 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
Mercedes Benz Formula One race car. Within two years, teams will have to begin testing engineering solutions to making their sport more energy efficient, using technologies that can be applied to road cars in the future. One emerging strategy is the utilization of what the author classifies as 'surge power units': energy storage devices for electric, hydraulic, gaseous or mechanical power.
|
EV World's UK racing correspondent considers the implications of hybrid power to Formula One racing
Open Access Article Originally Published: November 27, 2006
This is the sequel to the EV World article 'Hybrids Overtake' which forecast that motor racing would become the crucible for testing some of the latest techniques for making road cars more efficient. The FIA featured the article in issue 5 of its online magazine 'Automotive' .
Last week BMW, DC, Ferrari, Honda, Renault and Toyota all agreed with the FIA to 'come out with a regulation before the end of this year' covering 'energy-recovery and reuse from braking. That will come in 2009'. Consequently these new hybrid race cars must begin track testing in only two years time. (see www.fia.com) The deadline for agreement on the new regulation is December 31, 2006, which effectively leaves only five weeks now to get it right. The manufacturers and the FIA also agreed to 'prepare draft regulations for devices to use waste heat and exhaust gases to assist the engines in propelling the cars', possibly for implementation as early as the 2010 season. This article reviews the key issues which now need addressing as soon as practicable, because they will set the direction for the details that must be thrashed out by the end of the year. As important as the developments themselves is the insistence by all parties that only those innovations which will help improve the fuel economy of road cars will be allowed in the race cars, hence their significance for EVWorld readers.
These are arguably the most radical changes in Formula One since it began, so it is almost inevitable that further fine tuning of the regulations will prove necessary as the teams get creative. However, it is in the interests of all the parties that the longer-term objectives are thought through and agreed, so that an initial technical direction can be set which won't require major corrections later.
The levels of g force experienced in F1 during cornering and braking are closing fast on the limits the human body can stand without the aid of g suits and special controls. Assuming these aids remain forbidden, only during acceleration is there scope for significant improvement in performance. The theoretically ideal enhancement would allow an increase in acceleration while avoiding an increase in downforce and consequent cornering speeds, and would also demand additional driving skills in handling the extra power and knowing when to apply it.
The FIA has already predicted that most road vehicles will eventually be fitted with units which recover and reuse braking energy, a view that the Chairman of Toyota has also publicly expressed. Irrespective of whether the energy initially fed into the vehicle is in the form of a gas, a liquid or electricity, there will be an increasing need to recover and reuse braking energy to help save fuel, often referred to as regenerative braking. In this article, the unit that collects braking energy, stores it temporarily and later helps deliver a surge of additional power is referred to as a surge power unit. To maximize efficiency, a surge power unit is required whether a road vehicle uses a conventional petrol or diesel engine, a fuel cell, a gas turbine, or even a battery. The surge power unit can also provide a temporary storage system for energy recovered from sources other than the brakes. For example, some or all of the energy recovered from the exhaust system could be fed into the surge power unit, rather than straight back into the engine.
Most exhaust energy recovery systems developed for road vehicles run optimally when the truck or car is traveling at a steady cruising speed and a constant flow of exhaust energy is available. In a typical example, steam is superheated in a heat exchanger integrated with the exhaust system and is run through an expander which applies additional torque to the engine's crankshaft or transmission. The waste steam is then recycled through a condenser and returned to the heat exchanger. Now consider what happens to a road car in city traffic. The average amount of heat is low, and the peaks of strong heat output are during brief bursts of acceleration. However, there are inherently a few seconds of delay while the exhaust system heats up, so peak steam generation is often reached just as acceleration is no longer needed, and during initial acceleration the steam system contributes very little extra power. The remedy is some form of energy store, which could involve increased thermal capacity or installing a pressure vessel, but this implies extra weight. However, if a surge power unit is already fitted, extra energy capacity may already be available, at little or no weight penalty. There may be considerable gains in efficiency from feeding some or all of the energy recovered from the exhausts into the surge power unit rather than the engine, as well as some advantages in controlling the extra power output, particularly in a racing car. In particular, a steam turbine might be directly mounted on a rotor shaft of a kinetic energy surge power unit.
Kinetic energy from the high speed of the exhaust gases is another potential source of increased power and efficiency. One recovery technique used historically on aircraft piston engines and currently on large trucks is turbocompounding. Essentially this uses a device similar to a turbocharger, but without a compressor. Instead, the turbine is usually geared directly to the crankshaft, feeding the kinetic energy from the exhaust back into the engine. However, the teams first choice is likely to be conventional turbo-chargers, with appropriately downsized engines. As we will soon see with road cars, the ideal combination of power and efficiency is a downsized engine combined with a 'strong' surge power unit. Another possibility is to feed some of the energy from the exhaust turbine(s) directly into the rotors of a kinetic energy surge power unit.
