Hacker News Reader

They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars.

I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the same bore-center measure as the original small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40 inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly). Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the vehicle.

It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911 Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any innovative technologies.

What's new in NASCAR these days?

They finally have Fuel Injection.

In which specific area?

Are there any trends in efficiency regulations that compare to Formula 1?

Yes, the engines are always being pushed towards higher efficiency. They do lack any sort of innovation when compared to the KERS system, though. But the NASCAR Cup car V8 is just an amazing piece of machinery. It operates at 7K RPM and above for extended periods of time, and until 2013, had to use a carburetor. Which is mind blowing, given the amount of issues that such fuel system would bring into such scenario.

Not in the racing itself. However nascar has been pushing to modernize it's race tracks with things like Solar Panels.

While I don't follow either NASCAR or F1 it's my impression that NASCAR has much less focus on technology development. They strive to keep all the cars technically identical, so that races are close and are won or lost almost entirely on the basis of driver and crew skills.

F1 I think is much more about who can innovate technically within some parameter limits (of course in addition to having skilled drivers/crew).

They do focus on technology, but the rules are strict, and hardly ever change a lot. The basic ideas behind the Cup series has not changed much in a long time. But the implementations are quite amazing. Just look at the engines themselves. Or the safety improvements they have developed over the years. Plus, NASCAR is about being good at cheating and being great at not being caught.

Unleaded fuel.

I never intended to use the Corvette as an example of technical innovation. If you read my original post, you will see that I simply used it as an example of showing that smaller engine does NOT equal a more efficient engine by default.

I do agree with the fact that the C5 V8 layout is quite old, though the actual engine was designed from scratch in 1997. It has it's problems, but it's a far more reliable engine then it's competitors. For instance, that same friend I mentioned recently had BMW purchase his 2008 M3 from him because at 76k miles the entire engine seized due to lack of lubrication to the main bearings. I know because I was the attorney representing him :) This is not an isolated event either, the previous generation of the M3 engine was recalled for the same issue, and this generation is going to be as well, as it's a significant issue. I ride a BMW K1200R bike, so I am not by any means a BMW hater, BTW. I am just pointing out that sometimes more complicated engines are not necessarily more economical or better.

That goes for the leaf spring suspension on the C5 as well. The "leaf spring" suspension in the C5 shares absolutely nothing with the leaf springs in a pickup truck. The C5 has a transverse leaf spring that springs both sides of the axels. It's a genius solution that saves on weight overall weight and significantly reduces unsprung weight. [1] Leaf spring, the way it's implemented in the C5, is superior to a coil spring, regardless of the stigma that the name "leaf spring" carries with it. And what's so wring with balsa wood?

So, to make my self clear, I am not arguing that F1 lacks innovation, it lacks diversity of ideas.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

I disagree. It does not lack a diversity of ideas. You have many different teams attacking the same problem, and achieving very different results. One thing to understand is that F1 is very driven by politics. Those politics take a toll on innovation. Go back to the year 1993, and the Williams-Renault team was able to dominate the field with their technologically advanced car. It featured an adjustable suspension that would allow the driver to take the turns much faster. Making the lead driver for the team (Alain Prost) much faster than other (better) drivers (like Ayrton Senna). The technology was banned due to a mix of inner-politics and protests by other teams.

Even with all of the things that go down, we still get rules that push for engineering efforts like the KERS system. Which is making its way into other racing series (the ideas and technologies, not the actual system).

That generation M3 required very strict oil change intervals with a specific oil that BMW strongly recommended. Due to the clearance in the main bearings. Not to say that this isn't bothersome, but that it is not a regular engine. Not like BMW has not been in any engine fiasco. They had a very notorious issue with Nikasil and quick degradation of the cylinder bores.

The engine in the C5 started to be developed in the late 80's. It was part of the push to day view the LT-series. The LS-series was GM's answer to the increasing CAFE standards. As it is a more efficient engine.

The point about smaller engines not being more efficient is correct. Size of engine does not imply efficiency. But from a pure fuel consumption point of view, the smaller engine will consume less fuel than the bigger one. Just like it takes less water to fill a bucket than to fill a pool.

I know you did not try and make the C5 an example of innovation. It was just amusing (for me personally) that a C5 owner was making claims of great fuel economy and at the same time criticizing F1 for a lack of diversity of ideas (as you so eloquently put it).

