Nissan Unveils 88 Pound 400-HP Race Car Engine

cartechboy writes "Motorsports used to be about lots of horsepower, torque, and big engines. In recent years there's been a shift to downsizing engines, using less fuel, and even using alternative energy such as clean diesel and hybrid powertrains. Today Nissan unveiled a 400-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder turbocharged engine that weighs only 88 pounds. This engine will be part of the advanced plug-in hybrid drivetrain that will power the ZEOD RC electrified race car that will run in the 2015 LMP1 class during the race season. Nissan says the driver of the ZEOD RC will be able to switch between electric power and gasoline power with the batteries being recharged via regenerative braking. Even more impressive, according to Nissan, for every hour the ZEOD RC races, the car will be able to run one lap of the Le Mans' 8.5-mile Circuit de la Sarthe on electric power alone. If true, that will make it the first race car in history to complete a lap during a formal race with absolutely zero emissions. If this all works, we could be witnessing the future of motorsports unfold before our eyes later this year when the ZEOD RC (video) makes its race debut at this year's Le Mans 24 Hours in June."

Comments

For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

39.9kG

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the power? I don't speak horse.

Re:For the non USA people

[Antipater]

400hp = about 300kW

Re:For the non USA people

[viperidaenz]

It's probably 402hp, since Nissan are Japanese and probably told the US press it was 40kg and 300kW.

Re:For the non USA people

[thejuggler]

What about the power? I don't speak horse.

I was going to say "Let me Google that for you!", but Wolfram provides a very detailed answer. http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you speak Google or know any other ways to find out how to convert units?

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell with that, I want to know how much it is in $.

88 pounds seems really cheap for such a powerful engine. I'd buy a few at that price.

Re:For the non USA people

[ModernGeek]

298.279949 kilowatts to be more precise

Re:For the non USA people

[ChunderDownunder]

So roughly a four-thousandth of a Delorean!

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're only given one significant figure, don't try to invent more.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I'm sure that 400hp is the exact amount of power it makes, and wasn't rounded at all.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably both 400 hp and 300 kW, since they both only contain one significant figure and there's almost certainly rounding occurring.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

Watt-Horsepower comparisons are somewhat rough. How much energy, precisely, a horsepower is has never been defined. The general consensus is at 745 watts or joules. Though some 'official' measurements have ranged from 730 to 790 depending on locale and year. So, technically, 'about 300kw' is more precise given that there is a margin built in.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's probably 402hp, since Nissan are Japanese and probably told the US press it was 40kg and 300kW."

It's probably neither, as Japanese manufacturers normally quote power in Pferdestärke (PS) (Metric Horsepower).
So if someone assumed 400PS was 400hp, then converted to kW, all figures will be wrong.

400 PS = 395 HP = 294kW (Rounded to nearest integer)

Re:For the non USA people

[Z00L00K]

PS (PferdStärke) is also known as HP DIN, and that's very close to HP SAE. The definition Metric Horsepower is inaccurate.

You have to be aware that the HP SAE definition has changed at one time in history making the modern version virtually equal to the HP DIN value (the tolerance difference between engines is greater than the difference of measurement today, which means that stating HP DIN or HP SAE is redundant today), so you have to use the correct translation depending on model year.

The most common standards to measure horsepowers by are SAE or DIN, but there have been others as well, like SMMT.

1 hp SMMT = 1.13 hp DIN.

Re:For the non USA people

[cpt kangarooski]

No, only the time circuits and the flux capacitor needed over a GW of electricity in order to function. The car's actual engine was an ordinary internal combustion engine that output a little less than 100 KW.

(Come to think of it, stealing a steam train seems unnecessarily complicated and history-altering. Surely it would've been easier for Doc Brown to put together an electrically heated steam engine to get the DeLorean moving. Oh well, sensible ideas rarely make for exciting movies.)

Re:For the non USA people

[MrNemesis]

African or European horses?

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an exact definition. Although there are various definitions, just the word 'horsepower' almost always means DIN 66036 horsepower, defined in terms of a mass in the gravitational field of Earth, resulting in 1 horsepower equalling 735.49875 W.

Source

Re:For the non USA people

[jfdavis668]

But if you meet A friendly horse Will you communicate by Mo-o-o-o-orse? Mo-o-o-o-orse? Mo-o-o-o-orse?

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

40. You are using too many digits of precision.

Re:For the non USA people

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I once spent the better part of an hour brainstorming alternate ways to get the DeLorean up to speed, based on what was available in 1886. I'll admit I didn't think of an electrically-heated steam engine. The most interesting was feeding the juice from Mr. Fusion into a series of electromagnets, essentially acting as a giant rail-gun. Theoretically possible, but pretty much impossible to pull off the engineering involved, particularly with the limited time they had available.

Actually, with the time limit involved, stealing the train may have been their best option.

Re:For the non USA people

[MouseR]

European, but two strung up together.

Re:For the non USA people

[GameMaster]

That is one incredibly powerful magnet.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese PS is neither HP DIN nor HP SAE. It is defined by Japanese Industrial Standard D 1001 (JIS D 101). They call it Metric Horsepower for some reason.

Re:For the non USA people

[tech.kyle]

Ba dum tsss

Re:For the non USA people

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the pressing need to leave 1885 immediately was caused by the threat of Buford Tannen killing one of them. But since he was arrested and in custody before the train was stolen, there was time to abort the train stealing plan and to come up with something else. And there's no other time pressure: after all, they've got a time machine. There is the usual problem of being in the past and perhaps changing something, but the effects on the future of putting together a small steam engine for the DeLorean are probably less than that of stealing the whole train.

Re:For the non USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about the engine? Look at the car it's going into. It looks like a white Batmobile, 1989 (and best) version.

Re:For the non USA people

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Ah, yes, you are right. I had forgotten about Tannen's arrest prior to the train hijacking. (In my defense, I haven't watched the movie in over 15 years.)

For the USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

it should be g not G. G is the universal gravitational constant.

Re:For the USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

it should be g not G. G is the universal gravitational constant.

In this context, i.e. used as a unit, it's gauss.
Still wrong though.

Re:For the USA people

[Anonymous Coward]

39.9kG

it should be g not G. G is the universal gravitational constant.

Holy shit!! How does the driver maintain consciousness?

Re:For the USA people

[doccus]

Well, at 39.9 Kg, i would suggest it's pretty much defying the gravitational constancy rules ;-)

Samzenpus headline

[oldhack]

You read the headline, and it's posted by samzenpus, and you know it's bullshit.

Here is a case where "bullshit" is an understatement.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

not really people have gotten 900HP out of 2.0L EVO engines so 400 out of a 1.5L is within the realm of attainability whats really impressive is the weight

Re:Samzenpus headline

[ackthpt]

not really people have gotten 900HP out of 2.0L EVO engines so 400 out of a 1.5L is within the realm of attainability whats really impressive is the weight

The old Gruppe B racers were some classic examples of engineers gone wild. Tremendously powered 4 cyl engines in fly-weight all-wheel-drive cars, which regularly flew off the track, into crowds lining the course with spectacularly bloody results. Eventually the race series was cancelled, but the little monsters of each builder's homologation are to still be found in the collections of automotive buffs around the world. Look up the Ford RS-200 as an example.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[GarethIwanFairclough]

not really people have gotten 900HP out of 2.0L EVO engines so 400 out of a 1.5L is within the realm of attainability whats really impressive is the weight

I do recall reading about several individuals who have gotten 1k+ HP out of 2.0L Ford Cosworth engines.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[PopeRatzo]

If I remember correctly, that Ford RS-200 was one of the car choices in a racing game some years back, maybe Driver: San Francisco. It was one of the best cars in the game and I'd never heard of it. It flew, but it was difficult to handle.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

As an actual motorsport specialist and not just shitposting - this is not just real but a case where the hyperbole matches reality. 300Kw out of a 1.5 litre motor has long been possible, the old F1 engines produced 4 times that in qualifying trim. In race trim as the boost has to be turned down, close to 500Kw and more.

The weight of the engine is quite amazing. 39 kgs for a long block is a hell of a thing. And even more that it's also a dressed long block, where items liek the alternator and water pumps are on the engine and included in the weight. Even the turbo, that's amazing. Given the best way to add performance is lose weight, this is at least a 50 kgs' advantage. In this case it is offset by the hybrid system but a electric motor has a huge amount of torque so this thing will fucking SCOOT out of corners.

