F1technical.net

So what are your thoughts on this

Andres125sx wrote:That sort of improvement don´t convice me at all

To charge a battery let say in 6 minutes, you have to do a 10C charge... Do you know how much current does this mean? It will obviously depend on the battery, but if we say they´re 200Ah, that would be a current of 2000A....

They´re 375V, so you need a power station capable to provide 750kW per car

Well, you'll need thick wires. Not an unsolvable issue. It would be fairly easy to solve with super capacitors that are continuously charged from the network at lower currents. (It's probably be costly)

Also you won't get many cars, only which travel long distances. The standard would be to charge your car at night.

Andre, Im no expert of electrical batteries, but I think that the mentioned nanotech improvement would lead to a drastic decrease in bat internal resistance, thus making the charge more efficient and probably needing less amperage.

Belatti wrote:Andre, Im no expert of electrical batteries, but I think that the mentioned nanotech improvement would lead to a drastic decrease in bat internal resistance, thus making the charge more efficient and probably needing less amperage.

No the nanotech improvement only means they can be charged at 10C, currently fastest lithium batteries at this respect can only be charged at 2-3C

The amperage is the same, if you want to charge a 200Ah battery in 6 minutes the current must be 2kAh

But...

mzso wrote:Well, you'll need thick wires. Not an unsolvable issue. It would be fairly easy to solve with super capacitors that are continuously charged from the network at lower currents. (It's probably be costly)

Also you won't get many cars, only which travel long distances. The standard would be to charge your car at night.

mzso is right, not an unavoidable issue, just need new stations to charge electric vehicles

I know nothing about super capacitors, but if they´re a real posibility, it would be nice

OMG

Did somebody get paid to design that? really?

The pathetic batteries are to blame for the tracks too. Its written in the rules that the tracks are less than xx km, so the pathetic range doesn't limit them to 5 laps etc.

2nd race, Malaysia, this weekend



http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/calendar/ ... rcuit.aspx

Had they run macau, would the FE cars beaten the F3 cars?

WilliamsF1 wrote:Had they run macau, would the FE cars beaten the F3 cars?

No, definitively not.

I think even an F4 can beat a formula E.

Belatti wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:Had they run macau, would the FE cars beaten the F3 cars?

No, definitively not.

I think even an F4 can beat a formula E.

Maybe, or maybe not as F4 are 160hp vs 270/202 (power mode/race mode) for FE, but FE are probably heavier.

Anycase this is apples to oranges, as we´re comparing a new technology with another one tested for more than a century.

If comparing F1 laptimes from 2004 to 2014 is a nosense, comparing FE to any other ICE category is much worse

Beg my pardon Andy, but comparing is not nonsense. Comparing is just that: comparing. You can compare perfectly an apple to an orange: wich has to more vitamis, sugar, water or color. And you can compare two apples as well, its just a different type of comparison.

I often read in the forum the "apples to oranges" and reading between the lines I sense that maybe some comparisons can hurt some peoples suceptibility when the part they like got a little bit slapped.

We all know FE is a new try and it worths the effort, but we should not deny its slow. The same way we should not deny a 50s decade F1 car is slow arround a track compared to, lets say, a modern street sporty car. That doesnt take away the poor old 50s car credit, just gives us a perspective of how things were back then.

From how I see things, FE can beat a F4 car from 0-100 kph and thats it. Arround a track I have my doubts and what should help is to know the laptimes in brands hatch FE "simulation race". Remember they are not only heavy, they have street tires.

That´s the reason it´s apples to oranges, there are too many different factors to consider the comparison fair

Just the tires will probably be much more than a second on a normal track, if it´s wet even more. Would be fair saying FE are more than a second slower because the tires are slower? IMHO no, it wouldn´t

And what laptime do we get for the FE? Qualifying lap with 270hp or fastest race lap with 202hp? Why?

What laptime do we get for the F3/F4? Qualifying? Race lap with full tank? Race lap with empty tank? Why?

FE tires must last way more than F3/F4 tires. What laptimes to we get? New tires? Not fair for the hard ones. Tires with 30 laps? Not fair for the soft ones.

Dry lap or wet one?

There are too many factors that change the laptime drastically, they´re too different to be compared

Even so I understand we humans always tend to compare everything, but sometimes it´s useless. Specially when FE cars don´t race on usual tracks, so you can make your guess, but we will never find out

You can compare on a high level.

FE qualy lap vs F3/F4 qualy lap
FE fastest race lap vs F3/F4 fastest race lap

Sure the tyres are different etc etc but that is part of the formula, that is what makes it an FE car rather than something else.

If you are trying to break it down and find exactly where that difference comes from that is more difficult, you cant really say what would FE lap time be if we put F3/4 tyres on it. But at a higher level you definitely can compare different sports.