N2O and Engine swaps?

[Griffith500]

I agree, don't bin in completely. It's part of the world's (real-life) "tuning" culture, so "Nitrous" will surely make the cut again.

Though I do think it should be banned from most circuits in the game, unless you're playing on pleb-mode

Water-injection would be cool, especially since the actual effect is slightly different to Nitrous / alcohol injection. Actually, they're perhaps not so different from the game's perspective - just different in effectiveness, then? Or would, say, a water injection kit have different implications on the boost levels you could run (for example...) over a nitrous system? (in the actual game, I mean).

 

[analog]

I cannot think of one pro race series/sanctioning body that allows the use of any oxygen enriched mixture to be added to the combustion process for circuit racing.

That would be a reason.

It's more likely that players will be able to add a 'KERS' system or some sorta battery/hybrid boost in lieu of NOx.

Agree that a Nitrous injection option like the one in GT4 feels odd and unrealistic to use in many races or even odd to install on some cars.
But it still is possible to use on most road cars in real life too and you can choose whether to use it or not in GT5.
Some races in GT5 probably should have some rules which do not allow to use it just like in real life race regulations.
However the KERS option ( or similar hybrid methods ) does seem even more unrealistic as an option to use on most cars as only a very few race-series use it ( the only one I can think of is F1 which abandoned its use by a gentlemen's agreement ) and to apply it on most road cars ( or even classic cars ) would be even stranger than adding Nitro.
Apart from the enormous costs in real life and the fact it should be intergrated into the whole design of the car ( something less relevant in a game ofcourse ) it will add substantianally more weight to the car than a piece of Nitro equipment if realistically replicated.

 

[xKingOfDa910x]

i think nitrous should be in the game, especially if drag racing will be put in the game. There is nothing wrong with using Nitrous. Its part of racing so it should be in the game. Everyone thats saying it reminds them of fast and the furious is ignorant. That movie has horrible representation of alot of things in the car scene today.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Agree that a Nitrous injection option like the one in GT4 feels odd and unrealistic to use in many races or even odd to install on some cars.
But it still is possible to use on most road cars in real life too and you can choose whether to use it or not in GT5.
Some races in GT5 probably should have some rules which do not allow to use it just like in real life race regulations.
However the KERS option ( or similar hybrid methods ) does seem even more unrealistic as an option to use on most cars as only a very few race-series use it ( the only one I can think of is F1 which abandoned its use by a gentlemen's agreement ) and to apply it on most road cars ( or even classic cars ) would be even stranger than adding Nitro.
Apart from the enormous costs in real life and the fact it should be intergrated into the whole design of the car ( something less relevant in a game ofcourse ) it will add substantianally more weight to the car than a piece of Nitro equipment if realistically replicated.

From a politically correct point of view; KERS, regenerative braking, hybrid, and other 'green' technology is much more relevant that the tried and trued NOx injection.

If you watch motorsports; they're all trying to become more 'green' and ecologically friendly...at least in theory. This mimics the directions of their respective manufacturers as CO2 and other emissions are being clamped down upon by various governments and agencies.

The enviro-mental movement has become trendy and fashionable for some odd reason. Art mimicing life? If so, I fully expect the same greeny-weeny drivel in a video game. Hell, Sony could market it as an enviro game just for some extra PR.

With all things being equal; enviromarxism...er...mentalism isn't going anywhere anytime soon. These 'technologies' are being legislated/subsidized and branded as being relevant and revolutionary.

I'm sure the game will follow the same path as the OEMs.

NOx sure is fun though. Smells like hell...but fun. But I'm not holding my breath to see if it makes it in the game.

 

[analog]

From a politically correct point of view; KERS, regenerative braking, hybrid, and other 'green' technology is much more relevant that the tried and trued NOx injection.

If you watch motorsports; they're all trying to become more 'green' and ecologically friendly...at least in theory. This mimics the directions of their respective manufacturers as CO2 and other emissions are being clamped down upon by various governments and agencies.

The enviro-mental movement has become trendy and fashionable for some odd reason. Art mimicing life? If so, I fully expect the same greeny-weeny drivel in a video game. Hell, Sony could market it as an enviro game just for some extra PR.

With all things being equal; enviromarxism...er...mentalism isn't going anywhere anytime soon. These 'technologies' are being legislated/subsidized and branded as being relevant and revolutionary.

I'm sure the game will follow the same path as the OEMs.

NOx sure is fun though. Smells like hell...but fun. But I'm not holding my breath to see if it makes it in the game.

I can see the environmental benefits or supposed benefits of a KERS system in real life but this is not why I said I can't see it replacing NOx as a tuning option in GT5 like you said it could be.
My point is that a KERS system has to be integrated into a cars design from the start in real life ( and GT5 tries to replicate real life options ), not just an aftermarket option like NOx ( which already was introduced in GT4 ).
Sure some cars may have KERS as standard in GT5 ( F1 cars for example ) but I can't see KERS being offered on a used hatchback, classic car or any car for that matter which doesn't have the KERS option in real life as opposed to NOx which is available in real life as an option to most cars
As for marketing, hybrids and electric cars already seem to form a small part of GT5 but even Kaz knows this game is for car enthusiasts and not tree-huggers so there are limits.
NOx already was available in GT4, the only reason it may not be in GT5 will be a decision based on gameplay, not environmental concern.
Besides, my PS3 leaves the same carbon footprint whether I'm driving a Prius in GT5 or a V12 Lamborghini so this whole environmental discussion is irrelevant apart from offering interesting new technology to experience in GT5 which is also interesting from a marketing point of view no doubt.

