FIA - Budget Caps from 2009.

[flynfrog]

Simple: I don't think cars can be "green".

I agree if people want to be green they would sit in a cave in the dark fertilizing there garden with there own feces. Green is the next anti development movement has little to do with the environment

Having said that, I still believe that cars are living their last decades. Ultralight planes are the future, car racing is a sport that will fade, the way locomotive races did. I strongly believe this will happen before I die.

If you think cars are inefficent and dangerous wait till you let the genral public have airplanes

I imagine that some day, some valiant lawyer will sue BMW, Mercedes, FIAT and the rest for the people killed in their cars, the same way some day, not many years ago, another brave lawyer sued the tobacco companies.

God forbid we make people responsible for there actions. Its not BMWs fault that some one was talking on there phone kills them self when they crash no more than its a shoes companies fault that some one walks off a cliff.

And that's why I don't talk about green racing cars (except the ones made by our friend Greenpower Dude Reloaded). There are no green cars. The only green transportation is a bus or a bycicle.

First I am offened I was left out of this

second my solar car and green power dudes cars are not that green. On a dust to dust look they are really no better in most cases worse than gasoline engined powered cars

Besides, it's much more important the layout of our cities than the ways of transportation, as I've explained to the satisfaction of the forum. There is a direct relationship between city density and oil per capita.

I agree but there is no easy way to fix this thing for instance in the states I can exactly take a train or bus anywhere I want to go.

Besides, I dislike the concept of "green" things. As proposed to this date, "green movements" are a feeble excuse for people in developed countries to continue living like princes while the world suffers a poverty that is truly offensive for people like me, that look at it in the eye day after day.

Agree

[gcdugas]

Having said that, I still believe that cars are living their last decades. Ultralight planes are the future, car racing is a sport that will fade, the way locomotive races did. I strongly believe this will happen before I die.

Dream on. It takes energy just to keep planes aloft, not to mention the actually transporting. Balloons and blimps can fly because they are using the laws of buoyancy but they have to be huge. So, no airplanes are not the future. Besides, can you imagine all these drivers who can't even drive a car piloting aircraft. The skies would be filled like a bees nest. Mid-air collisions cascading debris down upon people, homes, businesses etc. It just ain't gunna happen.

What will happen, and you can say you read it here first, is the following....

The electrical grid will be akin to the internet. It is already but here is what I mean. There will be people downloading (for a fee) and uploading (for a credit). Even today, if you have a wind farm, solar array etc. and you use less than you generate, you simply pour that energy back into the grid and your local electrical utility company has to buy it back at the going rate.

Wind, solar, tidal, and hydro-electrical power generation will be scaled to the extent that the common person will have some generating capacity. Those who make more than they use will be "donors" (to the grid) and those who use more than they generate will be called "parasitic".

What this will do is make hydrogen the choice fuel of the future. Cars will have hydrogen powered engines driving a generator that feeds power to motors at each wheel. (no more transmissions) Everything will be electro-motive like they presently use on trains. Regenerative braking will be simply reversing the torque to each wheel's motor. Thus the main technologies that will be developed in the near future will be photo-voltaic generation, wind generation, tidal (and wave) generation scaled to the consumer. Home based electrolysis will become common place, affordable, safe and more efficient. Also better batteries and even lighter motors are on the way. Just look at how far batteries have come in the last decade. Cell phones used to have batteries that were ten times as big and lasted one fourth as long and took three times as long to charge. Those kind of gains are unheard of in the automobile industry. But all these technologies will merge as I have outlined.

Hydrogen based engines will be with us for about five decades until purely electric systems will succeed them. Hydrogen allows immense energy storage per unit of volume/weight. A tank full will hold more energy than any battery until battery technology advances several hundred-fold. Ultimately batteries that out perform hydrogen (in terms of energy storage per unit of volume/weight) will come about but it is way, way off. Those batteries will somehow be nuclear based as gains of that magnitude can only come from leaving chemistry based batteries.

