Quote from 5th Earth :

Apologies for the energy/power mistake--you are right of course, not sure what I was thinking.

I´m afraid I´m the one whos got to appologize, for getting the notion that you had no idea what you were talking about from it.

Quote :

For the efficiency of electric motors making up for low energy density in the batteries, I beg to differ. Currently available electric vehicles struggle to top a range of 200 miles, and even optimistic claims for future vehicles are only in the 300-350 miles area. My '94 Honda Civic can easily manage, real world, 250+ miles on a small 10-gallon tank (I've repeatedly proven this with my in-car odometer).

Yes there are some issues with the idea, but you´ve also got to factor in, that the motor tends to be lighter, that you dont need a clutch, and that you might not even need a gearbox. So there might or might not be a weight advantage, that you can put into more batteries. Lastly there currently is very little money in and put into high performance batteries (there´s the rc niche market but other than that all battery developments are towards cell phones and similar applications) so things might turn quickly if racing teams were to put money in such projects.

Additionally if the rc market is anything to go by, electric motors have already surpassed nitros in many categories of rc and continue to do so.

Quote :

Factor in that regenerative braking will be negligible for a racing vehicle

I have to disagree here. There are of course issues with the ides since the main braking force comes from the front with the driven wheels usually at the rear. But with a race car you´re always either braking or accelerating, so unlike in road traffic there´s a lot less energy spent to just keep the speed against the various resitances you encounter, and much more spent on acceleration which you can feed back during decceleration.

Quote :

and pit stops would require the replacement of the entire battery pack(s)

I fail to see the issue with that. If anything this would speed pitstops up a lot if the batteries were to be placed in an easily accessible spot like the sideskirts.

Quote :

I don't think we'll be seeing an electric F1 anytime soon.

We most certainly won´t, but unless the FIA opens up to the possibility we never will.

Quote :

Hydrogen has great energy density by mass, but terrible energy density by volume. Even liquid hydrogen packs a mere 8 megajoules per liter

Whoops didn´t think of that. That is of course an issue and a big one at that.

Quote :

It could be done, but it would be a very different vehicle.

The real question here would be if it is faster though. Obviously I don´t have an answer to that one but I can tell you that we will never see a very different car as long as the shape of F1s is regulated to the point that they´re almost part of a spec series.

Quote :

If you want the best fuel, money no limit, according to wikipedia Boron seems to be the best choice. Incredible energy density by mass and volume--no idea how you'd build an engine around it though.

Plus its not exactly available in large quantities. While I hate the stupid argument that F1 is supposed to have a direct influence on current road car development (it´s not btw) this one would be so far away from even having the slightest chance to ever be employed on the road that I´d be stonrgly against the idea.


I am of course bulding castles in the air here, but the fact remains that by specing F1 more and more the FIA is going to curb all innovations that could be done which also hurts samller F1 teams that always have been the backbone of F1.
If you ask me we need to get back to an F1 that is open to new innovative ideas made by teams which are not afraid to go down a different route that might hurt them in the short run (think renaults turbos) or if they´re lucky drastically change the playing field in their favour over night.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Also, F1 autos are just automatically controlled semi-autos, not autos like most road cars have.

Don´t you mean auto controlled sequentials?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Do you remember the race(s) when gear lever knobs fell off, and the driver (I'm thinking of Senna here) finished, and won, the race using a threaded rod to shift with? His hand was chewed up and bleeding, the glove virtually non-existant!

It´s a little weird to romanticise that story, but either way on a more comical note this reminds me of a great comic where Donald comes into the pits and asks for new shoes since his whole undertray including the engine fell off several laps ago and he had been flintstoning it ever since.

Quote from Shotglass :

Don´t you mean auto controlled sequentials?

Nope. The F1 autos of a few years ago were normal 'manual' gearboxs, but instead of waiting for driver input to change, it would shift when the computer felt it was right to do so. However, F1 gearboxes are NOT sequential in design like, say, a motorbike design. The only reason F1 gearboxes are sequential is because there is only an UP and DOWN control. You can't (easily) make a motorbike gearbox into a full manual, but you can turn a full manual into a sequential using electro-hyraulic activators.

