F1technical.net

I just have to

quote some passages from a recent Pitpass article here, it's called "Bulbs, Cartridges and KERS"

Mike Lawrence in Pitpass wrote:...

The FIA wants to appear to be green, so we have to know about KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) which will be permitted in F1 next year. The theory was known by Newton, the basic technology was developed by NASA for satellites, and some public transport systems have used it for about twenty years. Formula One designers have been prevented from using it. F1 used to be the cutting edge of technology, now it is twenty years behind bus companies.

...

I believe that the Toyota Prius uses a regenerative energy system, so it must be very green indeed, except that the Prius is not, there are all those batteries to dispose of. The University of Wales has long taken an interest in the motor industry. A few months ago, it came up with a list of how green individual cars are. Eighty five percent of a car's carbon footprint occurs before it reaches the showroom. You have to dig out ore-bearing rock before you get your iron, steel or aluminium. The spark plugs have to be made and then transported.

Taking everything into account, the three greenest cars in the world are a Citroen, a Morgan and the Lotus Elise, two sports cars from three. ...

... The problem is, of course, that you cannot convince people. The Lotus must be bad, bad, bad, because it is fun.

...

We will have KERS, at long last. We will also have floodlit races, a conspicuous waste of energy at a time when motor racing is trying to appear green. F1 designers are stifled by the rules. They could be pushing the envelope, but they are costricted by the need to put on a show. They're allowed to be a pale shade of green.

...

Those are just some bits that referred to the KERS, the whole piece is brilliant and well worth a read. Unfortunately, I've been thus far frustrated in my search for the "University of Wales green car list". If anyone can produce it, please post a link to this thread.

If Mosley wants to make F1 more "green", a good start would be to paint all of the cars BRG!

That car looks really nice. I may be a spoilsport, but I think that a simple rear wing would really trim it out. For some reason, I always seem to expect a rear wing, but never expect the front one...

Ah well. Nice pic, and thanks for sharing!

Chris

Now this is

lame, the teams have made their beds, better sleep in those. Adding weight will reduce the rationale for any regenerative development, KERS or otherwise. I wonder which teams are requesting raising the minimum weight anyway? Perhaps ballast should be banned altogether, every part of the vehicle being "structural".

Any idea which teams are working with KERS in-house and which teams have outsourced (even a part) of the design and/or manufacture? I've canvassed the net for flywheel energy storage experts, in fact there's quite a selection of them around - inspirational people, though success has been rather varied. Some devices and ideas seem a better fit for F1, some seem incompatible for this environment. Let's hope it works out better than with Chrysler's "Patriot" Le Mans project from over a decade ago. (There are a lot of conflicting accounts about its feasibility btw. Some maintain that there were catastrophic failures, or that the car never even ran, others maintain that the car was canned for reasons that had virtually nothing to do with the technology itself.)

There's also progress to be made with the powertrain itself, the advances in CVTs, hydraulics, bearings and such might prove to be greater than just experimenting with the structural integrity of flywheels. Thus any technology therein could also be employed with other methods of recovering/transmitting braking energy - and accomplishing other things as well.

I have to believe KERS will give Toyota at least a small edge over most other F1 teams next year. They have built hybrid production cars with a tame version of KERS for several years (late 1990s). I'm sure there is little or nothing they can simply lift from their production cars in terms of components, but I would think they have some advantage in their understanding of the basic technology.

In a similar vein, since Honda and BMW take such pride in their engines, and Mercedes in their advanced engineering, I'd think that Renault and Ferrari may have some major catching up to do. (When one thinks of advanced automotive technology, I don't think Fiat ranks very high on the list . . .)

Honda had a Hybrid on the road before Toyota.

It was called the Insight. Toyota just improved on the design.

Are you sure? IIRC Toyota had the Prius for 2 years before the Honda Insight. Honda created the simpler "mild-hybrid" Insight as a response to the overly-complex parallel-hybrid Prius.

checkered wrote:.... Unfortunately, I've been thus far frustrated in my search for the "University of Wales green car list". If anyone can produce it, please post a link to this thread.

Mr. Lawrence probably refers to http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au although I don't find any references to the U of Wales (it's probably the U of New South Wales).

Long, gratuitous reflection on Mr. Lawrence article (skip to the next "line" if you wish):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ask me, he's not only exaggerating: the sport cars he mentions rate as good as the Corolla, and, let's be frank, most people need to carry bags and children. A Lotus Elise has the problem that it's totally unpractical, so if you buy two cars because one is a toy, then the exaggeration becomes one of the lies marketing people comes with...

On the other hand most sport cars are atrocious from that point of view. A Mercedes Maybach, that consumes 7.24 sterling pounds of oil per mile (in another list of "How green is your car", total cost, including all energy needed to build the car) is... well you can figure out: a Jeep Wrangler goes for 0.38 pounds per mile. That's a factor of 20! Besides, those lists are popping like mushrooms in manure... I don't believe most of what I see, much less what I hear.

The fact is this: a lighter, less gas guzzling car is 'greener', you don't need a university to be aware of that.

More facts: we've discussed a thousand times that it is the total picture what counts. ANY car that uses "second hand" energy, like electric or hydrogen ones are worse by a factor of 3: you can convert oil or coal into electricity but you end with 30% of the original energy.

As usual, news are a glorified form of gossip. The fact is that there are no "green cars".

It's like making a list of "benevolents dictatorships"...

