This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:
US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l
The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.
Surely the poor showing of F1 in that metric is due to the speed that the cars are running?
If F1 cars drove at 60-100kph for the race distance they would use much less fuel, so their tonnes/km/l efficiency woudl be much higher.
When the current rules were originally devised, it ws expected that the PUs would give around the same power as the V8s + KERS, aroun 800 - 850hp.
But they have gone far beyond that, which is due to the efficiency of the combustion engine.
F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.
The concept Zynerji is talking about would have variable loads on the ICE, but with a battey in the system could be made constant load.
The wheels are driven by electric motors and the ICE is not connected directly to the wheels.
The load variability is compensated by using teh battery for additional power or for storage when the load is less than the generator output.
It is the way that I thought that Diesel locomotives worked.
The turbine/electric locomotives failed because turbines aren't as efficient as big Diesel piston engines.
This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:
US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l
The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.
Surely the poor showing of F1 in that metric is due to the speed that the cars are running?
If F1 cars drove at 60-100kph for the race distance they would use much less fuel, so their tonnes/km/l efficiency woudl be much higher.
When the current rules were originally devised, it ws expected that the PUs would give around the same power as the V8s + KERS, aroun 800 - 850hp.
But they have gone far beyond that, which is due to the efficiency of the combustion engine.
My whole point is the effort for efficiency shouldn’t come at the expense of the show.
It’s an open wheel, sprint series. Pro racing is ultimately entertainment. Entertainment = eyes, which equals sponsors, and that’s how the wheels go round.
Save efficiency gains for the sectors where it really matters.
F1 cars are not power plants or container ships. The infrastructure to make all those work is large and heavy. Both work under steady steady loads. A variable loaded vehicle like a train locomotive and heavy equipment are still using reciprocating engines, F1 is in the variable load category.
The concept Zynerji is talking about would have variable loads on the ICE, but with a battey in the system could be made constant load.
The wheels are driven by electric motors and the ICE is not connected directly to the wheels.
The load variability is compensated by using teh battery for additional power or for storage when the load is less than the generator output.
It is the way that I thought that Diesel locomotives worked.
The turbine/electric locomotives failed because turbines aren't as efficient as big Diesel piston engines.
It’s exactly how diesel locomotives and heavy machinery like cranes work.
The turbine / electric locomotives failed as you said, the power density isn’t there and they aren’t as efficient.
Modern co-gen plants use turbines power to a generator via shaft, with the waste heat being recovered for other useful work (steam) for electricity and even other uses, leaving thermal efficiencies of up to 80%. Obviously these are steady state, and the scale of infrastructure to recover all that hear dwarfs the actual turbine itself.
A good example:
How this fits into the format of a variable load, light weight, open wheel, sprint race series is another question
I really doubt any manufacturer would like to scrap the 2026 ICE.
Maybe just remove the electric part and increase the fuel flow back to 100kg/hr.
It will greatly improve drivability and weight of the PU.
I think electrification is here to stay. It definitely increases efficiency; I don't think you can achieve that level of efficiency without electrical components supporting the engine.
I would like to see F1 become more technological in the future. I believe they can develop hub motors with 150-200 hp each that weigh as much as their current hubs. And then I can also see the driver gaining control over the torque vectoring. Honda wanted to explore this direction back in 2017-2018. As you can read in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024202 ... ersteller/
This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:
US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l
The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.
Surely the poor showing of F1 in that metric is due to the speed that the cars are running?
If F1 cars drove at 60-100kph for the race distance they would use much less fuel, so their tonnes/km/l efficiency would be much higher.
Better still - if the F1 PU was installed in a "US semi truck" it would use even less fuel than the original diesel engine.
This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:
US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l
The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.
Surely the poor showing of F1 in that metric is due to the speed that the cars are running?
If F1 cars drove at 60-100kph for the race distance they would use much less fuel, so their tonnes/km/l efficiency woudl be much higher.
Also, the horrible drag. those huge convoluted wings cause a lot of drag. Even worse are the four giant cylinders. F1 has worse drag than any passenger car.
