New engine changes for 2011

[veeten]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67824

Looks like a possible move from 3.4 L V8 engines and towards 4 or 6 cylinder turbo engines. Honda will supply present engines for the next few years, but want competition when changes come along.

[Andrewmcm]

Sounds sensible; I can't imagine too many manufacturers would want to enter with the current regulations, as they'd be on a hiding to nothing with Honda having so many more years or experience with the formula.

I'm sure a sensible new engine formula for 2011 that had significant potential for R&D would be attractive to several engine makers, particularly if the cost was a fraction of, say, F1 development.

[champcarray]

2011? Ugh. That's a long wait...

I don't see how introducing 4 or 6 cylinder turbocharged engine equals environmentally concious racing. It seems to meet that engine manufacturers need to address two issues: using non-oil-based energy sources AND emitting fewer particulates and dangerous molecules into the atmosphere.

[Mad_Hatter]

So they'll have the new car in 2010 and new engine formula in 2011?

[dataman1]

When a similar thread a few months ago hit this topic, I suggested and still feel that the ICS should invite the manufacturers to a conference to see where the manufacturers are heading. If that means 4 cylinder diesels or electric motors, let the manufacturers drive the decision. Then write the rules to support that decision. The only way to get buy in from manufacturers is to show them how they win with their investment in racing. Advertising by its self is not good enough in today's economy. They need the series to be their testing grounds. The series needs more manufacturers. This can be a win for both sides.

Mad_Hatter makes a good point. Seems to be a conflict in dates.

[JSH]

I don't see how introducing 4 or 6 cylinder turbocharged engine equals environmentally concious racing.

A turbo 6-cylinder uses less fuel than a V8 for the same power.

Engine "downsizing" is one way for the US automakers to reach the new CAFE targets for fuel economy.

The idea is to give the consumer similar power and torque with a smaller turbo charged engine than a big v8.

[DBell]

So they'll have the new car in 2010 and new engine formula in 2011?

I'm thinking the new engine in 2011 also means don't expect a new chassis before 2011 either. Looking like status quo for another 2 years.

[Chamoo]

I'm thinking the new engine in 2011 also means don't expect a new chassis before 2011 either. Looking like status quo for another 2 years.

Yay! :(

[usgrandprix]

When a similar thread a few months ago hit this topic, I suggested and still feel that the ICS should invite the manufacturers to a conference to see where the manufacturers are heading.

That's exactly what they are doing in June and hopefully ongoing from there. And according to Honda, they are all for it:

Erik Berkman, president of HPD, located in Santa Clarita, CA. "...We are delighted by the League's decision to welcome automotive manufacturers to Indianapolis next month. We look forward to the continued growth of IndyCar racing, and potential participation by additional engine manufacturers."

As far as the chassis/engine timing, nothing is set in stone. I'm sure they'll be worked on hand in hand.

Cottman or someone has a lot of work cut out for them and I do not envy them. Imagine trying to work out specs with a few rival manufacturers, without anybody throwing a fit, and THEN making it happen with a chassis manufacturer and engine builders...all while making it as safe as the Dallara has proven to be. Oh yeah, and it has to be exciting on superspeedways, road courses, bullrings, and street courses.

I hope they have the right people on this.

[Chamoo]

Cottman or someone has a lot of work cut out for them and I do not envy them. Imagine trying to work out specs with a few rival manufacturers, without anybody throwing a fit, and THEN making it happen with a chassis manufacturer and engine builders...all while making it as safe as the Dallara has proven to be. Oh yeah, and it has to be exciting on superspeedways, road courses, bullrings, and street courses.

I'm happy one of the people that will be doing the job is Cotman as he is the best suited for it. If anyone can make this work, and convince TG that more then one chassis manufacturer should be involved, its Cotman.

[Bob Riebe]

A turbo 6-cylinder uses less fuel than a V8 for the same power.

Engine "downsizing" is one way for the US automakers to reach the new CAFE targets for fuel economy.

The idea is to give the consumer similar power and torque with a smaller turbo charged engine than a big v8.
The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

[usgrandprix]

I think Tony knows this is out of his league (no pun intended). I just hope he hires the right people and then keeps the principals happy. That's been the formula when they have gotten things right--such as addressing the flying cars and the the quick adaptation to road courses.

Another thing that will limit the options here is that it all needs to be affordable to the D&Rs and Dale Coynes. The sky is not the limit. They also need to be as reliable as the current spec, becasue the days of sponsors not being able to rely on an engine are long gone.

