Vettel thinks normally aspirated engines are better.

[babararacucudada]

http://planetf1.com/news/vettel-pleads- ... wer-units/

I agree.

Normally aspirated engines are self-regulating in that you are limited by how much air you can suck into the engine, so you don't need a lot of rules for them. It also means that the engines will be relatively close in power, when fully developed - unless someone invents some new breakthrough.

You can also remove fuel limits, because they will also self-regulate.

If you make the engine big enough, it will be powerful enough and the engine has a very fast response to the throttle.

The sound can be as loud as you want.

It fits with the F1 in previous years - so there is continuity.

They will be much cheaper.

There is still a requirement for efficiency and fuel economy - as long as you prevent exhaust blown diffusers.

I think the FIA should be trying to use the rules to create the best RACE car in the world - suitable for the best drivers to try to master, and likely to produce exciting racing without fake tweaks.

[nixxxon]

He has been saying so since the beggining of 2014.
I think N/A engines are a thing of the past like it or not.
As a driver you have to adapt to whatever kind of engine you are given.

[Asphalt_World]

Diesel engines on road cars have to be turbo charged. There are however lots of brilliant non turbo charged NA engines out there. Going to small turbocharged petrol engines is not moving with the times imo.

[nixxxon]

Diesel engines on road cars have to be turbo charged. There are however lots of brilliant non turbo charged NA engines out there. Going to small turbocharged petrol engines is not moving with the times imo.

Brilliant but not as fuel efficient as the turbo ones and not very affordable for the common folk. I can think of the famous inline-6 BMW engines, for example. Great engines, smooth, good sound, but awful fuel economy. If not for that I would've bought one myself. And instead I've been forced to use a TDI

[ALESI]

I think (as much as I agree with Vettel) that F1 having positioned itself as 'a cutting edge showcase for manufacturers' rather than a 'race series' has to go with the most up to date power plant. This also means that eventually it will have to go electric. The alternative is to let the manufacturers go and have 11 race teams (ie McLaren, Williams, FI etc) using a 'proper' engine.

[Zoue]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.

The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

[Zoue]

Diesel engines on road cars have to be turbo charged. There are however lots of brilliant non turbo charged NA engines out there. Going to small turbocharged petrol engines is not moving with the times imo.

On the contrary, many manufacturers have switched to smaller turbo engines to replace their NA ones. BMW is perhaps the best example of a manufacturer famed for its NA engines, but it has converted almost all its models to (twin) turbos recently. It's hard to ignore the greater power and lower consumption benefits they afford.

But overall these will all be overtaken again by hybrids and eventually full electric. Not for nothing has Tesla already taken over $10Bn worth of advance orders for an electric car that isn't even scheduled to hit the streets for another year at least. Electric technology is looking more and more like the future.

[mcdo]

Why does the author think Vettel is 30?

[HS Thompson]

Absolutely agree with Vettel. This idea that F1 somehow has to "lead" the way with these farcical hybrid engines is absurd.

[Black_Flag_11]

Absolutely agree with Vettel. This idea that F1 somehow has to "lead" the way with these farcical hybrid engines is absurd.

Out of interest is it specifically F1's hybrid engines you think are farcical or the whole concept of hybrid engines?

[ALESI]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

[James14]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

[Zoue]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

I'm currently driving a Golf GTE. Range on full electric isn't anything to write home about but the combination of turbo petrol and electric powertrains make for a pretty quick car, quicker than most, in fact. I have a 40km commute, initially through town and thereafter on motorway, and I can cover 30km of it fully electric, which means my fuel economy is pretty handy. Charging from empty takes around 2.5hrs which isn't breathtakingly fast but not much of an inconvenience (I charge at work). And new charging points are springing up almost everywhere I look (this is NL). Combined with generous tax concessions this means that I see more of these on the roads now than I do a common diesel Golf, while I've seen more Teslas than I have Mercedes. And with Tesla's new BMW 3 Series' rival due in a year or so it won't be long before PHEV's or full electric vehicles start superseding normal petrol or diesel ones. We're not talking distant future, here.

The change I've seen in the last year alone is fairly staggering. And a brief look at the new models planned for most mainstream car manufacturers will show that it's not a fad, either. There's a definite shift towards electric technology, whether complete or hybrid, and I think we've already well and truly passed the Prius bedding in stage now. There are enough models that it's a genuine realistic choice, not a niche one.

