At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series 167
An anonymous reader writes Ars is running a story about the new all-electric racing car series and its first visit to the U.S.. "The pit lane we're standing in is unusual, and not only because it's a temporary setup placed in the shadow of American Airlines Arena (home of the NBA's Miami Heat). Garages are set up on both sides rather than being limited to one. A few things also appear to be missing. To start, a familiar smell from the usual mix of burning hydrocarbons is absent. And it's remarkably quiet. The occasional impact wrench bursts out in a mechanical staccato, generators drone here and there, but there are no V8s burbling, no V6s screaming....Welcome to Formula E, the world's first fully electric racing series. Miami is playing host to the first of two US rounds—the next being held in Long Beach, CA, on April 4—and it's the fifth race in this ePrix's inaugural season. Given we've got a bit of a thing about racing at Cars Technica, as well as an obvious interest in electric vehicles, we had to be on the ground in Miami to experience this for ourselves."
So a the cars are the same model? (Score:2, Insightful)
And all use the same model of battery pack? Jesus Fucking Christ, they made Formula E the as little appealing to nerds as the possibly could. And let's be honest, nerds/tech-heads would have been their PRIMARY audience!
Methinks a product/marketing manager got paid for a shitty job.
Re:So a the cars are the same model? (Score:5, Informative)
The cars are stock for the first season for cost reasons, for the second season there are several chassis builders and several power unit suppliers signed up, so there will be a better spread of performance amongst the pack.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also important, as I understand it, that the cars all be the same so they can limit the number of unknowns when evaluating performance and engineering of the vehicles.
My only complaint, and it's a minor one, is they're too gimmicky with the "Fan boost" thing.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
The cars are stock for the first season for cost reasons, for the second season there are several chassis builders and several power unit suppliers signed up, so there will be a better spread of performance amongst the pack.
Therein lies the great racing divide: vehicles that are essentially identical and thus, in theory, the driver is the difference versus real manufacturer's vehicles so the driver / car combination becomes more important. NASCAR, for example, uses the former model and thus a good driver combined with effective cheating is the route to success. Endurance racing tends to the latter along with having various classes so cars of equal capability race against each other.
Re: (Score:2)
That's totally fine. You should realize that among the racing fans there are far more fans of pure racing than the nerds. This is why Formula 1 is far FAR more more popular than WEC will ever be, even though arguably WEC is more advanced tech-wise.
And so as a fan if racing, rather of the technological dick waving, I see a lot of potential in FE racing. The skylines are beautiful, the racers are the cream of crop open wheel racers, many with quite a bit of time in Formula 1 and GP2 seats, and there is always
Re:So a the cars are the same model? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've actually been watching the Formula E races, because I'm into Formula 1 and there are a bunch of B-list ex-F1 drivers in there.
As far as I can tell, there's a fairly strong emphasis on it being entertainment rather than sport. For example, drivers get a boost button they can use during the race if they're the "fan favourite" before the race. There are also some gimmicks like bonus points for fastest lap and pole position. In the pre-season trailers, one of the key talking points was the DJ that was going to be guesting for each race.
The races themselves are fairly laughable - short, with a fairly hilarious car swap when they run out of juice (the driver hops out of one car and does a little dash to the other car), and the cars themselves are fugly as hell and all the bits are wobbly (so... a bit like me I guess). The coverage is completely ghetto, minimum-budget stuff -- it's on ITV4 in the UK, which tells you everything you need to know.
However, it's a a new series, and the drivers at least are for real, so I'm giving it time to grow.
Mixed on this one (Score:2)
I do think the future of cars/racing is electric, but for me there is something spine tinglingly impressive about this (V8 F1 cars running up eau rouge):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
But since the FIA is currently doing its best to ruin F1, these electric cars will probably compare pretty good in a few more years. Oh well, at least we have the memories.
Power to weight ratio (Score:5, Informative)
to put 8 kW/kg into perspective, all commercial brushless dc motors are at 4 kW/kg and it is a limitation of the materials used.
Commercial internal combustion engines range from 1 kW/kg to *maybe* 3 kW/kg if it is turbocharged to the point of sacrificing engine longevity and formula 1 engines are at around 5 kW/kg
although i suspect they saved weight by using the vehicle frame as (part of?) the stator, a perk of making a motor for a very specific purpose.
Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? (Score:3)
The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?
Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the power output of an electric motor is torque * rotation speed. The electric motor can produce max torque across the speed range (roughly for most types anyway), but the power output still increase with the RPM. So if you want to get max power at any wheel speed you want to keep the motor revs up.
