78 replies to this topic

[Ben1445]

FIA has released the tenders for Formula E Gen4, which is set to start for the 2026/27 Formula E Season. We're in the first season of Gen3 now, there'll be three more of those after this one before this chassis would make its debut.

Chassis Tender Requirements

Battery Tender Requirements

Key changes seems to be that the current 350kW manufacturer powertrain concept will be retained and duplicated on the front of the car, replacing the 250kW regen-only kit from Atieva on the Gen3. These motors will share the power deployment up to 600kW, providing up to 350kW each (but not at the same time, presumably). As such, the chassis supplier is asked to "consider a broader and deeper front section of the survival cell, beyond the requirements of only the driver controls, safety structures. The volume shall accommodate the front powertrain kit, specific to each Manfuacturer."

There will also be the proposed use of two separate aerodynamic configurations, which may be delivered via adjustable aerodynamic parts/elements or via two separate aero configurations (similar to IndyCar's road course and speedway kits). One of these would be similar in concept to the current cars, whilst the other would be a higher drag/downforce.

Four potential duty-cycles (or race formats you could say) are to be explored:

• 300 kW Race (low drag aero)
• 600 kW Race (low drag aero)
• 600 kW Qualy (low drag aero)
• 600 kW Race (high downforce)

So, to delve into some Tech-Specs™ in comparison to the Gen3 cars, keeping as close to the actual Gen3 specs as delivered as possible:

Weight and Power (Gen3 —> Gen4)
Qualifying Power: 350kW —> 600kW (+71%)
Race Power: 300 kW —> 600 kW (+100%)
Total weight (inc. driver): 840/854 kg —> 930 kg (+11%)
Battery Weight: 284 kg —> 340 kg (+20%)
Battery Capacity: 47 kWh —> 55 kWh (+17%)
Battery Cell weight: 184kg —> 227 kg (+23%)
Regeneration: 600 kW —> 700 kW (+17%)
Max Regen(F/R): 250/350 kW —> 350/350 kW
Max Deploy(F/R): 0/350 kW —> 350/350 kW

^{(For those who can’t think in kW yet, conversion rate is 100 kW = 134.1 bhp, so just multiply everything by 1.341)}

Dimensions (Gen3 —> Gen4)
Width: 1700 mm —> 1800 mm (maximum)
Length: 5000 mm —> 5000 mm (maximum)
Height: 1250 mm —> 1250 mm (maximum)

Aerodynamics (Gen3 —> Gen4)
Low downforce kit/configuration:

• Target drag (SCx): 0.60 —> 0.65 (Gen1 was 0.75)
• Target downforce: (SCz): 2.0 (was previously 1.5 - 2.0, no data on final design)

High downforce kit/configuration:

• Target drag (SCx): 0.75
• Target downforce: (SCz): 3.0

(Perrin’s open-source 2017 F1 car data has SCx of ~1.2 and SCz of ~3.75. Assuming frontal area is similar enough I think this should give an approximate relative reference)

[UPDATING]

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 08:39.

[ensign14]

Tell everyone they can do what they want with the formula as long as they spend less than £10m.  And throw it wide open.

[Ben1445]

Battery Capacity: 47 kWh —> 55 kWh (+17%)

What I will note here is that the 47 kWh is what some reports have for the Gen3 battery capacity, whilst the original tender set a 51 kWh target. The battery development by WAE was hit by a variety of setbacks, including a change in cell spec after the first were found to be unsuitable, followed by leaking cells and vibration/shutdown issues which appeared in testing. In races this season, the FIA has restricted the usable energy to between 36 and 41 kWh. 

[LolaB0860]

Still not interested as long as it's a spec chassis. Also this bit from a month ago tells it all

https://the-race.com...3s-messy-birth/
"Jaguar, Nissan, Porsche, they’re on track but the fans don’t really care whose responsibility it was for the programme management, the battery, the fast charging, and the chassis, spare parts and all the stuff. They just care about what’s happening on track.”