And F1 can't really turn its back on that and I say that as someone who has spoken out against the hybrids. I still think they are massively expensive and their introduction has been incredibly badly handled, but I really don't see a way back from them now. N/A is definitely old hat. Turbos still have a strong case (especially twin turbos), but they are essentially just a stop-gap on the way to (hybrid) electric.

[RaggedMan]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

Since Tesla already delivers 230+ miles per charge on the Model S and plenty of people have driven coast to coast using the quick charge network there's no reason to believe that they won't deliver the promised specs (~215 miles per charge) in the Model 3.

The Chevy Bolt is coming out soon as well and claiming ~200 miles per charge.

The problem is going to be that everybody right now is using their own connectors and charging systems. There needs to be an international standard developed and applied for there to be large scale adoption of EV's.

[Zoue]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

I agree that ultimately the future is full electric. But the point above was simply that hybrid tech has exploded in recent years (ironically, not really from any manufacturers involved in F1!) and may therefore be genuinely considered as mainstream. As for Tesla's range and quick charge tech, this isn't a promoise but is reality now. They already do what I described, as well as offering sub 5s 0-60 times to boot. You don't have to sacrifice pleasure for conscience anymore by taking a (hybrid) electric vehicle.

I agree F1 made a massive error. The hybrid implementation has basically been a lesson in how not to do it, but now that it's here it would probably be even more expensive to junk it.

[HS Thompson]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

[Zoue]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

Since Tesla already delivers 230+ miles per charge on the Model S and plenty of people have driven coast to coast using the quick charge network there's no reason to believe that they won't deliver the promised specs (~215 miles per charge) in the Model 3.

The Chevy Bolt is coming out soon as well and claiming ~200 miles per charge.

The problem is going to be that everybody right now is using their own connectors and charging systems. There needs to be an international standard developed and applied for there to be large scale adoption of EV's.

Interesting you say that. Here in the Netherlands anybody can charge any vehicle at any public access point. Is that not the case elsewhere?

[HS Thompson]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

Since Tesla already delivers 230+ miles per charge on the Model S and plenty of people have driven coast to coast using the quick charge network there's no reason to believe that they won't deliver the promised specs (~215 miles per charge) in the Model 3.

The Chevy Bolt is coming out soon as well and claiming ~200 miles per charge.

The problem is going to be that everybody right now is using their own connectors and charging systems. There needs to be an international standard developed and applied for there to be large scale adoption of EV's.

These cars will not even get 100 miles on a charge with the air temperature is below zero C. Not everyone lives in a warm weather climate.

[Zoue]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

[ALESI]

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

Okay I didn't know that. That's definitely a more reasonable range.

Combined with generous tax concessions this means that I see more of these on the roads now than I do a common diesel Golf, while I've seen more Teslas than I have Mercedes.

That's great, but as we are seeing in the UK now tax incentives will only be short term. Once the majority have these vehicles the Gvmt will find itself with a tax shortfall and start taxing you what it used to. People with 'green' cars have been enjoying zero tax here but it's ending now because too many people aren't paying any road tax.

And F1 can't really turn its back on that and I say that as someone who has spoken out against the hybrids. I still think they are massively expensive and their introduction has been incredibly badly handled, but I really don't see a way back from them now. N/A is definitely old hat. Turbos still have a strong case (especially twin turbos), but they are essentially just a stop-gap on the way to (hybrid) electric.

And hybrids are a stop gap on the way to electric. Aren't they?

F1 has painted itself into a corner. By courting the manufacturers and the money they bring, it has compromised itself as a racing series and turned itself into a showcase for driving new technology (which the manufacturers need to justify the huge costs). One day F1 may need to decide whether it wants to be a 'show' (for Sky) or a 'showcase' (for the manufacturers).

[HS Thompson]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

[RaggedMan]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

High charge state losses due to cold temps is mainly on EV's that have small batteries and short ranges to start with. The studies that were being floated awhile back showing 50% loss were on 1st generation Nissan Leafs and Mitsubishi iMevs which are short range and have no active battery management systems. There's also the energy that needs to be used to heat the cabin so that a human can still operate the car comfortably.

So although there is a decrease in range in cold temps it's not as big a deal as it was just a couple of years ago and there's still progress being made.