Hence the gearbox.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No idea why you got modded up for that comment. If you want to keep the motor rpm *up* then a gearbox is the last thing you want - just let the motor spin as fast as it can until back emf stops it or it flys apart. Gearboxes (on cars) are designed to keep the engine rpm *down*
Re: (Score:2)
A quick google for gear ratios returns ratios of about 3 to 4 for 1st gear to around 0.7 for 5th gears. So most gears on normal cars do keep engine rpm up, and not down.
This makes sense, since when you're driving slowly in 1st gear, your engine is doing around 1000 rpm, but your wheels are definitely not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they keep the rpm down. Try driving at 100 mph in first gear if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
I can do that too:
Try pulling away from a stop, uphill, in 5th gear, if you don't believe me. (actually legal for you to try, on any public road, unlike your suggestion)
But unlike you I can also come up with actual numbers, easy to find:
M3 Coupe (E36) Automatic: 1:3.67 2:2.00 3:1.41 4:1.00 5:0.74
3 of the 5 gears keep engine rpm up. 1 gear is 1:1, 1 gear keeps engine rpm down.
M3 Convertible (E46) manual 1:4.23 2:2.53 3:1.67 4:1.23 5:1.00 6:0.83
4 of the 5 gears keep engine rpm up. 1 gear is 1:1, 1 ge
Re: (Score:2)
"But unlike you I can also come up with actual numbers, easy to find"
You ever heard of final drive ratio? Its the ratio of engine to wheels that matters, not engine to transmission shaft.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the final drive ratio is ALSO larger than 1 for all cars I've looked at, meaning it only invalidates your statement further.
Why don't you come up with some actual numbers? Let me help you:
Lets assume a rather small wheel size of 50cm. That gives a circumference of 1.57 m.
Lets assume the engine is doing a low 4000rpm, or 240000 rotations per hour.
If this engine was bolted directly to these wheels, the car would be going 376.8 km/h
Most cars are not going 376.8 km/h at 4000 rpm in any of their gears,
Re: (Score:2)
the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, unless you have a clutch too then a gearbox makes no difference to your scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
A clutch isn't really necessary, i'd guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't have one (or a torque converter) then you're still going to have the motor pulling away from zero rpm from stationary regardless of the gear ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS. Peak efficiency is for piston engines, not electric motors. Do you think theres a ratio swapping gearbox for every motor in a TGV?? Yet they still got one up to 320 mph.
"Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch"
Umm, they stop for the pitstops and they have to move away at the start. Please suggest a way to do that without a clutch.
Re: (Score:2)
google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading.
i said rarely. consider that in f1 the clutch is to be operated 4-5 times. once at the start, two or three for pit stops and one left over for emergency/unforeseen events.
once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not
Re: (Score:2)
"google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading."
If you're going to try and be patronising it helps if you have a clue what your argument is and what the curves actually mean and how they relate to modern motor control systems using IGBTs.
"i said rarely. "
So what? Even it its only once it still needs a clutch unless you're suggesting they should push it from a standing start?
"once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not"
Nice
Re: (Score:2)
Please suggest a way to do that without a clutch.
Electric Motor.
Next
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?
Power output is the wrong number to look at, What you want to see for racing is the torque curve.
I haven't seen the torque curve for the motor used in the Formula E cars, but if it's typical then it will be max torque flat from zero to about 6,000 rpm and then fall off linearly to 17,500 rpm. I'm not sure, but I think that the peak torque is about 250-270 ft-lbs or around that for the formula E cars. That is not enough torque to spin the tires, and for maximum acceleration you need enough torque to slightly
Hoping for large industrial participation (Score:3)
I'm hoping large corporations get interested. Right now, I understand all cars are basically made by Renault. It would be nice if other companies jump onto this train too, with a serious interest to showcase their knowledge about batteries and electric cars. (Or just an interest to burn some marketing dollars).
It's a great idea to start off with the same car, but am happy that the teams can design their own cars in the next seasons. In all fairness, the cars still need a lot of improvement: the speed of the cars is too low.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping large corporations get interested. Right now, I understand all cars are basically made by Renault.
Renault is a major car manufacturers (with Nissan, which they control, #4 world wide), and a big player in motor sports.
guys will race ANYthing (Score:2, Funny)
Fun fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the quotes over "fun".
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the quotes over "fun".
I'll put them in as soon as Slashdot does the same for News for "Nerds".