IF it works, then yes this is a revolution in motorsport. I am not seeing a problem with the headlines or what Nissan is claiming.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[lgw]

You can get insane power out of any engine, but you use up the engine quite fast. A topfuel engine (~8L) can have 1k HP just of parasitic loss to the supercharger, but still make 8-10,000 HP. Getting 1000-1250 HP/l happens everywhere topfuel is run, but there's a significant risk the engine won't even last 1/4 mile! (Or however long topfuel runs these days - they shortened the race as the cars had become overly dangerous.)

What impressive about this car is it's built for an endurance race: LeMans and a few others leading up to it. Anyone skilled can turn the turbo pressure up on an EVO engine, but getting it to run at power for 24 hours that way is something far more impressive.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[ackthpt]

If I remember correctly, that Ford RS-200 was one of the car choices in a racing game some years back, maybe Driver: San Francisco. It was one of the best cars in the game and I'd never heard of it. It flew, but it was difficult to handle.

Which was the moot point when the FIA series ended. To much power, too difficult to maintain control. Probably the first time any racing series achieved the upper limit in power. Many races now require restrictor plates to limit power, returning the race to a contest of driver skill over engineering prowess.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[mirix]

Some of them had 5 cylinders, you insensitive clod.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Saw a special on youtube, basically the spark plugs are melted halfway through the course and they're just dieseling to the finish line.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[lgw]

Yup - top fuel is special. For any claims about engine power, it really matters where on the scale from "rebuilt every 3 minutes of operation" to "rebuilt every 300k miles" the engine lies.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Ralph Wiggam]

Watching Top Fuel drag racing can be boring, but the technology is amazing. Here's a video showing how much fuel is provided to each cylinder during a race-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGTbQuhhluY

Re:Samzenpus headline

[The Grim Reefer]

Oldsmobile had a 900 and 1000 HP version of the Quad-4 2 liter engine for the Oldsmobile Aerotech expermental cars in 1987.

Rod Millen won the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in his Toyota Celica. He was getting 600HP out of a 4 cylinder in 1994. It was up to 900 in 1996. and he had it up to 1000HP the next year. While it's not an endurance race like Le Mans. It's still a hell of a lot more realistic than 1/4 mile engines.

What I'd like to know, besides the price tag, is how realistic is that weight? Is that with fluids? Front end accessories? Does it include the weight of the turbo? Regardless, it's pretty damn cool. I want two of them to put in my Vette.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[petsounds]

Which was the moot point when the FIA series ended. To much power, too difficult to maintain control. Probably the first time any racing series achieved the upper limit in power.

I would argue that the 1967 Formula One season was the first time a racing series had cars that were too powerful to control. 400-500bhp V8 and V12 engines attached to four wheels and a gas tank, sitting on old-style treaded tires with no downforce wings. In fact, the two fatalities during this season (including Lorenzo Bandini's horrendous accident at Monaco) forced the FIA to mandate new safety features, such as requiring wings on the cars.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Oh it's awesome. Me it's the drag boats that really get me. I don't know why, I don't have a nautical bone in my body, but those boats are awesome.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

I know
I own a 89 Quatro that makes ~400Hp at the wheels at only 13psi

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Strapping yourself into something with one seat and 3000hp, and racing it on a flat surface - that's crazy.
Strapping yourself into something with one seat and 3000hp, and then racing the thing on a surface that's constantly moving is a special kind of crazy.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[dunng808]

I would go back even further. Pre-WWII cars had large displacement motors that produced far more power than could be put to use on dirt roads and the fragile tires of the day. I agree with the point that the move from the 1.5L formula in 67 brought faster speeds, exactly why the change was made. Lotus introduced wings; the FIA did more to ban them than encourage their use.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[GrahamCox]

400 out of a 1.5L is within the realm of attainability

The Cosworth GBA is a 1.5 litre turbocharged V6. It develops about 1000bhp (official figures were never released, so it could be higher). That engine is from the mid 1980s, so it may be old hat by now. That figure was good for 600 miles, which by F1 race standards is "reliable".

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is to only turn up the psi as far as the material will allow - which, when engineered as well as this, is almost a 'known' range.

Lasting long is a function of failures not occurring because you didn't push it.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[ackthpt]

Strapping yourself into something with one seat and 3000hp, and racing it on a flat surface - that's crazy.
Strapping yourself into something with one seat and 3000hp, and then racing the thing on a surface that's constantly moving is a special kind of crazy.

I have some lovely pictures of an off shore boat, where the props exploded and took out the back of the hull. What a neat day that was.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[DigiShaman]

Top fuel crankshafts are 'pre-twisted' 20 degrees in advance from end-to-end. It's only when running at full throttle does all that torque twist it back 20 degrees and thus putting things back into alignment with regards to piston position and valve timing. That's why the engines sounds like shit when idling, but run in perfect harmony under load. That kind of engineering blows my mind!

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Calinous]

A Formula 1 race is about 300 km, or some 200 miles. But now a car must run on the same engine (not rebuilt) for two races, with all the testing, training, qualifying laps and so on, so I'm not very sure 600 miles is reliable enough.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Richard_at_work]

Actually the engines must last for three to four races, as they only had five engines for a race season anywhere between 18 and 20 races.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Joce640k]

What I'd like to know, besides the price tag, is how realistic is that weight? Is that with fluids? Front end accessories? Does it include the weight of the turbo?

You could always read the article and find out...

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Skal Tura]

Yea and 730+ from 1.6 4AGE engines. One CA18DET from Nissan 200SX is widely known to produce about 730whp as well, so about 780 from the crank.

4AGE is considered very lightweight at 110-120kg, add turbo etc. to it for 10-20kg.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[fatphil]

And of course you have to factor in the endurance aspect - this little puppy has to do 12 times the work of an old (single-race) F1 engine.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[MrNemesis]

I'm not normally much of a racing buff, but the BBC did a fascinating documentary about Group B rallying which is well worth a watch if you can find a copy. Lots of interviews with the drivers and the engineers who created such monsters.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet todays wrc rally cars are much much faster than they ever were in the group-B days

Re:Samzenpus headline

[Motard]

It's interesting that this engine is more powerful than the original Nissan Deltawing engine that ran at Le nMans in 2012. The ZEOD is probably lightweight like the Deltawing so it should be pretty impressive.

Well, that is, if it gets to run. There's a chance is may not be able to because Nissan is being sued by Deltawing. The chassis designer Ben Bowlby originally created the Deltawing but went to Nissan after his work on the Deltawing was complete. The Deltawing company claims ownership of the intellectual property that the claim is being infringed by the ZEOD. The case is likely to go to court before the 24 Hours of Le Mans, unless they settle.

Re:Samzenpus headline

[tinkerton]

As the previous reply points out, the silver arrows in the thirties also got around 500hp, both Mercedes and Auto Union. That's the racing cars, the cars for speed records had more. The mortality was similarly high as well: carnage. Still, I'm not sure if 'too powerful to control' describes the problem well. You could see things in terms of unbalance between components but I think the large reductions in casualties were achieved by looking at what you do when things go wrong. And that means making crashes less lethal. And in F1 this happened when the attitudes changed with Jackie Stewart. In Group B it happened when a lot of bystanders got killed and security was increased. It was not mainly the cars were too dangerous (ok, a bit, physics), but because group B attracted a lot of people and regard for safety was low.

This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, baby. I can't wait to get one of these engines into my truck. With that much power under my hood, my cock will grow at least 6 times larger. Engines this powerful are what separate ultramen like me from just normal men. Remember, the more powerful your truck's engine, the bigger your cock.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[RogueyWon]

Yeah... except... over the last few decades, technology advances like this at the cutting edge of racing technology have translated within a few years to increased fuel efficiency and so on in production cars.

Vehicle technology gets driven forward by the people who sink lots of money into vanity projects like this. We all end up benefiting from it.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are the engines shrinking? Is that what is happening to your balls?

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[viperidaenz]

I thought when it came to trucks it was engine capacity, not actual power delivery.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought when it came to trucks it was engine capacity, not actual power delivery.

