Formula E(wired.com)
wired.com
Formula E
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/09/formula-e-intro/
54 comments
The article is erroneous in stating that F1 has the same engine for all teams. The engines are mostly similar but they are made by different manufacturers.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Formula_One_season
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Formula_One_season
>> "The schedule is set to include London, Berlin, Rome, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Beijing, Bangkok, and Purtrajaya, as well as stateside races in Los Angeles and Miami. "
The fact that this is run completely on street circuits will hurt it. Over taking is incredibly difficult on street circuits and that will turn most people away from it.
The fact that this is run completely on street circuits will hurt it. Over taking is incredibly difficult on street circuits and that will turn most people away from it.
I think choosing street circuits was a great decision. The two street circuits in F1 (Monaco and Singapore) are highly regarded by both the fans and drivers as being exciting and challenging races. On top of this, the possibility of a race running through "your city" has the potential to draw audiences far greater than that of F1.
There are five current street circuits. You missed Melbourne, Valencia and Montreal.
You're right, my bad. Although I would argue that Singapore and Monaco are in a class of their own in terms of the shape of the track and the subsequent load on the driver and car. Montreal, Melbourne and Valencia don't have the same tight, constricted feel of the other two, because of their wider tracks, longer straights and faster corners. They're also not in areas as densely populated as Monaco and Singapore. Off the top of my head I recall Montreal and Melbourne are both around large parks? Anyway, my original point was that these circuits (in dense urban areas) result in exciting and popular spectator experiences.
I wouldn't consider Montreal a true street circuit. It's more like a road course. Also, Valencia is widely regarded as one of the worst circuits.
Seems like they can temporarily boost the horsepower to overtake.
For me, it's exciting, i will definitely try to attend a race in my city :)
For me, it's exciting, i will definitely try to attend a race in my city :)
This is possible now in F1 through the use of the "KERS" system, which uses in wheel (I think)electric motors, they can also use a "DRS" system, which temporarily reduces downforce via an adjustable rear wing.
The problem with both technologies is that they're artificially limited and their use is subject to convoluted regulations. In the end, Vettel always wins anyway.
I love F1, but I would love to see a truly forward looking series with active aerodynamics and suspension, and where teams can develop and use their own tires, this kind of "unlimited" racing, on the same amazing circuits and with the same level of drivers would be truly exciting. Driver safety and minimum weight limit regulations, (and of course rules against oil slicks and the like) would be enough to keep the sport sane, but also encourage a more diverse and interesting set of solutions from the teams.
I understand that F1 is not this series, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see the same drivers in some more interesting machines duking it out around Monte Carlo.
The problem with both technologies is that they're artificially limited and their use is subject to convoluted regulations. In the end, Vettel always wins anyway.
I love F1, but I would love to see a truly forward looking series with active aerodynamics and suspension, and where teams can develop and use their own tires, this kind of "unlimited" racing, on the same amazing circuits and with the same level of drivers would be truly exciting. Driver safety and minimum weight limit regulations, (and of course rules against oil slicks and the like) would be enough to keep the sport sane, but also encourage a more diverse and interesting set of solutions from the teams.
I understand that F1 is not this series, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see the same drivers in some more interesting machines duking it out around Monte Carlo.
Agreed, the beaurocracy is unbearable, I'd love a no-handcuffs F1.
>>Seems like they can temporarily boost the horsepower to overtake
On street circuits HP isn't the issue. Take the F1 Monaco track. There simply isn't space to overtake. There are maybe 2 viable overtake spots and they're seriously borderline.
On street circuits HP isn't the issue. Take the F1 Monaco track. There simply isn't space to overtake. There are maybe 2 viable overtake spots and they're seriously borderline.
Would anyone like to speculate on the reason why they would rather, the teams switched cars, instead of switching batteries?
It does not seem like the kind of decision that would catalyze innovation feasible for the consumer market.
It does not seem like the kind of decision that would catalyze innovation feasible for the consumer market.
