Following the first meeting of the WMSC (World Motor Sport Council) in 2024, the FIA has released the first findings of its WRC working group. Established by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem in 2023, the group was chaired by FIA deputy president for sport Robert Reid and WMSC member David Richards, with WMSC representatives Garry Connelly, Ronan Morgan and Andrew Mallalieu, and FIA executives Andrew Wheatley and Xavier Mestelan Pinon.

Its job was to try and plot a route for rallying, specifically the WRC, that would improve its reach while also defining a future direction for the sporting and technical regulations. The assembled expertise of the group members was augmented by data from the WRC fan engagement survey, completed in 2023.

The group’s suggestions certainly make for interesting, albeit slightly confusing, reading. The need to reduce costs for teams is clear, and suggestions such as the use of existing infrastructure for service parks (rather than teams taking their own units) and a cap on personnel make perfect sense. However, it is the technical regulations where the FIA’s intent is less clear.

The end of hybrid
The key takeaway is that the current Rally1 machines will stay, at least until 2026, but with the hybrids removed as of 2025. Yes, those are the same hybrids that just a few years ago were considered vital to manufacturer interest. Sadly, their introduction has been fraught and even three years in, the spec systems still prove troublesome, with teams frustrated that they can only develop workarounds for the issues rather than develop units that work. Not to mention the approximately €150,000 (US$162,500) they add to the cost of a Rally1 car, making customer sales challenging.

Slightly confusingly, the FIA states that performance will be compensated “by a reduction in overall weight, and a reduction in the air restrictor and aerodynamics”. Presumably this means that the weight will be dropped by removing the approximately 100kg hybrid, but the performance gain this would bring would then be pegged back by the engine and aero cuts.

These changes tie into what appears to be a Rally2+ class from 2025, with larger restrictors, the addition of paddleshift and a revised rear wing available to Rally2 cars running in WRC events, with the aim of “reducing the performance gap between Rally1 and Rally2 cars”. Whether this means Rally2 could compete for overall wins against Rally1 is not clarified.

From 2026, new Rally1 rules will come into play. The FIA states, “These regulations will run alongside the current Rally1 regulations for the 2026 season. These new rules will use a common safety cell to reduce costs and complexity and allow manufacturers and tuners to develop cars with their own bodywork based on production models including B-class, C-class, compact SUV or concept cars designed to tight technical criteria such as center of gravity and aerodynamics in order to equalize performance.

“The power output will be targeted at 330hp, with the engine performance controlled by a reference torque curve for all cars. Engine and transmission will be cost-capped and technology limited to Rally2 equivalence. Aerodynamic efficiency will be limited along with a top speed restriction to reduce development and cost. The cost per car will be capped at €400,000 and WRC manufacturers will be required to make their cars available for sale directly from the finish parc fermé of a WRC event.”

The FIA seems to be drawing on the WEC playbook of balance of performance while at the same time creating the conditions for Rally2 to move to a spaceframe chassis. This would be considered desirable thanks to the safety features of the Rally1 chassis compared with production-based machines. Such a move could also help long term as the supply of small, ICE-only hatchback cars starts to dry up.

The wish for an all-electric class, with performance parity with Rally1 running on “sustainable fuel” is also floated, though no idea of timescale is given. There is no mention of H₂ for rally (though technically it is a sustainable fuel) but at the same WMSC meeting the decision was taken to pursue liquid H₂ as a solution for motorsport more generally. Could an H₂ ICE solution fit into the cost constraints of the new rules? One would think it unlikely at the moment.

Frustratingly, the FIA is light on detail regarding the reasons behind these changes. What were the motivating factors? Initial feedback from PMW’s sources suggests that not all manufacturers are on board with the proposals. Although it is clear that the Rally1 regulations haven’t had the desired effect of bringing more entrants to the class, there is little to suggest that the new proposals will change the status quo. With final technical regulations due in June, it will be interesting to see how much horse trading takes place in the interim. The foundations of a more cost-effective top class, while not diluting the spectacle, appear to be there but as ever, the devil will be in the detail.

