Slashdot Mirror


At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

An anonymous reader writes Ars is running a story about the new all-electric racing car series and its first visit to the U.S.. "The pit lane we're standing in is unusual, and not only because it's a temporary setup placed in the shadow of American Airlines Arena (home of the NBA's Miami Heat). Garages are set up on both sides rather than being limited to one. A few things also appear to be missing. To start, a familiar smell from the usual mix of burning hydrocarbons is absent. And it's remarkably quiet. The occasional impact wrench bursts out in a mechanical staccato, generators drone here and there, but there are no V8s burbling, no V6s screaming....Welcome to Formula E, the world's first fully electric racing series. Miami is playing host to the first of two US rounds—the next being held in Long Beach, CA, on April 4—and it's the fifth race in this ePrix's inaugural season. Given we've got a bit of a thing about racing at Cars Technica, as well as an obvious interest in electric vehicles, we had to be on the ground in Miami to experience this for ourselves."

167 comments

  1. Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it will in future be only way to race with cars. It would save so much nature.

    1. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also it's way more interesting technology-development-wise than old and busted formula ones..

    2. Re:Hopefully this gows by radja · · Score: 1

      and a lot less noisy, also a big plus. Racing circuits are notorious noise polluters.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    3. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also it's way more interesting technology-development-wise than old and busted formula ones..

      How do you figure Formula 1 is old and busted? The current engine formula for F1 is V6 turbo hybrids which use 100kg of fuel for a race distance (typically ~305km, except for Monaco) versus the previous V8 engine formula which used 150kg. It's a significant step forward in fuel efficiency.

    4. Re:Hopefully this gows by jerome · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid this won't save much nature at all, after all it's just the same wasting-a-lot-of-resources-just-for-the-fun-of-some-rich-people.
      And no I am not a greenpeace activist, I watch formula-e events and some formula one events. Formula-e is much more fun, as a race actually takes place, and you can hear the tires working.

    5. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about saving nature? How about accelerating the development of EV technology? Or putting an end to the notion that electric cars aren't fast?

    6. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, fine, we'll just avoid improving anything at all until we have the perfect solution.

      Unless you have something that will make those rich people give up both traditional racing and e-racing in favor of something more environmental friendly.

    7. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never ever gow.

    8. Re:Hopefully this gows by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about saving nature?

      This post did. You know, the one at the top of the very thread to which you're replying.

    9. Re:Hopefully this gows by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 3

      Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects. When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on. How does it feel to be running 30 year old technology, grandpa?

      Everyone knows electric cars are the future (which F1 even begrudgingly admits by requiring hybrids), and instead of meeting that future head on like Formula E, F1 totters along, and will contribute nothing to the future of racing.

      That, sir, is old and busted.

    10. Re:Hopefully this gows by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.

      Ground effects whilst technologically interesting suffer from safety problems.

      As soon as a car deviates from the optimum ride height for the undertray effects to work the downforce varies significantly. This is a problem when apex speeds are significantly higher due to the extra downforce created by ground effects.

      Hit a bump the wrong way and lose downforce == shoot off the corner at much higher speeds into the barrier.

    11. Re:Hopefully this gows by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ground effects cars were crazy though. I kinda think it is a good thing that the best driver in F1 doesn't simply correspond to who is the most suicidal. And something like the Williams FW15C was going to render the skill of the driver almost redundant if that seam of development had been allowed to continue.

      On the other hand those cars and others (like bernie's fan car, and even the blow diffuser and f-duct) are part of the interesting narrative that is F1 and I do think the FIA has become so concerned with preventing another Lotus 79 or Williams FW15C that they are pre-emptively killing any chance for real technical innovation.

      But they're just a bunch of businessmen now. Once Bernie goes I think it will sadly fall apart. The management, rights holders and teams will end up spending more time in court than out on the track. As much as I think Bernie is a dick, like an dodgy book keeper, I also think he maintains a careful balance of handouts and ego massaging that allows the various interests involved to generally get some cars out on track every weekend.

    12. Re:Hopefully this gows by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      All sound and fury, and signifying squat, as the reason ground effects were banned was because Ferrari couldn't figure out how to make them work and lobbied to make it so. Nothing like being completely dominated by less money for "safety concerns" to become a trope.

      Not to mention other racing series, like the apparently technologically superior IndyCar, use them without having mass carnage on the tarmac, and in fact requiring flat bottoms like F1 leads crashes that killed a spectator recently at Nürburgring.

    13. Re:Hopefully this gows by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.
      The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    14. Re:Hopefully this gows by jjhues7676 · · Score: 1

      I have been around racing a long time and find your noise polluter comment funny. I have seen many tracks built in the middle of nowhere and then houses pop up around it . Then they start complaining about the noise knowing it was there when they moved in.

    15. Re:Hopefully this gows by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      >Williams FW15C was going to render the skill of the driver almost redundant

      Completely disagree, as the same argument has been made about any deviation from the front engine RWD layout in racing would diminish driver skill as a factor. Nope, it just means a different set of skills are also in play, and how well a car corresponds to the driver (as it has always been) is more varied.

      Especially with electronic nannies, it may elevate the capabilities of mediocre drivers, but at the extremes, it is difficult to qualify. Are you really going to argue that your average driver with electronic assist is quicker than a racing driver without?

      It's just another technological advancement banished from racing for nothing more than "reasons".

    16. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you on about. The GB said it'll be environmentally good, that race engines are swapped for electric engines, but that itself does not do any good. Comparing the polution caused by racing engines to all the rest that come with any event ever is not even a flies crap in the big picture. All the equipment that has to be moved and all the people that has to be moved to have any event, be it racing or not, requires so many trucks, planes, cars, electricity, that it's all the same, if the racing engines are 20L V12s or not. That is what Jerome was saying.

      What it can do though is help improve the technology, and at some point, maybe the rest of the vehicles will have electric motors too. That's what will be environmentally better, possibly. Changing a few hobby engines for electric motors will do nothing in itself.

    17. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus."

      That's just because you're a redneck, normal people embrace it.

    18. Re:Hopefully this gows by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid this won't save much nature at all

      In the gasoline era, a lot of engine innovation occurred because of racing. The same may occur in electric cars.

      wasting-a-lot-of-resources-just-for-the-fun-of-some-rich-people.

      Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people". And what is wrong with having fun? Isn't that what life is all about?

    19. Re:Hopefully this gows by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      "The current engine formula for F1 is V6 turbo hybrids which use 100kg of fuel for a race distance (typically ~305km,"

      My car needs less than 10 kg for 300km and it's not even a hybrid.

    20. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They jumped the shark when they started putting safety in cars and the tracks. It turned a sport known for guaranteed carnage and horror into a snoozefest.

    21. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's a free market. If you don't like the complaints, you can move elsewhere. After all, the home owners made a wise investment and are better people than renters.