With this in view, any gains that are made in engines today will simply be carried over to their hydrogen consuming heirs in the future. You will still need advances in materials, advances in engine control management to allot the precise amount of hydrogen and oxygen. You will still need research into the basics such as valve technology, reductions in reciprocating mass, friction reduction, lubrication, weight reduction etc. In that sense much of what F1 is presently doing will be applicable. And in the greater context of this thread, the more F1 can contribute to these ends, the greater the ROI for the teams/manufacturers/R&D depts./associated vendors and spin-off companies. Thus, F1 needs to loosen the regs to allow more innovation.

I would guess that in thirty years about 80% of the engines in use will be hydrogen fueled. I also guess that 45% of the people will fit into the electrical "donor" category. Those in the cities will be mostly "parasitic" since their ability to generate the wind, tidal, and solar power is less. But I also see the people leaving the cities in droves as working from home and telecommuting are already contributing to this trend.

Mass transit is dead. It is the nature of humans to be highly autonomous. Those who go down this path will be the future Fords/Gates/Edisons/Marconies etc. The vision I just outlined in easily predictable. It is no more visionary than to say a person who has $7 will be broke in one week if he spends $1/day. This vision is purely an extrapolation of current trends/technologies/"green focus" etc.

We have had the industrial revolution, then we have had the electronic revolution. The future is simply the marriage of the two. You read it here first.

[flynfrog]

Hydrogen is a joke

Where will we get it from?

how will we store it?

How do you get enough of it into a vehicle to go any amount of distance?


Pure electric systems where are you getting the power from solar cells dont even break even on production

I don't believe we have enough land area to put enough wind generators to power our demand for electricity without running cars off it

Batteries already out reform hydrogen in energy density?


Im not trying to be a pessimist but in the real world we will probably never get away from fossil fuels and coal power in our life time even at double todays prices they will still be the cheapest way to get energy.

Most of the alternative energies suffer from large scale viability or energy density problems. Some are even worse for the environment. Take a look at ethanol in the states I said this was a bad idea 5 years ago now the price of food is getting to high.

[WhiteBlue]

aren't we a bit off topic?

let's asume for a moment they can make budget caps work.

what do you think should be an all in figure after what has been discussed?

so far its ranging from 60-300 mil € from the teams

as an aside http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211153 ... whats_news BMW and Merc are in serious profit crunch due to the cost of developing enrgy saving drive technology. Toyota have reduced their profit expectation by a quarter.

so the auto teams could use the money elsewhere

[gcdugas]

Hydrogen is a joke

Where will we get it from? Electrolysis. That technology has existed for ages. Even scaling it for home/consumer use has already been done. - gcdugas

how will we store it? Freeze it like any other gas such as nitrogen, propane, CNG (methane) etc. It is only explosive/dangerous when in the presence of oxygen. In that sense it is like propane. - gcdugas

How do you get enough of it into a vehicle to go any amount of distance? When frozen it is a liquid just like nitrogen. Handling is then easy but insulation is a challenge as 50% on a tankful will boil off in a week using existing insulating technology. This challenge will also have to be conquered by those advocating "fuel cells" as they too are hydrogen based. It is potent so getting enough to go any amount of distance is as easy as petrol based cars. Even onboard generation of hydrogen is being researched. - gcdugas

Pure electric systems where are you getting the power from solar cells dont even break even on production. Photovoltaics are about to experience a generational leap in efficiency/output. For them not to "break even on production" would mean that they will consume more energy in their manufacture (including the obtaining and refinement of their materials) than they will ever produce in their lifetime. Such an energy return is already achieved today. Remember, once they are made, the only maintenance is largely "window washing" and they give decades of useful life. - gcdugas

I don't believe we have enough land area to put enough wind generators to power our demand for electricity without running cars off it. Don't forget solar, sea wave, and tidal capture of energy. And of these, tidal is the biggest. Just think how much energy it takes to raise the level of one square mile in any bay an average of 7 ft. Segregating off a sector dedicated to electrical generation can be easily done by smart use of local geography. - gcdugas

Batteries already out reform hydrogen in energy density? You are way off. A gallon of liquid hydrogen has 34,500 BTUs (gasoline has 114,000 BTUs, or about 3/1). So a 50 gallon tank would give you a range of 350 miles which is what I experience from 16.5 gallons of gasoline (21 MPG in a BMW 328i driven like Mario Andretti). No battery can approach this level of energy storage. - gcdugas