The post Where is the FIA going with WRC? appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

It’s no overstatement to say that motorsport is in a pretty good place right now. F1 continues to ride a wave of popularity with fans, while in WEC manufacturers are positively flocking to the Hypercar class thanks to a rules package which, despite a somewhat painful gestation, has delivered a bit of something for everyone.

The GT3 class continues to be a roaring success and even rallying, at least below Rally1, is attracting new entrants and cars. The end result is, of course, that suppliers are busier than ever. And with new avenues of technology development opening up, there are more opportunities than ever.

But (why does there always have to be a but?), anyone who has been involved in racing for more than five minutes knows it is a viciously fickle and cyclical business. How long, for example, until a manufacturer realizes that everyone can’t be a winner and moves on from the WEC? Furthermore, there is growing pressure on European OEMs from new Chinese entrants to the market, and belts will inevitably need to be tightened. The first casualty of any cost contraction is usually racing budgets.

It is therefore vital that those who rely on racing ensure they are resilient to these fluctuations. Fortunately, there also appears to be growing demand from large manufacturers for the expertise many in motorsport possess. The ability to produce high-quality, small-volume products quickly is an attractive trait and, anecdotally, the giants of the automotive industry are increasingly turning to niche suppliers to trial or develop concepts they may not have the agility to pursue themselves.

This means there are openings aplenty for savvy suppliers. The 2022 PMW Expo showed this, with a host of buyers from road car manufacturers in attendance, all keen to tap into the motorsport industry’s expertise. This is a trend that’s set to grow for 2023. There are many unrealized business avenues for our industry, and now is the time to hunt them down.

This was originally published in the September 2023 issue of Professional Motorsport World magazine

The post Opinion: Avenues of exploitation appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

Motorsport needs to be proactive in presenting to the public the engineering innovations and efficiency gains it has made – and continues to make. 

A raft of new powertrain regulations are set to come into force in 2026. F1 will gain new engine regs, the WRC as well, while at Le Mans the long-mooted hydrogen class should hit the track. All of these present a great opportunity for motor racing to keep itself relevant to the general public and, as a consequence, to the manufacturers that stump up cash to compete at the highest level. But based on its track record of the last 10 years, it needs to be proactive to get this message across.

F1 is a prime case in point. The 2014 rule changes led to the development of the most efficient combustion engines to date – an incredibly impressive achievement. Unfortunately, F1 and the FIA did a terrible job of telling the world. Here was a development path in perfect tune with the direction OEMs were taking, but rather than capitalize on this, the FIA was muted in its trumpeting and the manufacturers clammed up. Secrecy was the name of the game, and it is only really now, a decade later, that teams are talking openly about the innovations they perfected. Mercedes AMG HPP’s Hywel Thomas reflects that this was a missed opportunity to show just how relevant motorsport could be.

Taking the MGU-H – soon to be consigned to the history books – as an example, he says, “Everyone thinks that is the work of the devil, but actually it’s a fantastic engineering tool; we probably didn’t talk about it enough.” Mercedes is now deploying electrically driven turbochargers on its road cars. The same reluctance to trumpet these innovations could also be said for the incredible advances in combustion science that 2014 ushered in. Never had engine efficiency been subject to such intense scrutiny. While it would be easy to dismiss the efforts of racing, it shouldn’t be forgotten that for more than a decade, well over 1,000 engineers have dedicated their lives to eking out every last ounce of performance from 100kg of fuel. If you had told a development engineer at a major manufacturer in 2010 that a hybrid ICE would be hitting over 50% thermal efficiency 10 years down the line, they would have laughed at you.

“If you look at what was achieved in 2014 with the pre-chamber combustion, that was just an awful lot of efficiency,” recalls Thomas. “And, again, not something we talk about a huge amount. You think back to it and maybe these are the sorts of mistakes we made, because you are seeing those systems in road cars now. The 2014 regulations were seen a bit as the spawn of the devil, but look at what has actually come from them.” Teams will face the same conundrum in 2026. The new rules will see combustion technology pushed even further, with significant reductions in allowable fuel energy and the removal of a vital tool in the MGU-H. And of course there are the challenges presented by the electrified portion of the power units.