    22. Re: Hopefully this gows by qqod · · Score: 1

      Whilst I'm sure examples of this exist, it goes the other way too. I used to live somewhere that F1 teams started testing on a disused air strip. It was used occasionally for some motor sport previously but was inaudible outside of its immediate environs. When F1 teams moved in, areas that had been peaceful for decades (since the site strip was last used in WW2) were suddenly subject to a lot of noise - villages and urban areas miles and miles away from the site. It's not just the immediate surroundings of a race track for just the duration of the events that suffer at the hands of noise pollution caused by motor racing. This is an article I quickly googled, but it was going on for years- http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/new...

    23. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the equipment that has to be moved and all the people that has to be moved to have any event

      Will be moved regardless of if the race engines are electric or ICE.
      And if you swap out one of the vehicles transporting equipment that too will just be a fart compared to the rest. There is no "large" point that can easily be swapped out, except removing the event entirely, but that is not going to happen.
      So unless there is some other viable solution swapping out one fart at a time is the only way forward.

    24. Re:Hopefully this gows by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But do you drive at +240 kph, make rapid acceleration to get you to 96 kph in two seconds, all while trying to stay ahead of the guy who's trying to pass you?

      Yeah, thought not.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    25. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on.

      Hrm, let's review the Lotus 79's qualifying performances at some tracks versus the 2014 formula. There only seem to be two tracks where we can meaningfully compare lap times. A lot of the 1978 F1 circuits aren't used in F1 anymore and some circuits (like Canada) have had the lap shortened. But we can compare Monza and Monaco. So let's see:

      1. In 1978 at Monaco the best qualifying Lotus was 1:29.100. In 2014 the Mercedes of Nico Rosberg was on pole with 1:15.989.
      2. In 1978 at Monza the best qualifying Lotus got pole with a lap of 1:37.520. In 2014 Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes was on pole with a lap time of 1:24.109.

      I don't get it. Why are the qualifying lap times worse in 1978 if the Lotus 79 is the most significant car ever produced for F1? The 2014 cars were a bit slower than the 2013 V8s, which was due to a loss of downforce due to changes in aero regulations and the introduction of the new engine formula, but the 2014 cars were light years ahead of the Lotus 79.

    26. Re:Hopefully this gows by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      My car needs less than 10 kg for 300km and it's not even a hybrid.

      Is your car's engine 760HP?

      And your car gets 22 km per liter (52MPG)?
      =Smidge=

    27. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turned a sport known for guaranteed carnage and horror into a snoozefest.

      So watch Formula E.

    28. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't i just say that?

    29. Re:Hopefully this gows by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2

      And when the Williams FW15C basically created a new sub-category within F1 and then was banned the following season, everyone immediately knew that F1 racing was no longer about advancing technology to make better street cars, but it was all about lining Bernie's pockets.

      Seriously, count the tech items in that car that eventually made it to street cars.

    30. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > because Ferrari couldn't figure out how to make them work

      That's nonsense. Though Lotus won the drivers' and constructors' championships in '78 thanks to their innovation, Ferrari won both in '79 with the 312T4, which was a ground effect version of the previous season's car. They won the constructors' title again in '82 and '83 (after which the last elements of ground effect were banned), so I think it's safe to say they had figured it out.

    31. Re: Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's because, unlike you, he is a man.

    32. Re: Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what he does, by the substantial year to year rule changes, is to make sure that no new team (or any team without gigabucks) can be competitive, thus preserving the status quo from year to year.

    33. Re: Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trolling, or are you really that dense?

    34. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus."

      That's just because you're a redneck, normal people embrace it.

      If that were true then so much R&D wouldn't go into tuning exhaust sounds for automobiles, manufactures would have been trying to make them quieter for the past few decades instead.

    35. Re: Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so special about a developmental race? Especially with so limited technology. And the high pitch if transmissions? And swapping vehicles? Instead of finishing a race in a vehicle you started with. And three chosen at random? The fix is in. And not even a network to carry the news to the public, how redneck are you. It isn't natural to look at something and say neat, right? But you are saying in effect, is wonderment, approval, and acceptance of new ideas, is redneck. Would you rather be in the older day, prior to roads, where foot travel was the fastest an idea could travel, and no further then the voice could espouse it? Rednecks, tinkering with things created the engines of the world, henery fords had money and influence, and bought rednecks to Detroit to build mass produced vehicles, not engineers, same with BMW, and dahlmer, all rednecks, and bankers. But they had to have the redneck, shade tree mechanic to "git er done", make the product viable. Bankers and scientists only can get as far as they have, on the backs of rednecks. Don't disparage them, enjoy them.

    36. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, yeah.

      "The 312T4, introduced at the 1979 South African Grand Prix was closely based on the 312T3. Its origins placed restrictions on the aerodynamic design since the T series had never been designed with ground effect in mind. "

      "The 1980 season saw further aerodynamic progress by Cosworth DFV teams, and a heavily updated version of the 312T4, the 312T5 was introduced at the start of the season. The Ferrari was totally outclassed as their wide 312 "Boxer" engine did not suit the aerodynamic needs. The car was unreliable, slow and was not effective against the competition. The other constructors' cars got better throughout the season whereas the 312T5's development virtually went nowhere – the car became less and less competitive over the season. For the first time since 1973, Ferrari did not win a race for an entire season."

      Oh but what about '82 and '83?

      Introduction of the 126C and turbos.

      "The new technologies introduced by Renault and Lotus became entangled in the FISA-FOCA war of the early 1980s. Turbo engines were complex machines whose layout limited the ground effect 'tunnels' under the car. They were an emerging technology and so they were difficult and expensive to develop and build and make reliable. It was mostly manufacturer-supported teams, such as Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which took that route. In contrast, the cheap, reliable and narrow Ford-Cosworth DFV engine, still used by most teams more than a decade after its introduction, lent itself well to highly efficient ground effect aerodynamics. These two groups were represented by two political bodies – the sport's governing body FISA, headed by Jean-Marie Balestre, and FOCA, headed up by Bernie Ecclestone. The first group supported a strict limitation of ground effect to gain full advantage from their powerful turbos while the other relied on unrestricted ground effect to balance their horsepower deficit. "

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Formula_One

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_312T

      Reading is fundamental.

    37. Re:Hopefully this gows by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup, there has been absolutely no advancement in tires since 1979.

      Also- 79 Lotus 480hp

      2014 Mercedes 750hp

      So yes, a turboed Mercedes with current tires and over 30% more horsepower can run a whole 15 seconds faster than a NA Lotus on bias ply tires.

      Any other mysteries of the universe I can illuminate for you?

    38. Re:Hopefully this gows by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Turbo engines were complex machines whose layout limited the ground effect 'tunnels' under the car. They were an emerging technology and so they were difficult and expensive to develop and build and make reliable. It was mostly manufacturer-supported teams, such as Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which took that route. In contrast, the cheap, reliable and narrow Ford-Cosworth DFV engine, still used by most teams more than a decade after its introduction, lent itself well to highly efficient ground effect aerodynamics.