[Herb]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

That's very interesting - have you got any links for that? I am looking into an electric or hybrid car, and would like to get all the facts before I do so. I had previously read that the biggest cause of the reduced range in cold weather was due to the electric cars needing to use battery power to heat the car (for the driver's comfort). Obviously heat is a larger by-product on a petrol car, so that doesn't impact them as much.

[ALESI]

High charge state losses due to cold temps is mainly on EV's that have small batteries and short ranges to start with. The studies that were being floated awhile back showing 50% loss were on 1st generation Nissan Leafs and Mitsubishi iMevs which are short range and have no active battery management systems. There's also the energy that needs to be used to heat the cabin so that a human can still operate the car comfortably. So although there is a decrease in range in cold temps it's not as big a deal as it was just a couple of years ago and there's still progress being made.

Doesn't that just prove my point though, why buy a car now which will be shockingly hopeless in three years? Most cars have an expected life of say... ten years, how out of date is a 2016 electric car going to be in 2020, never mind 2026?

[RaggedMan]

High charge state losses due to cold temps is mainly on EV's that have small batteries and short ranges to start with. The studies that were being floated awhile back showing 50% loss were on 1st generation Nissan Leafs and Mitsubishi iMevs which are short range and have no active battery management systems. There's also the energy that needs to be used to heat the cabin so that a human can still operate the car comfortably. So although there is a decrease in range in cold temps it's not as big a deal as it was just a couple of years ago and there's still progress being made.

Doesn't that just prove my point though, why buy a car now which will be shockingly hopeless in three years? Most cars have an expected life of say... ten years, how out of date is a 2016 electric car going to be in 2020, never mind 2026?

Granted, it's still early days yet so any purely electric car bought in the next year or two will still be paying the early adopter tax, but that doesn't mean that the car will be hopeless in the next couple of years it just won't be as capable as a new one.

I haven't looked into battery pack degradation rates are like so I'm not sure how much value is really being lost over the course of 2-3 years of use.

[RaggedMan]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

Even if the sources for generating electricity don't change at all it's still better to have the energy to power cars generated in a central place whose emissions can be more easily controlled and regulated instead of having several million cars of varying states of repair generating their own power.

In the US the rate of adoption of renewables has gone up from a little over 8% in 2002 to over 11% in 2015. Slow, but accelerating.

[HS Thompson]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

High charge state losses due to cold temps is mainly on EV's that have small batteries and short ranges to start with. The studies that were being floated awhile back showing 50% loss were on 1st generation Nissan Leafs and Mitsubishi iMevs which are short range and have no active battery management systems. There's also the energy that needs to be used to heat the cabin so that a human can still operate the car comfortably.

So although there is a decrease in range in cold temps it's not as big a deal as it was just a couple of years ago and there's still progress being made.

Some Tesla owners report losses in range up to 40%. Not only is battery power weaker in cold temps, but energy consumption is much higher, with the need to run a heater for the occupants of the car.

http://www.hybridcars.com/tesla-model-s ... d-weather/

[ALESI]

Granted, it's still early days yet so any purely electric car bought in the next year or two will still be paying the early adopter tax, but that doesn't mean that the car will be hopeless in the next couple of years it just won't be as capable as a new one. I haven't looked into battery pack degradation rates are like so I'm not sure how much value is really being lost over the course of 2-3 years of use.

I meant 'hopeless' relative to a new one and in terms of resale. If you want something long term then it shouldn't matter but why would anyone want to buy something that's at the bottom of a steep curve (in terms of performance) and probably at the top of a steep slope (in terms of cost) to keep it long term, you're locking yourself in to a car which doesn't perform as well as it should. Maybe people who want to buy these cars aren't thinking that far ahead, it seems weird to me because aren't these likely the kind of people who are obsessed with upgrading their phones so that they are always at peak performance?

[Zoue]

"I stick to what I said, which is that these power units are too expensive. They have cost a lot of money already and they will keep costing a lot of money and think everything else that we have been trying to do with adaptations and changes of rules doesn't change the key problem.

I agree with this bit but not necessarily the rest. There's a limit to what may be achieved with N/A engines and I can't see F1 wanting to go back to "old" technology. Like it or not these units are the future and F1 can't really admit failure with them now. They should have gone with twin turbos IMO, which would have cost a fraction of what these hybrids cost and delivered better performance than the old n/a units, but after all the investment that's been put into the hybrids it would be difficult to defend stopping with them. But the central point regarding their expense is valid.