Actually the OP's premise is wrong. Trucks are about torque and the capacity to pull a heavy load, i.e trucks are about bigger balls and not a bigger cock.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Nethemas the Great]

2014 model year and forward this "may" be true, but for at least the last 20 years it has been about adding more ponies not economy. The zero to sixty times have been shrinking but fuel economy has been stagnant, if not even retarding a bit.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[fast turtle]

and this is still too fucking small. I used to drive a truck with 1500hp under the hood and changed the oil ever 30k miles (normal was 15k, we were on extended change intervals). Aveaged 120k miles per year in that truck, some of the teams managed 180k miles a year with engines lasting 1M+ before major rebuilds. Course, if you got in my way, I'd simply run your little 4 wheel pickup over and keep going (Mack/Peterbuilt/Kenworth/Western Star/Freightliner) and 80,000 pounds.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean 500 hp of power or 1500 lbs-ft of torque? Because there's no on-highway truck that comes with a 1500 hp engine. Large construction vehicles and locomotives have 1500 hp, but not 80,000 GVWR trucks.

dom

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, these fine folks are providing the means for us to choose between the huge cock provided by massive chest-thumping horsepower, OR the huge cock provided by smug save-the-planet fuel efficiency! Bully, old chaps!

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Calinous]

But typical size and weight of cars have been increasing - along with the typical use of AC and other power-robbing technologies. So while we might (just might) have lost on fuel economy, we're having larger, heavier and more comfortable cars (not to mention safer and usually more reliable)

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[Calinous]

If you want 1 million kilometers (or miles) reliability out of a 500+ horse power engine, you really can't go low displacement. Also, huge torque at low rpm means fewer gears needed (even so, at full load a semi can change 10+ gears to 40 mph / 60km/h).
So, trucks use diesel engines (typically higher torque at low rpm), optimized for reliability (and get higher torque from higher displacement).

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[AmiMoJo]

For American cars perhaps, I'm not an expert, but Japanese and European cars have become a lot more efficient over the last couple of decades and some of that is due to technology that started off in competitive racing. For example the VW Passat has a version of KERS which was developed for F1. Honda has a hybrid performance Civic model. Tyres have been improved a great deal too thanks to new materials and construction methods developed for racing.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[wakawakka]

One of the greatest innovations in consumer vehicles made by American manufacturers has been to refrigerate the glove compartment.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[drinkypoo]

In Europe they have a grip of 1.whatever liter turbo cars that are fun to drive and get great MPG. In the USA you would be run over by someone driving an SUV and talking on the cellphone while turning around to yell at their children and be very killed. In the USA we get bigger engines with lower RPMs producing more torque and lower horsepower with lower top speeds for our low-speed roads. In Europe they get smaller engines with higher RPMs producing less torque and more horsepower with... yada yada.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[drinkypoo]

It doesn't matter if only one of these engines produces too little output for your purposes, because if you're using a series electric powertrain, you can gang them. It's impractical and expensive to put multiple internal combustion engines into a car, it's only been done a handful of times for amusement purposes, or on very very large equipment where it's the only way to get the job done.

Imagine having four electric motors instead of a pair of differentials, and four engine-generator pairs. The generator engines could automatically start and stop as needed and spread out their runtime hours, with all engines running only during peak output. If one engine of four fails, you still get to proceed at 75% output. The gearbox is eliminated entirely (which is highly practical when your speeds max out at trucking speeds) and a whole class of problem is gone for good.

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger.

[viperidaenz]

Diesel engines are typically more efficient.
That's why trains use them to spin their generators.
If you want many millions of kilometres reliability out of a 3000 horse power engine with huge torque at 0 rpm, you really need electric.

The problem comes with the clutch. You could use a fluid coupling, but that adds weight and power loss.
Petrol engines have a wider power band, which means you need fewer gears. Add a turbo on and the power band gets even wider, although shifted up a bit too.
The higher the power band starts, the larger the speed difference the clutch needs to manage.

Turbo diesel with generators rather than a gearbox

[Anonymous Coward]

I want one of those, but throw away two of the wheels please :)

Sure, but what about

[50000BTU_barbecue]

the horsepower per hour of engine life? That thing looks like it'll last 20 hours before it needs rebuilding.

Re:Sure, but what about

[viperidaenz]

I think it will last at least 24 hours, since they're entering it in a 24 hour race.
In 1984 Renault made a production car with a 1.5L engine producing 345hp called the R5 Maxi Turbo.
Google group B rally cars.

Re:Sure, but what about

[geekd]

If it's going to run LeMans, then it'll have to last 24 hours. :)

Kidding aside, it's not unusual for a race car engine to get rebuilt / replaced after every race. Heck, F1 used to use different engines for qualifying and the race. The qualifying engines were so lightweight and high strung they only lasted 12 to 15 laps. (F1 races are around 60 laps, depending on the track)

Re:Sure, but what about

[spaceyhackerlady]

the horsepower per hour of engine life? That thing looks like it'll last 20 hours before it needs rebuilding.

A point the story ignores. Any idiot can get buttloads of power out of an engine if it doesn't have to do so for very long. Two-stroke engines are particularly good for this if fuel consumption and exhaust emissions are minor considerations.

...laura

Re:Sure, but what about

[ls671]

hmmm... formula 1 engine rules change quite a bit overtime. I know, I know, you wrote "used to use":

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. I am an idiot and I can only get the horsepower out of an engine that it was designed for.

Re:Sure, but what about

[Cramer]

As en enduro racer, *grin* no, it doesn't have to last 24hrs. It does if you want to FINISH. (also, there's nothing in the rules that prevent an engine replacement during the race. It takes a fair amount of time to swap an engine.) You don't see F1 teams doing it because there's no point; they'd never recover the dozen lost laps. NASCAR has been known to, but they're getting back out to maintain season points. We do it because we wanna race; we're going to be 50+ laps down, but we don't care at that point. (hell, we replaced the transmission at an HPDE once -- my first HPDE, actually. Replaced a head gasket at another.)

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

That thing looks like it'll last 20 hours before it needs rebuilding.

You can tell from a picture what the lifespan of an engine will be?

Impressive, even Superman would probably need to lie eyes on it himself.

But yes, the longevity of an engine is a concern, there are reasons why racing leagues often have engine building rules, besides just parity. Still as an experimental division, I doubt they'd be strict on that for the first years, still the race itself is a 24-hour one, so it'll probably be twice that in total.

Re:Sure, but what about

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Yes, I can, it's called extrapolating from known designs and common sense. 400HP is 300KW, or about the power consumption of 13 houses but the guy is holding it in his arms. Can you estimate the temperature this is running at and use the Arrhenius Equation, or the "eyeball and gut feeling approximation" to estimate how this will impact the lifetime?

Would you expect a lifetime like ...

a 19th century locomotive?

a modern marine diesel the size of a skyscraper

other engines that barely last 24 hours

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

i doubt they are getting much more then 12PSI of boost out of such a small displacement engine with a tiny turbo if they are using forged and peeded rods and some kind of titanium-type alloy piston the motor will hold up just fine it won't be turning huge RPM

Re:Sure, but what about

[fast turtle]

then you forgot that they're probably using some exotic ceramics in the cylinders and pistons to cut the weight down - they've gotten quite inventive there and some of those ceramics will take more of a beating then any steel could and guess what, they don't have to be that thick 0.005 inch at the most. Some of them can even be sprayed onto the parts or use vapor deposition techniques - it's how most turbos handle the temps they're subjected to. The ceramics are making inroads into the aviation industry for jet turbines as they can handle higher temps resulting in higher power out.

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I would be more worried that it's actually real

Re:Sure, but what about

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Sure, so maybe it'll last 240 hours instead of 24, still WAAAAAAAY off from the lifetime of say a consumer automobile.

Re:Sure, but what about

[Joce640k]

You don't see F1 teams doing it because there's no point;

No, you don't see F1 teams doing it because they're only allowed to change an engine every 2,000km during the season (raised to 4,000km this year)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

also, there's nothing in the rules that prevent an engine replacement during the race.

I'm not sure that's true for Le Mans. A few years ago, they changed the rules to not allow replacing the gearbox, after Audi showed they could do that in less than four minutes.

I would be suprised if they allow changing the engine but not the gearbox.

Re:Sure, but what about

[Skal Tura]

and this in question is not about lifetime, but maximizing efficiency and power output.
Later on, a consumer version will be detuned to 200kW or less, and last that required 150k miles or so, since it's going into a sports car, the lifetime target for that engine is going to be 200k kilometers. BMW uses this target for the M series, after that 200k kilometers, each cheaper to replace the whole engine buying new from factory than to rebuild since everything is so worn out.
Those engines still function, produces power etc. but efficiency is to shit, emissions are shit too.