Okay...

[RSRally]

Still not interested as long as it's a spec chassis.

Why not? It's Formula E.. it's meant to be about the powertrain.

[RSRally]

Serious power and more downforce incoming. Gonna need some grippier tyres to go with that!

[Ben1445]

Tell everyone they can do what they want with the formula as long as they spend less than £10m.  And throw it wide open.

Given that this seems very unlikely (and potentially very, very boring)... I still think IndyCar should do something like this as a technology challenge side-show event instead of their autonomous challenge. 

 

I'd integrate an EV time trials into the Month of May, see who could achieve the highest single, four and ten lap averages subject to safety and budget constraints. Bring in everyone from enthusiasts to university teams to manufacturers, running in different classes. Hell, run the autonomous challenge as a category if they like. Let the entires be based on an existing car/chassis or completely bespoke for the task. Demonstrate year-on-year improvements and set new EV track records annually. Perhaps even use the evolution of the competition to iterate towards a design for a short-medium oval standalone EV series. 

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 08:52.

[Ben1445]

Serious power and more downforce incoming. Gonna need some grippier tyres to go with that!

600kW is quite insane. 

 

An F2 car produces 620hp (462 kW), which for 720kg of weight is 0.64 kW/kg

 

An FE Gen4 coming in at 930 kg with 600 kW (804hp) would be 0.65 kW/kg. 

[Ben1445]

Still not interested as long as it's a spec chassis.

Does this mean you don’t watch IndyCar? Because if that’s the case you’re missing a fantastic championship…
.

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 09:14.

[Beri]

600kW is quite insane. 

 

An F2 car produces 620hp (462 kW), which for 720kg of weight is 0.64 kW/kg

 

An FE Gen4 coming in at 930 kg with 600 kW (804hp) would be 0.65 kW/kg. 

 

You put it in such perspective that these numbers are indeed amazing. Never expected this to happen quite so soon.

[Kev00]

Is there any plan to use slick tyres? I really think they should look to use one slick compound and one wet. They don’t even have to be super grippy tyres. Just durable.

[Ben1445]

Is there any plan to use slick tyres? I really think they should look to use one slick compound and one wet. They don’t even have to be super grippy tyres. Just durable.

Based on what we understand from current reporting, this is what is being considered. 

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 09:54.

[F1matt]

Is there any plan to use slick tyres? I really think they should look to use one slick compound and one wet. They don’t even have to be super grippy tyres. Just durable.

 

 

Based on what we understand from current reporting, this is what is being considered. 

 

 

With that much power its hard to see how they cant be considering slick tyres. Having one set of slicks that last for the full race weekend would be ideal. 

[JHSingo]

I'm sure it's of least importance compared to everything else, but I just hope that whoever's responsible comes up with something less hideous than what they're currently using...

 

I'll admit that I've never been a huge fan of Formula E from the start - the underwhelming performance of the cars and the fact drivers had to switch cars to finish one race just turned me off immediately.

 

I know that's old news now. But I think a racing car should make you go "wow!" in some way - in terms of performance, looks, sound, or through a combination of all three. And I just don't get that with the current gen cars. They don't look "futuristic" to me, they just look...odd. And, whilst they might be a lot quicker than they were at the very start, I don't think their performance is particularly mind-blowing either. I've not read many comments from drivers to suggest they are... 

 

Perhaps it's an unfair comparison, but I just think back to last year's Goodwood FoS. The difference in wow factor from something like the McMurtry Speirling to the latest Formula E car...well, it was night and day.

 

Gen 2 were not bad looking cars - although their design meant the racing became a bit bumper car-ish at times. But it just continues to baffle me that the series made the decision to go from that, to something that looks so awful from every possible angle. 

 

Waiting for the inevitable "actually, I think they're the best looking cars ever!!!" post... 

Edited by JHSingo, 07 June 2023 - 10:31.

[highdownforce]

An electric racing car more powerful than a WEC LMH is pretty *wow* for me.