The FIA has already said that it would be 'quite happy' to allow the front wheels to be used to recover and reuse braking energy, and this will be increasingly attractive as the surge power units become more powerful. Given the extra power potentially available from the exhaust energy recovery systems, the enhanced traction of four wheel drive will become increasingly necessary, although it will inevitably come with a weight penalty.
Several journalists have suggested that the new energy recovery systems will be used to increase performance rather than cut fuel consumption, but this almost certainly misunderstands the FIA's intent and resolve. Here's the sort of problem the FIA is facing, with one possible solution. Next year, 'functionally stabilised' engines may be producing nearly 800 bhp, with more to come when they begin to run on biofuel blends in 2008. The FIA already anticipates that some teams will be able to get as much as 120 bhp out of their surge power units by the end of 2009. By 2011 that might rise to over 300 bhp of surge power. Now add some 80 to 120 bhp recovered from the exhaust system. As a result, the peak combined output of the car's power units could easily approach 1,100 bhp by late 2009, with an average energy output equivalent to a conventional engine with almost a thousand horsepower. Left unchecked, this would inevitably lead to significantly faster cornering speeds, a result the FIA definitely does not want.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 10266 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
18 comments so far...
19-Dec-2006
41076
| |
SJ: I'm weighing in late, and want to avoid any aspect of religious war ... but feel compelled to comment on one assertion: 'And the Prius is neither high-production nor low-dollar. Compared to an F1 car, yes - but not to a mainstream car.'
IIRC, Toyota plans to build almost 300K Priuses in 2007. Sales in the US in 2006 will be roughly 150K. And they go for (very roughly) $25K-$30K, which is about the middle of the new-car price range. (Not sure what the actual mean is.)
That seems pretty 'mainstream' to me ....
Posted by: John Voelcker
|
|
30-Nov-2006
38823
| |
Steve & Clett;
Thanks for the followups. That was far more pleasant than RASF1. :-)
Hydraulic does make more sense primarily due to the rate of storage requirements. Man - I'd hate to see one of those system blow. High PSI hydraulics systems can go dangerous pretty fast [particularly in the case of pinhole leaks].
I suspect the FIA will be evaluating & regulating safety pretty heavily. Okay - in reality, I HOPE they will be.
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
07-Dec-2006
39529
| |
It seems that you missed my point. A Formula One car is far more efficient than a Prius. For starters, the Prius engine doesn't even bother to take advantage of thermodynamic efficiencies via high compression ratios in combination with knock-detection in order to adjust the timing curve (neither of which are high-tech solutions at this point). It has a complicated drive train and has the inefficiencies inherent in any mechanical transmission.
And the Prius is neither high-production nor low-dollar. Compared to an F1 car, yes - but not to a mainstream car. Far more technology has come downstream from F1 cars than from the Prius. If you drive a lot of miles in predominately stop-and-go traffic, then a hybrid makes sense. Outside of that, it's more of a feel good measure than anything else.
Anyway, all of that aside - my point is not the pure numbers, but the fact that F1 cars are achieving well over 300 HP per liter on a normally aspirated engine. Whereas current production vehicles are exceedingly proud to break the 100 HP per liter point. The types of efficiencies that a hybrid could only dream of. And the types of efficiencies that aren't going to be achieved via a cheap hybrid slap on in the F1 realm.
Of course, since this thread is attached to an F1 article, I would expect that you'd be quite aware of the fact that high-dollar, low-production is exceedingly "on topic".
Dollar for dollar, my bicycle is a far superior solution than a Prius. But then the topic isn't bicycles, is it?
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
07-Dec-2006
39547
| |
How many minutes is a Formula One engine designed to last? You're tickled pink if it works on three separate occasions!
Cruising at a constant highway speed is not supposed to be the Prius's strong point. Yet, my Prius got 52 and then 57 mpg on two trips this summer,[both point-to-point round trips]--- both figures noticeably above the EPA hwy estimate. Yeah you rite!!! It felt good.
A 30-mpg car flails like a rank beginner when assigned to go 500 miles on the highway, wasting gas all the way.
Pulse: I imagine that if a forklift operator came in to work during the holiday rush, and was told that his 4 colleagues had all called in sick and he would have to do the work of 5 men, then his heart rate would go up...
...and you might see him operate a machine in a borderline unsafe manner. But I'm not going to watch it on TV, or call him an athlete.