Detuned to 200kW the lifetime expectancy of this engine will probably go upwards by many many orders of magnitude, and will probably reach the 200k kilometers.
Since this is so lightweight and such a high power output, it's going in to a hot hatch most likely.

Ofc, manufacturing costs might need material replacements, and further detuning of the engine, but i'd bet they'd make it upwards of 150kW - nothing spectacular, but the saved 100kg is very spectacular.

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong, There are several things you are not allowed to change during a Le Mans 24h such as engine block and gearbox casing.
In F1 there is a fixed number of engines allowed for a season, and each engine has to be used for a number of consecutive races
or you'll get a penalty

Re:Sure, but what about

[Cramer]

4min is still an eternity. (plus the time it takes to get it back to the pit, diagnose, get it behind the wall to swap... blow an engine or gearbox and you're race is over.)

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

Le Mans is 24hrs so it'll have to last and the rules revolve around fuel efficiency, so I'm sure both engine life and fuel consumption has been taken into account

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm... formula 1 engine rules change quite a bit overtime.

Please stop that. "Overtime" is the extra pay you get when you work more than eight hours in a day. "Over time," two words, means something completely different. Do not trust your spell checker!

Re:Sure, but what about

[Anonymous Coward]

I might be remembering this wrong but I remember an Audi T10 having the tranny replaced mid race still finishing in the top5

momkind reveals new clear options again

[Anonymous Coward]

creation remains undefeated no bomb us more mom us no drone us no bone us free the innocent stem cells never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to each other & being spiritual beings

Series hybrids

[GrahamCox]

If you're going to build a series hybrid, why bother with pistons and cranks? Just make the turbo bigger and you have... a gas turbine. Use it to drive a big alternator and viola! The turbine can run at constant speed and be optimised for that one speed - the rest of the drive train is purely electrical. Someone should at least test the concept.

Re:Series hybrids

[stox]

Bingo, I think that will be the next wave.

Re:Series hybrids

[viperidaenz]

There are buses that do just that. The problem is its not very reliable and starting gas turbines takes a lot of fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

because turbines are incredibly inefficient and require preheated high pressure air to start

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

... a gas turbine. Use it to drive a big alternator and viola!

Gas turbine + alternator = small stringed instrument?

Re:Series hybrids

[M0HCN]

The problem with gas turbines is that small ones are not noted for efficiency (It has to do with the engineering tolerences of the compressor blade tip clearance among other things), and the bearings generally dislike the imposed accelerations when a high performance road car turns hard (Extreme gyroscopic loads). An electric drive chain with some secondary storage would however somewhat reduce the problems with horrible throttle response inherent in needing to get the mass flow up in sync with the extra fuel.

In the few hundred KW class petrol (if weight matters) or diesel (if it matters less) is the way to go.

Rover cars experimented with small turbines back in the 60's, unfortunately the problems they found have not gone away.

Regards, Dan.

Re:Series hybrids

[GrahamCox]

Rover cars experimented with small turbines back in the 60's, unfortunately the problems they found have not gone away.

Right, but they were coupled directly and mechanically to the wheels. That's just not a good fit for a turbine. (My uncle was one of the designers of the Leyland Gas Turbine truck in the late 1960s - google it, it was pretty cool, if an experimental dead-end). But driving an alternator is a good fit. Use a bank of super capacitors as a buffer and you're good to go. Yes there are problems to be solved but using F1 as a development and proving ground is surely the point of its existence? It's surely not there to provide a very entertaining spectator sport because it isn't.

Re:Series hybrids

[bob_super]

You mean something a bit like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Re:Series hybrids

[chuckugly]

The problem with gas turbines is ... the bearings generally dislike the imposed accelerations when a high performance road car turns hard (Extreme gyroscopic loads).

Why not place the turbine with the shaft vertical?

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

But Turbos run off of exhaust gas... where would that exhaust gas come from?

Joe

Re:Series hybrids

[Hamsterdan]

Anybody else wonder why they're not using diesel engines for series hybrids?

Run the engine at optimal speed and use it as a generator.

Re:Series hybrids

[mrchaotica]

starting gas turbines takes a lot of fuel

Why? Just spin it up to speed using the electric motor you've got strapped to it anyway!

Re:Series hybrids

[Ralph Wiggam]

I looked into building one and tracked down a couple people that had done it. It works a lot better on paper than in the real world. The turbines are not as efficient or as powerful as the manufacturers make them out to be.

A huge problem is loose debris on the road. Airports spend a ton of effort keeping debris off of their runways. A few pieces of gravel ingested into a turbine can destroy it.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

A few pieces of gravel ingested into a turbine can destroy it.

That's what filters are for. A turbine in a car isn't going to be used to produce thrust directly.

Re:Series hybrids

[DerekLyons]

Why not place the turbine with the shaft vertical?

Because of hills and banked curves.

Re:Series hybrids

[Em Adespoton]

... a gas turbine. Use it to drive a big alternator and viola!

Gas turbine + alternator = small stringed instrument?

No... gas turbine -> alternator + medium stringed instrument...

He's saying the turbine will drive both. I'd pay to see that concert!

Re:Series hybrids

[wasteoid]

I think he means violin (or maybe fiddle).

Re:Series hybrids

[drinkypoo]

Why not place the turbine with the shaft vertical?

It's bad no matter which way you put it, because vibrations are going to be transmitted into it and they are going to stress the bearings. Even with exhaust recirculation you're still producing an awful lot of excess exhaust, too, just throwing that power away.

Re:Series hybrids

[viperidaenz]

The motor/generator isn't connected to the main shaft that's connected to the compressor. It's connected to a separate shaft spun by the exhaust.
Spinning that is only going to lower pressure in the combustion chamber by sucking air through it.

You're forgetting the reliability problems too.
Do you know how often they have to swap out engines in the M1 Abrams tank, despite the air filters? They're also less fuel efficient than diesel engine tanks.
The high temperatures, pressures and stress on the components make them wear out too.

Re:Series hybrids

[GrahamCox]

bearings generally dislike the imposed accelerations when a high performance road car turns hard

Well, since a jet fighter can pull far more G than any car, I'm thinking this is surely a solved problem.

Re:Series hybrids

[Ralph Wiggam]

Turbines need a ton of air. Filters work against that.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

A compressor and combustion chamber. He's describing a gas turbine.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

The engine in a fighter jet is much bigger than the small units that were to be used in cars, and remember it is the smaller units with the problem. As size increases the associated problems diminish relatively.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Look into the diesel LMP class (Le Mans Prototype) of cars running in the European Le Mans Series (aka World Endurance Championship) such as the offerings from Audi.

Re:Series hybrids

[Firethorn]

Do you know how often they have to swap out engines in the M1 Abrams tank, despite the air filters? They're also less fuel efficient than diesel engine tanks.

Part of that is the age of the M1A1 Abrams. WHEN it was designed the turbine system was state of the art and produced far more power in less space than diesels of that generation could ever hope for.

I've read some possible projects to upgrade the tank, ranging from stuffing a modern diesel in here to putting in an updated turbine to making the tank a hybrid, at which point the turbine would swapped for a highly efficient fixed power one.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Rover cars experimented with small turbines back in the 60's, unfortunately the problems they found have not gone away.

Right, but they were coupled directly and mechanically to the wheels. That's just not a good fit for a turbine. (My uncle was one of the designers of the Leyland Gas Turbine truck in the late 1960s - google it, it was pretty cool, if an experimental dead-end). But driving an alternator is a good fit. Use a bank of super capacitors as a buffer and you're good to go. Yes there are problems to be solved but using F1 as a development and proving ground is surely the point of its existence? It's surely not there to provide a very entertaining spectator sport because it isn't.

You would be surprised about how many people love the F1 racing series. I personally know people who will stay up to 5am just to watch it live even though they have work that upcoming day. Personally I find it incredibly dull and boring to watch, much like a lot of other sports which take more thhttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/01/27/2148209/nissan-unveils-88-pound-400-hp-race-car-engine#en a hour or two to play out a game/race/etc.

Re:Series hybrids

[AK Marc]

Nah, more like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:Series hybrids

[viperidaenz]

If they get a hole in the air filter, the engine gets rooted pretty quick.
ICE's are more forgiving than turbines with dust.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

At $30-100M+ per fighter, sure.

