Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Giblet]

But we have lately had a serious initiative by Todt which was supported by FOTA to get more green. There is no way around KERS and down graded engines to achieve that. They have got to nail that sucker pretty soon and the GRE will then follow what the F1 gurus may decide will be good for them. GRE proponents like VW have always said that there will be no F1 unless F1 will go GRE.

Sounds like an Encyclopeida salesman telling me that if I don't have a set I will become stupid. They just want to make money, and I can't blame them.

"We want everyone to have a VW GRE, um not because we want money, but because F1 will fail... yeah...THAT's the ticket....."

The idea of the GRE having areas opened up every couple of years (valve train, intake runners, etc.) will give the teams areas to tune, but a manufacturer wants to manufacture, not tune.

I hope it doesn't happen, but the FIA never listens to me

[WhiteBlue]

The idea of the GRE having areas opened up every couple of years (valve train, intake runners, etc.) will give the teams areas to tune, but a manufacturer wants to manufacture, not tune.

The manufacturers are mainly concerned that too much standardization conflicts with their marketing messages. On the other hand they also have the need to keep cost for motor sport in check. Even Ferrari would profit if F1 and LeMans can be done by the same basic engine configuration. It would be vastly better even for the likes of VW, Aston Martin and BMW who all participate in tin tops and will have F1 engine supply ambitions sooner or later.

[Giblet]

Yes, the GRE could go either way, and I don't think adopting it or not adopting it would be a death knell for F1. It does sound a little like VW is there to get in the money bags.

I see the GRE being perfect for teams like Prodrive. If you have the same engine, at least the block, your understanding becomes greater, and the transition to other series would be less painless.

But, this will also make it harder for newer teams to come in, and compete against a team that has a large workforce with intimate knowlede of an particular engine. That disparity will become greater over time, and might keep some new teams from entering at all.

Who would want to compete in Lemans, where the biggest differentiator between the cars is the engine. most new teams enter solely because the think they will have en engine advantage, or in the case of Acura, knowing you have an engine disadvantage and trying something crazy like rear tires on the front to make up for it in the corners.

Caterpillar, Audi, and Aston all entered LMS because they had a perceived engine advantage out of the gate.

[autogyro]

Why wont engineers accept that the ic engine is now well past its sell by date.
All this messing about is the last desperate attempt to keep the status quo at the expense of energy conservation and 'proper advance'.
Electric traction is the future not 19th century ic technology.
If electric vehicles were raced in official formula, a structure could be developed to allow a similar pinnacle of technology to be chased in electric as once was the case in obsolete ic.

[WhiteBlue]

Why wont engineers accept that the ic engine is now well past its sell by date.

With all due respect to an obviously creative engineering mind such provocative statements cannot stand unchallenged. You know this and probably enjoy making people respond to your trolling. The sell by date for automobiles based on ICE propulsion will most likely not even arrive in this or the next decade. The simple reason for this is the existence of a market economic system which looks at the total cost of a propulsion system, the fuel/energy supply and the convenience of use. In order to be competitive electric driven vehicles without ICE must match the price/performance level of those with ICE, match the price of fuel/re energizing and offer the convenience of the refueling system. We are far away from a status where all three conditions are met for the every day set of wheels for Tom, Dick, Harry and Betty. This is equally true for 3000$ cars in India, overweight American style SUVs or the typical high tech cars from Japan and Europe. I don't even want to talk about commercial vehicles such as huge trailer trucks and busses.

All this messing about is the last desperate attempt to keep the status quo at the expense of energy conservation and 'proper advance'. Electric traction is the future not 19th century ic technology.

I have already showed you where you are going wrong. You may be right that electric propulsion is desirable but it is simply not sustainable due to lack of affordable storage, affordable generation of electricity and convenient recharging technology. So for some time to come plain vanilla vehicles with electric drives will need an ICE subsystem to generate electricity and use fuel for the main energy storage.

If electric vehicles were raced in official formula, a structure could be developed to allow a similar pinnacle of technology to be chased in electric as once was the case in obsolete ic.

Nobody stops anybody in a market economy to setup a race series with a bunch of electric racers. In fact that has been done quite often. The crux lies in the lack of viewing demand for such races. Unless electric racing cars are exciting, stimulating the imagination of the motorist and are a sophisticated version of what Joe and Jane Doe use for commuting they are as useful as a hotel in Vegas without gambling, drinking, sex show and smoking or a pub in the Australian outback without beer.

[autogyro]

Of course whiteblue, I do wish to generate more debate on the alternative energy issue. I believe it is essential to the future of F1 and motor racing in general.
I am not a greeny and have a wide experience of motor racing both as a driver and development engineer.
I do however recognise the need for the organising body to regulate for the obvious technologies of the future.
I do know a little on this subject, as I have recently been asked by the FIA AEC to present a paper on EV 'official' racing formula to their commission. The paper is with them at present.
I disagree completely with the FOTA forced changes in the 2010 regulations for F1.
KERS should continue with allowed outside budgets.
To have this years regulations with only half of the FIA structured concept for energy saving has resulted in the silliest FI cars ever designed. They are closer to a girder bridge than a competitive drivable racing car.

Hybrid road vehicles will of course continue to form the transition between ic and electric traction for many years. Unfortunately, the car manufacturer and oil company obstruction to development in this area has already held it back for well over a decade. If we can establish proper 'OFFICIAL'EV racing and not just one make alternate energy versions raced to promote the companies oil versions, I think you will see the huge potential.

