Formula One gets the go ahead to start hybridizing
The powers that be in Formula One have been tossing around ideas for making the sport more environmentally and technologically relevant for several years. While many if not most of the readers would respond to that discussion with the answer that it should just be shut down, the FIA is unlikely to do that anytime soon. Barring that drastic option, there are still some interesting possibilities. Most recently, the discussion has focused on hybrid powertrains using some sort of flywheel type mechanical energy storage device.
FIA President Max Mosley recently also assumed the presidency of the International Advanced Mobility Forum. At an IAMF meeting in Monaco (how come I never get sent to meetings in Monaco?) this week, Mosely said that F1 would be actively promoting hybridization and 2009, 2011 and 2013 would be significant milestones in the process of "greening" Formula One. Some sort of brake energy regeneration should be included in F1 cars starting in 2009, with exhaust gas recycling coming by 2013. It's not clear precisely what that means, but the most likely scenario is a return to turbocharging. F1 engines were turbocharged from the early eighties to the early nineties. If they do that in 2013, that would likely put F1 several years behind many road cars moving to down-sized boosted engines. Based on Mosley's comments it seems like the 2009 hybrid strategy will actually be electrical rather than mechanical. Another interim step in 2011 would see energy recovery from the cooling system although precisely how they would be implemented is unknown.
[Source: World Car Fans]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 8:08AM (3/14/2008)
The investments in F1 are huge...
F1 could become extremely beneficial if it became a race for EVs (not hybrids)
Eventually some of the stuff developed would end up in street cars. This has also happened with F1 in in its present form, but the benefits are peanuts compared with what an EV race would bring
Reply
rgseidl 8:29AM (3/14/2008)
F1 ended up banning turbos in the '80s not so much because they were winning but because manufacturers had figured out how to squeeze a whopping 1500hp out of a tiny 1.5L V6, leading to a number of fatal crashes.
One way to keep things sane would be to require the use of an air restrictor instead of fiddling with cylinder count and displacements. Air cannot pass through such a constriction faster than the speed of sound, so there is a hard upper limit to how much air mass flow can be achieved - regardless of any downstream boost devices. Limited air means there is a ceiling on power as well, which keeps the formula from becoming lethal once more. Device defeat strategies, e.g. somehow stripping out nitrogen upstream of the constriction or, storing compressed air on board, would be outlawed.
In addition the total amount of fuel energy per car for a given race should be prescribed. I say fuel energy rather than mass or volume because F1 allows teams to formulate their own fuel composition. The fuel limit should be set such that anyone racing flat out will probably run out of juice before the finish line. This need to hold back just a little would add an element of driver skill and suspense to the event, possibly leading to unexpected overtaking maneuvers toward the very end.
Other than that, teams should be free to use whatever size and type of engine and transmission they like. Turbos, superchargers, hybrids should all be allowed - subject only to maximum curb weight and rules designed to maximize safety.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 11:08AM (3/14/2008)
The first and simplest improvement F1 should make for efficiency is to allow active aerodynamics again.
See, F1 doesn't allow any moving aerodynamics surfaces because if they do, teams would make their cars reduce downforce on the straights to allow higher top speeds.
But since these cars need downforce at low speeds to corner, that means F1 is forcing these teams to create tons of extra downforce at high speeds, which is just wasted energy. And they have to increase engine output (fuel burned) to compensate to get those high speeds back on the straights.
F1 should allow cars to reduce downforce on the straights, and then reduce the peak power of the cars, so that they don't reach absurd straight line speeds. This would save fuel. It would also slow acceleration a bit out of corners, but F1 could stand a bit of that too, the cars corner so fast now that passing in the corners is near impossible, increasing the acceleration zone after a corner a little bit would help that some.
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 11:09AM (3/14/2008)
Why not run hydrogen?
Reply
MikeW 12:57PM (3/14/2008)
Less displacment, more gears!
2 liters, 8 cylinders, 8 speeds. How about a max cylinder bore 80mm, that would increase the stroke, bring down the revs from 19K-20K to about 15K-16K.
See what engine parts/design can be commonized with MotoGP.
Reply
Jeff 8:26PM (3/14/2008)
I am a big fan of autoblogreen but the following comment seemed misplaced "While many if not most of the readers would respond to that discussion with the answer that it should just be shut down".
I totally disagree with this statement.
Inovation is a key part of F1 and it is what has brought us so many effeciencies that we use today. F1 is and should remain a test bed for new technological ideas, which I am afraid we new rules coming online (such as no new engine development for 5 years) that we will not reap the benefits of series. I do applaud F1 to looking into new ways of hybridization that are different than what have already been done. For example, current hybrid technology does not work very well under constant exceleration. If we could come up with more effecience systems the work in a race environment, these ideas could be utilized to make road hybrids more efficent. Toyota did this recently in an enduro race using superconductors instead of batteries and won the race! It is this type of innovation we need to support.
There are many ways of being green and racing to improve hybrid/green technology is the best way to advance this cause.
- Also hydrogen is not the answer to most environmental problems, since it currently uses way too much engery to produce it. Solar/Wind/Geo-thermal that charge batteries are the way of the future. Hydrogen is just a way for the oil companies to hang onto the distrubition chain.
Reply
Chris M 8:41PM (3/14/2008)
"Why not run hydrogen?"
First off, H2 still costs more than petroleum fuels or biofuels.
Storage is a problem. While it is possible to run IC engines on H2 fuel, the limitations of storage severely limits driving range - the current record is 150 miles per fillup in a modified Prius. Having to fill up every 3rd lap wouldn't be practical...
Fuel cells are more efficient, and could give sufficient range, but the multimillion dollar costs for a "racing fuel cell" are too high even for the high priced world of F1 racing.
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 9:43PM (3/14/2008)
Jeff, I don't disagree that racing is a good way to try out new technologies, that's why I write about F1 and particularly ALMS. Regardless of what I think though I think a significant portion of the audience probably would think that racing is a wasteful effort.
Reply