Re:Series hybrids

[Dahamma]

Extra cost and diminishing returns.

Basically, diesel and electric motors are both more expensive, and hybrids already reduce the usefulness of the efficiency of diesels, and so using both just makes a more expensive car with less benefit than you'd think. Especially given a series hybrid only uses the ICE when the battery runs out, which for the majority of drivers of these fairly specific-use vehicles (i.e. best for commuting/short drives) should be the exception.

Or for a specific example - a friend of mine bought a Chevy Volt and has used about 10 gallons of gasoline in the first 5000 miles (of course his miles are mostly commuting). Why would he want to pay an extra few thousand dollars to replace that tiny gas engine with a turbodiesel?

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

the new LMP1 engine rules are basically open except for a fixed maximum fuel flow and max fuel amount per lap, so really an efficiency race for a bunch
of car manufacturers spending 100's of millions, I'd think they have looked at the options and found the optimum

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesels have higher efficiency than gas engines mostly at low and medium load, at max load there is no big difference when you look at fuel weight (energy content)
and not fuel volume

Re:Series hybrids

[Sique]

The solution to the jet fighter engine problems are twofold:

1. 1. Jet fighters don't experience many road bumps.
2. 2. Replace the engine early and often.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

not "far more". during f1 broadcasts the g meter goes
to 5 and gets pegged.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just replace the entire thing with a Leopard 2. The best possible upgrade.

Re:Series hybrids

[brambus]

Gas turbines are actually pretty compact for the HP rating. Heck, the turbopump on a Merlin 1D rocket engine delivers in excess of 2000hp of pumping power and itself weighs only around 150lbs. The fuel economy is going to kill you, though :D

Re:Series hybrids

[BitZtream]

You do know that turbines are considered the most reliable form of engine on the planet ... right? Thats one of the reasons you don't see piston engines in helicopters, you see turbines.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use a linear generator integrated with the piston, you can dispense with the rotary motion and crank etc. altogether, e.g.

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pBPw33ceoQ

Re:Series hybrids

[_Spirit]

Not entirely true. The hybrid and diesel systems are answers to two different questions: Diesel is very efficient at a constant speed. Hybrid doesn't offer much there. A Prius on a long trip will use about the same amount of fuel as a comparable car with an efficient regular engine (because that is what it uses). A diesel engine will typically use quite a bit less because it's a lot more efficient. From personal experience modern diesel engines also seem a bit more forgiving about higher speeds. You can still get decent fuel efficiency at Autobahn speeds.

Hybrid allows you to save fuel because it can recoup energy during braking. A regular car will convert all kinetic energy into heat through the brakes when slowing down. A hybrid car will put part of that kinetic energy back into the batteries. So a hybrid is good in stop and go traffic. A diesel doesn't help much there as it can't recoup the energy.

So a hybrid diesel seems to offer the best of both worlds: efficient on short and long trips. PSA (Peugeot and Citroen) sell a diesel hybrid: 3,8/100 km, 147 kW (200hp). The PSA Hybrid4 models definitely look good on paper, but I have no real world experience with them.

Re:Series hybrids

[drinkypoo]

Rover cars experimented with small turbines back in the 60's, unfortunately the problems they found have not gone away.

So did Chrysler. The big problems they had were related to gearbox reliability, not engine reliability, and they go away if you use an electric powertrain. It does seem like you'd need to replace filters and bearings often, but if that's all you're replacing (plus, presumably, lubricant) that still might be a good tradeoff.

Re:Series hybrids

[chuckugly]

Hills and banked curves are not (generally) sudden though. I've never pulled 2g (gods g + 1) in the transition from a flat run into a hill, for instance. This sort of load is what the poster was talking about.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see gas turbines more fuel efficient than an ICE (internal combustion engine), especially in stop and go traffic. On the highway you might have something. In the city, a fast running turbine is not more fuel efficient than a slow running ICE. If you had a pure electric combined with a gas turbine power/recharge system, that might work (use charged batteries in the city for stop/go and a small optimized gas turbine for recharge/power when on the highway). A small turbine could easily produce 150HP (enough for a large vehicle to recharge batteries, and power the vehicle at 120km/h (75 mph). Brakes + electric recovery could also recharge or just put charge into capacitors for going up steep hills or accelerating. *That* could work.

Re:Series hybrids

[Dahamma]

Well, we were talking about *series* hybrids, not parallel hybrids like the Prius and Peugeot. They have very different designs and different optimal uses. Series hybrids (like the Chevy Volt) generally have larger electric motors and small ICEs (I think like 140hp and 80hp respectively in the Volt?), with large batteries that are capable of significant range (~30-40 miles for the Volt?) The Peugeot is basically the opposite - 160hp diesel and 37hp electric, with a tiny battery that can only get a 2-3 miles at low speeds (like 35mph?) and that doesn't even include accelerating to that speed from a stop. The big selling point of the series hybrids is with commuting distances you don't need to burn fuel at *all*, so they don't want to waste money on a turbodiesel (especially in the US).

But anyway, I never said that even series diesel hybrids wouldn't be more efficient, just that they would be more expensive and the diminishing returns may not be worth it. And in fact if you look up why there are so few series diesel hybrids (even though in theory, as the OP said, being able to run the diesel at a low RPM constant speed would be very efficient) the big reason right now is that they are just too expensive for what they are good at, which is commuter cars that rarely use their ICE. The Volt is already pretty pricey for what you get. And if you want to spend significantly more than that you are almost in Tesla territory

Re:Series hybrids

[DerekLyons]

Gyroscopic torque is a production of the RPM of the gyro, the mass of the gyro, and the angular displacement. They don't have to be sudden, they just have to be there.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the concept they taught me at university 40 years ago? Not a new idea to engineers.

Re:Series hybrids

[chuckugly]

Of course, and gas powered turbines in mobile things, including but not limited to cars, routinely operate in a reliable fashion, so it's obvious that some degree of torque is acceptable. The magnitude of change and rate of change in angle involved in driving over the summit of a hill isn't close to the loads the poster was talking about. If what he is talking about is an issue (I'm not convinced it is) then changing the axis would seem to be a potentially reasonable way to mitigate it.

Re:Series hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Turbine + alternator would be about the same size as this engine, which leaves a lot of volume for a large filter.

88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms

[Anonymous Coward]

ISO pleassssse

88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms

Re:88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms

[ceoyoyo]

I had to learn about significant digits in high school. Why do people do things like that when changing units?

88 pounds = 40 kg.

This FP f7Or GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's best to 7ry raise or lower the po4ulation as well argued by Eric

Re:Turbo diesel with generators rather than a gear

[wiredlogic]

There are already full size electric motorcycles for sale if you can live with the range restrictions. The Empulse has a transmission. The Mission RS is direct drive.

Is it really 88 pounds?

[viperidaenz]

The engine the guy in the picture is holding has no turbocharger on it.
It's not going to produce 400hp without it. The other pictures have one.

Re:Is it really 88 pounds?

[YesIAmAScript]

And the other pictures still don't have the intercooler. It won't make 400HP without that either.

So no, it's not really 88 pounds at 400HP. Unsurprising a company would fib in a press release, isn't it?

Re:Is it really 88 pounds?

[viperidaenz]

I'm sure it would come close without an intercooler, if the dyno feeds it very, very cold air.

Re:Is it really 88 pounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were me, I'd look like like I was straining a bit more to hold up 88 pounds like that. It wouldn't surprise me if the piece he was holding was less than 88 lbs. Maybe you should complain to the writer at motorauthority.com for writing:

the engine weighs just 88 pounds, which means a human is quite capable of carrying it (turbocharger and all), as NISMO chief Shoichi Miyatani demonstrates above

while it's clear that the guy is not carrying "turbocharger and all."

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It raises the question, "Why not an even 40kg?!"

What, just WHAT, are these people playing at?!

Where - exactly - is that last '0.0838714' kgs going to or for?!

I think it's the Illuminati taking their enrergy tax thereby increasing their profits. And let's not talk about hoe the Catholic Church is using this money - at the behest of the Illuminati, fo rthe control of the developing World and eventually, the Western World - again!

*I go tthis crazy one line box where the type is in bright red to edit this in. What's the deal Slashdot?! Are YOU part of this Illuminati consortium?!

Re:What?

[alvinrod]

It could be 40 kg, which converts to ~88.18 lbs. However, the author of the article may have just rounded it to down.