I'm guessing batteries are distributed around the body to balance weight and save space. This means changing the batteries would involve stripping off all kinds of body work. That is risky, because it increases the opportunity for things to not be screwed back properly.
What this new series, with a lot of skeptics, do not need is an electrical accident.
So, I think is a safety reason. You can get one hell of a shock off these systems. Also, I'm sure the Williams' F1 KERS fire is in the back of many people's minds, even if not directly related.
I'm not sure weight distribution is the real reason since batteries can be shaped and conveniently packaged. They could fairly easily have long thin flat batteries running down the side pods, which could physically be swapped and secured. So, I do think its the disconnect/connect danger.
Swapping cars is clumsy, but I'm sure over time capacity and efficiency will increase leading to no stops for power.
So, I think is a safety reason. You can get one hell of a shock off these systems. Also, I'm sure the Williams' F1 KERS fire is in the back of many people's minds, even if not directly related.
I'm not sure weight distribution is the real reason since batteries can be shaped and conveniently packaged. They could fairly easily have long thin flat batteries running down the side pods, which could physically be swapped and secured. So, I do think its the disconnect/connect danger.
Swapping cars is clumsy, but I'm sure over time capacity and efficiency will increase leading to no stops for power.
It would be a huge engineering hurdle to make 400 lbs of battery swappable and still ensure that there is no chance of them coming loose during a wreck due to being seated improperly, etc. I think it is a safety consideration more than anything.
I hate the idea but it's probably because swapping the battery would slow down the race and instead of the usual quick pit stop it might be a 10-15 minute pit stop given the weight of the battery at 400+ lbs.
I wonder if they replaced them with fuel cells, would that be an easier on the swap? Could they then just "fuel up" like a petrol-based vehicle?
I wonder if they replaced them with fuel cells, would that be an easier on the swap? Could they then just "fuel up" like a petrol-based vehicle?
It seems like a missed opportunity to push for innovation. Changing tyres on normal cars is also a slow process and back in the earlier days of racing it was as well. Now all four tyres can be changed in just around 2 seconds due to great technological innovations (and training the pit-crew like OL athletes). Developing a system where a battery could be changed quickly would be equally as interesting.
The extensive crew training, and having a crew, and having air tools, and having a car that is jacked in a single push motion, all make changing F1 tires easier.
I'm not sure what can be transferred to regular cars? How often do tires need to be changed? (I guess more often if you have snow and ice some times of year?)
I'm not sure what can be transferred to regular cars? How often do tires need to be changed? (I guess more often if you have snow and ice some times of year?)
Agreed. I'm hoping to see that in the Le Mans series as manufacturers bring electric vehicles into the mix. Such as Nissan's entry next year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/22/nissan_electric_le_m...
They want to compete with petrol cars not only on the track, but also in the pits.
Le Mans is really just one big automotive experiment, with a lot of the technology trickling down to the rest of us. That's why I love it.
They want to compete with petrol cars not only on the track, but also in the pits.
Le Mans is really just one big automotive experiment, with a lot of the technology trickling down to the rest of us. That's why I love it.
and the pit stops don’t just involve swapping tires or batteries, but switching cars.
This is not what racing is about. Racing is about making sure you not only go the fastest around the track, but it's about endurance of the car itself. Particularly in what amounts to a manufacturer race where it's all about the car.
I love this idea otherwise. Electric cars are getting better and better each day.
This is not what racing is about. Racing is about making sure you not only go the fastest around the track, but it's about endurance of the car itself. Particularly in what amounts to a manufacturer race where it's all about the car.
I love this idea otherwise. Electric cars are getting better and better each day.
This is a spec series, and every team will expect reliability. Endurance in top flight racing is a given. Races are well with in the endurance of the cars. Technical failure is way less than driver failure.
Besides, the car swap is an interim thing to get them going. In time, it will go.
Im very looking forward to this.
Besides, the car swap is an interim thing to get them going. In time, it will go.
