- 30 Jul 11, 19:29#268606Does it not infuriate you that the FIA prescribe a single engine formula in the name of reducing developmental costs, then come up with something this hideously expensive for reasons that have nothing to do with the sporting aspect of F1?
The engineering and packaging changes this will mandate are monumental. First, CURSE in its current form has no throttle. Either it's on or it isn't. If you're going to use it for race starts or in pit lane, the driver will require some mechanism for modulating the application of that electrical power, AKA a throttle. Which means they either will need a second, electrical-only throttle, or they will have to incorporate some manner of cut-off to the fuel pump to prevent the engine being flooded whilst the driver applies the "common" accelerator pedal in the electrical motor only mode.
And where will they put all this new hardware? The new blown V-6 will have an intercooler above and impellers beneath and new plumbing all around, so it already will be a tight squeeze even before CURSE and the starter motor are added. And yes they could also use the CURSE as a starter motor, except I don't think they will for two reasons. First, the new formula requires that the driver be able to perform a self-start anywhere on the circuit. If they use CURSE also as the starter motor, it would never be legal to the regs to fully discharge its battery because that would leave the driver unable to restart the car. Second, it would require some manner of mechanical disconnect, e.g., a de-clutching device, to isolate the CURSE-as-starter-motor from the engine. Except that such a device represents a potentially race-ending single point of failure, just the sort of thing the car's designing engineers are keen to avoid.
And they will have to devise some means of keeping all this new heat-generating hardware cooled. The larger CURSE, the turbos, the intercooler, even the new starter motor, all represent significant sources of heat the present cars do not have to contend with. As is, shedding heat is a problem for every team on the grid with a mere 80 hp worth of CURSE and none of the rest of that lot. That probably will mean further sacrificing aerodynamics, the mere mention of which will cause Adrian Newey and other engineers of his ilk to suck wind through their teeth.
The turbos will have to be liquid-cooled, both for reasons of performance and for extracting thermal energy from the engine bay, which wouldn't be a problem if they weren't planning to shut the engine off at every pit stop. If its oil isn't being circulated, a turbocharger will bake the oil in its bearings -- leading to premature bearing failure -- if it is shut down with no further cooling while at still full operating temperature. So add the pumps for the turbo's water jackets to the list of the things CURSE will have to power for the duration of each pit stop cycle.
And I see genuine safety barriers, one of which f1usa already hit upon. I can assure you there will be incidents of pit crewmen stepping in front of and being struck by cars because they have years-to-decades of conditioning to keying off the sound of the approach of an unmuffled petrol engine as their warning. So when the driver switches on his pit lane speed limiter, it also will need to activate some sort of warning siren as well. Maybe a flashing blue light, too.
And acceleration in pit lane will still be considerable because, unlike reciprocating petrol engines, electric motors make full torque from 1 rpm all the way to their maximum. A 2800-lb (1250 kg) Tesla Roadster will make 100 kph in under 4 seconds from just 250 hp (185 kw). A 2013-spec car F1, minus petrol, will weigh about half that but have about 65% as many electrical horses. So I look for a zero-to-speed-limit of about three seconds. This is why the 2013 CURSE must have a throttle, because, especially when traction is compromised, there will be enough torque available from the electrical motor alone to spin the tyres.
Second, safety will be compromised when merging into race traffic after a pit stop because there are few if any circuits where the cars spend only 16.6 seconds (or less) in motion on pit lane. Cars will be depleted of electrical energy at a juncture when acceleration is vitally important, not just to race performance, but to safety. Pit lane exits typically are connected to a straightaway, which means the cars already on the circuit will be exploiting their full 830 combined horsepower, and cars emerging from the pits will be down by around 20%. Bottom line, any car emerging the pits will be a sitting duck, and for at least another lap thereafter. G-d willing, Pirelli won't still be being compelled to build 2-lap tyres two seasons hence, as that would only compound the disaster.
Just like the attempt to ban the hot-blown diffuser, this is another case of dreaming up some pie-in-the-sky regulations while giving no consideration to the mechanical realities of F1 or the developmental costs it imposes. Another clear-cut case of the FIA letting it's crocodile mouth write a cheque it's budgie buttocks can't cash.
Last edited by Fred_C_Dobbs on 31 Jul 11, 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
"I'll bet ya a hundred and five thousand dollars you go to sleep before I do."
--Dobbsie
.