As such, the chassis supplier is asked to "consider a broader and deeper front section of the survival cell, beyond the requirements of only the driver controls, safety structures. The volume shall accommodate the front powertrain kit, specific to each Manfuacturer."

AWD:

Edited by highdownforce, 07 June 2023 - 10:54.

[Ben1445]

[...] I think a racing car should make you go "wow!" in some way - in terms of performance, looks, sound, or through a combination of all three. And I just don't get that with the current gen cars.

My interpretation of the spec so far is that they are thinking about trying to chase after that all-important wow factor.

Gen3 has made some pretty incredible efficiency gains - they are matching or exceeding Gen2 pace and enabling longer/faster layouts (Portland International Raceway up next) all with around 20-30% less energy available to them. The step change is in the front axle recovery and massively increasing the rate of recharge that the batteries are able to accept. As we saw with pre-season issues, it wasn't completely smooth sailing to make that work, as can often be the case when pushing boundaries (would note that F1 also experienced nerve-wracking teething troubles introducing the V6Ts). If we're being brutally honest about it, however, I think we can say it hasn't added much to that sensory wow factor.

Choosing a 600kW platform, adding higher downforce options and sitting somewhere between F2 and WEC Hypercar feels like a change in tack. I would expect the pathway of incremental improvements on the same trajectory to look like similar/smaller batteries, modest power gains (maybe 400/450 kW) and similar race formats with similar/slightly extended race distance. I think what we're seeing here is loading up a bit more battery/energy, hiking up the power with all wheel drive and letting them loose. The spec says 600kW qualifying and a shorter 600kW sprint races with no energy saving are under consideration in addition to lower 300kW levels.

I'm wondering of they might do a two-day weekend similar to the Sprint/Feature races of F2 or F1's sprint qualifying. One of the races being an all-out, high-power sprint, and the other focussing on the tactical energy racing which has been developed over the past decade.

Perhaps it's an unfair comparison, but I just think back to last year's Goodwood FoS. The difference in wow factor from something like the McMurtry Speirling to the latest Formula E car...well, it was night and day.

Unfair comparison aside, I don't think the Gen3 car should have been running at FoS last year. Mahindra had barely taken the thing out of the box when they arrived at the event, and this during a time when pretty much all manufacturers were experiencing some kind of teething trouble with the new kit. It simply wasn't ready for that.

(For reference, Speirling claimed specs are 746 kW, 60kWh and less than 1000 kg - plus a downforce fan).

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 12:22.

[SenorSjon]

I really hope they can skip the Tour de France style platoon driving for energy saving. That has irked me to no end and put me off to following FE. 

[thegamer23]

I really hope they can skip the Tour de France style platoon driving for energy saving. That has irked me to no end and put me off to following FE. 

 

Not every Gen 3 race have been like that, at all, and it much depends on the circuit layout.
Mexico, Diriyah, India, Cape Town and the double header in Jakarta last weekend were much more of pure racing, and the saving was much less noticable. 

Only Berlin, Sao Paolo & half of Monaco had those extreme peleton style racing dynamics going on.

I think it's interesting to see different racing dynamics through the championship.

 

.

Edited by thegamer23, 07 June 2023 - 12:24.

[juicy sushi]

I'm sure it's of least importance compared to everything else, but I just hope that whoever's responsible comes up with something less hideous than what they're currently using...

I'll admit that I've never been a huge fan of Formula E from the start - the underwhelming performance of the cars and the fact drivers had to switch cars to finish one race just turned me off immediately.

I know that's old news now. But I think a racing car should make you go "wow!" in some way - in terms of performance, looks, sound, or through a combination of all three. And I just don't get that with the current gen cars. They don't look "futuristic" to me, they just look...odd. And, whilst they might be a lot quicker than they were at the very start, I don't think their performance is particularly mind-blowing either. I've not read many comments from drivers to suggest they are...

Perhaps it's an unfair comparison, but I just think back to last year's Goodwood FoS. The difference in wow factor from something like the McMurtry Speirling to the latest Formula E car...well, it was night and day.

