Grand Prix Rejects

I was just checking the rulebook for 2014 (still no concorde agreement ? )
and what did i read, the formula 1 cars should be fully driveable on electrical engines.

Wel WTF is Jean Todt thinking ? He want's to destroy the sport or what ?
*To think about the safety of mechanics, team members etc. they will not hear the car only some noise of a alarm that a car is entering the pitstop, for sure they won't hear then and some people will get killed if they are in a hurry.
*What if a batterty, see heidfeld, explodes or gets to hot ? That marshal had theluck he only had some brused bones.
*How can you say i watched formula 1 if you DON'T hear them can't smell them, getin love with them because of some stupid zoom sounds of some stupid electronic F1 car.
*Why we don't make a RC race of it ? only the RC can drive 340 KPH

For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.
I think Todt should stop he can't be the president of the FIA he fails everytime, yes im not a fan of him, like Frank Williams. Just go away get some 18yo chick and get kids with her.

f1-gast wrote:For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.

Oh grow up - it is fairly obvious that elecrtical engines are the future of F1 and motorsport, just like it is the future of public road traffic. If you don't like it, you will have to get a new sport. A completely new sport because everyone will be using such engines. Hell, even NASCAR will ... some day. Unless my dream of a world of algae fuel will be a reality, that is.

Short answer: Yes

Klon wrote:

f1-gast wrote:For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.

Oh grow up - it is fairly obvious that elecrtical engines are the future of F1 and motorsport, just like it is the future of public road traffic. If you don't like it, you will have to get a new sport. A completely new sport because everyone will be using such engines. Hell, even NASCAR will ... some day. Unless my dream of a world of algae fuel will be a reality, that is.

Why should i grown up ?
If this is the future of autosport probably it will al die, i just hate this idea.
And well maybe im one of the people left that gets exited from Petrol and burned rubber.
Sad that you agree with this...

f1-gast wrote:Sad that you agree with this...

I don't "agree" with it (which you might have noticed if you have read the last part of my post). The only thing I agree with is the fact that struggling against the inevitable is a stupid waste of time. And due to social and economical developments, these changes are essential. If motor racing dies from anything, it is going against these trends - there is too much money involved to allow such a "rebellious" behaviour.

Klon wrote:

f1-gast wrote:For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.

Oh grow up - it is fairly obvious that elecrtical engines are the future of F1 and motorsport, just like it is the future of public road traffic. If you don't like it, you will have to get a new sport. A completely new sport because everyone will be using such engines. Hell, even NASCAR will ... some day. Unless my dream of a world of algae fuel will be a reality, that is.

NASCAR are in the process of switching from the tried and tested carburettors to fuel injection as a way of saving fuel, even though the current engines are incredibly fine tuned for efficiency (I'm not joking here - whilst people deride them for using carburettors, their current engines are actually some of the most efficient engines in use in motorsport today).

It's a thorny issue that has come up a great number of times before, but ultimately the FIA is having to respond to the fact that the world has changed massively since the inception of the sport just over sixty years ago. Things have changed drastically in many fields since then, and, in many ways, Formula 1 has to reflect changes in society lest it risks becoming an anachronism; Formula 1 doesn't exist in splendid isolation, despite the fact that many of those within the sport seem to think it does.
You can, and many do, talk at great length of the past glories of teams, the majestic screams and whistles of past engines, the smoke of tyres pushed to and beyond their limits, the crunching of gears and those old tales of blood, sweat and tears. However, a sport cannot live on nostalgia alone, and can ill afford to alienate more manufacturers at a time when their presence is already precarious.

And it is hardly as if Formula 1 are alone in having pure electric propulsion in the pit lane - hybrid cars have been present in sports car racing for some time, and a fair amount of the current KERS technology in F1 comes courtesy of sports car racing (Zytek's research efforts with Mercedes, for example). Besides, at Le Mans, where the hybrid systems have to be capable of powering a car down the pit lane (at 100kph, so safety is still as much of a concern), there were no reported problems.

