5 ms·

I find it sad that people are so obsessed right now with small engines. Small engine does not necessarily mean good efficiency. For instance, I have a C5 Corvet

by x0054 13y ago

I find it sad that people are so obsessed right now with small engines. Small engine does not necessarily mean good efficiency. For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency. That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the most efficient way to spend their fuel. For instance, maybe hydraulic or nematic energy systems are better than electric. Let them try that. Maybe someone want's to do an all electric car with a diesel generator onboard for power, let them try that. Maybe someone want's to try going at it with hydrogen generator / electric combo. Let them try that too. Millions of dollars are spent on F1, and all that money is being wasted on fiddling with exhaust positioning, rather then trying new and innovative technologies. The "Prius" layout is old news, there are better solutions to efficiency. You can reword the most efficient cars by allocating an artificially low amount of fuel per race, and then holding cars in the pits for additional "penalty" time for each liter of fuel they take in over the baseline. That way the most competitive car would be the fastest car with the best fuel economy.

coherentpony 13y ago
> My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. That'll do it.
quacker 13y ago
I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. I think the article mentioned exactly that: To enforce this focus, the 2014 regulations limit the total fuel consumption for an entire race at 100kg with a maximum fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. This means that for a 90 minute race, the average fuel flow can only average around 66kg/h, while at the Singaporean GP, which often lasts close to two hours, it will have to be around 50kg/h.
stellar678 13y ago
The article said the 2014 regulations will limit fuel consumption to 100kg per race, which looks to be about 140 liters. Agreed that you'll get more interesting results by setting the parameters of the race rather than dictating a design.
- aptwebapps 13y ago
  Increasing fuel efficiency is not the only goal. They also want to keep costs down without reducing the sporting interest. Restricting for formula severely reduces the incentive to spend huge sums of money, which not all of the teams have, while also keep the competition tight.
semerda 13y ago
Hard to compare a naturally aspirated motor to a turbo like your friend's M3. When a turbo in a 4 cyl spools up (x rpm) it will drain a lot of fuel.. maybe like a V8. However it still can be driven like a standard naturally aspirated 4 cyl motor consuming far less fuel than a V8. There are just too many variables involved to even compare from ECU to pumps to heavy foot etc.
- x0054 13y ago
  I was actually comparing in that example the V8 M3 from 2008. But point taken on the driving style, that plays a role as well.
jongala 13y ago
The problem with race-level fuel restriction is you get drivers managing their pace over the course of the race, which can lead to strategies that people find boring. Or worse, the fastest driver running out of fuel just before the end. It was one of the complaints about Group C prototype racing, although that turned out alright over all, with some help from the comparatively long race format. The "best" system would be to use a fuel flow restriction — X g/s of fuel, with the usual restrictions on fuel composition. The designer's job is then to extract the max usable power from the chemical energy in the fuel. This would make for really exciting development and diversity, and make F1 development a true laboratory for other transportation and power production contexts. It would also be prohibitively expensive and probably result in one manufacturer in a walkover for a while, until others could switch architectures. Experimenting with different architectures is a huge money pit, and is why the prescriptions for 10 and 8 cylinders were in the last couple sets of regulations. Just working out the competitiveness of V12 vs V10 vs V8 was getting unreasonable, let alone dealing with different hybrid setups on top of that. It is also my understanding that the accuracy of fuel flow meters has not been considered good enough to provide adequate parity in a racing environment, when fractions of a percent can mean the difference between winning and losing. The new F1 rules do include fuel flow metering, although it is based on kg/h and I don't know what kind of spiking is permissible. The regulations are as detailed as they are, with specifications for power transfer among components, etc. to spare teams the expense of experimenting there and to give them targets to optimize for. See jdietrich's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583 It is pretty discouraging with respect to the purity of the formula, but it's kind of a fact of life. And I think the development of turbocompounding and pre-spooling turbos with electrically stored energy to avoid lag is really exciting, and the future of combustion power on the road.
- grmarcil 13y ago
  I believe spiking the fuel rate is not permitted - the 100 kg/h flow restriction is well above the overall consumption limit (100 kg of fuel for a 1.5-2 hr race).
bliti 13y ago
They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars. I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the same bore-center measure as the original small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40 inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly). Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the vehicle. It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911 Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any innovative technologies.
- zachrose 13y ago
  What's new in NASCAR these days?
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    They finally have Fuel Injection.
  - bliti 13y ago
    In which specific area?
    - zachrose 13y ago
nl 13y ago
For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency. Not to be rude, but this is only happening if your friend drives in a very different style to you. I have an e90 BMW 3 Series (not an M3), and I get much better economy than those numbers - even in the city with stop/start driving. The way to drive makes a huge difference. For example, the official economy figures for the Corvette[1] and the M3[2] are roughly the same. [1] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520 http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520 [2] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865 http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865
- alayne 13y ago
  The Corvette is a significantly lighter vehicle due to its fiberglass body. I consistently got 19mpg or less in my 335i. They've improved the mileage a bit in newer versions, but not much. An M3 would be worse of course.
  - x0054 13y ago
    It's not all that different, 3,245 lb for the C5 vs 3,483 lb for the M3. This is why I used it as a counterpoint example.
    - alayne 13y ago
      Corvettes are known for getting unusually high mpg on the highway. I always understood the primary factors to be light weight and tall gearing. V8 Silverados don't get great highway mileage, right?
      - nl 13y ago
        The high gearing/high torque thing is a fair point. (V8) M3s are notorious (or lauded, depending on your point of view) for being rev-hungry.
eaurouge 13y ago
That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the most efficient way to spend their fuel. You're describing a different racing series, perhaps one that doesn't exist yet. Fuel efficiency isn't the top priority for F1 so they'll only partially optimize for it. Other factors they have to consider: - revenue - exciting races (=> more revenue) - somewhat competitive backmarker teams (=> exciting races => more revenue) - "reasonable costs", so backmarker teams can sort of keep up with the Ferraris, McLarens etc (=> exciting races ...) - possibility of lots of overtaking maneuvers (=> exciting races ... ) - cutting edge tech (of course, but have to keep races exciting) - fuel efficiency (ok, sure, why not?)
- x0054 13y ago
  So, it's optimized for revenue, like most things in life :) Fair point.