 

[Aloha62_2]

A automatic pre-spool Nos system would also be a welcome upgrade, many folk now don't use nitrous to increase a cars peak hp, instead its used to increase engine power before and after the turbos peak power.

So instead of having a steep parabolic curve caused by turbo lag before the loss of efficiency in high revs nitrous is used to smooth the curve out. Your 250bhp car is still 250bhp but it creates that power for much more of the rev range.

I would also like water injection systems to go with it which would be useful on any turbo car.

 

[Griffith500]

...this whole environmental discussion is irrelevant...

In so many ways, you're so right. Not least because in the "real world", the business-oriented environmentalism is not necessarily sincere, and seems a lot like propaganda / marketing bull****. (apologies for quoting out of context )


We probably shouldn't forget that KERS stands for Kinetic Energy Recovery System, and as such, is a very broad term.

All of the current 3-series BMWs, for example, have a magnetically-coupled alternator (which decouples for a splash extra fuel economy) and regenerative "braking", which re-engages the ("oversize") alternator when decelerating. These kinds of systems do exist in road cars, and whilst in this case it's not performance enhancing - in the Petrol-head sense of the term - the manufacturers love it from a PR standpoint. (see BrutherSuperior's post.)

Then there are the host of hybrid-style cars on the market nowadays, that do use the regenerated energy to drive the vehicle.

I don't suppose its that difficult to use an F1-style KERS (i.e. with the Turbo-boost button) in a road car, only, nobody's actually done it exactly like this yet (most are linked to the throttle pedal and "engine load" via a computer).
Williams F1's solution was conceived with, (if I recall correctly), one eye on the "ordinary" automotive industry, and uses mechanical storage, not electrical - so doesn't require a massive electric motor (whether this is a true advantage remains to be seen).
[I am aware that in the F1 car, Williams' system uses two electric motors - one from the gearbox and one on the flywheel assembly, but I imagine that this is more for packaging reasons, since the flywheel is best placed on the centre of gravity, which the gearbox isn't - in a road car, there's no real reason that the flywheel couldn't be mechanically linked to the drivetrain via some sort of clutching system, except where packaging / safety would get in the way.]

As an "upgrade", it won't be cheap (or particularly lightweight), of course. But it's like a self re-generating Nitrous system, and needn't necessarily be as regulated and restricted as it is in F1...
It might not be so prolific now, but it might just take off for the future!

 

[DK]

These kinds of systems do exist in road cars, and whilst in this case it's not performance enhancing [...]

Ah, but what if you want to change weight distribution? For example, put a KERS system in the boot of a MR car, or in a FF. The weight will even out weight distribution, seeing as the boot of a typical MR is in front of the driver, but the boot of a typical FF is behind the driver, seeing as I doubt there will be a mini-game in GT5 where you have to fit as much shopping in the boot as possible.

 

[eSZee]

Why are you putting KERS in the trunk? The battery pack?

 

[Griffith500]

Why are you putting KERS in the trunk? The battery pack?

This is the beauty of engineering: there's always more than one way to skin a cat

And yes, it could help with weight distribution and, combined with some sort of weight reduction scheme, it could satisfactorily remove a car's handling "character"

 

[niky]

Ah, but what if you want to change weight distribution? For example, put a KERS system in the boot of a MR car, or in a FF. The weight will even out weight distribution, seeing as the boot of a typical MR is in front of the driver, but the boot of a typical FF is behind the driver, seeing as I doubt there will be a mini-game in GT5 where you have to fit as much shopping in the boot as possible.

KERS doesn't make an F1 car faster. Instead, it trades off cornering speed and steady straightline speed (since it's heavy, and takes a while to charge) for momentary bursts of speed. In other words, you can be faster than your opponents for short periods of time... if you can put up with being slower than them the rest of the lap.

Still don't know why we're discussing a system that is not available on any non-hybrid road car. And which is not available as a universal or even bespoke aftermarket performance add-on for non-hybrids.

Let's term KERS what it is... it's a hybrid system with electrical/hydraulic assist.

You don't see those on the performance aftermarket. At all. Hybrid conversions that are being sold to the general public are not being sold as performance enhancers... they're being sold as economy enhancers. They weigh a whole lot, cost a whole lot more, and they generally make the car much slower. In fact, some companies, mindful of the weight, skip the hybrid part altogether and offer the kits as direct electrical conversion and chuck the gasoline system to save weight.

-

It would be interesting to see... but about as useful as offering electrical or even biodiesel conversions for gasoline-powered road cars in the game. Biodiesel conversions often involve old generator engines or low pressure injection diesels from older cars... in a word... slow.

-

Our tuning selections will likely remain grounded in the realm of the entirely possible. Possible meaning things which are not ridiculously expensive or which your common enthusiast can likely get their hands on and can have done to their car without a NASA budget.