Im not trying to be a pessimist but in the real world we will probably never get away from fossil fuels and coal power in our life time even at double todays prices they will still be the cheapest way to get energy. I posed a thirty year time frame for an 80% conversion. I think this is modest. - gcdugas

Most of the alternative energies suffer from large scale viability or energy density problems. Some are even worse for the environment. Take a look at ethanol in the states I said this was a bad idea 5 years ago now the price of food is getting to high. Ethanol from corn is a joke, I agree. And what is worse is that you can get 7 times the ethanol yield from "switchgrass" (essentially a weed that doesn't have to be replanted between harvests) and 4 times the yield by using hemp than you can from using corn. Yup, corn is a horrendous source for ethanol production and it deplete the food supply. Brazil uses sugar cane. Only in the "drug war crazy" USA is hemp shunned. It is a great crop with many uses such as fabric and paper production. - gcdugas

The projected "hydrogen economy" is embryonic. Here is just a typical bit piece that discusses the pluses and minuses, the challenges and the rewards that lie ahead. - gcdugas

[gcdugas]

Hydrogen is a joke

Where will we get it from? Electrolysis. That technology has existed for ages. Even scaling it for home/consumer use has already been done. - gcdugas

how will we store it? Freeze it like any other gas such as nitrogen, propane, CNG (methane) etc. It is only explosive/dangerous when in the presence of oxygen. In that sense it is like propane. - gcdugas

How do you get enough of it into a vehicle to go any amount of distance? When frozen it is a liquid just like nitrogen. Handling is then easy but insulation is a challenge as 50% on a tankful will boil off in a week using existing insulating technology. This challenge will also have to be conquered by those advocating "fuel cells" as they too are hydrogen based. It is potent so getting enough to go any amount of distance is as easy as petrol based cars. Even onboard generation of hydrogen is being researched. - gcdugas

Pure electric systems where are you getting the power from solar cells dont even break even on production. Photovoltaics are about to experience a generational leap in efficiency/output. For them not to "break even on production" would mean that they will consume more energy in their manufacture (including the obtaining and refinement of their materials) than they will ever produce in their lifetime. Such an energy return is already achieved today. Remember, once they are made, the only maintenance is largely "window washing" and they give decades of useful life. - gcdugas

I don't believe we have enough land area to put enough wind generators to power our demand for electricity without running cars off it. Don't forget solar, sea wave, and tidal capture of energy. And of these, tidal is the biggest. Just think how much energy it takes to raise the level of one square mile in any bay an average of 7 ft. Segregating off a sector dedicated to electrical generation can be easily done by smart use of local geography. - gcdugas

Batteries already out reform hydrogen in energy density? You are way off. A gallon of liquid hydrogen has 34,500 BTUs (gasoline has 114,000 BTUs, or about 3/1). So a 50 gallon tank would give you a range of 350 miles which is what I experience from 16.5 gallons of gasoline (21 MPG in a BMW 328i driven like Mario Andretti). No battery can approach this level of energy storage. - gcdugas


Im not trying to be a pessimist but in the real world we will probably never get away from fossil fuels and coal power in our life time even at double todays prices they will still be the cheapest way to get energy. I posed a thirty year time frame for an 80% conversion. I think this is modest. - gcdugas

Most of the alternative energies suffer from large scale viability or energy density problems. Some are even worse for the environment. Take a look at ethanol in the states I said this was a bad idea 5 years ago now the price of food is getting to high. Ethanol from corn is a joke, I agree. And what is worse is that you can get 7 times the ethanol yield from "switchgrass" (essentially a weed that doesn't have to be replanted between harvests) and 4 times the yield by using hemp than you can from using corn. Yup, corn is a horrendous source for ethanol production and it deplete the food supply. Brazil uses sugar cane. Only in the "drug war crazy" USA is hemp shunned. It is a great crop with many uses such as fabric and paper production. - gcdugas

