Regenerative systems (KERS)

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

"Ethanol cars may not be healthier"

BBC News website, Health, 18 April 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6563255.stm

This raises some questions, but clearly there's room for conceptual and technological improvements.
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

"F1 BRAKES: Star Systems, Banshees & 800 lb. Gorillas"

by Steve Matchett, 4/18/2007, SpeedTV website
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/fo ... 77/?page=1

A reasonably thorough (but none too technical) explanation of current rules governing the brake systems, especially the driver method of controlling brake bias via manually adjustable hydraulics. Contrasting the current system to any regenerative one - the technological complexity of it, the amount of rules that have to be rewritten ... quite a change. Still can't quite believe this process will be begun with the introduction of flywheels.
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Checkered - Having read the article , may I suggest that gasoline is probably more toxic, with trace elements of benzene which lead to risks of cancer - this article concerning petrol and kidney cancer may be of interest
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1568672
The effects on health - contrasting alcohol vs gasoline is a vital consideration of future choices between the two fuels.

EDIT April 20th - Looking into the matter - high levels of ground level ozone is a serious health concern - ozone is very destructive - eroding the delicate membranes of the lungs.

:wink: Flywheels? - Flywheels? - A personal technology fetish- novelty of mine. :wink:
Last edited by Carlos on 20 Apr 2007, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Flywheels as large scale energy storage connected to commercial electricity grids - Each is just a short page in length.

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/scpa/04_02.htm

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/01/1 ... echnology/

Mikey_s
Mikey_s
8
Joined: 21 Dec 2005, 11:06

Post

Just a couple of quick points on biofuels in general and then i'll try and duck out...

Whilst biofuels are apparently an attractive alternative to conventional fuels they often do not deliver the benefits that we would like to see.

For example; Depending upon the source of the ethanol the energy balance can be very close to zero (or even negative) over the life cycle of the fuels and even when there is a saving (e.g. biodiesel from Rapeseed) in practice thre is simply not enough arable land to make a significant dent in demand.

The latest US initiative to produce ethanol from corn might win the votes of the farming community, but using a foodstuff (corn/maize) to produce ethanol is a terrific waste of energy, raw materials and is basically a political instrument which will simply not deliver the anticipated benefits. Bioethanol only leads to savings if you make it from waste cellulose, or other waste streams. Furthermore, the best thing to do with biomass is to burn it directly, not to waste energy turning it into another type of fuel and burning it in an inefficient internal combustion engine... it might give you a warm feeling (no pun intended!), but on an efficiency basis it really just does not stack up.

Lots of good information (factual AND balanced) on the concawe.be website (even if it is an oil company association!). Just type biofules into the search box.

As for health effects; biofuels are not pefect Carlos; ethanol can lead to aldehyde and ketone formation in the exhaust; these chemicals are strongly irritant. And Epidemiology studies (the pubmed citation) are VERY blunt instruments for identifying causal agents for disease... I spend a lot of time trying to make sense of such studies and i can tell you that if the authors didn't even find a statistically significant relationship, only a suggestion (trend), then the likelihood is very small that there is any real effect. You are correct, benzene is nasty, but it tends to lead to blood disorders and the benzene content of gasolines in EU is very, very low nowadays... and benzene exposure in refinereies and terminals is also extremely low. General exposure to hydrocarbons can lead to kidney disease, and if this is found in the older workers then the strong likelihood is that this is a result of poor work practices decades ago, and highly unlikely to be relevant today as work practices have changed significantly.

In my view if the FIA wants to see some regenerative technology they must let the engineers innovate and not tie their hands with overly strict regulations which only serve to ensure that the cars remain inefficient.

rant over!
Mike

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

I agree with Mikey. Ethanol is a way to shift the problem. It's been mentioned that 11 Hectares per car makes absurd a 100% ethanol system. Even in Germany they've problems:

Increases in price of beer Germany because of 2 million Hectares devoted to rapeseed cultivation for ethanol production
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archiv ... 107872.htm

Of course, people in Brazil is happy: the hard currency earned can overcome the problem created by less arable land devoted to food. Arab desertic countries cannot compete with them. But if every country do the same, specially countries like USA or Argentina, which are the "granaries" of the world, we are in deep trouble. First, we desertify our planet, second we shift the food production toward cars... this is madness.