I really doubt any manufacturer would like to scrap the 2026 ICE.
Maybe just remove the electric part and increase the fuel flow back to 100kg/hr.
It will greatly improve drivability and weight of the PU.
I think electrification is here to stay. It definitely increases efficiency; I don't think you can achieve that level of efficiency without electrical components supporting the engine.
I would like to see F1 become more technological in the future. I believe they can develop hub motors with 150-200 hp each that weigh as much as their current hubs. And then I can also see the driver gaining control over the torque vectoring. Honda wanted to explore this direction back in 2017-2018. As you can read in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024202 ... ersteller/
Wheel motors have been around forever, but were never used much. Don't know why. The extra unsprung mass is not much relevant to road or commercial vehicles.
No way hub motors will be as light as the plain magnesium allow wheels we have now.
But they might not have to be. You can also squeeze in active suspension, like Michelin did with the active wheel. (At least that's how I interpret "electric suspension")
Not sure what you mean by the "driver gaining control" over torque vectoring. That's better left automatic. The driver doesn't control the differential either after all.
I really doubt any manufacturer would like to scrap the 2026 ICE.
Maybe just remove the electric part and increase the fuel flow back to 100kg/hr.
It will greatly improve drivability and weight of the PU.
I think electrification is here to stay. It definitely increases efficiency; I don't think you can achieve that level of efficiency without electrical components supporting the engine.
I would like to see F1 become more technological in the future. I believe they can develop hub motors with 150-200 hp each that weigh as much as their current hubs. And then I can also see the driver gaining control over the torque vectoring. Honda wanted to explore this direction back in 2017-2018. As you can read in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024202 ... ersteller/
Wheel motors have been around forever, but were never used much. Don't know why. The extra unsprung mass is not much relevant to road or commercial vehicles.
No way hub motors will be as light as the plain magnesium allow wheels we have now.
But they might not have to be. You can also squeeze in active suspension, like Michelin did with the active wheel. (At least that's how I interpret "electric suspension")
Not sure what you mean by the "driver gaining control" over torque vectoring. That's better left automatic. The driver doesn't control the differential either after all.
So if they're going to use hub motors in F1, do you think it will be with active suspension?
I think you're right, the wheels may not (never say never) get as light as the current wheels. But that probably won't be necessary with active suspension; I'm even thinking of electromagnetic suspension.
With the rise of EVs, I still see hub motors being relevant for road vehicles.
torque vectoring is handy in a tank but nbg in F1 etc and especially in recovery-F1
it needs spare grip that doesn't exist (tyres inside turn) and doesn't need spare grip that does exist (tyres outside turn)
I invite descriptions of how it's claimed to be otherwise
it would be handy if active aero varied the DF to equalise grip (inside /outside) in turns
This is how silly all this is. Let’s look at F1 efficiency in terms of tonnes / km / liter:
US diesel electric freight locomotive: 195 tonnes / km / l
US diesel semi truck: 51 tonnes / km / l
Formula 1: 0.56 tonnes / km / l
2022 Honda Civic S (city driving): 16 tonnes / km / l
The whole “efficiency” thing in F1 is green washing. F1 exists as entertainment, but in terms of “sustainability” and “promoting efficiency”, it’s anything but and represents one of the worst ways to move a mass via distance / consumption. A semi truck is 100x more efficient.
Surely the poor showing of F1 in that metric is due to the speed that the cars are running?
If F1 cars drove at 60-100kph for the race distance they would use much less fuel, so their tonnes/km/l efficiency would be much higher.
Better still - if the F1 PU was installed in a "US semi truck" it would use even less fuel than the original diesel engine.
With a million mile warranty too, right? I forget where it was shared, maybe in Race Engine Technology, but the current PU’s would never meet US or Euro emission standards, so they have little use in the real world, even if they could be made reliable enough to survive more than 2000 miles or so. With the AMG One, they got rid of the whole lean burn concept, partly for this reason.
