this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
44 points (100.0% liked)
Formula 1
9100 readers
150 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but donβt want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| πΆπ¦ Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| π¦πͺ Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
According to the article, the existing F1 team vetoed energy regeneration at the front axle because they're afraid of Audi for whatever reason.
Yeah but, it's very inefficient to have a gas generator instead of just using the gas to run the motor, right?
In Toyota road hybrids it's actually more efficient because charging the battery at constant lower revs burns less fuel than increasing revs to accelerate but that's just road cars, no idea about 2026 F1 cars.
Burning fuel is definitively less efficient than generating electricity under braking from the front axle.
No generally you can get really good efficiency out of doing that. Lost of rail locomotives do that and are pretty efficient.
Those are generally diesels running at a constant RPM.
Electric trains work for a few reasons, multiple cars can be driven without giving up cargo space, the amount of power put down can be much higher, and wheel slippage can be managed almost instantaneously. These gains allow electric trains to overcome the loss due to electric generation and storage.