      So which of the two technologies is found in more production cars today?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    39. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The data is perfectly clear, and it's why turbines are prohibited on the Indy circuit; the turbine, while winning, didn't make the requisite noise to keep the spectators adequately interested. Reality kind of sucks that way, but people are people.

    40. Re:Hopefully this gows by jerome · · Score: 1

      Where did you get that notion that electric cars aren't fast ?
      They are short ranged, but not slow. La Jamais Contente was even the fastest car 2 centuries ago !

    41. Re:Hopefully this gows by jerome · · Score: 1

      As for pricing, well, just take a look at the tickets for the Silverstone GP on the official F1 site (I didn't check the other races) :
        General Admission - (Sunday) 231,35 €
      Not exactly cheap by my (european) standards. As a comparison, this is more than twice the price of a ticket for the next AC/DC show in Paris.

    42. Re:Hopefully this gows by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      You are most definitely an idiot.

      Auto racing causes almost 0.0% of pollution in the world.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    43. Re:Hopefully this gows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So yes, a turboed Mercedes with current tires and over 30% more horsepower can run a whole 15 seconds faster

      Ah, so we agree then. Formula 1 isn't old and busted after all. Good.

    44. Re:Hopefully this gows by hallkbrdz · · Score: 0

      I hope not - it sounds like the dentists office, and makes me get that horrible smelling drill feeling.

      Seriously, the noise is a big part of the sport. Take that away and it is less interesting (see modern F1 engines). Racing is never "green". You go in a loop and get nowhere, using up tires and fuel / power doing so.

  2. E, The most boring racing by tquasar · · Score: 1

    Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology. Electric cars? No way. What does the NBA have to do with the story? Odd.

    1. Re:E, The most boring racing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology. Electric cars? No way.

      Can you clarify?
      Apart from the energy not being easily stored/replaced in electric vehicles electric engines beat the crap out of ICE in pretty much every point.
      Or do you mean that there is less hassle to get an electric engine performing at peak and therefore not much of a sport?
      You still have the same issues with aerodynamics and the problem with transferring energy from tires to road.

    2. Re:E, The most boring racing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology.

      Not really. You can very easily build a better car than a Formula 1 car. F1 is the high point of automotive racing technology under the regulations imposed on the cars. F1 regulations ban a lot of car design for reasons of cost control, safety, promotion of good racing and emphasis on driver skill.

    3. Re:E, The most boring racing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they still probably have more interesting races.

      and formula 1 is so rule limited nowadays that it sucks from tech perspective. reading the tech rundowns of the cars has not been interesting in 15 years. all the cars are basically the same, but not same enough for the races to be even - but the innovation is squashed.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:E, The most boring racing by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you haven't watched any of Formula E races and in fact you have a very superficial understanding of F1 or other motorsports.

      In the FE races I have seen so far, the skylines are beautiful, the drivers are the cream of crop open wheel racers, the cars go fast, and there was plenty of close wheel racing in the first five races so far. What else do you want?

      On a really good year of Formula 1 racing, F1 may be more fun to watch than the first season of FE. But every other season, F1 is a major snooze fest that only die hard fans will watch. Case in point, the five years of Schumacher's continuous domination, and then four years of continuous RedBull Vettel domination, and specially years 2011 and 2013.

    5. Re:E, The most boring racing by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah F1 isn't nearly as advanced as all those other racing series that don't have any regulations on the cars. For those interested I've compiled a list of regulation free racing series:

      (end of list)

    6. Re:E, The most boring racing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      F1 is incredibly expensive so they have to make the cars incorporate technology that will eventually filter down into production road cars, making it possible to view the sport as R&D. That's what drives most of the changes these days, a desire to test things like hybrid performance engines and new tyre technology. For example quite a few cars incorporate a version of the KERS system now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:E, The most boring racing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    8. Re:E, The most boring racing by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to tell me that The Fast and the Furious wasn't a documentary?

    9. Re:E, The most boring racing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be amazing to see a race between super sonic rocket cars. They go straight!

    10. Re:E, The most boring racing by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Here's one.

      A race where there is ever only one car on the track at a time?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  3. An anonymous Ars writer submits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last couple of stories have obviously been submitted by Ars itself.

  4. So a the cars are the same model? by blind+biker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And all use the same model of battery pack? Jesus Fucking Christ, they made Formula E the as little appealing to nerds as the possibly could. And let's be honest, nerds/tech-heads would have been their PRIMARY audience!

    Methinks a product/marketing manager got paid for a shitty job.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      The cars are stock for the first season for cost reasons, for the second season there are several chassis builders and several power unit suppliers signed up, so there will be a better spread of performance amongst the pack.

    2. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And all use the same model of battery pack?

      Formula E is using a control car for the first season but they are moving towards being a development formula starting next season.

    3. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      It's also important, as I understand it, that the cars all be the same so they can limit the number of unknowns when evaluating performance and engineering of the vehicles.

      My only complaint, and it's a minor one, is they're too gimmicky with the "Fan boost" thing.
      =Smidge=

    4. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by guacamole · · Score: 1

      That's totally fine. You should realize that among the racing fans there are far more fans of pure racing than the nerds. This is why Formula 1 is far FAR more more popular than WEC will ever be, even though arguably WEC is more advanced tech-wise.

      And so as a fan if racing, rather of the technological dick waving, I see a lot of potential in FE racing. The skylines are beautiful, the racers are the cream of crop open wheel racers, many with quite a bit of time in Formula 1 and GP2 seats, and there is always some good competition and wheel to wheel racing up to the end of race. The races are about one hour short which is perfect for our world of living a busy life and having a short attention span.

    5. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      The cars are stock for the first season for cost reasons, for the second season there are several chassis builders and several power unit suppliers signed up, so there will be a better spread of performance amongst the pack.

      Therein lies the great racing divide: vehicles that are essentially identical and thus, in theory, the driver is the difference versus real manufacturer's vehicles so the driver / car combination becomes more important. NASCAR, for example, uses the former model and thus a good driver combined with effective cheating is the route to success. Endurance racing tends to the latter along with having various classes so cars of equal capability race against each other.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only complaint is your gimmick of signing your own posts.

    7. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've actually been watching the Formula E races, because I'm into Formula 1 and there are a bunch of B-list ex-F1 drivers in there.

      As far as I can tell, there's a fairly strong emphasis on it being entertainment rather than sport. For example, drivers get a boost button they can use during the race if they're the "fan favourite" before the race. There are also some gimmicks like bonus points for fastest lap and pole position. In the pre-season trailers, one of the key talking points was the DJ that was going to be guesting for each race.

      The races themselves are fairly laughable - short, with a fairly hilarious car swap when they run out of juice (the driver hops out of one car and does a little dash to the other car), and the cars themselves are fugly as hell and all the bits are wobbly (so... a bit like me I guess). The coverage is completely ghetto, minimum-budget stuff -- it's on ITV4 in the UK, which tells you everything you need to know.