It's more likely we'll see alcohol injection or electric superchargers (the one or two that actually work...) before we see hybrid systems. An electric supercharger is much the same as an F1 style hybrid system... in that it trades off being slow in corners and over the lap for a half-minute of speed boost comparable to Nitrous. Unlike nitrous, it recharges over time.

 

[Aloha62_2]

(since it's heavy, and takes a while to charge).

Heavy for a F1 car yes but for the average car out there which could easily be twice the kerb weight its not too special. Also Mclaren KERS (and possible others) would charge itself within two heavy braking zones and that was to the FIA's 8s limit, the system itself was capable of much more power for longer then the FIA allowed and it was one of the main criticisms from the teams that ran KERS last year.

KERS can even be a mechanical system using a flywheel based solution, Williams have developed one but too late to show it last year.

 

[Griffith500]

KERS doesn't make an F1 car faster. Instead, it trades off cornering speed and steady straightline speed (since it's heavy, and takes a while to charge) for momentary bursts of speed. In other words, you can be faster than your opponents for short periods of time... if you can put up with being slower than them the rest of the lap.

Still don't know why we're discussing a system that is not available on any non-hybrid road car. And which is not available as a universal or even bespoke aftermarket performance add-on for non-hybrids.

Let's term KERS what it is... it's a hybrid system with electrical/hydraulic assist.

You don't see those on the performance aftermarket. At all. Hybrid conversions that are being sold to the general public are not being sold as performance enhancers... they're being sold as economy enhancers. They weigh a whole lot, cost a whole lot more, and they generally make the car much slower. In fact, some companies, mindful of the weight, skip the hybrid part altogether and offer the kits as direct electrical conversion and chuck the gasoline system to save weight.

-

It would be interesting to see... but about as useful as offering electrical or even biodiesel conversions for gasoline-powered road cars in the game. Biodiesel conversions often involve old generator engines or low pressure injection diesels from older cars... in a word... slow.

-

Our tuning selections will likely remain grounded in the realm of the entirely possible. Possible meaning things which are not ridiculously expensive or which your common enthusiast can likely get their hands on and can have done to their car without a NASA budget.

It's more likely we'll see alcohol injection or electric superchargers (the one or two that actually work...) before we see hybrid systems. An electric supercharger is much the same as an F1 style hybrid system... in that it trades off being slow in corners and over the lap for a half-minute of speed boost comparable to Nitrous. Unlike nitrous, it recharges over time.

A few things:

1. Hybrid drivetrains are set to figure highly in the near future. "Performance" derivatives are not far off - aftermarket or otherwise.
2. Biodiesel is not slow; you're doing it wrong.
3. Anything's possible!
4. Racing is expensive - chassis reconditioning (re-welding and reinforcement etc.) for example.
5. Electric supercharging sounds like a hybrid system (sure, not "true" hybrid, but that's a bureaucratic term with a narrow field of application to suit certain manufacturers... see posts above about pseudo-environmentalism...)

I'm not saying the game should feature systems designed to recover "waste" kinetic energy, store it, and re-deliver it to the propulsion system to assist drive; but there's no reason it shouldn't.

 

[DK]

1. Biodiesel is not slow; you're doing it wrong.

Plus, as I've probably said before, you don't have to swap your engine for the equivalent of a few thousand Duracell batteries.

As I've also probably said before, I'm in favour of engine swaps, as well as drivetrain swaps. I've always fancied the idea of a RWD F20C-powered Integra, or a 4G63T (the engine in a Mitsubishi Evo) in a 4WD FTO, or of course a 20-valve 4A-GE in a Corolla AE86 or AW11 MR-2.

 

[Griffith500]

Plus, as I've probably said before, you don't have to swap your engine for the equivalent of a few thousand Duracell batteries.

As I've also probably said before, I'm in favour of engine swaps, as well as drivetrain swaps. I've always fancied the idea of a RWD F20C-powered Integra, or a 4G63T (the engine in a Mitsubishi Evo) in a 4WD FTO, or of course a 20-valve 4A-GE in a Corolla AE86 or AW11 MR-2.

I've recently become fond of the idea of plonking the 6A12 out of an FTO into a mid-engined lo-cost -esque thing.
That'd be a fine thing; kit-cars in GT5...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

KERS doesn't make an F1 car faster. Instead, it trades off cornering speed and steady straightline speed (since it's heavy, and takes a while to charge) for momentary bursts of speed. In other words, you can be faster than your opponents for short periods of time... if you can put up with being slower than them the rest of the lap.

Still don't know why we're discussing a system that is not available on any non-hybrid road car. And which is not available as a universal or even bespoke aftermarket performance add-on for non-hybrids.

Let's term KERS what it is... it's a hybrid system with electrical/hydraulic assist.

You don't see those on the performance aftermarket. At all. Hybrid conversions that are being sold to the general public are not being sold as performance enhancers... they're being sold as economy enhancers. They weigh a whole lot, cost a whole lot more, and they generally make the car much slower. In fact, some companies, mindful of the weight, skip the hybrid part altogether and offer the kits as direct electrical conversion and chuck the gasoline system to save weight.

-

It would be interesting to see... but about as useful as offering electrical or even biodiesel conversions for gasoline-powered road cars in the game. Biodiesel conversions often involve old generator engines or low pressure injection diesels from older cars... in a word... slow.