by x0054 13y ago

coherentpony 13y ago

> My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. That'll do it.

quacker 13y ago

I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. I think the article mentioned exactly that: To enforce this focus, the 2014 regulations limit the total fuel consumption for an entire race at 100kg with a maximum fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. This means that for a 90 minute race, the average fuel flow can only average around 66kg/h, while at the Singaporean GP, which often lasts close to two hours, it will have to be around 50kg/h.

stellar678 13y ago

The article said the 2014 regulations will limit fuel consumption to 100kg per race, which looks to be about 140 liters. Agreed that you'll get more interesting results by setting the parameters of the race rather than dictating a design.

aptwebapps 13y ago
Increasing fuel efficiency is not the only goal. They also want to keep costs down without reducing the sporting interest. Restricting for formula severely reduces the incentive to spend huge sums of money, which not all of the teams have, while also keep the competition tight.

semerda 13y ago

Hard to compare a naturally aspirated motor to a turbo like your friend's M3. When a turbo in a 4 cyl spools up (x rpm) it will drain a lot of fuel.. maybe like a V8. However it still can be driven like a standard naturally aspirated 4 cyl motor consuming far less fuel than a V8. There are just too many variables involved to even compare from ECU to pumps to heavy foot etc.

x0054 13y ago
I was actually comparing in that example the V8 M3 from 2008. But point taken on the driving style, that plays a role as well.

jongala 13y ago

The problem with race-level fuel restriction is you get drivers managing their pace over the course of the race, which can lead to strategies that people find boring. Or worse, the fastest driver running out of fuel just before the end. It was one of the complaints about Group C prototype racing, although that turned out alright over all, with some help from the comparatively long race format. The "best" system would be to use a fuel flow restriction — X g/s of fuel, with the usual restrictions on fuel composition. The designer's job is then to extract the max usable power from the chemical energy in the fuel. This would make for really exciting development and diversity, and make F1 development a true laboratory for other transportation and power production contexts. It would also be prohibitively expensive and probably result in one manufacturer in a walkover for a while, until others could switch architectures. Experimenting with different architectures is a huge money pit, and is why the prescriptions for 10 and 8 cylinders were in the last couple sets of regulations. Just working out the competitiveness of V12 vs V10 vs V8 was getting unreasonable, let alone dealing with different hybrid setups on top of that. It is also my understanding that the accuracy of fuel flow meters has not been considered good enough to provide adequate parity in a racing environment, when fractions of a percent can mean the difference between winning and losing. The new F1 rules do include fuel flow metering, although it is based on kg/h and I don't know what kind of spiking is permissible. The regulations are as detailed as they are, with specifications for power transfer among components, etc. to spare teams the expense of experimenting there and to give them targets to optimize for. See jdietrich's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583 It is pretty discouraging with respect to the purity of the formula, but it's kind of a fact of life. And I think the development of turbocompounding and pre-spooling turbos with electrically stored energy to avoid lag is really exciting, and the future of combustion power on the road.

grmarcil 13y ago
I believe spiking the fuel rate is not permitted - the 100 kg/h flow restriction is well above the overall consumption limit (100 kg of fuel for a 1.5-2 hr race).

bliti 13y ago

They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars. I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the same bore-center measure as the original small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40 inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly). Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the vehicle. It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911 Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any innovative technologies.

zachrose 13y ago
What's new in NASCAR these days?
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  They finally have Fuel Injection.
- bliti 13y ago
  In which specific area?
  - zachrose 13y ago

nl 13y ago

For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency. Not to be rude, but this is only happening if your friend drives in a very different style to you. I have an e90 BMW 3 Series (not an M3), and I get much better economy than those numbers - even in the city with stop/start driving. The way to drive makes a huge difference. For example, the official economy figures for the Corvette[1] and the M3[2] are roughly the same. [1] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520 http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520 [2] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865 http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865

alayne 13y ago
The Corvette is a significantly lighter vehicle due to its fiberglass body. I consistently got 19mpg or less in my 335i. They've improved the mileage a bit in newer versions, but not much. An M3 would be worse of course.
- x0054 13y ago
  It's not all that different, 3,245 lb for the C5 vs 3,483 lb for the M3. This is why I used it as a counterpoint example.
  - alayne 13y ago
    Corvettes are known for getting unusually high mpg on the highway. I always understood the primary factors to be light weight and tall gearing. V8 Silverados don't get great highway mileage, right?
    - nl 13y ago
      The high gearing/high torque thing is a fair point. (V8) M3s are notorious (or lauded, depending on your point of view) for being rev-hungry.

eaurouge 13y ago

That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the most efficient way to spend their fuel. You're describing a different racing series, perhaps one that doesn't exist yet. Fuel efficiency isn't the top priority for F1 so they'll only partially optimize for it. Other factors they have to consider: - revenue - exciting races (=> more revenue) - somewhat competitive backmarker teams (=> exciting races => more revenue) - "reasonable costs", so backmarker teams can sort of keep up with the Ferraris, McLarens etc (=> exciting races ...) - possibility of lots of overtaking maneuvers (=> exciting races ... ) - cutting edge tech (of course, but have to keep races exciting) - fuel efficiency (ok, sure, why not?)

x0054 13y ago
So, it's optimized for revenue, like most things in life :) Fair point.