Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmontra | Hacker News Reader

For the uninformed, Formula 1 has been running on supercharged 1600 cc V6 engines since 2014, with 100 kg of gasoline for the whole GP (300 km), 105 kg this year if I remember correctly (because of larger and heavier tires.) That wouldn't give enough power so there are energy recovery systems from the exhaust and brakes. They get close to 1000 HP when all those power system deploy all the power they can generate.

The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power so it's critical that the car knows when to recover energy (either when braking or when coasting) and when to go full throttle or deploy partial power, and which percentage. That's where Honda has failed.

View on HN

Correction: they're turbocharged not supercharged. For those that don't know the difference, a turbocharger is two turbines connected to eachother. One, powered by exhaust gases, spins the other, which forces air into the combustion chamber (the pressure applied is typically called "boost"). More air means more fuel can be injected while maintaining stoichiometric equilibrium. More fuel combusted means more power is produced, given equal waste due to friction etc.

A supercharger is very similar, but conceptually more simple. The turbine creating boost is instead connected mechanically to the engine's crankshaft, being driven directly by the engine.

To be fair, the turbochargers in contemporary F1 cars are not powered only by exhaust gases. To get rid of the infamous turbo lag, they are electrically assisted. Still not a super charger of course, but the "assisted" part makes them a bit more similar.

I tend to think of this system as a sort of twincharger, because the compressor is driven by a turbine and an electric motor.

And to nitpick, all turbochargers are superchargers. Their original term was a turbosupercharger. It was later renamed to turbocharger. :)

The poor mans equivalent of this is hooking up a decent computer fan to the battery on a scooter. Force feeding the intake on the poor little thing certainly felt like it doubled the power, but double almost nothing still isn't much. Turboing the lawn mower works great too, but I'm less sure you would want that done.

Does it actually work? I might try it.

Very much so. Get the a good fan and make as tight a seal as possible between it and the air intake.

Thanks! I have to try it.

That is not supercharging. A computer fan is not designed for compressing air, and it's nowhere near powerful enough to do so. There may be a small increase in performance, but that is just because you overcome the restrictions (increasing airflow) in the inlet manifold

The so called 'electric superchargers' which you can buy on ebay have been mythbusted many times [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbGWgvJN1_8

I think I rememeber seeing someone hooking up a highly modified leaf blower to the intake of a car and getting like a dozen more HP. This was a part of a bunch of experiments with the electrics turbos, and the the leaf blower was the only thing that worked?

Yup, it takes not only high pressure, but a high volume of air. Add to that the need to squeeze more air through existing small ducting, and you need quite a bit to make a difference. Turbos work by their intake being powered in close relation to their exhaust volume. The rest is just effeciency curves and fueling issues.

Roadkill did it with both multiple leaf blowers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U81_0waqEWA) and a full small block Chevy engine on a trailer supercharging another one in the car (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPMBR-imqUk).

That sounds more like a variant of cold-air induction.

To be super pedantic a turbocharger is technically a subset of superchargers (something that "supers" the charge) having turbunes (for the work needed to compress/accelerate the air)

That may have been turbosuper pedantic.

Pretty super pedantic, agreed.

But the OP wasn't technically wrong, so I bring it uo

The part compressing the air is not a turbine but an impeller.

I recently saw a comment on HN linking to a company that creates very neat animations of how various things work [1] and they happen to have done one on turbo vs superchargers [2] -- it's a pretty good way to see it.

[1] https://animagraffs.com/

[2] https://www.tyroola.com.au/supercharger-vs-turbo/

Which highlights the other major difference between a turbocharger and supercharger:

Superchargers used in automotive applications are, typically but not always, Roots-type blowers.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots-type_supercharger

God damn, that was a fabulous explanation. Brings back my mechanical engineering memories!

Correction: they are both super chargers

An exhaust driven bladed fan type compressor turbo supercharger is shortened to turbocharger, and

a direct engine driven positive displacement compressor super charger is shortened to supercharger.

It's not so simple. The driver has control over how to deploy the power (electric and combustion) in the steering wheel.

http://www.thisisf1.com/2016/05/16/explained-2016-f1-steerin...

So engineers and Alonso had to agree beforehand on motor maps and different steering wheel parameters. It's not clear if it's a problem in the software or an issue in the parametrization of the car for that qualy lap.

I'm still surprised that "the computer knows where on the track you are, and alters the behavior of the car" is allowed. This is the sport which outlaws ABS because the driver is supposed to do the work, not the car.

