« Nippon Kasei To Boost Output Of Aqueous Urea for Diesel Emissions Control | Main | CAST Identifies Research Needs to Expand Corn-Based Ethanol Production »
Formula 1, Carmakers Strike Deal, Agree on Committment to Energy-Efficient Technology
17 November 2006
Formula 1’s carmakers and the FIA (the organization that governs world Formula One racing) have come to an agreement on a new framework that will govern the sport until 2012. FIA president Max Mosley and Burkhard Göschel, chairman of the Grand Prix Manufacturers Association, also reaffirmed F1’s commitment to developing energy-efficient technology as part of an effort designed to make F1 more relevant to the road car industry and more environmentally responsible. (Earlier post.)
Mosley and Göschel pronounced the deal a major breakthrough, and a fundamental change in the way that the rules are managed.
Max Mosley has spoken before of his desire to see F1 at the cutting edge of green technology, suggesting that in future engine power should be limited by energy consumption rather than capacity. In June, Max Mosley described in a press conference the organization’s intention to head toward hybrid technology for future years. (Earlier post.)
Mosley and Goeschel emphasized that the commitment to energy efficiency will be a core part of the new agreement.
We want to make the research work done in F1 not just cost-effective but also road relevant. That is to say, new developments in F1 should be those that are directly helpful to the car industry and in particular things which are relevant to perhaps the biggest single issue which confronts the car industry worldwide, namely the reduction of the output of CO2. That’s why in the shorter term we are looking at energy-recovery and re-use from braking. That will come in 2009. We will come out with a regulation before the end of this year. And then recovery and re-use of the excess heat or waste heat from the engines. We intend to have a regulation for that before 2010. Both those things are currently fundamental to road car research.
In the longer term we are looking at the possibility of a completely new F1 engine reflecting the industry tendency which is to have a downsized, turbo-charged engine. At the moment that is still a discussion point between us and the manufacturers. That very briefly is where we stand at the moment.
—Max Mosley
Our understanding as a manufacturer is that F1 is the pinnacle of technology. If F1 for us as manufacturers is to make sense we have to show into which area technology should go to solve the problems of the future but also to have the fun of Formula One racing. Without question we will have that.
Max also said we are starting with energy recovery in 2009. And as everyone already knows the engines are losing two-thirds of the energy by heat and one of the ideas is how do we bring that back. The first step is that bringing the energy back into the car is one of the most important recoveries, the second step is to do this without losing the energy of the first step. So not only the engine but also the drive train must be made very efficient. That is the outlook for the future.
What we are doing in the car industry, and you can see this at BMW, is that we are shifting over to turbo-charged engines with a high-point of efficiency. In the future we will have down-sized engines with turbo-chargers.
We have to look at all areas for reducing consumption but also keeping the dynamics of F1. It might sound like a contradiction but it is not. The targets of modern engineers is not just to say you can only recognize this area or that area but a modern engine has to cover both and if something seems to be not possible he has to find a solution to ensure that F1 is still dynamic, interesting, and emotional but it is following the modern ideas of technology.
—Professor Burkhard Göschel
(A hat-tip to Chris Ellis!)
Resources:
November 17, 2006 in Engines, Fuel Efficiency, Hybrids, Motorsport | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6857033
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Formula 1, Carmakers Strike Deal, Agree on Committment to Energy-Efficient Technology:
Comments
This makes perfect sense. Formula 1 is the epitome of technology, what they come up with trickles down to passenger cars. Big manufacturers like Toyota and Honda are there. Baically, have all the power you want, this is how much fuel you have for a race! Hopefully, there will eventually be emissions limits too. And I don't think it will make racing boring, ala Can Am in Mid Seventies. I think the time is right.......
Posted by: Bud Johns | Nov 17, 2006 3:57:23 AM
I would limit the amount of fuel / race to 20% less than the average used this year, starting in 2008.
Then drop it by 5% per year for a couple of years after that, reviewing the situation in case the racing got too dull.
The 20 and 5% numbers are indicitive - people in the know could set real targets.
They might be much higher.
Does anyone have a "mpg" value to a typical F1 car in a race ?