-

Our tuning selections will likely remain grounded in the realm of the entirely possible. Possible meaning things which are not ridiculously expensive or which your common enthusiast can likely get their hands on and can have done to their car without a NASA budget.

It's more likely we'll see alcohol injection or electric superchargers (the one or two that actually work...) before we see hybrid systems. An electric supercharger is much the same as an F1 style hybrid system... in that it trades off being slow in corners and over the lap for a half-minute of speed boost comparable to Nitrous. Unlike nitrous, it recharges over time.

You know there is also a mechanical KERS system right? Using a heavy flywheel to store braking energy. This also has the added benefit, if implemented intelligently, of providing for body-roll control if you tilt the axis of the flywheel so that its natural gyroscopic effect keeps the car stable.

 

[niky]

A few things:

1. Hybrid drivetrains are set to figure highly in the near future. "Performance" derivatives are not far off - aftermarket or otherwise.
2. Biodiesel is not slow; you're doing it wrong.
3. Anything's possible!
4. Racing is expensive - chassis reconditioning (re-welding and reinforcement etc.) for example.
5. Electric supercharging sounds like a hybrid system (sure, not "true" hybrid, but that's a bureaucratic term with a narrow field of application to suit certain manufacturers... see posts above about pseudo-environmentalism...)

I'm not saying the game should feature systems designed to recover "waste" kinetic energy, store it, and re-deliver it to the propulsion system to assist drive; but there's no reason it shouldn't.

1. Hybrids do not perform as well as their single engine counterparts. They're big thanks to eco-marketing, but that's it. Even in F1, the viability of KERS is directly linked to rules which handicap teams which don't use it... but such rules still can't get around the fact that a car with a smaller, simpler drivetrain can be packaged better for track use.

Hybrids are only faster than their non-hybrid counterparts where marketing deems they should be. But if all else is equal, a hybrid system doesn't help much on track.

2. Pure biodiesel (not blends) eats valves. Straight veggie oil gels and washes into oil (they both do). The grassroots movement revolving around veggie diesel is finding it harder and harder to convert more modern diesels with piezo-injectors (those ultra-precise pieces of equipment which allow a 330d to put out nearly 300hp) to diesel alternatives. A racing team might be fine with replacing injectors every race... but most motorists are averse to replacing blown injectors and degraded valve seats (the injectors alone cost thousands of dollars a set) every 50,000 - 100,000 miles. Granted, you can make reliable power and torque out of an old-school 6 liter biodiesel-powered V8... and you can swap it into a Corvette... but it still won't be as quick as the gasoline powered model. Which means you've spent your 10,000+++ dollars in game for a much slower car that will go an extra ten laps before pitting for gas.

3. Yes. Technically you could put an LS3 in a Cappuchino or convert a classic Beetle to AWD, a full double-wishbone suspension and give it a 1000 hp. But there are limits to what a game like Turismo can cover.

4. Yes. Again... who wants to spend 10-20k dollars to go slower in a game?

5. No... E-charging is only like a hybrid in that it has to charge up the batteries to provide assist. Unlike more expensive road-going hybrid conversions, it costs only as much as a turbo kit and provides an actual performance boost.

-

There's no reason they shouldn't... but considering nobody is actually doing this in real life... why would they? Turismo's tuning menu may be arbitrary... but it's semi-grounded in real life. Meaning that the most common aftermarket option for your engine is the one they'll allow (Supercharging, Turbocharging, Nat.Asp. Tuning). While it's obviously possible to fit a hydraulic KERS system to a Civic and give it a 0-60 time of four seconds flat, nobody's doing it in real-life (I'd hesitate to put a price tag on this... $50,000?)... thus... it's not going in the game.

 

[Griffith500]

Regarding Biodiesel: what would happen if you took the 200 - 350°C fraction from a petroleum distillation column and put it in your diesel engine? Pretty much what you described about biodiesel and veggie oil. It takes many stages of modification to get it the controlled level it is at the pumps - each diesel from each producer is different, too - sure they might have similar numbers (e.g. cetane) attributed to them, but they tell you very little about the actual constituents.
I assume the problem with biodiesel vs. valves is due to the acidic components? It's these oxygen containing components that make it so potent, and they can be easily removed (as they are with petrochem diesel). Blending will not eliminate the problem (only slow it), unless it's an exhaust temperature issue, in which case it's either slow burning or contains the wrong balance of constituents - both relatively easily remedied during production.

Keep an open mind, and don't let the bitter experiences of the present cloud the potential for the future (solar, nuclear, wind etc. power all suffer this type of prejudice - I can't say if it's (un)just, though.)

Biodiesel is the future, and it will improve - especially once the process settles down and matures and a more sensible feedstock is used (i.e. a waste product: landfill, water treatment etc.)

Same for hybrid drivetrains (I don't necessarily mean "hybrid" as seen on the roads today, it could be anything). They will improve, and they are the future - whether you like it or not. Hence, as they improve, they will become advantageous from a performance standpoint as much as an economy standpoint. "Nobody's" doing it yet, but that doesn't mean research isn't going on.