Gen 2 were not bad looking cars - although their design meant the racing became a bit bumper car-ish at times. But it just continues to baffle me that the series made the decision to go from that, to something that looks so awful from every possible angle.

Waiting for the inevitable "actually, I think they're the best looking cars ever!!!" post...

I don’t think that, and would change plenty about the looks, but while the “wow” factor may be harder to see in some ways, I will attempt to fight the Gen3’s corner. EV racing is a new thing, and it suffers because everything it does is contrasted against the mature technology of ICEs. At the same time, the series has, in under a decade, developed a product that races at around the same pace, and with similar ease of overtaking, as a 1970s era F1 car. Is it perfect? No. But if you are not a fan of the enormous, very fast, but not very racy modern F1 design evolution then these cars are a bit of a breath of fresh air.

[juicy sushi]

I will say, I am not a fan of the weight going back up. Nor a fan of the car not shrinking further in size. But the rest of the technical package is very intriguing.

[Ben1445]

I will say, I am not a fan of the weight going back up. Nor a fan of the car not shrinking further in size. But the rest of the technical package is very intriguing.

I'd liked to have seen them try and push down that drag figure to SCx = 0.6 and lower, such that they don't need to add more battery weight in order to reach higher powers/extend the race durations. 

 

So to keep it at SCx = 0.65 and then add a high downforce kit (+50% more) targeted at SCx = 0.75 isn't quite the direction I would have pushed for. 

 

It's honestly possible that the teams/manufacturers looked at the response to the Speirling and said 'We want a piece of that, how can we get some?' and steered these rules more towards the performance direction over one of increasing efficiency. There's now a lot of flexibility and uncertainty in terms of what they do with this spec in terms of race formats - could be a good thing, could also... not be.

[Ben1445]

Here's a graphical representation of where this change puts the Gen4 concept in comparison to the racing landscape. The Formula E trend between Gen1 and Gen3 indicated a steady move towards something around the F2/F2/IndyNXT level. The spec in this tender suggest a clear departure from that trend in favour of a route which is closer to the sports prototype/EV-demo cars, bridging the gap between them and top-flight single seaters. 

 

 

I can see some logic in that, perhaps trying to avoid positioning FE's medium-term future as merely comparable to a junior single seater category, instead making it a distinct driving challenge of peak performance. 

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 14:02.

[highdownforce]

Here's a graphical representation of where this change puts the Gen4 concept in comparison to the racing landscape. The Formula E trend between Gen1 and Gen3 indicated a steady move towards something around the F2/F2/IndyNXT level. The spec in this tender suggest a clear departure from that trend in favour of a route which is closer to the sports prototype/EV-demo cars, bridging the gap between them and top-flight single seaters.



I can see some logic in that, perhaps trying to avoid positioning FE's medium-term future as merely comparable to a junior single seater category, instead making it a distinct driving challenge of peak performance.

I haven't read the Technical data yet, but does the Gen4 run without recharging?

Edit:

Better power to weight ratio than the ID.R with more power avaliable is something.

Edited by highdownforce, 07 June 2023 - 14:20.

[Ben1445]

I haven't read the Technical data yet, but does the Gen4 run without recharging?

The spec includes fast recharging capability up to 700kW for up to 30 seconds for a maximum recharge of 5 kWh. 

 

5 kWh at a constant 700 kW would take 25-26 seconds. 

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 14:36.

[AncientLurker]

Excited! Mostly going in the right direction.

 

The two biggest downsides are;

- weight - which I can somewhat understand with the bigger motor and more battery

- increased width - which I am very against. wider cars = less passing. Race cars, imo, need to be as small as possible. Make the new spec smaller.

