What do you know about KERS that most don't?

[TriXter]

Hi everyone,

I'm a french automotive engineering student looking for information on the KERS system. I'm not unfamiliar with F1 or other racing series using KERS, and I've found a fair bit of information on energy values, system integration...

So I'm looking for more obscure information that you may have on KERS (books, links, videos, pdfs) explaining more in depth details such as fabrication process, system components, developpement and/or fabrication costs, or anything else really.

Many thanks to those who can help,

Callum

[awizul]

http://youtu.be/6Ek1pluKXmU

[Tommy Cookers]

@TriXter

by mapping, current F1 engines are required to produce no more than zero torque when the accelerator pedal is at 0% travel
the engines fuel and air supply controlled exactly to cancel the engine's losses that would then normally give resistance/negative torque

since KERS generation can/will only happen when the accelerator is at 0%
can you tell us, does the 'zero torque' rule include the torque absorbed by the KERS generation ???

[thisisatest]

Tommy,
I thought it was "less than or equal to zero", no?

[bhall]

@TriXter

by mapping, current F1 engines are required to produce no more than zero torque when the accelerator pedal is at 0% travel
the engines fuel and air supply controlled exactly to cancel the engine's losses that would then normally give resistance/negative torque

since KERS generation can/will only happen when the accelerator is at 0%
can you tell us, does the 'zero torque' rule include the torque absorbed by the KERS generation ???

It's worded a bit differently.

5.5.3 The maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed.

The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or lower than 0Nm.

[Cam]

@TriXter

by mapping, current F1 engines are required to produce no more than zero torque when the accelerator pedal is at 0% travel
the engines fuel and air supply controlled exactly to cancel the engine's losses that would then normally give resistance/negative torque

since KERS generation can/will only happen when the accelerator is at 0%
can you tell us, does the 'zero torque' rule include the torque absorbed by the KERS generation ???

It's worded a bit differently.

5.5.3 The maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed.

The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or lower than 0Nm.

In an attempt to fully understand, I'd like to ask what may sound like a stupid question, as I'm no engineer, bare with me. If someone might be able to clarify for me please.

The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or lower than 0Nm

Lower than 0Nm... that suggests, to me, that a negative can be applied in this example. Is there such a thing as negative torque and could this be applied to route the mapping rule?

The research I have done has found mention of negative torque, in context to engine maps and what I think is engine braking, but as I've said, I don't fully understand this.

[rscsr]

...

The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand
equal to or lower than 0Nm

Lower than 0Nm... that suggests, to me, that a negative can be applied in this example. Is there such a thing as negative torque and could this be applied to route the mapping rule?

The research I have done has found mention of negative torque, in context to engine maps and what I think is engine braking, but as I've said, I don't fully understand this.

Well if your engine turns and you put 0 fuel to burn into it, it will still create a friction torque, because of the parts scrubing against each other (amongst others). Therefore the engine "consumes" torque and it "produces" a torque lower 0.
To use that motor breaking you have to be able to map also negative torque.

[Dragonfly]

If my general comprehension about KERS is right, then in energy harvest mode there will be negative torque, i.e. braking effect. And it could be varied by adjusting the amount of generated electric energy. But if battery is already full it has to be dumped in one way or another. For 2014 perhaps they can use the excess energy to keep the turbo spooled and eliminate lag.

[Callum]

I'm not sure if this is well known informtation (it may well be) but a top team in F1 kept their batteries inside the gearbox casing (at least last year) - I am not sure if it is still valid this year.

[WhiteBlue]

One piece of information is that KERS will be dead after only 17 more races. Next year it will be replaced by a totally different recovery system that is bigger and continuously working. Recovery in 2014 will also include heat energy.

The current KERS systems use mostly exotic, cutting edge LiPo cells for electric storage. Weight reduction is the most important development target but the specialized suppliers also work on improving the battery life and the rate of energy absorption which is also important for performance.

Some teams use physical storage along with chemical batteries. It is rumored that Red Bull uses such a system that works with super capacitors in the first stage. Supercaps have a small capacity but they absorb and release the electric energy very quickly. Thats why they are used as buffer to speed up energy transformation.

The main elements of a KERS system are the MGU, the power inverter and the storage which can be two stage design as I explained. The MGU transforms kinetic energy into AC electric current and power. The inverter transforms the current AC/DC and DC/AC as needed. The storage systems does just that, storing.

Batteries are usually placed where the fuel is. They have to be temperature controlled. All components of the KERS system except supercaps are liquid cooled. The supercaps can be integrated with the floor.

[autogyro]

I suggested a combination of battery and capacitor storage some years ago, so I doubt Adrian using the idea is a rumour.

In 2014 the technology will be held back even more by the regulations.

[fast_ian]

In 2014 the technology will be held back even more by the regulations.

With due respect, I beg to differ there for a few reasons;

- 2014 sees the introduction of two, rather than the current one, ER methodologies; Kinetic & heat (The much discussed MGU-K & MGU-H)
- Maximum allowable energy store is currently 300KJ (with a max discharge of 400KJ / lap). 2014 sees this increase to 4MJ / lap
- Put another way, max power is currently 60kW. That doubles next year.

IMO, they really are pushing the limits here. They "struggled" some figuring out how to store 300KJ - They can now store 4MJ! - Exactly where & how said energy will be stored remains "an exercise for the reader" - That's a *lot* of storage!

"We" may not like the switch in power trains, but it's definitely coming and opens some very interesting possibilities IMO.

FWIW, note I'm no tree-hugger - I couldn't give a damn what they consume etc. BUT, this is leading edge stuff which should spur some good innovations over the next few years.

Cheers,
Ian

[wesley123]

Just because there is more power doesnt mean that it is less regulated. There is still nothing fun to do with the KERS(and other) systems. The most innovative thing you can do is make smaller batteries, and that's about it

[fast_ian]

Just because there is more power doesnt mean that it is less regulated. There is still nothing fun to do with the KERS(and other) systems. The most innovative thing you can do is make smaller batteries, and that's about it

I hear you, but again beg to differ; I think we'll see extensive use of "supercaps" for example. They'll also push the limits with the MGU's.

Yes, there's some pretty strict regulations about what they can do, but it's new technology which must be good, no?

Cheers,
Ian

[autogyro]

I would not say that the technology is that new.
All the components are established components.

The FIA has said that the main thrust is for improvements in energy storage.
The regulations make electrical storage the only sensible development direction.

The layout of the powertrain is pretty much sown up by the regulations.

Which is why investors will not look at development ideas that replace the gearbox with energy recovery/application using new geartrains and electro-magnetic shifting.
Compounding is all very well but if the FIA tell you what items to connect up and how, there is little hope for innovation.