The K1200R is a fine bike, though. Drive safe.

The problem with race-level fuel restriction is you get drivers managing their pace over the course of the race, which can lead to strategies that people find boring. Or worse, the fastest driver running out of fuel just before the end. It was one of the complaints about Group C prototype racing, although that turned out alright over all, with some help from the comparatively long race format.

The "best" system would be to use a fuel flow restriction — X g/s of fuel, with the usual restrictions on fuel composition. The designer's job is then to extract the max usable power from the chemical energy in the fuel. This would make for really exciting development and diversity, and make F1 development a true laboratory for other transportation and power production contexts.

It would also be prohibitively expensive and probably result in one manufacturer in a walkover for a while, until others could switch architectures. Experimenting with different architectures is a huge money pit, and is why the prescriptions for 10 and 8 cylinders were in the last couple sets of regulations. Just working out the competitiveness of V12 vs V10 vs V8 was getting unreasonable, let alone dealing with different hybrid setups on top of that.

It is also my understanding that the accuracy of fuel flow meters has not been considered good enough to provide adequate parity in a racing environment, when fractions of a percent can mean the difference between winning and losing.

The new F1 rules do include fuel flow metering, although it is based on kg/h and I don't know what kind of spiking is permissible. The regulations are as detailed as they are, with specifications for power transfer among components, etc. to spare teams the expense of experimenting there and to give them targets to optimize for. See jdietrich's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6952583

It is pretty discouraging with respect to the purity of the formula, but it's kind of a fact of life. And I think the development of turbocompounding and pre-spooling turbos with electrically stored energy to avoid lag is really exciting, and the future of combustion power on the road.

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

That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the most efficient way to spend their fuel.

You're describing a different racing series, perhaps one that doesn't exist yet. Fuel efficiency isn't the top priority for F1 so they'll only partially optimize for it. Other factors they have to consider:

- revenue

- exciting races (=> more revenue)

- somewhat competitive backmarker teams (=> exciting races => more revenue)

- "reasonable costs", so backmarker teams can sort of keep up with the Ferraris, McLarens etc (=> exciting races ...)

- possibility of lots of overtaking maneuvers (=> exciting races ... )

- cutting edge tech (of course, but have to keep races exciting)

- fuel efficiency (ok, sure, why not?)

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

For instance, I have a C5 Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency.

Not to be rude, but this is only happening if your friend drives in a very different style to you.

I have an e90 BMW 3 Series (not an M3), and I get much better economy than those numbers - even in the city with stop/start driving.

The way to drive makes a huge difference. For example, the official economy figures for the Corvette[1] and the M3[2] are roughly the same.

[1] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=14520

[2] http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=9865

The Corvette is a significantly lighter vehicle due to its fiberglass body.

I consistently got 19mpg or less in my 335i. They've improved the mileage a bit in newer versions, but not much. An M3 would be worse of course.

It's not all that different, 3,245 lb for the C5 vs 3,483 lb for the M3. This is why I used it as a counterpoint example.

Corvettes are known for getting unusually high mpg on the highway. I always understood the primary factors to be light weight and tall gearing. V8 Silverados don't get great highway mileage, right?

The high gearing/high torque thing is a fair point.

(V8) M3s are notorious (or lauded, depending on your point of view) for being rev-hungry.

Of course not, but for that matter nor do the V6 Silverados, or any pickup trucks in general. That has to do with wight and aerodynamic form factor, or lack there of.

The Corvette does have a very tall 6th gear, which allows the engine to cruise at very low RPM. It does have enough torque to overtake on 6th, though. :)

You should look into flashing your ECU. In additon to substantial power increases, there is a dramatic improvement in MPG. I can cite 35 MPG in a E60 535i (+200lbs over an E90 335i) on highway trips when in 'fuel economy mode'.

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

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

I personally would like to see a rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race.

I think the article mentioned exactly that: To enforce this focus, the 2014 regulations limit the total fuel consumption for an entire race at 100kg with a maximum fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. This means that for a 90 minute race, the average fuel flow can only average around 66kg/h, while at the Singaporean GP, which often lasts close to two hours, it will have to be around 50kg/h.

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

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

> My friend had an M3 with a much smaller engine but same HP.

That'll do it.