It sounds as if the computer knows because of throttle though, which is rudimentary, and likely purposefully rudimentary to steer around rules about GPS/track mapping?

>This is the sport which outlaws ABS because the driver is supposed to do the work, not the car.

That's been a silly distinction to bring up ever since the introduction of automated gearboxes and the end of clutch management.

It's still manual transmission and they don't have traction control or launch control or automatic suspension adjustment.

I think they added the boost tech so that cars pass each other more frequently.

in 2014 vettel fell off a bit and Christian Horner said it was due to a loss of brake feeling with the new formula. Now most of the tricks are completely secret and it's all about tricks to comply with the regulations but circumvent them and racing drivers have a lot of excuses that aren't to be believed but I could sort of see this.

If you want to have more natural braking in some corners and recover less energy and then maybe deploy the energy at more optimal places on the track then this sort of thing makes a little sense, especially if you can make it work. I would think it highly prone to being confused though. It would be interesting to see some data on the differences between this type of algorithm when it works and the Prius algorithm.

> The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power

Is there a reason for that? I always assumed (as someone who doesn't know much about racing) that the inside of F1 cars would resemble a jet-fighter cockpit. They're not required to be stock cars, so why not optimize on HCI efficiency as well as on everything else the sport is about?

That comment was incorrect. If you look at an F1 steering wheel, there are tons of buttons, switches, and knobs for adjusting engine and energy recover settings.

Exactly - they can change throttle map between a "start" mode (less intense application of power to ensure a smooth getaway without wheelspin) and race mode.

They've also got a heap of controls over things like the Diff, DRS (where the rear wing opens up to reduce drag on straights when they're lining up an overtake), and most crucially, engine mode - which tweaks fuel injection rate.

They do look like jet planes cockpits. This is something I googled right now with a fairly good explanation https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/3042278/formula-on...

Some form of controls could be denied by technical or sporting regulations. I didn't read them in the last years. They are at http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110 Regulations are interesting and not too hard to follow.

I believe at some point they were afraid everything will get autopilpted in. That also increases the risk to the drivers lifes. So they decided to cut it out early.

Although it was primarily brake-bias, watch some onboards of Michael Schumacher from his prime, adjusting car parameters on the steering wheel at almost every point - there are a lot of different settings each driver can make inside that affect it.

In 97/98 McLaren added the fiddle brake which was quickly outlawed. The fiddle brake was a two brake pedal system so the left side and right side of the car could be controlled separately. This allowed for better braking entering into a corner and a slight traction advantage on exiting. I always thought it was fair play since it completely depended on the driver and should never have been banned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1ux791/an_old_f1_...

I wonder if this couldn't be emulated somehow via e.g one pedal and steering angle and/or rear diff measurements to put more braking power to the inner wheel?

Then of course, it might be banned as a braking aid similar to ABS. Using any kind of feedback loop for braking effectively makes it a stability system which I assume is not allowed?

with 100 kg of gasoline for the whole GP (300 km), 105 kg this year if I remember correctly (because of larger and heavier tires.)

Taking gasoline at approximately 0.75kg/L, that's 133.3L for 300km or around 44.4L/100km. That's 5.3MPG in US units. Not very fuel-efficient...

It might sound like bad fuel efficiency but the engine efficiencies they have managed to achieve are insane. The latest Mercedes and Ferrari engines are able to gain 47% efficiency [1]. Compare that to the road cars which are able to do 25-30% thermal efficiency and Prius which can manage 40%.

In my opinion, the fuel efficiency suffers because it's a sport at the end of the day and burning more fuel at a higher rate (limited to 100 kg/hour) gives you more power.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/turbulent-times-for-for...

No it's not, but keep in mind that the cars accelerate at an average of around 1.45g.

If it weren't for the inability to transfer all of the power to motion (due to traction loss), they could accelerate from 0 to 100 kph (62 mph) in around 1 second.

With the down force provided with increased speed, they actually accelerate faster from 100 to 200 kph (62 to 122 mph) than from 0 to 100 [1]:

    0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.4 seconds
    0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 4.4 seconds
    0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.4 seconds

[1] 2016 Mercedes W07 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car)

Well they're in par with fuel consumption of supercars. For example, a Lamborghini Aventador has 10 MPG, an Aston Martin V12 Vantage has 12 MPG, a Bentley Continental has 13, a Ferrari 488 GTB has 15,a McLaren 570GT has 16, a Mercedes AMG GT also has 16 as does a Nissan GT-R, and only Porsches get a tad above 20. Considering that none of the above could hold a candle to an F1 car, its fuel consumption doesn't sound too exotic.