In some ways, the reluctance of Formula 1 to accept technology like KERS and HERS has already begun to bite - it probably helped alienate Toyota (they've switched to Le Mans now where they're rumoured to be working on a petrol powered hybrid car), probably hurt relations with BMW and possibly driven Volkswagen away too. We're already beginning to feel the effects of the current intransigence of the teams who believe that the current rules are locking in an advantage for them - but in trying to keep things permanently tilted in their favour, they might just be destroying the sport in the process.

At the very least, Formula 1 does risk being overshadowed by sports car racing - for now it has been unfortunately ruined by the ACO's constant attempts to engineer a French victory at Le Mans, but as things stand, it looks like it might be about to undergo a transformation, in part thanks to the joint effort with the FIA. And, having been a little stagnant in recent years, suddenly manufacturers are flocking to Endurance racing - BMW's GT works team, Nissan has returned as an engine manufacturer, Toyota's planned LMP1 car is one of the worst kept secrets in motorsport, Jaguar has recently announced that they are seriously weighing up a return to the P1 category - you get the idea.

With that in mind, Formula 1 has to do something to prove to the public that it is still, ultimately, relevant to them in some way or another - and high technology, which has traditionally been its USP, is ultimately going to be that route. You may not like how things are changing - quite a few resent that - but sometimes it is better to change and adapt, and redefine the sport, rather than going down fighting and ceasing to be.

ADx_Wales wrote:Short answer: Yes

This.

personally I think the idea that electric engines are dangerous because they're too quiet in the pit lane (it's my understanding that the motors will only be used in the pit lane) is ludicrous. An F1 engine at low revs (100kph) will be utterly drowned out by cars screaming by at 300kph on the straight anyway. What's the difference between not hearing a petrol engine and not hearing a silent electric motor?

Did we need proof that the FIA was insane?

I think I was one of those disappointed by how poorly FIA handled KERS in F1. It had potential from day one but it was heavily restricted to "level the play field" since the Mercedes/Zytek system was felt to be having an "unfair advantage" over the competition. It was one of those classic cases when somebody with a good idea (and/or money to spend) was blasted to keep the rest of the field from mumbling too much and to provide "closer racing", FIA style. It alienated the big Japanese manufacturers (all of those spent tons of money on hybrid propulsion systems) and possibly Volkswagen. F1 has become very static in recent years, all in the name of "cost saving measures" and "closer racing": it as about time something was done about it. And if this means a few less entrants, slightly higher costs or less "closer racing", so be it. This is the pinnacle of motorsports, not a national Hornet Cup trophy (a popular form of low-cost motorcycle racing).

Having said that I understand F1-Gast point. Forcing a new, immature technology down everybody's throat is never a good idea. Electric racing vehicles are a classic case. The TT-X, an electric motorcycles racing series, has so far proven to be an abysmal failure. It's not so much about the lack of noise of petrol smell, as much as the fact the vehicles on the grid are clearly underdeveloped. Not a single major manufacturer is present: it's all small teams. Perhaps they have good ideas but they lack the resources and know-how to develop their vehicles to even an acceptable point. And it's not like major manufacturers aren't interested: Honda has been working on a fuel-cell motorcycle engine since the early '90s. They are currently working on an hybrid-engined scooter. When asked why they aren't entering TT-X with a fuel cell bike or why the hybrid scooter keeps being pushed back the answer is always the same: this is new technology being applied to an unknown field, we are encountering new problems we need to solve first. We are not ready yet.
Perhaps Honda could rush a fuel cell bike in TT-X but what if it explodes after a minor spill? Perhaps they could sell the hybrid scooter damn right now but what if turns up to be a huge lemon (like their infamous VF750F "Chococam")? The world has changed since you could start racing or selling a vehicle with unproven technology.
But hybrid technology in cars has advanced in leaps and bounds and it's getting more mature by the year. It's about time it gets its shot at racing.

mario wrote:

Klon wrote:

f1-gast wrote:For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.

Oh grow up - it is fairly obvious that elecrtical engines are the future of F1 and motorsport, just like it is the future of public road traffic. If you don't like it, you will have to get a new sport. A completely new sport because everyone will be using such engines. Hell, even NASCAR will ... some day. Unless my dream of a world of algae fuel will be a reality, that is.

NASCAR are in the process of switching from the tried and tested carburettors to fuel injection as a way of saving fuel, even though the current engines are incredibly fine tuned for efficiency (I'm not joking here - whilst people deride them for using carburettors, their current engines are actually some of the most efficient engines in use in motorsport today).

It's a thorny issue that has come up a great number of times before, but ultimately the FIA is having to respond to the fact that the world has changed massively since the inception of the sport just over sixty years ago. Things have changed drastically in many fields since then, and, in many ways, Formula 1 has to reflect changes in society lest it risks becoming an anachronism; Formula 1 doesn't exist in splendid isolation, despite the fact that many of those within the sport seem to think it does.
You can, and many do, talk at great length of the past glories of teams, the majestic screams and whistles of past engines, the smoke of tyres pushed to and beyond their limits, the crunching of gears and those old tales of blood, sweat and tears. However, a sport cannot live on nostalgia alone, and can ill afford to alienate more manufacturers at a time when their presence is already precarious.

And it is hardly as if Formula 1 are alone in having pure electric propulsion in the pit lane - hybrid cars have been present in sports car racing for some time, and a fair amount of the current KERS technology in F1 comes courtesy of sports car racing (Zytek's research efforts with Mercedes, for example). Besides, at Le Mans, where the hybrid systems have to be capable of powering a car down the pit lane (at 100kph, so safety is still as much of a concern), there were no reported problems.

In some ways, the reluctance of Formula 1 to accept technology like KERS and HERS has already begun to bite - it probably helped alienate Toyota (they've switched to Le Mans now where they're rumoured to be working on a petrol powered hybrid car), probably hurt relations with BMW and possibly driven Volkswagen away too. We're already beginning to feel the effects of the current intransigence of the teams who believe that the current rules are locking in an advantage for them - but in trying to keep things permanently tilted in their favour, they might just be destroying the sport in the process.

At the very least, Formula 1 does risk being overshadowed by sports car racing - for now it has been unfortunately ruined by the ACO's constant attempts to engineer a French victory at Le Mans, but as things stand, it looks like it might be about to undergo a transformation, in part thanks to the joint effort with the FIA. And, having been a little stagnant in recent years, suddenly manufacturers are flocking to Endurance racing - BMW's GT works team, Nissan has returned as an engine manufacturer, Toyota's planned LMP1 car is one of the worst kept secrets in motorsport, Jaguar has recently announced that they are seriously weighing up a return to the P1 category - you get the idea.

With that in mind, Formula 1 has to do something to prove to the public that it is still, ultimately, relevant to them in some way or another - and high technology, which has traditionally been its USP, is ultimately going to be that route. You may not like how things are changing - quite a few resent that - but sometimes it is better to change and adapt, and redefine the sport, rather than going down fighting and ceasing to be.

Why I feel your post is simliar to this, Mario?

f1-gast wrote:I was just checking the rulebook for 2014 (still no concorde agreement ? )
and what did i read, the formula 1 cars should be fully driveable on electrical engines.

Wel WTF is Jean Todt thinking ? He want's to destroy the sport or what ?
*To think about the safety of mechanics, team members etc. they will not hear the car only some noise of a alarm that a car is entering the pitstop, for sure they won't hear then and some people will get killed if they are in a hurry.
*What if a batterty, see heidfeld, explodes or gets to hot ? That marshal had theluck he only had some brused bones.
*How can you say i watched formula 1 if you DON'T hear them can't smell them, getin love with them because of some stupid zoom sounds of some stupid electronic F1 car.
*Why we don't make a RC race of it ? only the RC can drive 340 KPH

For the electornical car races, we got those solar races in the desert and in Australian, what i totally support but it's not for the formula 1.
I think Todt should stop he can't be the president of the FIA he fails everytime, yes im not a fan of him, like Frank Williams. Just go away get some 18yo chick and get kids with her.

It appears Bernie Ecclestone agrees with you on the pitlane issue. Note that he shifts the blame onto Max Mosely

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/263105/Formula-One-s-electric-avenue-is-not-for-Bernie-Ecclestone

FMecha wrote:Why I feel your post is simliar to this, Mario?

Random chance - I honestly had no idea that article existed until you linked to it. Keith Collantine does tend to comment quite often about developments within Formula 1, both technical, economic and political, though, so on a topic like this I guess that both myself and Collantine were thinking along similar lines.