I'm not so down on the current spec as some, but there is room for improvement and if manufacturer collaboration will help the sport, I'm all for seeing what these guys will committ to.

[Nethead]

The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

Bob Riebe: A short while ago I sent you two PMs in response to your last PM reply. I hadta send two because there is a 5000 character limit on motorsportforums e-Mails--and the character count of the initial e-Mail plus the character counts of all subsequent replies apparently deduct from that 5000. So I split the e-Mail in two, cutting and pasting the latter half into a second e-Mail. To preserve your 5000 characters as much as possible, send fresh e-Mails, or delete already-read stuff from earlier replies before you begin typing your current reply, as I did.

I'm off to check out ten-tenths if I can find the correct address for that site.

The Nethead here

[spiritone]

Hmm! Turbo motors, new chassis, more road courses. Sounds like champ car with a different owner.

[JSH]

The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

oh oh... I better tell my customers that we've got it all wrong... the dyno data must be lying.

[Breeze]

The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

Quite true that in auto racing good fuel economy has not been the primary focus of development. For auto manufacturers, small displacement engines which produce good power and polute less (net, net) and deliver better economy are the future.

For all the desire for an economical, i.e. fuel efficient, engine Americans still don't want to sacrifice POWER! So far, they haven't been able to have it both ways, but that is changing. Witness the EPA economy ratings for the NA 2.4L Pontiac Solstice rated @ 166HP and its GXP version, a 2.0L direct injected turbo cranking out 260HP. The turbo GXP actually delivers better highway numbers and same city numbers! http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

With the fuel crunch on, CAFE standards getting tighter and the public moving away from large displacement, small displacement turbo engines are the logical solution. As ever, top tier racing is a great venue for showcasing your technology. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

I can definitely see Ford, even GM, maybe even BMW or VW getting involved. I only wonder if some sort of hybrid system will be part of the package, or will they just stick to renewable fuels?

[BenRoethig]

Hmm! Turbo motors, new chassis, more road courses. Sounds like champ car with a different owner.

No, it sounds like CART.

[BenRoethig]

I can definitely see Ford, even GM, maybe even BMW or VW getting involved. I only wonder if some sort of hybrid system will be part of the package, or will they just stick to renewable fuels?

Ford definitely if Indycar racing can be applicable to development of their ecoboost engines.

[Bob Riebe]

oh oh... I better tell my customers that we've got it all wrong... the dyno data must be lying.
OH yes dyno figures, I know they are identical to what an engine goes through in a vehicle, absolutely the same.

Hmmm, in the Popular Hot Rodding engine master dyno-champion series, they were using 13:1 compression ratios on 91 octane street gasoline, I guess that makes that combo the perfect set-up for street or track, huh?

[JSH]

OH yes dyno figures, I know they are identical to what an engine goes through in a vehicle, absolutely the same.

Hmmm, in the Popular Hot Rodding engine master dyno-champion series, they were using 13:1 compression ratios on 91 octane street gasoline, I guess that makes that combo the perfect set-up for street or track, huh?

I'm talking about production intent engines being tested to SAE standards on OEM dynos.

Obviously, guys tweaking things to get numbers for some hot rod mag are irrelevant to this discussion.

Maybe I was unclear in my original comments but it looks as if Breeze understands what my point was.

Now it's Friday afternoon, so open a cold one and relax. :)

[veeten]

The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

Ah, good ol' Bob. Nice to see he hasn't changed. Much. :p :

[Breeze]

In the US, Volkswagen offers a 2.0L turbo 4 in the Golf GLI @ 3,200 lb cur weight. It makes 200 HP. They offer a 2.5L NA I5 in the Jetta @ 3,200 lb curb weight. It makes 170 HP. They have the same EPA Fuel Economy estimates.

Modern engine management, fuel injection and turbocharger systems can and do make more power from smaller displacement at equal fuel consumption rates.

There are many more examples in the marketplace. Why more manufacturers aren't simply downsizing engines to equal the output of their NA offerings with BETTER fuel economy escapes me. It must have something to do with ignorance and misperception of the buying public. :dozey:

[Yankee Racer]

I'm satisfied. They have to do this to get manufactures, since they seem to be hung up over making auto racing road car relevant, and no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder.

Anything that brings more variety in the engines/manufactures is a good thing. I say bring it on!