The projected "hydrogen economy" is embryonic. Here is just a typical bit piece that discusses the pluses and minuses, the challenges and the rewards that lie ahead. - gcdugas

[gcdugas]

aren't we a bit off topic?

let's asume for a moment they can make budget caps work.

what do you think should be an all in figure after what has been discussed?

so far its ranging from 60-300 mil € from the teams

as an aside http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211153 ... whats_news BMW and Merc are in serious profit crunch due to the cost of developing enrgy saving drive technology. Toyota have reduced their profit expectation by a quarter.

so the auto teams could use the money elsewhere

Yes, I agree we have strayed from the topic but I tried to tie it together with this paragraph:

And in the greater context of this thread, the more F1 can contribute to these ends, the greater the ROI for the teams/manufacturers/R&D depts./associated vendors and spin-off companies. Thus, F1 needs to loosen the regs to allow more innovation.

Economics dictate that the teams/manufacturers will spend what ever amount they determine the F1 crown to be worth. In making that determination there are several factors involved. Among them are, the R&D return on investment (ROI), reputation enhancement/promotional value, the present economic health of the company, future market projections, economic and national interests etc.

One of my main thrusts is to increase the relevance of F1 expenditures by opening the regs so that the avenues pursued in the perpetual hunt for performance will have genuine R&D value for future automotive technologies. Hence my advocacy of CVTs, active suspension etc. Why spend $100M just tweaking the aero for a 0.001% gain when larger gains can be obtained elsewhere for much less if the regs encouraged innovation? Since economic law dictates that these expenditures will take place pursuing the F1 crown, and that accounting is the "second oldest profession", why fight it? Let's just channel the expense so that is bears relevant fruit for the automobile consumer.

[flynfrog]

Hydrogen is a joke
1
Where will we get it from? Electrolysis. That technology has existed for ages. Even scaling it for home/consumer use has already been done. - gcdugas
2
how will we store it? Freeze it like any other gas such as nitrogen, propane, CNG (methane) etc. It is only explosive/dangerous when in the presence of oxygen. In that sense it is like propane. - gcdugas
3
How do you get enough of it into a vehicle to go any amount of distance? When frozen it is a liquid just like nitrogen. Handling is then easy but insulation is a challenge as 50% on a tankful will boil off in a week using existing insulating technology. This challenge will also have to be conquered by those advocating "fuel cells" as they too are hydrogen based. It is potent so getting enough to go any amount of distance is as easy as petrol based cars. Even onboard generation of hydrogen is being researched. - gcdugas
4
Pure electric systems where are you getting the power from solar cells dont even break even on production. Photovoltaics are about to experience a generational leap in efficiency/output. For them not to "break even on production" would mean that they will consume more energy in their manufacture (including the obtaining and refinement of their materials) than they will ever produce in their lifetime. Such an energy return is already achieved today. Remember, once they are made, the only maintenance is largely "window washing" and they give decades of useful life. - gcdugas
5
I don't believe we have enough land area to put enough wind generators to power our demand for electricity without running cars off it. Don't forget solar, sea wave, and tidal capture of energy. And of these, tidal is the biggest. Just think how much energy it takes to raise the level of one square mile in any bay an average of 7 ft. Segregating off a sector dedicated to electrical generation can be easily done by smart use of local geography. - gcdugas
6
Batteries already out reform hydrogen in energy density? You are way off. A gallon of liquid hydrogen has 34,500 BTUs (gasoline has 114,000 BTUs, or about 3/1). So a 50 gallon tank would give you a range of 350 miles which is what I experience from 16.5 gallons of gasoline (21 MPG in a BMW 328i driven like Mario Andretti). No battery can approach this level of energy storage. - gcdugas