Why not paint some white lines on the course and delete the human driver? save 160 lbs. Or, put a [non-living] 160-lb dummy in there with recording sensors for when it crashes.
Here' hoping that the flywheel or EEStor or Altair or somebody soon makes obsolete my old-fashioned, steel-frame Prius!
Posted by: Bill H.
|
|
07-Dec-2006
39553
| |
Bill:
If you hate F1 and motorsport so much, why did you even bother posting the article?
As to your assertions about a 500 mile drive, I can quite readily drive my 1996 BMW 328i from Phoenix to Santa Fe on a tank - which is a 500 mile trip. And that's through the mountains (if you check your map).
My 1987 Chevy Cavalier averaged 42MPG from Seattle to Sioux Falls. And that from an $8000 car. Color me unimpressed by the Prius. In particular the control system. At least the Insight was on the right track [aerodynamics and weight reduction].
Given your acknowledged disdain for motorsport, I suppose it should come as no surprise that you don't have any idea as to the reliability of F1 engines.
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
07-Dec-2006
39572
| |
Steven!
F1 is useful in illuminating stuff like: 'How much power is wasted when quickly decellerating from 180 mph down to 100 mph?' apparently 400 evanescent hp.
If F1 engines are indeed dependable - would you support a rule change that would impose a points penalty if your racer's engine failed to last three seasons, as opposed to lasting [the regulatory status quo of] the three races to which I referred? too demanding? then maybe one season? or maybe 200,000 miles like the Vancouver, B.C., Taxi-Prius?
A 1996 BMW 328i has a 16.4 gallon tank, right? So if you burned every last ounce going to Santa Fe, you achieved 30.49 MPG. That's great for a 1996. especially with the climb involved. However. Wouldn't it be nice if gas use nationally declined by that factor? {compared to 50 MPG} If you had a gallon left in the tank then 32.47 MPG. Fine. But. Wouldn't it be nice?
Your Cavalier experience brings to mind my Dad who didn't spend his money on cars, but showed up after a long trip in a Ford Escort full of stuff [such as Mom] bragging about the 40+ mpg he got. Good. Seriously. But I didn't inquire about the city mpg or the pollutants.
Thanks to author Chris Ellis for this thoughtful and informative and well-written article.
at least F1 looks like a saintly genius compared to NASACAR whose 300 odious, uniform oval laps would be much less of a challenge for the energy-recapturing engineers to master than a road-type course.
I've heard NASCAR achieves a gallon per lap, right? so, 1.6 miles per gallon? as always I stand to be corrected.
By the way, NASCAR is going to use unleaded fuel --- [joke: as an example of racing tech benefitting the public] --- next year. THAT'S CUTTING EDGE! WOW!
Bill
Posted by: Bill H.
|
|
07-Dec-2006
39591
| |
Bill:
F1 is also useful in illuminating things like "How do we build a reliable ABS system?", or "How do we optimize engine performance?", or "How do we decrease braking distances?", or "How do we build safer frame structures?", or "How do we make a car lighter?". All things that make it into production cars [not to mention sequentially shifted manual transmissions, improved turbo technology, etc.]. As well as having pioneered other safety and efficiency items [that frequently get banned by the FIA].
Actually I got just under 33. And the extra cost of the Prius as compared to the 328i isn't justifiable to me in that I 1) didn't like the Prius and 2) don't drive enough miles for it to pay for itself. If I liked the car I wouldn't care much about 2, but since I didn't like driving it, 2 would be my only motivator. [BTW, the Cavalier got roughly 32 in town, as I recall].
So from your standpoint, do you feel like you're driving around wasting gas in the Prius because you should have really gotten the Insight instead?
I still don't know where the starting 3 times comment is coming from. Certainly some of the bottom end teams (Mindari) and struggling teams (Honda & Toyota) have been having reliability problems. However, materials technology constantly improves when pushing engines to the limits, which translates into improved engine technology for production cars.
I couldn't speak to NASCAR. I don't pay any attention to it. But I would certainly never argue that NASCAR makes technological contributions. F1 could do more to contribute - and I'd like to see them move back toward a more unrestricted format. As it is, they tend to have their hands bound by the FIA to a larger extent than I like.
