt F1 could reduce the weight by 200kg.

 

Simply because they have higher safety requirements, such as Halo, side impact bars and harsher crash tests, and larger wheels and tyres. F1 cars have increased by 100kg over the hybrid V6 era.

 

The wheels and tyres could be reduced in size, but I doubt the rim diameter will be reduced, and will remain at 18". Some weight will be removed by narrowing the wheels and tyres, but not the amount you are looking for.

 

If your V10s have to last 7 or 8 races as the current power units do, then they will be heavier than historically.

 

The current rules have a maximum wheelbase rule (3600mm). This is likely to reduced in 2026, if not before. The cars will still be longer than years past because of required front and rear impact structures.

 

 

 

But still the rear impact structures are much shorter then what we saw before 1983. In '83 the maximum rear overhang was reduced to 60 cm from an initial 80 cm.

 

I wish we could see that again, making the cars look more balanced. Beside that, with the wings further behind the rear axle they are more efficient and that could be used to prescribe much less steeper wings with their lowest point higher above the ground. This to benefit view to the rear in the reflecting parts of the cockpit sidewings used nowadays , formerly known as mirrors.

[AustinF1]

Shockingly, Karun actually talking some good sense in FP1 re: ditching all the extra weight of batteries and turbos, and going to NA V10s running on sustainable fuels.

Hopefully this idea will gain some serioous traction.

[Ben1445]

It won’t

[AustinF1]

Ben1445, on 01 Jul 2022 - 22:41, said:

It won’t

Who knows. Seems like there may be a push beginning. They already have stated desires to reduce weight, eliminate the MGU-H, and make the cars smaller. This would be a great way to do all of those things while demonstrating that sustainable fuels don't need new tech to work very well --- all while bringing back that glorious sound.

Edited by AustinF1, 02 July 2022 - 04:10.

[Ben1445]

I think the bottom line is that, no matter how popular it sounds on paper to certain groups, it would be a huge strategic risk with wide reaching and hard to predict consequences. There would be profound knock-on impacts on participants, suppliers, partners, sponsors, team employment, investment in facilities and expertise, and so on. The effects would not be contained to F1 either, affecting the typical streams through which money flows through the sport amongst other things.

You certainly just can’t do it on the whims of nostalgia. You would essentially need to reach a consensus across the motorsport sector that hybrid tech is actively and seriously harming the sport’s growth and popularity - anything else leads to instability and the potential for cracks leading to a reduction of F1’s standing in the sport (and perhaps with it the standing of sport as a whole).

With the current commercial successes that Liberty are chalking up even with the current formula, I just don’t think that view is going to on the decision maker’s radar. The old adage applies that ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
.

Edited by Ben1445, 02 July 2022 - 00:51.

[r4mses]

Ben1445, on 02 Jul 2022 - 00:19, said:

With the current commercial successes that Liberty are chalking up even with the current formula, I just don’t think that view is going to on the decision maker’s radar. The old adage applies that ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
.

 

If there's one thing that's inherent to F1 for years, if not decades, it's fixing things that ain't broken. 

[Wuzak]

AustinF1, on 01 Jul 2022 - 22:46, said:

Who knows. Seems like there may be a push beginning. They already have stated desires to reduce weight, eliminate the MGU-K, and make the cars smaller. This would be a great way to do all of those things while demonstrating that sustainable fuels don't need new tech to work very well --- all while bringing back that glorious sound.

 

I suspect that if they do ditch ERS they will still be V6 turbos.

 

Two reasons - Porsche and Audi. We don't know exactly what was agreed to get those manufacturers on board.

 

Also, the rumours have been, for a while, for V6T without MGUH, but with 350kW MGUK. Can't see that would be helpful to weight.

[Ben1445]

Does anyone have a good weight breakdown of a modern F1 car? Ideally down the ICE, tub, fuel load, battery etc. 

[Wuzak]

Ben1445, on 02 Jul 2022 - 08:04, said:

Does anyone have a good weight breakdown of a modern F1 car? Ideally down the ICE, tub, fuel load, battery etc. 

 

Power unit is 150kg (minimm) - includes ICE, turbo, MGUK, MGUH, intake system, exhaust system, etc.

Battery is 25kg (maximum), but does not include all components.