Posted by: mahonj | Nov 17, 2006 4:15:44 AM
About 4mpg
Posted by: Ash | Nov 17, 2006 5:54:17 AM
Note that racing engines are actually already among the most efficient, measured in BTU/kWh. The only way F1 could make a serious dent in fuel consumption would be to liberalize the rules on aerodynamics - currently, the cw-value is around 0.6, compared to less than 0.3 for production passenger cars. For example, the rules require that the front wheel suspension be monoposto, i.e. no cowlings. Of course, this visual cue differentiates F1 from other racing leagues, e.g. the Le Mans circuit.
Fiddling with the drivetrain using e.g. pneumatic recuperative braking, will achieve precious little as long as the cw-value remains sky-high and maximum speeds well in excess of 300kph. The theoretical lower bound (for a droplet shape) is about 0.15.
Limiting the energy consumption is tricky because in F1, fuel composition is one of the very few parameters still shrouded in secrecy. Unless the change that rule (instantly eliminating the participation of the oil & gas majors), they's have to actually measure the energy density of each team's fuel prior to each qualifying or race and then ensure they don't tamper with it during the event.
Limiting top speed for the sake of driver safety and reduced fuel consumption would be easier to enforce (radar guns), but it goes against the grain in racing. F1 is boring enough as it is, passing maneuvers are quite rare. Aerodynamic downforce minimizes the amount by which drivers have to slow down in turns.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 17, 2006 5:57:20 AM
F1 will be the most relevant form of racing in the near future. Hybrids, along with regenerative brake energy recovery used in racing with perhaps ultracap storage, can apply in the real world. I will be following F1 more closely.
Perhaps in the future F1 will be powered by electric motors powered by fuel cells, which convert onboard water into the necessary elements to run it. All inside the bodywork of the current open wheel F1. Nothing like racing (or, unfortunately...war) to advance technologies that otherwise would have no chance being developed.
My hope is that the American open wheel racing series, or "gulp" nascar, step up to the plate and have the guts to also develop these systems to apply to racing and, everyday transportation. Then they will win me back as a fan. Until then, F1 has my interest, and any available extra spending money I have.
Posted by: Mark A | Nov 17, 2006 6:11:57 AM
Apart from ecological improvements in F1 cars, it would be very nice if the FIA is more equitable with all the teams. To many followers of F1, it was evident that the FIA tried to help the Ferrari Team by banning the mass damping system and by punishing Fernando Alonso.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 17, 2006 7:07:59 AM
I can see how a hydraulic braking energy recovery system can be made within the weight requirements for an F1 car, but how on earth will they manage the heat recovery systems?
What are they going to use, organic rankine cycle? I would LOVE to see the solutions they find to cracking this one within the mass and packaging requirements of F1.
Posted by: clett | Nov 17, 2006 7:28:27 AM
Raser did an EV race car. If these were hybrid it would advance the state of the art and make auto racing more of a contribution, rather than just entertainment.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 17, 2006 7:30:29 AM
Certainly an oxymoron, racing and conservation.
This is greenwashing to substantiate their boring existence. Let's see how fast we can get to more climate change.
Trickle down theory? We already have transportation from point A to point B and vehicles capable of doing over 2x speed limit and 1/2 million fatalities per anuum.
There might be some other more noble causes worth considering today...
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Nov 17, 2006 7:58:20 AM
I can see how a hydraulic braking energy recovery system can be made within the weight requirements for an F1 car, but how on earth will they manage the heat recovery systems?
You can start with a turbocharger and reduction in engine size. It was either Williams or McLaren who experimented with energy recovery (we'd call it a hybrid) back in the 90's -- the FIA banned it before they'd gotten very far. Too bad -- the state of the art might have been well advanced by now.
Racing and conservation don't have much overlap but it's not a complete oxymoron: think of what F1-driven engine mapping did for efficiency.
And Jorge, were you complaining when F1 kept changing the rules to break Ferrari's stranglehold on F1? Renault ultimately benefited.
Posted by: dt | Nov 17, 2006 8:33:51 AM
DT, I think the rules should not be changed in the middle of a season, unless there is a safety issue.
Renault´s performance was very good using the mass damper.
I like Schumacher and he is a better driver than Alonso but, Schummi made more mistakes during the 2006 season than Alonso did.
I suppose next season Raikkonen will win the driver´s championship.
