2017 More aero, more fuel saving

[bhall II]

...how F1 can be green if they fly personnel and equipment all around the world every few weeks. Like as if the 100kg fuel limit is supposed to reduce F1's carbon footprint or something.

That is, in fact, the message everyone is trying to convey...

At the 2013 Sport Conference of the Federation International de L’Automobile, motorsport’s governing body, guest speaker Nick Nuttall of the UN Environment Programme had a warning for delegates: “Motor sports will not be immune to some of the profound sea changes at work around the globe, from environmental and reputational risk.”

The FIA recognised some time ago that if it did not address sustainability and regulate to improve its own profile, then outside forces might come in and force regulation on it.

[ChrisDanger]

...how F1 can be green if they fly personnel and equipment all around the world every few weeks. Like as if the 100kg fuel limit is supposed to reduce F1's carbon footprint or something.

That is, in fact, the message everyone is trying to convey...

Is it? To me they have, not by reducing their own environmental impact, but by creating a ripple effect of a "green consciousness"and improved technology, the latter having potentially enormous positive impact. Job done?

Honestly, I don't think anyone can argue that a few tonnes of fuel saved over a year is enough. Especially when they expend orders of magnitude more than that!

[bhall II]

There are already too many people who think global warming is a fraud perpetrated for economic reasons, and I think transparent half-measures and illusory changes, like F1's current push for greater sustainability, do nothing but make that problem worse.

Furthermore, it's unlikely anything can be improved in any context until everyone understands that real solutions will need to encompass everything by default. For instance, what's the point of hybrid powertrains if the production of lithium-ion batteries negates the benefits?

In a 2013 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program concluded that batteries using nickel and cobalt, like lithium-ion batteries, have the “highest potential for environmental impacts”. It cited negative consequences like mining, global warming, environmental pollution and human health impacts.

So, when folks talk about F1 being "green," I just think of stuff like this, and it kinda bugs me...

There are 19 races held over eight months on six continents. The turnaround from one race to the next can be as short as one week. Each of the 11 teams will travel about 62,000 miles during the season, bringing with it two cars and roughly 50 tons of stuff. You name it and they’re probably hauling it, from spare parts to the pots and pans used in the catering trailers. It’s enough to fill six Boeing 747 jumbo jets, and it keeps an army of people on the road for as many as 200 days a year.

[...]

Not everything goes by air. Teams typically have five or six sets of common parts—things like work benches, tool trolleys and the like, along with stuff like PR and marketing material—and send them by sea. It’s slower, but given enough sets, the teams can send them weeks in advance so they arrive in plenty of time.

(Look up the environmental impact of container ships. It's not exactly pretty, to say the least.)

[wuzak]

The fuel flow limit is pushing development of the engine in the right way. Maybe efficiency will get close to 50% which is sensational. Also the manufacturers like the showcase their ability to develop such green technology.

Agreed.

If they just keep the fuel flow limit and do away with the 100kg capacity we are likely to get some much less fuel efficient modes, particularly in part throttle/low demand situations as they burn fuel to maximise ES charge. It will be just like the hot blown diffuser, lower overall power unit efficiency but better lap and race times.

Consider that the MGUK can only send 2MJ to the ES in any one lap. And that normal braking at most circuits allows roughly 1MJ to 1.5MJ energy recovery. That means the Engine would need to drive the MGUK an extra 4-8s to fully charge the ES. Or roughly 0.11kg to 0.22kg of extra fuel per lap.

Doesn't sound much, but over a 50 lap race it is approximately 5-10kg, which costs ~0.25-0.5s per lap.

In any case, the MGUH would most likely be used to top up the ES to its full 4MJ capacity.


As regarding fuel usage during the race, faster cars may actually lessen the fuel used. The Mercedes often used notably less fuel than most of its rivals, even though it was going faster.

And consider that if a car was able to take all corners on a circuit at 300km/h+ with maximum power (ie maximum fuel flow) the standard race length would take ~1 hour, and the fuel burn during that time will be the 100kg maximum using a constant 100kg/h fuel flow rate.