Re: (Score:2)
Also "news".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All the Formula E cars are charged using a single generator that uses glycerol as fuel.
Don't forget the jumbo jets required to get these things between tracks. As with most motor racing, the fuel used in the cars during the race is really the least of the environmental problems.
Re:Fun fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really think they were racing electric cars so the races polluted less? That's the only way your statement makes any sense. If you'd bother to read anything about this, they are hoping to use the developments and insights gleaned from Formula E engineering in production cars. The environmental savings are further down the line, when the technology is sitting outside your house.
I know it's fun to moan about environmentalism, but when you miss the point entirely, the only thing that gets wounded is your reputation. Like just now. Ouch.
Perhaps that's not what they meant to prove? (Score:2)
If the racing guys can't figure out how to give electric cars a reasonable range with their budgets and top-end engineering skills, then no, electric cars are NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
Besides, WTF is this:
"...Although power is limited to 150 kW during the race, three drivers are actually able to use 180 kW for up to five seconds. This is called the FanBoost, as fans vote online for their favorite drivers in the hours before the race. This extra slug of energy can come in handy to overtake or defend against
Re: (Score:3)
All sporting contests have arbitrary limits. Why ten pins in bowling instead of 9? Why is an American football field 100 yards long instead of 120? Soccer field sizes can vary, but within limits. In general, the rules make the sport. And rules change over time. Both football and baseball have updated rules to make the games more appealing to audiences and improve safety. F-1 and NASCAR have equipment limitations which change to keep up with technology. In this case, the rule you decry is only to add spectat
OK I get WHY (push e-tech), (Score:2)
Right thing the wrong way (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks this is the right thing done the wrong way? All cars the same? Swap cars at pit-stop time? There is an opportunity here for competition through racing to push the envelope on what is possible in electric cars; why is it effectively being wasted? It was racing that helped perfect the gasoline car; heck Lois Chevrolet was a racer and Henry Ford did his fair share of racing.
Looking at the SRT_01E stats I think a stock Tesla P85D *family sedan* would actually have a chance again
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid this won't save much nature at all, after all it's just the same wasting-a-lot-of-resources-just-for-the-fun-of-some-rich-people.
And no I am not a greenpeace activist, I watch formula-e events and some formula one events. Formula-e is much more fun, as a race actually takes place, and you can hear the tires working.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid this won't save much nature at all
In the gasoline era, a lot of engine innovation occurred because of racing. The same may occur in electric cars.
wasting-a-lot-of-resources-just-for-the-fun-of-some-rich-people.
Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people". And what is wrong with having fun? Isn't that what life is all about?
How to make a small fortune in auto racing (Score:3)
Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people".
Then you have clearly not been to a Formula One race. With NASCAR you are quite correct.
But that is just the spectators. If you want to actually race at anything more than your local junker car level, auto racing is hugely expensive. There is an old joke that the best way to make a small fortune in auto racing is to start with a large one.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people".
Then you have clearly not been to a Formula One race. With NASCAR you are quite correct.
But that is just the spectators.
You are confusing the people visiting the pits with the spectators. Does this look "rich" to you? [metro.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Auto racing causes almost 0.0% of pollution in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
and a lot less noisy, also a big plus. Racing circuits are notorious noise polluters.
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:4, Insightful)
For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.
The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.
Engine noise serves no purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.
Why? Seriously, why? What does that have to do with the outcome of the race? More noise != faster car. More noise != better engineering. More noise != better driving. Loud engines are a second order effect from trying to get horsepower from internal combustion engines but it isn't important to making a faster car. The noise serves no useful purpose at all and I simply do not comprehend the entertainment value in going deaf from needlessly loud engines.
The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.
So basically you are telling me that you don't g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has to do with enjoying the sport.
The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.
As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
Noise should have a purpose (Score:2)
It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
Again, WHY? I get that people like it, I just cannot comprehend why. I've been to plenty of auto races and have to bring earplugs when I do. The sound does NOT enhance the experience for me and engine noises are not beautiful, not matter what Jeremy Clarkston claims. For the same reason I fail to understand the appeal of Harley Davidson motorcycles that are pointlessly loud and obnoxious. If there is no actual useful primary purpose to the noise (like music), then it is nothing but pollution.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.
There are
Re: (Score:2)
This is the point in the conversation where you want to quit and give up.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to do with enjoying the sport.
The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.
As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.
Or maybe it's conditioning, you were brought up going to races and hearing the roar of engines, so you expect it. But someone that is brought up going to relatively quiet e-races may find the noise to be too loud.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said about somebody "conditioned" to associate the e-racing noises with racing and I might well learn to enjoy the sound of e-racing. But right now, I don't.
