Not with a $20m entry bond. No real Minardi and no Stoddart Minardi.theriusDR3 wrote:will Minardi join Formula E in the future?
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Formula E heads to Mexico for the fourth round of the season with Bird and Virgin leading the championships, a new driver in the field. We preview what to look out for in Mexico.
Not with a $20m entry bond. No real Minardi and no Stoddart Minardi.theriusDR3 wrote:will Minardi join Formula E in the future?
Way off topic again, but Nascar puts on road races that are practically indistinguishable from a v8 Supercar race.mzso wrote:Now that you say so, I agree. Nascar is pathetic.Pierce89 wrote:Really? Pathetic. Overtaking in NASCAR is all about cornering speed just like any other race series. What you speak of literally only applies to 11% percent of races(restrictor plates). Hell 5% of the races are identical to Australian v8 supercars. Maybe we should use that to sterotype the series instead of your version. It would be just as accurate.
There aren't even any corners on the majority of tracks just a big boring looping bend.
I can't say much about V8 supercars because it was never broadcasted here. But taking a peak at it it looks like not one of the circuits is a true BS oval. (The Queensland Raceway looks to be the closest) I highly doubt that racing has much similarity.
I'm guessing either the CGI models are inaccurate, or the label. Because whenever direct drive was specified the it was clear that it would be impossible that way, because no, drive shaft could go connect the motors to the wheel from that position. Do they mean constant gear ratio by "direct drive"?scarbs wrote:https://youtu.be/KsCKrixx5Qk
You are correct. The rules require a gearbox, so they're building single speed boxes.mzso wrote:I'm guessing either the CGI models are inaccurate, or the label. Because whenever direct drive was specified the it was clear that it would be impossible that way, because no, drive shaft could go connect the motors to the wheel from that position. Do they mean constant gear ratio by "direct drive"?scarbs wrote:https://youtu.be/KsCKrixx5Qk
Yes, by direct drive they mean a fixed final drive. A regulation demanding a differential and High motor RPMs mean truue direct drive isnt possible.Pierce89 wrote:You are correct. The rules require a gearbox, so they're building single speed boxes.mzso wrote:I'm guessing either the CGI models are inaccurate, or the label. Because whenever direct drive was specified the it was clear that it would be impossible that way, because no, drive shaft could go connect the motors to the wheel from that position. Do they mean constant gear ratio by "direct drive"?scarbs wrote:https://youtu.be/KsCKrixx5Qk
Pierce89 wrote:You are correct. The rules require a gearbox, so they're building single speed boxes.
That's sad... The rules should forbid a gearbox, so that engineers would seek out ways of minimizing weight and maximizing efficiency in true direct-drive layouts.scarbs wrote:Yes, by direct drive they mean a fixed final drive. A regulation demanding a differential and High motor RPMs mean true direct drive isn't possible.
It's like removing most of the purpose of a series like this... They claim to promote the development of electric drivetrains.RicME85 wrote:McLaren are producing the batteries for the 17/18 season which will have a higher output and higher harvest capacity.
The battery hasnt been on the 'roadmap' as they didnt want an arms race to produce the best batteries, they wanted to keep costs down and to give battery technology time to mature a bit more. They changed the plans to have open battery and chassis manufacturers from season 5, keeping things single make.
They are building a base first, getting the big companies in (like Audi, Mercedes, Renault and Jaguar) by giving them a perfect marketing platform. Exciting races in city centres, only possible with fairly evenly matched electric racing cars. To make it look a bit more spectacular they gave them hard tires and (almost) none functional wings. I think, because it's first and most of all a marketing circus, tech development will be confined and well planned.mzso wrote:It's like removing most of the purpose of a series like this... They claim to promote the development of electric drivetrains.RicME85 wrote:McLaren are producing the batteries for the 17/18 season which will have a higher output and higher harvest capacity.
The battery hasnt been on the 'roadmap' as they didnt want an arms race to produce the best batteries, they wanted to keep costs down and to give battery technology time to mature a bit more. They changed the plans to have open battery and chassis manufacturers from season 5, keeping things single make.
The most important part of it is actually the battery. That was, is and for the foreseeable future remain the greatest weakness of EVs. It's expensive, it degrades, it has sorely limited capacity.
They could have more battery technologies by limiting cost. If they made a sort-of controlled mini market where battery manufacturers could offer/sell their batteries at the same price (with a price cap) for everyone. And the teams could replace them every few races. Of course it would be a bit more expensive, but it'd serve a purpose.
You´re talking like if manufacturing and developing a new battery would be similar to manufacturing and developing a suspension or enginemzso wrote:It's like removing most of the purpose of a series like this... They claim to promote the development of electric drivetrains.RicME85 wrote:McLaren are producing the batteries for the 17/18 season which will have a higher output and higher harvest capacity.
The battery hasnt been on the 'roadmap' as they didnt want an arms race to produce the best batteries, they wanted to keep costs down and to give battery technology time to mature a bit more. They changed the plans to have open battery and chassis manufacturers from season 5, keeping things single make.
The most important part of it is actually the battery. That was, is and for the foreseeable future remain the greatest weakness of EVs. It's expensive, it degrades, it has sorely limited capacity.
They could have more battery technologies by limiting cost. If they made a sort-of controlled mini market where battery manufacturers could offer/sell their batteries at the same price (with a price cap) for everyone. And the teams could replace them every few races. Of course it would be a bit more expensive, but it'd serve a purpose.
You're over mystifying things as always...Andres125sx wrote:You´re talking like if manufacturing and developing a new battery would be similar to manufacturing and developing a suspension or enginemzso wrote:It's like removing most of the purpose of a series like this... They claim to promote the development of electric drivetrains.RicME85 wrote:McLaren are producing the batteries for the 17/18 season which will have a higher output and higher harvest capacity.
The battery hasnt been on the 'roadmap' as they didnt want an arms race to produce the best batteries, they wanted to keep costs down and to give battery technology time to mature a bit more. They changed the plans to have open battery and chassis manufacturers from season 5, keeping things single make.
The most important part of it is actually the battery. That was, is and for the foreseeable future remain the greatest weakness of EVs. It's expensive, it degrades, it has sorely limited capacity.
They could have more battery technologies by limiting cost. If they made a sort-of controlled mini market where battery manufacturers could offer/sell their batteries at the same price (with a price cap) for everyone. And the teams could replace them every few races. Of course it would be a bit more expensive, but it'd serve a purpose.
Batteries are not a mechanical part, batteries are chemistry and need a lot more development and testing, the risks of using underdeveloped solutions are much higher, and the developing process require years instead of weeks/months.
A FE battery battle will change nothing compared to current situation where all battery manufacturers are squeezing all their brains to get a new gen battery wich would bring them billions benefit if they manage to beat their competitors and become the standard battery for any electric car, bike, laptop, mobile... FE would change nothing for them, it´s peanuts
it's a good deal to finance R&D and set up a production line in a growing and competitive market.Andres125sx wrote:Can you please tell me one single motivation for a battery manufacturer to improve batteries for FE wich would not bring him a much higher reward in real world use?
Something that's usable for FE might be far off from a consumer battery: experimental, too costly, etc.Andres125sx wrote:Can you please tell me one single motivation for a battery manufacturer to improve batteries for FE wich would not bring him a much higher reward in real world use?