The Mountain Man wrote:I think I was one of those disappointed by how poorly FIA handled KERS in F1. It had potential from day one but it was heavily restricted to "level the play field" since the Mercedes/Zytek system was felt to be having an "unfair advantage" over the competition. It was one of those classic cases when somebody with a good idea (and/or money to spend) was blasted to keep the rest of the field from mumbling too much and to provide "closer racing", FIA style. It alienated the big Japanese manufacturers (all of those spent tons of money on hybrid propulsion systems) and possibly Volkswagen. F1 has become very static in recent years, all in the name of "cost saving measures" and "closer racing": it as about time something was done about it. And if this means a few less entrants, slightly higher costs or less "closer racing", so be it. This is the pinnacle of motorsports, not a national Hornet Cup trophy (a popular form of low-cost motorcycle racing).

Then there was the problem that KERS rapidly spread from being just a pure technical discussion into a heated political debate. As you say, whilst BMW, Toyota and Honda, for example, were very keen on promoting KERS and HERS in F1 as part of their business models, other manufacturers, like Ferrari, and the non manufacturer backed teams were against what they saw as a considerable cost with little commercial benefit for them. Bernie, of course, was stirring the pot, no doubt because he saw it as a way of trying to fragment the increasing power of FOTA, whilst Max wanted to end his term in office at the FIA having made a difference to the long term future of the sport.
Perhaps inevitably, given the way the sport has been run recently, what we got was a clumsy bodged deal - a deal which, as you say, was a bitter pill to swallow for Honda and Toyota and gave them little incentive to stay (I remember Toyota being especially angry about the deal, complaining that they were using more advanced technology in their first generation hybrid road cars than they could use in Formula 1). The engine development freeze probably didn't help either - Honda and Toyota stuck fairly strictly to the terms of the deal, and paid heavily for it as their rivals abused the "reliability upgrade" system to build up more and more of a power advantage.

Now, instead of seeing Formula 1 benefiting from the technology that those corporations developed, we might well see the sport paying for that intransigence. According to James Allen, Toyota are currently in discussions with the FIA about the possibility of a high profile electric vehicle racing series - coincident with Toyota announcing a world record attempt for an electric vehicle around the Nordschliefe - and it seems that the FIA are very interested in the idea.
As you say, whilst much of the currently available technology is unrefined and being driven by smaller firms, things won't stay that way forever. Electric and hybrid cars, for example, may still be relatively expensive compared to their conventional rivals, but advances in manufacturing techniques and energy storage devices are already beginning to make those alternative technologies viable.

Yes, as things stand, that technology might not yet be mature, and will require significant investment, but the potential pay off is also there - back in the late 1970's, nobody thought that a turbo charged engine would be competitive in Formula 1, and Renault were mocked pretty heavily when they tried, but those jokes quickly vanished when they started smashing their rivals on track. In some ways, hybrid technology faces a similar situation - McLaren and Ferrari, for example, took a lot of pain over the use of KERS in their cars, but both teams soon wiped the smiles off the faces of their rivals by winning races. The technology is there, and has considerable potential - but we'll probably see the existing power brokers within the sport fighting against it for some time yet.

f1-gast wrote:I was just checking the rulebook for 2014 (still no concorde agreement ? )
and what did i read, the formula 1 cars should be fully driveable on electrical engines.

The plan is that the cars will only use electric engines when in the pits. However, in order for that to happen, the car must be fully driveable under electric power. Theoretically, the cars could do an entire race on electric power, but they won't be doing that. The rules have been written that way so that the teams do not try and exploit loopholes about being under electric power when in the pits (for example, only using KERS instead of a proper electric engine in pit in order to cut down on their weight).

YES

Well firstly, it was not the battery that exploded for Heidfeld, it was the air bottle. I think that if the battery exploded, it would have been a much larger explosion!

I don't agree with the electric engines idea, and I think the FIA doesn't eitehr, but I think that it's a necessary evil, as if F1 does not give off the perception of taking action to help the environment, there is a good chance that sponsors will turn off, and it's not impossible that the general public/politicians etc. may turn against motorsport, which is already happening to a limited extent in France, because of the perceived notions of damaging the environment (despite the fact that one 747 flight produces more CO2 than F1 cars all year)

Whenever people cite the environmental impact of electric power, the arguement always seems to avoid at least two key points:

1. How is the electricity generated initially? This often still produces CO2 and is not 100% efficient at turning all the original energy into electricity, then there are further energy losses turning the electricity into momentum.

2. The impact of battery disposal. Seriously, battery acid! Very highly toxic and enviromental unfriendly, particularly the more one uses.

This move is unsafe and does not achieve what the powers-that-be intend, if these are taken into account.

dr-baker wrote:1. How is the electricity generated initially? This [...] is not 100% efficient at turning all the original energy into electricity, then there are further energy losses turning the electricity into momentum.

That argument is rather silly since the degree of efficiency of an electrical engine is better than most combustion engines - I admittedly don't know how this works out for an F1 car but when forced I think a Formula 1-level electrical engine will have less energy loss than a current V8. The part about CO2 generation to power the battery is partly true, however.

dr-baker wrote:This move is unsafe and does not achieve what the powers-that-be intend, if these are taken into account.

Well, that's just wrong - admittedly, that is only true because the intention of the powers-that-be is not the one they say it is (as always). It is only about the pretense of enviromental friendlyness. I do not believe for a second that Jean Todt is so high on electrical engines and efficency as he says he is. Ed24 has pointed that one out. As long as it looks like F1 turns green, it is working - mostly since most of the modern "We want a green world"-screamer are not really bright as to how the environment actually works.

- The engines will still be V6 Turbos revving to 15000 RPM, thay will sound just fine.

- Peugeot already did the "run only on kers in the pit lane" thing at Le Mans, it worked out fine.

- Batteries probably aren't much more likely to explode than any of the other flammable liquids on an F1 car, I can't recall there being any dangerous KERS incidents since that BMW engineer got a shock back in 2008.

F1 is changing, but then its been changing constantly since 1950, and people have been complaining about almost every change for 61 years, and yet we're all still here. It will be fine.

IdeFan wrote:F1 is changing, but then its been changing constantly since 1950, and people have been complaining about almost every change for 61 years, and yet we're all still here. It will be fine.

I agree, but believe me F1 fans are nothing compared to motorcycle racing fans. If it were for them we would still be seeing bikes with cast iron engine blocks, side valves, bias tyres etc.

I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

DOSBoot wrote:I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

I think that would be nice, and there are manufacturers doing that - Mazda, for example, has been running their Wankel engines on hydrogen in experimental scale in public roads in Japan, for quite some time now it seems - however, the cars are not yet commercially available.

I drive a gas-powered (methane gas, or CNG) car myself, but I think in the case of hydrogen specifically that'd be a bit too dangerous, especially in case of a gas leak or a crash - I might be wrong about that though.

DOSBoot wrote:I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

I will repeat myself like a broken record: algae fuel is the solution ... nobody will ever listen, am I correct?

Klon wrote:

DOSBoot wrote:I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

I will repeat myself like a broken record: algae fuel is the solution ... nobody will ever listen, am I correct?

I'll listen. I'm interested as to how it would work.

Klon wrote:

DOSBoot wrote:I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

I will repeat myself like a broken record: algae fuel is the solution ... nobody will ever listen, am I correct?

I definitely agree - electricity is not the answer in my opinion, as my earlier post might possibly have suggested (and thanks to Klon for commenting on it). Algae bio-fuel would mean less research and development as internal combustion would be able to continue. And algae would be less problematic for food production as well.

Priceless wrote:I drive a gas-powered (methane gas, or CNG) car myself.

What's the difference between that and LPG?

dr-baker wrote:

Klon wrote:

DOSBoot wrote:I'm surprised the FIA doesn't try looking into differnt types of fuel to power F1 cars. Such as hydrogen. With electrical engines, we wouldn't be going forwards in technology, we would be going backwards.

I will repeat myself like a broken record: algae fuel is the solution ... nobody will ever listen, am I correct?