As Thomas highlights, it is not an easy balance to strike. In the case of Mercedes, the company has probably invested billions in power unit development and doesn’t want to see any advantages squandered. “It’s a very difficult part of the competition. You don’t want to lay out what you’re actually doing. But you look back and you think, crikey, we have some real innovations. And we’re in that same position with 2026 and the combustion, where we need to make those sorts of steps, that kind of innovation, that kind of work, because it’s a big challenge.”

With the extra limitations in place – not only the loss of the MGU-H but a ban on in-cylinder pressure sensing, compression ratio limits, not to mention budget caps – the developments made will be, if anything, even more relevant to mainstream automotive. 2026 is an opportunity that shouldn’t be squandered. In a world where every endeavor is set against the backdrop of emissions reduction, the sport of motor racing would do well to trumpet its not insubstantial achievements.

The post Seize the moment appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

Glance under the hood of any EV or hybrid hypercar and there is every chance you will see hardware from UK-based Helix, which many will have known previously as Integral Powertrain. From the Aston Martin Valkyrie, though the Czinger 21C to Triumph’s TE-1 motorcycle and NIO 333’s Formula E racer, Helix is consistently at the cutting edge of high-performance electrification.

Professional Motorsport World caught up with Arnaud Martin, chief officer responsible for inverter systems and motorsport activities at the company, to find out how Helix is reorienting its business and technology to take best advantage of the ever-evolving EV landscape.

“The reason for the change is a break with what we were born as,” says Martin of the company’s recent rebranding. “We were effectively a consultancy, whereas we have turned into a product and manufacturing company. We are looking to grow within the motorsport market, but also take all the learning from the past decade in motorsport, cost that down and make it competitive in the automotive environment, both on the inverter and motor side.”

It is rare for Helix to say much about many of the projects it undertakes, constrained as it is by a host of non-disclosure agreements. However, its tie-up with the NIO 333 Formula E Team is in the public domain. “I think it is fair to say that where there is an electric race series, we are never far away,” says Martin. “We are very involved in Formula E, but we can talk about only some of it. We supply Nio with its motor and inverter and feel that Formula E is a very good platform for development. However, it does have some areas that are only valid in Formula E; it is all about optimizing performance within the boundaries of the regulations. But nonetheless, it is very interesting for an engineer.”

Market spread

Outside of Formula E, the company supplies into almost every other form of racing, from off-road competition, through sportscars to motorcycles. It is even providing the E1 Series, the world’s first all-electric powerboat championship, with its electric drives.

“You’ve got two types of motorsport,” sums up Martin. “You get the very high end where everything is bespoke, and there we design and manufacture those for ultimate efficiency. That tends to be very specific development and very expensive. Then, you have a developing market where there’s lots of demand for motors around 250kW, coupled with a reasonably lightweight inverter. That type of product meets 50% of the current demand in motorsport and is kind of the bread and butter of what we produce now.”

Significantly, and off the back of its automotive-related developments, Helix is also developing lower-cost options for electric motorsport. “These are still very high power density and efficient motors and inverters, but we are making them more financially accessible,” outlines Martin. “They are maybe a tiny bit heavier, or marginally less efficient, but will be a much better cost match for future electric series. For example, if Formula 4 were to go electric, we will be ready with high-performance products at a reasonable price. A lot of our R&D investment is currently going into these new inverter and motor platforms.”

Key to these developments is a scalable motor architecture based around what Helix calls its ‘core technology’. “In the future, we will have four ‘off-the-shelf’ motors, with 177/242/330/417mm-diameter stators. Within those base designs we will have the ability to lengthen or shorten the motor depending on the customer’s requirements, to best match their performance and packaging needs. That is an approach we will be able to apply in motorsport and automotive,” explains Martin.

