×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nissan Unveils 88 Pound 400-HP Race Car Engine

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the packs-a-punch dept.

Transportation 239

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

239 comments

For the non USA people (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086181)

39.9kG

For the USA people (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086193)

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

Re:For the USA people (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46087123)

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 non USA people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086233)

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

Re:For the non USA people (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 3 months ago | (#46086291)

400hp = about 300kW

Re:For the non USA people (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46086433)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086585)

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

Re:For the non USA people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086601)

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.

Samzenpus headline (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | about 3 months ago | (#46086211)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086395)

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 (5, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 months ago | (#46086557)

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 (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#46086647)

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 (3, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 months ago | (#46086733)

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 (5, Interesting)

petsounds (593538) | about 3 months ago | (#46087111)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] at Monaco) forced the FIA to mandate new safety features, such as requiring wings on the cars.

Re:Samzenpus headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46087329)

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

Re:Samzenpus headline (2)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 3 months ago | (#46086595)

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 (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46086665)

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 (3, Interesting)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 3 months ago | (#46086915)

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 (3, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46086943)

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 (3, Funny)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 3 months ago | (#46087129)

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 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46087405)

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 (3, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46087015)

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 (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 3 months ago | (#46087067)

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

Rod Millen won the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in his Toyota Celica [gtplanet.net]. 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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086661)

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.

This engine will make my cock 6 times larger. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086213)

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. (4, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 3 months ago | (#46086319)

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. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086381)

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

Re:This engine will make my cock 6 times larger. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46086413)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086701)

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.

Turbo diesel with generators rather than a gearbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086215)

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

Re:Turbo diesel with generators rather than a gear (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#46086321)

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

Sure, but what about (2)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 3 months ago | (#46086221)

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 (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46086405)

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 (4, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | about 3 months ago | (#46086411)

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 (3, Interesting)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46086679)

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 (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | about 3 months ago | (#46086475)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086651)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086759)

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 (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 3 months ago | (#46087069)

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

momkind reveals new clear options again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086225)

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 (5, Interesting)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 3 months ago | (#46086249)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086355)

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

Re:Series hybrids (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086357)

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

Gas turbine + alternator = small stringed instrument?

Re:Series hybrids (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#46087317)

... 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 (2)

M0HCN (2981905) | about 3 months ago | (#46086365)

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 (2)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 3 months ago | (#46086419)

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 (2)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 3 months ago | (#46086485)

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 (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#46087523)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086549)

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

Joe

Re:Series hybrids (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#46086697)

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 (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46087049)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46087145)

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.

88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086289)

ISO pleassssse

88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086383)

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? (1)

alvinrod (889928) | about 3 months ago | (#46087191)

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.

Re:88 pounds = 39.9161286 kilograms (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 3 months ago | (#46087375)

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

88 pounds = 40 kg.

Is it really 88 pounds? (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46086333)

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.

Race car (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#46086387)

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

Re:Race car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086457)

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 (1)

dprimary (215604) | about 3 months ago | (#46086483)

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.

Absolutely zero emissions (4, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 3 months ago | (#46086407)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086609)

Because marketing people.

Re:Absolutely zero emissions (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46086713)

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 (1)

_Ludwig (86077) | about 3 months ago | (#46087267)

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 (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46087397)

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

Re:Absolutely zero emissions (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46087413)

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 [motorauthority.com]] 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 (1)

msauve (701917) | about 3 months ago | (#46086803)

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.

More competition (2)

symes (835608) | about 3 months ago | (#46086417)

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 (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46086721)

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

Electric motors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086423)

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 (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46086753)

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 (3, Insightful)

ebonum (830686) | about 3 months ago | (#46086503)

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 (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 months ago | (#46086553)

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 (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 3 months ago | (#46086667)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46086811)

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

Re:Thought Experiment (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 3 months ago | (#46086755)

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.

No great feat... (1)

oic0 (1864384) | about 3 months ago | (#46086513)

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... (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 3 months ago | (#46086779)

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.)

Ferrari F1 (4, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about 3 months ago | (#46086579)

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... [ferrari.com]

Technology marches on.

Battery weight? (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about 3 months ago | (#46086673)

Nissan Unveils 88 Pound 400-HP Race Car Engine

How about battery weight that drives this semi electric beast?

Absolutely zero emission? (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | about 3 months ago | (#46086939)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46087353)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...