Comments on: JA on F1 Christmas interactive series – F1 in the Future

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:37:46 +0000

Right but the question then becomes given it’s not really a ‘fuel’, but an energy storage system (given that it takes more energy to produce than can be retrieved):

What’s the most efficient system for storing this electrical energy?

From everything I’ve read electric cars (i.e. batteries) are considerably more efficient.

Not only that, but for hydrogen you have to come up with a distribution system for the hydrogen, and there are unsolved issues with this. Whereas with electric vehicles you can use the energy grid (although admittedly there is still some work in building the vehicle outlets etc.)

So batteries have lower energy losses, have fewer issues with distribution (use the grid), and can currently be produced at something approaching reasonable costs. Ok, they’re currently maybe 2x the cost of the equivalent car BUT the cheapest Hydrogen car would set you back millions. (That of course doesn’t really indicate the cost that they may be capable of being produced at, but it does show that they’re a long way from production).

Given all this, you’ve got to ask, what exactly is the advantage of Hydrogen?

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:56:43 +0000

Yes, the hype behind fuel cells is quite annoying. It seems few people are aware that the well to wheel energy efficiency of fuel cells is considerably less than regular old oil, thus making it an environmental nightmare.

Of course if someone can come up with a way of producing hydrogen that doesn’t consume more energy than it produces, then fuel cells could become something other than a very expensive joke.

So far there’s been no sign of this. And, it appears that without some revolutionary breakthrough, given current technology, electric is the way to go – it’s the only practical system that actually *is* more fuel efficient than the internal combustion engine.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:06 +0000

I’m not sure on your logic on defensive driving. If both drivers have the option of deploying KERS then there is potential for bluff to get a driver to use up his battery power supply, so that the other has the advantage. Hamilton’s pass on Webber through the use of KERS made winning Hungary much easier for him than if he didn’t have it but the same overall pace.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:53:32 +0000

The key problem with skirts is that they were damaged when the cars went off the track, which happened a lot more than it does now judging by the reports I’ve read. There was one year of fixed skirts and this is where the bump problem partly came from. The g-forces were a matter of training – the cars pull more gs now.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:48:30 +0000

If you head down the fuel cell path then KERS will be a factor as the fuel cell would power an electric motor, and having an electric motor is a step towards KERS, and that would be mad to ignore. KERS is a good concept in that it helps performance and economy, just by itself it doesn’t get us off fossil fuels. Hydrogen could also be used as a fuel for an internal combustion engine.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:40:55 +0000

It would also provide an avenue for overtaking if the variation is large enough. The 60 kW from KERS didn’t quite do it, although both the McLaren and Ferrari were dogs aerodynamically, so it wasn’t a direct demonstration of the overtaking benefits. In the mid 80s there was the view that fuel-races particularly at Imola and Hockenheim were a bit farcical, so that is a risk

By: Dale

Dale — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:40:14 +0000

I can remember watching an interview (think it might have been Ecclestone) where he mentioned about drivers, corners and G forces

Your point is also good though

By: Jose Arellano

Jose Arellano — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:43:41 +0000

dont get what you mean..

By: JP

JP — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:17:51 +0000

I agree. I was not suggesting otherwise. But I see little point in extreme aero development which relies on thousands of hours of wind tunnel work (they need more than a 13amp plug to run I can tell you) when it is of absolutely no relevance to anything other than trying to make an F1 car go a bit quicker, and as an unfortunate side effect means that cars can’t race each other. Engine development has a knock on effect potentially to all engines. Likewise cost effective light weight construction etc etc.

By: theothercoldone

theothercoldone — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:44:50 +0000

Four wheel drive, any one? Look what it did in Rallying – think of the Audi Quattro… Surely the weight/drivability ratio might make this a possibility.

Is it also possible for an innovative designer to look at wankel rotary as an alternative to the V8? These can theoretically run up to xxxxxx revolutions, and less power loss is consumed in converting vertical force into rotational. They also provide a better power to consumption and size ratio. Hmmm.

I think also that F1 should be on the cutting edge (or in front) of technology. Designers and engineers are being forced to squirm their way around, under and over an increasingly complex and restrictive set of rules. Is there a way of opening up the innovation side of things, without creating a one horse race for the most financially solvent?