Perhaps not for GT5, maybe GT6; GT7? We don't know, but it's coming. I think Kaz knows this...


Once again, do not let the industry direct your opinions of what is hybrid and what is not. The definition of the word hybrid indicates that an electrically driven supercharger counts as a hybrid system. Of course, as with any marketing term, a degree of prowess with metaphor is required.

 

[DK]

2. Pure biodiesel (not blends) eats valves. [...] Which means you've spent your 10,000+++ dollars in game for a much slower car that will go an extra ten laps before pitting for gas.

There go my dreams of a biodiesel-powered GT-R...

 

[Griffith500]

There go my dreams of a biodiesel-powered GT-R...

hehe, why would you convert a spark ignition engine into a compression ignition engine? Bio-ethanol (or just ethanol) blends might be worth a look in the future... It has been trialled in motorsport already.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Ethanol can also eliminate the need for an intercooler

 

[Griffith500]

Ethanol can also eliminate the need for an intercooler

Or the GTR Spec-V's boost button...

 

[niky]

Regarding Biodiesel: what would happen if you took the 200 - 350°C fraction from a petroleum distillation column and put it in your diesel engine? Pretty much what you described about biodiesel and veggie oil. It takes many stages of modification to get it the controlled level it is at the pumps - each diesel from each producer is different, too - sure they might have similar numbers (e.g. cetane) attributed to them, but they tell you very little about the actual constituents.
I assume the problem with biodiesel vs. valves is due to the acidic components? It's these oxygen containing components that make it so potent, and they can be easily removed (as they are with petrochem diesel). Blending will not eliminate the problem (only slow it), unless it's an exhaust temperature issue, in which case it's either slow burning or contains the wrong balance of constituents - both relatively easily remedied during production.

The esterification of veggie oil into biodiesel is what causes the acidification, unfortunately. Pure veggie oil doesn't eat engine parts, but then there's that nasty gelling problem. Veggie oil is great... but to spread the use of it, we'll need to find an alternative to those piezo-injectors. Maybe a dual-injector set-up, a la Nissan... with two lower pressured injectors in place of the single ultra-high pressure direct unit.

Oh... and they'll have to remove that pesky emissions requirement that induces some manufacturers to add after-ignition injection to clear out the particulate traps... which is what causes a lot of the oil dilution and running problems in more modern systems running bio and veggie diesel.

Keep an open mind, and don't let the bitter experiences of the present cloud the potential for the future (solar, nuclear, wind etc. power all suffer this type of prejudice - I can't say if it's (un)just, though.)

I've driven straight veggie oil, I've hypermiled a Prius to 80 mpg, my family owns an electric, I am experimenting with methane (hoping to have a vehicle kit by the end of the year), and have a propane-powered car. I think my mind is pretty open. But, as a long-time tuner, I have to look at these developments with an eye towards practicality and market realities.

There's no prejudice to say that large solar installations are still too expensive, unprofitable and erratic. Or that hydropower sucks in the middle of a drought. (just ask me)... or that gasoline alternatives (even LPG, which I'm an advocate of) have their challenges. It's just an admission of how far we still have to go to remove the word "petroleum" from our everyday vocabulary.

Biodiesel is the future, and it will improve - especially once the process settles down and matures and a more sensible feedstock is used (i.e. a waste product: landfill, water treatment etc.)

It's part of the future. How big a part depends on where it comes from. Waste veggie oil and veggie oil diesel will help ease our needs for "fossil" oil... but cannot completely replace it. And newer diesels will have to be built with them in mind (no biggie... we redesigned for unleaded gasoline, too).

Landfill oil is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Small scale installations (farm-based and home-based) are cost-effective, but big ones are still problematic. Digesters require weeks of storage... which means that commercial scale production tanks will require lots of land space. And there's the nasty explosion risk. I'm looking at building a backyard set-up, which will be fun. (Just don't let my wife know about the explosion risk, please. )

Oil alternatives often require compromises. Some of which consumers are unwilling to make (electrics are ostensibly "here", with the Nissan Leaf finally bringing the pricing down to semi-realistic levels... but people still want more range)... and some of which governments and manufacturers are unwilling to make:

*Propane (LPG) and methane (CNG, biogas) would work very well in a car designed only to be fueled on them... and such a car would not cost much more than a comparable gasoline car... a difference of hundreds of dollars, rather than the several thousand dollar difference of hybrids and the ten thousand or more dollar difference of electrics. But despite the huge fleet market for these vehicles, manufacturers were slow to respond.

*Government doesn't like veggie oil. They can't tax it.

Same for hybrid drivetrains (I don't necessarily mean "hybrid" as seen on the roads today, it could be anything). They will improve, and they are the future - whether you like it or not. Hence, as they improve, they will become advantageous from a performance standpoint as much as an economy standpoint. "Nobody's" doing it yet, but that doesn't mean research isn't going on.

Nobody's doing it for pure performance, because it's not there. They're doing it for marketing. Just because, say, LeMans is being won by diesels, it doesn't mean diesel is "here" (and I'm a huge fan of modern diesels)... it just means that within the scope of marketing, the LeMans organizers see it as profitable to allow diesels to keep the advantage of having nearly twice the displacement of their gasoline counterparts and more sophisticated turbo systems.