Now, when's the meeting where Dallara, Panoz, Zytek, Creation, Swift, etc discuss the 2010 chassis? Come on, IRL, we deserve a multi-chassis series!

[!!WALDO!!]

I'm satisfied. They have to do this to get manufactures, since they seem to be hung up over making auto racing road car relevant, and no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder.

Anything that brings more variety in the engines/manufactures is a good thing. I say bring it on!

Now, when's the meeting where Dallara, Panoz, Zytek, Creation, Swift, etc discuss the 2010 chassis? Come on, IRL, we deserve a multi-chassis series!


You bring up a Catch-22 situation. Can a series with 30 cars support 5 chassis and engine suppliers? 6 Chassis/Engines per supplier is not enough to pay the bills. In the heyday Lola sold over 50 Chassis per year. Here with cost restrictions it would be 18. So 3 is about the limit of Chassis and Engines unless you get 45 cars then your number can go up.
Many are not concerned with the finances but without them making money then there is no involvement. They must look at it and make a decision before the first car is ever built if this is going to work. Most will get cold feet and the coldest feet will come from the Motor City. Those guys got turned off from anything other than badging after Turbos were not banned in 1967 for 1970.
USAC, Devin and the IRL worked a plan with GM that once 100 Auroras were made then GM made money and all they did was sell the parts. It worked but the Infiniti program failed. Once Toyota and Honda came in the program starting coughing money in large hunks and the eventually got out.
I doubt GM will climb back in unless the field is leveled, same is true for Ford or Chrysler.

Just something to think about.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Bob Riebe]

In the US, Volkswagen offers a 2.0L turbo 4 in the Golf GLI @ 3,200 lb cur weight. It makes 200 HP. They offer a 2.5L NA I5 in the Jetta @ 3,200 lb curb weight. It makes 170 HP. They have the same EPA Fuel Economy estimates.

Modern engine management, fuel injection and turbocharger systems can and do make more power from smaller displacement at equal fuel consumption rates.

There are many more examples in the marketplace. Why more manufacturers aren't simply downsizing engines to equal the output of their NA offerings with BETTER fuel economy escapes me. It must have something to do with ignorance and misperception of the buying public. :dozey:
Because people who haul and tow things need torque. Many states in the US are bigger than european countries and unlike what euros think, driving here does not revolve around fwd econo-boxes.
There are a number of four banger and six popper cars out there with respectable performance but they do not have the image or power curve of a large displacement engine.

Now when you are speaking of Indianapolis, there is a reason that the Offy was not replaced with new four bangers, or why the Ilmore push-rod V-8 was not a push-rod V-6.
If four or six cylinders were so great they would have become dominant easily.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm satisfied. ... no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder

WOW--that is the exact thing I heard in auto mechanics in the mid-seventies.
They REALLY got that one right.

Bob

[Breeze]

Because people who haul and tow things need torque....

Now when you are speaking of Indianapolis, there is a reason that the Offy was not replaced with new four bangers, or why the Ilmore push-rod V-8 was not a push-rod V-6.
If four or six cylinders were so great they would have become dominant easily.
There will always be a need for large displacement engines, no doubt. For manufacturers such as GM, Ford and Dodge who do both trucks and passenger cars, the big haulers are the important in terms of corporate profits, but in terms of sheer numbers, passenger cars outsell.

For that segment, fuel economy is a growing concern. For both segments clean emissions is a concern. The focus has changed from 10-20 years ago and the engines in cars sold in the US will have to be smaller and more fuel efficient without sacrificing the power that Americans demand. Racing is a nice way for a manufacturer to demonstrate their technology and ability to deliver on that promise.

With respect to the changes in engines from the old Offy 4, etc, I'm sure WALDO would be happy to educate us all on the reasons. Incidentally, the 30 some odd year old Offy design was still among the most capable of Indy Car engines when it was "retired". It has been dominant to competitive for a long, long time.

And, for what its worth, the GM Ecotec 2.0L turbo 4 puts down more torque over a wider RPM range than GM's global "state of the art" 3.6L DOHC V6. The VW turbo also makes more torque than the 2.5l NA engine. Torque is not something turbocharged engines have ever really lacked. Yes to NA, but not turbo.

As far as our racing series is concerned, a wide torque band is most important for road and street racing vs oval. With current a leading edge technology small displacement turbo 4's can deliver on that promise. I expect that formula to be the furture for these reasons.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

It seems to meet that engine manufacturers need to address two issues: using non-oil-based energy sources AND emitting fewer particulates and dangerous molecules into the atmosphere.

