Can fuel economy win a race in F1?

[Greenback]

Audi has been winning the Le Man series by improving their engine fuel efficiency with technologies such as FSI and TDI and that give them the option to go for less pitstops during the race.

I am just curious why when FIA is talking about going "Green" with F1 and yet they are still having rules which prevent F1 team from adopting similar approach. E.g. the current tyres rules which requires every driver to use 2 sets of tyres.

Personally I think FIA should consider going green with fuel efficency engine rather than KERS because fuel saving technology are more practical to road cars than KERS.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Greenback

Personally I think FIA should consider going green with fuel efficency engine rather than KERS because fuel saving technology are more practical to road cars than KERS.

There are quite a few road cars that use KERS or similar systems.It's basically up to F1 to improve these systems,particularly with regards to making them more compact.

It's become increasingly more difficult,particularly with regards to petrol engines,to get more power from less fuel.Turbo's may help and maybe that will be the route for F1 in the future.But there's nothing new about turbo's.

[BootsOntheSide]

KERS-type technologies have more room for improvement and more potential to be used on more cars than any fuel-saving devices, which is surely why F1 is pushing ahead with them. Running even half the race on one tank of fuel is never the fastest way anyway - it's only occasionally successful due to the show car being deployed at the right time.

[johntt]

The KERS in the form that its being put in for F1 is useless from an environmental perspective.

Its recovers 30% of the energy recovered as opposed to 70% that Toyota used in a Supra that won the Tokachi 24 in Japan.

The energy recovered only makes the car go faster by a gimmicky boost rather than improving fuel economy.

The batteries, if they are nickel-hydride batteries will need to be thrown away often and the production process is awful environmentally. If they were using lithium-ion batteries that would be better; however the best choice would be lithium-polymer batteries which can withstand thousands of recharges (which would be perfect for electric road cars)

Li-poly batteries are not quite production ready yet but putting them in F1 in the KERS system would accelerate their development greatly and improve F1 from am marketing perspective.

[Yannick]

I hope fuel efficiency is the next step to be introduced when the "engine freeze" is over.

[broadrun96]

Any "gimmicky" boost developed on the race track is EXACTLY the same as a gain in fuel efficiency, the difference is in the application of that boost in power. If it is stored until the driver chooses to release it or on top of the available power, it is more practical for a race car; but if it is used to decrease the amount of engine power needed to develop the same acceleration, that's how the street cars would use it. As for the 30% vs 70%, I have read numerous articles about the car and few offered widely varying amounts of power that could be stored, but the FIA rules clearly state on 60 kW can be available for 6.67 sec. No idea how much that is relative to the amount that could be stored I have no idea, but it gives a rules backed cap for the teams to meet. Without that standard it would be impossible to judge for the first year or 2 of its use how effective the systems really are, some teams may over tax the systems in hopes of getting them off the cars, or in search of even more power and make them look useless in an F1 setting. If they are proven and reliable in F1, then the reigns can be loosened and cars can have different systems for varying engine sizes or use of turbos. Also after this testing period than efforts can be made into development of newer more efficient or longer lasting batteries, but if you are trying out a mew system, limiting the variables is the ONLY way to go. Testing it with all new parts is just asking for skewed results, and with the costs in F1 the way they are already, asking for money to develop new batteries is asking for it to fail up front.

[Greenback]

I believe the concept of the KERS is more geared toward showcasing energy recovery technology rather than fuel efficiency to make F1 more enviromental friendly, because the KERS system itself is an extra weight to the car, (about 40kg) and to carry this extra load the cars will have to burn extra fuel and rubber throughout the entire weekend, be it testing or racing.

[Adam43]

Do you use more energy carrying the extra weight than you save through the KERS system?

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Do you use more energy carrying the extra weight than you save through the KERS system?

According to Toyota, the KERS will only be available for about 6.5 sec per lap and the realistic time benefit from KERS will be around 0.1 to 0.3sec per lap.

IIRC the weight effect on F1 cars is 0.3 sec per 10kg hence if the KERS weigh 40kg, it should make the car about 1.2sec per lap slower.

But because FIA using a standard minimum weight limit for all cars, hence there will not be any weight handicap for cars running KERS. However from a fuel efficency point of view, it does look as if the KERS is "consuming" more energy than it produce.

[Adam43]

Lap time and effeciency are not quite the same thing, but I see what you are getting at.
Maybe with time it will go the other way?

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Lap time and effeciency are not quite the same thing, but I see what you are getting at.
Maybe with time it will go the other way?

This is what Wolfgang Hatz, head of powertrain development at Audi said about KERS.

What about hybridizing an ultra-high performance car? Too much weight, says Mr. Hatz, referring to traditional battery-electric hybrids. But what about non-traditional hybrids that might weigh in a bit lighter -- like the flywheel kinetic-energy-recovery system some Formula 1 teams are feverishly readying for the 2009 racing season? Surely the racing tie-in would make this type of hybrid ideal for RS duty. Hatz and Reil are unconvinced that a flywheel could be A) upsized to provide meaningful acceleration in a coupe or sedan weighing three times as much as an F1 racer and B) packaged safely and conveniently in the engine compartment.

Link

[Marbot]

Exactly.

What works for F1 doesn't necessarily work for road vehicles.

However,only Williams have gone for the 'flywheel' system and they have no interest in road vehicls.