Consider also that the above stats are (I assume) based on NEDC, a driving cycle so scared of acceleration even a Lada Niva [1] has to be gentle with the throttle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LADA_4x4

Fuel efficiency tests in a road car aren't performed by driving flat out for two hours.

Exactly. Take any car and race it flat out for two hours; see how much fuel you burn. Especially with a turbocharged car, it's possible to have pretty decent fuel economy in regular driving, while still going through a ton when you're really pushing it (and getting the power to match).

Very much this. In fact I would suspect the extreme opposite is performed, by anorexic hyper miling people looking at the wind directions for any possible advantage - the brake pedal never to be touched.

I took my old (APR ECUd, rear sway bars, otherwise stock) turbo charged Polo GTI on the Winston racetrack once (V8 trucks practice day) to work on my driving skills, and it was surprising - but not at all unreasonable - to see the remaining fuel in KMs estimate perform a complete nosedive.

The fuel efficiency numbers of the F1s are truly awesome.

Power consumption at enough speed is determined by drag, which depends quadratically with speed

And these cars have quite a lot of drag to give them downforce. The truly amazing cars have "efficient" downforce, which is where for a given level they've managed it with lower drag than the competition.

Some examples of low-drag downforce are if they can force vortices along the sides of the floor from elements on the front wing, which gives them similar benefits to the ground-effect skirts that Lotus and Williams used to great effect at the tail end of the 70s.

What's amazing is when you see an F1 car in humid conditions, because you can make out the vortices from the rear wing.

It's also impressive to see them in the rain, because the spray coming off the back of the car [0] shows you exactly how much air the cars are moving to get the downforce they have.

[0]: https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-content/uploads/XPB_789346...

They probably would have decent fuel economy if they did a 20 minute commute at 50mph because they are really light and have low drag.

Conversely, my family wagon would probably not be very efficient if I did 0-150-0mph a few dozen times between home and work.

The driving patterns are a bit different

Interestingly Ferrari missed the opportunity to pass Mercedes at a restart after a safety car late in the race [1] because software cut off one electrical motor close to the end of the main straight [2]. That was a common choice to preserve energy for other parts of the track. Still Mercedes has a button on the steering wheel to override the software and keep delivering power from all engines. That might have won the race for them.

[1] https://youtu.be/rhmGaCjpoBY?t=4m20s (check the speeds and the nice 3-way pass behind the leaders)

[2] http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-belgian-gr... at section "5) The crucial power de-rate"

I was under the impression that the MGU was manually controlled by the driver via controls on the cockpit. Also I don't know if that 1000HP figure is correct. AFAIK teams don't disclose power ratings to the public.

The powers are usually estimates, afaik. however they seem to be open secrets

The engines are turbocharged, not supercharged.

Technically the article is correct, turbocharging is a form of supercharging.

Supercharger is an overloaded word, it refers both to the principle of forced induction as well as a particular mechanical method of achieving that. Oddly this isn't just a problems with English, German has the same overloading of 'kompressor'.

Turbocharging was originally called turbosupercharging when developed by GE.

Why the gas limitation? That seems odd.

The sport aims to be an R&D center for road going technology. So the cars are pretty much hybrids with electric power increasing and the reliance on the petrol motors decreasing.

Huh? I though the whole initial problems was that the hybrids outperformed the petrol versions quite handily.

Why would you have to limit gasoline when the system is going to evolve to wipe that out anyway?

I believe they are free to not carry gasoline. The fact they carry it, tells you a lot.

I guess there's two reasons - the first is when they started this process it was before we had full electric vehicles and it wasn't clear what the best technology would be, at the time hybrid vehicles were very popular.

The second is that F1 has been carbon neutral for at least two decades with the FIA planting trees to offset the extraordinary amount of pollution that flying the F1 circus around the world generates. Even though reducing fuel does nothing to make F1 greener when you take into account the carbon generated by transportation it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.

This is all PR.

In bet now it's way more energy demanding than before just because there are way more people involved.

More journalists/media and many more support staff to work on hybrid tech.

Isn't that what I said in different words?

You're right. Didn't read your comment thoroughly. I guess I don't understand the general sentiment of why it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.

To me it just underscores the disparity between the feel-good green energy and the actual carbon footprint people generate. For example, it's a lot more "green" to not own a car than to own a Tesla.

I wish they kept racing a purely fun driver-focused endeavor and got rid of most of the electronics and hybrid tech.