Hybrid usage is increasing rapidly. Almost every car manufacturer has either a hybrid or fully electric model in the pipeline. Some countries in Europe have recharging points virtually on every street corner. Like it or not electric technology is here to stay and I shouldn't be surprised if it starts overtaking "normal" ICE production too far into the future. F1 has been a bit ahead of the curve in this regard but by 2020 there will likely be much broader takeup.



The expense criticism is valid and F1 did itself no favours by the way it handled the implementation of this new tech. It's been largely a farce for the last couple of years. But now it's being understood more and with development opening up next year it shouldn't look quite so amateur as it has done. Changing everything again won't necessarily be a cheaper option

I'm not convinced hybrids per say are the future probably all electric is (when battery tech improves). The new Tesla looks promising and a step forward if it's range and quick charge tech is to be believed. But there is an electric formula so I think F1 made an error with they way they proceeded. As you say the cost is the huge problem. Plus if this tech cannot transfer eventually into ordinary cars it must be a further prohibitive factor in encouraging other engine suppliers to enter.

Since Tesla already delivers 230+ miles per charge on the Model S and plenty of people have driven coast to coast using the quick charge network there's no reason to believe that they won't deliver the promised specs (~215 miles per charge) in the Model 3.

The Chevy Bolt is coming out soon as well and claiming ~200 miles per charge.

The problem is going to be that everybody right now is using their own connectors and charging systems. There needs to be an international standard developed and applied for there to be large scale adoption of EV's.

These cars will not even get 100 miles on a charge with the air temperature is below zero C. Not everyone lives in a warm weather climate.

Not according to this article. A Tesla has a range of between 144 to 198 miles at zero C.

edit: messed up url

[HS Thompson]

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

That's very interesting - have you got any links for that? I am looking into an electric or hybrid car, and would like to get all the facts before I do so. I had previously read that the biggest cause of the reduced range in cold weather was due to the electric cars needing to use battery power to heat the car (for the driver's comfort). Obviously heat is a larger by-product on a petrol car, so that doesn't impact them as much.

Batteries are electrochemical reactions. All chemical reactions (seriously every one of them), are slowed down when temperatures are lower (and faster when temps are higher). The slower the reaction, the less energy available.

http://www.hybridcars.com/tesla-model-s ... d-weather/

[HS Thompson]

Not according to this article. A Tesla has a range of between 144 to 198 miles at zero C.

I stand corrected.

[Zoue]

That's great, but as we are seeing in the UK now tax incentives will only be short term. Once the majority have these vehicles the Gvmt will find itself with a tax shortfall and start taxing you what it used to. People with 'green' cars have been enjoying zero tax here but it's ending now because too many people aren't paying any road tax.

True, but by then take up will be there and costs will likely be reduced by virtue of volume. And fuel costs will be negligible

And hybrids are a stop gap on the way to electric. Aren't they?

Yes, but that's why I put "hybrid" in brackets. But since the technology to make a fully electric F1 car without massive compromises doesn't yet exist hybrids are a natural step on that path. Doubtless the ultimate electric future will be hydrogen power, but that's also still a way off.

F1 has painted itself into a corner. By courting the manufacturers and the money they bring, it has compromised itself as a racing series and turned itself into a showcase for driving new technology (which the manufacturers need to justify the huge costs). One day F1 may need to decide whether it wants to be a 'show' (for Sky) or a 'showcase' (for the manufacturers).

Fully agree with this. IMO it should never have gone down the hybrid path in the first place and the recent obsession with road relevance has been a major factor in its ongoing problems. I've spoken out against this before at length. But the point is that now that it has taken this path it would be very difficult to backtrack. The manufacturers have invested huge sums in the new technology and wouldn't take kindly to F1 sticking two fingers up at them and moving away from it now. I just don't see it as a viable solution unfortunately.

We're stuck with hybrids, but the rate of progression with this technology has been remarkable lately, even (especially?) outside F1. Hopefully the more it's understood the less astronomical development costs will be (wishful thinking, I know). But as for Vettel's words, I really don't see any path that leads back to N/A engines. That's a dead end.