Power dense

Another notable area of activity at Helix is a new inverter design. “We are now working on a new inverter that is able to operate at very high current,” says Martin. “We realize that if you have an inverter that can run very high current, it can deal with most requirements from multiple customers, either with our motors or other people’s motors. It is still very power dense, but maybe gives away a tiny bit of weight. Our current inverter is 5.4kg and has a volume of 4.5 liters; the new one will be 5.5 liters and 8kg, so adding a little weight but also gaining in performance.”

Martin points out that although this specific inverter is not purely designed for motorsport, it meets the stringent functional safety standards required by ISO 26262 ASIL D. “If you are able to meet the hardest part of the automotive standards,” he says, “the inverter will be perfectly happy delivering motorsport performance.” He also notes that when used in racing, much of the monitoring required for automotive use is rendered redundant and thus can be disabled, otherwise, “It makes developing a motorsport VCU much more difficult!”

In what is becoming a busy market, Helix is a company that has established a strong reputation supplying blue chip projects. Martin says, “We want to develop the company because I think we all believe in electrification and what it can bring to the world longer term. As a result, we believe that our products can play a significant part in the future of electrification and that the class-leading power density and efficiency at a more effective cost will make them very attractive.”

The post Interview: Arnaud Martin, chief officer, inverter systems and motorsport, Helix appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

PMW Expo will return to the Köln Messe this November, bringing together motorsport and high-performance automotive engineers and suppliers from across the globe. This year, the expo will host a comprehensive program of technology seminars and discussion panels, providing attendees with unmatched insight into the cutting-edge developments shaping the industry.

If you or your organization are involved in any of the following areas and would like to present a topic or join a discussion panel, please click here to submit a proposal for consideration.

•     Development of low-emission powertrains or fuels for motorsport and high-performance applications
•     Technology transfer from motorsport to niche and OEM vehicle manufacture
•     High-performance electric and hybrid vehicle powertrain development, including motor, inverter, battery system, cooling systems, transmission and brake-by-wire systems
•     Sustainable motorsport, including materials development, manufacturing processes, logistics and ESG auditing of events, series and companies
•     AI and machine learning for engineering applications
•     Driver-in-the-loop simulation for performance engineering
•     Reverse engineering and additive manufacturing technologies
•     Race strategy and performance simulation

If you would like to present on a subject not listed above, please do not hesitate to get in touch with the team to discuss.

Submit you proposal here

The post Share your expertise: PMW Expo technology workshops and industry panels appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

For years now, I have felt that Formula 1 needs a rule set which provides almost limitless technological freedom, with the caveat of a strict budget cap and safety standards. In fact, I recall Pat Symonds, at a Formula Student event many moons again, saying something along the lines of “give us a budget and a box to design the car in, leave the rest up to us”.

Now, the aptly named Phantasia Consulting, a German marketing agency, has proposed a direction for the 2026 F1 rules that follows this line of thinking, albeit with some refinement. Now, some may scoff at a marketing agency getting involved in rules, but remember, racing is very much a form of mass market entertainment, the crux being that fans do like technology (something F1 has acknowledged with its own pre-Grand Prix tech shows, which have proved very popular).

In among some florid language about the golden eras of racing, the core of Phantasia’s proposal is that F1 should be a straight fight of who can go the fastest with the same amount of energy. In this case, the equivalent of 200kg of gasoline for the whole weekend (50kg for practice, 50kg for qualifying and 200kg for the race), with teams free to use ICE, hydrogen (they do not specify fuel cell or ICE), electric or any combination of the above. Refueling in races would not be allowed. Budgets would be capped at US$135m per year, and any powertrain manufacturer must make its system available to anyone on the grid for US$15m.

The proposal also suggests that aerodynamic development and design should be unconstrained. Of course, the argument against this (beyond development cost, which is negated by a budget cap) is that cars would become too fast for tracks and safety equipment. Phantasia’s solution is simple: cut the energy allowance if this becomes the case. The case for aerodynamic freedom is that it would push aero efficiency, which could produce transferable knowledge for mainstream automotive. Tire supply would also be open, with the exception of wets, which would be a spec item from a single supplier.