Regards.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 17, 2006 9:13:52 AM
fyi C02, I'm sort of suprised to hear what you said. I don't consider this pursuit an oxymoron at all, I consider it accelerated 'testing.' Automakers worth their salt will adequately test their vehicles for the road; this accelerates and improves upon everything. There is a 100% overlap possible here between the F1 and regular automotive vehicles in terms of possible technological applications.
One of the reasons why Honda's road vehicles are so well engineered and fuel efficient is b/c their F1 engineers (and superbike engineers) are cycled to develop cars like...civics. There are other auto makers (no names given) who have never had the benefits of engineering F1 vehicles, and it shows. This can only accelerate green technological advances, which no one here hopefully, would put down. It's easy to be a cynic, but not helpful. This development is not only not an oxymoron; it's eminently reasonable.
I'm all for this. If F1 does this, I can't wait to see Honda's or any other participants "regular" hybrid or electric road vehicles in 10 years.
Posted by: John W. | Nov 17, 2006 9:33:05 AM
Sorry guys this is F1 racing! Forget your Prius, Bio, Hybrid, Green. This is Testtosterone. It isn't meant to be Kermit singing 'it's easy being green'. It's Racing! Now burn the fuel and go like stink. It's the thousands cars going to the event that cause the majority of the pollution not a few dozen F1's. I'm a proud treehugger but this is silly.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 17, 2006 9:39:56 AM
fyi CO2,
Are you talking about worldwide fatality numbers? US highway/road deaths are a little over 42,000 (~4000 from motorcycles and ~4200 from pedestrians).
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 17, 2006 10:01:28 AM
John W., what green technological advances has F1 racing exhibited so far? F1 is a bad excuse for sustainable mobility.
And of course, there are the thousands of cars that clamor to these emissions events. Maybe they could just stay home- watch more reality TV (or hug a tree).
Don't car co.s still do autom. testing on dynos & proving grounds too?
Patrick, yes, my half mill figure quoted is the worldwide fatality figure.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Nov 17, 2006 10:48:58 AM
"burn the fuel and go like stink?" If that's a treehugger statement, then Exxon just planted a redwood forest for your picnic.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Nov 17, 2006 10:56:24 AM
Hello fyi C02: I never actually said, implied or argued that F1 has exibited green techno advances in its history. That said, that doesn't mean I'm saying they havn't either, I just don't know here because I never followed F1 that closely. Vtec does comes to mind though... You could be very accurate for all I know when you say it has a bad history on this score.
However, the main burden of my point was that in the development of more efficient engines and heat recuperative technology, automotive tech as applied to cars all over the world, in general, (should) be greatly enriched. That is the greatest news in this development. Even if we assume F1 has a horrible track record (no pun intended) on environmental issues, that doesn't mean we should therefore discount this development as hogwash. It is a very good turn for the better, with fantastic implications, therefore it should be applauded.
And on a subjective and personal note, I think it would actually add a factor and new element of excitement to the current racing setup. Sort of like a regular chess board morphing into a multi-leveled 3D version...wouldn't that make things interesting. Thanks for your reply fyi.
Posted by: John W. | Nov 17, 2006 11:21:00 AM
I was interested in the fatality numbers and was surprised to see over 1 million fatalities worldwide in the late 90s.
It seemed (in 96), while there were twice as many accidents in the US versus Europe there were 3 times the number of fatalities (probably due somewhat to a much larger number of pedestrian fatalities). Even if you consider all of North America (Mexico, US, and Canada) Europe still had twice the number of fatalities with less than half the number of accidents.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 17, 2006 11:22:47 AM
Virtual race cars, with human drivers-players in control, transmitted in 1080p, could replace the real extremely noisy F-1 buggies.
It would be as joyful to watch on a large 60-in. + screen and 700+ watts 7 channel speakers. It copuld be replayed over and over again to please everybody's schedule.
For the unconditionnals, existing F-1 race tracks could be converted for F-E-1 (electric) racers only.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 17, 2006 11:37:40 AM
With all that cash floating around, F-1 teams could fund things like camless engines w/solenoid valves (20% vs conventionals, ~11% vs near future VVTs).