Again: KERS: Teams won't use it if it's not forced... because there is no net performance benefit to losing a few seconds every lap due to the weight just to be faster a few seconds in just one area every lap.

Perhaps not for GT5, maybe GT6; GT7? We don't know, but it's coming. I think Kaz knows this...


Once again, do not let the industry direct your opinions of what is hybrid and what is not. The definition of the word hybrid indicates that an electrically driven supercharger counts as a hybrid system. Of course, as with any marketing term, a degree of prowess with metaphor is required.

I don't. I form my own opinions from research and experience with said alternatives (which I've a lot of).

Nope, it isn't. The e-charger doesn't directly or indirectly power the car, so it doesn't count as a separate motor. otherwise, you'd have to count turbochargers (pressure powered... just like hydraulic KERS) and superchargers (mechanically powered) as hybrid motors. An e-charger is a supercharger. Period. The only difference is that between the motor and the turbine, they've added another energy conversion step, from mechanical to electric... in essence, it's a supercharger on demand.

And while it does provide boost, it's pitiful compared to a conventional turbo in terms of total boost capacity. Boost requires horsepower to make... 25 hp worth (whether in terms of exhaust gas pressure or parasitic losses via the supercharger pully) for a good charger. The most successful commercial e-charger so far still only has about 15 hp, and only makes several psi of boost... for a short period of time. Think of it more as rechargeable nitrous than a full-time turbo kit.

 

[Griffith500]

niky, I underestimated you; I apologise. However, your more recent post seems more objective than the one I responded to. I think we have a similar attitude, though, our experiences differ in quantity and range! (I mean to say, you seem to have more, proper hands-on experience - hence the perceived "bitterness" ? )

I guess, like with most things, we're stuck with a weighted-combination of what the industries want to give us, and what they think we want them to give us.

I checked out those electrically powered superchargers, yes. I didn't realise they weren't "permanently" active - hence not requiring any beefed-up electrics to make proper use of. They do seem "pitiful", and no-one seems very happy about giving any proper specs!

The only reason hybrids are slow is because they're not being developed for performance. If KERS were mandatory in F1, for example, they would progress rapidly and may (it's not certain, granted) become indispensable, like the sequential gearbox did (I realise the two were introduced under different circumstances.)
Except the teams don't want it; they don't want to make their job harder by being forced to venture into relatively new territory and "waste" development funds that could be used elsewhere where they have more experience; i.e. less chance to get it wrong and lose races.

But, thinking about it, the motorsport-first approach is a sensible way to get technology sorted. Second-gen KERS systems are being developed for buses, etc. - something that wouldn't have happened so soon if it weren't for F1 (or rather, F1's money and engineering excellence...)


There's an incomprehensible amount of work required to "get off" the crude oil, and no one solution is the key, or solely dependable, but that only means we should be looking for more options... prejudices (deserved or not) be damned.

Good luck with the waste digester, by the way! Something I want to get around to when I get my own gaff / land. Same for your other projects. Hopefully the motor industry takes a leaf from the books of people like you and actually tries to make this stuff work, rather than cruise along on the "good" money, sitting on research (bitterness?). Then again, some competition might be just what they need in the future.

 

[niky]

niky, I underestimated you; I apologise. However, your more recent post seems more objective than the one I responded to. I think we have a similar attitude, though, our experiences differ in quantity and range! (I mean to say, you seem to have more, proper hands-on experience - hence the perceived "bitterness" ? )

A keen sense of what's possible versus what's practical is not bitterness, it's pragmatism.

I guess, like with most things, we're stuck with a weighted-combination of what the industries want to give us, and what they think we want them to give us.

While this is true, remember: A company will not sell a product it cannot sell for profit. Hence the difficulty electric vehicle startups are having versus the proliferation of propane conversions. One costs more than the customer is willing to pay for, the other is affordable and actually has a palpably good effect on the customer's wallet. And whatever conspiracy theories Michael Moore may spin, it's the customers' wallets that killed the electric car.

I checked out those electrically powered superchargers, yes. I didn't realise they weren't "permanently" active - hence not requiring any beefed-up electrics to make proper use of. They do seem "pitiful", and no-one seems very happy about giving any proper specs!

Only Thomas Knight has actual figures... and they're pitiable compared to "cheap" turbos. Fascinating things, though. A system with a lighter ultracapacitor pack might be even better, but still not as flexible as a regular turbo.

The only reason hybrids are slow is because they're not being developed for performance. If KERS were mandatory in F1, for example, they would progress rapidly and may (it's not certain, granted) become indispensable, like the sequential gearbox did (I realise the two were introduced under different circumstances.)
Except the teams don't want it; they don't want to make their job harder by being forced to venture into relatively new territory and "waste" development funds that could be used elsewhere where they have more experience; i.e. less chance to get it wrong and lose races.

Well, you could also say the only reason turbodiesels are fast is that they are being developed for performance. Turbo-gassers built to the same specs are still faster.

Racing is all about efficiency. Teams spend millions trying to figure out what works and what doesn't. The results showed what didn't. And that was KERS.