Of course, there are many potential flaws in such a seemingly simple plan. The intent is to make F1 a crucible for development of sustainable technology development. However, left to their own devices, engineers will simply go for the fastest option. In the near term, and with the energy allowance essentially unchanged, this would be ICE. However, with some tweaks, development of EV and hybrid technology could be encouraged.

Overall, the proposal is likely what many engineers (if they were unconstrained by political and business factors) would love to see. F1 should be the pinnacle of automotive technology and an accelerator for developments that will benefit the automotive industry and society as a whole. The means of achieving this is certainly not through ever more restrictive regulation.

The post Opinion: The F1 regulations proposal that lays out a path to technological freedom appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

The Mercedes-AMG One can justifiably claim to be the pinnacle of roadgoing combustion engine technology. However, the car’s cutting-edge powertrain can trace its origins back over a decade.

In 2012 engineers at what is now Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains in Brixworth, UK, were deep into the development of an engine, or to put it more precisely, a power unit, that would dominate Formula 1’s soon-to-arrive hybrid era.

The challenge facing engineering director Andy Cowell’s team was very different to that which they were used to. This was the era of 2.4-liter, naturally aspirated, port-injection V8s in F1 that revved to the stratosphere. (Before cost control measures in 2007 put an end to such excesses, Cosworth successfully ran its CA V8 to over 20,000rpm). But F1 was about to undergo a seismic shift.

In 2014, V8s would be consigned to history, replaced by 1,600cc, turbocharged, direct-injection V6s featuring energy recovery from both kinetic and exhaust gas-driven electric machines. Even more significantly, the rules would place a hard ceiling on fuel usage, with a fuel flow limit of 100kg/h and a maximum fuel load per race of 100kg. Combustion and overall powertrain efficiency would be king, and the team that managed to coax the greatest propulsive effort from every drop of fuel would hold an advantage.

The result were engines from Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and later Honda, that pushed efficiency to levels previously thought impossible. In that first year, Mercedes admitted that its ICE was over 40% TE, and by 2017, overall efficiency (taking into account energy recovery), was over 50%.

Mercedes committed early to development of its V6 engine. Single cylinder mules were already running in 2011, despite a late rule change from an I4 global race engine concept to a V6, on the insistence of Ferrari. This early work paid dividends and the Mercedes PU106A, fitted to the F1 WO4 car, dominated that first and subsequent seasons, both in terms of sheer performance and reliability.

The layout of the PU106A was unique, the compact V6 ICE featured a motor generator unit nestled in the vee of the cylinders, driven by a turbocharger with its compressor mounted at the front of the block and turbine at the rear. Running at up to 120,000rpm, just this one element of the engine, replete as it was with a single, spindly shaft linking all of the rotating parts, dove headfirst into the engineering unknown. The layout was a masterstroke, not least because it allowed for the use of a larger, and more efficient compressor compared to other manufacturers’ solutions that packaged both at the rear.

Of course, there were many more facets to Mercedes’s success beyond the MGU-H. Its unrivalled research into combustion science, working in conjunction with Daimler’s engineers in Stuttgart; an exceptional level of integration between power unit and chassis; pushing the limits of electric motor and battery technology (the 120kW MGU-K weighed a mere 7kg) … all these elements and more combined to deliver an unbeaten run in the F1 constructors’ championship from 2014-21.

Now this engine, albeit in a detuned form (574bhp vs F1’s 850bhp+) is available on the road. Mercedes admits that getting it there has been as tough a challenge as developing the original race unit. In part thanks to emissions hurdles related to the high NOx levels inherent with such a lean combustion engine, not to mention having to tame a highly strung racing unit to deliver acceptable service intervals and start at the push of a button – without needing supervision by a garage full of engineers.

While other cars can lay claim to having racing ‘derived’ engines, the Mercedes-AMG One stands alone in being a full (albeit limited) production road car with a legitimate F1 powertrain. For this reason, and the fact it is probably the most efficient ICE car ever produced, Mercedes should be applauded.

The post Why the Mercedes-AMG One represents peak ICE technology appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

“The preparation of a car for racing is largely a matter of compromise, as is, for that matter, all engineering. It is always a case of making the best use of the materials and time at hand, and bound up with this is the unfortunate problem of finance. How few people realize the cost of labor until they receive their account!

