Formula E reveals second-generation car | Hacker News Reader

Formula E reveals second-generation car

motorsport.com

116 pointstankenmate81 comments

Note one of the most farcical parts of Formula E is changing for the 2018–19 season (when the new chassis is introduced): they're getting rid of the mid-race car change, and the batteries are required to last the full race distance.

The most farcical part of Formula E for me will always be the Fan Boost [0]. I almost couldn't believe it when I saw it on TV for the first time. Fans vote for their favourite driver, and that driver then remotely receives a boost to their car. I thought it was a joke.

[0] http://fanboost.fiaformulae.com/

THIS I immediately stopped watching Formula E because of that. I like motor racing not popularity contests with cars. The tech involved in the cars is great though.

Fan boost is great.

Formula E is in it's infancy, and right now is still drawing in fans and support.. Now is the time for stunts like this...

It won't be around forever, but for now it provides an additional measure of interaction and excitement in a sport that is already hard to get into if you're not willing to follow the non-race drama (the "circus" as they put it).

Okay fine. Just don't call it motor racing then. Given that the cars are obviously running in some artificially crippled state compared to the 'boosted' car. Call it ... Car-big-brother or something instead :p

The cars’ power output is electronically limited, this limit is raised during the 5s of boost.

The same thing could be done for normal F1 cars - for example, by raising the RPM limit, power output or drag reduction for a few seconds. In fact, with KERS, F1 drivers already have the same kind of boost but without the voting.

Sure. The voting aspect is my big gripe though. Without the voting they don't need the limiter. If the dumped the voting and allowed teams to innovate battery I'd be ALL OVER IT but they need dump the voting aspect like-right-now.

Like I commented elsewhere, you're making a big deal out of basically nothing.

FanBoost is a gimmick, and even F-E management acknowledges that it has virtually zero impact on the race itself.

It's a 5-second ~5% power boost.. That's not going to change anything, and neither would letting the cars run at 5% more power in general without it..

I am sure that teams are innovating battery and motor just fine even with this minor limitation..

Don't you think if FanBoost was actually crippling or limiting innovation in the way you're assuming, the teams would cry foul? That kind of counter-productive decision would go against one of the main reasons they do these racing leagues (to innovate!).

As an aside, all motor racing is "crippled", as you put it, by rules and regulations designed to provide a reasonably level playing field.

Even Formula 1 has all kinds of limiting rules and guidelines that prevent teams from simply building the fastest/lightest/most powerful cars they can possibly design, and that's intentional.

So all the smart people know this is a scam played on uneducated redneck masses in order to grow following. I bet nothing can go wrong with building your fan base out of idiots.

I haven't even watched any F-E race at all, but am a bit bothered by your comment. What makes it a scam? It's all fully laid out, and there is a (small) chance the voters can actually impact the results of the race as suggested.

Generally speaking, I agree with what you're saying - I think FanBoost is stupid. BUT - the limit would still be there. They limit the RPM, etc. in the petrol cars for other reasons too. I think this is a really small impact on how "crippled" the cars are.

I wouldn't get worked up about things being 'limited' when virtually all race cars are limited in some form. F1 has fuel flow restrictions and rev restrictions (which can't be reached due to the fuel flow requirement). Nascar has restrictor plates. LMP2 and 3 both have displacement restrictions. Indycar has rev restrictions.

Unlimited racing basically becomes a bloodbath and a contest of who has the most money (which is a problem that F1 still has). Yes, fan boost is a gimmick, but don't get too upset about the purity of 'artificially crippled' racing.

Not really, it's not. It's a popularity contest in what should be a contest of crews and vehicles.

And Formula E is 99% still a contest of crews and vehicles, and a 1% gimmick designed to engage fans and viewers in this new sport.

It's really not the problem you're making it out to be.

FanBoost gives one driver a one-time 5-second ~5% boost to use during the race..

That's not going to change race outcomes in any significant way, and even Formula E acknowledges that it has (intentionally) virtually no impact on the race..

You're not supposed to take ideas from the Hunger Games or The Running Man and use them in earnest. That's some Phillip K Dick level insanity right there.

So...if I'm hearing you...I should take 1984 as a cautionary tale rather than as a set of cultural goals? But everyone seemed so unified in vision, a little shouty, but totaly on the same page.

And, frankly, the new language is doubleplusgood.

