FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

How long does a PU last in an F1 car?

Sent using NCC-1701

Not long, neither do the tyres or the fuel. However a move to hybrid in F1 allows manufacturers to build 'ultimate' 'not long lasting' versions of the stuff they make for road cars. Ferrari for example produce hybrid engines for road use and so its smarter for F1 PUs to have parallels

In moving to hybrid we are transferring from a plentiful and renewable fuel source (food for the ICE) to one of the rarest and most finite commodities on earth which is essentially only found in one location on the planet

hahaha, fossil fuels are plentiful and renewable as all organic matter ultimately ends up as FF. The hard to understand bit here is that BURNING FF creates harmful emissions that have cummulative and irreversible effects on the environment

The move to this new F1-hybrid has nothing to do with being green or saving the planet or even about the renewable food for ICE's - its all about suiting some of the production car industry and making F1 suit their business model.

This bold statement sounds very impressive and knowledgeable, can we have some proof please? or can we edit and delete blatant untruths?

Renewable food for ICE's? Oil is renewable? whats next, ICE's dont have spark plugs?

Some of the production car industry? Who are these? Ferrari make hybrids but I guess they are not a production car maker? hahaha, no, they are not good at making these so they are not included in the list? Ok does that make sense to anyone here? speak up please

[sagi58]

, Steven De Groote wrote:">Ferrari revives the blown wheelnut



Ferrari have revived the blown wheelnut system by racing it at today's Chinese Grand Prix. Tried at the two day Bahrain test 2 weeks ahead of the Chinese race, the team found its system to be beneficial in managing front tyre wake.

Part of the system are much larger brake inlet scoops, fetching air flowing over the front wing. This is then directed through the wheel hub and exited via new open wheel nuts on the outside of the wheel. This means air is pushed from a high pressure area to a low pressure zone, helping to fill the low pressure area that is created in the wake of the front tyres.

This stream of air was initially thought of by Williams in the beginning of 2013 but abandoned after that season's Silverstone Grand Prix as the team found their system wasn't working properly in combination with the new tyres Pirelli introduced after the frequent tyre blowups at the British Grand Prix of 2013.

[1Lemon]

Urm.

hahaha, fossil fuels are plentiful and renewable as all organic matter ultimately ends up as FF.

Renewable food for ICE's? Oil is renewable? whats next, ICE's dont have spark plugs?

[CookinFlat6]

Urm.

hahaha, fossil fuels are plentiful and renewable as all organic matter ultimately ends up as FF.

Renewable food for ICE's? Oil is renewable? whats next, ICE's dont have spark plugs?

I take it the subtle irony was beyond you? Or maybe all you understand out of this is an apparent pedantic issue concerning whether ff including oil are renewable? I will respond to you as it's only decent to reply to others on a discussion forum

Foss fuels including oil are produced over thousands of years from organic material - like your dead ancestors - compressed in the earth. So at a theoretical level fossil fuels renew as organic matter dies and returns to earth. However oil - the richest and most energy packed of these fossil fuels is running out faster than we replenish it by dying and our bodies decomposing.

So ff are renewable and oil in particular although renewable is running out but most importantly does serious damage to the environment as it is used up by, say, cars

I've said my piece on this so if you still don't get it, forgive me for not making any further effort

[Jabberwocky]

I used to run my landy on veg oil... It made me hungry every time I sat at traffic lights

Sent using NCC-1701

[1Lemon]

Urm.

hahaha, fossil fuels are plentiful and renewable as all organic matter ultimately ends up as FF.

Renewable food for ICE's? Oil is renewable? whats next, ICE's dont have spark plugs?

I take it the subtle irony was beyond you? Or maybe all you understand out of this is an apparent pedantic issue concerning whether ff including oil are renewable? I will respond to you as it's only decent to reply to others on a discussion forum

Foss fuels including oil are produced over thousands of years from organic material - like your dead ancestors - compressed in the earth. So at a theoretical level fossil fuels renew as organic matter dies and returns to earth. However oil - the richest and most energy packed of these fossil fuels is running out faster than we replenish it by dying and our bodies decomposing.

So ff are renewable and oil in particular although renewable is running out but most importantly does serious damage to the environment as it is used up by, say, cars

I've said my piece on this so if you still don't get it, forgive me for not making any further effort

Just because more are VERY VERY slowly generated, doesn't make them renewable.

