The Hybrid/NA Engine Debate (moved from Future Rule Changes)

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Spot on.
Most of the suggestions here seem to be for some form of glorified Historic Racing.
Great fun and a marvelous spectacle but hardly the pinnacle of motorsport.
If you bring back 3ltr multi cyl. NA engines, limited wings or ground effects with great big wide tyres the results would still be dominated by those who could spend most money on the even more irrelevant details within those rules. And F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.

Ok, this is the bit that I can't quite compute. If you take the current PUs they are running 100 litres for a 200 mile (approx) race. I may be off base here but that equates to around 8 MPG for the full race distance, which we know is also supported by the electrical power so I suspect they are much thirstier than that.

Current, modern V8 production engines, as we know, can produce significant power for much less fuel usage using modern injection techniques compared to the old days. The cost of tuning a stock block to produce 800bhp would be much less than the cost of 20 million per unit and it would still not use more than 8 mpg but it would be lighter than the gubbins currently in the cars thus the cars would be dynamically better. Seems to me that is not "historic racing" but road relevant pinnacle of motorsport.

Yes I realise the current PUs produce more than 800bhp but they are also significantly heavier than a V8.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Drive out the Manufacturers and the sport would again become the domain of a breed of garageists probably funded from even more unlikely sources that we have in F1 now. And F1 would no longer be the pinnacle of motorsport.

Yup garagistes such as Jack Brabham and then Bernie E, Colin Chapman, Ken Tyrrell, Guy Ligier, MARCH, Eddie Jordan, Williams, McLaren, to name but a few. Of course there were others such as the financier of Arrows, the Italian Shoe Magnate, allegedly VJ Mallya, et al.

I can't see why having those type of characters in the sport would be so wrong. Of course it's necver going to be cheap but in my opinion proper engines are far more fuel friendly per BHP than the current crop of PUs.

[Sodemo]

NA engines are currently unfashionable. Everyone wants a turbo.

I think the Le Mans issue is that the NA engines have been regulated out of viability. This is entirely a manufacturered scenario by the FIA and the ACO, there is no reason why a NA engine can't be a competitive solution for a race team if the regulations are done in way in which allows them to compete.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

NA engines are currently unfashionable. Everyone wants a turbo.

Agreed but then again a turbo small capacity engine will still produce the same power as a large volume NA engine and the fuel usage will be very similar. Hence the Ford Ecoboost engines.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think the Le Mans issue is that the NA engines have been regulated out of viability. This is entirely a manufacturered scenario by the FIA and the ACO, there is no reason why a NA engine can't be a competitive solution for a race team if the regulations are done in way in which allows them to compete.

Because the Manufacturers wanted to dominate.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Toyota ran an NA engine in their hybrid LMP1 up until 2015. It's not the ACOs fault that a smaller turbo engine can under more circumstances be more economical.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes but again here we are talking hybrids thus the fuel usage is higher than an NA and the cars are heavier. Also we are discussing Formula 1 not WEC.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes but again here we are talking hybrids thus the fuel usage is higher than an NA and the cars are heavier. Also we are discussing Formula 1 not WEC.

All the FIA need to do is drop the minimum weight back to 500kg, 1500cc turbos,100 litres of fuel for race distance, and make the running of the hybrids optional.
We saw the hybrids are not even worth their weight in ballast when the FIA started legislating axle weights to force teams like RBR to use the hybrids in the first place.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes but again here we are talking hybrids thus the fuel usage is higher than an NA and the cars are heavier. Also we are discussing Formula 1 not WEC.

F1 uses hybrids too... And hybrids are way more economical.

[Peter Mallett]

My point is that without the hybrid they are using more fuel per mile than an NA engine. Yes I agree they are used in both disciplines but in WEC they are relevant.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

That's because you can't see the engine without the hybrid component. I don't like the term 'Power Unit' but it does work better to desciribe what's actually going on. One of the reasons the hybrid stuff is so expensive is because it becomes a fundamental part of the whole drivetrain. This is also why simply removing the MGU-H won't do much and will require a complete redesign.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

My point is that without the hybrid they are using more fuel per mile than an NA engine. Yes I agree they are used in both disciplines but in WEC they are relevant.

And the fossil fuel saving that comes with the hybrids is what is highly relevant to Daimler Benz. The main board were on record 8 years or so ago that they would only give the F1 project the green light to continue if, at a minimum, that could be demonstrated.


It may not be what we like or want, but in some ways Mercedes are propping up F1 with their PU supply. And I also believe that a more "green" F1 was mandated by the FIA (or possibly just Todt) when these power unit rules were being drawn up. And now that the technology genii has appeared, it will probably be impossible to push it back in the lamp.

[Peter Mallett]

Actually the point is that when they are using fossil fuel it's wasy way more dangerous to the planet than a normal engine. Hence the problems with the diesel engines and Merc VW etc.

So, I'm not being historic or old fashioned I'm advocating using technology that gets you more mpg per litre of fuel than the current scam. Indeed electric vehicles are good. But hybrids are a complete scam.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It may not be what we like or want, but in some ways Mercedes are propping up F1 with their PU supply.