[Ben1445]

From the e-Formel.de write up of the news: https://e-formula.ne...-gen4-car-49071
 

The technical specifications also leave room for interpretation regarding the Gen4 race format. The wording on maximum race power with "no energy saving" could hint at concrete plans to introduce sprint races (as we reported). Thus, scenarios are possible in which there are sprint E-Prix with "high-downforce packages" and 600 kW, but also energy-saving races with "low-downforce packages" and 600 kW or 300 kW, respectively, on tracks where maximum power would be too dangerous. Confirmation of the final sporting format is still pending, however.

This is the biggest question for me - race and weekend formats. 

 

600 kW is a lot of power, but if that's used in an all-out sprint (tender duty-cycle 4) with 55 kWh usable energy I just can't see one of these high-downforce, no energy saving sprint ePrix lasting an awful lot longer than 15 minutes. 

 

On the flip side, in low-drag configuration at 300 kW, 55 kWh targeting similar levels of energy saving as today (tender duty-cycle 1) and you could push up the race duration above the ~45 minute/90-100km format we've become used to. 

 

Or, presumably, you could also pitch something somewhere in between the two. Why not run at 400 kW for about 45 minutes? There's surely no point strictly limiting themselves to either 300 or 600 kW. 

 

How do you stitch all of those options - potentially varying from circuit to circuit and weekend to weekend - in a way which feels consistent and coherent?  I suppose there's precedent in that F1 is running it's sprint race formats inconsistently...so there's that. Best suggestion I have so far is shift to consistent double headers and run the sprint race/feature race format. Then, depending on the circuit, run a sprint ePrix between 450 and 600 kW and the feature ePrix between 300 and 450 kW. 

Edited by Ben1445, 07 June 2023 - 15:26.

[Boing Ball]

Excited! Mostly going in the right direction.

 

The two biggest downsides are;

- weight - which I can somewhat understand with the bigger motor and more battery

- increased width - which I am very against. wider cars = less passing. Race cars, imo, need to be as small as possible. Make the new spec smaller.

 

There is very little evidence suggesting that 10 cm in race car's width would influence overtaking. It's just an assumption based on appearances. Race cars are build wide to lower the center of gravity. I'd rather say, race cars are built as fast as possible. They probably noticed their mistake with Gen3 cars and fixed it. 
 

Edited by Boing Ball, 07 June 2023 - 15:23.

[Ben1445]

Other details include

Increase of expected races per season from 18 to 22
Increase of expected season mileage from 6000 km to 10,000 km

[highdownforce]

Other details include

Increase of expected races per season from 18 to 22
Increase of expected season mileage from 6000 km to 10,000 km

6.000 / 18 = 333km per round
10.000 / 22 = 454km per round

Edited by highdownforce, 07 June 2023 - 23:22.

[juicy sushi]

There is very little evidence suggesting that 10 cm in race car's width would influence overtaking. It's just an assumption based on appearances. Race cars are build wide to lower the center of gravity. I'd rather say, race cars are built as fast as possible. They probably noticed their mistake with Gen3 cars and fixed it.

What mistake? The smaller cars are able to easily overtake at Monaco when F1 cars can only hold a parade. The physically smaller size of the Gen3 car vs the Gen2 has had a noticeable benefit in creating more racing room.

[Ben1445]

Should perhaps remember that the 1800mm width in the tender is a maximum figure, not a rigid requirement.

[Ben1445]

The Race have their write up of these Gen4 tender releases: 
https://the-race.com...nders-released/
 
Main new info it adds to the pile is the following: 

The submission date for tenderers is August 31 this year and a decision will be made by the FIA by October 19 as to which companies will supply the key spec components.

The Race believes that both Prodrive and the Italian YCOM concern have been in the Formula E paddock in recent races and are known to be likely to pursue the tenders with an intention to supply.

So far all chassis-supply tenders have been awarded to Spark Racing Technologies (I think itself spun out from Frédéric Vasseur's ART Grand Prix with assistance from Dallara), though after the various troubles experienced during Gen3 and some big personnel changes it's not taught to be a certainty that they will be picked for a fourth time.
 
We know that Dome was a bidder for the Gen2 contract some time ago and that YCOM is thought to have made a bid for Gen3. 
 