“In connection with this question of cost, it pays to think well into the future and arrange for the work to be carried out in such a way as to cut out the excessive amount of overtime which is worked in this racing game.”

Beyond the somewhat antiquated language, these could be the words of any contemporary, seasoned motorsport engineer. In fact, they were penned some 80 years ago in an essay on car preparation by Walter ‘Wally’ Hassan, his contribution to Earl Howe’s book titled simply Motor Racing.

Hassan also added the timeless caveat that, “Workmanship always deteriorates in proportion to the lateness of the hour worked, and the job suffers accordingly. Of course, on occasion it is found necessary to burn the midnight oil, and much good work has been done, but it is to be avoided if at all possible.”

As a young man, Hassan cut his teeth working at Bentley alongside drivers such as Woolf Barnato. He was involved with the company’s legendary Le Mans-winning cars including the 4.5-liter Old Mother Gun and its successor, Old Number One. He went on to serve stints at Jaguar and ERA, before spending time at Coventry Climax after World War II. There, alongside long-time colleague Harry Mundy, he was responsible for the FW (Feather Weight) fire pump engine, which morphed into the first Climax racing engines. He also developed the unraced Climax flat-16 for the 1.5-liter Grand Prix formula. One can only wonder what engineers of Hassan’s ilk would make of the current incessant creep of spec formulas and rule sets that stifle innovation.

Mind you, regulatory limitations and technological advances notwithstanding, Hassan would likely ‘get’ what it takes to win in the modern era. Take the root cause of Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen’s crash at Monza last year: botched pitstops. In the same essay, Hassan concludes, “A combination of first-class preparation, driving and pit management is necessary to win races at this time.”

Hassan’s approach to race car preparation and operation was highly respected by his peers, and the principles he laid down remain unchanged. It has been proved time and again that consistently excellent execution is what wins races and championships. One need only look at WEC returnee Peugeot’s previous sportscar effort to see this: despite generally having a faster car than its main competitor, Audi, it was denied many a victory due to operational deficiencies. The same could be said of Ferrari over recent Grand Prix seasons.

The motorsport landscape is changing rapidly, and there is a genuine concern that vital skills are being lost due to the lack of engineering diversity in many classes. However, there is much that would still be familiar to Hassan. The tools may have changed, but racing is still about balancing the always finite resources of time and money against the need to field a car and team that are as close to perfection as possible.

The post Opinion: The perfect compromise appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

Cliff Daniels is crew chief to Hendrick Motorsports’ driver Kyle Larson, who won the 2021 Regular Cup season and is in the running for the overall championship. Prior to Larson joining the team, Daniels was crew chief for seven-times NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson. PMW asked for his take on the seismic shift the sport is about to see.

“Overall, I totally understand the initiative for NASCAR. I think it is going to help the business model, short term and even long term. However, short term for us it is going to be a big change to go from the skill and craft of constructing our own chassis, bodies and suspension to purchasing them from all the different sources,” he explains.

Not only will the manufacturing process of NASCAR change, but so too will the means by which teams can find performance. “The area in which you can develop is going to be so much smaller, we’re going to have to find that area,” says Daniels. “Not only are we going to have to make the most of how we build the cars, once we get the parts and pieces in house, just from the QC and assembly side of things. But that small window of opportunity means we will have to delve down more into the engineering of the cars, to make the most of it. Instead of being able to work in development in 15 or 20 areas, it may be five or 10 now, so the scope of our development could be cut in half.”

For Daniels, it will be a steep learning curve coming out of 2021 and in to 2022, as he and his team get to grips with an all-new car package: “There’s a lot of our history that we have here at Hendrick that won’t apply specifically, because everything is so different, the suspension, the chassis, the body, the tire. However, our understanding of the fundamentals of what it takes to make such a heavy car reach maximum potential, a lot of those foundational engineering principles still apply. We’ve just got to figure out how to tune it right. It will certainly be interesting to see who gets their hands around it quickest. We’re just going to have to throw so many different changes at the car [in testing] just to see how it responds so we can start building our own database of sensitivities of the car.”