Not sure I agree with that at all. They had a huge hand in forcing F1 down this route where it needs to be propped up. They don't then get credit for then propping it up. That's Mafia tactics - you have to pay for the protection, and the Mafia get credit for providing the protection.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So, I'm not being historic or old fashioned I'm advocating using technology that gets you more mpg per litre of fuel than the current scam. Indeed electric vehicles are good. But hybrids are a complete scam.

I think I'm missing something because I don't see how a hybrid will get less mpg.

[Peter Mallett]

Well you need the hybrid to cover the miles that the power unit doesn't. If the engine was on its own you'd only get half a gp out of it.

[Akrapovic]

Ahh I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure the maths on that works (or I've gotten completely the wrong end of the stick!). The hybrid is only using energy that is lost from the vehicle if you don't have the hybrid. The engine burns the energy, regardless of the hybrid being attached. The hybrid just makes sure less is wasted by deceleration.

The cars travelling more distance on the same fuel. The combustion engine is achieving the same MPG, but the car as a whole system is achieving more.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes that's it. The only reason the vehicle travels further on the same amount of fuel is because it's using the kinetic energy. So the green thing is a complete scam since when it's burning fuel it's doing so at a greater rate than a normal engine.

Hence we aren't actually saving the planet. Either we go completely electric or we stick with fossil fuels. Hybrids do nothing.

[Akrapovic]

hmmm, I'm still not understanding.

If you take out the hybrid and do half a GP, which is approximately 100 miles (for sake of easy discussion) on 100L of fuel.

With the hybrid, it'll do a full GP, which is approximately 200 miles on 100L of fuel.

No matter what you do, it is going to burn 100L of fuel. However, one system allows it to double the distance on the same fuel. It's still burning it but achieving significantly more on the same amount - burning approximately half the fuel per mile covered. That's a good thing, isn't it?

I do agree regarding electric cars though. Shame electric race cars are boring, as I'd love an electric road car. Turns out 14 year old Fiestas can't be turned into one though. Within our life time, the majority of cars on the road will be electric I think.

[Peter Mallett]

Well it depends on your pov. If you think its good to waste energy by dragging half a tonne of metal around so you can say you've met a certain mpg then fine. The point though is that when you are burning that fossil fuel, you are doing so at a greater rate per mile than a normal engine. So which one is green?

[Akrapovic]

Ahhh, right I'm seeing where you're coming from more. I get it. I think for road cars that's a really good point - does the efficiency of the hybrid system cover the additional cost of adding the weight to the car. For F1 I'm pretty sure it does, but that's a really interesting question that I've never thought about for a hybrid. I've honestly no idea if the hybrid pays for itself in, for example, a Prius.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

The point though is that when you are burning that fossil fuel, you are doing so at a greater rate per mile than a normal engine.

While I don't think this is true, in fact the opposite, even if it was what would it matter? The vehicle itself uses less fuel to go further. Hence fewer tank stops, less fuel burned over its lifespan. The best thing about a hybrid vehicle is that it uses 'free' energy, so any weight penalty is already offset by that.

Also, while indeed your point might have some merit when running on the freeway with the hybrid system not engaged, the reverse is true when you are driving in a city and have to brake and accelerate. When accelerating the engine has to do a lot less work because it gets help from the hybrid system.

[Peter Mallett]

I see your point but it is dragging a lot of weight to do that. Hence it's not that efficient and thus not very green. Which is why mainstream manufacturers are dropping hybrid and going either EC or small turbo. But I prefer a full on V8 petrol

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hence we aren't actually saving the planet. Either we go completely electric or we stick with fossil fuels. Hybrids do nothing.

This is laughable. Electric drivetrains are the biggest scam in the world right now. A hybrid takes the best part of both types of drivetrains and combines them to drastically reduce fuel usage and emission.

There is nothing 'green' about an electric drivetrain. If all the cars in the world would drive with one we'd need a second sun worth of energy to power it all. Gotta hope that fusion thing works out I guess!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I see your point but it is dragging a lot of weight to do that. Hence it's not that efficient and thus not very green.

Neither of those things are true, as I've already explained. So I don't think you actually get my point. Hybrid cars are extremely efficient and drastically cut emissions.

I'm starting to think whether something is 'green' or not is not even important to you at all, considering your comment about the V8s.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

There is nothing 'green' about an electric drivetrain. If all the cars in the world would drive with one we'd need a second sun worth of energy to power it all. Gotta hope that fusion thing works out I guess!

We're going way off topic here, so I won't keep going after this - but that statement is 100% untrue. It not only underestimates the amount of energy the sun gives out, it completely disregards the efficiency level of solar panels, electric drive trains, battery storage solutions, the energy used to produce petrol for vehicles (and therefore saved when it's no longer produced) and other forms of energy collection such as wind, geothermal and tidal.

In 1 second, the sun produces 380 quadrillion joules of energy. That's more than the entire history of mankind has used combined. In that 1 second, it produces over a million times the energy used on Earth in 1 modern year.

Edit: For perspective. 380 quadrillon joules of energy will charge over 1 billion electric cars, should that car have a 100kWh battery. Every second. In a day that takes it to 86.4 trillion cars. In a day.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

If you hadn't noticed, that was hyperbole.

[Akrapovic]

That's one word for it. Another is "wrong". Hyperbole is an exaggeration to prove a point. If the point is wrong, then so is the exaggeration.