Only when teams are forced to meet a stricter fuel consumption target will we actually see any real progress with KERS... and even then, the amount of energy that can be recaptured via braking doesn't make that much a difference if fast storage systems aren't developed to work with the system. (interestingly, some tests have cast doubts on the effectiveness of braking regeneration on electrics) Hydraulic systems may win out on this one... at least for now.

But, thinking about it, the motorsport-first approach is a sensible way to get technology sorted. Second-gen KERS systems are being developed for buses, etc. - something that wouldn't have happened so soon if it weren't for F1 (or rather, F1's money and engineering excellence...)

Bus hybrids make sense because of the cost-versus-gain standpoint. High mileage vehicles see quicker ROI on hybrid systems, and the stop-go nature of bus routes maximizes the use of brake regeneration. Hybrid buses and alternative fuel buses have been in the pipeline for a long time.

There's an incomprehensible amount of work required to "get off" the crude oil, and no one solution is the key, or solely dependable, but that only means we should be looking for more options... prejudices (deserved or not) be damned.

The problem with looking at green technologies with a critical eye is that people often think you are prejudiced. The truth is... "green" is a very political topic right now... and we run the danger of having the drawbacks of new technologies whitewashed by their advocates in the rush to capture the public's imagination and money. How many vaporware green-tech companies have come and gone in the past decade? How many biofuel wondercrops have been touted as the next big thing... only to fall (waaaaay) short of expectations? How long before the corn ethanol subsidy is exposed for the waste of money that it is? It's all well and good to dream green, but in the end, if a technology doesn't deliver on its promises, we have to start looking at other more likely alternatives.

Good luck with the waste digester, by the way! Something I want to get around to when I get my own gaff / land. Same for your other projects. Hopefully the motor industry takes a leaf from the books of people like you and actually tries to make this stuff work, rather than cruise along on the "good" money, sitting on research (bitterness?). Then again, some competition might be just what they need in the future.

Hard for backyard hacks to compete with the big boys. Don't count them out just yet. A big motor company doesn't get to be big by sitting on its laurels and exploiting its customers... that's the trap the Big Three fell into... selling the same old garbage while the Japanese built cheaper cars that lasted longer and got better economy... to win market share, you have to make the better car. Toyota has shown that a long-term gamble with an alternative car (the Prius) pays off in the end... and many companies are eager to have the next "it" car for the green crowd wearing their logo. Nissan has a leg up with the Leaf (as they have managed to get the cost lower than anyone else), while GM is gambling on the Volt. In the meantime, the Europeans and Koreans are embracing biodiesel, methane and propane more readily than the Americans or Japanese. It'll take another five to ten years, at least, to see which approach will pan out in the long run.

 

[Griffith500]

A keen sense of what's possible versus what's practical is not bitterness, it's pragmatism.

Well, I was merely referencing the idea that one's experience is unique, and that even if you try to be objective (not really important, pragmatically) you're still going to have an emotional response associated with your experience - "this was a lot of hard work for little gain" implies that it was a waste of time; nobody likes to "waste" their time in this manner. Somebody else may have had better "luck" (I'm not saying it is the case, or could have been - I'm talking generally.)
Essentially, it wasn't an insult, more an attempt at recognition and empathy.

While this is true, remember: A company will not sell a product it cannot sell for profit. Hence the difficulty electric vehicle startups are having versus the proliferation of propane conversions. One costs more than the customer is willing to pay for, the other is affordable and actually has a palpably good effect on the customer's wallet. And whatever conspiracy theories Michael Moore may spin, it's the customers' wallets that killed the electric car.

Whilst my statement was very vague, and much could be drawn from it implicitly, this is honestly exactly the kind of thing I meant. Profit is what the company wants; saving money is what we want. Like you said, it's not necessarily easy to get this golden package, thanks to real-world considerations outside of money...

Well, you could also say the only reason turbodiesels are fast is that they are being developed for performance. Turbo-gassers built to the same specs are still faster.

Precisely my point. But, the reason diesels aren't as fast* is partly because of emissions. The fuel doesn't vaporise quickly enough, so if you're trying to run near a stoichiometric mixture (as you would with a petrol), all you get is black soot and, sure, a dollop more power; I doubt your expander-wheel will thank you, though
Variable compression ratio (or boost?) engines using compression ignition on volatile fuels, like petrol, will return similar fuel mileage to "diesels" (since they can "safely" run as lean) but not have the drawbacks of poor atomisation / homogenisation (burn rate.)
But, there's still the nasty NOx to deal with - and petrol burns hotter than "diesel".

* I read 70% somewhere (due to the burn-rate problem)... though the variable-vane turbos helped diesels somewhat, and these are now starting to appear on petrol cars, too.

It'll take another five to ten years, at least, to see which approach will pan out in the long run.

By which time, a whole slew of new "green" (I hate this term) tech will have been put on trial!

---

But: how does all of this relate to tuning options in a video game? 💡

I suppose the point about KERS initially, was that it is a current technology, and it is / was / has been in use for various applications already, so its inclusion should not be ruled out as a matter of course. You said yourself that it could become effective given certain circumstances. The beauty of a game is that it allows you to create such circumstance. In fact, I think it was the Honda Dualnote in one (both?) of the Tokyo - [somewhere] Concept GT games which had a similar, braking regenerated electric "boost" that was automatically controlled.