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

[Ranger]

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

Renewable energy.

[ShiftingGears]

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

Renewable energy.

[Chamoo]

You bring up a Catch-22 situation. Can a series with 30 cars support 5 chassis and engine suppliers?

Your exactly right. 5 chassis and engine suppliers is too much at the moment. Right now, we are at 27 full time cars. That number is set to rise with Luczo Dragon and American Dream next season. Let's say that Waldo's numbers are correct and aside from Indy in 2009 and beyond, we run 30 cars. The maximum number of manufacturers and chassis suppliers is four I believe since Indy would bump up their numbers. I would settle for three suppliers of each, since there would be nine different chassis-engine combos available, and if we could add another tire manufacturer, we could have 18 combos available.

With 30 cars each race, there would be 10 cars per engine and chassis supplier approximately. Then add 2 or 3 cars a year at Indy. That means between backup cars and primary cars, each chassis manufacturer would be selling around 26 chassis for the first year, then include write offs and teams buying new cars to replace olds ones, and the chassis manufacturers are set. Three engine manufacturers should be able to work well with 10 full time team cars each, plus the one offs.

[Claus Hansen]

30 cars... Hmm, i dont think that there are even 24 cars full time next year, teams are running whitout sponsors, i dont think TG will pay for any cars / teams next year, he has won the war... ( this is not an anti merger thread ) So know he only cares if there are 33 cars at Indy, some teams are bound to dissapear, if we have to wait to 2011 whit new eniges, aka some else to pay the bills instead of TG for the teams... Champcar try to get a new cheaper car, but still have to merger with IRL, if a new chassis and engine come in to play, whitout cash from the manufactor, teams can afford running... And yes, am still angry for the loss of Derrick Walker in top line open wheels racing, he was a true racer and racefan...

[!!WALDO!!]

30 cars... Hmm, i dont think that there are even 24 cars full time next year, teams are running whitout sponsors, i dont think TG will pay for any cars / teams next year, he has won the war... ( this is not an anti merger thread ) So know he only cares if there are 33 cars at Indy, some teams are bound to dissapear, if we have to wait to 2011 whit new eniges, aka some else to pay the bills instead of TG for the teams... Champcar try to get a new cheaper car, but still have to merger with IRL, if a new chassis and engine come in to play, whitout cash from the manufactor, teams can afford running... And yes, am still angry for the loss of Derrick Walker in top line open wheels racing, he was a true racer and racefan...

Dead nutz on! 2 Suppliers

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

Renewable energy.


Renewable, yes but at what cost? The increase in grain prices due to the shift of arable land from food to energy crops? Careful what you wish for.

Gary

[fan-veteran]

I cannot see anything SO wrong with "spec car" IRL series - as they are now. This is the cheapest resolution, it is easily regulated, and all cars being practically the same makes racing closest possible.
Innovations - come on, it was the case decades ago when they need more speed. A decade ago however a limit was reached - it is simply not recommended to go faster (than 230mph). But the most important thing is that such innovations are of no advantage in serial production cars. It is a matter of very expensive technologies which are of course absurdity in mass production. IMO

[DrDomm]

Renewable, yes but at what cost? The increase in grain prices due to the shift of arable land from food to energy crops? Careful what you wish for.

Gary

It may cost much more money, but at least we'll have a planet to live on. Anyway, off topic...

[BenRoethig]

Renewable, yes but at what cost? The increase in grain prices due to the shift of arable land from food to energy crops? Careful what you wish for.

Gary

Corn isn't the only source of ethanol.

[Bob Riebe]

Corn isn't the only source of ethanol.
Yes but it is what the distilleries are set-up to use.
While listening to farm radio, a spokeman for the ethanol industry was taking questions and a women asked why they are not using sugar beets which give a greater return for less input and the spokemen said becasue the distilleries are set-up for corn and it would cost too much.

Well the women, a farmer, was not a tool, and said she had spoken with industry people and that with the subsidies and profit already made the change over could be made without jeporadizing the survival of the distillery quite easily, and the improved system would very quickly pay for itself.

The spolesman said well yes that is true but we would have halt production and then said a few more broken lines and then quikcly cut her off to the next question.

[Bob Riebe]

Corn isn't the only source of ethanol.
Yes but it is what the distilleries are set-up to use.
While listening to farm radio, a spokeman for the ethanol industry was taking questions and a women asked why they are not using sugar beets which give a greater return for less input and the spokemen said becasue the distilleries are set-up for corn and it would cost too much.