__As for aerodynamic drag, perhaps they can take a page from Porsche, sproilers (and wings) that have variable profiles for variable downforce levels. For example, on a long flat straight, they would take a minimal profile to increase acceleration and speed. Just before the driver stomps on the brakes at the end of the straight, the sproilers pop up to create downforce, and act as mini airbrakes. The car's computer would be programed to take various profiles at different speeds, turning G's, etc. A lighweight failsafe backup (dragchute?) would be added to ensure the safety of drivers, and spectators.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 17, 2006 1:09:36 PM
Agreed, Harvey, and you wouldn't have to inhale the VOCs either!
Patrick, is it the increased # of solo drivers in the US vs. EU, or just the rate of travel that skews those figures? - that's severe.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Nov 17, 2006 1:10:17 PM
allen Z: movable aerodynamic devices have been banned for decades for safety reasons (this was the strange justification for the mass damper thing Jorge went on about). Things break at the bleeding edge. That wouldn't be particularly relevant for passenger cars anyway, since in road racing downforce beats top speed everytime.
Given the amount of money spent to gain even a small edge in a tight time frame (the next race), I think this is a good development. Certainly better than NASCAR, where they still use carburetors and are actually about to go to (gasp) unleaded gas.
Posted by: dt | Nov 17, 2006 1:46:41 PM
MarkH,
is there currently any significant racing convention that is electric-based? I love your idea for F1 electrics with on-demand FC <-- H2O. That would be an incredibly fun challenge!
Some of the developments in racing, like those from the aerospace industry need better tech transfer to consumer sectors. If F1 built astonishingly cool vehicles with the transfer in mind at rule-time, the entire cycle would be significant.
Human interest in racing stems as much from the anticipation of catastrophe as "go like stink" and big noise combined. It's a kind of character defect...
Posted by: gr | Nov 17, 2006 1:51:05 PM
This strikes me as pretty foolish since Mosley & Bernie Eccelestone have in the past been saying the cost of F1 racing needs to lowered drastically and certainly not increased...As for F1 having any sort of technical relevance to production autos you have to kidding yourself.
Posted by: gary | Nov 17, 2006 1:54:03 PM
This strikes me as pretty foolish since Mosley & Bernie Eccelestone have in the past been saying the cost of F1 racing needs to lowered drastically and not increased...as for F1 having any sort of technical relevance to production autos you have to be kidding yourself.
Posted by: gary | Nov 17, 2006 1:55:54 PM
dt -
F1 actually featured 1.5L V6 engines with twin turbos for a while, delivering up to 1500hp. Truly insane but still more fuel efficient than the naturally aspirated ones, which just kept losing. The rules even limited the amount of fuel turbocharged competitors were allowed to use. For some reason, the racing purists eventually won out and turbos were outlawed.
Allen Z -
electrohydraulic and electromagnetic camless valve drives actually eat a lot of energy because they cannot recuperate any via the valve spring the way a purely mechanical VVT can. Also, all valvetrains with variable valve lift deliver the greatest improvement in part load, because the reduce or eliminate the need for throttling via a butterfly valve in the intake duct. Race cars spend >80% of their working lives near the engine map point of rated power, so there would be little benefit.
One feature that would make a difference to both consumption and power is direct fuel injection, preferably in combination with downsizing, turbocharging, intercooling and cam phasing (but constant lift).
Thin-film thermoelectric elements in the exhaust manifold would be a useful complementary technology to stress-test in F1 conditions. Early lab results indicate high conversion rates of 10-20%. The electricity produced could power electric motors in the front wheels, which would do double duty by recuperating kinetic energy into ultracaps during braking (and mask turbo lag during acceleration). Manufacturers currently use a 40kg slab of tungsten to fine-tune the weight distribution between the axles for each racecourse. A well-designed ultracap system could be repositioned just as easily.