Just check the energy flow of USA (can you distinguish the amount of renewable energy? Yes, go and find your magnifier to look for it, it's 6%... and US is one leaders in that, before somebody gets irky ).



You can "multiply 'greenery'" by two just by carrying someone with you to work.

Another fact: car occupancy is 1.5 persons per car (check the cars around you next time you go to work: you'll be astounded by the amount that carry one lonely person).

More Facts: less dense cities can "multiply 'greenery'" by a factor of 10. Check this (petroleum use vs city density).



I use public transportation, I live 6 blocks away from the school of my kids, I work at home, I go to my office once a week and in it you will find a secretary alone, everybody that works for me works using Internet. I don't do it because it's greener, I do it because it's cheaper...

Finally, I fail to see a difference between nature and people. Cities are as natural as beehives, there have been larger natural changes in the Earth than the ones that worry some people so much. The only difference between those changes and the one we're living now is the intelligence with which you affront them.

In that respect, humanity is not intelligent. We cannot feed or shelter or clothe the humanity: bees are much more intelligent than us in that respect. As Hobbes, of Calvin and Hobbes answers, when asked if the Universe is devoid of intelligent life: "You mean, besides Earth?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, on thread:

So, I ask first: how green can be an F1 car that costs 100 million dollars to build and runs for, I don't know, 4.000 km? Don't allow yourself to be fooled by FIA. It's just another headline in the newspaper.

Second: if KERS affect the aero, who cares? Let lap times show you the way.

Third: if you want greener race cars watch a stock series.

Conclusion: Max and Mr. Lawrence and all the green car lists are just playing with your sense of guilt. If pushing the pedal to the metal is bad, I'm "b-b-b-bad to the bone"... if you think I'm contradictory it's because you did not get me or maybe because you're right: I'm contradictory.

I'm unsure if anyone already raised this, but one of teh current hot faveourite systems (according to some pundits) is a flywheel.

Whilst this may be a good system for storing energy, would it not introduce enormous gyroscopic effects?

giblet, I'm pretty sure joseff is right. Toyota was first and Honda (and Ford) even used Toyota hybrid technology at one point.

At the moment, I don't think there's much doubt that Toyota has the lead in usable, practical hybrid technology: Prius, Camry Hybrid (somewhat of a kludge) and Highlander Hybrid. Toyota's Lexus brand also is very strong in high performance hybrids.

at this stage i would say toyota might have a slight advantage over Honda at the KERS system. Honda is leading the world in Hydrogen Fuel Cell but i would still expect their KERS to be second best on the grid next year.
Ferrari might have a bit of work to do to catch up with the japanese manufacturers tho

freedom_honda wrote:at this stage i would say toyota might have a slight advantage over Honda at the KERS system. Honda is leading the world in Hydrogen Fuel Cell but i would still expect their KERS to be second best on the grid next year.
Ferrari might have a bit of work to do to catch up with the japanese manufacturers tho

I believe that with Toyota calling the 2009 KERS systems "primitive" that it will not be that hard for all teams to max out the potential of the KERS regulations in 2009.

When they change the regs to include 4WD, as well as relax some other things, THEN you may see Toyota leap up a few notches.

Until then however, I believe that we will not see much change to the pecking order when the 1/2KERS systems come into use.

Chris

I agree with Ciro (I think) If you want to see a green racing series watch electric drag racing or solar car racing or whatever green power dudes class is called.
Even these are not that green Racing will never be green the thought of driving cars for no reason is not green at all.

flynfrog wrote:I agree with Ciro (I think) If you want to see a green racing series watch electric drag racing or solar car racing or whatever green power dudes class is called.
Even these are not that green Racing will never be green the thought of driving cars for no reason is not green at all.

Exactly, theres nothing 'green' about wasting resources, whether natural or man-made, just to see who ends up in first place. Formula One couldn't care less about going 'green' where it not for the marketing reasons and to be 'accepted' in the future. Otherwise we would see Formula One continue wasting finite resources like theres no tomorrow, just as in the past.

"Peer pressure" if you will.

It's all right if

y'all want to believe that the emerging (unfortunately billed) "greenness" of F1 is just for show, it's a human prerogative to be sceptical and from time to time that works out for the benefit of all.

Still, it is one thing to express perception and quite another to try and nullify or, worse yet, pre-empt anything that doesn't immediately conform to that perception. It would be immensely stupid for F1 to try and be green within itself only and I do believe many key people within the sport recognise that trying to achieve only this is the logical fast lane to utter and complete insignificance. As with any sustainable/positive exercise, the value is in the entirety of the interaction with the rest of the World.

And that environment will keep rolling on even if Formula One retires itself to some sort of a historic showcase of 20th century thinking and mobility (which it unfortunately is already, to a certain degree). During the relatively short history of Formula One, motorsport has always reflected the World and vice versa. There has been a symmetry, and once in a while, even a symbiosis. The way I'm reading half the recent messages here, you wish to break that relationship (in a surprising neo-luddite tone for a technical msgboard). I, for one, can't see how that could work whereas I at least have vague notions how that relationship can yet evolve.

And I don't see how and why that evolution should be held to a higher standard than any other human activity: There will be setbacks, frustrations and failures along the way. (The way I remember it, that used to be part of the thrill, actually.) Perhaps that's just harder to accept, or seems more insurmountable, when two very idealistic endeavors meet. Well, relax. It's not too often when lowering your expectations a bit is conducive to getting a better result.