7
Im not trying to be a pessimist but in the real world we will probably never get away from fossil fuels and coal power in our life time even at double todays prices they will still be the cheapest way to get energy. I posed a thirty year time frame for an 80% conversion. I think this is modest. - gcdugas
8
Most of the alternative energies suffer from large scale viability or energy density problems. Some are even worse for the environment. Take a look at ethanol in the states I said this was a bad idea 5 years ago now the price of food is getting to high. Ethanol from corn is a joke, I agree. And what is worse is that you can get 7 times the ethanol yield from "switchgrass" (essentially a weed that doesn't have to be replanted between harvests) and 4 times the yield by using hemp than you can from using corn. Yup, corn is a horrendous source for ethanol production and it deplete the food supply. Brazil uses sugar cane. Only in the "drug war crazy" USA is hemp shunned. It is a great crop with many uses such as fabric and paper production. - gcdugas

The projected "hydrogen economy" is embryonic. Here is just a typical bit piece that discusses the pluses and minuses, the challenges and the rewards that lie ahead. - gcdugas

1. What is your net energy for electrolysis where are you getting the electricity to split water.? electrolysis is an inefficient process I am not even sure they hydrogen you get off has more energy than you put in to split it
2 How do you plan to get the energy to store it. How do you store it inside a vehicle?
3. What do you plan to do get the rare metals in a fuel cell how do you deal with the degradation from using less than super pure H and O2. What about high heat operation
4. Sorry I miss posted a little what I meant to say is in a rechargeable system a fuel cell hydrogen system is pretty big vs a battery electric motor system. How do you think there will be a huge jump in solar cell technology its taken us years to get to 25% I don't see any big jump coming soon do you know something I don't. The new gallium triple junction cells are pretty much maxing out what we can do for any foreseeable future. Also these cells do not pay back the cost of production even in space let alone on earth
5. What are the environmental concerns with these. I don't think messing with a force as great as tidal movements can be a good idea
6 Once again back to a storage problem the pure hydrogen might be more energy dense but what about the package it takes to hold it you mention refrigerated storage what does this weigh. Most batteries are pretty self contained
7. No way we will install any kind of significant Hydrogen infrastructure in 30 years look how slow the government works not to mention the public interest is not there. Sure many people want to be green and help the earth but money talks and its just not there
8.switchgrass still has the problem of land that would be used for food is now being used for fuel



I suggest we move this thread in two directions can we get a split Ciro

[WhiteBlue]

another try at getting back on topic

Ross Brawn talked about budgets and customer cars

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news ... _saf1.html

There are a number of teams who felt aggrieved by the possibility that non-constructors could compete in the future. They saw situations where they felt their [sponsorship] rates would be undermined. They were really looking at self-preservation rather than what was in the best interests of Formula 1.

It is clear that this was primarily aimed at Williams. He should also rethink the role his collegue Fry played in the drama. I don't think Fry and Brawn were entirely honest about that.

He is right that some form of customer cars would be beneficial to bring minimum budgets down. It is fatal that under the old concord rules a single team can veto something that is beneficial for F1 as a whole. It also seems that Bernie had no interest to lower the entry barriers to earning TV money. so its not just team egoism that played a role.

the conclusion is that there is still a need to make F1 more open which isn't addressed by the budget level as long as we talk hundreds of €.

[Rob W]

another try at getting back on topic

Ross Brawn talked about budgets and customer cars

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news ... _saf1.html

There are a number of teams who felt....etc

It is clear that this was primarily aimed at Williams. He should also rethink the role his collegue Fry played in the drama. I don't think Fry and Brawn were entirely honest about that. ...

I agree re: what you said about Brawn's comments.

I think Brawn is wrong because of one glaring detail. IF there were mandated team budgets and customer cars were allowed, how could anyone fairly price the chassis they make and sell to teams? Could Honda sell chassis to one team for $5 mill a pop and $7 mill a pop to another (in exchange for support on voting issues elsewhere - or to ensure a driver swap next season?)

And how could it be justified to teams like McLaren and Williams that they have to fork out the expense - not to mention their long-term employment and nurturing efforts - for skilled engineers when another team could simply sell a chassis to a customer who has put little effort into building a motorsport business?

Imagine how many companies who would then say "hey, for 100 mill, lets buy an F1 team.. what do you think honey?". I would ruin F1 within a decade.

Not everything can be accounted for in monetary terms. The loyalty and passion of teams of engineers for one is an important part of some teams. Allowing customer cars says: "we don't care what you've achieved, you're a commodity" to many engineers.