I repeat that the most efficient system is a dual cycle turbine, as posted before. Of course, if you produce electricity in those turbins and then you store it on electric cars is like going back to square one: the transmission losses and the storage and motion loses of an electric vehicle means that you lost the advantages of the dual cycle turbine. This is madness, again.

I postulate, for the first time, that the cleanest energy source is nuclear, as Iran and Jordan are showing to the world.

A coal plant, even the most advanced ones produces 100 times the amount of radioactive material a nuclear plant produces!
I mentioned that in a previous post in this thread.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

The article mentions that people like Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain's Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth agrees that nuclear power is better.

Hearing those guys, I have to believe nuclear power will become an important part of the energy basket of the future:

Jordan Congress open the way for nuclear power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/wl ... 0422190807

Everybody talks about global warming: let's be the first (at least in this forum) to talk about global dimming: the Earth is receiving at least 2% less solar radiation because of smog particles:

[img]http:270:207]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _China.jpg[/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Smog is created by NOx (nitric oxides) from your car. Ethanol does diminish CO2 appreciably but increases NOx. So, you can expect less carbon monoxide and more smog on your city. Natural Gas for Vehicles (NGV) does diminish NOx.

The fact is that if we extrapolate, we should plan for a world with 10.000 million people, earning around U$2.000 dollars each in the next generation. This could mean around 1.000 million cars. This is absurd!

The most efficient car is a bus!!!

The amount of energy we'll use in transportation systems depends much more on the shape of our cities than on the fuel we use, as the graph I posted on city density vs oil consumption shows.

Humankind will need efficient transportation systems. Cars are inefficient by definition. I have a car, but I am consequent: most of my displacements are by bus and walking.

As you can see, FIA is doing nothing to ponder all this. Electric cars can deliver probably the same amount of power that a ICE engine. As Mikey_s states, FIA should let the designers do what they wish with their engines and limit the amount of energy on board. Simple.
Ciro

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote: The amount of energy we'll use in transportation systems depends much more on the shape of our cities than on the fuel we use, as the graph I posted on city density vs oil consumption shows.
http://carfree.com

Hummm I think I've posted this before. Nevermind, it's always fun to hijack Ciro mid-rant.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Well, glad to entertain. :wink:

Last conference "Towards Carfree Cities" (number 6) was held in Bogota, on World Carfree Day and Mr. Crawford visited us. The "Carbusters" you link are a nice bunch of people, but down here we seem them a little idealistic: rebuild the cities? Anyway, I already gave my opinion on the subject, no more rants today... :D

viewtopic.php?t=3755

Back on thread, for the moment FIA has stated practical problems in an article hidden in its site:

- F1 cars weighing 550 kilos?
- Front differential?
- Elliminate 4 wheel drive ban?
- Independent ECU for the "regenerated" power?
- Automatic brake balance when "surge power" is active and the driver is forced to brake?

Well, read it.

http://www.fia.com/automotive/issue5/sp ... cle10.html
Ciro

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Mikey_s - I agree with you and Ciro - ehtanol isn't the answer - my sunshine postings are a balance to my pessimistic instincts - biofuel is a dead end - the use of corn as input is insane - for example - the American farm subsidies have allowed the US to dominate the Mexican market where it is the basis of the carbohydrate diet - now that US corn prices have risen because of the diversion to ethanol - corn prices have risen - resulting in very real hardships to the Mexican population - just the beginning of ethanol production inflating the prices of food production - and yes, keytones and aldehydes are health horrors - may I commend Ciro for forthrightness - "the elephant standing in the corner that we pretend not to see" - is nuclear energy - which I too, see as the only real energy solution - perhaps fusion will come online in this century - having retired - and with the prompting of municipal bylaw problems - I have retired my 2 cars - and use public transportation - which also saves about $4000CND yearly - with advanced planning, I basically have access to stores, the city market and health care - and had renovated an 1890's era townhouse to conserve energy, located so I would not need a car, while in my 30's - but abandoning a car is not really a solution for most individuals or families - A comphrehensive energy solution must be developed. Converting biomass to ethanol is a wasteful, stop gap measure.