I feel like we could extend this to essentially be like mario kart or the wacky races and it'd be great!

As I understand, fan boost allows the selected car to use more energy for a small amount of time. However, it doesn’t increase the amount of energy the car has available. The driver will still need to account for that somewhere else in that lap or another. also, it’s one-time per race. It might allow a single pass but it’s not going to make a huge change to the results.

Many of the greatest moments in motorsports hinge on "a single pass."

Do you mean they are removing the farcical re-charge?

IE, it was a farce to recharge in the middle of the race in the previous season.

They don't re-charge the car mid-race (and never have); they simply change between two cars, and that's what they're getting rid of.

I'm not sure what makes that farcical - in the first three seasons, the car swap was required because battery capacities were too low to power the car for the whole race. Now the battery capacity requirement is double - isn't this pushing battery development forward?

The batteries have been, and remain, standard parts, used by all teams. There's no on-track competition pushing battery development forward, they're just put out to tender every few years by the organisers.

Yeah, but bodywork "much more stylised than before" will please advertisers, not aerodynamicists. And sound which will irritate your pets still remains.

What's farcical to me is that the cars are standardized and manufactured by one company. How is that supposed to be interesting and drive innovation?

Same as A1GP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Grand_Prix#Chassis_and_engi...

> This regulation provided a level playing field in which driver skill and team effort should become the primary factor for success.

Compared with F1 now where some teams can (effectively) "pay to win".

To be fair, the F1 teams pay to win by paying for some stunning engineering. The way the F1 rules are set up means that F1 is basically an engineering contest first and a racing series second. It's part of the reason that it is so great to watch.

.. and I say this as a McLaren fan (which, for those that don't follow F1, is a traditionally top F1 team that has had an absolutely woeful couple of years).

True. For example, Force India, one of the teams with the least amount of funding of all of them on circuit. They are competing way above their way class, in terms of money, and doing very well. It's actually pretty amazing how often they are in the points (top 10 race finish) for the resources they have. Talk about amazing engineering and process they must use to compete against Ferrari/Mercedes/Red bull.

Yep - one of the things Eddie Jordan did right, setting the environment up to really optimise for one condition (top speed). When you have limited resources, focus on the most important thing and then make up for other shortcomings with talent.

The goal is powertrain innovation, without making teams divert their funds to developing new chassis and aero parts. The powertrain, beyond the battery, is free for manufacturers to compete on. Only the first season (2014–15) had completely identical cars.

Isn't battery where innovation is most needed?

Yes!

Most of the concern with battery innovation is you can burn a lot of money very fast, as far as I'm aware, and I believe the manufacturers believe the powertrain to be more useful to invest in.

It's also where innovation would require funding a whole science lab with years long return times. There's already a huge amount of funding going into battery tech already as well.

For one, motorsport have actual spec series with nearly identical cars that highlight driver skill. They're used as feeder series to test and promote talented drivers.

More to the point of Fomula E, the degree of standardization is changing as the series progresses, with increasingly more aspects of the chassis and powertrain open to development.

Having a standard platform at the start made sense to minimize cost and bring in new competitors who don't want to spend the $200+ million a year like Formula 1 or WEC, where only 2 or 3 factory teams dominate and make for boring racing. Even a big company with a racing pedigree like Honda hasn't been able to field a competitive engine in F1.

As the formula matures they can start focusing on more areas of technical innovation.

You mean differentiate on the driving skill and not who has the most cubic money?

Besides, it’s not the first race series to do that. Not much of an auto racing fan myself (MotoGP, please), but IROC comes to mind (Cameros for everyone!). Motorcycle Super Sport comes close, you can choose different manufacturers, but the bike has to be pretty close to stock. I’m sure bigger race fans can come up with other examples.

There's currently a big discussion about the future of LMP2 due to that sort of restrictive innovation, taking it closer to spec. Then there's the multitude of one-make series further down the ladder - certainly isn't a new phenomenon to have arbitrarily close cars from one or more manufacturers.

The cars aren't standardized, the chassis is. The electric motor, inverter, gearbox and cooling system are all developed by the teams. This just prevents teams from having to waste funds on developing aero.

I would really like to see a formula class that has no human pilots and no one on or near the field so the cars can go as fast as they possibly can, no limitation based on human reaction speed or human safety, no arbitrary rules around tire material or suction fans under the car etc etc.