Im very looking forward to this.
Endurance in top flight racing is a given. Races are well with in the endurance of the cars.
Dr. Ferdinand Porsche is popularly reported to have said "The perfect race car should fall apart the second it crosses the finish line."
Point is, there is always a trade-off between speed and reliability. If you get to the finish line well within the bounds of your reliability every time, you are sacrificing speed.
But it is less of an issue if the cars are all almost identical.
Dr. Ferdinand Porsche is popularly reported to have said "The perfect race car should fall apart the second it crosses the finish line."
Point is, there is always a trade-off between speed and reliability. If you get to the finish line well within the bounds of your reliability every time, you are sacrificing speed.
But it is less of an issue if the cars are all almost identical.
My issue with this is that the pit stops will be so long and variable (it's not mentioned in the article, but the driver must sprint 100m to switch cars, and a 6 point harness is non-trivial to buckle and tighten,) that it will nullify any sort of on-track advantage, which is the actual interesting part of racing.
[deleted]
I agree on the car swapping thing. Still, this Formula e concept is in its infancy, both from a technology and business perspective. If this new motorsport takes-off, with big manufacturers & sponsors backing it, I can only expect positive technological breakthroughs.
>This is not what racing is about.
Why? Swapping cars isn't that much of a jump from the real world solution Tesla is proposing with the battery pack switches. Remember not so long ago F1 had a team car which was essentially switching to another car in case of emergency too.
Why? Swapping cars isn't that much of a jump from the real world solution Tesla is proposing with the battery pack switches. Remember not so long ago F1 had a team car which was essentially switching to another car in case of emergency too.
Different series, different rules. Auto racing is a wide and varied world. I see no problem with car switching being part of a series. It might be heresy in F1, but this new series will come with its own interesting kinks.
This is a spec series, and every team will expect reliability. Endurance in top flight racing is a given. Races are well with in the endurance of the cars. Technical failure is way less than driver failure.
Besides, the car swap is an interim thing to get them going. In time, it will go.
Im very looking forward to this.
Besides, the car swap is an interim thing to get them going. In time, it will go.
Im very looking forward to this.
>>>>> Racing is about making sure you not only go the fastest around the track, but it's about endurance of the car itself.
Agreed.
This also involves a TON of strategy to make sure your car can make it the distance. If you can swap out cars, it would seem a great deal of the strategy goes out the window - no?
Agreed.
This also involves a TON of strategy to make sure your car can make it the distance. If you can swap out cars, it would seem a great deal of the strategy goes out the window - no?
And can you imagine the onus this puts on the driver? Right as they get to become one with the car, knowing how it will react to their every move, they change him to a new car. And no two cars drive alike when it comes to racing. You see this in two+ car teams.
Original Formula 1 was ruined by restrictions on maximal engine performance, acceleration... even tyres are dictated. In result cars are practically identical and race is very boring.
By reading article Formula E is going to have similar limitations. It is very sad, we just lost technological race where victory would be won by innovation.
> During the race, the cars are forced into a power-saving mode of 133 kW (180 hp)
> The motor is good for a maximum output of 200 kW (270 horsepower), but that power is only allowed to be used continuously during practice and qualifying.
> Formula E racer can go from 0-60 MPH in three seconds, while the top speed is limited to a rather anemic 140 MPH
By reading article Formula E is going to have similar limitations. It is very sad, we just lost technological race where victory would be won by innovation.
> During the race, the cars are forced into a power-saving mode of 133 kW (180 hp)
> The motor is good for a maximum output of 200 kW (270 horsepower), but that power is only allowed to be used continuously during practice and qualifying.
> Formula E racer can go from 0-60 MPH in three seconds, while the top speed is limited to a rather anemic 140 MPH
Are you serious? When was the last time you watched a Formula 1 race?
It was boring because there weren't any restrictions, and so the best teams were so far ahead the races just became a procession. That and the high downforce setups being badly affected by running behind other cars, coupled with tires that didn't wear out much, made overtaking almost non existent.
