Technically though, they do eventually go back around to the same starting position! (After running back to the pits, repacking the parachute, completely rebuilding the engine and replacing the tyres. Time-wise, it's quite a long lap!) PSK has been on Fchat long enough to know that you need to be more specific with what you post! He should have said: "no circuit racing permits a driver to drive flat out every lap" rather than:
Exactly! Direct injection 2.5 V10 at 19K RPM to get locked at the start of the European season start (to control cost somewhat) (k)ERS system allowed to be developed.
Coming back to this: You are talking about hybrid cars being "bad and wrong", stating that they are not a good solution, and you then quote Prius as an example of a hybrid car. My point is, you are only talking about one type of hybrid car - The Prius and it's ilk whose design is focused on being environmentally friendly and being super efficient when it comes to fuel consumption. These cars are not representative of all methods of using hybrid technology in cars though. LaFerrari and McLaren's P1 make use of Hybrid technology to assist performance, just as F1 cars do, and it is the hybrid technology that helps make them such incredibly fast cars. In the case of LaFerrari, the hybrid technology is used to fill the in the natural gaps in the V12 engines torque curve, giving it better, and far more useable power from a lot lower down the rev range. Read/watch any test drive and pretty much all of the drivers will rave about how the car accelerates out of the corners instantly. That acceleration is initially started by the electric system whislt the V12 is getting ready to do it's thing on top. The great thing with the LaFerrari and P1 (and also Porsche's 918), is that this is energy being generated by the car itself, a lot of which would normally simply be wasted energy. This technology will eventually find it's way onto the more regular cars, taking them another step forward in performance (and in the case of turbo cars, will all but completely negate any turbo lag completely!). Hybrid technology, as used in F1 today, is already being applied to road cars and is already proving to be a great solution to certain problems related to the internal combustion engine. To write it off as simply being wrong, bad and no real solution at all is not correct! - It all depends on the application of the technology!
I watched a TV program last night called "for the love of cars" (I think) and it was about the Australian car history and how it evolved as Australia culture evolved, etc. It finished with a very clear statement that the emotive petrol powered engines that we enthusiasts love is simply dead. I was quite shocked actually, and it made me worried that by the time I finish my Alfa GTV restoration I might have to worry about where to get fuel for it. The combustion engine will become the domain of old car nutters like steam powered things. I think we are at the thin edge of the wedge and the hybrid is being used to help consumers with the transition. Driving to work I sometimes follow a Nissan Leaf which is 100% electric. There is a plus, maybe we will do as some appear to want and leave the Middle East completely alone. I really should log off and get to work on my Alfa! Pete
All those kids who spent hours rewinding the armatures on their slot cars will be the hot rodders of the future. Oh, wait, they're all 50+...never mind.
How many times have you heard the piston internal combustion engine is dead? I would believe eventually. IMHO it will be around for a good many years. Ago
Australia & culture in the same breath!? There's an oxymoron if ever I've read one! [Sorry Pete, couldn't resist, no offense ] I hear you, and I don't know how old you are, but I'm 100% certain that's not going to happen in my, or even my kids, lifetimes. Good ol' gasoline has a *long* way to go yet IMO. FWIW, I'm also convinced 'batteries' are not the solution. They'll get more efficient & last longer, but they'll always be range limited. I used to race RC cars. Gas powered as the electric stuff was all about who had the best cells. Sponsored guys would test 2000 cells on import & keep the top 10% themselves..... You think Merc had an advantage! with the Li-ion stuff today, it's no longer an issue. But you still can't do anything once it's dead....... Cheers, Ian
Prior to RC, I did slot cars. Never wound an arm, but we had a guy in the club who had the mega expensive (to at 12 year old!) machine tools to do it right...... His motors were the *best*, at least on our home track...... Cheers, Ian
lol, all good . I am 46. I think it is happening faster than you do. Maybe not in my life time but I'm confident that my kids will be driving electric or something else cars, assuming it has not been outlawed and replaced with something else. If we can afford it, our next car will be a hybrid as fuel economy for the workhorse car is a big consideration for me. Pete
Typed out a long reply re petrol being available in my late years (I'm 25 now) but got a message token expired (?!). Long story short then: Enthusiasts cars will be converted to E85 and/or Hydrogen. Petrol can be grown. Petrol cars will be for people who have disposable income on hobbies. Not the super rich, or the rich even...Just people able to spend extra cash on things they enjoy. We won't see 1999 ford Focus in 2066 but Ferrari's, M BMWs, Lamborgini's will still bring joy to many people.