Or the more likely explanation is that it's just some arbitrary weight that happens to be close to 88 lbs. or 40 kg.

Race car

[rossdee]

What sort of car racing is this for? Is there a motor race for hybrids?

Re:Race car

[bob_super]

Check the recent LeMans results. You'll learn something.

Re:Race car

[Anonymous Coward]

This is for the Le Mans 24hr race, many teams build specificly for this type of endurance racing(Le Mans racing, Nurburing and Spa Francorchamps are also in this class).

Re:Race car

[dprimary]

Read the last sentence. One of the biggest races there is. Le Mans has always been experimental. Everyone though Audi was crazy with the diesel engine race car till they could not beat them for years.

I would love to see Tesla try it in one of the lower classes if they can swap the batteries fast enough.

Re:Race car

[mjwx]

What sort of car racing is this for? Is there a motor race for hybrids?

LeMans is an endurance race, making it to the end is a lot more important than going fast and in a race like LeMan's going fast is achieved by light weight rather than big engines.

Endurance races are about managing resources, fuel and brake usage, managing the driver (ensuring they are fed and watered) and so forth.

For those of us who don't have billions of dollars, check out the 24 hours of LeMons, an endurance race for cars under $500.

Re:Race car

[Dahamma]

I would love to see Tesla try it in one of the lower classes if they can swap the batteries fast enough.

Not sure it would be that fun to see even in the lower classes. They'd probably get crushed because using the battery at max acceleration in the Le Mans straights (where decent cars can get to 200mph+) would suck so much juice they'd be replacing it every 50 miles (vs. ~150 for the gas engines). Not to mention both the Roadster and S are limited to ~125mph max speed (and while they could probably raise the limiter and change the gearing, that would further decrease the mileage...)

Re:Race car

[fatphil]

Thanks for the LeMONS reference, I've not heard of that before - sounds a scream. I know a bunch in the UK who'd be well up for an equivalent race there.
I particularly liked "Endurance racing for $500 cars. It's not just an oxymoron; it's a breeding ground for morons."

Re:Race car

[BitZtream]

You might want to check out ChumpCAR as well. 7 to 36 hour endurance racing with the same sort of cars, $500 or so, open to all who will do the safety course and not drive like a moron on the track.

Absolutely zero emissions

[sunderland56]

Since the battery was charged by burning gasoline in the engine, how does that make it "absolutely zero emissions"?

The rubber that comes off a tyre in one lap at speed should also qualify as pollution.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Because marketing people.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[kwerle]

You forgot to mention zero-reasoning editors.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Cramer]

EXACTLY! Takes some serious marketing to call a car with a GASOLINE ENGINE in it, "zero emmision". My hybrid has a flashy sticker saying "ULTRA LOW EMISSION", not ZERO EMISSION.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[msauve]

Not only that, but unless the driver can hold their breath for an entire lap, they're emitting that evil, anthropogenic global warming causing, greenhouse gas - CO2. Zero emissions? No.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[LMariachi]

Where did anyone call this a "zero emissions" car? The summary mentions completing one lap with no emissions, but nobody is saying it's a zero-emissions vehicle.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Cramer]

That's what Z and E stand for in the name... ZEOD RC (Zero Emission On Demand Racing Car)

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Cramer]

Ah... it IS marketing BS... "The automaker claims its ZEOD RC will be the first car to complete an entire race lap of the 8.5-mile Le Mans circuit on nothing but electric power." [link] In other words, the "zero emissions" part is what's "on demand", most of it's time will be spent spewing emissions!

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's zero emission on demand, not all the time. Maybe you also missed that it's a plug-in hybrid, so the batteries could be completely charged by renewable power sources, and also regenerative braking.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[Cramer]

By that marketing research, all cars are zero emission on demand (there's an off position)

Yes, I read that... so, run one lap on battery, pull in the pit for an hour while it recharges, then head back out for a lap. Regenerative braking, no matter how aggressive, is only going to give a small fraction of the power back -- and next to none in race conditions where you drive full-on to the last second before applying the maximum brake force for the minimum amount of time. (I could look at our own data, but for the most part, brake application should be under 1 second -- not that we're nearly that perfect. Yes, there will be some recovery, but way more than 90% is going into a brake pad.)

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[radaos]

"first race car in history to complete a lap during a formal race with absolutely zero emissions" The summary is demonstrably untrue for anyone willing to perform the most basic search. A fully electric race from 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Given that it's in France the battery charging power would come from a nuclear plant, making this truly zero emission racing.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[AmiMoJo]

It says that the battery is recharged using regenerative braking. That energy would otherwise be wasted as heat. It's zero emissions in the sense that all the energy would otherwise have been lost, so you get to drive a lap without adding any extra pollution to the atmosphere.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[LMariachi]

“Formal race” probably means one governed by a recognized sanctioning body.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[afidel]

Your 90% figure is probably about right, KERS produce ~10% of engine output for 6.5 seconds per lap giving you around 10% energy recovery.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions

[AK Marc]

And the driver has to hold his breath for a lap.

More competition

[symes]

I hope these low/no emission races grow to rival formula 1 and and nascar. They are a great way to boost innovation and also encourage people to adopt the tech.

Re:More competition

[Cramer]

Maybe, but 400hp is nothing to F1 and NASCAR. And both series have almost molecular requirements for their engines.

Re:More competition

[mjwx]

Maybe, but 400hp is nothing to F1 and NASCAR. And both series have almost molecular requirements for their engines.

F1 and NASCAR aren't really races. F1 was a race long ago but the drivers are more machine than man now. Everything is computer controlled from acceleration to braking and cornering. The driver is mostly excess weight these days. But this makes NASCAR look good, the steering wheel is almost superfluous there.

I find rally cross and GT more interesting these days.

Re:More competition

[Cramer]

F1, you don't have to be smart, but you do have to be able to think and react *very* fast.

NASRCAR is just boring. Those cars can be a handful at the speeds they're going -- and there's no computers doing any driving in there. If there were computers in there, the human really wouldn't be necessary. Executing a pass is the only real task, and that's 99% because of the driver in front doing everything possible to keep you behind him. (blocking is punished in many sanctioned racing organizations because it promotes actively punting people into walls)

Re:More competition

[batkiwi]

"Everything is computer controlled from acceleration to braking and cornering"

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

None of that is computer controlled, unless you consider a completely normal car with an ECU (so any car from the 1990s onward) to be "computer controlled."

-There is no ABS/traction control/etc.

-The brakes are directly connected via hydraulic line, no computer involved

-the ECU does the same thing the ECU in your car does, tell the injectors how much fuel to squirt. It can enable fuel saving modes/high power modes when the driver selects them, but the power output by the engine must be directly proportional to the amount he's pressing the pedal.

-Computer controlled cornering? How the fuck would that even work? They're not allowed ANY sort of active suspension, and use simple direct input steering setups.

Re:More competition

[mjwx]

NASRCAR is just boring. Those cars can be a handful at the speeds they're going -- and there's no computers doing any driving in there

Yep no computers, but no real turns either. IIRC the car has the camber and steering adjusted to one side because right hand turns are never done.

And it's batshit boring, cars are basically going around in a circle.

Re:More competition

[Cramer]

Go drive one and tell me how easy it is to control at 180mph+. (actually, they won't let you (us) go that fast, but 140-160mph will certainly change your perspective)

You'll get no disagreement from me. It's boring as shit to watch. That's why I prefer to be the driver. *grin* 24hrs of LeMons wouldn't let us on the oval at Charlotte -- wise choice as some of those crapcans wouldn't be able to stay on it. Chumpcar runs the whole "roval" (infield plus oval.) Plus, there's the lemons moto: any idiot can drive around in a circle. The first race is at Barber this weekend; and that is most definitely not a circle.

Re:More competition

[mjwx]

Go drive one and tell me how easy it is to control at 180mph+. (actually, they won't let you (us) go that fast, but 140-160mph will certainly change your perspective)

I'm someone who does race (my CAMS license allows me to enter events at the state level in Australia) that's exactly why I don't like them.NASCAR cars suffer from the same problems as the Australian V8 supercars, they are too heavy, too unwieldy and as a result don't take to corners very well at low speeds, let alone high speeds. The difference is the V8 Supercars race on proper circuits, not ovals.