Well the women, a farmer, was not a tool, and said she had spoken with industry people and that with the subsidies and profit already made the change over could be made without jeporadizing the survival of the distillery quite easily, and the improved system would very quickly pay for itself.

The spolesman said well yes that is true but we would have halt production and then said a few more broken lines and then quikcly cut her off to the next question.

[garyshell]

Corn isn't the only source of ethanol.

I agree, but unfortunately corn is what our current industry and government subsidy programs are focusing on. Cellulose based production ought to be at the forefront.

Gary

[garyshell]

It may cost much more money, but at least we'll have a planet to live on. Anyway, off topic...


I think it IS on topic with the engines. Corn based ethanol is not going to do a thing toward saving our planet. The amount of petroleum used to produce a gallon of ethanol is a net LOSS not a net gain. Factor in the fertilizer and fuel needed to plant, maintain, harvest, transport and convert corn to ethanol and you use more oil than you conserve. We've been feed a bill of goods on corn based ethanol.

Now if you look at OTHER sources for ethanol the story is VERY different. The answer is NOT corn.

Gary

[ShiftingGears]

Renewable, yes but at what cost? The increase in grain prices due to the shift of arable land from food to energy crops? Careful what you wish for.

Gary

Well considering that without sustainable energy society won't have functioning machinery to plow the crops, and functioning logistics to supply the food, I think it would be a compromise worth making.

[BenRoethig]

No, but arable land is the only source. And that's the rub. Unless you want to cut down the rest of the rain forests, and just about everything else, to grow crops.

Nope. Ethanol can be produced from most organic material.

Cellulose ethanol: crop waste that would normally be thrown away.
There's also plasma arc which converts solid waste into a plasma gas that can be used to make ethanol.

[DrDomm]

I think it IS on topic with the engines. Corn based ethanol is not going to do a thing toward saving our planet. The amount of petroleum used to produce a gallon of ethanol is a net LOSS not a net gain. Factor in the fertilizer and fuel needed to plant, maintain, harvest, transport and convert corn to ethanol and you use more oil than you conserve. We've been feed a bill of goods on corn based ethanol.

Now if you look at OTHER sources for ethanol the story is VERY different. The answer is NOT corn.

Gary

I didn't say the answer is corn. I'm just saying that eventually, the answer won't be petroleum. Eventually, if we don't make changes now, we won't care what it costs (monetarily) to produce energy. We won't have a choice.

And all of this is a bit beyond what IndyCar decides is it's fuel for 2011.

[garyshell]

Well considering that without sustainable energy society won't have functioning machinery to plow the crops, and functioning logistics to supply the food, I think it would be a compromise worth making.


But because there is ZERO change in net use of petroleum when using corn based ethanol it is NOT a compromise at all. You use just as much petroleum to produce and process the corn into ethanol as you save by running cars on the stuff. It makes NO sense at all. It is a boondoggle of catastrophic proportions.

The cellulose based efforts look VERY promising. There was a great cover story on this in Wired a few months back. It was a real eye opener.

The big farm lobby has once again pulled a fast one on the government. We are giving them another handout. Meanwhile the smaller farmers are still scrimping to get by.

Gary

[garyshell]

I didn't say the answer is corn. I'm just saying that eventually, the answer won't be petroleum. Eventually, if we don't make changes now, we won't care what it costs (monetarily) to produce energy. We won't have a choice.

And on that I agree with you 100%.


And all of this is a bit beyond what IndyCar decides is it's fuel for 2011.

But here I disagree!!! Who is behind the effort to use ethanol in the series? As I understand it, the folks behind this are the corn ethanol folks. A agri-industrial group pushing their heavily subsidized efforts to a negative sum game. We and the government have been hoodwinked. I, for one, don't want to see the ICS used as a tool in the promotion of this scam. If it were the cellulose folks I would be behind this 1000%.

Gary

[Nethead]

Can ethanol be created out of plankton or other microscopic plants/animals that can be grown in the seas? That removes the arable land issue right away, of course, and also the issue of using crop foods for fuel instead instead of for sustenance.

The Nethead here is not a biochemist, but an oceanic equivalent of hydroponics might work--single-celled organisms are especially attractive because they reproduce by cell-splitting--and they do it often! And if a strain can be developed that feeds on waste products or the by-products of manufacturing, it could be even better (here, I'm thinking of those organisms that they use to "eat" oil spills--whatever they are called--or similar tiny creatures.)