[HS Thompson]

I dont believe for a second that returning to NA engines is impossible. Mercedes and perhaps Renault might whine but I dont give a damn. Let them walk if they want to! Plenty of others can move in and build NA engines to more reasonable specs. Costs would easily, *easily*, be reduced by several orders of magnitude if done properly, which is hardly a given considering the same cretinous apes run the sport.

The idea that F1 engines have to be on the bleeding edge of technology is a dead end, in every sense of the word. It has been a disaster from day one and *continues* to be to this day. Engine costs are up massively compared to the V-8 era. Teams (regular teams, not manufacturer ones) are saying loudly, this is not sustainable.

Again, as a HUGE Mercedes fan, I say, LET THEM WALK! if they dont want to be part of the solution.

[RaggedMan]

Not according to this article. A Tesla has a range of between 144 to 198 miles at zero C.

I stand corrected.

To be fair that was based on the 85kWh Model S which has an EPA range rating of 265 miles so 144-198 miles per charge represents a 25%-45% loss.

However it's not only taking into account battery losses due to the temperature, but also all of the other things that effect battery draw like the heater as well as road conditions that will effect the mileage of any car like snowy/icy road surfaces.

[Zoue]

I can see why hybrids are a good idea and why electric cars will be good in the future, but who would buy an electric car now, basically knowing the second hand value will be shocking. Leaving aside the fact you can't go more than 100 miles without stopping for hours... any product which is on a steep curve will offer dreadful resale values, the boss of TAG Heuer recently said that in 5 years people will laugh at the smart watch as it is now, and this is a guy selling a £1200 smartwatch!

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

Battery technology has advanced quite heavily in recent years, but I agree that it still has a way to go. But only by investing in it will the issues be overcome.

It's very true that using coal-fired power stations to supply electricity to hybrid or pure electric vehicles seems a contradiction, but that's more a fault of infrastructure than the technology itself. There are several alternative energy sources available, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-electric etc etc.

[Blinky McSquinty]

I think (as much as I agree with Vettel) that F1 having positioned itself as 'a cutting edge showcase for manufacturers' rather than a 'race series' has to go with the most up to date power plant. This also means that eventually it will have to go electric. The alternative is to let the manufacturers go and have 11 race teams (ie McLaren, Williams, FI etc) using a 'proper' engine.

That is the problem in a nutshell. Should Formula One be a showcase for manufacturers and their road technologies, or should it be more racing and entertainment?

Every time manufacturers get involved the costs go up and the regulations get more complex and restrictive.

Personally, I have embraced the concept that all racing is toys for boys. Loud, polluting, socially and ecologically irresponsible. But a lot more fun for the fans.

[Zoue]

But the technology is evolving rapidly. A Tesla can already go more than 300 miles without charging, which is a respectable enough range, while the company is rolling out a network of free fast charging stations throughout Europe (can't speak for anywhere else), which allow for a half charge in a mere 20 minutes, or a full charge in an hour. And this is now, not some pipe dream.

And how well do Tesla's do in a world where there are cold temps? I hear that their range drops over 50% when it gets below 0 degrees C. Where I live, -10 C is not uncommon.

Battery power is directly correlated to outside air temperature so that is a MAJOR hurdle for these cars to overcome.

I'm not trying to pretend they're perfect, just that the technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years and will likely continue to do so now the genie's out of the bottle. It's not the finished article by any means but if you compare even to just two years ago the difference is profound

The temperature situation is huge and will be extremely hard to overcome. No battery system at all is immune from the lost of power when it gets cold. A heating system won't work because that itself consumes power. Perhaps a multi fuel situation but again, that's not very desirable.

The bulk of electricity in most parts of the world is made by coal which means that instead of burning gasoline, cars will now be burning coal, albeit at a great distance from the power plant. What's really gained here?

That's very interesting - have you got any links for that? I am looking into an electric or hybrid car, and would like to get all the facts before I do so. I had previously read that the biggest cause of the reduced range in cold weather was due to the electric cars needing to use battery power to heat the car (for the driver's comfort). Obviously heat is a larger by-product on a petrol car, so that doesn't impact them as much.

