Racing after Denmark and EPA rule

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I know this sounds farfetched, but President Obama (I won't omit the title) and EPA have taken giant steps towards stopping greenhouse gas emission. Surely the Nobel Prize Commitee invested well this year's medal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qtSeUchE[/youtube]

This seems irrelevant for engine regulations in Formula One. However, the intentions of the Copenhaguen conference and the politcal momentum implies that the idea of elliminating ALL greenhouse emissions by 2050 could become a reality and a compromise of nations.

As you all know, is this or brimstone will fall and the four horsemen will be at our doors, while tidal waves drown us in a sea full of stranded polar bears and heated penguins.

I can hear from here your brain working and saying: "Oh, c'mon... that's 40 years from now, Ciro, aren't you a little bit ahead of your time. You will be like.. what? 180 years old?".

Ok, I answer, good point (Damn brats! Don't you respect ancients anymore?) but hasn't FIA commited itself to lead engine development? Yeah, yeah, I got it, spare me the "FIA bull manure comments", I'm a FIA humble "base member", and proud of it, thanks.

Now, what about the Make Cars Green initiative?

This picture cover 98% of the fans of this site Yeah, those green thingies means they are also afraid of swimming among bears. Now, if I could find a picture of Vettel, Webber and one of Kobayashi (the last one, for me) I'd cover all the angles.


Shouldn't be a market goal for Ferrari, Cosworth and Mercedes to produce a new kind of engine well ahead of 2050? Sure, they need to do something.

So, could it be, should it be a goal of this forum to think about a new engine, a racing engine that doesn't produce greenhouse gases?

Frankly, I cannot think of anything in cars (except carbon fiber production, perhaps) that doesn't produce CO2 (and even then, I'm sure that this clever guy from Jersey will explain why I'm wrong).

The example of acid rain in US legislation could be interesting. Perhaps all that controversy was just a preparation for what is coming towards the world today (and the racing world tomorrow).

I know that the automatic response of some will be electric engines. Then, the even more automatic answer to that will be that they produce even more CO2 than current engines. The gradualistic option (hybrids are already here, c'mon, we have read about them!) seems also a very tepid response.

Coal plants had to mix the sulphur with lime in their chimneys to avoid acid rain: it was cheaper. Actually a whole industry evolved around that opportunity. We have a new opportunity in racing.

So, just to start a better discussion than a litany of posts about KERS and nano-something batteries, what about combining CO2 with I don't know what (lime?) in the exhaust?

Yes, I don't know, please shoot some crazy ideas or very good googlin'. Feliks? Riff_raff? JTom? Carlos? Scarbs? F1_eng? Flyn? Belatti? Scot? Bar? Modbaraban? Russ? Giblet? Timbo? Monstro? Axle? RH? Kilcoo? Ray? ESP? donskar? Joseff? Checkered? Sawtooth? Rob_W? djos? Saribro? Conceptual? PNSD? Bhall? Andartop? mx? Anyone? (oh, yeah, and X, Islam and WB... ).

Finally and last: if someone complains about how he will miss the sound and feeling of 20K or whatever engines, he will find only my despise. I dream of rocket races and I have a couple of ideas about the layout of the circuits of the future already.

The girl at the end of this video (1:40 mark) is my kind of girl and this is the kind of engine that even F1_eng can dig.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLcvdWwe8U[/youtube]

[WhiteBlue]

The story of the X-price is very different from the idea to run cars without CO2 emissions. It was a simple story of looking at methods that improved efficiency going back to ideas that had already been used in the time of Chuck Yeager. The difference obviously was greatly improved material and electronic control science. Already in the seventies anti satellite missiles fired from aircrafts could be send on a stabile course to space. So there was no need anymore to waste a huge primary and secondary rocket stage to get a spaceship to stratosphere. Composite construction was also overdue to make a contribution to energy efficiency in space flight.

The question is how do we apply similar thinking to F1 racing? To me the answer is the same as the one given to space flight. Radically reduce the energy budget needed to negotiate the track at the required performance. If a space ship can be released from a carrier aircraft and start its flight in free fall the advanced technologies required to improve aerodynamic and fuel efficiencies should be applicable to an F1 race car as well. They need to look into every single design rule and ask the question if it leads to minimum energy use at the required performance level. We are light years away from such rules in F1.

If we can achieve the same aerodynamic and track performance with active and flexible parts, active suspension, turbo engines, HERS and KERS with 80 liters of fuel for a 300 km race why are we still prohibiting all these things?