YCOM look like pretty promising candidates, having worked on the Audi's R18 monocoque and structural components (and more recently their Dakar entry), the Alpha Tauri F1 team between 2016 and 2022 and the VW ID.R Pikes Peak/Time Trial electric racer among others. 

Prodrive obviously have an extensive motorsport history, and in relevant projects were behind the chassis design of the (actually pretty disastrous) Aston Martin AMR One LMP1 effort. They continue support the manufacturer's Vantage GTE program and have run/assisted various rally/off road teams in WRC/WRX/Dakar as well as Lewis Hamilton's X44 Extreme E team. 
 
The recently revived Lola operation may also be interested, having hired former Techeetah team principle Mark Preston as their Motorsports Director and aiming to specialise in alternative powertrain tech, recently advertising for a Senior Software Engineer to work on the EV/Hybrid motorsport projects. However, it's probably unlikely that they would be in a position to make a competitive bid given that they are rebuilding almost from scratch, unless they work with another partner (like YCOM or Prodrive) and agreed to leverage the value of the Lola brand as part of the bid. But alas I am again speculating aimlessly. 

Edited by Ben1445, 08 June 2023 - 12:03.

[MattK9]

600kW is quite insane. 

 

An F2 car produces 620hp (462 kW), which for 720kg of weight is 0.64 kW/kg

 

An FE Gen4 coming in at 930 kg with 600 kW (804hp) would be 0.65 kW/kg. 

 

I feel a bit like this is maybe a too big of a step from Gen3 to Gen4.

 

I would like to see less weight rather than more power. An FE car needs to be nimble around a street circuit rather than a heavy lump that accelerates quickly.

 

It is interesting that the battery weight is up 20%, but the battery capacity is only up 17%. Battery technology is going the other way, they should be able to get an additional 17% capacity without adding any weight to the car.

[MattK9]

 

The recently revived Lola operation may also be interested, having hired former Techeetah team principle Mark Preston as their Motorsports Director and aiming to specialise in alternative powertrain tech, recently advertising for a Senior Software Engineer to work on the EV/Hybrid motorsport projects. 

 

So Techeetah wont be back on the grid then?

[Ben1445]

I feel a bit like this is maybe a too big of a step from Gen3 to Gen4.

 

I would like to see less weight rather than more power. An FE car needs to be nimble around a street circuit rather than a heavy lump that accelerates quickly.

 

It is interesting that the battery weight is up 20%, but the battery capacity is only up 17%. Battery technology is going the other way, they should be able to get an additional 17% capacity without adding any weight to the car.

Yeah, the battery specs do seem fairly tame based on early impressions.

 

We can reverse engineer things a bit, in that 55 kWh usable energy might imply a total battery capacity between 58-65 kWh allowing for 5-15% reserve (based on specs for Gen1-3 batteries). For a targeted cell weight of 227kg, that suggests cell energy densities 255-286 Wh/kg... which is a range roughly in the ballpark for leading road cars today. 

 

Gen1 cells were 169 Wh/kg, followed by Gen2 at 241 Wh/kg. We currently don't have published detailed specs for the Gen3 battery. 

 

Does look like they're being really quite conservative here, especially for a battery product planned to run from 2026-2030. Maybe that's because of the issues experienced in Gen3, or because the specific demands of racing are quite extreme. I don't know. A good motorsport technology journalist could/should be digging into this. 

[MattK9]

Based on the numbers in your OP Gen3 would be 255 Wh/kg (47kWh/184kg) and Gen4 would be 242 Wh/kg (55kWh/227kg), which is going backwards.

 

Current road going cars seem to have figures between 150 & 200 Wh/kg.

 

Although some news reports/PR for future battery designs suggest that number could be much higher in 3 years time.

[Ben1445]

Based on the numbers in your OP Gen3 would be 255 Wh/kg (47kWh/184kg) 

Would note that this is figure is reliant on the assumption that the Gen3 battery cell weight actually hit the 184kg target from the tender document.