I was merely stating my taste, to add a different point on view on the topic of noise, then sjbe went full retard about it.
It's like demanding somebody to justify their taste in music or food.
Why people care about sports (Score:2)
What does the outcome of the race have to do with the enjoyment?
Ask any fan of their local NFL team what the outcome of the game has to do with the enjoyment of said game. The answer will be the same. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion and nobody cares who actually wins then what is the point of a contest?
You're not racing. What do you care who wins?
If no one cares who wins then nobody will bother coming to watch and there will be no race and certainly no business surrounding the race. Racing is a competitive sport and whether you comprehend it or not, people cheering for their favorite team/player(s) matt
Re: (Score:3)
So you truly have no comprehension of what makes sports popular do you? It's PRECISELY the fact that people think of these teams as "their team".
I like motorsports because I like motorsports, I don't care about any particular team. It's thrilling just to see it. That's what's great about stuff like world rally.
Re: (Score:2)
I think watching cars go in circles for hours is kind of boring.
So uh, don't watch NASCAR? Even they have two races per year (or so) worth watching... they turn in both directions.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you care who wins? They're doing it completely and totally without you. Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.
Some athletes will admit that they don't do "completely and totally without you". For a lot of athletes, it's far more enjoyable to play the game with 20,000 people cheering them on than it is to play in an empty arena. I don't know if it's quite as common in professional sports, but I've seen numerous college athletes acknowledge the fans and say how much they appreciate the support.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Also it's way more interesting technology-development-wise than old and busted formula ones..
How do you figure Formula 1 is old and busted? The current engine formula for F1 is V6 turbo hybrids which use 100kg of fuel for a race distance (typically ~305km, except for Monaco) versus the previous V8 engine formula which used 150kg. It's a significant step forward in fuel efficiency.
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:4)
Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects. When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on. How does it feel to be running 30 year old technology, grandpa?
Everyone knows electric cars are the future (which F1 even begrudgingly admits by requiring hybrids), and instead of meeting that future head on like Formula E, F1 totters along, and will contribute nothing to the future of racing.
That, sir, is old and busted.
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:5, Informative)
> Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.
Ground effects whilst technologically interesting suffer from safety problems.
As soon as a car deviates from the optimum ride height for the undertray effects to work the downforce varies significantly. This is a problem when apex speeds are significantly higher due to the extra downforce created by ground effects.
Hit a bump the wrong way and lose downforce == shoot off the corner at much higher speeds into the barrier.
Re: (Score:2)
All sound and fury, and signifying squat, as the reason ground effects were banned was because Ferrari couldn't figure out how to make them work and lobbied to make it so. Nothing like being completely dominated by less money for "safety concerns" to become a trope.
Not to mention other racing series, like the apparently technologically superior IndyCar, use them without having mass carnage on the tarmac, and in fact requiring flat bottoms like F1 leads crashes that killed a spectator recently at Nürbur
Re: (Score:2)
Turbo engines were complex machines whose layout limited the ground effect 'tunnels' under the car. They were an emerging technology and so they were difficult and expensive to develop and build and make reliable. It was mostly manufacturer-supported teams, such as Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which took that route. In contrast, the cheap, reliable and narrow Ford-Cosworth DFV engine, still used by most teams more than a decade after its introduction, lent itself well to highly efficient ground effect aerodynamics.
So which of the two technologies is found in more production cars today?
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:5, Interesting)
Ground effects cars were crazy though. I kinda think it is a good thing that the best driver in F1 doesn't simply correspond to who is the most suicidal. And something like the Williams FW15C was going to render the skill of the driver almost redundant if that seam of development had been allowed to continue.
On the other hand those cars and others (like bernie's fan car, and even the blow diffuser and f-duct) are part of the interesting narrative that is F1 and I do think the FIA has become so concerned with preventing another Lotus 79 or Williams FW15C that they are pre-emptively killing any chance for real technical innovation.
But they're just a bunch of businessmen now. Once Bernie goes I think it will sadly fall apart. The management, rights holders and teams will end up spending more time in court than out on the track. As much as I think Bernie is a dick, like an dodgy book keeper, I also think he maintains a careful balance of handouts and ego massaging that allows the various interests involved to generally get some cars out on track every weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
>Williams FW15C was going to render the skill of the driver almost redundant
Completely disagree, as the same argument has been made about any deviation from the front engine RWD layout in racing would diminish driver skill as a factor. Nope, it just means a different set of skills are also in play, and how well a car corresponds to the driver (as it has always been) is more varied.