I’d rather see them keep the turbo V6 and add a V4 (allow both with different displacements) allow things like variable geometry turbos, open up the bore / stroke / cylinder spacing rules, keep variable geometry inlets, don’t restrict turbo location / port orientation (possibly hot valley?), allow any firing order / crank phasing, and get rid of the manifold temperature rule. Even allow 4 valve vs 2 valve at different displacements, and open up valve actuation, with a pushrod 2 valve having a CoG advantage. All this is restricted by rules currently.
The efficiencies then should be approached from the aero side. These cars have the drag of a box truck (granted, it’s converted to downforce), but active suspension and aero is where the efficiency gains should be realized as you can make several units % gain here as opposed to sinking tens of millions of dollars in chasing marginal fractional percent gains from the PU side. As I have shown, you can have the most efficient gasoline PU’s in the world, but with the drag these cars have, they’re 100x less efficient at moving mass than a semi-truck. You can claw a chunk of that back with active aero (which should be paired with active suspension).
For sound, even with a V4 you have wiggle room. See the Ligier Storm V4 (1649cc) used in US F4. These are derived from the old Motus motorcycle engine, which was essentially a scaled down V4 of GM / Chevy LS engine. They have a 1-4-3-2 firing order on 90* crank pins and 75* phase, so you end up with 0-345-435-630 firing order.
Better still - if the F1 PU was installed in a "US semi truck" it would use even less fuel than the original diesel engine.
I doubt it. The regenerative battery charging depends on converting braking energy to electricity; large trucks drive very long distances at steady speed on freeways where there is no chance to regenerate. Sure, stop and go driving around town would provides some, but then you have the acceleration part also. F1 engines are efficient, but they are efficient for their specific usage, which is why we haven't seen any adoption of the tech to actual street machines. Actually, F1 has adopted a system used by the Prius for years.....
Better still - if the F1 PU was installed in a "US semi truck" it would use even less fuel than the original diesel engine.
I doubt it. The regenerative battery charging depends on converting braking energy to electricity; large trucks drive very long distances at steady speed on freeways where there is no chance to regenerate. Sure, stop and go driving around town would provides some, but then you have the acceleration part also. F1 engines are efficient, but they are efficient for their specific usage, which is why we haven't seen any adoption of the tech to actual street machines. Actually, F1 has adopted a system used by the Prius for years.....
The lean burn concepts would never meet NOx emissions to begin with, so it’s DOA from the start. Agree about the hybrid systems themselves, it’s nothing “new”.
And this ignores that they need in-situ pressure monitoring sensors to even work / stay together, which are both very expensive and often go out of calibration.
Also, does everyone forget that “dynamic braking” and “regenerative braking” has been in use in train locomotives forever? It goes back to the 1890s on elevators. Electric trains had regenerative braking and some steam locomotives and all diesels in the last 50+ years use dynamic braking, the ideas / concepts are over 100 years old, but there have been gains in efficiencies and scaling since then. Of course they reject this electricity as heat in dynamic braking, but making it useful isn’t a giant leap, and regenerative braking has been in use since the 1920s on electric railways, with the energy going back up the catenary system.
Hybrid vehicles in passenger and motorsports seem new and novel, but in train locomotives and other heavy civil equipment, these are well established ideas / technologies going back nearly a century in some cases.
Better still - if the F1 PU was installed in a "US semi truck" it would use even less fuel than the original diesel engine.
I doubt it. The regenerative battery charging depends on converting braking energy to electricity; large trucks drive very long distances at steady speed on freeways where there is no chance to regenerate. Sure, stop and go driving around town would provides some, but then you have the acceleration part also. F1 engines are efficient, but they are efficient for their specific usage, which is why we haven't seen any adoption of the tech to actual street machines. Actually, F1 has adopted a system used by the Prius for years.....
Regeneration would be handy for going down hills.
Most of the time there would not be 500hp required from the ICE, so plenty of opportunity to top up the battery using fuel burning.
Would need a larger battery to make it worthwhile.
I forget where it was shared, maybe in Race Engine Technology, but the current PU’s would never meet US or Euro emission standards, so they have little use in the real world, even if they could be made reliable enough to survive more than 2000 miles or so. With the AMG One, they got rid of the whole lean burn concept, partly for this reason.