      However, it's a a new series, and the drivers at least are for real, so I'm giving it time to grow.

    8. Re:So a the cars are the same model? by Toshito · · Score: 1

      For example, drivers get a boost button they can use during the race if they're the "fan favourite" before the race.

      So the Like button on Facebook will now have an effect on the race!

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
  5. Gimick by Skylinux · · Score: 0

    You know your product is crap when you have to create a market for it.
    These "race cars" can't go the distance so they have to create special tracks to use them on instead of running them on known tracks. These street tracks suit the limited abilities of these cars.

    These toys may hurt the sport more then it helps as the technology is not ready for this. Swapping cars during a race because the batteries are flat and they can't change them quick enough - what a fucking joke.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    1. Re:Gimick by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The street circuits are mainly used because they raise greater awareness that a race is being held than if they went to an existing race track and relied on traditional marketing for the races.

      Also, how about you take your undue criticism and stick it - how about you come up with a better formula and make it work? The entire point of starting it now is because the technologies aren't mature enough - getting manufacturers to push development in order to win races is what drives the technologies here (see how much stuff has come out of F1).

    2. Re:Gimick by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      These "race cars" can't go the distance so they have to create special tracks to use them on instead of running them on known tracks.

      Is that so odd? Many many sporting activities have facilities designed especially for them.

    3. Re:Gimick by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "You know your product is crap when you have to create a market for it."

      You mean like smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, HD TV and so on?
      It seems to work from where I watch.

    4. Re:Gimick by guacamole · · Score: 2

      I am not quite sure what you're talking about. The tracks and their skylines are beautiful, and there is always some close, often wheel to wheel, racing for the lead right until the end. The drivers are very accomplished open wheel racers. You can't compare them to the F1 top five or so, but overall they're just as good or better than a median F1 racers. In fact, many of them had a considerable amount of F1 seat time, either as a race or test driver.

      And I am sorry, and I personally don't know the product is crap because of blah blah blah. Sounds like you have created a strawman argument to defend your elitist viewpoint here.

    5. Re:Gimick by BVis · · Score: 1

      Shh. When you pop their little cognitive dissonance bubbles these folks can turn feral. This guy is obviously one of those folks who think anything new or innovative or intended to push greener technology is bad because the radio told them so

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    6. Re:Gimick by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      You know your product is crap when you have to create a market for it.

      That's why I only buy products that serve markets that god created on the 6th day right after he hid all those dinosaur bones!

  6. Pit stops by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    Have they come up with an alternate method of doing pit stops without getting out of the car completely and changing cars mid-race? If not, I'm not interested.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Pit stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have they come up with an alternate method of doing pit stops without getting out of the car completely and changing cars mid-race?

      The aim is to use a single car by the fifth season.

    2. Re:Pit stops by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The battery is fully integrated into the vehicle and is part of the structure. It can't be easily removed. Not for lack of want, though. Swappable batteries are under development, but it will likely mean compromises in the chassis construction.

      I'm more annoyed that there is a *minimum* pit time, meaning drivers have to wait and get penalized if they leave the pits too early.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Pit stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are working on it. This reminded me of having to explain the tactical use of pit stops in F1 to a partner a while back. "You mean they can't finish without swapping wheels? Not interested"

    4. Re:Pit stops by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      I'm more annoyed that there is a *minimum* pit time, meaning drivers have to wait and get penalized if they leave the pits too early.

      That's a safety issue. It guarantees more than enough time for all of the belts to be properly fastened to avoid "Le Mans start" situations (where drivers would speed off as they were buckling up leading to several deaths) and it's consistent across the field so it doesn't affect the outcome. I believe present day LeMans racing doesn't need minimum pit times since refueling+tires takes longer than a driver change.

  7. Mixed on this one by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

    I do think the future of cars/racing is electric, but for me there is something spine tinglingly impressive about this (V8 F1 cars running up eau rouge):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    But since the FIA is currently doing its best to ruin F1, these electric cars will probably compare pretty good in a few more years. Oh well, at least we have the memories.

  8. Power to weight ratio by gTsiros · · Score: 4, Informative

    to put 8 kW/kg into perspective, all commercial brushless dc motors are at 4 kW/kg and it is a limitation of the materials used.

    Commercial internal combustion engines range from 1 kW/kg to *maybe* 3 kW/kg if it is turbocharged to the point of sacrificing engine longevity and formula 1 engines are at around 5 kW/kg

    although i suspect they saved weight by using the vehicle frame as (part of?) the stator, a perk of making a motor for a very specific purpose.

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  9. No it isn't by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    As others have said, its so hamstrung by endless idiotic technical rules than any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.

    1. Re:No it isn't by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.

      That's why F1 never really interested me: I don't want to watch a race where all the cars are the same. I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car. How about a Russian T-Series tank with a MIG Fighter engine mounted on it? (That actually exists. The Russians used it to extinguish Gulf War oil well fires).

      Now THAT would drive real innovation, and be a hoot and a half, as well, when folks came up with some wacky ideas, that went terribly wrong. Think of those old black and white film clips of the first attempts at powered flight.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:No it isn't by rotaryexpress · · Score: 1

      any innovation packed its bags and walked a decade ago.

      That's why F1 never really interested me: I don't want to watch a race where all the cars are the same. I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car.

      And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race. Drivers couldn't cope with the G-forces the cars could produce and crashes would be nearly always fatal.

      Don't believe me? Look at F1 in the before the mid-90's. Even with a fairly restrictive ruleset, those cars were too fast with too little safety.

      Anyone who thinks "any innovation packed its bags" referring to F1 obviously has not followed a season of racing. F1 greatly rewards the engineers who come up with innovative designs within the ruleset. Just look at Mercedes' split turbocharger design (which is now being adapted to road cars because it works so well).

    3. Re:No it isn't by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Or, you could could just get your mayhem fix by watching this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:No it isn't by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Which is why I think that car races will eventually be much more interesting when we have computers driving them. No more worrying about injuries or deaths, or how many g-forces you can pull before someone gets hurt. No holds barred robot racing. Although I think it would eventually (d)evolve into something like pod-racing with something dragging along the ground just so you can pretend you aren't flying. I think there has to be some rules. but as long as you disallow jet engines or require the cars to be propelled through the wheels, you could have a pretty interesting race. Maybe we could just move to remote control in the meantime until computers are smart enough to control cars in a race situation.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've played TOO many video games.

      Or not enough.

    6. Re:No it isn't by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      > And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race.

      you mean like isle of man motorbike racing?

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    7. Re:No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This basically existed from 1966 to 1975 (although truly ended in 1969 with the banning of the Chaparral 2J) in what was know as FIA Group 7. This was the rule set used for the Interserie in Europe and the much more popular Can-Am championship in the USA and Canada. The rules were very simple. Basically open top sports car with room for 2 seats and an engine. These cars were the fastest of their day, and could usually pull six figure attendance numbers.