Despite relishing the new engineering challenge, Daniels, along with many of his colleagues, does lament the loss of an intrinsic part of the sport – teams as constructors in their own right: “I think there will still be a bit of uniqueness here or there. But compared to what we know in Cup racing today, where there’s a Hendrick chassis and body or a Penske car, that is going away which is a big deal.”

The post Opinion: Crew chief Cliff Daniels on NASCAR’s Next Gen appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.

Electric and hybrid motorsport appear to be, slowly, coming of age. Formula E launched seven years ago and until recently remained the only all-electric global series. However, this year will see the debut of an electric class in rallycross and TCR, and the Extreme E series has begun its around-the-world off-road odyssey.

It would be all too easy to assume that EV racing is a product of the 21st century. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly 120 years ago a car broke the 100mph (160km/h) barrier for the first time – the car was the Baker Torpedo, and it was electric.

It must be remembered that as the 20^th century dawned, the internal combustion engine was far from the dominant form of propulsion it is today. In the nascent automobile market, steam and electric power were, if anything, leading the technology race.

In the late 1800s, electric cars traded places for the land speed record. On March 4, 1899, the Comte de Chasseloup-Laubat set a speed record of 57.6mph (92.7km/h) at Acheres, near Paris, in what was credited as being the first official land speed record. His mount, ‘The Jeantaude’, was electric.

In short order, Belgian racing driver Camille Jenatzy raised the bar with another EV, the CITA No.25 ‘La Jamais Contente‘, which translates as ‘The Never Satisfied‘. He had already broken Chasseloup-Laubat’s record just 10 days after it was set, driving a standard roadgoing CGA ‘Dogcart’ electric car, but La Jamais Contente was a dedicated racer, built with the sole purpose of breaking records.

The car featured a streamlined body constructed from a light alloy called partinium, a combination of aluminum, copper and zinc, mounted on a ladder frame chassis (which no doubt negated the benefits of the body’s sleek lines). Under the body was a pair of Postel-Vinay 25kW motors, running at 200V and drawing 124A from a Fulmen lead-acid battery. The potent machine set a new record on April 29, 1899, and Jenatzy became the first man to travel at over 62mph (100km/h). Officially, his record stood until 1902, when it was broken by Léon Serpollet’s steam car and, in the same year, the first internal-combustion-engined car to hold the record, William K Vanderbilt’s Mors Z Paris-Vienne.

However, Walter Baker of Cleveland, Ohio, owner of the Baker Motor Vehicle company – a successful manufacturer of electric cars and commercial vehicles, which even supplied the White House – has a decent claim on the 100mph barrier.

Baker’s Torpedo was advanced for its time. Like La Jamais Contente, it had an aerodynamic body but was fully enclosed and also low slung. Drive was provided by 11 batteries feeding a 14hp Elwell-Parker motor that was mounted in the rear of the vehicle with power transmitted to the rear axle by a double chain. Amazingly, it was also fitted with safety belts for the occupants.

On Memorial Day 1902 (May 31), Baker took part in speed trials organized by the Automobile Club of America on the streets of Staten Island, New York. As was customary, Baker carried a ride-on mechanic, in this instance company chief engineer, E E Denzer. During the event, Baker was recorded covering a flying kilometer in 16 seconds, averaging exactly 100mph. However, tragedy struck when he hit a pair of tramlines, throwing the car off course into the crowd of onlookers and killing one person. Baker had smashed the previous record by over 35mph (56km/h) but, due to the crash, the run was disqualified. Had the incident not occurred, Baker was sure that the Torpedo was capable of 120mph (193km/h). He went on to build two smaller, single-seat torpedoes, but neither was able to set a verified record.

Ultimately, the 100mph mark would not officially be achieved until Fred Marriott drove the Stanley Steamer to 127.66mph (205.44km/h) in 1906, but for a brief period at the dawn of the automobile, electric cars were the fastest machines in the world.

The post Opinion: Electric racing is far from new appeared first on Professional Motorsport World.