Renewable, noun - A natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.

[CookinFlat6]

Just because more are VERY VERY slowly generated, doesn't make them renewable.

Renewable, noun - A natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.

Hello why dont you direct your inquiry at the originator of the ridiculous notion that ICE run on renewable energy sources? Have you even read any of the posts? did you understand my post pointing out the various false claims made?

Fuel for ICE's is a renewable resource which can be created anywhere.

In moving to hybrid we are transferring from a plentiful and renewable fuel source (food for the ICE) to one of the rarest and most finite commodities on earth

The point is not what is running out or what is not - the point is that fossil fuels damage the environment (they are also getting harder to mine)

Oil accounts for more than 95 percent of all the energy used for transportation in the United States. That means oil powers virtually every mile we drive. And we drive a lot of miles—three trillion miles annually.

This immense amount of travel, together with our near total reliance on petroleum for fuel, means that every year America must obtain nearly 5 billion barrels of oil just to meet the needs of our current transportation system—and the number of vehicles and miles driven are both expected to rise in the decades ahead.

Only oil companies and a handful of foreign countries benefit from this trend. Everybody else loses out.

There’s a better, cleaner way to power America’s transportation system. By increasing the use of clean biofuels and creating the next generation of advanced vehicles that no longer rely exclusively on oil, we can decrease our reliance on petroleum for fuel. And by improving the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, we can dramatically reduce the amount of oil we need in the first place.

Only the oil industry and ****** ***** with **** **** and **** ****** (self edited to comply with site rules) point out that by making hybrids or biofuels we are mining 'rare earth' materials 'only found in China' so lets not bother as this also does harm just like burning fossil fuels to power a car for 30 years

1 gallon of gas = 24 pounds of global warming emissions
Every gallon of gas burned emits 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases into the atmosphere. About 5 pounds of that come from the extraction of petroleum and the production and delivery of the fuel. But the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

Pollution adds up fast. Each year, the average car sends 6 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—about three times the vehicle’s weight.

We can go the distance—and produce fewer emissions along the way.
Fuel-efficient vehicles use less gas to travel the same distance as their less efficient counterparts. When we burn less fuel, we generate fewer emissions. When emissions go down, the pace of global warming slows.

Current, affordable, clean vehicle technology can significantly increase the fuel economy of our nation’s cars and trucks today and lessen the global warming impact of our transportation choices.

Advanced vehicle technologies offer the promise of even greater efficiency in the decades ahead.

This last bolded part is why F1 is obliged to go the hybrid route to REMAIN RELEVANT FOR EVERY SINGLE CAR MANUFACTURER THAT EXISTS TODAY and scaremongering and spreading falsities about F1 benefits no one, not even Ferrari who are now also obliged to produce hybrid roadcars no matter how much some might naively think they would win if only F1 could go back to V12 ICE gas guzzlers

[Jabberwocky]

really we need to know how much pollution a PU causes when it is made and disposed of and then compare it to how much fossil fuel pollution it saves over a PU life cycle.

[CookinFlat6]

really we need to know how much pollution a PU causes when it is made and disposed of and then compare it to how much fossil fuel pollution it saves over a PU life cycle.

Irrelevant

whats relevant for F1 is that the car makers strive to build more and more efficient PUs and therefore competing in F1 using old and dead end inefficient ICEs would make no sense for a car maker if there buisiness is increasingly pushing the efficienct route in car technology

This is truly mindboggling that anyone can sit here and not understand this. It would be like saying 'lets make F1 run on coal fired engines and expect modern car manufacturers to find it relevant and rush in to build coal power F1 cars'

But is anyone really saying that or is it a lack of education or knowledge the problem? maybe the governments need to start teaching this stuff to kids at school so they stand a chance against the stuff propagated by the oil industry

[Jabberwocky]

Why is it irrelevant about how much pollution the whole life cycle of a PU creates when the whole point of the greener cars is that they are greener. If the PU causes more pollution than it saves then it is a folly. The same goes for any hybrid car. How much pollution do the batteries of a prius cause?

Coal powered F1 is a silly idea. Where would they fit the fireman/engineer!

Sent using NCC-1701

[CookinFlat6]

Why is it irrelevant about how much pollution the whole life cycle of a PU creates when the whole point of the greener cars is that they are greener. If the PU causes more pollution than it saves then it is a folly. The same goes for any hybrid car. How much pollution do the batteries of a prius cause?