Imho, H-shifters aren't the way to go anymore. It is just too old-fashioned in a racing series than tries to be the no.1 in the whole world.

What I'd like to see is:
- to get sequental shifters (forward/backward) in F1 cars with the added condition that there must be a mechanical connection between the stick and the gearbox.
- Strip down all the electronics from the gearbox and use very limited ecus with one-make software for the engine. A fully electronically controlled differential (active diff) should be allowed. No tc of any kind!
- Allow the teams to make all kinds of different engine with few given limits. No turbos. The condition is that every team that makes engines needs to sell them too. Very limited changes allowed to the engines during the season. One engine for more than one race. Use of bio fuels +1, and limiting the rev range to decent levels.
- Use same stiff tire compunds throughout the season.
- less aero from body and wings, more use of ground effects
- limit the aerodynamic work done to the chassis
- free the work for better suspension systems, active suspensions etc.

Imho, what I read from the first post, it just seems to me that the engineers have too much power over the drivers. Drivers want more power, more speed and better cars with more passing. Engineers want 4wd cars that have nice mirrors made of shiny materials and tires that have nothing to do with rubber.

In the end, F1 should be a drivers' challenge, not the engineers challenge. Costs should be low enough for a team without car manufacturer's support to have success and win races. After all F1 is a spectator sport, not some testing ground

Quote from tristancliffe :

Obviously you didn't watch (or read about) pre-paddle shift F1 - missing shifts was fairly common.

LOL! I've watched far too much and know that the sixties F1 races could be as processional as today's. To a certain extent, the past seems better because, in the main, we see it via a series of highlights.

Quote :

I would be happy with mechanical sequential systems if the shift was via a lever on the cockpit side, but I'd still massively prefer a mechanical h-gate shift.

Again, I don't really understand why it matters where the lever is situated. They're drivers, and their job is to race. Being able to juggle is laudable, but .... I hate jugglers.

As a spectator, I'm not entirely convinced by your arguments. I understand what you say about the kind of skills required, but feel there are plenty of classes that allow for drivers to work with an h-gate. I don't understand why you feel its particularly important for Formula 1.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Ban TC in ALL motorsport - we can do it, we don't need to prove it anymore.

A far more convincing argument!

Whatever anyone chooses to believe about F1, it always has been a constructor's championship, as much as a driver's and therefore any neo-luddite attitude to building the cars seems out of place to me.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Imho, H-shifters aren't the way to go anymore. It is just too old-fashioned in a racing series than tries to be the no.1 in the whole world.

Rather obvious, really. Even V8 Supercars have toyed with sequentials.

Quote :

What I'd like to see is:
- to get sequental shifters (forward/backward) in F1 cars with the added condition that there must be a mechanical connection between the stick and the gearbox.

Sequential sticks are a good idea, I doubt there would be space to fit them in the current size cockpit.

Quote :

- Strip down all the electronics from the gearbox and use very limited ecus with one-make software for the engine. A fully electronically controlled differential (active diff) should be allowed. No tc of any kind!

Less electronics would be a great idea, as would one make software. A ban on TC would be a good idea.

Quote :

- Allow the teams to make all kinds of different engine with few given limits. No turbos. The condition is that every team that makes engines needs to sell them too. Very limited changes allowed to the engines during the season. One engine for more than one race. Use of bio fuels +1, and limiting the rev range to decent levels.

So that would be a case of as bigger engine as you like. Multiple race engines are a great idea, but IMO it should be so many engines per season like it is the BTCC. Bioethanol would be good, but maybe with my production based engines idea it would make it difficult.

Quote :

- Use same stiff tire compunds throughout the season.

That wouldn't be workable as Monaco (for example) needs a specifically soft compound as otherwise they might as well be driving on an ice rink.

Quote :

- less aero from body and wings, more use of ground effects

A great idea. In ChampCar (ground effect + small wings) the cars can draft eachother better as the teams currently design their cars to be undraftable. IMO there should be no aerodynamic components on the bodywork inside the wheelbase. Outside of it, maybe some spec wings to make the cars more recognisable as single seaters. Like BTC-Touring car wings (which were spec) were designed to look a tad ricey and do nothing.

Quote :

In the end, F1 should be a drivers' challenge, not the engineers challenge. Costs should be low enough for a team without car manufacturer's support to have success and win races. After all F1 is a spectator sport, not some testing ground

Costs are an important part. My suggested regulations with the must sell rule would allow privateers to enter F1 easily. It could be within the realms of possiblity that it could be of a similar cost to GP2 now (car wise). That way, GP2 could be expendible. The best way to prepare young drivers is to get them against the big guys. That's why heats rather than prequalifying would be a great idea.

I hope this is a joke. What nonsense.

But environment-wise it can be a good thing. F1 world has always been the pioneer of inventing stuff, and that stuff then gets implemented in road cars also.

Quote from duke_toaster :

That wouldn't be workable as Monaco (for example) needs a specifically soft compound as otherwise they might as well be driving on an ice rink.

Running harder compounds doesn't suddenly make it impossible to drive at one track. Sure Monaco is by far the most reliant on mechanical grip but I don't see how you conclude it will be like an ice rink.

Quote :

Outside of it, maybe some spec wings to make the cars more recognisable as single seaters. Like BTC-Touring car wings (which were spec) were designed to look a tad ricey and do nothing.

F1 shouldn't be a spec series, it should have free(ish) rules so absolutely no way can you specify spec wings, by doing that you'd be substancially constraining the design of the car. Designers are always going to go for some downforce and if you allowed full ground effects and opened up other ways to generate downforce (fan cars?) you could probably reduce their desire to stick wings on the thing anyway.

Quote from sam1600 :

God, calm down!

I swear some people are so frightened by change, even when it's good for them.

The new rules are going to reduce the massive dependence on aero grip which currently makes overtaking or even close racing very difficult. GOOD FOR FANS, ie. YOU.

The new rules are going to make (or at least 'appear to make', and you know that's what really counts! ) F1 much more environmentally friendly. I don't know if you had noticed, but the whole climate change issue has gained a great deal of traction lately, and the FIA must act quickly to ensure that this does not damage F1. GOOD FOR FANS, ie. YOU, as I'm sure you don't want to see F1 disappear all together.

The new rules are going to attract greater manufacturer involvement. The costs of F1 are such now that it is impossible not to be involved without some sort of manufacturer support. Without manufacturer involvement, F1 makes about as much sense, has about as much appeal, and is about as financially viable as one-legged turtle racing. Manufacturer involvement ensures the future of F1. GOOD FOR FANS, ie., YOU, as I'm sure you don't want to see F1 disappear all together.

Finally, and most importantly, this is only a proposal. A starting point. Think about the negotiation process; for argument's sake, let's use the example of buying a new television. Do you immediately offer the highest price you are willing to pay for your new television? NO! OF COURSE NOT! That would be stupid. You start with a much, much lower price. Then, the salesperson makes you a counter-offer, and vice-versa, until you have reached a price that is acceptable to both parties. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW CHANGES TO F1 HAPPEN! It's a process of negotiation. There are more interested parties than just Max and the FIA. Max knows (unlike some of the reactionary, emotional, twitty F1 fans) that F1's survival, and future growth, depends on a number of interests which include (but are not limited to) manufacturers, the FIA, and yes, FANS.

That's right, believe it or not, the powers-that-be understand that if no-one watches F1, F1 ceases to exist.

In summary, RELAX! This is just a starting point. These changes are necessary and will benefit almost everyone. I guarantee they will ultimately benefit you as a fan. The on-track racing can't actually get much worse than it is now, right? I mean, let's be honest, F1 is pretty effing boring from a racing perspective.

Bring on 2011.

Probably the most sensible post I have seen in this thread!

You know there are so many series that cater to the control tyre, control chassis, control engine etc etc its the las thing F1 should be ,every one understands that to get into F1 is exorbitantly expensive its a given so why try and penny pinch?

for my mind F1 should go back to being the pinnacle of Motorsport and should adopt an anything goes attitude (as long as its safe) and go hell for leather on making new and weird technologies .