      Can-Am saw the introduction of wings in 1966, 2 years before F1. The aforementioned Chaparral 2J used fans to suck the car to the road. It took some one 8 years to try the concept in F1.

  10. Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?

    1. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because the power output of an electric motor is torque * rotation speed. The electric motor can produce max torque across the speed range (roughly for most types anyway), but the power output still increase with the RPM. So if you want to get max power at any wheel speed you want to keep the motor revs up.

      Hence the gearbox.

    2. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    3. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lol. This is why I'm always saddened to see anything vaguely motorsports related on geek sites. Geeks just do not understand cars.

    4. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Err, unless you have a clutch too then a gearbox makes no difference to your scenario.

    5. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      A clutch isn't really necessary, i'd guess.

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    6. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1, Informative

      No idea why you got modded up for that comment. If you want to keep the motor rpm *up* then a gearbox is the last thing you want - just let the motor spin as fast as it can until back emf stops it or it flys apart. Gearboxes (on cars) are designed to keep the engine rpm *down*

    7. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Well if you don't have one (or a torque converter) then you're still going to have the motor pulling away from zero rpm from stationary regardless of the gear ratio.

    8. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    9. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      A quick google for gear ratios returns ratios of about 3 to 4 for 1st gear to around 0.7 for 5th gears. So most gears on normal cars do keep engine rpm up, and not down.

      This makes sense, since when you're driving slowly in 1st gear, your engine is doing around 1000 rpm, but your wheels are definitely not.

    10. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      No, they keep the rpm down. Try driving at 100 mph in first gear if you don't believe me.

    11. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Oh FFS. Peak efficiency is for piston engines, not electric motors. Do you think theres a ratio swapping gearbox for every motor in a TGV?? Yet they still got one up to 320 mph.

      "Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch"

      Umm, they stop for the pitstops and they have to move away at the start. Please suggest a way to do that without a clutch.

    12. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      And apparently you don't understand electric motors.

    13. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading.

      i said rarely. consider that in f1 the clutch is to be operated 4-5 times. once at the start, two or three for pit stops and one left over for emergency/unforeseen events.

      once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    14. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      I can do that too:
      Try pulling away from a stop, uphill, in 5th gear, if you don't believe me. (actually legal for you to try, on any public road, unlike your suggestion)

      But unlike you I can also come up with actual numbers, easy to find:
      M3 Coupe (E36) Automatic: 1:3.67 2:2.00 3:1.41 4:1.00 5:0.74
      3 of the 5 gears keep engine rpm up. 1 gear is 1:1, 1 gear keeps engine rpm down.

      M3 Convertible (E46) manual 1:4.23 2:2.53 3:1.67 4:1.23 5:1.00 6:0.83
      4 of the 5 gears keep engine rpm up. 1 gear is 1:1, 1 gear keeps engine rpm down.

    15. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading."

      If you're going to try and be patronising it helps if you have a clue what your argument is and what the curves actually mean and how they relate to modern motor control systems using IGBTs.

      "i said rarely. "

      So what? Even it its only once it still needs a clutch unless you're suggesting they should push it from a standing start?

      "once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not"

      Nice try. But don't try and flip the argument. You said F1 cars don't need a clutch so don't try and pretend you meant electric motors all along.

    16. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "But unlike you I can also come up with actual numbers, easy to find"

      You ever heard of final drive ratio? Its the ratio of engine to wheels that matters, not engine to transmission shaft.

    17. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the final drive ratio is ALSO larger than 1 for all cars I've looked at, meaning it only invalidates your statement further.

      Why don't you come up with some actual numbers? Let me help you:

      Lets assume a rather small wheel size of 50cm. That gives a circumference of 1.57 m.
      Lets assume the engine is doing a low 4000rpm, or 240000 rotations per hour.
      If this engine was bolted directly to these wheels, the car would be going 376.8 km/h

      Most cars are not going 376.8 km/h at 4000 rpm in any of their gears, so apparently the wheels are turning slower than the engine.

    18. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by clovis · · Score: 1

      The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?

      Power output is the wrong number to look at, What you want to see for racing is the torque curve.

      I haven't seen the torque curve for the motor used in the Formula E cars, but if it's typical then it will be max torque flat from zero to about 6,000 rpm and then fall off linearly to 17,500 rpm. I'm not sure, but I think that the peak torque is about 250-270 ft-lbs or around that for the formula E cars. That is not enough torque to spin the tires, and for maximum acceleration you need enough torque to slightly spin the tires.
      Of course the engine torque would be multiplied by the final drive ratio after going through the gearbox, so a 250 ft-lb motor with a final 4:1 drive ratio would put 1,000 ft-lbs at the wheel which is probably more than enough for these cars.

      The catch is that a 4:1 ratio reduce the rotational speed by 4, so in exchange for getting 1,000 ft-lbs of torque, a 17,500 rpm engine speed would give you only 4,375 rpm at the wheel. So your top speed drops by 4. If you were able to go 160 mph in direct drive at 17,500, but now have a final drive ratio of 4:1, now your top speed is only 40 mph. You beat everyone to the first curve, but they drive by you on the straight.

      Unless you have a gearbox.

    19. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Please suggest a way to do that without a clutch.

      Electric Motor.

      Next

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "so apparently the wheels are turning slower than the engine."

      Well duh. However the point is that a piston engine has a rather low max rpm compared to an electric motor, hence you need a ratio changing gearbox to keep it within a certain rev band. I really don't see what your issue is with this statement.

    21. Re:Why does it need a 5 speed gearbox?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On electric motors you want to keep the speed of motor down to maximize torque. Back EMF is what you want to limit, so revs down. This is for racing, not street driving where your acceleration 0-200mph is less of a concern.

      The problem is you end up heating the motor more as you are driving more current through it.

      On a normal road car, this all doesn't really matter so you don't need multiple gears, just a differential to optimize efficiency to torque at normal speeds.

  11. Hoping for large industrial participation by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    I'm hoping large corporations get interested. Right now, I understand all cars are basically made by Renault. It would be nice if other companies jump onto this train too, with a serious interest to showcase their knowledge about batteries and electric cars. (Or just an interest to burn some marketing dollars).

    It's a great idea to start off with the same car, but am happy that the teams can design their own cars in the next seasons. In all fairness, the cars still need a lot of improvement: the speed of the cars is too low.

    1. Re:Hoping for large industrial participation by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping large corporations get interested. Right now, I understand all cars are basically made by Renault.

      Renault is a major car manufacturers (with Nissan, which they control, #4 world wide), and a big player in motor sports.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  12. guys will race ANYthing by turkeydance · · Score: 1, Funny

    this proves it. i'm playing the race card, here.

  13. Fun fact by srussia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All the Formula E cars are charged using a single generator that uses glycerol as fuel.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Fun fact by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      You forgot the quotes over "fun".

