F1technical.net

Zynerji wrote: Until torque needs outstrip horse power needs, gas burners will reign supreme I think.

An MGUK weighs about 10kg and produces 120kW.

Power is not the problem for electric vehicles.

Energy storage is.

120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

And no significant decrease in perfomance over the years, no maintenance...


It´s only the batteries what keep ICEs alive yet

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

Agreed...But the energy density of fuels still put batteries to shame.

Andres125sx wrote:And no significant decrease in perfomance over the years, no maintenance...

It´s only the batteries what keep ICEs alive yet

Agreed...But that's a BIG ONLY.

IMHO, I think (and hope) they will overcome this limitation. But batteries really need a breakthrough innovation in order to become our main energy storage for transportation.

True gasoline has about 50x the energy density, without the hybrid system we'd only be able to extract maybe 35% of that energy so ~16.35 MJ/kg vs batteries which are 95% efficient @ .835MJ/kg which in practical terms means fuel is still 20x more energy dense than gasoline. For poops and giggles uranium is 1.6 million times more energy dense than the best gasoline.

godlameroso wrote:True gasoline has about 50x the energy density, without the hybrid system we'd only be able to extract maybe 35% of that energy so ~16.35 MJ/kg vs batteries which are 95% efficient @ .835MJ/kg which in practical terms means fuel is still 20x more energy dense than gasoline. For poops and giggles uranium is 1.6 million times more energy dense than the best gasoline.

Welcome to Formula Nuclear!

dmjunqueira wrote: But batteries really need a breakthrough innovation in order to become our main energy storage for transportation.

I think the innovation is in how you recharge the batteries. Traditionally you plug it in and wait a long time. Liquid fuels always win in this way because they are quick and easy to replenish.

I think Formula E is half right. They change cars when the battery is discharged. The answer for the rest of us is to have an idiot proof battery swap system. Drive up to the recharge point, drop old battery, insert fresh one, drive away. It requires little in the way of technical innovation : what it requires is political innovation in order to have a truly common/universal battery design and some form of central ownership. The "system" owns the batteries and you just pay for the juice (and a nominal battery depreciation/maintenance charge).

wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.

A minor consequential change to the wider front wing is that the deflection test has been changed. Same load, positioned further out and deflection permitted by 50% (15 mm vs 10). My rough estimation is that this allows the wings to be 30% less stiff. Together with the wider wingspan it will be more straightforward to get the wing tips close to the ground.

My estimation is based on the expectation that the stiffness is a length cubed relationship which would have permitted a deflection of 13.5mm. Rule writers so like round numbers though.

Whether this makes any difference will be moot given the expertise in bending the wings no matter what test is formulated.

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.

AnthonyG wrote:

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.

I think what Godlameroso was trying to say is nicely depicted here...

Pierce89 wrote:wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.

+100

AnthonyG wrote:

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.

3 phase motors have constant torque until they reach peak power after which they have constant power. Nominally speaking.

AnthonyG wrote:

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.

Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.

Horses will always be faster than those dang darn automobiles....

strad wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.

+100

Someone said refueling will bring smaller fuel tanks which will bring smaller cars which will bring better aero.

Someone got schooled...