 

There currently isn't anything in the way of available sources to back this up, though there is good reason to believe that it didn't hit the targets given that we know that WAE switched from their originally intended cell supplier fairly far down the line due to some unspecified issue and that the overall Gen3 car ended up 60kg heavier than the tender target spec at launch. If all of that 60 kg was all in the battery (not a great assumption) I might expect ~40kg of that to be cell weight, leading to 47kWh/224kg or 210 Wh/kg. 

 

The targeted Gen3 usable energy was also originally 51kWh, and the 47 kWh seems to come from unofficial sources. All we really know is that is is more than 41 kWh (because that's what they were allowed to use in Mexico). It might be that it's only 43kWh (5% margin over Mexico), which for 184 kg cell weight would mean 233kWh. 

 

Things probably aren't quite that bad, and there's still the key battery advance being made of now being able to cope with 600kW regen... but has to be said that the lack of official specs for the Gen3 battery after reports of severe issues in its delivery is rather suspicious. 

[MattK9]

These battery designs will be used for 4 years with minor tweaks for reliability. I would hope that even if they are not what was promised, they will become what was promised. 

They may be in a scenerio where they dont want to tell us what the Gen3 battery is this year as next years battery will be promoted as the same battery, but actually have different specs underneath.

 

Additionally the power output in 2026 (last year of Gen3) will likely be 450 kW ish. So the regen will be circa 700 kW. 

[juicy sushi]

Is there any mention in the tender about if the manufacturers will be allowed to be involved in battery construction, as some had wanted?  It may be that they will want to do their own proprietary work to show off what they can do, and so the tendered spec could be a placeholder for whatever they actually can achieve on their own?

[MattK9]

Is there any mention in the tender about if the manufacturers will be allowed to be involved in battery construction, as some had wanted?  It may be that they will want to do their own proprietary work to show off what they can do, and so the tendered spec could be a placeholder for whatever they actually can achieve on their own?

 

I cant see why they would want to do this. It would cost a lot of money for a low amount of exposure.

Plus I think FE and whoever is the Gen4 battery manufacturer would take a dim view on a team trying to show that they are better than the FIA selected battery maufacturer.

Thirdly, car companies generally seem to buy in batteries for their road cars, so they have little incentive to show off the technology that they would just buy from a third party for road cars.

[Ben1445]

Doesn’t seem to be anything in the tender document which suggests individual manufacturers will be allowed to do any work on the battery.

Porsche were the ones who were publicly staying early on in Gen4 discussions that they would like to see battery development. I’m not quite sure how they would do it within the likely cost caps without shifting developmental focus elsewhere (barring phenomenal commercial growth through Gen3, at which point it’s too late to organise for Gen4).

More recently, Porsche seem to have been hanging their condition of commitment on FE’s willingness to invest in the media promotion of the championship more so than battery development, perhaps recognising that a prerequisite to opening more development areas is that the championship needs to show further commercial growth. If the reports of a $50m injection being prepared by Liberty Global for this purpose are accurate then things *might* appear to be lining up.

[Ben1445]

Porsche were the ones who were publicly staying early on in Gen4 discussions that they would like to see battery development. I’m not quite sure how they would do it within the likely cost caps without shifting developmental focus elsewhere.

Quick further thought on this. I think the 300-400 kW range of electric motors is about as high as we’ll see. The Gen4 concept essentially seems to carry forward the 350 kW peak for Gen3 (same as F1’s 2026 MGU I’d note) but also placing one on the front axle. From there you’ve got 700-800 kW from just two motors and that’s plenty for a racing car. The FE design case might shift from a RWD optimised motor to a AWD flexible one, and that’d be the starting point of Gen4.

If you get to a point where these motors were designed and homologated and more or less on equal footing, I suppose you could freeze the motor package hardware for future seasons (say Gen4 Evo - there’s an option for chassis contract extension to take it to a six year run) and the then redirect manufacturer budgets towards battery development. It’s a possible way around budget cap concerns around battery spending, but requires very specific conditions.