If i wanted to watch control type cars theres plenty of other series out there...

Quote from richo :

for my mind F1 should go back to being the pinnacle of Motorsport...

Go back to being the pinnacle of motorsport? What has replaced it?

Quote from sam1600 :

Go back to being the pinnacle of motorsport? What has replaced it?

MotoGp or Superbikes for quality racing

I love F1 but man its a wicked sedative, what i love most about is the technical innovation and personally there should be less restrictions on what they can and cant do.

**** the money,whats another 100 million

"13-second per lap power boost facility are also being considered."

It's going to interesting if there are any straights that are over 13 seconds long... the car would slow down, before the braking point for the corner when it suddenly goes back down by 60bhp, and the top speed drops... how unpredictable.

I wonder if their 13's boost system looks like this....

Quote from sam1600 :

Go back to being the pinnacle of motorsport? What has replaced it?

Only thing that makes Formula One pinnacle of motorsport is the number one on the name.

Quote from sam1600 :

Go back to being the pinnacle of motorsport? What has replaced it?

On a technological basis LeMans/sportscar racing.

On atmosphere/excitement level, historic racing, currently the fastest growing segment of any sport in Europe.

On a racing level, plenty of historics, the few remaining semi-professional series which haven't gone down the lets drive into each other to pass route and lots of club series are far more entertaining to watch.

I'm 17 and TBH there's something wrong if I'm far more interested in watching anything from Caterhams, vintage Bentleys or '60s GP cars than the current 'pinnacle' of the sport.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Do you remember the race(s) when gear lever knobs fell off, and the driver (I'm thinking of Senna here) finished, and won, the race using a threaded rod to shift with? His hand was chewed up and bleeding, the glove virtually non-existant! Does that not show ability, character, force of mind etc to an unmarked degree? Now we have drivers stopping when their knees get a bit sore!!!!!!

Quick nerd moment. James Hunt broke the gear lever at the start of the British GP in 1974 or 75. He jammed his hand onto the stub and drove the rest of the race impaled on the lever. Finished 2nd, but had to smoke his fag on the podium with his other hand.

Quote from Shotglass :

Lastly there currently is very little money in and put into high performance batteries

Well, there is the military. Anyway, you're right, racing applications would spur more research.

Quote from Shotglass :

I have to disagree here. There are of course issues with the ides since the main braking force comes from the front with the driven wheels usually at the rear. But with a race car you´re always either braking or accelerating, so unlike in road traffic there´s a lot less energy spent to just keep the speed against the various resitances you encounter, and much more spent on acceleration which you can feed back during decceleration.

The problem is the limited rate at which the batteries can be recharged. While the motor can easily extract nearly 100% of the braking energy, you can't put it back into the batteries that quickly. Gentle braking doesn't produce energy very quickly, and so you can use all of it to recharge the batteries, but hard braking will exceed the maximum recharge rate and you have to throw it away. Many hybrid cars have meters to show this--and believe me, it's not hard to exceed the 100% regenerative braking threshold.

Since race vehicles effectively always brake as hard as possible, regenerative braking would only ever recover a fraction of the energy expended.

Quote from Shotglass :

I fail to see the issue with that. If anything this would speed pitstops up a lot if the batteries were to be placed in an easily accessible spot like the sideskirts.

The batteries will probably weigh several hundred pounds. They can be made easy-access, but it's hard to move that much weight quickly. Granted, the pit crews can certainly move those tires around pretty fast...

Well, as you said, racing teams can throw a lot of money at a problem. Research probably would lead to vast improvements in all areas. I'm not opposed to the idea of an electric F1 (a new class of course, not a replacement), I just think that the teams probably wouldn't go for it unless it was part of the rules.

Quote from Shotglass :

While I hate the stupid argument that F1 is supposed to have a direct influence on current road car development (it´s not btw) this one would be so far away from even having the slightest chance to ever be employed on the road that I´d be stonrgly against the idea.