Going a little higher in the food chain, wouldn't it be great if ethanol could be made from mosquitos and house flies?

[Bob Riebe]

The February issue of Technology Review had an excellant article of alternative fuels, especially alcohol and gave the pros which were pretty much demolished by the cons.
They spoke to people directly involved and at one point spoke to a scientist at the University of Minnesota, among other, who had glowing reports about alternative forms of developing alcohol, and how it worked so well in the lab; then they went down the hall-way to speak to another who dealt with the realities of mass-production verses micro-production, and reality bites pretty much shot the wunder fix out of the water.
One point made was the slurry (algea) method would require a continuous supply of raw material with at least six truck-loads having to be delivered every hour, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, without exception for a large enough quantity of alcohol to be produced to not lose money.
This does not even address raising a large enough quantity of base material, or getting from the source into the trucks, that go to the plant.

I do not kow if it is on-line but read the article if you can, it shows how pathetically obtuse the alternative dreamers are from the real world.
Bob

[usgrandprix]

You use just as much petroleum to produce and process the corn into ethanol as you save by running cars on the stuff.

I've read very divergent reports on this. The reports sponsored by big oil seem to feel that is the case and what is more feel comfortable proclaiming that it's not a moving target. More recently I've read there are exponential imporvements in the process and increased utilization of byproducts from the process. And I think everyone agrees it's still at its infancy. I happen to think there's room for imporvement and that it would be a shame if that was not explored for whatever ends up being the best application of this process.


The big farm lobby has once again pulled a fast one on the government.

There have been fast ones, no doubt, but big farm is miniscule compared to big oil, and that's who wants to equate "alternative fuel" (not just ethanol) with starving children. There is an irony in that if you look into Nigeria. They are just going after the low-hanging fruit now. They will never give up. Wait until it's a solution no one can argue with. Then it will get ugly.


Meanwhile the smaller farmers are still scrimping to get by.

Gary

Not what I'm hearing from Indiana friends and family.

I can tell you are pasionate about this, and I respect that. I just wanted to let people know there are other persepctives on all this and they should look into it for themselves. I'll even agree there are better solutions than corn down the road, but I'm not prepared to scrap the technology/process as completely refined. That attitude and we'd give up on fusion.

What I don't agree with is evaluating things too early and not giving new ideas a chance to catch their legs and be built upon--that just breeds an attitude that gets you more of the same. And always ask the question about who gains by undermining alternatives to oil in general and keeping more of the same.

[xtlm]

gen-eration hydro ?

[dataman1]

How about an engine that runs on used food frying oil. The track would smell good. They could go after all the fast food chains for sponsorship for "going green".

A la Nasty Car

"The Long John Silver's number 88 slid right by all the competition today."
"The Jack in the Box car came off the truck fast and it dominated the entire weekend".

Just having some fun.

[Wilf]

2011? Ugh. That's a long wait...

I don't see how introducing 4 or 6 cylinder turbocharged engine equals environmentally concious racing. It seems to meet that engine manufacturers need to address two issues: using non-oil-based energy sources AND emitting fewer particulates and dangerous molecules into the atmosphere.

Does anyone know the amount of oil based enerygy sources used in 98% enthanol?

How about particulates from 98% ethanol; what are they? Same question regarding dangerous molecules.

[Breeze]

Does anyone know the amount of oil based enerygy sources used in 98% enthanol?

How about particulates from 98% ethanol; what are they? Same question regarding dangerous molecules.
Wilf, thanks for the questions, but what are you trying to say? :confused:

[Bob Riebe]

Does anyone know the amount of oil based enerygy sources used in 98% enthanol?

How about particulates from 98% ethanol; what are they? Same question regarding dangerous molecules.
THe exhaust from alcohol, any alcohol are just as toxic as those from oil based fuel, only the compound and percentages are different.
I.E.--Go in a closed room with an alcohol burning engine running and you will just as surely die and just a quickly as with gasoline.

Bob

[Wilf]

THe exhaust from alcohol, any alcohol are just as toxic as those from oil based fuel, only the compound and percentages are different.
I.E.--Go in a closed room with an alcohol burning engine running and you will just as surely die and just a quickly as with gasoline.

