Scania wrote:riff_raff wrote:Scania,
Have you not seen your own namesake's Energy Recovery System?
do you have more imfoemation with it?
That Volvo device you linked is very similar to the Scania turbo-compound device. The only difference is that the Volvo compound turbine wheel is integrated into the turbocharger.
The turbo-compound principle would not be applicable to F1, since it would require turbo machinery, which is not currently accepted in F1. Also, turbo-compounding (exhaust energy recovery) is different in principle from kinetic (braking) energy recovery.
Although it's not F1 racing, the turbo diesels dominated at Sebring.
Nealio wrote:Back to the problem with KERS. I sense that most of us agree that the real problem is in the restrictive framing of the rules for using KERS. They are so limiting that the potential for energy recovery is hardly explored. Why for instance can you use the energy from kERS for only 6.8 seconds? That's the same as saying you can only use full throttle for 6.672 (arbitrary numbers are so much fun!) seconds per lap! If you are going to give more than lip service to environmental concerns you must explore all the potential of this new technology. Making it possible to use KERS at all times will also affect the fuel consumption off-setting some or even all of the weight of the KERS devices.
xpensive wrote:Tried this example a couple of times before to prove my point, see if there is a physics-student out threre this time?
The kinetic energy availiable for recovery is rather small in comparison to energy wasted through air-resistance.
- A 700 kg F1-car loses only 1400 kJ of kinetic energy from 250 down to 100 km/h.
- At 250 km/h and a Cv*A of 1.4, air-resistance losses for the same car are more than 4000 kJ per km driven.
Conclusively, even if you can do all your braking with a 100% efficient KERS-device, the potential energy-recovery is still limited, while you could easily save much more with improved aerodynamics.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], pgfpro and 5 guests