So much for totally unregulated.

I wonder if some people here actually bother to read posts carefully. I thought I mentioned that there is good promise that F1 hybrids might not be electrically based at all. Ultralight and ultrafast spinning flywheels have just been developed to recover energy from braking. It works on the concept of 2 contra-rotating flywheels that use very strong and dense but light overall flywheels that would cancel any gyroscopic forces flywheels make.

Besides, it also bypasses a lot of braking energy to electric to chemical then back to electric and finally mechanical energy inefficiencies. Mechanical energy to mechanical energy then straight back again. I can't remember exact numbers off my head right now, but last time a checked, a single 2 second braking event produces enough extractable energy to provides more than enough power to get away with smaller and lighter ICE engines.

Let's do a littel simple analyisis. Since:

KE = 1/2*m*v^2

KE(300km/h) = 1/2*600*(300/3.6)^2 = 208.33KJ

KE(120km/h) = 1/2*600*(120/3.6)^2 = 33.33kJ

Kinetic energy lost = 1750kJ

Assuming 70% conversion efficiency (a bit conservative for the kind of flywheel system they've proposed to use in F-1), that's still 1225kJ. Then assume 70% efficiency from flywheel to wheel, that's 857.5kJ. Enough for a 5 second burst of 171.5kW or 229.9hp! Remember that I used conservative estimates of efficiency. So much for the "there's not enough energy to recover" excuse. Not to mention the amount of front brake wear you'll save from this. And do remember most circuits have more than ONE heavy braking area...

BTW, how would ultralight flywheels be of any effectiveness to store mechanical energy? It's simple actually:

E = 1/2*I*w^2

Basically moment of inertia multiplied by square of rotational velocity divided by 2. It is obvious that higher rpm is a better choice then more mass. BTW, inertia increases by the square of radius too, so th ideal flywheel would be somewhat like a ring with all its mass centered at this ring. Just imagine a superdense and super-strong ring rotating at 66,000rpm...

Lets say if battery power does develop. Of course, batteries still have energy density issues both from volumic and massive point of view, but electrical storage is something that is still relatively infantile compared to other forms of energy storage. Just recently, Lithium polymer batteries have just set new standards and battery energy density. Electric cars are in a sense like what diesels were before it was given the kind of development that the latest diesels have, plenty of untapped and WASTED potential. If nanotechnology is allowed to develop and enhance electrical storage, other forms of energy could soon start to look like flintstone technology.

As for battery weight. As if internal combustion engines don't weigh in the triple digits of kilos! As if fuel doesn't take up a very significant of an F-1 car's total weight.

Point? If technology isn't allow to develop productively we will forever be condemned to old an obsolete technology along with all the inefficiencies and environmental havoc and pointless misery that goes along with it. If petrol and diesel weren't allowed to supersede steam engines and horses, we would still be living in atmospheres of choking soot and streets of horse manure to this day. And if petrol engines of today aren't allowed to be superseded by alternative forms of power, we will forever be condemned to our petroleum dependency and oil politics.

Though I don't agree with all the proposed F-1 changes (like the boost button aka p2p or more like p2ku(push to keep up)), they are absolutely right that F-1 needs a radical overhaul. F-1 in it's current state is just a sorry excuse of an existence to be absolutely blunt. It will never be the low-browed banger stupidity that so many under-evolved humans of the same type enjoy, yet it's not allowed to become as much of a technological tour de force as it should. Basically, good at NOTHING (other than making a bunch of overprivileged jerks extremely rich whilst giving nothing terribly constructive back to the world that allowed its existence). F-1 used to provide fertile ground for making new millionaires , but now it's become nothing more than a financial and technological blackhole for most as it simply consumes exponentially more resources to optimize obsolete and practically irrelevant over-restricted technology (mostly).