I've raced Nissan GT-R's and even had a track day in a 600 HP McLaren MP4-12C (and have a fax machine with the same name). So yep, driven at over 250 KPH, even my Honda Integra could manage a NASCAR track at 140 MPH (225 KPH) in its stock form because there's no corners. The big problem is going to be your tyre's heating up too much (which means they'll need to be changed at a pit stop) as friction increases a lot on light bends. There's a reason GT, F1, and rally cars are made as light as possible, it's so you can take the bends as fast as you can. As I said, the V8 Supercars race on proper circuits and whilst they can easily push 300 KPH (a bit over 180 of your archaic miles) on the straights, they do about 40 KPH on the corners. GT and rally cars go a lot faster in the bends.

In NASCAR, because you're racing on an oval with no real corners to speak of, they aren't hard to control. you just have to keep the wheel steady, you don't have to think about corners, speed or gearing. Racing on a street circuit is the hardest IMHO because you've got no room for error (walls everywhere, no grass/sand on the corners to slide off into, leave the track, meet a wall). Compared to GT, NASCAR at NASCAR speeds is dead easy and rallying makes Grand Touring look simple.

You'll get no disagreement from me. It's boring as shit to watch. That's why I prefer to be the driver. *grin* 24hrs of LeMons wouldn't let us on the oval at Charlotte -- wise choice as some of those crapcans wouldn't be able to stay on it. Chumpcar runs the whole "roval" (infield plus oval.) Plus, there's the lemons moto: any idiot can drive around in a circle. The first race is at Barber this weekend; and that is most definitely not a circle.

Theres an old saying, straights are for cars, corners are for drivers.

Re:More competition

[Cramer]

That's my point... NASCAR stock cars aren't stable at any speed. While there's very little of a turn, you *do* have to move the wheel to go around a NASCAR oval. People don't realize just how little input it takes; doesn't matter if you're going 80kph (which is about as slow as you can go) or 300+kph.

Re:More competition

[afidel]

You say NASCAR is easy but the only top driver from another series to ever do well in NASCAR was Andretti, every other driver to come over has been in the bottom 20% or so. With the money available in NASCAR you'd think that more than a few top to mid pack drivers from other top series would be tempted to cross over for the 'easy' driving.

Re:More competition

[bob_super]

I've driven 130Mph in a 4-banger minivan on a public highway. Multiple times.
Give me a racecar at 140 and I may fall asleep ... oh wait, the minivan was comfortable, not the racecar, and the latter doesn't have the radio either.

180Mph would be entertaining for 5 minutes, but the only thing makes it a race is that they have to deal with other drivers being in the way.
Still f___ing boring to watch though...

Re:More competition

[mjwx]

You say NASCAR is easy but the only top driver from another series to ever do well in NASCAR was Andretti, every other driver to come over has been in the bottom 20% or so. With the money available in NASCAR you'd think that more than a few top to mid pack drivers from other top series would be tempted to cross over for the 'easy' driving.

Citation.

One thing fanboys never take into account is the fact a lot of sportsmen love the sport their in. I think people like Sebastian Vettel are making enough in F1 that they have the ability to pick and choose which motorsport they want to participate in, so they may not want to race in a more boring sport.

Also you're forgetting Juan Pablo Montoya, who went from the Williams F1 team to NASCAR. For the most part, F1 drivers go to other disciplines when they get too old for F1.

Now how many NASCAR drivers went into F1 and did as well as Andretti? I cant even find one.

Also, if you think NASCAR is hard, you need to get out and do a real race. Stock cars are amongst the easiest to drive, for the most part your chances of winning are decided by your qualifying position, if you're at the back you pretty much have to wait for everyone in front to stuff up and yes, I've raced stock cars (boring as batshit to race as well as watch).

Electric motors

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the most efficient setup be like the volt, where all of your traction is coming from the electric motors and the gas engine just runs at a constant rate at peak efficiency doing nothing but generating electricity? You can add gearing to maximize efficiency and acceleration, as long as you don't mind replacing the gearbox after each race...

Re:Electric motors

[Cramer]

It sounds like that's what it will be doing at race speeds. I've seen what happens to the "hybrid synergy drive" from Toyota when it's used for racing -- the traction belt(s) inside it comes apart. (and then looks like it's been packed with steal wool)

Thought Experiment

[ebonum]

You attach a compressor to the exhaust pipe on a normal car. The exhaust is compressed and stored in a tank. The tank can hold the exhaust from one lap of a race. During a lap, no emissions are released. Would you have a "first race car in history to complete a lap during a formal race with absolutely zero emissions". No. You wouldn't. Whoever is claiming "zero emissions" is a fool. Altering the time or location when emissions are released does not make something zero emissions. How much nasty bunker oil was used to ship all the parts around the globe to make the damn thing? How many children in China will get cancer because they live next to the mine that produced all the rare earths that went into the magnets and electronics?

Minimizing pollution is a noble goal. Making blatantly false and misleading statements to support your world view, biases or support your agenda is wrong on many levels.

Re:Thought Experiment

[the eric conspiracy]

The question is how fast will the car be for that lap? Dragging around a big old steel tank plus powering a badass compressor, or running on batteries that you have to drag around the rest of the race suggests that you have some real tradeoffs here.

Re:Thought Experiment

[RightSaidFred99]

Everything is relative. The other car you're comparing it to also has to deal with all of that shit.

So you have car A with Xkg of normalized pollution used to manufacture it, and it produces Ykg of pollution while running.

And you have car B with Jkg of normalized pollution used to manufacture it and it produces ~0kg (let's be reasonable and ignore e.g. tire rubber burning off etc..) of pollution while running.

If X and J are ~ then you could certainly argue, reasonably, that car B is 'zero emissions'.

Re:Thought Experiment

[Algae_94]

Your point about the emissions is noted, but technically this engine already has a compressor attached to the exhaust. That is what a turbocharger is. Although it is driven by the exhaust to compress the intake air and not compressing the exhaust into a storage tank.

Re:Thought Experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get a car to run without using any energy?

Re:Thought Experiment

[rahvin112]

Ever stuck a banana in the tail pipe? You maintain pressure on the back end (exhaust) and the engine dies. An internal combustion engine runs on pressure differential between pistons and outside air pressure. Eliminate the outside air pressure with a device to maintain the pressure on the back end and the system won't run because the back pressure on the exhaust system prevents the intake manifold from drawing in fresh air (normally the hot exhaust exiting the tailpipe generates the suction necessary to draw fresh air into the combustion chamber. No air drawn into the manifold = No oxygen in combustion chamber = no fuel being burned = a dead engine. This is exactly how a banana in the tail pipe stops a car.

Honestly, do you even know how engines work? Your "thought experiment" indicates a total lack of even basic knowledge about engines that ANY driver should know to operate a vehicle using one.

Re:Thought Experiment

[ebonum]

huh? I said run the exhaust into a compressor that then pushes all the exhaust into a storage tank. The air flow through the engine would be unchanged.
This is a thought experiment. The fact that you are trying to compress large amounts of hot gasses (not easy), the tank size/weight, power and size requirements for the compressor are all ignored. The point is: tail pipe emissions are not the end-all-be-all when it comes to actual pollution generated/environmental impact of the system.

Re:Thought Experiment

[rahvin112]

If you are running a compressor what is the point in using the hot corrosive gasses from the exhaust system? After all if your goal is to just collect the gas what the hell do you need a compressor for?

I assumed you were suggesting that you recover some pressure by collecting the already pressurized gas, but doing so robs the engine of the pressure differential used to maintain the air flow in the engine. I misinterpreted that so I apologize, but at least with that faulty assumption you appeared to be trying to recover energy. Without that your experiment doesn't make any sense at all. The compressor hanging off the engine will soak up energy and you'll either burn more gas to compensate or have a significant loss in output energy. Either way you aren't going to get any more energy out of it than you put in, in fact you will have more losses in the system and will burn more fuel. Which make the comparison with the proposed system impossible.

Your system would be no different than hanging an alternator/generator off the engine and using it to charge batteries that drive an electric motor without a plug-in or energy recovery system to acquire energy from outside the engine doing so just results in MORE energy loss unless you optimize the engine for power generation and use only an electric motor to drive the car (this is how trains work, diesel generator, electric motor). The reason hybrids exist and this system would use less energy is they can recover braking energy which even with only 30% efficiency is a massive boost in recovered energy. Your proposed system would do nothing but increase energy consumption regardless of which air is compressed whereas the proposed system would recover a significant amount of energy that is normally wasted as heat and would in fact displace emissions. Braking during racing is a significant use of energy during a race, recovering even a small portion of that energy could result in significant reductions in fuel use and emissions.