I think that is in the works https://roborace.com/

I'd like to see that out of pure curiosity, but I would almost definitely struggle to get excited about it without the human element.

I think most wouldn't be that interested if there wasn't an actual driver (in the car, too, not some remote thing), even if it's ultimately faster.

I think your post just helped me understand why I never was interested in sports. I cannot get excited watching other humans doing heroic stuff.

This would not change for me if it were AI's with identifiable characteristics doing the activities (driving). With suitable marketing maybe real sportsfans could get behind (hypotheically) Team Waymo's AlphaRomeo Zero. Especially with an e-sports tie-in. Imagine racing, and thereby helping to train your (AI) hero on a simulator.

> I would almost definitely struggle to get excited about it without the human element

You'd have teams in "pits" monitoring their vehicles live. Those reactions will be raw and humanistic.

When the vehicle comes in for a "pit stop," the team--in addition to doing mechanical maintenance--could be allowed to tweak the code, e.g. based on strategic observations of other cars' behaviours. To keep it interesting, one could mandate--to make up for the electronics in the car--all "pit stop" labor be completely manual. (Any code changes could be taken onto the track on an unpowered drive.)

The reason for rules around tire material and car design are to make sure there's at least a semblance of a level playing field and it doesn't become just a huge race around who can buy some game breaking gadget or feature.

I agree with all of those points, except for your first one. As a driver myself, I can see that humans will always search for more speed, and taking the driver away from the vehicle ultimately makes the overall activity less engaging (for the drivers, and the audience).

I do agree that such a class could be run along side a human-driven class as an alternative event. To go one step further, I feel this is where the Red Bull Air Race should go, so we can see some actual jet-powered racing at ridiculous speeds.

Check out the formula student competition, they might not be at that stage yet but they have a driverless category since last year

https://roborace.com/

EV's are amazing for drag racing (at least up to about 160mph) and hillclimb. Circuit racing has a long way to go before it is watchable IMO

http://www.nedra.com

Pikes Peak hillclimb https://youtu.be/nMjsAMlXGBI

I'm interested in engineering for track marshall safety with these cars. Anyone come across any interesting articles? Certainly there were some difficulties with early F1 KERS batteries, must be far more difficult here with the energy required to power a car for an entire race.

Edit: thanks for info below.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally different to F1 when it comes to marshalling, primarily just having similar red/orange/green lights on the roll-hoop to make it clear whether there's any risk in touching the car.

I can't speak to f1 but in Le Mans and the wec they have had a variety of hybrid systems.

There are indicator lights on the outside of the cars that show the status of the hybrid system. They also have a emergency cutoff switch that is large enough for them to push with a fiberglass pole.

In some cases especially in practice if the car is badly damaged they will send one of the safety and intervention vehicles back to the pits and fetch a crew member from that car with tools to properly safe the hybrid system. I've also seen where the Marshalls will have the driver climb out of the car stand on the side pod and jump clear, then take 4 or 5 bunny hops away from the car.

Dumb question, why must a driver hop away from a damaged vehicle?

It means the driver is never part of a conductive path between the car and the ground.

Or between different parts of the "ground" that are at different potentials.

Theoretically, if there was a short to ground, a voltage potential could develop between the two legs if the driver took a step away from the car. By hopping and landing with feet together, both legs will always be at the same potential so no current should run through the legs even if the immediate area around the car is energized.

It looks absurd, but it's standard advice if a backhoe or crane hits a power line.

https://youtu.be/Xvlk_73bSvc?t=2m31s

And why you should keep your feet together when there is a thunderstorm. An impact near you can still kill you if your feet are apart.

They follow F1 rules since its hybrid era. There is some battery-state signals, special routines like escaping from car for driver and prohibit of touching car without special gloves.

At the 2017 Mexico GP, Niko Hulkenberg was told to exit the car because it wasn't safe. He stood out on the nose of the car and jumped off using a specific protocol.

There's also an indication for corner workers that alerts them to the unsafe condition.

https://twitter.com/F1/status/924723086875938817

I'm guessing the nose must be grounded and safe to walk on somehow as part of the regulations? I remember watching it live and wondering if every car has a different procedure, or was it just Renault that had the nose. Whereas Ferrari might say, get out on your right side, or stand up in your seat and jump over everything..