For F-1 to survive and thrive in the future, it must relieve itself of the past and embrace the future. And no one in their right mind here can say that F-1 should remain as we currently know it. There are annoying an prissy little ninnies and twits that will oppose all attempts to improve something that leads alot to be desired in many areas, but hopefully more technically interesting F-1 cars will attract a newer, more intelligent and ultimately more productive crowd than those bunch of twits. Trust me, there are a LOT of potential fans that F-1 as we know it today completely fails to attract.

i cant be bothered to repeat it but take a look at the article in this weeks autosport, makes it appear far better than the initial info suggested.

particularly the bit about the "boost" effect from regeneration taking over a lap to recharge so if you've used it to pass another car you may be open to being passed the next lap.

their not aiming to reduce to total power in f1, just the energy consumed and the 4wd will be due to the regen motors not a normal 4wd transmission. also they're saying that it will be one motor for front and another for rear to prevent a hidden tc effect.

however they will be a lot quieter

Quote from tinvek :

however they will be a lot quieter

I enjoy the sound of a well tuned, well designed and operating engine as anyone who has serious enthusiasm about cars ,but being quieter isn't necessarily a bad thing. Let's face it, no one in their right mind (aka without self destructive tendencies) would actually enjoy any sound over 90dB. Beyond that it's just painful and will cause permanent damage.

I remember the Audi R10 being the quietest LMP car currently raced. Granted, it's not exactly quiet, but it's way better than its petrol counterparts thanks a lot to natural turbo and particulate filter sound muffling. It's claimed to sound more like a jet turbine than a normal ICE under race use (aka large throttle openings). Unless you hate airplanes, that can't be a bad thing. Remember the good old days when people dreamt of gas turbine cars? All the sounds with none of the fuel efficiency and drivability problems.

agreed, one of the sexiest cars ive ever heard was nick manns twin turbo, 3.5 v8 morris minor

remeber watching it at loton park hillclimb and the only noise was the tyres and a swishing noise from the engine, hard to explain but very sexy in a slightly creapy / strange way

Quote from 5th Earth :

The problem is the limited rate at which the batteries can be recharged.

this is indeed true and something i havent thought of
however ive read about lipos that can be charged at up to 4C and until those technologies improve you could buffer a bunch of this energy in nicds that happy charge at 10C (pretty destructive but what the heck)
so you can at least recover some energy and theres of course always hope that once a multimillion race series is interested in batteries that can be charged as quickly as they dischage the market will change

Quote :

I just think that the teams probably wouldn't go for it unless it was part of the rules.

i guess at the moment high ampere batteries are still too much in their infancy to make such a car competitive in any class of modern motorsports so unless you gave the teams some massive bonus (like the aco often does if theyd like to see some new technology on the track) i too doubt that well see any developments in that direction in the near future

Quote from Jamexing :

I enjoy the sound of a well tuned, well designed and operating engine as anyone who has serious enthusiasm about cars ,but being quieter isn't necessarily a bad thing. Let's face it, no one in their right mind (aka without self destructive tendencies) would actually enjoy any sound over 90dB. Beyond that it's just painful and will cause permanent damage.

I remember the Audi R10 being the quietest LMP car currently raced. Granted, it's not exactly quiet, but it's way better than its petrol counterparts thanks a lot to natural turbo and particulate filter sound muffling. It's claimed to sound more like a jet turbine than a normal ICE under race use (aka large throttle openings). Unless you hate airplanes, that can't be a bad thing. Remember the good old days when people dreamt of gas turbine cars? All the sounds with none of the fuel efficiency and drivability problems.

It could sound worse - like Rick Kerry's BMW 120d in the BTCC

I stopped watching F1 since 2003 and never bothered watching it b/c drivers were relying more on computers rather than their own brains and it was boring now i watch rallys and boy its fun and i went to watch the baja rally last summer

Quote from duke_toaster :

It could sound worse - like Rick Kerry's BMW 120d in the BTCC

Mind showing us a clip of how it REALLY sounds and let us be the judge?

If it sounds like a 30 year old abused bus fair enough, but I've actually searched around for R10 sounds and it reminded me of the batmobile.

Quote from Jamexing :

Mind showing us a clip of how it REALLY sounds and let us be the judge?

Whilst modern diesels are very good engines I think you'd have to be slightly deaf to say they have a nice exhaust note, the best diesel is a quite one