    2. Re:Fun fact by monkeyxpress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the Formula E cars are charged using a single generator that uses glycerol as fuel.

      Don't forget the jumbo jets required to get these things between tracks. As with most motor racing, the fuel used in the cars during the race is really the least of the environmental problems.

    3. Re:Fun fact by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you really think they were racing electric cars so the races polluted less? That's the only way your statement makes any sense. If you'd bother to read anything about this, they are hoping to use the developments and insights gleaned from Formula E engineering in production cars. The environmental savings are further down the line, when the technology is sitting outside your house.

      I know it's fun to moan about environmentalism, but when you miss the point entirely, the only thing that gets wounded is your reputation. Like just now. Ouch.

    4. Re:Fun fact by srussia · · Score: 1

      You forgot the quotes over "fun".

      I'll put them in as soon as Slashdot does the same for News for "Nerds".

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    5. Re:Fun fact by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 1

      Also "news".

    6. Re:Fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the Formula E cars are charged using a single generator that uses glycerol as fuel.

      Don't forget the jumbo jets required to get these things between tracks. As with most motor racing, the fuel used in the cars during the race is really the least of the environmental problems.

      Not only that, but the fuel in the trucks driving the cars to and from the airports. Taxi service to/from the airport/hotel/track for the drivers and pit crews. You've also got to consider every car that was used to drive the audience to the track. Blimps flying over head. Food/beer vendor trucks. Hell, even the people watching at home need electricity for their TV sets, so now you also have to add in how much coal was burned to generate that electricity, on top of the gasoline those generation plant employees burned getting to work. Now you have to add in the fuel costs of the entire automobile manufacturing industry, considering all of the shipping of parts and materials.

      What a friggin' waste.

  14. So racing has come down to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me this kind of racing reminds me of the toy electric race cars I had as a kid. Throw some batteries in them and go. No real engineering feet in designing and assembling a fossil fuel burner or adjusting those carbs or tweaking the timing. Not to mention the loss of the roar of engines, the smell of horsepower and the connection you get from that experience. I guess the "green" people will love the electric race car experience. Is their enough of them to keep alive a electric racing series? That's the question.

  15. Another spec class. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Formula E's largely a joke in the motorsport fraternity. The technology choice isn't a (short or long-term) response to a specific question (regulatory wise) in a competitive environment.
    It's a contrived enterprise, with immature - albeit improving, as a result of the exercise - technology.

    A lot motorsport's traditional appeal is competition on both sporting and engineering terms.

    Formula E is unfortunately, like most other modern classes, a vastly spec undertaking (regulations dictate either use of component/s of specific make/model, or restrict design such that part difference (between competitors) is negligible (see: diminishing returns), forbidden, or for-the-sake-of).

    Claiming the class is at the forefront of electrical-automotive progress (even in a motorsport-specific setting) is pretty disingenuous when it's an 'all-electric' spec series by design, with COTS components largely developed elsewhere, regulated to a sufficiency level that removes all of the (im)practicalities which make motorsport worthwhile as an engineering pursuit.

    Granted, the present regulatory settings are a stability mechanism, and they've committed to relenting a little on engine regulation in the future.
    It's still largely stale in regulatory terms. No marque has more than a proxy toe in the water for that reason.

    While the navel-gazing and politicking occurs elsewhere, the WEC's bearing space-race-esque prototype efforts from Audi, Porsche, Toyota, and Nissan - all with wildly varying designs, hybrid drive trains, in just about every capacity - that match (or beat by orders of magnitude) their predecessor designs in pace and efficiency terms.

    ACO regs racing (see: Le Mans, WEC, Le Mans Series) is the last bastion of automotive competition engineering (at least on four wheels), and that now only applies to the WEC prototype classes in any legitimate sense.
    The FIA (and certain other national bodies) have bastardised everything else to the point of political/personality sporting.

    There's certainly a golden age of competition development occurring. Although it isn't in Formula E.

    Cheers, JB

    1. Re:Another spec class. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Formula E's largely a joke in the motorsport fraternity."

      'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'

      Mahatma Gandhi

    2. Re:Another spec class. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheers, JB

      People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You just worry about your Honda power unit, Jenson.

    3. Re:Another spec class. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not at all about that; it's aobut the approach they're taking. There's no argument that electric racing can be successful and can lead to technology innovations, it's just that this series appears to have ignored all of the positive lessons learned, and picked everything crippling from the real racing series, without appealing to the NASCAR crowd. It's not a Formula-1 engineering challenge, it's not a NASCAR loud and crashing series, it's not a more educated pit-crew and team strategy game that NASCAR is really about v.s. what they advertise, and it's not the fun and cheap AHRA type racing. It's got everything boring from F-1, everything sophisticated from NASCAR and everything professional from AHRA.

      A successful approach is much more likely to be a motorcycle drag or short course, at the AHRA budget, with good camera angles.

  16. Crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How deadly are these cars in a crash? The explosive power of batteries is not to be underestimated. Could a crash create a circuit that could electrocute someone?

    1. Re:Crashes by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "How deadly are these cars in a crash?"

      Nobody ever died. In the 'normal' F1, they had 50 fatal accidents 'til this day.

    2. Re:Crashes by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Comparing the safety of a formula that is weeks old and one that is over 90 years old by comparing total fatalities is laughable.

      No driver has died in an actual F1 race/qualifying since 1994. Cars have changed, circuits have been taken off the calendar for safety reasons. Accidents still happen, but it's nonsense to compare the safety of today with how F1 was in the time of Senna or Lauda.

    3. Re:Crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How deadly are these cars in a crash?

      They seem pretty safe to me.

  17. Engine noise serves no purpose by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.

    Why? Seriously, why? What does that have to do with the outcome of the race? More noise != faster car. More noise != better engineering. More noise != better driving. Loud engines are a second order effect from trying to get horsepower from internal combustion engines but it isn't important to making a faster car. The noise serves no useful purpose at all and I simply do not comprehend the entertainment value in going deaf from needlessly loud engines.

    The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.

    So basically you are telling me that you don't give a rip about the actual auto racing or the engineering involved. You just want a bunch of guys revving their engines loudly with no actual purpose which they could do in a parking lot. [sarcasm] Boy that sounds really exciting... [/sarcasm]

    1. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has to do with enjoying the sport.
      The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
      There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.

      As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Why? Seriously, why? What does that have to do with the outcome of the race?

      What does the outcome of the race have to do with the enjoyment? You're not racing. What do you care who wins? They're doing it completely and totally without you. Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So make the vroom vroom noises yourself - the rest of the world can carry on and embrace the new technology, and you can still have your car noises.

    4. Re: Engine noise serves no purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why every airplane has such a good muffler system, since it takes nothing away from the performance of the engine.

    5. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It has to do with enjoying the sport.
      The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
      There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.

      As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.