If you are going to compare something at least compare apples to apples. Your "thought experiment" isn't even related to the innovation being discussed.

Re:Thought Experiment

[DigiShaman]

A turbo work by recapturing as much energy from the exhaust to spin the intake compressor. It's why turbo chargers are more efficient than superchargers when in use and under load. Though both have bypass systems that let an engine run naturally aspirated if/when possible on modern vehicles, but I digress. However, you can create too much back-pressure in the exhaust as to cause a problem. Too much back-pressure and the engine runs extremely inefficient or outright dies. Either way, storing exhaust gasses takes a lot of energy to compress it at the level as to be used again for later use. I don't think energy loss nor volume of tank necessary to me it useful is worth both the time and energy to be of any benefit. It's like taking a step forward, but two steps back.

Re:Thought Experiment

[3.5 stripes]

Push it downhill?

Re:Thought Experiment

[swillden]

Did you read the summary?

The "zero emissions" lap is from energy stored during regenerative braking. Since the braking will be done regardless and the normal method is to simply discard the energy as heat the zero emissions lap is really emissions-free.

No great feat...

[oic0]

Take the average 1400cc 4cylinder motorcycle engine, remove ALL of the transmission and cut that part of the cases off... BAM super light 400hp engine, once you add a turbo. People have been getting that much out of busas and zx14s for ages and they aren't all that unreliable. Also... ask the team if they would drop the entire hybrid system if they could do so without having to add the weight lost back and I bet they would. This is not the future of racing, its more like forcing it into racing.

Re:No great feat...

[Cramer]

And what's the torque like? Indeally, the engine powers only a generator, so torque matters.

On a side note, someone put a harley engine in a prius for a lemons race a while back. (I'm not sure how well that turned out.)

Re:No great feat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. Part of the point of hybrid systems is that they use a smaller engine, and tap into the added electric HP when they need it to accelerate. Plus regeneration on the braking helps with mpg which is important in endurance racing as well.

Re:No great feat...

[AK Marc]

It's energy that's needed to charge the electric system to power the car, so why is torque important? Why would an engine putting out 500 hp and 300 ft-lbs power a generator worse than an engine with 500 hp and 1500 ft-lbs?

Re:No great feat...

[drinkypoo]

And what's the torque like? Indeally, the engine powers only a generator, so torque matters.

No, that's backwards. The engine only powers a generator, so only power matters — because you're designing the engine-generator combo, you can design the pair to work at peak efficiency at basically any RPM, constrained only by size.

Think of the kids

[Trax3001BBS]

Find one unused and strap it to a go kart or mini bike, mmmmooooooooooommmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaa

Ferrari F1

[jamesl]

Ferrari claims that their 1.6 liter, V6 2014 F1 engine produces 600-650 HP with another 160 HP from the Energy Recovery System. Each driver gets just five engines for the 19 race season.
http://formula1.ferrari.com/ne...

Technology marches on.

Re:Ferrari F1

[Virtucon]

Yes and because of the FIA mandating two energy recovery systems and other changes, it will probably be the most unreliable year for F1 Engine manufacturers and constructors in quite awhile. It'll be great for the Drama and Bernie can make a few more bucks.

Re:Ferrari F1

[ed1park]

Ahem. From the article.

"At a ratio of 4.5 horsepower per pound, the new engine even has a better power-to-weight ratio than the new turbocharged 1.6-liter V-6 engines to be used in Formula One this season."

Re:Ferrari F1

[Anonymous Coward]

But who cares about the power to weight of the engine? It's maybe 5% of the mass of a street car, or 10-15% of a race car. The power to weight (or torque to weight) or the car as a whole is what really matters.

Re:Ferrari F1

[BitZtream]

Yea, you can make silly claims like that when you compare the engine block only to a fully finished engine with super charger and accessories.

By the time you make this 'new' engine usable, the numbers aren't better than existing tech.

Re:Ferrari F1

[Anonymous Coward]

The quoted 88 lbs is including front-end aux stuff and turbo.
It doesn't include intercooler, radiator or oil cooler. But those generally aren't included in built engine weight.
F1 engines don't have superchargers.
ergo
More of the usual uninformed bullshit from BitZtream

Re:Ferrari F1

[TubeSteak]

Technology marches on.

Renault pioneered turbo technology in the 70s on a 1.5L V6.
They started around ~500 HP and in the 80s they reached ~800hp at race boost and ~1200hp for qualifying.

The only difference between now and then is it took 50 years to figure out a way to defeat turbo lag in a gentlemanly fashion.

Battery weight?

[csumpi]

Nissan Unveils 88 Pound 400-HP Race Car Engine

How about battery weight that drives this semi electric beast?

Re:Battery weight?

[willy_me]

The battery would be small so it is probably light compared to a hybrid. If they have the money and space, they might even opt for super-capacitors. They're bulky but very light and waste far less power when charging / discharging.

Absolutely zero emission?

[PixetaledPikachu]

I love alternative, cleaner energy sources, but lets be real. The emission was probably performed somewhere else, except if they can guaranty that the energy conversion and delivery process produced absolutely zero pollution

Re:Absolutely zero emission?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus the "zero emission" doesn't take into account the waste of the batteries when they eventually wear out.

Re:Absolutely zero emission?

[ceoyoyo]

The "energy conversion" is an internal combustion engine. ;)

Scale it down?

[presidenteloco]

So could we scale that down and get a 10kg 100 kW engine that could be used as a range extender for an EV?

"The future of motorsports"? *sigh*

[Radical Moderate]

Maybe I'm kinda dumb, but since no one is touting how the hybrid tech provides any competitive advantage to Nissan's racer, I'm skeptical. Maybe it helps them skip a pit stop, but since none of the links mentions anything along those lines, I'm guessing not.

I'm not saying Nissan shouldn't do this, with the Leaf they're heavily invested in EVs and this is great PR, but let's not pretend that in two years EVs will be dominating the racing world.

Not necessarily...

[Type44Q]

Motorsports used to be about... big engines

As long ago as the 70's, we were able to get as much as 1,000hp per liter of engine displacement through the use of pure toluene and five or more atmospheres of boost (Can Am); squeezung ungodly amounts of horsepower from small engines isn't anything new.

The ultimate sleeper

[capebretonsux]

Man, one of these in one of those little Smart cars.

...tires would be a bit of an issue.

Drop that thing in a bike and you've got something

[__aaltlg1547]

See title.

Regardless of any new technology,

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people just like saying regenerative braking.

Zero emissions?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"that will make it the first race car in history to complete a lap during a formal race with absolutely zero emissions"...
How exactly are the batteries charged? For that matter, what about the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries? Electric car != zero emissions. Regenerative braking is good. Reducing engine size by going hybrid sounds good too. But let's get real about emissions. Electric transportation only shifts the emissions to another location.

Love how...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they say "zero emissions" and yet fail to include all of the emissions necessary to create the chemicals for the batteries and the batteries themselves...

First car to do an electric lap? Maybe...maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

First race car to do a lap with zero emissions?

Depending on what you call a "race car" (is it a car in a race?) then Nissan well over 100 years too late, according to Wired.com.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/01/porsche-first-car-electric
"...And you could say Porsche’s motorsports roots started with the P1, as the car managed to finish a 40-km EV race in 1899..."
Hmm, maybe that wasn't a lap, but a road course from A to B?

Hmmmm...

[Agares]

I wonder how hard it would be to drop one of these in an Elio? That would be an interesting combo.

Zero Emissions???

[Anonymous Coward]

"If true, that will make it the first race car in history to complete a lap during a formal race with absolutely zero emissions."

I guess these green folks think electrons just fall out of the freakin sky....

Re:Drop that thing in a bike and you've got someth

[AK Marc]

Given how turbo bikes have been tried and mostly abandoned, I can't see how this would be interesting. Perhaps a quicker suicide bike, but boost makes bikes handle poorly.

Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

It's shocking at how little useful or relevant information is provided! What is the base compression ratio? What is the boosted compression? How idiotic are journalists now that they don't even know what questions to ask or what parameters of performance or design matter?!

Best have a look at TFA

[doccus]

HAve you seen it? It's a stunningly beautiful engine, a real piece of work. And to get 400 horsepower out of that is mind boggling..