Non Hybrid Stradale

That's an argument I've seen repeated over and over again, but it's flawed.

Electric motors are superior to internal combustion engines in pretty much everything. But that's looking at just one piece of the electric drivetrain, ignoring its Achilles' heel, energy storage.

By contrast one can argue that internal combustion engine vehicles, while disappointing on the energy conversion side, balance that downside out with supremely efficient energy storage. Between inverters, charging module, power electronic, battery charge/discharge efficiency etc., electric vehicles do the opposite. Heck, high-voltage fast chargers need water cooled cables, so forget 98% efficiency... Add to that the issues of energy density and cost of batteries, and you can see why internal combustion engines still have a place.

 

No no no, electric engines not only dont need a lot of energy but also are super efficient using at least 95% of the energy for motion. They work with magnets so no mechanical components and they last a life time. The most powerful engines and the smallest (the ones your dentist uses in your teeth) are always electric.
A VERY efficient ICE engine uses 35% of the energy it receives for motion (and this is a VW 1.2 whatever turbo engine). Actually the best usage for a ICE engine is to produce heat. Specially a big engine of a Ferrari.

 

I was talking about electric motors. True in a car energy storage is a problem but new Lithium mixtures are being developed and im sure in 10 years a 5 times more powerful battery will weight 5 times less or so.

 

This is very true and interestning. Thank you for sharing this point of view in ICE vs electric.

Just an example: if we are still here in 1000 years, I'd be surprised if we had found a way to make an electric rescue helicopter that can do just as good of a job or even better than the ones we have today running on fuel. I believe competable technology is hundreds of years a head of us, and the ICE must stay until we have something that can truly replace it.

 

What are you talking about? The third millennium started 19 years ago LOL!

 

Sounds like voodoo science.

 

A company like Rimac is very interesting from tech-perspective especially for the likes of Porsche or other manufacturers who can apply the technology for example in a hybrid context. A good amount of Porsche’s portfolio isn’t really exotics anymore but just fancy mainstream models that are used like any mid-size SUV. So of course has offerings for which all electric cars can make sense and aren’t object to what I wrote before.

 

Both points have validity. Electrical motors are dramatically more efficient at converting stored energy to motion (due, in part, to the fact that converting stored energy to heat first, and then motion, has a real fundamental limit), but there's simply no substitute for the energy storage density of gasoline ... yet.

In the several hundred year history of battery technology, there have been maybe 3 big advances: lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, and lithium-ion. All other advances have been evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. However ... batteries and gasoline aren't the only ways to store energy

 

I just want a Megawatt car with max 1600kg is it too much to ask for under 700/800k?

 

Being involved in a couple of battery hybrid projects I can confirm that the complications and inefficiencies brought on by integrating electric power are not negligible. In fact, a lot of the electrification projects are aimed at increasing the efficiency and operability of heat engines and not necessarily having full electric propulsion.

So, as I asked previously, why do you think Ferrari did hybrid for SF90 - is it because they couldn't get to 1000 CV within the emissions regulations without the use of electric?

 

Question then , as its been floated around the LB with its 3 lt engine has the power of the F8 ?

 

I don't think it would matter if it was non hybrid as there are just way too many other things need fixing.

Afraid to say that on this occasion it's a case of putting the thing into the crusher and starting afresh from a blank sheet of paper. Brutal I know - but true.

 

May i counter your question with another?

What's the best way to recover excess (unused) heat from exhaust gas? Spinning a turbine with that exhaust gas sounds like a solid first step what's the best second step? Spin an intake compressor hard-connected to that turbine, or ... convert that turbine energy to something else, and store it ... perhaps to drive electric motors? (those electric motors may, of course, be connected to wheels, or intake compressors).

Storing recovered energy, electrically, in cars ... it's here to stay.

 

A direct-driven compressor is definitely simpler and more reliable. An electrically driven compressor can be made to work more efficiently. But it's more complex, so there's a trade-off to consider. As I noted "electrification projects are aimed at increasing the efficiency and operability of heat engines" so the latter solution will definitely be developed in the near future.

But electric driven compressor, like kinetic energy recovery is not necessarily hybrid. So why hybrid?

 

Electric-driven compressors are more complex, yes ... but immensely more "controllable".

In other words, why ICE at all? Why not pure electric?

My point is simply this: kinetic and thermal energy recovery, stored electrically, for controlled use (later) in driving wheels (or compressors) ... is here to stay.

 

That is not my point. From power station to wheels turning there is a lot of inefficiency, as per Cloverleaf’s subsequent point, with electric energy. The storage and transport of gasoline loses very little. Overall, my understanding is that gas is more efficient, with the obvious by-product of CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. Happy to be corrected.

 

If they want to keep increasing power and meet emissions, some time ago they will have figured this is the best and maybe only way of achieving this within the predicted legislation. They may or may not have been right (probably correct IMV) but once the course is committed and development begins the next task is to find the silver lining in that particular cloud. If you are trying to say that hybrid as a solution is driven by legislation rather than Ferrari pursuing what they really wanted to build (I.e. this solution is unworthy), I would say that is exactly how they have always built cars, both racing and road - to a set of restrictions, be they from the FIA, the EU or indeed that most exacting of masters, the market itself. No Ferrari F1 car of the last 40 years or so has been the fastest or best car they could build. It has been the fastest or best car they could build given the restrictions they are forced to abide by. The more you think about it, SF90 Stradale is the perfect name for this car - it is a product borne of finding creative solutions to problems defined by others, just like the F1 car.