[ChrisDanger]

There are already too many people who think global warming is a fraud perpetrated for economic reasons, and I think transparent half-measures and illusory changes, like F1's current push for greater sustainability, do nothing but make that problem worse.

Furthermore, it's unlikely anything can be improved in any context until everyone understands that real solutions will need to encompass everything by default. For instance, what's the point of hybrid powertrains if the production of lithium-ion batteries negates the benefits?

In a 2013 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program concluded that batteries using nickel and cobalt, like lithium-ion batteries, have the “highest potential for environmental impacts”. It cited negative consequences like mining, global warming, environmental pollution and human health impacts.

Well, manufacturing anything is going to be harmful to the environment. Mining lithium and cobalt might be particularly bad, but nowhere in that article or the referenced EPA report do they make a comparison with petrol over a complete life-cycle (and I'd be very interested in seeing one!). Even if battery technology proves to be more harmful overall, it is nevertheless improving, and we should push hybrid technology and the development of electric vehicles so that better batteries can be seamlessly integrated when they become available, rather than stall now and only start making gains later.

So, when folks talk about F1 being "green," I just think of stuff like this, and it kinda bugs me...

There are 19 races held over eight months on six continents. The turnaround from one race to the next can be as short as one week. Each of the 11 teams will travel about 62,000 miles during the season, bringing with it two cars and roughly 50 tons of stuff. You name it and they’re probably hauling it, from spare parts to the pots and pans used in the catering trailers. It’s enough to fill six Boeing 747 jumbo jets, and it keeps an army of people on the road for as many as 200 days a year.

[...]

Not everything goes by air. Teams typically have five or six sets of common parts—things like work benches, tool trolleys and the like, along with stuff like PR and marketing material—and send them by sea. It’s slower, but given enough sets, the teams can send them weeks in advance so they arrive in plenty of time.

(Look up the environmental impact of container ships. It's not exactly pretty, to say the least.)

And this is exactly why I don't think the race fuel limit alone can be seen by anyone as making F1 green! Also, if they are considering removing the fuel limit next year, and assuming this alone was ensuring compliance with the EU directive to "address sustainability and regulate to improve its own profile," then they'd be opening themselves up to the UN's threat of enforced regulation. This just doesn't make sense.

[henry]

The fuel flow limit is pushing development of the engine in the right way. Maybe efficiency will get close to 50% which is sensational. Also the manufacturers like the showcase their ability to develop such green technology.

Agreed.

If they just keep the fuel flow limit and do away with the 100kg capacity we are likely to get some much less fuel efficient modes, particularly in part throttle/low demand situations as they burn fuel to maximise ES charge. It will be just like the hot blown diffuser, lower overall power unit efficiency but better lap and race times.

Consider that the MGUK can only send 2MJ to the ES in any one lap. And that normal braking at most circuits allows roughly 1MJ to 1.5MJ energy recovery. That means the Engine would need to drive the MGUK an extra 4-8s to fully charge the ES. Or roughly 0.11kg to 0.22kg of extra fuel per lap.

Doesn't sound much, but over a 50 lap race it is approximately 5-10kg, which costs ~0.25-0.5s per lap.

In any case, the MGUH would most likely be used to top up the ES to its full 4MJ capacity.


As regarding fuel usage during the race, faster cars may actually lessen the fuel used. The Mercedes often used notably less fuel than most of its rivals, even though it was going faster.

And consider that if a car was able to take all corners on a circuit at 300km/h+ with maximum power (ie maximum fuel flow) the standard race length would take ~1 hour, and the fuel burn during that time will be the 100kg maximum using a constant 100kg/h fuel flow rate.

Thanks for your insight into the fuel use driving the MGU-K. It's a useful way of looking at it.

I'm not sure I quite agree with the assumptions. You seem to assume that the fuel flow rate will be at 100kg/hr which makes much more than the 120 kW needed to drive the MGU-K. Fuel flow for that would probably be around 25% of that so the extra fuel would be 1.25 to 2.5 kg. so less of a lap time hit.