I definitely agree - electricity is not the answer in my opinion, as my earlier post might possibly have suggested (and thanks to Klon for commenting on it). Algae bio-fuel would mean less research and development as internal combustion would be able to continue. And algae would be less problematic for food production as well.

I agree with the algae fuel solution as well.

dr-baker wrote:1. How is the electricity generated initially? This often still produces CO2 and is not 100% efficient at turning all the original energy into electricity, then there are further energy losses turning the electricity into momentum.

Electricity is generated from hydroelectrics, at least around these parts of the world. My country has built many small(ish) dams, so there is electricity for ourselves, our southernly neighbours, and a few others. As far as I know the environmental impact from hydroelectrics is negligible, and only a handful of villages have been lost to the waters.

dr-baker wrote:

Priceless wrote:I drive a gas-powered (methane gas, or CNG) car myself.

What's the difference between that and LPG?

As far as I know, LPG (liquified petroleum gas) is mainly a mixture of propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) gases. At least around these parts, that's the gas sold in metal bottles for use in cooking. There sometimes are (road-illegal) modifications that use the same containers used in stoves for fueling cars, especially in rural areas of the country.

CNG (compressed natural gas) is used here as an alternative fuel for road cars. It's methane (CH4) gas stored at high pressure (we use 220 bar, or 3,190 PSI at refueling here) in a metal tank much like that in the schematized RX-8 shown at the Mazda site I linked in my previous post. Most CNG-powered cars here are modified regular gasoline cars (like mine), but at least Fiat makes a few select cars that come CNG-ready from the factory for the Brazilian market. The main reason for CNG usage (at least here) is that it's much cheaper than petrol for running the same distance.

For more info, see here and here.

Priceless wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Priceless wrote:I drive a gas-powered (methane gas, or CNG) car myself.

What's the difference between that and LPG?

As far as I know, LPG (liquified petroleum gas) is mainly a mixture of propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) gases. At least around these parts, that's the gas sold in metal bottles for use in cooking. There sometimes are (road-illegal) modifications that use the same containers used in stoves for fueling cars, especially in rural areas of the country.

CNG (compressed natural gas) is used here as an alternative fuel for road cars. It's methane (CH4) gas stored at high pressure (we use 220 bar, or 3,190 PSI at refueling here) in a metal tank much like that in the schematized RX-8 shown at the Mazda site I linked in my previous post. Most CNG-powered cars here are modified regular gasoline cars (like mine), but at least Fiat makes a few select cars that come CNG-ready from the factory for the Brazilian market. The main reason for CNG usage (at least here) is that it's much cheaper than petrol for running the same distance.

For more info, see here and here.

Is methanol/ethanol also available? Wonder what the difference in safety and environmental concerns are between the gases and alcohols. (One thing I do know is that methanol burns with a naked flame but burning ethanol is visible.)

I believe the standard is 40% ethanol 60% fuel in Brazil, but I might not be right. I can tell you for sure that the mixture here is 30/70.

dr-baker wrote:Is methanol/ethanol also available? Wonder what the difference in safety and environmental concerns are between the gases and alcohols. (One thing I do know is that methanol burns with a naked flame but burning ethanol is visible.)

Yes. We have ethanol on fuel station pumps for cars, and most new cars sold in Brazil can run on either gasoline or ethanol, or a mix of them in varying proportions (we call those "flex-fuel" cars).

We also already use ethanol in racing cars - our Stock Car category runs their cars on ethanol. (On a side note, in the last race there was a special participation by Jacques Villeneuve! Don't think he did THAT good, even though he led the race for a few laps while the other drivers were going to the pits.)

In terms of environmental concerns, proponents of ethanol state that, even though burning ethanol produces CO2 like burning fossil fuels does, the production process of ethanol (sugar cane plantation) absorbs some of that CO2 - and speaking of production processes, ethanol comes from a renewable source.

About the gases... methane gas (CH4) is currently, in its majority, obtained from non-renewable sources (oil wells and gas reserves), but could be obtained from other sources (such as the decomposition of organic matter). Its use is incentived by some local governments, like here in Rio de Janeiro - we have a car ownership tax deduction if the car uses CNG. That deduction was instated on environmental concern grounds - natural gas burns much "cleaner" than gasoline.