Hybrid is the best way for them to meet the brief they have been set. An alternative is to accept a reduction in power and reduce weight. But the extent to which you have to do both of those things is huge, so huge that too few would buy the subsequent product which would have to be 1 tonne and around 120g/km, probably allowing 200hp? The SF90’s hybrid system will generate a WLTP reading of less than 100g/km, with 1,000hp. Much more saleable. If people don’t like that direction they have to stick with older cars. For some that will be just fine but not for the vast majority.

 

History might be an interesting guide here. When the 275 was replaced by the Daytona, it gained power but also became saddled with a raft of emissions & safety equipment (air injection, fast idle etc), and ended weighing close to what the SF90 weighs, and more of a GT truck than the lithe 275 with less power. Values are only one measure, but I think Daytonas today are a third of 275s (a broad statement given different versions, and also 1000 vs 1400 for 275 vs Daytona production). A regime change like in the early 70s or the one we are undergoing now can sometimes mean the latest isn't the greatest.

 

Bingo! The SF90 is a heavy (agreed by all here) car with a lot of power. We also question of its significant increased weight is sufficiently offset. Given the increase in its ICE engine, the lower center of gravity, improved aero, and far better gearbox, who is to say that a hypothetical pure ICE version of this car wouldnt have out-performed its hybrid archetype that the world is actually receiving. We all know that hybridization is here due to emissions standards. Tech isnt ready for the pure electric. Most here who are a fan of electric cars are also admitting the downsides of battery tech and also citing the inevitable upcoming improvements in battery tech. Fact is, its not here yet, but the regulations are. My opinion is that the world will continue to buy new hybrid cars, the same way that the world bought ultra low performance smog complaint vehicles in the 1970's. The inconvenient truth is that nearly every desirable car built pre 1972 is worth a staggering amount more than its 1970's replacement. That is not a coicidence. Its the free market telling all of us that the mediocre tech of the 1970's couldnt deal with emissions regulations and made undesirable cars. The SF90 is the 2019 version of a 1972 car.

 

Couldn't disagree more...

 

The reason the 275 is worth more than the Daytona is simple. It is a 60’s car with 60’s styling and rarer, more closely related to the 250 series and feels much more like a classic from a classic era, which has a very strong appeal to classic lovers and investors. To drive and own I would personally prefer the Daytona but this is not really relevant to why I disagree with your point. The Daytona is also very well thought of and the fact that it is less valuable than a 275 in no way detracts from its standing. Hands up who wishes the Daytona never existed? The SF90 will be judged in history mainly on how it’s appearance is received in a number of years time, plus how well it drives and is loved or otherwise. My guess is that it will fall somewhere in the Daytona range in terms of how well thought of it is - not up with the very highest regarded cars but a seminal car when it was new and ageing pretty nicely, redolent of a given moment in history. But the recent Ferraris that SF90 is following are not like what the Daytona followed. The SF90 is a development of mainly existing ideas - aluminium tub (though now with some structural carbon so mixed material), mid engined V8, DCT gearbox etc. It’s ’party-piece’ is that it adds electric power, which is really just an augmentation of the powertrain - something we have seen many times before. Ok, I know it is more complicated than that but in essence it is true. Perhaps a bit like an exaggerated version of going from carburettors to fuel injection.

The change from 275 to Daytona was a much bigger change in the most critical area for classic cars (the appearance) than the SF90 represents.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27698772/porsche-boxster-bergspyder-prototype/

Side by side pics for scale are fun. 847lbs? Thought of this thread when I saw smaller, lighter, etc etc.

 

All electric is the optimum package if one wants an electric motor driven vehicle. With a hybrid you are laden with the weight of the metal ICE engine, complicated heavy transmission, heavy exhaust/catalytic/muffler system, and heavy gas tank filled with heavy gas.

Of course, all electric isn’t something Ferrari wants to do. At least not until they are forced to. But other companies are willing to take the plunge. It wil only be a matter of time before another marque creates an all electric vehicle that has the style, refinement, and world class driving performance which rivals Ferrari.

 

"Last a lifetime" is a great theory, reality is quite different:

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/rear-drive-unit-failed.154232/

https://insideevs.com/features/351493/used-tesla-model-s-ownership-cost/

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bw10on/third_timecar_needs_service_car_may_not_restart/

Did you know that the battery packs must be thermally maintained in a small range to be effective and to prevent explosion?

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/9/2191/pdf

https://www.greyb.com/prevent-thermal-runaway-problem-li-ion-batteries/

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-a-lithium-ion-battery-that-shuts-down-at-high-temperatures-to-avoid-explosions

https://www.teslarati.com/watch-tesla-battery-thermal-management-action-supercharging/

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-battery-advantage-interview/

Did you know that "loss" to maintain thermal range is "a loss" not accounted for in the 95%+

However, don't forget about the large losses in certain operating environments, liquid fuels do not fail in such an extended way...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cold-weather-saps-electric-car-batteries-2019-02-07

And, another distinct disadvantage is batteries vs liquid fuel is weight, batteries never 'weigh less', the weight remains the same regardless of the amount of charge remaining...

 

Others are already doing this. Big Names that will resonate with Ferrari owners....like Pininfarina.




Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app