I wasn't only thinking of using the MGU-K to charge the ES I was also considering the modes that have been suggested of delayed ignition etc to increase the MGU-H power when the driver demand is lower than the power the ICE could deliver. At Barcelona, for instance, they are on part power for around 20 seconds. If they can get an extra 10kw from the MGU-H that's another 200 kJ to the ES. That's in addition to MGU-H power that can be harvested when the MGU-K is switched off at the end of straights. I'm not suggesting that they would do this for the whole race just at strategic points such as the start, around tyre changes and to implement or defend overtakes. The rest of the time they will cruise saving fuel. The planning of optimum strategies using all these modes will obviously be very tricky, but they will all do it and it will be even more of a time trial. IMHO

The total energy useage can be more than 4 mJ per lap and I suspect in qualifying it probably is.

Your example of a 300 kph lap is a reminder that the most efficient way to lap is to vary speed as little as possible. I would expect that the extra grip from the 2017 rules will be used to go much faster in the slow parts and slower in the fast.

If they don't relax the fuel capacity typical race speed will be much lower than qualifying although we may see occasional quick laps.

[bhall II]

This just doesn't make sense.

Are you new to Formula One?

[wuzak]

The total energy useage can be more than 4 mJ per lap and I suspect in qualifying it probably is.

I think that over a normal race lap the usage is greater than 4MJ too (mJ is milli-Joule, rather a small amount).

[wuzak]

I'm not sure I quite agree with the assumptions. You seem to assume that the fuel flow rate will be at 100kg/hr which makes much more than the 120 kW needed to drive the MGU-K. Fuel flow for that would probably be around 25% of that so the extra fuel would be 1.25 to 2.5 kg. so less of a lap time hit.

That is true.

[ChrisDanger]

This just doesn't make sense.

Are you new to Formula One?

Well, watching for 20 years but only really looking behind the surface for 5. I see what you're getting at though...

It really all comes down to whether you believe the powers-that-be brainstormed solutions (to the UN mandate to address sustainability and regulate to improve its own profile) and ultimately came up with "let's impose a fuel limit to save some petrol" versus "let's impose a fuel limit to push hybrid technology by emphasing efficiency".

[ChrisDanger]

Didn't take long to find...

F1 moves to set 'green' agenda
Saturday, 4 December 2010

The agreement for Formula 1 to switch to a new energy-efficient type of engine... is the culmination of months of in-depth negotiations about one important aspect of the future of the sport.

Increasing F1's sustainability was a key aim of both... the FIA... and... FOTA...

F1 can... help in dramatically reducing the carbon dioxide emissions produced by road cars in the future.

They will do this by producing new engines that reduce fuel consumption by as much as 50% while retaining the same power...

By introducing these new rules, F1 is hoping it can go some way towards insulating itself against accusations that it is an irrelevant waste of resources.

It can counter any such claims by pointing out that the pursuit of [greater efficiency] by some of the world's brightest engineers in the white-hot competition of F1 will lead to a much faster development of energy-efficient technologies.

[bhall II]

I absolutely agree that's the image everyone wants to present.

The original idea was to reduce costs, or add marketing value, by incorporating more "mainstream R&D" and to address criticism regarding the sport's nature...



(The rest of that document can be found here.)

Whether or not there's any substance to it all is another matter.

[NL_Fer]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-po ... 89216/?s=1

So i guess we won't see more fuel saving during races, unless taking less fuel will make a car go faster onna full race. (Lighter car, less tyre stress...)

[Ennis]

I really do think that people get slightly off-topic on the green thing, although a few here have already touched on my opinion of it.

For all the public talk of green - which nobody in the public cares about in relation to F1 anyway, - the real reason they did this was engine manufacturers. Fuel efficiency is becoming more and more important in road cars, and this got manufacturers on board as there is a crossover from their R&D for F1 to the cars that they're selling to the minions.

The other green items that get shouted about publicly is just taking the situation and trying to make some extra positive PR from it, it wasn't the main driver of the fuel restrictions being implemented or kept.

[NL_Fer]

Damn right. F1 increased fuel efficiency from 30% to almost 50% and it's drivable also. No roadcar manufacturer pulled this of in far more years. It is insane.