KERS is a bad example for me, really. I don't like the F1-style implementation of the 80s arcade "turbo boost" button. But, the games industry is going to be a key place to try out this sort of new stuff (at least in terms of branding, and exposure for the punters) so no doubt it might begin to attract novel ideas...
As and when they come, I wouldn't mind if they were to feature in future GT games. Of course, their use should be restricted in career mode and online. (much the same way as various other aspects of a competition car are limited already in the game.)

 

[alfajamesromeo]

in my oppionion, I don't really like NOS, I think it can take away from the fine tuning that you put into a car to meet its specifications.
my take on it's implementation in GT5 is that I hope it is included, but removed for races.
let's see...

 

[niky]

Well, I was merely referencing the idea that one's experience is unique, and that even if you try to be objective (not really important, pragmatically) you're still going to have an emotional response associated with your experience - "this was a lot of hard work for little gain" implies that it was a waste of time; nobody likes to "waste" their time in this manner. Somebody else may have had better "luck" (I'm not saying it is the case, or could have been - I'm talking generally.)
Essentially, it wasn't an insult, more an attempt at recognition and empathy.

NP. But work versus gain should always be considered in "green" causes. Any "green" solution that uses up more energy than it puts back into the system is wasting energy that could be put directly to work more effectively. Naturally, all systems compromise this... if we went by what was most efficient, we'd be living in million-person beehive arcologies and using public transport... but the net input and net output in both monetary and energy terms are important. (Monetary because it takes energy to make money)

Whilst my statement was very vague, and much could be drawn from it implicitly, this is honestly exactly the kind of thing I meant. Profit is what the company wants; saving money is what we want. Like you said, it's not necessarily easy to get this golden package, thanks to real-world considerations outside of money...

Unfortunately. But as with the Japanese vs. Domestics example: If you sell a product that saves your client money (by using less fuel, lasting longer between replacements, etcetera), you gain in the long term with customer loyalty.

Precisely my point. But, the reason diesels aren't as fast* is partly because of emissions. The fuel doesn't vaporise quickly enough, so if you're trying to run near a stoichiometric mixture (as you would with a petrol), all you get is black soot and, sure, a dollop more power; I doubt your expander-wheel will thank you, though
Variable compression ratio (or boost?) engines using compression ignition on volatile fuels, like petrol, will return similar fuel mileage to "diesels" (since they can "safely" run as lean) but not have the drawbacks of poor atomisation / homogenisation (burn rate.)
But, there's still the nasty NOx to deal with - and petrol burns hotter than "diesel".

* I read 70% somewhere (due to the burn-rate problem)... though the variable-vane turbos helped diesels somewhat, and these are now starting to appear on petrol cars, too.

The way diesel burns affects everything. Unless you're using it in a turbine, it won't give you nearly as much power as gasoline. The fact that the world-speed record for piston-engined vehicles still belongs to a spark-ignition car (from nearly twenty years ago!) and not a diesel shows this (you don't have to worry about emissions on a speed-record run!).

HCCI is a great advance in technology... but the electronics needed to make it work are scary expensive. An HCCI engine will probably end up costing as much as or more than a hybrid set-up when it is finally commercialized. I'm as eager as the next person to see this enter production... but unless we let up on NOx restrictions, it's going to be an uphill battle for the technology.

By which time, a whole slew of new "green" (I hate this term) tech will have been put on trial!

Sadly.

But: how does all of this relate to tuning options in a video game? 💡

Hahaha... off-topic, but somewhat on... the discussion still touches on GT as to what we might possibly see included in the game in the future.

I suppose the point about KERS initially, was that it is a current technology, and it is / was / has been in use for various applications already, so its inclusion should not be ruled out as a matter of course. You said yourself that it could become effective given certain circumstances. The beauty of a game is that it allows you to create such circumstance. In fact, I think it was the Honda Dualnote in one (both?) of the Tokyo - [somewhere] Concept GT games which had a similar, braking regenerated electric "boost" that was automatically controlled.

KERS is a bad example for me, really. I don't like the F1-style implementation of the 80s arcade "turbo boost" button. But, the games industry is going to be a key place to try out this sort of new stuff (at least in terms of branding, and exposure for the punters) so no doubt it might begin to attract novel ideas...
As and when they come, I wouldn't mind if they were to feature in future GT games. Of course, their use should be restricted in career mode and online. (much the same way as various other aspects of a competition car are limited already in the game.)

My objection is simply down to whether it's realistic or not. While some of the mods in GT are outlandish in the sense that nobody in his right mind would seam-weld and roll-cage a Daihatsu three-wheeler (good luck finding a racing suspension, too), they try to be as faithful to real life as possible. Thus, hybrid set-ups for regular cars are probably not on the cards.

It would be nice. And GT is nothing if not quirky... with the inclusion of such oddball vehicles as the Blastolene Special, the Prius, various electric and hybrid concepts, and the "human powered" Nike One... so the idea of seeing such things isn't so far-fetched... but only in part, and not applied to the GT library in general. I'm pretty sure we'll see a KERS equipped F1 car in GT5 or in an update pack.

 

[SigmaViper11]

Nitrous should return. If you use it, then use it. If not don't. Engine swaps would be nice as well.