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
08-Dec-2006
39615
| |
Bill and Steven, I think the discussion seems to be drifting away from whatever virtues might be present in increasing F1 energy efficiency, and drifting toward whether blue is a better color than green. Perhaps I can help lay some items to rest so we can return to the topic. ----- First, F1 drivers are athletes, whether you like it or not. I know this is hard for some people to accept, but that is because they have no concept of the forces the driver is experiencing in the car. Under braking the driver can experience decelerations equal to five times the force of gravity. Read the article again. The accelerations are so large that they are getting into the territory where artificial means (which are currently banned) might be needed to keep the drivers from greying out. Lateral accelerations of over 3G are common in high speed corners. A year or two ago, on a new, high-banked oval in the US, the inaugural Champ Car race had to be cancelled because the drivers discovered that the combination of steep banking and high downforce was producing accelerations of 5 – 6 G that were causing drivers to almost pass out. Regardless of whether you like risk-taking (I don’t now, but I used to, so I understand both sides) you do yourself a disservice by imagining that a driver could perform their job in that environment for a 2 hour race without being in extraordinarily good shape. You don’t have to watch it on TV, but if you have any doubts about athleticism, sit in a centrifuge for a couple of hours with a helmet on your head before you make up your mind. ----- Second, regarding engine reliability in F1… Up until a couple of years ago, engines could be changed anytime the team felt like it, and several engines might be used by the team on a single race weekend. Then the rules changed and mandated that engines must last for two complete race weekends. The engines are sealed by the sanctioning body to try to avoid cheating. It is a fact that making engines last two races in 2006 was a challenge for all builders including Renault and Ferrari who were at the top of the standings. This might have made the difference in the driver’s championship as Michael Schumacher experienced an engine failure in Japan when he had a good chance of winning the race, and the ten points would have put him in the points lead going into the last race of the year, even if Alonso had finished second in Japan. F1 engines do not have a long life. ----- Third, little, if any, of F1 chassis technology (the ‘frame structure’ as Steven calls it) finds its way into mass production cars these days because the materials are not amenable to rapid production of finished parts at this time. The one hopeful sign is that supercars are now starting to use those materials, and tuners use them to make high-priced, non-structural body parts for ordinary cars, but that’s as close as it gets. ----- Fourth, regarding efficiency, there are all kinds of engine efficiency. There is power to weight, power to physical size/shape/center of gravity, power to displacement, power to fuel consumption, power to lifespan, power to dollars spent, power to exhaust gas composition (to meet emissions standards for example), power to cooling system size, etc. When F1 optimizes those various efficiencies, they optimize them in only one direction: a marginally lower elapsed time to finish the race than all the rest of the field. This optimization simply doesn’t apply to a car like the Prius, and the efficiencies of the two cars thus can’t be compared unless you are prepared to look at each individual efficiency as a separate item without biasing your judgement as to which particular efficiencies are ‘important’ (to you) and which are not. So, if I may be allowed to beat this utterly to death, comparisons between different types of vehicles, as Jack Rosebro so eloquently put it, should be made such that success is measured by the quality of the solution as related to its constraints. By that excellent guide, both the Prius and F1 cars are examples of success in their respective arenas, regardless of whether we like those arenas. ----- There. Diatribe done. Is anybody else happy that F1 might improve their energy efficiency, or is it just me?
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
08-Dec-2006
39639
| |
Ooops. Sorry Clett. I forgot to include you in the tiny crowd that thinks this is a good idea.
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
27-Nov-2006
38553
| |
Yow! I like it! This can certainly help dispel the myth that efficiency is only for greenies, weenies, and people without money. More with less. Better and better.
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
28-Nov-2006
38578
| |
I really have to conclude that you're not an F1 follower. Perhaps I'm wrong. However, F1 is highly unlikely to "go green" in the manner that you suggest. Exhaust gas recovery is invariably going to be turbocharging [note that variable vaned turbos have been around for quite a while and are "not your father's turbos" - so to speak].
The key components of F1 are weight, balance, and power. If regen systems can be installed that allow the cars to go an extra one or two laps without sacrificing performance then they will go with them. If not - sayonara. It's all about doing 50-75 laps at 0.100 seconds faster than the other teams and consequently cashing in on TV revenues. Anything short of that is going to go out the window.
For reference, current F1 cars are pumping 800+ horsepower out of 2.4L V8s turning at 20,000RPM. A Prius is a technological lightweight compared to these vehicles. And they'd be far superior if it weren't for the constant limiting of technology advancement by FIA in order to keep costs down...
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
28-Nov-2006
38600
| |
SJ, I am a very avid follower and fan of F1 (for many years), and I have to agree with SW that implementing hybrid tech in F1 is brilliant for the sport, for the fans and for the competition.
F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of automotive engineering, but recently it's just been a case of pushing up the revs ever higher and higher on an engine design little different from the primitive gasoline spark ignition design dating back from the mid 1800s.
For F1 to have any relevance in the real world, it has to produce some tech that can filter down to road cars - computerised fuel injection, traction control, ABS etc came from F1.