In the last 6 seasons, we've had 4 championships decided on the last race, one of those on the very last corner, one with three drivers separated by a single point, one with 4 drivers a chance to win it going into the last race, and another twice having the championship decided by the equivalent of coming 5th instead of 3rd in a single race out of twenty. Not to mention more overtaking and wheel to wheel racing than the past 15 years combined, more world champions competing against each other than at any other point in history and a great mixture of old teams and new teams winning races (5 separate teams won races last season).
And yet, in spite of all that, if you think there isn't technological competition winning the races, you're dead wrong. What about the F-Duct, rear blown diffuser, or the double diffuser which almost single handedly won Brawn F1 both titles in its first and only year in existence? If all the cars are the same, how is the Red Bull six seconds per lap faster than the Caterham at Spa when they run exactly the same Renault engine? It has just changed focus to aerodynamics and car setup, rather than making a better engine.
It was boring because there weren't any restrictions, and so the best teams were so far ahead the races just became a procession. That and the high downforce setups being badly affected by running behind other cars, coupled with tires that didn't wear out much, made overtaking almost non existent.
In the last 6 seasons, we've had 4 championships decided on the last race, one of those on the very last corner, one with three drivers separated by a single point, one with 4 drivers a chance to win it going into the last race, and another twice having the championship decided by the equivalent of coming 5th instead of 3rd in a single race out of twenty. Not to mention more overtaking and wheel to wheel racing than the past 15 years combined, more world champions competing against each other than at any other point in history and a great mixture of old teams and new teams winning races (5 separate teams won races last season).
And yet, in spite of all that, if you think there isn't technological competition winning the races, you're dead wrong. What about the F-Duct, rear blown diffuser, or the double diffuser which almost single handedly won Brawn F1 both titles in its first and only year in existence? If all the cars are the same, how is the Red Bull six seconds per lap faster than the Caterham at Spa when they run exactly the same Renault engine? It has just changed focus to aerodynamics and car setup, rather than making a better engine.
I'd have to agree. Although I'm not quite an avid Formula One race fan, people have said similar things about other sports that place uniform restrictions on all participants and as far as I know has not hurt the sports at all. American football (NFL) has a cap and while it has not equalized the teams in every sense, it at least made the amount each team may spend on players the same. I'd say it has also increased the likelihood an underdog will have a shot at winning the Super Bowl.
Formula 1 was also technological race, that is now gone. Why should top teams invest into innovation anymore?
F1 today is just street race with oddly shaped cars.
F1 today is just street race with oddly shaped cars.
If that's the case, explain to me how the Red Bull car is 6 seconds a lap faster around Spa than the Caterham car, when they have exactly the same Renault engine and the same pirelli tires.
Did Caterham forget to turn their engine into fast mode? Or is there maybe some technology somewhere in that Red Bull car to justify their roughly $300 million budget.
Did Caterham forget to turn their engine into fast mode? Or is there maybe some technology somewhere in that Red Bull car to justify their roughly $300 million budget.
The odd shapes are one of the areas of innovation.
Because the FIA limited the placement and size of aerodynamic fins (i.e. spoilers and front lips), the engineers started using other aerodynamic innovations to increase downforce. One of the most interesting things to come out of F1 cars, from an aerospace engineering perspective, is the use of eddies and other circular air motions underneath the vehicle to drop the pressure (and create a corresponding downforce).
Just because the rules stop innovation on something like engine tech doesn't mean innovation stops; it just means it moves to optimizing other pieces of tech.
Because the FIA limited the placement and size of aerodynamic fins (i.e. spoilers and front lips), the engineers started using other aerodynamic innovations to increase downforce. One of the most interesting things to come out of F1 cars, from an aerospace engineering perspective, is the use of eddies and other circular air motions underneath the vehicle to drop the pressure (and create a corresponding downforce).
Just because the rules stop innovation on something like engine tech doesn't mean innovation stops; it just means it moves to optimizing other pieces of tech.