      Or maybe it's conditioning, you were brought up going to races and hearing the roar of engines, so you expect it. But someone that is brought up going to relatively quiet e-races may find the noise to be too loud.

    6. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      What do you care who wins? They're doing it completely and totally without you. Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.

      Some athletes will admit that they don't do "completely and totally without you". For a lot of athletes, it's far more enjoyable to play the game with 20,000 people cheering them on than it is to play in an empty arena. I don't know if it's quite as common in professional sports, but I've seen numerous college athletes acknowledge the fans and say how much they appreciate the support.

    7. Re:Engine noise serves no purpose by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The same could be said about somebody "conditioned" to associate the e-racing noises with racing and I might well learn to enjoy the sound of e-racing. But right now, I don't.
      I was merely stating my taste, to add a different point on view on the topic of noise, then sjbe went full retard about it.
      It's like demanding somebody to justify their taste in music or food.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re: Engine noise serves no purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor dork doesn't get rock and roll either.

  18. this will flop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most fans of racing will not be interested in watching this.

    1. Re:this will flop by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      Then perhaps they're not really a fan of racing as such, but a fan of noise and foul odors.

      For those people, there's always going to be monster truck rallies.
      =Smidge=

  19. Formula One is (sadly) really boring to watch by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.

    Formula One has been boring for a loooong time, at least to me. It's basically an engineering arms race between 2-4 teams with little visibility into the actual engineering going on. Cost to field a team with a prayer of winning is between $1/5-1/2 Billion per year. If you aren't driving for one of the few blessed teams with outrageously large budgets, you have almost zero chance to win no matter how good the driver happens to be. Drivers at the back of the field are basically competing to move to one of the few teams with a hope of actually winning a race.

    Formula One cars are absolutely amazing pieces of engineering but there is so much secrecy surrounding the engineering that it's hard to enjoy any of it if you are a geek. And the engineering is the actually interesting part of F1. The races are something close to a parade with the order mostly shuffled by mechanical breakdowns. Passes are so damned rare that people get super excited when one actually occurs for a reason other than car performance. The actual Formula One racing is unbelievably boring to watch. Don't get me wrong, I think it is more interesting than NASCAR's demolition derby but I'm damning with faint praise here.

    Personally the most interesting driving to watch from my perspective is Rally car racing, specifically stage rallies. The engineering arms race issue is still alive and well but at least the driving is interesting to watch and the cars have some vague resemblance to something I might drive.

  20. How to make a small fortune in auto racing by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people".

    Then you have clearly not been to a Formula One race. With NASCAR you are quite correct.

    But that is just the spectators. If you want to actually race at anything more than your local junker car level, auto racing is hugely expensive. There is an old joke that the best way to make a small fortune in auto racing is to start with a large one.

    1. Re:How to make a small fortune in auto racing by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people".

      Then you have clearly not been to a Formula One race. With NASCAR you are quite correct.

      But that is just the spectators.

      You are confusing the people visiting the pits with the spectators. Does this look "rich" to you?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  21. Peak of technology? Not so fast by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Formula 1 is the high point of automotive racing technology.

    Drive a Formula One car on anything other than an exquisitely paved road and let me know how that works out for you. Fancy a wager on how a F1 car would do against a Rally car on an unpaved road? Let's see a F1 car race a 24 hour race. How about a drag race? Peak of technology? Only for a subset of auto racing conditions.

  22. No holds barred racing is dull by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I would like to see a "no holds barred" race, where you could enter anything from a teenager on a skateboard with a jet pack, to the Mammoth Car.

    No you really wouldn't. Trust me. Then it becomes a contest based on the size of the wallet. F1 is boring for precisely this reason. There are a small handful of teams at the top with huge budgets that have a prayer of winning and the rest are basically competing to try to get on one of those teams. Furthermore you run into some very serious safety problems. The goal is to race and win and maybe do some good engineering along the way, not to design the most elaborate way to earn a Darwin Award.

  23. Why people care about sports by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What does the outcome of the race have to do with the enjoyment?

    Ask any fan of their local NFL team what the outcome of the game has to do with the enjoyment of said game. The answer will be the same. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion and nobody cares who actually wins then what is the point of a contest?

    You're not racing. What do you care who wins?

    If no one cares who wins then nobody will bother coming to watch and there will be no race and certainly no business surrounding the race. Racing is a competitive sport and whether you comprehend it or not, people cheering for their favorite team/player(s) matters for the economics of the whole thing to work.

    Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.

    So you truly have no comprehension of what makes sports popular do you? It's PRECISELY the fact that people think of these teams as "their team". It's why they say "we" when referring to their team even if they do not actually work for the team. People WANT to be a part of a team, even if they are just fans. Professional sports ignore this at their peril.

    1. Re:Why people care about sports by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So you truly have no comprehension of what makes sports popular do you? It's PRECISELY the fact that people think of these teams as "their team".

      I like motorsports because I like motorsports, I don't care about any particular team. It's thrilling just to see it. That's what's great about stuff like world rally.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Why people care about sports by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      I think watching cars go in circles for hours is kind of boring. Excitement is when people crash (often terrifying) and a little less so when there is a pit stop. But mostly it is just boring. It isn't thrilling at all.

      I know racing has helped engineering in cars over the years, and honestly, that is probably the best thing that can be said about racing. So, I support forcing racing to newer technology, improving technology.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Why people care about sports by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think watching cars go in circles for hours is kind of boring.

      So uh, don't watch NASCAR? Even they have two races per year (or so) worth watching... they turn in both directions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Noise should have a purpose by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.

    Again, WHY? I get that people like it, I just cannot comprehend why. I've been to plenty of auto races and have to bring earplugs when I do. The sound does NOT enhance the experience for me and engine noises are not beautiful, not matter what Jeremy Clarkston claims. For the same reason I fail to understand the appeal of Harley Davidson motorcycles that are pointlessly loud and obnoxious. If there is no actual useful primary purpose to the noise (like music), then it is nothing but pollution.

    There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.

    There are numerous purposes to racing and sporting events. Entertainment and money not the least among them. Sports (auto and otherwise) are hugely popular and are big business. They are substantial parts of our economy and of people's lives. The purpose is to be entertained and for some to make a living doing it.

    Attacking pointless noise is "inane"? We're going to disagree on that. I'm well aware that many people like it but lots of people like all sorts of things that probably should go away. People like big hits in football but the side effect is concussions and permanent brain damage. People (inexplicably) like noisy cars but it's needlessly obnoxious and polluting.

    1. Re: Noise should have a purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I absolutely hate the sounds of cheering crowds at concerts as it takes away from the music for me. But there are a lot of people that like it enough to actually purchase live performance tracks as it adds to the atmosphere for them.

      I don't fault people for they just because of my own opinion and preferences. Why should you?

    2. Re:Noise should have a purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will probably never understand why.

      There are people in the world who like haggis, the rest of us find it revolting. Some people hate music. There is no explaining this to them.

