2008 Barcelona Testing Thread (17 Nov - 19 Nov)

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:46 pm

ESPImperium wrote:
dumbdave wrote:Must be electrical KERS if they have a man standing by to ground it!

Personally i think the flybrid KERS has the advantage in weight & cooling requirements over the electrical. Would love to know which teams are using it though, possibly Renault as flybrid is a company run by ex-Renault engine designers. Red Bull maybe given their existing link with the renault engine, but that doesnt mean they will use it.


Personally i think that Renault and Ferarri are both working in conjuction with Magnetti Marenelli to produce 2 diffrent systems, specific to the Renault and Ferarri engine packages that will be both used by Ferarri and Renault and Red Bull/Torro Rosso as well.

I think that Renault is using a Flybrid and Ferarri is using a Electrical system.

The McLaren system will be shared with FIF1 as well, with Toyota, BMW Sauber, Williams and Honda each developing their own systems.


I dont see why Renault would work with Magnetti on a flybrid product? As i understand it Flybrid produce their own flywheel system & utilise a Torotrack CVT?
dumbdave
 
Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Location: Midlands UK

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:34 am

You can bet that BMW, Toyota and Honda will be developing their own KERS units. They are the only 3 companies who have any REAL hybrid knowhow to begin with. Everyone else has to source out their systems.

Plus, being companies that actually sell hybrid cars (BMW excepted) anything they come up with for a high-performance system COULD be directly translated to a road car.

John Howlet has already stated that Toyota is working on their own system, so has Ross Brawn. To even think for a second that BMW would outsource is complete nonsense :) :lol:
majicmeow
 
Joined: 5 Feb 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:13 am

majicmeow wrote:Plus, being companies that actually sell hybrid cars (BMW excepted) anything they come up with for a high-performance system COULD be directly translated to a road car.


AFAIK the hybrid system BMW are making for their road cars is outsourced. Mercedes will use variation of the same system, and the system they use is nowhere is advanced as Toyota's.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:31 am

majicmeow wrote:To even think for a second that BMW would outsource is complete nonsense :) :lol:

Long time Lurker, first time Poster - but nevertheless...

I have to share some ... let's call them rumors from a German Board regarding BMW's KERS. It is said, that they cooperate with a company called Compact Dynamics - located next to Munich. They developed a flywheel storage, some technical data (although a German document) can be found here. And here is a real-world picture of the solution. As you can see, it's based of four flywheels which is rumored to be better than a single flywheel in terms of packaging but not in terms of efficiency. Some other rumors from a source I personally trust:
- It's watercooled
- Almost vacuum conditions inside the flywheel package - which is logical IMHO
- very high RPM count - is kind of a non-info. All flywheel storages have very high RPM counts - but maybe he means very high relative to other solutions. So it could possibly be as much as or even more than 200.000RPM.

Source:
Motorsport-Total.com Forum / Technical Section
BorisTheBlade
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:48 am

On the other hand, the electric shock at Jerez pretty much proves they're running electric storage systems.

Also, with that new MINI E limited test thingy, they've also got electric-powered cars on the road now.
Metar
 
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:59 am

That the Storage is a flywheel doesn't necessarily mean, that it's not an electrical solution.

The energy is transformed by the electric-motor/generator at the drive-train, transported as electrical energy and stored by re-transforming it into kinetic energy. That is achieved by using the flywheel as an electric-motor when it has to store the energy and as a generator when it has to supply it to the drive-train.
BorisTheBlade
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:48 am

Would be a good idea if conversions were fast and efficient, but I suspect converting kinetic->electric->kinetic for storage and then back again for use will be quite wasteful..
Metar
 
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:30 pm

Believe it or not, but that will be the way, every F1 team willing to use the flywheel will implement that technique in 2009. Of course, two conversions in one system seems a bit horrible but I think in terms of weight, packaging and flexibility its much better than a mechanical solution. Just take a look at the picture of the first document I linked - I think it's self-explanatory.

That said it is also possible to apply a flywheel or a battery as storage to the modular KER-system of Bosch. It's the choice of the team, which storage they use.
BorisTheBlade
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:35 pm

BorisTheBlade wrote:That the Storage is a flywheel doesn't necessarily mean, that it's not an electrical solution.

The energy is transformed by the electric-motor/generator at the drive-train, transported as electrical energy and stored by re-transforming it into kinetic energy. That is achieved by using the flywheel as an electric-motor when it has to store the energy and as a generator when it has to supply it to the drive-train.