IMHO if enough people go to alternate type of fuel, gasoline will become so cheap that we could not afford the alternate. Look what is happening right now? The Saudis are keeping oil flowing to make Marseilles drilling too expensive to compete. Ago
Sorry for the aside: 77% of electrical energy in France is indeed coming from nuclear power today; the decision was political, but dictated by economics: it was taken in 1974, after the oil crisis of the autumn of 1973, to avoid being at the complete mercy of the oil producers on one hand, and to avoid being stripped of all cash by the rise in prices on the other. It has some unexpected consequences, mainly cheap electricity, which encouraged houses being "all electricity", notably the switch to all-electric heating, which creates a problem in the cold days of winter at night due to the spike of electicity consumption. Nowadays the aim is to reduce this proportion by developping the altenative energies (solar, etc..) Rgds Rgds
Speak for yourself. I stopped watching F1 for a few reasons, one of which is I really didn't care to hear the ear-splitting motorcycle engines, I am a die-hard turbo or good ol Flat-12 fan from the 70's and 80's, but I also realize the demographics of guys like me is diminishing. This has nothing to do with anything, folks will want to see speed and not care much about what fuel is used. At some point restrictions will defeat the purpose of F1, is it a road car development series, or a worldwide racing series? Seems a bit blurred to me today. With all this said, why can't they have both the turbos and the V-10's? They did in the 80's.
Let's have a u - boat race that will help with battery development oh never mind they went nuclear damn made we can get convair to help develop a atomic powered f1 car
You are in the VAST minority not wanting screaming NA engines back. The conversation evolved to discussing fuels. F1 apparently wants to stay a bit relevant (or at least some of the manufacturers/FIA), and the future is indeed hydrogen/E85 hybrid.
Oh, easy to answer for me, David: You have 125 litres of gas and 200 miles to do. Choose whatever type of engine You want to win inside those parameters. Rgs
Somebody mentioned that one of the technologies of the past was steam. Somebody else mentioned that France gets 77% of its electricity from nuclear power. Maybe F1 should make the leap and use micro nuclear pressurized water reactors to generate steam that can then be used as direct propulsion or to charge batteries which turn motors. Having said that, I don't think it is F1's place to invent new forms of propulsion. Markets are far, far better at doing that. Their mission ought to be to stage the fastest, most demanding automobile racing on the planet. The present formula calls that into question.
I think I may have noted before, "I like yer thinking!" Do I have to load all 125 litres ahead of the lights going out, or can I refuel? Either way, costs would go into orbit (maybe beyond) and, unfortunately, I just don't think that's what 'they' (the so called 'stakeholders') want. And it is their ball..... Furthermore, and this would be OK with some (possibly including me! ), the gaps between different solutions would almost certainly increase; Someome would get it right, dominate, and the others would have to throw their stuff away and start over using the 'preferred' configuration. Given the parameters, there is only one 'best' engineering (most efficient) solution. Figure out which and they'll all converge on that. At *huge* cost in scrapped development & blind alleys. I *love* the concept, but it's just not viable IMO. Cheers, Ian
+1 And, outside the **** noise, they continue to do just that. Nothing else is quicker round a road course. They're spending ludicrous sums to do it, but it is what it is...... Further, we need to define 'demanding'. From an engineering perspective? As of right now, I'd say they're pretty much there; They're turning pretty much the same lap times as last year, but they're using ~30% less go juice and have way less D/F. That's a stunning engineering achievement. Demanding from a driving perspective? They're already trying; Despite what some seem to think, driver aids (ABS, TC, etc) are all outlawed. These things are not easy to navigate quickly - the knife edge is maybe as sharp as it's ever been. They could return to active suspension, allow the nannies, put the guys in g-suits, and they'd be *fast*, but is that what we want? I dunno the answers, but I do know we must be careful what we wish for....... Cheers, Ian