High turbine-in temperatures at rated power preclude the use of VGT turbos in production gasoline-powered cars (except Porsche 911 Turbo). VGTs are alreeady common in diesels and sharply reduce turbo lag at low RPM, a key requirement for customer acceptance of fuel-efficient downsizing concepts.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 17, 2006 2:05:10 PM
Rafael,
This is similar to GM hydraulic Cylinder Deactivation system, and may solve issues with camless solenoid valves, some which you pointed out. I'm wondering why GM is sitting on this.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6918360.html
For images, click "View PDF Images", follow page instructions.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 17, 2006 3:07:33 PM
Rafael, your comment about thermoelectric devices is good. There are people working on that one now. Power Chips is one such company, which uses nanotechnology to make a very efficient thermoelectric vacuum chip. Much more efficient than the 10-20% conversion rates you mentioned. It looks very promising, and then the current can be shunted into a large ultracap for use in acceleration, etc.
http://www.powerchips.gi/
Posted by: John W. | Nov 17, 2006 4:34:09 PM
During the turbo period of F1 there was also a V8 Alfa Romeo engine (twin turbo) but it was not succesful.
BMW also provided a 4-cylinder 1.5L engine with a single turbocharger.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 17, 2006 7:14:24 PM
Allen Z -
cylinder deactivation aka displacement on demand is used in a number of Honda and GM V6 and V8 engines in production today. Modified valve clearance compensation elements permit toggling the kinematic transfer function between the camshaft and the valve stem between two states, 0 and 1, in less than one crankshaft revolution (even at high RPM). Fuel economy gains are on the order of 7%, at low cost. The technology is not heavily advertised because it reminds customers that they are actually paying for a much bigger engine than they need for 90% of the time.
John W. -
interesting company, based in Gibraltar. It's possible they might be on to something, since changes in a material's figure of merit and/or the temperature differential it can tolerate mechanically do make a big difference in conversion efficiency. However, 70-80% seems awfully high. All I see is theory and vaporware.
Here's a primer on the state of the art of secondary thermoelectrics in automotive contexts:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session4/2004_deer_fairbanks2.pdf
http://www.cemamerica.com/doeevents/DEER/Presentations/Thursday/TS6%20Waste%20Heat%20Recovery/2006_DEER_LaGrandeur.pdf
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 17, 2006 7:39:41 PM
Automotive subsystem supplier Valeo announced that their camless electromagnetic valvetrain is scheduled for mass production in 2009. It actually uses return springs:
http://www.valeo.com/automotive-supplier/Jahia/op/edit/pid/1317
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 17, 2006 11:43:52 PM
Andrey -
please look closely at the drawings. In an electromagentic valvetrain (Lotus and FEV have independently developed similar solutions in Europe), each valve has not one but two springs. At rest, each valve is half-open. Before cranking the engine, the crankshaft has to be positioned at an angle of approx. 45 degrees to the vertical (in an inline 4). Next, the valves in each cylinder have to be excited into oscillation until they are caught in the closed position and kept there - this ALWAYS requires the application of a magnetic field.
After all the valves are closed, the engine is cranked and only then is the valvetrain actually activated. Upon releasing a valve from its "closed" position, the energy stored in its springs causes it to move well beyond the equilibrium position such that it can be caught and held in the open configuration. This also ALWAYS requires the application of a magnetic field. The springs serve only to minimize the strength of the magnetic field (i.e. the electrical power) required for catching the valve in the extreme positions. The actuator in fact never functions as a generator.
Engine shut-down also requires a special procedure to reliably avoid hard contact between the valves and the piston crowns, which could quickly lead to catastrophic engine failure. The combination of high electrical load, lack of recuperation and special start/stop procedures have limited the use of camless valvetrains to engine R&D applications, where they are used to optimize simulated cam profiles.
Note that in a mechanical valvetrain, each valve spring really does recuperate power to its camshaft in the receding portion of the cam profile.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 18, 2006 5:27:08 AM
John W. and Rafael,
some years ago I read an article in an electronics magazine about 2 english scientists who patented a direct conversion thermo-electric device capable of attaining an efficiency of 70% of the Carnot cycle.
They made a demonstration to the US Patent Office with a sample of the device. It generated electricity exchanging heat between the ambient air and a piece of ice.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 18, 2006 8:16:03 AM
Never-the-less amazing that these ICE electro-mechanical designs remain on the boards. When long ago we left analog electronics behind in favor of solid state digital devices - the mechanized world remains stubbornly entrenched in thousands of moving parts, coolants, heat exchangers, lubricating systems, on and on.
A brushless motor has so much more elegance. Perhaps it's the "idle hands" argument that keeps thousands of mechanical parts at the fore of engineering today.