And for those who love the tech maybe have a separate competition of self-driving electric vehicles.

Because it's good advertising and greentech is big business. Companies also want to be seen as being progressive and at the forefront of trends.

Also, petrolheads aren't the most environmentally conscious so F1 is being a good citizen of the world by promoting green tech. Even if it's very much do as I say not as I do.

There are a number of reasons for the fuel limit.

One is simply that the engine manufacturers want efficiency to be a relevant factor, because it aids in their R&D and marketing efforts. With a fuel limit in place, F1 becomes a showcase for both performance and efficiency.

Another vital reason is to limit speed and cost. Back in the 1980s, F1 was in the midst of a turbocharger-driven arms race. Manufacturers were adding more and more boost, which had a severe impact on both costs and safety. The high levels of boost severely stressed the engines, so teams were replacing the entire engine after a single race. Many teams were using "qualifying special" engines that were built with a lifespan of just five laps. The extra power was creating dangerously high speeds and the effects of turbo lag made the power delivery of these engines very erratic and difficult to control.

Many other racing formulas use a restrictor plate - a metal flange with a hole of a specified diameter that restricts the air intake of the engine, creating a hard limit on maximum power.

Of course, there are sneaky ways around restrictor plates, as evidenced by Toyota's cheating in WRC.

http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/how-the-best-racing-cheat-of-a...

Very short: they made the plate warp when in place and return to standard when the intake hose was removed for inspection.

Interesting hack.

The hybrid versions do not outpeform what a petrol version could be, if it wasn't strictly restricted to a specified maximum engine volume and pressure.

Once upon a time, F1 used to be a "anything goes" series where the best in the world competed to build the fastest racing cars in the world. This stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.

Since then, the racing series has piled on rules and restrictions meant to limit what the cars can do. Since the gasoline engine is hard capped, and they allowed adding an electric engine on top of that, you now need to use one to compete.

stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.

That's true of almost all auto racing today. Powerplants can deliver more power than anyone can use. Now it's all about keeping the wheels on the ground.

> The sport aims to be an R&D center for road going technology.

This continues to surprise me. Is that really what is attractive to the audience?

You've just brushed upon one of the biggest debates in modern motorsport. If you are interested in reading further there's many great opinion pieces on both sides of the fence. Here's one interesting piece written recently by ex-F1 driver Stefan Johansson [1].

[1] http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints/item/143400-johansson-m...

I've been watching MotoGP recently instead of F1 for some of those reasons. Much more enjoyable, dangerous and unpredictable. And you don't go around an oval unlike indycar.

> And you don't go around an oval unlike indycar.

I just came back from looking up the IndyCar tracks for this reason, to see what non-ovals there are. :-) I prefer road courses, myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IndyCar_Series_racetra...

It's attractive to the manufacturers. F1 is stupendously expensive, so manufacturers want to get maximum bang for their buck in terms of marketing. Trickle-down technology is a major marketing hook, particularly for McLaren and Ferrari. Both companies introduced KERS- and DRS-inspired systems on their road cars when they were added to the F1 rules.

This is much clearer in other racing formulae, where the cars being raced may be modified versions of commercially-available road cars. Audi, Subaru and Mitsubishi built their reputation for performance almost entirely off the back of the World Rally Championship.

> manufacturers want to get maximum bang for their buck in terms of marketing

Sure, and I thought that you would have to do something that was attractive to the audience for the marketing to work.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports, it's the most expensive racing series out there and one of the most advanced. Every team builds designs and builds their own cars and has new models for every season and then throughout the season they work hard and spend untold millions and man hours improving the cars.

A lot of the fan base is really engaged in the technology race while others are engaged in the personalities, that is what makes the sport so popular as it has a lot of entertainment to offer outside of what actually happens on the track.

People watch F1 for different reasons.

Some people love the crashes, others love the personalities.

Me? I love the racing, the personalities, but most of all I love all the technical developments on the cars. These are fragile prototype cars with state-of-the-art engines (approaching 50% efficiency, which is insane) - new car launch time in F1 just before winter testing is one of my favourites!

This. I watch F1 because it's the closest thing I can find to a public engineering competition.

No refills for safety reasons.

Ah, that makes some sense.

I enjoyed the refills because they made the strategic aspect more interesting. Also, the two tyre suppliers.

There are a number of reasons, but limiting the amount of fuel provides a certain amount of safety in a crash. It also prevents an arms race for ever increasing horsepower amongst builders. You can't just increase power delivery forever if you don't have the fuel to finish the race.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com