[jon-mullen]

I think the idea Jersey Tom is usually pushing is the best one to encourage this kind of development: you've got a set amount of BTUs to work with regardless of fuel/energy storage type and free up most of the rest of the rules. It's the only way I see of putting the same premium on economy that we have on the road.

[WhiteBlue]

Perhaps it would be sensible not to use BTUs but kJ. The French always want to make it difficult but in this case their metric system is elegant and simple and the one that was internationally adopted.

[jddh1]

Perhaps it would be sensible not to use BTUs but kJ. The French always want to make it difficult but in this case their metric system is elegant and simple and the one that was internationally adopted.

LOL, agreed though.

The formula needs to change, no question about it. But with these long term track deals, will there be more problems and hurdles in trying to eliminate the ICE? Perhaps a new formula could be created.
At the Isle of Man TT they had, for the first time ever, the electric motorcycle category, which official name I forget (perhaps SuperXX or something like that.) I believe of the many entries, only a dozen could start and only 5 or six finished. They ran only one lap though, not the 3 that other categories run. I'm sure one or two of us in this forum attended this year and possibly saw these cycles.

As far as the "zero" greenhouse rule in racing, perhaps the cars may start by installing a catalytic converter, like road cars...(hint, hint, FIA: wanna make F1 more road relevant?) Yeah, the power would drop but it would be for everyone so it's fair. And these are already existing technology I'm thinking of. Let's wait for the rest of the forum legends that Ciro mentions to add their 2 cents.

Anyway, I better get to work. When I think of something else

[flynfrog]

I say wait patiently for the next enviro fad to come along. Also invest in boots. Also nothing will come out of Copenhagen except a bunch of talk. If there were serious about helping the environment they would be focusing on soil erosion not CO2. It is not possible to create anything without using CO2 no matter what we build if a human has touched it there will be CO2 unless we hold our breath. But in that case we will simply expel twice as much CO2 at a later date.

Want a zero CO2 racing series. Don’t race.

[Downforce]

Want a zero CO2 racing series. Don’t race.

Simple and efficient.

There's nothing interesting in watching 26 snails racing each other, no mather how "green" they are...if you can't do it properly - don't do it at all.

[ESPImperium]

For me, what racing should be about is economy, if you want a green(er) series. Limiting the ammount of fuel per car per weekend to say 100kg, but having engines that have a simmilar C02 signature to the average car on the road per 100 or 1000km. Open the engine regulations for a period of 4 years, allow diesel power as well, but limit them to 60kg of fuel for the weekend, as theres a argument in WTCC and ALMS over diesel power at the moment tho.

Make it lucritive for engine manufacturers to make something green and economical, but mean-while belches out 700hp and screames to roughly 15000rpm. Sound isnt everything, its the racing we want improved at the end of the day.

Nought will come out of Copenhagen. More talk and gesturing and handshakes. Ill do my bit for the environment, but belive that Global warming is a myth. As we have a cleaner way of making things now than 50-100 years ago and dont have the ammount of crap i the atmosphere as we once did, hence filtering out more of the suns rays. Just my theory.

But, seriously, we need something in motor racing that keeps the tree huggers happy. Economy and C02 management systems woul be what F1 needs to gravitate towards, not KERS or HERS systems that cost money.

[tok-tokkie]

The concept of a specified quantity of fuel for the weekend - or so many kJ is even better - I think is just an interim stage.

I would like to see a competition where fuel produced by zero CO2 methods is the only permitted fuel. Solar produced hydrogen would seem to be the most likely source to me. Race starts on Wednesday when you start harvesting the energy & all you are allowed is what you harvest. During the race you can refuel including what you have been harvesting during the race (& accumulated since Wednesday morning). Wind, wave, tidal, hydro & geothermal fail because of availability. Nuclear is an interesting one though I would like to exclude it. Bio tech? Solar electric possibly but I suspect solar hydrogen would be a better racing strategy.

[Roland Ehnström]

This development doesn't worry me one bit. There are plenty of ways of making noicy, smelly and very powerful combustion engines that are CO2 neutral. Hydrogen, Ethanol and Bio-Gas are three very real possibilities - techniques which are available TODAY and already used in racing. Don't be backwards, fossil fuel is SO 20th century!

[ESPImperium]

This development doesn't worry me one bit. There are plenty of ways of making noicy, smelly and very powerful combustion engines that are CO2 neutral. Hydrogen, Ethanol and Bio-Gas are three very real possibilities - techniques which are available TODAY and already used in racing. Don't be backwards, fossil fuel is SO 20th century!