Posted by: gr | Nov 18, 2006 10:28:10 AM
Jorge, thanks, but do you have a link to that product? (the thermoelectric device).
Posted by: John W. | Nov 18, 2006 12:29:30 PM
John W.
No, I do not have a link.
I will try to find that magazine. I hope I can find it.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 18, 2006 12:53:10 PM
gr -
the engine development divisions of the various carmakers do have a vested interest in keeping themselves employed. However, the main obstacle to all-electric drive has historically been the low energy density/short operating range and poor deep-cycle life expectancy/warranty risk associated with traction batteries.
Tesla Motors claims to have achieved a quantum leap in both respects by switching to Li-ion technology. The really do have just the electric motor and a differential as moving parts. Unfortunately, their two-seater roadster is still priced at $100k.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 18, 2006 3:22:24 PM
Rafael,
So, once we have simplified and lowered costs of the clean drive train - auto manufacturers will have the challenge of building exciting cars with an emphasis on innovative design. The culture of engineering low MTBF diverts attention from creative design and inventive aftermarket equipment.
The Tesla has to deal with early adopter Li-ion pricing. Economies of scale will amend that.
Posted by: gr | Nov 18, 2006 5:50:43 PM
Thanks, Rafael.
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 19, 2006 1:18:56 AM
This has been a very interesting discussion, especially for someone like me who is an avid (albeit relatively new) F1 fan. Based on some of the responses, I'll probably embarrass myself here as I have nowhere near the level of knowledge some of you do, but hopefully you'll appreciate my "average Joe" perspective.
Rafael mentioned the 1500 hp turbo cars. From my understanding, a lot of the reasoning behind outlawing those configurations was due to safety. While the race teams' ultimate goal is to go fast and win races, the FIA's ultimate goal is to do it a fair, safe manner.
While several people feel that the F1 technology is not improving street cars in a green manner, I think it is, indirectly. While there are really no limits to how fast these cars could go, there are limits to how fast these cars can go safely, and they also have to be reliable enough to withstand the stress they experience long enough to finish the races.
For example, this year the teams ran 2.4 litre V-8s instead of 3.0 litre V-10s because the teams were getting too much horsepower out of them - estimated around 350 hp per litre. Dropping them down to 2.4 litres puts them down into approximately the 800-850 hp range.
The teams work very hard to make the engines efficient enough to produce that kind of power. In order to go faster, they will continue to find more efficiency, and soon they'll be getting 400 hp per litre and will be too fast and unsafe.
So, the FIA will have to respond by imposing some sort of limit. Of course, dropping the engine size can be done again, but it obviously has limits - it's pretty difficult to have a 0 litre engine (I'm no mechanical engineer or anything, but I would guess that's a safe bet!). So, I think the idea of limiting fuel and promoting hybrid-type technologies is a good one. It provides a whole new challenge to the team engineers, and who knows what they'll come up with to win races. When you have a governing body such as the FIA, the quest for speed is a quest for efficiency. Isn't efficiency a major factory in green technology? If the teams concentrate their efforts on gaining efficiency in hybrid technology or regenerative braking, it will only lead to good things that can be applied to our street cars, I think - not necessarily making them faster, but making them more efficient.
As an aside, if you look at www.formula1.com, check out the technical analysis section. While it's a fairly superficial look at the technology changes introduced throughout the race season, I find it very interesting. Most of the aerodynamic improvements are done to increase downforce and handling. Somebody had mentioned the idea of moving/flexing wings and that has been tried, with both Ferrari and Renault being scrutinized for trying it this year. As for the mass-damper system incorporated by Renault, Ferrari was also experimenting with a similar concept.
Anyway, that's my two cents. It's a lot of fun hearing people's perspectives on this site.
Posted by: Travis Rassat | Nov 19, 2006 9:51:33 AM
Doing something for development and future advancement, the FIA should also allow different sources of power, such as different ICE's, when going the route of hybrids or trying to find better and greener drive train solutions.
I understood hybrids only make sense in city driving where part load and braking are very frequent. Going on the highway, hybrid does absolutely nothing to conserve fuel, right?
Correct me if I am wrong. But if that is true a hybrid is utter nonsense in F1. I will listen to comments and perhaps advise to the contrary.
Posted by: Floram | Nov 24, 2006 11:52:24 AM