The nose is electrically connected to the rest of the car. If the car has a potential difference to ground the driver will already be at the potential of the car. The point is you make sure you're not touching the ground and the car at the same time as that would make you a convenient current path.

Warning: Autoplaying ad with audio. (At least on my end.)

It's very kind of you to not have adblock installed

On my end at least it was a plug for something about the 24 hours of Le Mans which is far more interesting than formula e

Hopefully one day we can see a 24-Hours with all electric vehicles and no recharges. Theoretically possible today with nuclear power, but you know, not that.

Do I read this right that FIA provides the card for every team? Why does this not work like F1 where every team brings their own car?

It's a standard chassis yes, but the powertrain is made by the teams. It's to force the manufacturers to concentrate their developments on the EV powertrain (cooling, inverter, motor etc) instead of aerodynamics and suspension.

The battery is also a spec part to force powertrain efficiency rather than cramming in more batteries, plus battery technology is expensive.

Are these super batteries also rechargable and have good longevity?

Almost nothing in autosport has good longevity.

The current cars last for one whole year. The battery has some extra capacity to avoid discharge damage during racing.

Having the whole car last the whole year is not very common in racing, so they are good in this.

So now Formula E has enough juice to last a full race with no car swap in the middle. There are also efforts to bring Formula E to city centres - and the people - but will anyone be watching?

I would like to see this electric car racing take a different direction - imagine if you could press a button on the dash and have your car emulate any of many open wheel single seater cars of the past.

Just getting started?

Try the 'Formula Challenge Japan' mode or maybe give an F2 car from the 1970's a spin.

If you get really brave then you could put it into one of those Red Bull F1 car modes.

You could have all the characteristics of each car ported over from a simulator/game but be out on the track.

As well as this open seater 'Formula E' with a difference there could also be a normal car with things like a roof and passenger seating, this could be electric and simulate any number of cars. Porsche GT3 RS?

Fine. There could be a fake manual gearbox, fake RPM redline and all of that exhaust noise nonsense also simulated.

Or maybe you would like to see what it is like to go round the track in a retro Ferrari 275 with a big V12 singing away.

Perhaps the next lap could be tried in Testarossa mode, with the Miami Vice Classic car simulated.

Or maybe you wondered what those Group B rally cars were really like, so you could just go into 'Lancia Delta Integrale mode' and not have the 'benefit' of a tank full of gasoline underneath one's seat.

Perhaps petrol could be faked too, a smell created that does not have the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons but gives the 'garage' impression.

As well as being greener, such simulator-cars would also be easier and cheaper to maintain than a fleet of ICE race cars. This would make track day racing more fun and accessible.

So you want an electric race car to feel like some other car? This really isn't possible at all. No matter what you do, a Testa won't handle like a Miata because you can't change weight on the fly. Really all that you could do is reduce the power of the car on the fly which doesn't give the same experience.

Yeah, you just put bricks in the bonnet or boot. Easy.

You’ve never driven any of these cars, have you?

This only works for increasing weight, so you would have to use something lightweight like a Miata. The problem with this is that a Miata won't be able to take 600 whp. If you throw too much power into a car you'll just warp the frame. To some extent you can reinforce the frame, but there is still a limit.

Regardless, adding weights to the car is going to destroy the car's center of gravity which will really mess up handling. You can test this with any car, put 100 lbs in your trunk and drive it around. It's very noticeable.

The miata is one of the lightest cars in the market. You cant add bricks to a Tesla and make it lighter.

And you can't change wheel base, weight distribution, ect, nilly willy.

He thinks "Miata = 50/50 balance" as if wheel size, suspension geometry, overall weight, are irrelevant.

I don’t think you really understand what actually makes cars drive differently.

The Blackbird from the Mill[1] does exactly this. Designed to be used in shooting car commercials without the actual car.

1. http://www.themill.com/portfolio/3002/the-blackbird%C2%AE

Not exactly - the Blackbird is designed to be able to change wheelbase and track to suit the vehicle that will then be placed in the shot using CGI. It doesn't replicate the driving dynamics (which as mentioned elsewhere here is largely a function of things that cannot easily be changed, such as weight distribution, not solely a function of traction balance/response which could be programmable in a suitable electric vehicle. There is of course all of the suspension and steering geometry to take into account as well as the damping/springing performance and so on). Not to say that the Blackbird isn't an impressive device, but it's not what the OP is referring to above (nor is what they say possible with current technology, IMO).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com