Especially with electronic nannies, it may elevate the capabilities of mediocre drivers, but at the extremes, it is difficult
Technology can beat driving skill... sometimes (Score:2)
Are you really going to argue that your average driver with electronic assist is quicker than a racing driver without?
Which "average" are you comparing against? If you are comparing me (an average non-racing driver) to an F-1 driver then no, the electronic assist won't matter. If you are comparing and average F1 driver to the best F1 drivers then chances are it will very much make a difference because the differences in their skill levels are quite small. Even an average F1 driver is astonishingly talented and the gap between middle of the pack and the front in driving skill is easily overwhelmed by technology.
It's just another technological advancement banished from racing for nothing more than "reasons".
I suspect
Formula One is (sadly) really boring to watch (Score:2)
Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.
Formula One has been boring for a loooong time, at least to me. It's basically an engineering arms race between 2-4 teams with little visibility into the actual engineering going on. Cost to field a team with a prayer of winning is between $1/5-1/2 Billion per year. If you aren't driving for one of the few blessed teams with outrageously large budgets, you have almost zero chance to win no matter how good the driver happens to be. Drivers at the back of the field are basically competing to move to one o
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on.
Hrm, let's review the Lotus 79's qualifying performances at some tracks versus the 2014 formula. There only seem to be two tracks where we can meaningfully compare lap times. A lot of the 1978 F1 circuits aren't used in F1 anymore and some circuits (like Canada) have had the lap shortened. But we can compare Monza and Monaco. So let's see:
1. In 1978 at Monaco the best qualifying Lotus was 1:29.100. In 2014 the Mercedes of Nico Rosberg was on pole with 1:15.989.
2. In 1978 at Monza the best qualifying Lotus g
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, there has been absolutely no advancement in tires since 1979.
Also- 79 Lotus 480hp
2014 Mercedes 750hp
So yes, a turboed Mercedes with current tires and over 30% more horsepower can run a whole 15 seconds faster than a NA Lotus on bias ply tires.
Any other mysteries of the universe I can illuminate for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, count the tech items in that car that eventually made it to street cars.
Re:Hopefully this gows (Score:4, Insightful)
But do you drive at +240 kph, make rapid acceleration to get you to 96 kph in two seconds, all while trying to stay ahead of the guy who's trying to pass you?
Yeah, thought not.
Re: (Score:2)
My car needs less than 10 kg for 300km and it's not even a hybrid.
Is your car's engine 760HP?
And your car gets 22 km per liter (52MPG)?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The street circuits are mainly used because they raise greater awareness that a race is being held than if they went to an existing race track and relied on traditional marketing for the races.
Also, how about you take your undue criticism and stick it - how about you come up with a better formula and make it work? The entire point of starting it now is because the technologies aren't mature enough - getting manufacturers to push development in order to win races is what drives the technologies here (see ho
Re: (Score:2)
Is that so odd? Many many sporting activities have facilities designed especially for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Shh. When you pop their little cognitive dissonance bubbles these folks can turn feral. This guy is obviously one of those folks who think anything new or innovative or intended to push greener technology is bad because the radio told them so
Re: (Score:2)
"You know your product is crap when you have to create a market for it."
You mean like smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, HD TV and so on?
It seems to work from where I watch.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not quite sure what you're talking about. The tracks and their skylines are beautiful, and there is always some close, often wheel to wheel, racing for the lead right until the end. The drivers are very accomplished open wheel racers. You can't compare them to the F1 top five or so, but overall they're just as good or better than a median F1 racers. In fact, many of them had a considerable amount of F1 seat time, either as a race or test driver.
And I am sorry, and I personally don't know the product is
Re: (Score:2)
You know your product is crap when you have to create a market for it.
That's why I only buy products that serve markets that god created on the 6th day right after he hid all those dinosaur bones!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology.
Not really. You can very easily build a better car than a Formula 1 car. F1 is the high point of automotive racing technology under the regulations imposed on the cars. F1 regulations ban a lot of car design for reasons of cost control, safety, promotion of good racing and emphasis on driver skill.
Re:E, The most boring racing (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah F1 isn't nearly as advanced as all those other racing series that don't have any regulations on the cars. For those interested I've compiled a list of regulation free racing series:
(end of list)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one [guinnessworldrecords.com].
A race where there is ever only one car on the track at a time?
Re: (Score:2)
F1 is incredibly expensive so they have to make the cars incorporate technology that will eventually filter down into production road cars, making it possible to view the sport as R&D. That's what drives most of the changes these days, a desire to test things like hybrid performance engines and new tyre technology. For example quite a few cars incorporate a version of the KERS system now.
Re: (Score:2)
they still probably have more interesting races.
and formula 1 is so rule limited nowadays that it sucks from tech perspective. reading the tech rundowns of the cars has not been interesting in 15 years. all the cars are basically the same, but not same enough for the races to be even - but the innovation is squashed.
No it isn't (Score:2)
As others have said, its so hamstrung by endless idiotic technical rules than any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.
That's why F1 never really interested me: I don't want to watch a race where all the cars are the same. I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car. How about a Russian T-Series tank with a MIG Fighter engine mounted on it? (That actually exists. The Russians used it to extinguish Gulf War oil well fires).
Now THAT would drive real innovation, and be a hoot and a half, as well, when folks came up with
Re: (Score:2)
any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.
That's why F1 never really interested me: I don't want to watch a race where all the cars are the same. I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car.
And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race. Drivers couldn't cope with the G-forces the cars could produce and crashes would be nearly always fatal.
Don't believe me? Look at F1 in the before the mid-90's. Even with a fairly restrictive ruleset, those cars were too fast with too little safety.
Anyone who thinks "any innovation packed its bags" referring to F1 obviously has not followed a season of racing. F1 greatly rewards the engineers who come up with innovative
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race.
you mean like isle of man motorbike racing?
No holds barred racing is dull (Score:2)
I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car.
No you really wouldn't. Trust me. Then it becomes a contest based on the size of the wallet. F1 is boring for precisely this reason. There are a small handful of teams at the top with huge budgets that have a prayer of winning and the rest are basically competing to try to get on one of those teams. Furthermore you run into some very serious safety problems. The goal is to race and win and maybe do some good engineering along the way, not to design the most elaborate way to earn a Darwin Award.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you haven't watched any of Formula E races and in fact you have a very superficial understanding of F1 or other motorsports.
In the FE races I have seen so far, the skylines are beautiful, the drivers are the cream of crop open wheel racers, the cars go fast, and there was plenty of close wheel racing in the first five races so far. What else do you want?
On a really good year of Formula 1 racing, F1 may be more fun to watch than the first season of FE. But every other season, F1 is a major snooze fe
Peak of technology? Not so fast (Score:2)
Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology.
Drive a Formula One car on anything other than an exquisitely paved road and let me know how that works out for you. Fancy a wager on how a F1 car would do against a Rally car on an unpaved road? Let's see a F1 car race a 24 hour race. How about a drag race? Peak of technology? Only for a subset of auto racing conditions.
Re:Pit stops (Score:4, Interesting)
The battery is fully integrated into the vehicle and is part of the structure. It can't be easily removed. Not for lack of want, though. Swappable batteries are under development, but it will likely mean compromises in the chassis construction.
I'm more annoyed that there is a *minimum* pit time, meaning drivers have to wait and get penalized if they leave the pits too early.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more annoyed that there is a *minimum* pit time, meaning drivers have to wait and get penalized if they leave the pits too early.
That's a safety issue. It guarantees more than enough time for all of the belts to be properly fastened to avoid "Le Mans start" situations (where drivers would speed off as they were buckling up leading to several deaths) and it's consistent across the field so it doesn't affect the outcome. I believe present day LeMans racing doesn't need minimum pit times since refueling+tires takes longer than a driver change.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are working on it. This reminded me of having to explain the tactical use of pit stops in F1 to a partner a while back. "You mean they can't finish without swapping wheels? Not interested"
Re: (Score:2)
"Formula E's largely a joke in the motorsport fraternity."
'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
Mahatma Gandhi
Re: (Score:2)
"How deadly are these cars in a crash?"
Nobody ever died. In the 'normal' F1, they had 50 fatal accidents 'til this day.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the safety of a formula that is weeks old and one that is over 90 years old by comparing total fatalities is laughable.
No driver has died in an actual F1 race/qualifying since 1994. Cars have changed, circuits have been taken off the calendar for safety reasons. Accidents still happen, but it's nonsense to compare the safety of today with how F1 was in the time of Senna or Lauda.
Re: (Score:3)
Then perhaps they're not really a fan of racing as such, but a fan of noise and foul odors.
For those people, there's always going to be monster truck rallies.
=Smidge=
"the smell of horsepower" (Score:2)
Manure?