Conceptual wrote:The recovery aspect is there, be it by pressurizing a storage tank to using the front motors under braking to drive the rear engine and turn the generator. I see where my post was obscure on that point, so thank you.
obscure, I'm afraid. Three separate means of conserving, gathering and retaining energy meant for propulsion: Diesel fuel in a tank, a battery for electricity and
a pressure container of some sort? I'm sure you're well aware that for all means and purposes, hydraulic fluid is incompressible? I felt it necessary to point that out, though, since one could've easily gotten that impression from the composite of your posts. So I'm assuming that the compressed agent is a gaseous substance.
Conceptual wrote:And about making if for F1, I would like to say that I personally have zero interest in making anything F1 specific ... I think that in most automotive aspects that our view of tomorows road technology is made possible by standing on the shoulders of Formula One engineers.
I for one think Formula One engineers are better off not
being told what they can and can't do. Some manufacturers' F1 operations are intimately tied with their larger R&D efforts. These days, F1 is as much about materials science, aeronautics, electronics, software, etc. as road technology. And that's mostly a good thing. Much can be planned, designed and solved but sometimes for innovation - you've just got to be prepared for it.
Conceptual wrote:The gentleman that mentioned the weight of the motors, coupled by the complexity and inefficiency of a system like this, I would like to say that I agree with you, and my hope is that if a KERS system becomes mandated in F1 that these exact points become the top priority of improvement for the corps of highly intelligent and well educated F1 Engineers.
You haven't read up on KERS much as of yet, have you? It is
being mandated, but just the other day, the FIA technical consultant Tony Purnell had this to say about integration: "Obviously if the teams were to redesign their engine blocks they could incorporate KERS in a much neater way. But this is hardly necessary. And as recent experience has shown, any opportunity to touch the engine is opening up a Pandora's box full of potential expenditure.
Conceptual wrote:I can build something like this at home with available materials. Obviously, it is the cost that is the most prohibitive, but prototyping is always like that. Oh, and I meant a .3L 2 cylindar turbo diesel, since the driveline only needs between 50-100 HP. Anyone out there with the equipment and knowhow (and funding) want to take the challenge of making something like this at home?
Of course we could all use a spare mil or two, all the time in the World and all the resources neatly delivered to our doorsteps. Perhaps it'd be a more logical route to pitch one's ideas in some venture capital forum to achieve that. I'm not greatly interested in walking through very general suggestions and considering their merits until they've ended up as workable products, though. Doing that would amount to stuff not entirely unlike what people are actually being handsomely (or at least sufficiently) compensated for, whole hordes of people in fact. It's another matter altogether if the project is clearly defined as open source or nonprofit. Offering support in a project also means, by definition, that the support doesn't exceed the original effort, of course, lest the support become the main effort.
It'd make for a nice little World, though, to be able to walk up to someone and quite rationally make the following request: "You wouldn't mind terribly if you solved global warming for me? Great, I'm gonna have myself a cuppa, then.
" Oh well, I'm being cynical here, aren't I? Please don't mind that too much, I just felt tempted to show attitude having gone through personal experiences that have changed my disposition towards seemingly off-hand requests.