Edited by Ben1445, 09 June 2023 - 08:36.

[RSRally]

The Race have their write up of these Gen4 tender releases:
https://the-race.com...nders-released/The recently revived Lola operation may also be interested, having hired former Techeetah team principle Mark Preston as their Motorsports Director and aiming to specialise in alternative powertrain tech, recently advertising for a Senior Software Engineer to work on the EV/Hybrid motorsport projects.

Ohhh, that’s interesting.. Feeling my earlier speculation that Lola could join the FE grid as a team might not be far off the mark!

[Ben1445]

I think it’s a real long shot, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility. I’d be investigating options if I was working for Lola.

[RSRally]

I think it’s a real long shot, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility. I’d be investigating options if I was working for Lola.

Why do you think it's a long shot? Budget?

I don't know much about their set up so interested in your thoughts.. their statements regarding future invovlvement in electric powertrain based motorsport and hiring of Preston point in that direction imo.

Would imagine as a customer team initially though?

[Lennat]

Battery development, unlimited power harvesting/usage and no weight limit could make this series genuinely interesting. I understand it would most likely scare most teams away and go bankrupt, but I would follow it until that happened.

[Scotracer]

Remember battery design is very multifaceted. Road car cells are optimised for energy density. But with that theyre not good at charge/discharge without a lot of heat generation and the risks that brings, and risks of lithium plating. These are fundamental reliability and safety issues.

So what they'll be doing with these is trading off energy for power. 600kW discharge is A LOT to sustain from the battery that size. That is 11C. And recharge at 700kW is nearly 13C. If you compare with current designs that are 48kWh/350kW discharge and 600kW discharge that is 7.3C discharge and 12.5C charge. So they're pushing the cells harder, and if they go for higher drag (and probably have to move to full racing circuits at this point) then the IRMS loads are higher.

Battery development really isn't that dynamic. Most of it is taking the same levers and tweaking them to your application and then playing with the edges.

[Ben1445]

So there's been an amendment to the tender documents to remove the example duty cycle of the 600kW no-energy-save race with the high downforce package. 

 

The stipulation for 2 different aero packages for low drag and high downforce set ups has not been removed. 

[Hyatt]

Interesting chat concering silicon anode batteries, they even mention Formula E

 

[Ben1445]

We have a tyre tender release for Gen4 
 
https://legal.fia.co...258A1C005B4616/$FILE/FE%20GEN4%20ITT_TYRES_FINAL%2031.08.2023.pdf?openelement
 

Two different tyre specifications will have to be supplied within the perimeter of this tender document:

• All-weather “Baseline” tyre (referred to as Spec B in this tender document).
• “Typhoon” tyres (referred to as Spec T in this tender document) - mandatory in case of heavy rain.

Ultimately sounds like the all-weather concept can only reach so far given that, from what we believe is going on, attempts to make the tyre harder such that it maintains sufficient tread for a sudden downpour the end of the races has led to the car's ultimate pace being grip-limited at Gen2 levels at many of the circuits. Then of course the London Finale was ultimately delayed by rain, so the all-weather tyre clearly has its limits in terms of wet-weather suitability. 

 

Bringing a dedicated 'typhoon' wet would definitely alleviate the need to factor in design for this weather condition and can allow the 'baseline' tyre to be more geared towards the dry/damp conditions and unlock more performance, but does come at the cost of extra tyres being brought to event which may end up going unused. 

 

Some might ask why not bring a slick and a wet tyre? Might be a good question to ask, and there may also be a good answer to it. 

 

My guess is that much of this is a trade off between a) environmental impact of tyre set transport b) safety of the cars on track c) obligations to deliver races without major delays or cancellations and d) in realising the expected performance of the Gen3 cars. Perhaps this is the tender concept that most evenly satisfies these conditions without coming at too much of a cost to another? 

Edited by Ben1445, 04 September 2023 - 09:38.