[Richard]

As I see it, F1 has a choice between being locked in one technology or to evolve with the latest technology.

We all giggle at push-rod engines in US racing, so we don't want to be in that position with F1.

F1 is about maximum performance from least input. So the future power plant for F1 should use methods that utilise the most energy from a unit of fuel. That probably includes KERS. As KERS gets more advanced, then we'll see a shift to EV power.

AFAIK It was the same story for turbos. The pioneers were laughed at, the technology matured and then it was widely adopted. Still can't figure why it was banned. At least F1 hasn't stuck to push rods!

[WhiteBlue]

There is an emotional component to this question. You do run a big risk when you switch to concepts that are more efficient but deliver silent race cars. Just compare the LeMans diesels. They are emotionally unacceptable to many fans of F1.

When you think about it you will probably very quickly find that electric AWD with an ICE onboard electricity generation is the way to go. This will probably get you the highest raw traction out of the drive power. The heavier motors and generators will be compensated by the lack of a gearbox. The ICU will not run synchronous with the applied drive power which will sound really wierd unless you go for a silent high efficient system.

[autogyro]

Unfortunately you have not seen my ESERU. As a road vehicle gearbox it can offer everything from hybrid parallel or series to full electric with the ic as payload.

As an F1 Kers F1 unit it also takes out 12cm at least from the current wheelbase of this years flying bridges.

With this system there is no need for any seperate electric motor/generators unless energy recovery from all wheels is required.
How about full electric with two bearings and no other mech losses.
Development would even do away with the need for conventional brakes.

All this has been prevented by FOTA.
This years regs are neither one thing or the other, a mis match.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm not a fan of Luca d.M's FOTA at all. I think it is fundamentally wrong if a formula is shaped to suit certain participants and not to suit the fundamental policies of the federation.

The FIA had the right policies from 2006 to 2008

• cut downforce and power consumption at least by half or more
• make F1 Formula more road relevant to make it beneficial for manufacturers to invest
• bring budgets for teams down to 90ties level and have more teams competing
• allow back all technologies likely to save fuel

Just the list of exciting technologies makes my mouth water:

• adaptive, movable and flexible aero
• adaptive ride height
• CVT, AWD, KERS, HERS and whatever your secret ESERU is

With these policies implemented we could already be at half the fuel utilization we see this year without loosing performance. Instead we are close back to a 750 kg formula we last had 1937 and no progressive manufacturers left who are willing to supply bleeding edge technology to F1 at affordable cost .

[Edis]

There is an emotional component to this question. You do run a big risk when you switch to concepts that are more efficient but deliver silent race cars. Just compare the LeMans diesels. They are emotionally unacceptable to many fans of F1.

When you think about it you will probably very quickly find that electric AWD with an ICE onboard electricity generation is the way to go. This will probably get you the highest raw traction out of the drive power. The heavier motors and generators will be compensated by the lack of a gearbox. The ICU will not run synchronous with the applied drive power which will sound really wierd unless you go for a silent high efficient system.

Harder noise limits will most likely force racing engines to become more quiet.

The electric tranmission wont work as the numbers will tell you. A mechanical tranmission can transfer about 95% of the power to the wheels, an electric tranmission can only transfer about 80% of the power to the wheels. A gearbox has a weight around 45 kg, perhaps we can design high performance motors which can offer 10 hp/kg, but that would still mean 150 kg for the electric transmission.

Development would even do away with the need for conventional brakes.

No, you can't replace the conventional brakes. Even electrical trains and electric cars have conventional friction brakes and there are good reasons for that.

[autogyro]

Eh, what do you mean by an 'electric transmission'.
Electric motors do not need a transmission in most operating conditions.
45kg for what?
The Tesla started with a gearbox, they pulled it out, not because it did not give performance gains but because they were incapable of getting it to live more than 2000 miles.
Transmissions for EVs is a development area as yet not even touched upon properly.
Electric motor design is also way behind its potential.
Eh, 150kg for the transmission, where did this come from?

"A mechanical transmission can transfer about 95% of the power to the wheels"?

[autogyro]

Try two electric motors each driving one wheel directly.
Where is the transmission?
This is just the starting point.

[autogyro]

There is only one reason why friction brakes are still needed.
The amount of energy that needs to be absorbed is to high for current systems of storage to deal with.
How about using flywheel storage for light over run and primary foot braking PLUS a method of rapidly heating up elements within the chassis with 'brake generator' current from hard braking and recovering this heat to electricity when needed.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81359

Todt has urged a rethink of priorities in F1 - and thinks the sport needs to wake up to economic and environmental realities that the world is facing.

"We need to cut costs, improve the show and draw investors," he said. "F1 must understand that the world has changed. How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres?

"I don't like the cost cap; we must get to a reduction through clear rules, for example with a single aerodynamic package for the entire year. Will the cars slide more in Monte Carlo? [Perhaps, but] then the quality of the drivers will be heightened."

He added: "It's not acceptable to have given up with KERS. The teams complain that it costs too much? Then they must find the way to save money. The teams are sensitive when we talk about lap times, less sensitive when the environment is discussed."

=D> =D>

Todt is right:
- Stop wasting resources and money with ever new aero configurations that have no relevance to the world.
- Bring on KERS and other fuel saving technologies.