Id not rule any fuel out at all, as long as there was a ratio that could be used that it would make bio fuel energy and fossil energy the same in kilo jules, effectivly all fuels start with the same ammount of combustable energy for a race, then its all down to what engine is fastest that weekend. For example, petrols may be good on short twisty tracks as it has a higher termnal velosity on such tracks. Where diesel powered cars could be better on long, open tracks where they can reach termanal velosity and carry more thrugh a turn.

So it would be the engine manufacturer that would have alot of scope for development, if they find that thire engine can take less kilojules for a weekend, and they have a petrol block, they can reduce the fuel tank and take starting weight out of it. But, id make it that to gain a classified finish you have to complet a certain ammount of laps, incluging race distance, say 150 per weekend per driver, going on my 2009 data, that would mean a engine would last 770km per weekend on average. However, long or short circits may want to take +/- 15 to 25 laps off that.

Maximum combustable energy, with minimum distance coverage whilst having a neutral or almost zero emissions engine is the future of motorsport engines i think.

[flynfrog]

I could really care less what the burn for fuel. But you are kidding your self if you think racing will ever be carbon neutral. When you have cars circling a track burning fuel for no other purpose than entertainment. not to mention all of the fans that drove flew ate food pooped ect on the way to race. also what difference does it make if the cars produce 0 CO2 or 100s of tons. Its a grain of sand in the desert. Car emissions in general are a pretty tiny factor.

but we are getting way off of Ciros topic.

If you want to make the case you are saving the world from racing burn earthanol from organically harvested corn in what ever engine you please. It will make hippies explode from joy. If you wipe out that much of the population they will eat less food and use less energy leaving more for the rest of us..

[Roland Ehnström]

I could really care less what the burn for fuel. But you are kidding your self if you think racing will ever be carbon neutral. When you have cars circling a track burning fuel for no other purpose than entertainment. not to mention all of the fans that drove flew ate food pooped ect on the way to race. also what difference does it make if the cars produce 0 CO2 or 100s of tons.

CO2 neutral doesn't mean there are no CO2 emissions at all, only that no new CO2 is ADDED to the athmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. For sure racing can be CO2 neutral, just like everything else in the world (food, heating, transportation and so on). And sooner or later it has to, because like it or not the fossil fuels (oil, coal and fossil gas) are depleting rapidly.

I'm sure there will still be racing 200 years from now, and that it will be completely without burning fossil fuels. The next 50 years or so will be a transition period, where many different technologies will be evaluated to reduce the need of fossil fuels. KERS is only the beginning. I actually find it all pretty exciting!

[timbo]

So, just to start a better discussion than a litany of posts about KERS and nano-something batteries, what about combining CO2 with I don't know what (lime?) in the exhaust?

I have a terrible headache for some reason...
But here's a basic chemical insight.
Want to mix something with CO2?
Here's a choice.
You can use a tank with alkali. On Space Shuttle they used lithium oxide.
If you would use pure lithium and produce bicarbonate you would need 0.5kg of lithium per 1kg of carbon (or around 1.2kg of fuel). You would also get 0.08333kg as byproduct.
Also the process is energy beneficial especially if you manage to reuse hydrogen.
But... Who the hell you would get that much lithium? Only by electrolysis of it's melted salts - ALOT of energy needed.
How would you manage to carry out reaction efficiently? Obviously CO2 needs to be cooled prior to reaction as bicarbonate is not thermostable. Also, how you would dispose of salt? That also means funny thing for racing - there would be very little weight loss during the race if you carry the salt on board - no need to weight cars after the race?
Anyway, want to burn something cleanly - use hydrogen (you can reduce CO2 with hydrogen but that is crazy).
Another point, volcanoes produce (and produced) a lot more greenhouse gases that humanity managed and cows fart, so who knows, maybe we shouldn't fight with CO2 but do something for hunger in Africa instead?
Personally I'm waiting for nanotube solar cells...

[Belatti]

Another point, volcanoes produce (and produced) a lot more greenhouse gases that humanity managed and cows fart, so who knows, maybe we shouldn't fight with CO2

We should put filters in volcanoes...

You know, there is a little experiment that biology students are given when they are at the firsts Uni years: it involves a colony of bacteria.
Inevitably, it always happens the same when the colony grows too big for their enviroment: their own waste kills them.

"As above, so below; as below, so above"