Frentzen127 wrote:I believe the standard is 40% ethanol 60% fuel in Brazil, but I might not be right. I can tell you for sure that the mixture here is 30/70.

As far as I know, the "standard" petrol (pump fuel) here is mixed with 25% ethanol. This has been revised over the last few years so I'm not 100% sure of this information.

So we have now established several fuels that have environmental credentials which does not have the disadvantage of the silence of the electric motor, to to which KERS/HERS/whatever could still be added if nneeds must. How about it, FIA? Give the engine manufacturers choice of hydrogen/ethanol/methane/butane/propane/electricity and let F1 be the developing ground for all these and one will eventually dominate, which will likely (hopefully) coincide with this fuel dominating the market place. And if F1 doesn't Le Mans prototypes probably will instead, and be seen as the innovators instead. (Why does F1 have to be turning into a spec series?)

dr-baker wrote:So we have now established several fuels that have environmental credentials which does not have the disadvantage of the silence of the electric motor, to to which KERS/HERS/whatever could still be added if nneeds must. How about it, FIA? Give the engine manufacturers choice of hydrogen/ethanol/methane/butane/propane/electricity and let F1 be the developing ground for all these and one will eventually dominate, which will likely (hopefully) coincide with this fuel dominating the market place. And if F1 doesn't Le Mans prototypes probably will instead, and be seen as the innovators instead. (Why does F1 have to be turning into a spec series?)

The major issue with gaseous fuels, like methane, hydrogen etc. is the energy density per unit volume of those fuels, since, in a road going vehicle, you want something with the greatest energy density per unit volume possible. It's one of the reason why aromatic compounds, such as toluene derivatives, were so popular in the fuel mixtures of the 1980's turbo engines (the high resistance to premature detonation being another factor).
If you were to loosen up the regulations, I expect that most teams would still prefer to work with petrol due to the high energy density - one or two outfits might be tempted by bio-alcohol fuels, though the additional fuel required to complete a full race distance would probably hurt performance more than the slight gain in peak power. Perhaps, in the future, bio-butanol, instead of bio-ethanol, might be a more feasible proposition (Branson has invested in bio-butanol production as an alternative to kerosene), but for now I expect that only a few options would be taken up, with others quickly being dropped.

The irony is that, in many ways, an electric motor blows the internal combustion engine into next week - beautifully smooth power curves and instantly available torque across the entire rev range, significantly reduced maintenance requirements, vastly superior efficiency figures and so forth. Of course, as things stand, battery technology hasn't kept up, and until we see some major revolution in that field, electric motors are always going to be held back (both in racing and in the public arena).

As for your comment about Le Mans, well, there is a story doing the rounds on a few websites - MulsanneCorner have picked up on it - suggesting that the ACO is seriously considering a fuel energy content formula from 2014, much as we saw during the Group C era. The figure currently being bandied around is 1500 litres of fuel for the Le Mans 24 Hours (or the equivalent energy content for other fuels, like diesel) - by way of comparison, a C1 class car was allowed 2450 litres, and a C2 car was allowed 1650. It seems that the ACO would, in addition, liberalise the engine format considerably from 2014 onwards - though the low fuel allowance would put a major emphasis on downsizing the engines.

It's an interesting idea, but there is one major catch to it as far as I can see - who would be able to stomach the development costs for such a program? Independent engine manufacturers like Judd are already barely turning a profit, thanks to the ACO continually changing the regulations, so I fail to see how they could afford to develop a radically new engine.
It's possible that the manufacturers would baulk at that too - even Peugeot has been feeling the pinch recently, and having to cut back on development - and I expect that only the VW Group could really stomach the development costs in this day and age. It might be an inspired move by the ACO, but it could also destroy sports car racing if the costs of competing are too high - after all, part of the reason why manufacturers are returning to Endurance Racing is because it is relatively cheap at the moment (due to drastic cost cutting measures by the ACO).

I've done a lot of research on this area but I think that most of what I'd say has already been said.


I'd just like to point out though that I'm pretty sure the engines will still be idling whilst the F1 cars are under electric power in the pits, and an idling F1 engine is still pretty loud, so the dangers/chances of being run over are similar to what they are today.