>> "In result cars are practically identical and race is very boring."
Not true at all. If the cars were practically identical Red Bull wouldn't be running away with the championship every year. As important as the drivers are in F1 the car is much more important.
>> "Formula 1 was ruined by restrictions on maximal engine performance, acceleration... even tyres are dictated"
Without some of those restrictions most of the smaller teams couldn't afford to go racing. We would lose probably half the teams. And tyres are what has made F1 so exciting these last few years. Tyres could easily be made to last an entire race taking away the strategy aspect from F1 that makes it so interesting.
Not true at all. If the cars were practically identical Red Bull wouldn't be running away with the championship every year. As important as the drivers are in F1 the car is much more important.
>> "Formula 1 was ruined by restrictions on maximal engine performance, acceleration... even tyres are dictated"
Without some of those restrictions most of the smaller teams couldn't afford to go racing. We would lose probably half the teams. And tyres are what has made F1 so exciting these last few years. Tyres could easily be made to last an entire race taking away the strategy aspect from F1 that makes it so interesting.
Yes, there is plenty of brilliant technical innovations going on in Formula 1. The passive DRS that Lotus has experimenting with or the way the Red Bull uses a special material on the side skirts that bends when heated up by the exhaust air to improve downforce. Limitations is a great fuel for innovation. There is not very much going on in terms of engines in Formula 1 at the moment, but in aerodynamics it is still amazing what they are achieving.
I don't think tyre strategy is all that interesting. To me Webber hopping Massa was far last interesting than Hamiltons duel with Raikkonen.
Many of the F1 restrictions that have come in in recent years have been good and made the sport a lot more competitive, while still allowing for some individual character for each teams cars.
Prefer that to some of the uneven racing of the Schumacher era.
Prefer that to some of the uneven racing of the Schumacher era.
That's a load of crap. Vettel wins every race only because Red Bull have the best car.
But why do the cars look so much like regular F1? They wouldn't need much air intakes, only some for cooling...
Are the batteries so big?
> But why do the cars look so much like regular F1? They wouldn't need much air intakes, only some for cooling... Are the batteries so big?
The cooling ducts in the sidepods are a lot smaller in Formula E than in F1. On the top, there's no airbox where the air intake would be but you need to have a rollover bar above the driver's head.
The cooling ducts in the sidepods are a lot smaller in Formula E than in F1. On the top, there's no airbox where the air intake would be but you need to have a rollover bar above the driver's head.
Weighing in at 400+ lbs I'd say yes they are probably large. Lithium batteries are known for getting "warm" also. Plus the motors themselves will need to be cooled along with other hardware like computers.
I hope Formula E serves as an excellent gateway drug into something more, erm, exciting.
Watching refrigerators go around a racing track for an hour at a time, with no car endurance, making no noise, doesn't sound like an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon.
Hopefully F1 viewership will go up.
Watching refrigerators go around a racing track for an hour at a time, with no car endurance, making no noise, doesn't sound like an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon.
Hopefully F1 viewership will go up.
I'm curious if you saw the video at the bottom of the article. There's a small clip of the sound the cars make. It certainly won't be as loud as the current engines, but I don't think they'll be making "no noise".
I would like to see a Elon Musk's Tesla compete in this race
He wouldn't bother as there is no scope for rule bending. It's a spec series
The biggest problem with this race series is the organizing body. The FIA is a dinosaur. Unless they change their ways you will not be able to watch these races in the US unless you have expensive cable/satellite service that include the Speed channel. The FIA has not embraced the Internet. There is no easy way to watch F1 races online.
I hope they take a different approach with Formula E.
I hope they take a different approach with Formula E.
Weird. In europe you can watch it online on the provider who bought the rights in your region. Only thing that is annoying is that they dont allow retention, so if you are 3-4 hours late you are SOL. Sad if the sold the US rights to someone who does no online streaming.
There will probably be ongoing changes in the technology regulations; there always are.