According to this article it's less of an issue than you might think. Here's a couple of quotes:

So how do EVs work in the real world for people in cold climes? The EV fleet management company Fleet Carma has tracked trips in the Nissan LEAF in Canada and the U.S. and found that overall range drops from close to 80 miles in shirtsleeve weather to 50-60 miles when driven in below freezing conditions.

and

To see if EVs work in cold weather, one can look at the example of Norway. Norway’s generous incentives for EVs has made electric vehicles popular in this Nordic country. Over 70,000 EVs have been sold in Norway, and EVs made up over 20% of all new cars sold in the first 9 months of 2015. Subsidies are a major reason for these high EV sales rates, but drivers wouldn’t be picking these cars if they didn’t work for their driving needs. Not only are Norwegians picking EVs, but also many of them are choosing shorter range EVs from Nissan and Volkswagen, despite the sub-freezing average winter temperatures. EVs are also working closer to home in colder climates like Canada and Vermont.

A lot depends on your usage and average journey length. I can use my Golf GTE for journeys around town without using a drop of fuel. I only need to use the engine when I hit the motorway (and even then only at speeds above 130km/h or journeys longer than 30km).

[F1 MERCENARY]

Diesel engines on road cars have to be turbo charged. There are however lots of brilliant non turbo charged NA engines out there. Going to small turbocharged petrol engines is not moving with the times imo.

Brilliant but not as fuel efficient as the turbo ones and not very affordable for the common folk. I can think of the famous inline-6 BMW engines, for example. Great engines, smooth, good sound, but awful fuel economy. If not for that I would've bought one myself. And instead I've been forced to use a TDI

You're grasping here in that back when those engines well all the rage, fuel efficiency was not even considered. Today however, those engines can be engineered around fuel efficiency and still produce brute power with all the smoothness and sound you'd want.

Why is it that if you prefer something over something else it's automatically thought or assumed you're not with the times? I've said it countless times that while Turbo Engines are certainly beastly, there is no reason a NA Engine cannot be made to match or even exceed their performance while sounding so much better. If you've seen F1 engines and seen how PRECISE they were made and saw the throttle response on them you'd know all you need to know TO KNOW there is much more performance to be extracted from them. That's not opinion but fact. Even the v8's were capped which says there was plenty of performance left on the table. I bet if you give engineers free reign to develop an NA Engine today, the end result would blow peoples' minds.

[Zoue]

Diesel engines on road cars have to be turbo charged. There are however lots of brilliant non turbo charged NA engines out there. Going to small turbocharged petrol engines is not moving with the times imo.

Brilliant but not as fuel efficient as the turbo ones and not very affordable for the common folk. I can think of the famous inline-6 BMW engines, for example. Great engines, smooth, good sound, but awful fuel economy. If not for that I would've bought one myself. And instead I've been forced to use a TDI

You're grasping here in that back when those engines well all the rage, fuel efficiency was not even considered. Today however, those engines can be engineered around fuel efficiency and still produce brute power with all the smoothness and sound you'd want.

Why is it that if you prefer something over something else it's automatically thought or assumed you're not with the times? I've said it countless times that while Turbo Engines are certainly beastly, there is no reason a NA Engine cannot be made to match or even exceed their performance while sounding so much better. If you've seen F1 engines and seen how PRECISE they were made and saw the throttle response on them you'd know all you need to know TO KNOW there is much more performance to be extracted from them. That's not opinion but fact. Even the v8's were capped which says there was plenty of performance left on the table. I bet if you give engineers free reign to develop an NA Engine today, the end result would blow peoples' minds.

If that's truly the case I'd have to ask why BMW have moved over to turbo engines if they felt that more could be gained from their famously smooth and powerful straight sixes:

M’s engine-development chief, Michael Menn, was more specific: “The reason we changed to turbocharging is fuel efficiency, and that’s all. Turbocharging might be more complicated, but the naturally aspirated engines they are replacing in our cars were not exactly uncomplicated engines. At the moment, the main point is consumption and reduction of CO2. If that stays the main point then I am sure the industry stays with turbocharging.”

http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-grim-f ... e-winning/

It seems N/A engines just can't match turbos for efficiency.

[HS Thompson]

It's very true that using coal-fired power stations to supply electricity to hybrid or pure electric vehicles seems a contradiction, but that's more a fault of infrastructure than the technology itself. There are several alternative energy sources available, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-electric etc etc.

We will be burning coal, LOTS of coal, for a VERY VERY long time. There's a rail line literally right outside my office. Daily I see enormous freight trains carrying hundreds upon hundreds of tons of coal, maybe thousands, 40-50 rail cars at a time.

These power plants wont be decommissioned during my lifetime.