In terms of the racing spectacle, hybrid will certainly improve things. Overtaking from the exit of a slow corner will be almost entirely dependent on having a good surge control unit, so the inevitable small differences in surge units between teams will increase overtaking dramatically over today's almost identically matched cars. Moreover, allowing drivers to "save up" regen will allow heroic overtaking manouveres towards the end of a grand prix, further adding to the spectacle.
I think with the new rules everyone's a winner: the teams, the manufacturers, the fans and ultimately the car driving public.
Posted by: clett erridge`
|
|
04-Dec-2006
39187
| |
"For reference, current F1 cars are pumping 800+ horsepower out of 2.4L V8s turning at 20,000RPM. A Prius is a technological lightweight compared to these vehicles."
Dollar for dollar?
I always find it interesting that faster technology is equated with better technology. The idea that engineers did a better job (or worse, for that matter) because they designed a low-production, high-dollar, high-performance vehicle, as opposed to a high-production, low-dollar, utilitarian vehicle is laughable.
Design is design, and success is measures by the quality of the solution as related to its constraints.
Posted by: Jack Rosebro
|
|
09-Dec-2006
39787
| |
Great comments, even from the 'doubters'.
For the latest (8 Dec) from the FIA, see:-
www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2006/December/081206-03.html
Everything is still on track.....
'Gentlemen, start developing your surge power units!'
Posted by: Chris Ellis
|
|
28-Nov-2006
38634
| |
Steven and Clett – good comments. I’m a long-time follower of many motor-sports, not just F1, and for a while was employed in the business of being fast. I’ve had a change of heart about both competition and risk-taking since then, but I’m not expecting F1 to become polite, quiet, humble, or gentle, and this article does not suggest that kind of future. What I was applauding in this article is the possibility that if F1 cars stop throwing away their waste energy from braking and engine exhaust, and are thus able to use less fuel to deliver the same performance, it may become fashionable among buyers of expensive cars to buy similarly equipped luxury cars. Right now, the high-priced cars offered by the mainstream manufacturers don’t employ the most energy-efficient technologies because wealthy customers don’t find those technologies attractive. It is laughable that people spending $50,000+ on a car don’t seem to have enough money for a hybrid system even though the technology is mysteriously affordable to buyers of the $30,000 hybrids on the market. The ‘middle class’ cars are currently leading the way in terms of efficiency technologies, not the ‘upper class’ cars. If making F1 more fuel-efficient helps change the attitudes of the rich toward these technologies, I’m all for it!
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
28-Nov-2006
38658
| |
Hi Guys:
Okay - sorry for dismissing you outright. My apologies. I get a bit accustomed to dealing with people who would have difficulty replacing a cigarette lighter go on in great platitudes about various vehicle technologies.
Nice to see there are some gearheads hanging around. I'll be interested to see what [if any] regenerative systems come out of development. I'll be surprised if they're electric - and even then, the motors (I would assume A/C 3-phase) would require an enormous amount of horsepower to get much energy back. And the rate of power storage is going to be high, so super caps or similar would be required. The braking requirements and braking style in racing are so much more intense than what typical vehicle regen uses.
I have to wonder if they'll be using a pneumatic braking system instead that's pumped like an engine air brake. But then you've got the space requirements and added weight of the storage tank. But at least you would avoid those embarrassing, unscheduled pits to top off the pneumatic valve system. :-)
What are you guys envisioning?
Posted by: Steven Jezek
|
|
29-Nov-2006
38679
| |
Steven – no need to apologize. Regarding your question, I’m not actually much of an ‘envisioner’, I’m more of an observer and copier. I haven’t looked at how large and heavy a storage device would have to be (whether electric, pneumatic, mechanical strain, or momentum) to hold the 500 Wh noted in this article, but space is obviously very limited. The very brief 2,500 hp peak braking power is also pretty daunting to harness. I expect only small fractions of what’s there will be recovered when the first attempts are made, which of course leaves lots of room for future developments and keeps the technology interesting year after year.
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
29-Nov-2006
38684
| |
What will be very interesting to watch is which team has the early advantage in hybrid tech, as they will surely be competitive for the championship.
Honda and Toyota obviously have some headstart with electrically oriented hybrid systems from their road cars, but early indications are that F1 surge units will be hydraulic instead, using high-strength steel/carbon fibre accumulators.
Back in the '90s Williams were experimenting with hybrid, and thought they were about to wipe the field with everyone. However, the FIA got wind of what they were doing and banned it before they got a chance to use it. So maybe Williams will have the advantage based on this early experience? Looking forward to it!
Posted by: clett erridge
|
|
|
|
|