R

[WhiteBlue]

I think Brawn is wrong because of one glaring detail. IF there were mandated team budgets and customer cars were allowed, how could anyone fairly price the chassis they make and sell to teams? And how could it be justified to teams like McLaren and Williams that they have to fork out the expense - not to mention their long-term employment and nurturing efforts - for skilled engineers when another team could simply sell a chassis to a customer who has put little effort into building a motorsport business?

Imagine how many companies who would then say "hey, for 100 mill, lets buy an F1 team.. what do you think honey?". I would ruin F1 within a decade.

Not everything can be accounted for in monetary terms. The loyalty and passion of teams of engineers for one is an important part of some teams. Allowing customer cars says: "we don't care what you've achieved, you're a commodity" to many engineers. R

That is a strange logic Rob W. Wasn't it McLaren who were prepared to sell a chassis to Prodrive?

And don't you forget that new, additional teams will always start with buying something existing? Williams did that, Ron Dennis did that. They could not go into business with something entirely designed from scratch by their own and their own capital. This can only be done by corporations and billionaires. Engineers and mechanics are seldom starting as billionaires. Even Gerhard Berger who inherited a business and is a pretty shrewed manager with 25 years of experience in F1 (self managed driver) is struggling to do it without the help of a billionaire and a customer chassis. He may just take the corner depending how high they will set the budget.

In actual fact I believe if the big automotive sponsored teams ever reduce personnel the empty slots on the grid can provide employment for engineers. It isn't necessary to allow customer parts forever. one could limit their use to some years as Toro Rosso has enjoyed. So after 3-5 years team,s would have to be successful ennough to do their own chassis, which could be realistic.

I cannot see how a spending cap and opening the club would ruin F1, quite to the contrary. The trick will obviously be to steer cash in excess of 60 mil € from Mercedes, Toyota, Honda and BMW into productive R&D investments that benefit more than just F1. they may spend another 200 mil € for energy saving technologies which they will have to share in a short time with the rest of the grid that runs to budget.

[uzael]

Let's remember that the difference between a 'customer' and a 'factory' team is largely due to perceptions rather than some hard and fast rule. I know the Concorde agreement has provisions for defining a constructor as the owner of IP for a rolling chassis. But let's not forget how much of each F1 car is actually constructed and provided by 3rd parties, and in some case using identical parts for different teams.

Brake pads and calipers
Dampers and Shocks
Fuel Tanks
Radiators
Gearbox housings are made by 3rd parties, but are unique to teams

The main point is that there is significants technical and manufacturing cross polinization between the F1 teams. The idea of factory vs customer is about definitions, not some fundamental change in the way business is done.

[WhiteBlue]

thats why I prefer to call them automotive sponsored teams.

[mcdenife]

Whiteblue wrote

That is a strange logic Rob W. Wasn't it McLaren who were prepared to sell a chassis to Prodrive?

And don't you forget that new, additional teams will always start with buying something existing? Williams did that, Ron Dennis did that. They could not go into business with something entirely designed from scratch by their own and their own capital. This can only be done by corporations and billionaires. Engineers and mechanics are seldom starting as billionaires. Even Gerhard Berger who inherited a business and is a pretty shrewed manager with 25 years of experience in F1 (self managed driver) is struggling to do it without the help of a billionaire and a customer chassis. He may just take the corner depending how high they will set the budget.

To start with Mclaren would have been stupid not to supply Prodrive if the rules allow it. That is simple common (business) sense. But the fact that Williams/Mclaren started that way is irrelevant and neglets the fact that realities, structure and landscape of F1 today is completely different to when they started. Indeed did the concorde agreement even exist then? Was there even any revenue from TV and even if there was how was it shared out. Taking all this into account williams, etc are well within their rights to challenge customer cars, mainly because their very survival depends on it. To suggest otherwise is unreasonable and unrealistic.

[mcdenife]

uzael wrote:

The idea of factory vs customer is about definitions, not some fundamental change in the way business is done.

Actually it is about a fundamental change in this business is done and that is precisely the point. This business bears almost no recognition to the way it was conducted previously.