I dont think that is true of the Flybrid system, they take drive directly from a power shaft via a CVT & store it mechanically, no motors or generators involved (although there are obviously a lot of control electronics!)

According to flybrid this is much more efficient than incorporating an electrical-kinetic conversion of the energy & im inclined to agree, every power transfer process involves losses, the fewer times the energy changes form the less is lost!
dumbdave
 
Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Location: Midlands UK

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:03 pm

BorisTheBlade wrote:They developed a flywheel storage, some technical data (although a German document)

I found some technical info in english...here's the link:

http://www.eki-gmbh.com/innovationen/KERS_Info_Version_080819.pdf

According to this document, overall efficiency (charge+boost) is 65%.
Downforce
 
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:05 pm

dumbdave wrote:I dont think that is true of the Flybrid system, they take drive directly from a power shaft via a CVT & store it mechanically, no motors or generators involved (although there are obviously a lot of control electronics!)

According to flybrid this is much more efficient than incorporating an electrical-kinetic conversion of the energy & im inclined to agree, every power transfer process involves losses, the fewer times the energy changes form the less is lost!

I totally agree with you in terms of raw efficiency. But IMHO there are some drawbacks with that solution:
1. You would have to locate it next to the power shaft except you wanted to have another shaft going straight through half of the car. With the kind of balance needed for the tyres in mind that doesn't sound very appealing to me.
2. Unless I miss something it would be limited to a single flywheel solution, which would result in a more or less big diameter or width - making it not that flexible in terms of packaging.
3. A mechanical device needs a direct link between the CVT an the flywheel, which always means friction. The electrical device doesn't need that, so it has almost no friction. It looses only 2% of it's saved power per hour due to deceleration.

But of course I'd be happy if someone brought a mechanical device. Could be very interesting to see, how they'd implement it and how it performed.

@Downforce
Thanks for the info - very interesting. Although 65% doesn't sound that good, i doubt that any kind of KERS will reach more than 70%.

/edit:
Oh, and as a sidenote, Metar:
Maybe the electrical flywheel solution may not but be perfectly efficient. But regarding speed of storing and supplying it is by far superior to a battery storage.
BorisTheBlade
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:42 pm

BorisTheBlade wrote:@Downforce
Thanks for the info - very interesting. Although 65% doesn't sound that good, i doubt that any kind of KERS will reach more than 70%.

Flybrid also claims efficiency of 65% for their flywheel KERS solution. They also claim weight of 25kg, and that would be 10kg lighter system when compared with Compact Dynamics.
Downforce
 
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:28 pm

BorisTheBlade wrote:
dumbdave wrote:I dont think that is true of the Flybrid system, they take drive directly from a power shaft via a CVT & store it mechanically, no motors or generators involved (although there are obviously a lot of control electronics!)

According to flybrid this is much more efficient than incorporating an electrical-kinetic conversion of the energy & im inclined to agree, every power transfer process involves losses, the fewer times the energy changes form the less is lost!


3. A mechanical device needs a direct link between the CVT an the flywheel, which always means friction. The electrical device doesn't need that, so it has almost no friction. It looses only 2% of it's saved power per hour due to deceleration.


Couldn't teams place a clutch between the flywheel and the gearbox reducing friction in the drive train?

To keep the packaging small, are teams going to be using exotic very dense metals in their flywheels ?
Shaddock
 
Joined: 7 Nov 2006
Location: UK

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:00 pm

Of course will they use clutches - there's no way around AFAIK. But also AFAIK are clutches things that produce a LOT of friction and therefore a loss of efficiency by design.

No, AFAIK the flywheels will be made of carbon. That's because the weight is only a linear factor in the equation for storing kinetic energy, while the rotation speed goes in exponentially. So the buy low weight through high RPMs.
BorisTheBlade
 
Joined: 21 Nov 2008

Post Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:19 pm

Shaddock wrote:To keep the packaging small, are teams going to be using exotic very dense metals in their flywheels ?

Don't know what is allowed. But as weight factors in linearly whereas a doubling of rpm stores the quadruple amount of energy it's better to to go for very high revs.

Not speaking of heavy flywheels being bad for overall car performance either.
D'Leh
 
Joined: 14 Jul 2008

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CCBot [Bot], hattrick, RSS Junkie [Deamon], Tweetmeme [Bot] and 11 guests