Coal powered F1 is a silly idea. Where would they fit the fireman/engineer!

Sent using NCC-1701

Ok, I think we are mixing up a few issues here;

First one (relevant to this thread, Ferrari and F1) is why F1 is moving to hybrid. The post that started this CLAIMED it was nothing to do with the environment and just for SOME manufacturers to benefit. This is obviously the easiest to poo poo - the reason for the move is hybrids are more relevant to what they are ALL shifting their entire businesses towards, even Ferrari (if a lot slower and inefficiently) - ITS not a big consiracy by a few manufacturers that has nothing to do with the environment or reducing emmissions and is not just something thought up to prevent poor Ferrari winning

Second one is if the shift to hybrid etc is more harmfull than continuing with pure fossil fuel ICEs like we have now. The answer to that is complex, and indeed its a good question
So we have short term, meduium term and long term gains right?
So does a Pruius harm the environment more by being produced manufacturered, battery made and then that battery powered by say nuclear or wind farm energy for the next 30 years - is this comparable to making an ICE today and burning oiul for then next 30 years of the cars life?
I will let you think of the answer to that.
Ok say its not nuclear or wind electricity and its a fossil fuel power that provides the electricity to charge the battery - would that now be better or worse over 30 years vs filling the tank everyday with petrol - hmmn maths maths maths, lets think for ourselves on that one, I dont think the maths is very hard at all, one might not even need maths
Charging a battery to go 200 miles - the electricity for that, even from a coal powered station that emmits vs 200 miles worth of petrol thats polluting the environment, hmmn Id say the batterys production plus charging up effect on the environment is a tad smaller

Third issue is if an F1 PU that only lasts 5 races damages things more to produceand run than the ICE burning only petrol?
- Heres the interesting bit - THATS the irrelevant part, the PU itself is not gonnaq save the environment, it wont make much difference, however the millions of cars sold by the same manufacturer who develops advanced methods as a result of F1 test bed participation will make a difference in the years to come

This is not maths, just common sense if one is willing to go beyond the hysteria of a very few and ask themselves why every single engine maker agreed to go hybrid? Are we to believe Ferrari were conned into this hybrid that they now have in their roadcars? (or is it just that they just found out they are not very good at it)

How can F1 fans with access to all the facts and figures propagate stuff without understanding it first Its mad that countries like China would censure the internet so their citizens cant make up heir own minds about things and here in the west the govs dont even need to bother with that to avoid citizens using their own minds

[sagi58]

, John Beamer wrote:">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/04/25/technical-insight-front-wing-nose/
...Ferrari’s letterbox



Many of the cars with ‘finger’ noses are trying to recreate the high nose philosophy. A look at the McLaren or Toro Rosso illustrates the concept nicely with the nose cone arched to maximise airflow underneath it.

Ferrari have gone in a different direction and have made the nose ‘downforce positive’. The nose and wing form a letter box shape (see (1) on the diagram), which expands behind the leading edge of the nose.

The nose tip is at minimum point (135mm) above the reference plane and its thickness conforms with FIA’s cross-section requirements. The area behind the nose acts as a venturi tunnel and it is this that creates downforce.

Air is forced through the letterbox nose at high speed and then expands in to the area behind it (2). It is similar to how a diffuser or ground-effect car works. Bodywork extends down from the nose section (below the Kaspersky Lab sponsorship) to enhance the diffuser effect and also to prevent air that is pushed over the top of the nose from spilling in to this area.

Given the mantra in recent years that higher noses are better, many ask what have Mercedes done to build a similar design but with a higher nose? The assumption is that Ferrari have messed up – but it isn’t necessarily the case.

Ferrari likely creates more downforce with its contraption than the W05. The W05 nose is slightly narrower and higher than Ferrari’s and is positioned at the FIA mandated 185mm above the reference plane. If you look closely you can see the shape of the front wing mounts change, which is to comply with the FIA’s cross-section requirements...

[racechick]

Nigel Stepney's been killed in a road accident. Only 56 years old.
A highly regarded mechanic/engineer by colleagues in the business.

http://emag.co.uk/ex-ferrari-man-stepney-dies/129866

[Jabberwocky]

That is sad news. I always liked his interviews.

Sent using NCC-1701

[spankyham]

Always so sad when someone, with so much life ahead of them passes away. More so in an accident. I really feel for his family.


Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk