Racing turns its back on heavy, expensive hybrids for sustainable fuel
Posted by SophonsKatana@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 159 comments
Posted by SophonsKatana@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 159 comments
maxxor6868@reddit
Hybrids honestly aren't the answer people think they are. That offer lots of benefits but also the worst of both cases for both racing and road use.
BigCountry76@reddit
For racing I agree that hybrids don't really provide benefits. But for road use I disagree, hybrids have virtually no downside and reduce emissions a ton for applications and users that can't use an EV yet.
horribleone@reddit
I watched a video recently explaining that engines in hybrids have horrible lifespans because of the start-stop functionality
Does anyone know if that's true or not?
BigCountry76@reddit
Are you talking about the Engineering Explained video on YouTube? Because he doesn't say they have horrible lifespans, he just explains some of the engineering problems that hybrids present and what companies do to solve them.
horribleone@reddit
Yep, that was the one
GXNXVS@reddit
I mean for racing they can provide huge amount of boost. Look at ERS deployment in F1 for example.
BigCountry76@reddit
They can, but there are lighter and less expensive ways to do that. Just look at Indycar's push-to-pass system, they get a temporary power increase just by changing boost and fuel maps.
The hybrid system in F1 is there because the sanctioning body thinks it's more likely to get manufacturers to participate by having advanced tech. Not because it makes it a faster race car.
Ftpini@reddit
Depends on how long you keep them. The fuel savings get eaten up in having to maintain a drive train that is twice as complex. Make it a plug in hybrid and now you have a massive and very expensive battery to replace as well.
BigCountry76@reddit
The "twice as complex" argument is nonsense. Tons of hybrids, particularly Toyotas, going 200k+ miles with no additional maintenance than a pure ICE vehicle needs.
Ftpini@reddit
Sure they get that long. But the lithium battery for the plug in hybrids is $7k. The engine more than doubles that. It’s a lot of components to maintain. It’s an excellent setup and very fuel efficient. But there is a cost if you keep the vehicle long term. If you sell every 3-6 years then it won’t affect you. But buy one of those 200k mile vehicles and you’ll learn all about it.
BigCountry76@reddit
I never said anything about plug in hybrids, they actually don't make sense. Not because of battery replacements which you keep bringing up despite the fact that they are quite rare among all types of electrified vehicles.
But because for them to financially make sense over a regular FHEV (non plug in) you need to do almost all of your driving in their short EV only range, at which point just get an EV that has 250 miles of range and will be better all around than a PHEV.
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
I'd say it still makes sense for single car households that's drive mostly around town, but also frequently drive 300+ miles.
For multi-car households, there better served with one EV and one ICE.
BigCountry76@reddit
If you actually do the math on a PHEV vs FHEV to make up the extra cost of buying a PHEV basically all of your driving has to be done in all EV range. If you do semi regular long trips just get an FHEV.
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
That's the sort of thing that's highly variable to an individual car and electric/gas rates. The tax credit can negate most of the difference between the HEV and PHEV for some models. People's electricity cost can also vary from $0.02 per kWh to $0.50 per kWh.
What you're saying is often true, but it isn't universal.
SophonsKatana@reddit (OP)
It’s starting with rally but even F1 may be open to moving away from hybrid systems post-2030 depending on how well the carbon neutral fuels do in 2026.
TTTBeekman@reddit
V10s!
SophonsKatana@reddit (OP)
And why not? That’s the point of sustainable fuels, guilt free gasoline!
Doggo_33@reddit
Yup cause F1 really has no environmental footprint outside of the fuel used in the cars
DFAtomcat@reddit
The majority of that same footprint is unchanged by the use of hybrid systems too. Why not lets the cars have V10s on sustainable fuel? It wont change the fact that they use fuel chugging jets and cargo convoys to carry the teams and equipment so why not?
Doggo_33@reddit
My point is that it doesn’t matter either way so why bother using sustainable fuels. Also hybrid has an impact on the racing in a way that a different fuel doesn’t.
Sulipheoth@reddit
Because if F1 starts using sustainable fuels, they're a little more likely to be considered for use in the mainstream.
BigCountry76@reddit
Sustainable fuels will likely never be used for mainstream transportation and F1 using will have no influence on that. It will be used for industries where batteries don't make sense like planes. It's going to be too expensive compared to EVs because it's going to take like 4x the electricity per mile drive to make sustainable fuels than it would just directly charging an EV battery.
Sulipheoth@reddit
Porsche's synthetic fuels are a clean burn 1:1 replacement for gasoline, and are already coming down in price.
dnyank1@reddit
eFuels don't address any of the problems with the combustion cycle - which is the inherent inefficiency which comes from the creation of waste heat.
most of the energy in a liquid fuel (synthetic or organic dinosaur juice) just doesn't make it's way to the wheels.
That's where EVs derive their efficiency advantage from, the whole system from the battery to the motors are 95%+++ efficient at that task of taking stored energy and transforming it to kinetic energy, output power.
It's actually a hilarious, cartoonish idea that the massively energy-intensive process of creating a synthetic fuel (*yes - this process consumes a MASSIVE amount of electricity - that's where the "power" in the eFuel comes from, at an atomic level) and then burning that fuel like a caveman is somehow superior to just... storing that energy chemically in a reusable cell?
Environmental_Rip355@reddit
I certainly don’t do 300+ mile trips on a regular basis, but I take a road trip every couple years that’s often 600+ miles. The idea of having to recharge multiple times in the middle of a road trip would probably turn me off to buying one, even outside of everything else.
Also, if you run out of gas on the side of the road, an extra gallon or 2 can from a friend or AAA can get you where you need to go, or at least to a gas station. If an EV runs out of battery on the side of the road, you’re getting it towed for a couple hundred bucks or more.
There’s just too many little inconveniences for me to consider an EV at this point in time, even outside of the fact that I just like combustion better
dnyank1@reddit
You're aware generators exist, right? And that you can just charge an EV from another EV?
They (AAA or your automaker's complimentary roadside) just send an F150 Lightning or just a regular truck with a little gas generator in the back, and you charge for 10 minutes to get enough miles to get to a proper charger.
You're telling me you'd trade a 4x or greater cost savings on fuel every day of your life to avoid stopping to charge for 20 minutes once?
Yeah, RIP the Environment... and sanity, logic or human functioning I guess.
Genuine questions here - back to this - Are you stranding yourself by the side of the road often? Like, is this an actual thing that happens to people not just as a badly contrived plot point in horror movies?
Follow up to that - Do you have to manually remember to breathe?
ColinBliss@reddit
Yes, synthetic fuels aren't the end-all-be-all for the environment and transportation as a whole. Yes, EV's are far more efficient. But there is a large gap currently between the reasonable use-cases for EVs and fossil fuel (a finite resource) cars. If a new fuel can be developed as a hold over until EV's and battery cells have the same energy density, refueling time, range, etc. as a gasoline/petrol/diesel car does, then I appreciate the ability for chemists and engineers to develop it.
There are intermediate steps that can be taken. It doesn't need to be that we all switch to EVs immediately and suffer with the QoL changes they force.
dnyank1@reddit
We're shockingly close to that being the case. You can get a ~360 mile range out of an Ioniq 6 - A Civic with a ~12 gallon tank getting 35mpg has a ~420 mile range. A 15% difference in range, then?
And as far as refueling times go, sure - I'll give it to you for a hot-shot courier on a long distance highway bomb... Stopping for 20 minutes every 4 hours, to gain another 300 miles of range might not be in the cards.
But I'll ask - is the fringe overlap of people who primarily use their car for 300+ mile journeys, who cannot wait for the (rapid) evolution and development of battery tech really so large that it's worth throwing away a ~60%+ total fuel efficiency advantage BEVs bring to the table?
MPGe numbers aren't a lie, and normal commuter cars going from 35mpg to 135 is a big deal.
Add in the efficiency losses just to create the efuel, let alone burn it - and there's almost no way it's going to be cost-competitive to run that kind of setup in the real world, at scale.
TaVar35@reddit
Yes, but you see, I want my ears hurting cause fast race cars go VROOM Dammit!
I’m a huge F1 fan, never really cared to go back to engines that luxury cars haven’t used mainly for over a decade.
F1 is an engineering competition, I want to see where they can push the limits on new technology not throw the biggest displacement they can at something.
dnyank1@reddit
and, for motorsports, sure!
For just about every other application I'm not too sure eFuels have as much merit as the combustion enthusiast inside all of us would like to believe
BigCountry76@reddit
That doesn't negate the fact that producing synthetic fuels takes a lot more electricity than charging EVs and the ant EV crowd loves to say that the grid can't handle EVs.
It also doesn't solve the local pollution problem of burning fuels that is a major concern for densely population areas.
Shamino79@reddit
Racing does the development for mainstream.
Thijsniet@reddit
People had the same reaction when F1 made the now standardized brake discs, or abs, or tc, or esp etc etc. F1 used to be and stil is the sciencepark of your everyday car technology.
300mhz@reddit
F1 is a giant research and development science project for OEM's, so part of the reason they went to hybrid systems was to innovate the technology for consumer road cars.
bse50@reddit
Hybrid systems probably make matters worse, along with gigantic hospitality trucks.
I mean... when the cars were super-polluting v10s they hauled half the tech they do now around the globe. Nowadays they have entire server rooms in situ and at home to keep the cars running and properly monitored and that kind of extra cargo is transported all around the world on jet fuel guzzling airplanes.
F1 is all about politics, they don't give a shit about the environment.
brolix@reddit
Dude, these people believe that there is a mystery liquid you can burn and not have emissions. Its beyond stupid. This is jist carbon credits by another name (and tbh maybe not even that, its probably all “backed” by carbon credits lol)
Lauzz91@reddit
That's not what is being said
frakking_you@reddit
How do you get to this conclusion? Tons of carbon footprint is associated with traveling to all the venues, raw materials, etc.
Caqtus95@reddit
By being very very clearly sarcastic.
ALaLaLa98@reddit
E-fuels can also help fix that eventually.
Hybrids, or EVs, never will.
4514919@reddit
I love these insane takes on EVs in this sub.
[insert solution which at the moment is worse] will get better with time and it will fix the problem.
EV however will never evolve and it will forever be stuck in [inset year] so they will never fix the problem.
The3rdbaboon@reddit
True but using hybrid drive trains make no difference to that. It does make building F1 engines more expensive and complicated.
Teledildonic@reddit
Heavier, too. Weight that get trandported around the world in not very green manners.
Elvis1404@reddit
And that doesn't change even if you are using EV F1 cars, so what is the sense of your comment?
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
Why not...?
Because turbos mean you can get more hp for a given displacement, weight.
Because hybrid is making a huge swing in road and although road relevance is an after thought, going 100% opposite to road stuff is not really going to be a thing.
If Teams could use Turbos in the V10 era they would.
BeingRightAmbassador@reddit
There's no way to combust anything without nasty by-products. Even if they synthetic fuel was 100% renewably made, combustion creates pollutants.
dnyank1@reddit
That's specifically not even close to what e-fuels are, but... cool!
Huff that dream all you want
Knuda@reddit
It's not ideal but it is sustainable.
Shamino79@reddit
Assuming it’s produced by some industrial process there is still cost and waste and the weight penalties of racing will still reward doing more with less. They won’t be dropping the turbo aspect unless it’s regulated against again.
Doip@reddit
Yeah! Let’s use plastic bags to save trees!
goaelephant@reddit
V12s...
Mythrilfan@reddit
Naw, V10 sounds the best. That's the only criteria.
goaelephant@reddit
V10 sounds amazing, but V12 is even better
Ajaxwalker@reddit
Here’s my unpopular opinion. V10s revving at 18000rpm with tight range due to so many gears doesn’t sound that good. More annoying than anything. For me if they went back to a different engine configuration I would like to see lower revs and less gears so we can hear them go through the rev range.
username_not_clear@reddit
I'd like 80s turbo monsters back, please.
Erlend05@reddit
Why stop there!
start3ch@reddit
Really? The F1 hybrid motors are some of the most efficient gas engines ever made. Truly engineering marvels
megacookie@reddit
They have been, but it's been a decade. And since the 2026 engine regs are still the same basic formula but more electric power/less engine, it'll be 16 years of 1.6L V6 turbo hybrids by the time they plan on making a change in 2030. Surely it's time to try something else by then. Especially if it means something lighter weight, better sounding, less complex, and lower cost for the engine manufacturers.
Trevski@reddit
I think they should be 4cyl hybrids. F1 ought to be pushing the envelope in turning juice into speed as efficiently as possible. I get that they want the race to be a spectacle but I think abandoning hybrid is the wrong move.
megacookie@reddit
Porsche managed to get 1000hp (or 1160 in Evo trim) out of a V4 hybrid in the 919 LMP1 car, so it is entirely possible. But there's already a fuel capacity limit, refuelling ban, and even fuel flow rate limit all of which help push towards developing the most efficient engines for turning fuel into performance. Why tell them to all make the exact same thing when they could be given more free reign to innovate? A budget cap should keep things relatively fair, so why not see which is the best racing engine? A 4 and 6 cylinder turbo hybrid going up against V8s or V10s could spice things up.
Trevski@reddit
That would be sick actually just restrict fuel cap and flow rate and then let the teams go bananas.
I think they should revive Can-Am for something like thats
noodlecrap@reddit
yes, but sound shit compared to their v10 grandpas
mantenner@reddit
I honestly have to wonder what impact does 30 or so formula 1 cars racing once a week really contribute to global pollution comparatively to the quantity of production cars on the road, and corporate entitiesemitting fuck loads of pollution daily.
Always baffled me that they ruined the greatest motorsport series on the planet by putting it on show as if it was the cause for global warming.
Anyone with a good answer please let me know.
300mhz@reddit
F1 is a giant research and development science project for OEM's, so part of the reason they went to hybrid systems was to innovate and mature the technology so that it'd eventually trickle down to their consumer road cars.
Odd-Refrigerator-425@reddit
The bigger contributor would be flying all these teams around the world. Same as sportsball, flying teams all around any given country constantly.
radeonalex@reddit
The adoption of hybrid systems was never because people felt 30 cars racing once a week genuinely contributed to overall pollution. Common sense would tell you that.
It was done for a number of things. The first and foremost would be optics. F1 as an industry wants to be seen as looking towards future tech and ways to minimise pollution. Of course, as others have said, the logistics behind F1 dwarfs any real benefit of hybrid, but it's optics.
Secondly, many manufacturers (at least at the time), were leaning heavily into hybrid and full EV systems. Manufacturers weren't green lighting projects that weren't seen as green or generating data for future electric systems. Basically, if you as a brand wanted to go racing, it had to be for a purpose that aligns with the company's objectives.
Lastly, when F1 adopted hybrid rules, my understanding is that synthetic fuels were still very much under development and there weren't many on the market. It was still unproven and so not a viable option at the time. This appears to have now changed.
Sid-Skywalker@reddit
The other 2 reasons are valid, but fuck optics
radeonalex@reddit
Everyone cares about optics. Just people care differently about what those optics are.
Without considering them, it would probably be hard to find manufacturers to invest, sponsors to pay and countries to host.
mantenner@reddit
I appreciate the comment thank you.
Regarding the little "common sense" jab, OPs comment that I replied to states: "After all, if the fuel the cars burn doesn’t contribute to climate change, there’s no harm at all in their engines going back to naturally aspirated units with stratospheric rev limits and a screaming soundtrack to match".
So my comment was based on the fact that OP was saying the engines changed due to their contribution to climate change.
juwyro@reddit
One of the points for racing is to develop new technologies. Racing with hybrids or different fuels leads to better development of the technology for street cars.
mantenner@reddit
Makes sense, thanks
Yung_zu@reddit
Damn, looks like I need to be in the Fortune 500 or something to not get called a maniac for suggesting alternative fuel research
Good news though
18voltbattery@reddit
That’s the same logic that gets people to buy “carbon offsets”
Trololman72@reddit
To be completely factual, the real reason why this is happening is because the hybrid system manufacturer changed their policy and now require hybrid systems to be sent back for repairs more often, which is unsustainable for M-Sport. If they didn't remove the hybrid system, M-Sport likely wouldn't have been able to race next year.
gumol@reddit
Sustainable fuel is ridiculously inefficient.
DFAtomcat@reddit
As were hybrid motors when they were first created. These things take time to develop into better versions of themselves.
tw1loid@reddit
E fuel still needs to be burnt in the same 20% thermal efficiency engine as normal fuel does
The proposed “improvement” comes from not having to drill for the fuel and instead make it by
Capturing CO2 from air (lot of electricity needed)
Splitting valuable pure water into H2 and O2 (again lot of electricity needed if you want to do it the carbon neutral way ie renewable electricity powered PEM)
Combining CO2 and H2 (again reaction needs electricity)
Not to mention the price of H2 by itself is $36/kg
So the raw material itself is quite costly thus the final product will always be $36+X where X is some positive number.
projectFirehive@reddit
But the development of these fuels will, in turn, cause development of the methods used to create them. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as these big companies pour money into R&D until the technology is viable for consumer use.
tw1loid@reddit
The issue isn’t that the tech can’t be perfected — the issue is that by virtue of every step requiring electricity, (as a means to produce the raw material ie H2 and CO2 as well as to run the reaction) e fuel can never be cheaper per unit energy cost than electricity
Further, it begs the question whether such levels of inefficiency are even worth it or not — 15kWh electricity can drive an EV for 100km, an FCEV for 35km and an eFuel car for 20km https://amp.dw.com/en/batteries-versus-e-fuels-which-is-better/a-61921402
So the competition for e fuel is not regular fuel but EV and hydrogen.
It’s one thing to expect improvements and another for the improvement to be 500%
That is simply unrealistic.
If a eFuel is only driving 20km on 15kWh worth of electricity compared to 100km on an EV, that means 5x more electricity ought to be produced to make the e fuel in the first place vs if we simply used all the electricity to charge EVs directly
FauxfauxB@reddit
Sure but is environmental policy about reducing emissions or is it about increasing efficiency? Who cares how efficient it is if we have an abundance of carbon neutral energy with which to allocate to e fuels and ev charging.
This is only relevant if we end up being limited in the total energy available to either use in an EV directly which uses it efficiently but sucks at storing it, sucks at replenishing, and is about 1/100 as energy dense compared liquid fuel by weight (ie: it’s heavy af).
So if we actually do have that limit then it’s just a choice of which problem set they would rather deal with. Inefficient use or 5000lb cars and standing around a charging station for an hour.
tw1loid@reddit
Using e fuels still emits from tailpipe wherever it is driven
So only production emissions of fuel production are reduced. You still have to transport it and current setup being in Chile doesn’t help the transportation emissions.
Except that we don’t have abundant renewable energy YET.
By virtue of the inefficiency of e fuels, you need 5x more grid capacity to supply 1million ICE cars than 1 million EVs.
So if you actually want to have abundance of renewable energy, you need at least 6-7x larger grid capacity than current grid.
So only e fuel can scale and improve, batteries cannot?
My question is can e fuel improve 500%?
You don’t even have to stand an hour. My $20K EV needs that much, not Ioniq 5s and teslas which require closer to 20min
projectFirehive@reddit
Ah, I think I understand what you mean. Though I do believe it's still worth doing. Clean energy sources are becoming more and more prominent so the electricity used in the production should become cleaner as time goes on. Additionally, such a fuel could enable ICEs to live on into the future instead of being completely phased out in favour of electric cars. I imagine I'd be correct in saying that many car enthusiasts would be pleased about that and it would also enable those who cannot afford current gen EVs to have legal cars past the point where pure ICEs are to be banned.
BigCountry76@reddit
This is different from hybrids which always provided a benefit and was just a cost and efficiency improvement. There is a physics problem for sustainable fuels in that even if the process to create it is 100% efficient in the electricity it uses to turn carbon and hydrogen into fuel, the engine that burns it is incredibly inefficient at turning that fuel into motion. At best you need about 2x the electricity per mile in sustainable fuel but realistically it's 4x+ compared to just charging an EV directly.
CoasterGaming@reddit
Crossing my fingers that eventually we get the technology to mass produce it for consumer use
Sirus-The-Great@reddit
Not on the large scale. It is 5x less energy efficient in terms of electricity compared to directly using the electricity in electric cars. Besides, there is not nearly enough sustainable electricity to produce it for all cars. Much more viable to just use electric cars as daily’s, but even that lacks benefits unless the electricity they use is sustainable.
mr_marshian@reddit
Porsche's biofuel is only $10/gal so not unreasonably high considering race / high octane fuel is typically similar or higher than that
tw1loid@reddit
Closer to $54/litre https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/Ueckerdt/E-Fuels_Stand-und-Projektionen_PIK-Potsdam.pdf
That’s $200/gal in freedom units
Can you put a source on that $10 figure?
mr_marshian@reddit
Got my units mixed up, but this source says 10€/L
https://www.motortrend.com/features/porsche-supercup-efuel-direct-air-carbon-capture/
tw1loid@reddit
That’s an older article which predicted cost of fuel before the plant even started
The link I shared is from 2023 which is after the first batch was produced
Main point of difference is that carbon capture technology is no where near as efficient as Porsche expected it to be, so the costs are skyrocketing
https://youtu.be/i7IoAkD3YHE?si=SyqpdsHFC6HBugcZ
This video is a good resource for highlighting the inherent issue with carbon capture which by extension has pushed pricing of e fuels much higher than expected initially
acog@reddit
Given that the production volume will be quite low due sine time, it’s impressive that it’s only $10.
Or are they taking a kiss to keep it somewhat reasonable? Or is the price what is forecast for future high volume production?
samcuu@reddit
In the form of $3mil hypercar realistically.
Elvis1404@reddit
Nah, the majority of engines, even the ones in cars designed for leaded fuels (with minor modifications) can use biofuels
samcuu@reddit
I have biofuel available at the pumps that I've put in cars and motorcycles of all kinds, so clearly that's not the technology that we would have to cross our fingers for.
What I mean is whatever it is that will be reserved for for really low volume production cars.
juwyro@reddit
They need to make it a seamless change with standard fuel like ethanol can be.
niklaswik@reddit
Greenwashing motorsports is a silly thing from the start. Seriously, how much of global CO2-emissions could possibly come from motorsports? 0.01% or something? Running it all on electric motors would do nothing for the environment, if that's the aim.
Elvis1404@reddit
Pretty much all of the emission is not even from the cars. Racing only around Europe (instead of continuously going from one continent to another) would use muuuuuuuuuuch less CO2 to something like EG F1 cars that it's not even comparable
Akross54@reddit
Im pretty sure military and industry account for a MUCH HIGHER amount of emissions than cars ever will. Can’t regulate those though, it’ll cost the shareholders money. 🤷♂️
Lauzz91@reddit
Industrial diesel in logistics have to pay significant costs to comply with emissions standards with things like exhaust system maintenance (AdBlue, particulate filter replacements etc) on their fleets
maveric101@reddit
Industry? Sure, because that's everything that isn't consumer. Military? No.
ToastyMozart@reddit
Industry does get increasing regulations too, it just doesn't make it into the mass media because Average Joe isn't directly affected by it.
Shamino79@reddit
How much has racing developing automotive technology led to road car efficiency?
_eg0_@reddit
Only looking at the Lmp1.
At least in Audis case it lead to better DPF/FAP, changes in injection systems(petrol and diesel), aero improvements. Toyota improved the EV part of the hybrid systems cooling systems, new types of inverters, and new materials for their high voltage systems.
Riverrattpei@reddit
Plus all of the hybrid/electric turbos showing up in cars the last few years come from hybrid race cars
faizimam@reddit
True, but that is going away with electrification. Hybrids will play less of a role in the coming years so racing can pursue its own performance without relying of R&D money.
FormulaE is where the technology will be at, and that's fine.
liberty@reddit
It makes a lot more sense if you recognize that the entire concept behind motorsports is to sell cars.
totalnewbie@reddit
As someone else said, it's much more about finding an offtaker for initial investment in efuel production.
It's unlikely for efuels to replace gasoline for normal consumers but it doesn't mean that it is not a viable route to decarbonozarion for some sectors (e.g. SAF for aviation). But in order for that to happen, industry needs to be able to get experience scaling up production and to have someone actually buy that product. Motorsports is somewhat perfect for it because it doesn't account for a huge amount of fuel but is incredibly demanding, has money, and has resources to do testing and provide meaningful feedback.
dancing__narwhal@reddit
I think it’s more about the trickle down effect of all the R&D investment in racing that eventually leads to consumer vehicle tech.
V8-Turbo-Hybrid@reddit
Motorsports don’t impact all environment so much, but they’re heavily affected by automakers. If automakers want to prove their hybrid and EV able to have a fun and interesting, Motorsport is definitely their marketing way.
Wardog008@reddit
This is pretty exciting. If they make it work at that level, the tech behind it can eventually filter down to cars that normal people buy and drive, and especially if the most money hungry motorsports get behind it, the research will have plenty of funding. At least, I think, I'm not an expert lol.
BizMoo@reddit
Multiple cylinders.... arranged in a V.... highly revving....thanks muchly.
Minute-Solution5217@reddit
Hybrids have a place in racing, but it's always regulated so much because they don't want to increase the budget too much. Then you end up with heavy spec parts that give you like 60hp. But F1 and WEC are doing just fine with them.
WRC dropped hybrids because they had a rule that you had to send the unit back to the factory for inspection after a crash and teams protested against it.
GXNXVS@reddit
Hypercars only use their hybrid motor on startup though right ? It’s not like ERS in F1 I think.
Minute-Solution5217@reddit
No, they can use them during races. But there are BoP regulations about maximum power and minimum speed for activation.
Background-Head-5541@reddit
LMDh cars are doing great
Minute-Solution5217@reddit
Yes LMDh is great but hybrid parts are all spec parts and make 50kW
Henrenator@reddit
Not saying I enjoy it as much, but the f1 engines dont sound bad right now. Just turn your volume up a little bit higher than normal. They sound quite good on downshifts from outside the car. F1 TV could probably do better to just mix the audio better and I think less people would complain. All for louder engines tho. The engineers have limited money, free up the regulations!
Vanzmelo@reddit
The V6s sounded frankly awesome when they were able to have a separate wastegate exhaust that they got rid of in 2022. The Honda engine in the 2019-21 Red Bulls sounded so damn good
GXNXVS@reddit
it still sounds like that in 2024. They moved the onboard mic but from outside you still hear the pops and crackles.
mr_marshian@reddit
And the f2 cars sound incredible still, I think due to no mgu-h to block exhaust flow. Hearing them side by side with F1 cars in Barcelona was crazy, the F1 cars don't sound near as impressive
rugbyfiend@reddit
Go to a race mate, they are quieter than the support series. You used to be able to hear them from 10km away.
GXNXVS@reddit
I’ve been to Spa and F2 is quieter than F1 but sounds better for example. Loudness isn’t everything mate.
OptionXIII@reddit
Walking up to the track during practice would give me goosebumps in the v10 era.
Randy_Magnum29@reddit
Seriously. I remember going to the 2003 USGP with my dad. We were running late on our way to the track for the first practice and we could hear them from over a mile from the track. Just unreal.
Tw0Rails@reddit
Amazingly lazy take
TunnelSpaziale@reddit
I've seen several eras of F1 cars lapping around Monza, and I can surely tell the modern ones are the quietest, although people often exaggerate their issues with them. Sure I've seen Ferraris with V12 like the F93A or V10s like the F2002 (not to talk about the XX program cars) and they're more raw and enjoyable, but the modern cars aren't that bad either on track.
MartiniPolice21@reddit
People taking an awful long time to realise that heavier is worse for racing; but late is better than never.
nlpnt@reddit
Makes sense, hybrids come into their own in stop-and-go traffic and there's not a lot of red lights on racetracks.
gumol@reddit
There's not a lot of stopping and going on race tracks? Maybe on ovals, but hard braking followed by hard acceleration is a fairly common pattern on other tracks.
ToastyMozart@reddit
There is, but it's tough to find a battery that can absorb several Gs worth of energy at once while still being reasonably light. There's a reason hybrid drivers try to avoid hard braking more than most.
Omicronknar@reddit
Don't they use more fuel flying all the shit around between races than the cars use in an entire year anyway? If you want to use it a development platform alright but the whole 'making racing green' thing always felt pretty flimsy to me.
Vectorrrrr472@reddit
In general, EVs and hybrids are only helpful on a local scale (better air quality, less noise etc.) but are still bad for the environment. The whole chain is still causing pollution and damaging the environment further. Also, for EVs: if you still use fossil energies to produce electricity, you would still cause pollution as a user of an EV. Therefore, it doesn't greatly impact carbon production in certain countries.
m1a2c2kali@reddit
Eh even if you used 100% fossil fuel to make electricity, power plants are exponentially more efficient than ICEs that it would still be beneficial.
ToastyMozart@reddit
Plus it's easier to replace one coal generation plant than tens of thousands of vehicles.
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
They're not exponentially more efficient. ICEs are 18 35% efficient. Coal and natural gas plants are 30-50% efficient.
It's still a benefit, but not even close to being an exponential one.
Drzhivago138@reddit
It could be if the exponent is small enough! But yes, usually when people use the word they just mean "really big".
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
Yes, but it's not even a really big difference. It's a significant difference, perhaps a big difference, but not a really big difference.
faizimam@reddit
We are approaching a time where racing and passenger cars are permanently separating.
Road car will be 100% electric in the next couple of decades, while racing will mostly stay gas.
Just like horse racing, there is less point in cross pollination of technology.
Ev racing has a niche, and I love it, we'll see where it goes but gas racing will have a place for a long time. No need to shove electic into it in situations where it takes away from the racing
Content_Ad_2220@reddit
None of racing except F1 is profitable; without the road relevancy marketing aspect there wouldn't be racing from manufacturers at all.
faizimam@reddit
The next decade will be a big test of how true that is.
While banning of ice in developed nations for 2035 may or may not hold, it wont move by much. 2040 max few car companies will have any technical reason to invest in ice based racing.
Brand marketing still has value though. Even if the power plant is not the same
Skeptical0ptimist@reddit
Why don't they let the racing teams choose the powerplant configuration, and allow the best technology to prevail? In races where winning is determined by weight, teams can go back to ICE, while in races where winning is determined by efficiency/endurance, teams can continue to use hybrid.
Content_Ad_2220@reddit
The issue with that is what inevitably happens is one team out spends the other, completely shits on everyone, and all the other manufacturers leave because it's no longer worth it to sink huge money into losing. Then the guy who shit on everyone is alone playing in his sandbox so we don't have much competition at all.
spongebob_meth@reddit
Some motorsports are effectively unlimited. Most of the fastest pikes peak cars are electric nowadays. But that's a relatively short race and the high altitude puts a handicap on combustion engines.
Navaros313@reddit
Okay great now makes tires that keep shape and don't wear down / don't hurt the environment when they break down.
orangutanDOTorg@reddit
It’s time - bring back the Evo
Xazier@reddit
Hell yeah brother!
SylverShadowWolve@reddit
In the end it all depends on what the manufacturers want and see value in developing. I doubt the manufacturers currently in F1 see much value in a high revving NA motor running on sustainable fuels l
j_demur3@reddit
They talk about BTCC in the article but don't really talk about what made the implementation of the hybrid system in BTCC so awful.
I stopped watching the BTCC because of how bad it was so don't remember all the exact specifics but it worked like KERS originally did in F1 - you get x seconds of hybrid boost a lap - which is fine except they also replaced success ballast with it and limited the number of laps it could be used to handicap the leaders as a replacement.
So you ended up with a confusing system where a driver might start a race with half the laps of hybrid boost of another driver and commentators constantly trying to explain how it worked and how much hybrid boost a driver had left and confusing graphics and it was too much, another variable you needed to keep track of that confused things. Did the driver in first use all their boosts early? Does the guy in second have lots left? How do you track lap times when a driver could have boosted last lap but not this one? It spoiled something that was until its introduction pretty close, enjoyable, racing with unnecessary complication.
V48runner@reddit
Seems like a noble effort, but the logistics of getting all these vehicles around the world and F-1 drivers being escorted in a personal helicopter to the race offsets it quickly.
It's trickle up technology that doesn't really add anything to rally or F-1, so I'm fine with it being gone. I think we're past the days of racing eventually contributing anything back to your personal car.
wearethafuture@reddit
The background is probably that there simply isn’t resources, money, charging network, or willingness to move to only electric cars post 2035 depending on where you live. More efficient emissions cutting is done via biofuels or e-fuels - globally as well, not only in the rich country the electric car is sold.
This is of course a highly debated thing politically and within the boards of OEMs. What comes to rallying, embracing biofuels would be the right move as its all betting now. And besides, no new manufacturers will be entering in post-2026. The sport survives as long as there are spectators and pay drivers, both of which there are. It’s just about who sells the cars.
If OEMs don’t have the interest, private teams and manufacturers will take over. Why? Because there’s money to be made. Skoda’s business has been lucrative and it’s the sole reason they stick around. M-Sport obviously makes money, same with Toyota with Rally2. Citroen and Hyundai are a question mark, but knowing the financial situation of Stellantis and Hyundai’s grooming exit from WRC they must leave something under the line.
After manufacturer exit it’s down to M-Sport, Prodrive, SRT, Stohl, Lola, whoever to make cars that competitors buy. And if somebody pays for branding then they can, but OEM approval for homologation should be removed. Unfortunately it’s the only way forward as the Rally1 rule set was failed and the championship is in a position that no manufacturer wants to drop 50+ million per season + development costs up front. Rally2 on the other hand might be the best selling rally regulation since Group N4, even Group A8 sold less.
But yeah, the future of rallying isn’t currently in hybrids - especially with an unreliable identical kit.
natesully33@reddit
I always have mixed feelings about race series trying to "save the world", even as someone that drives mostly on electricity these days. It just seems like a gimmick that leads to very prototype-ey powertrain designs that really don't carry over to street cars, the most efficient of which have moved beyond hybridization to being fully electric anyway. IMHO - either race with street based powertrains of some form or let the teams go wild within budget and safety rules. Well, or do something like Formula E that actually pushes street relevant eco tech to its limits.
There is at least one race where eco friendly tech naturally applies though - Pike's Peak. Due to the short distance, altitude and other factors BEVs are starting to be serious competition, especially given that the record is held by one. It seems like there are actually some interesting fully electric cars getting put together just for that climb.
Background-Head-5541@reddit
Watch the 24 hours of Daytona, or LeMans, or any other endurance race and you'll see where these prototype designs are used for development
fernandodasilva@reddit
I hoped more racing series ran in ethanol, specially in Brazil where they have close to half a century of operating with such fuels
pele4096@reddit
I saw a movie about this once.
Don't let them aim a camera at your car if you run this alternative fuel.
gt500rr@reddit
"Ka-Chow"
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Policy discussion is welcome. However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
DrZedex@reddit
Good! The addition of hybrid stuff to wrc hasn't panned out. The cars are expensive and it hasn't made the actual racing more interesting. Rally2 has been just as fun to watch lately.
I'm very pro hybrid for road cars but it's lame AF for racing and it hasn't improved wrc, particularly when the system malfunctions. If an engine fails I feel okay blaming the team, but I just feel bad when this hybrid crap fails since they have no control over it.
Karmaqqt@reddit
Yeah I haven’t really cared for it in wrc either. It’s just there really. I also hate it in sim games. Just an odd system to me.
Gyat_Rizzler69@reddit
"carbon neutral" fuels use more energy to create than just building a battery pack and charging it over and over again. Hybrids are a far superior technology and result in faster cars and better engineering than boring boomer combustion technology.