      In this analogy, you are the music hating haggis lover. Your tastes are in the minority, and no amount of explaining will ever be sufficient to change your mind or make you really understand why.

      I watched the first Formula E race, and it was far less exciting without the noise, with the exception Prost's "like father, like son" move before the last corner. It was like a ballet without the music, or a silent movie. Nothing I really cared to watch again.

    3. Re:Noise should have a purpose by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      At this point people who can think have decided that you are either being argumentative for the purpose of trolling or you are such a shallow thinker as to have effectively no ability to think on your own.

      This is the point in the conversation where you want to quit and give up.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Noise should have a purpose by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It has to do with enjoying the sport. The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.

      Again, WHY? I get that people like it, I just cannot comprehend why.

      The same goes for the actual sport actually - just because you don't like $SUBJECTIVE_THING does not mean that it is unreasonable for others to like $SUBJECTIVE_THING. Of course, $SUBJECTIVE_THING in this case is "noises made by powerful combustion engines", but it raises the question of why you see no reason for people to get enjoyment from "noises made by combustion engines" but you seem to see the reason for "watching cars go around a lap for an hour". After all, they're both equally without reason and yet you only question one of them?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  25. Technology can beat driving skill... sometimes by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Are you really going to argue that your average driver with electronic assist is quicker than a racing driver without?

    Which "average" are you comparing against? If you are comparing me (an average non-racing driver) to an F-1 driver then no, the electronic assist won't matter. If you are comparing and average F1 driver to the best F1 drivers then chances are it will very much make a difference because the differences in their skill levels are quite small. Even an average F1 driver is astonishingly talented and the gap between middle of the pack and the front in driving skill is easily overwhelmed by technology.

    It's just another technological advancement banished from racing for nothing more than "reasons".

    I suspect they've put a tad more thought into it than that. The reasons may or may not be good ones but they didn't just do it for grins and giggles.

  26. streaming issues anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    might seem outta place but had a question about watching the races. Im gonna be on the road for a while and don't wanna miss the upcoming races. found http://www.slideshare.net/OfficialPureVPN/channel-list when i was looking for streaming options. anybody know of vpns and how they work? worth the money?

  27. Perhaps that's not what they meant to prove? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    If the racing guys can't figure out how to give electric cars a reasonable range with their budgets and top-end engineering skills, then no, electric cars are NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

    Besides, WTF is this:
    "...Although power is limited to 150 kW during the race, three drivers are actually able to use 180 kW for up to five seconds. This is called the FanBoost, as fans vote online for their favorite drivers in the hours before the race. This extra slug of energy can come in handy to overtake or defend against a rival, although obviously it will drain the battery even faster than normal...."
    This is absolutely idiotic. It would be like fans voting which batter can take an extra strike, or if a team gets an extra down in (American) football. Who comes up with this crap?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Perhaps that's not what they meant to prove? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      All sporting contests have arbitrary limits. Why ten pins in bowling instead of 9? Why is an American football field 100 yards long instead of 120? Soccer field sizes can vary, but within limits. In general, the rules make the sport. And rules change over time. Both football and baseball have updated rules to make the games more appealing to audiences and improve safety. F-1 and NASCAR have equipment limitations which change to keep up with technology. In this case, the rule you decry is only to add spectator involvement, something that is now possible with today's technology and seen as highly desirable by the folks fronting the money to promote this sport. Stop complaining about what makes a sport a sport, as opposed to a bunch of people getting together to do something random.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:Perhaps that's not what they meant to prove? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Nonsense rationalization.
      Part of what makes a sport a sport is the consistency of competition.
      Do you see Germany playing with different-sized soccer goals than Brazil? Do you see Finnish hockey played with golf clubs? To use your example, do you change the number of pins based on the bowler?

      Of course not. The idea would be absurd.

      To then put the rules and standards at the whim of the populace is crass and ridiculous, tantamount to making a motor-race more like a racing version America's Got Talent where 'viewer votes' materially affect the outcome.

      Let's say Danica Patrick joins the ePrix. She promises to drive topless if she wins the vote, and does, beating the next-best driver by 0.05 seconds. Did she win because she was a better driver, then? Or because she had tits and was willing to show them? Maybe Kim Kardashian could join the next race and really make it competitive?

      I don't know about you, but I'm frankly uninterested in any 'sporting' contest in which the victor is decided by who prompts more slavering fans to call in. That's no longer a "sport" but merely "celebrity".

      --
      -Styopa
  28. OK I get WHY (push e-tech), by jpellino · · Score: 1

    I get HOW (like IROC) and I get WHAT (spectator interest + industry money) but the BLASTED THINGS SOUND LIKE MY OLD SLOT CARS!

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  29. I wouldn't worry about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the Formula E cars are charged using a single generator that uses glycerol as fuel.

    It's nothing to get too charged up over. I think that I read somewhere that it was infused with solar energy.

  30. Right thing the wrong way by hhammermill · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who thinks this is the right thing done the wrong way? All cars the same? Swap cars at pit-stop time? There is an opportunity here for competition through racing to push the envelope on what is possible in electric cars; why is it effectively being wasted? It was racing that helped perfect the gasoline car; heck Lois Chevrolet was a racer and Henry Ford did his fair share of racing.

    Looking at the SRT_01E stats I think a stock Tesla P85D *family sedan* would actually have a chance against it!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-Renault_SRT_01E

    If recharge time were part of the race a P85D would likely murder a SRT_01E with a battery swap.

    This is the type of innovation that should be encouraged in races; not discouraged by using only one make and model of vehicle and creating silly rules to make up for its inadequacy!

  31. eprix for epricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rich douchebags have a hobby. News at 11.

  32. We can barely hear the engines over the yawns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can barely hear the engines over the yawns. This year's small turbo engines sound completely lackluster; the exhaust note is low, flat and the engines are relatively low rpm. *Yawn* Burbling V8's? The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I can understand if he is excited about the E class but the facts are facts and there is nothing like the sound of the shrieking, old high rpm v-10's and 12's. And KER's? It's nothing but a green ploy and has nothing to do with lapping a race in the least amount of time. The number don't lie; energy recovery for electric boost cannot make up for the weight that it adds. The rest of the car is compromised to make it work. Make no mistake about it there is nothing superior about E over F1. Nothing. When E class overtakes F1 as the premier class in the world, that's when I stop going to gran prix races.

  33. "the smell of horsepower" by dtmos · · Score: 1

    Manure?

  34. No way to stream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are serious about this sport why are they dependent on antiquated technology like Cable and Satellite providers. I thought the whole reason behind this sport was to push technology forward. I suspect the people who would appreciate the bleeding edge technology of the sport are also the people who appreciate bleeding edge technology in other fields such as media. And frankly the era of cable TV is dead. I won't be watching Formula E until I can stream it for a reasonable price.

    1. Re:No way to stream? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      http://fiaformulae.com/en/live...

      You're welcome.
      =Smidge=