Bob

Go into a closed room without any engine and you will just as surely die! Either the lack of oxygen or old age will get you. What I am trying to determine is if the emisions from denatured ethanol being burned in an automotive engine are significantly better than gasoline.

The energy efficiency in the production of ethanol can be argued in another forum. Both sides are great believers in hyperbole and yet neither will put the figures in a table.

Unless we are interested in arguing about track and field, the engine and fuel issue has to be resolved.

[Bob Riebe]

Go into a closed room without any engine and you will just as surely die! Either the lack of oxygen or old age will get you. What I am trying to determine is if the emisions from denatured ethanol being burned in an automotive engine are significantly better than gasoline.

The energy efficiency in the production of ethanol can be argued in another forum. Both sides are great believers in hyperbole and yet neither will put the figures in a table.

Unless we are interested in arguing about track and field, the engine and fuel issue has to be resolved.
Go into a closed room without any engine and you will just as surely die! Then you must live in a very dangerous area. A closed room is NOT a SEALED room.

NO the exhaust fumes are no better than any other system with the exception of Hydrogen.
As I said , compounds and percentages are different but they are all toxic.

[Nethead]

Go into a closed room without any engine and you will just as surely die! Then you must live in a very dangerous area. A closed room is NOT a SEALED room.

NO the exhaust fumes are no better than any other system with the exception of Hydrogen.
As I said , compounds and percentages are different but they are all toxic.

Bob Riebe: About hydrogen as an automotive fuel:

Sure, burn hydrogen in pure oxygen and you get water vapor. But automobiles run in air, not oxygen, and air is around seventy-eighty percent nitrogen. In an internal combustion engine, the combustion chamber pressures and temperatures figure in here, too. I'm thinking that ammonia and methane and God knows what else are likely exhaust gas constituents of molecular hydrogen burned inside a typical internal combustion engine where air (mostly nitrogen, substantial oxygen and carbon dioxide, moderate water vapor, and traces of argon, helium, and smog from fossil fuel combustion) is "breathed" instead of molecular oxygen under laboratory conditions.

Beware of hydrogen hype (hypogen? :rolleyes: ), especially if it reeks of ammonia or methane...

You may have info regarding the real exhaust components of molecular hydrogen and ordinary air burned as the air/fuel mix in an internal combustion engine. If you do, and that info is handy, please post it in this thread!

[Wilf]

Wilf, thanks for the questions, but what are you trying to say? :confused:

It's been a busy couple of days but Champcarray's statement in post #3 had not been addressed. He said: "It seems to meet (sic) that engine manufacturers need to address two issues: using non-oil-based energy sources AND emitting fewer particulates and dangerous molecules into the atmosphere."

IRL went to 98% ethanol which I thought was NON-petroleum-BASED and emitted fewer particulates and dangerous molecules.

Since asking the question I have learned that the emisions will kill me since they apparently are the same as the emisions from petroleum based fuel contrary to what the ethanol industry has stated.

I thought ethanol was some miracle fuel that wasn't going to pollute; at least not as much as petroleum based fuels.

But then I got another question: other than a tax thing on 100 alchohol, why can't cars in the good ole' USA run on 100% ethanol like they can, and, do in Brasil? I mean, why stop at E-85????

[mike15]

Algae Fuel produces 10,000 gallons of fuel per acre compaired to 18 gallons per acre for corn.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

[Wilf]

1) You'd have to retro fit all existing cars for ethanol. It does nasty things to the rubber and some plastic bits in the fuel system.
2) Brazil doesn't run on 100% ethanol. It's one alternative, but readily available everywhere, to gas there.

What amazes me is why they don't have trouble with running 100% ethanol as fuel in Brazil but we have to limit ourselves to 85% ethanol in the US? Emmo said the breakdown between fuel use in Brazil is about 50/50 between straight ethanol and an ethanol and petroleum mix.

The tell me the reason they don't run 100% ethanol in the IRL is because 100% grain alcohol is taxed as booze and so they mix in 2% or so gasoline to make it undrinkable.

[mike15]

USPS Ethanol vehicals burn more gas get fewer miles pre gallon.

http://theweatherguru.blogspot.com/2008/05/ethanol-vehicles-for-post-office-burn.html

"The experience shows how the U.S. push for crop-based fuels, already contributing to the highest rate of food inflation in 17 years, may not be achieving its goal of reducing gasoline consumption. Lawmakers are seeking caps on the use of biofuels after last year's 40 percent jump in world food prices, calling the U.S. policy flawed. "