Gas hydrates mined from the oceans may have possibilities, natural gas is still relatively plentiful and I think that improvements in oil harvest technology will extend the supply as well as undiscovered oil fields. But we need to stop burning hydrocarbons at some point.

Can I post on F1T - now that I don't drive? :wink:

Mikey_s
Mikey_s
8
Joined: 21 Dec 2005, 11:06

Post

At the risk of perpetuating the thread creep....

I saw that nice Mr Beardy Branson on CNN yesterday evening telling the world that he has just purchased 8 Boeing Dreamliners and that within the next 12-18 months he will be flying across the Atlantic in a plane burning biofuel...

Whilst this makes for great headlines it is completely crazy from the energy balance perspective. The CEO of Boeing was also 'adding fuel to the fire' (pun intended :lol: ) by stating that biofueled aviation was something that was being seriously considered (and actively developed).

If this initiative was seriously aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emission they would be evaluating this on the basis of overall emission and also practicality in respect of availability. Instead we have the influencers using the media for soundbites and political objectives rather than scientifically based improvements... Oh sure, it sounds good, but as if aviation wasn't already injecting vast quantities of GHG into the upper atmos, let's use biofuel and put more, and more potent, GHG's there by using biofuel! :shock:

grrrr :evil:
... Mikey's goat is well and truely got!
Mike

deluge
deluge
0
Joined: 02 May 2007, 04:55
Location: New Orleans, USA

Post

The FIA and the GPMA have agreed to the following:

The F1 car of the near future will have a small turbocharged engine limited to 15,000 RPMs. Together with the drive train, the engine will be required to run four races. The engine will run on bio fuel. There will be no limits to the source of the bio fuel, but there will be a limit on the amount of fuel used.

Horsepower will be supplemented to the tune of 20% to 25% by “other means of propulsion.” This is taken to mean energy recovery systems such as regenerative braking.

The aerodynamic components will be standardized, and there will be an overall reduction of aerodynamic downforce by 50%. Gone will be any aerodynamic appendices (chimneys, bargeboards, winglets, etc.) ahead of the front wheel centerline or behind the rear wheel centerline.

Mechanically, the car will be wider and the tires will be slicks.

There will be complete freedom to use electronics to enable the car to become more energy efficient, as well as to provide better cornering and control through the freeing up of driver aids.

Materials of construction will be confined to those that have relevance to road cars.

This may seem like a fantasy trip, but those are the proposals that have been agreed to by the FIA and GPMA, specifically Max Mosley and Burkhard Goeschel, in December 2006.

http://www.fia.com/automotive/issue7/sp ... icle2.html
If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.

riff_raff
riff_raff
132
Joined: 24 Dec 2004, 10:18

Post

Nobody watches F1 racing because they feel that the technology developed by the teams, with their 100's of millions of dollars in funding, will somehow make the world a more "environmentally freindly" place. Far from it. We watch F1 primarily because we are fascinated by the outrageousness of it all.

Modern F1 cars have absolutely nothing to contribute to improving the efficiency or reliability of the average commuter car. They are freaks of nature designed to push boundaries of the rules subjectively established by the FIA.

What relationship does a multi-million dollar, single seat, open cockpit car with 800 hp and no starter motor have to your Honda Civic? So all of this cr*p about "biofuels" and "regenerative systems" in F1 is nothing more than a bunch of superficial, feel-good nonsense.

When I hear an F1 car go past with its engine screaming at 19,000 rpm, my juvenile little brain is still yelling out "Holy F*cking Sh*t!!!". It never gets old.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Well, F1 cars cost a lot nowadays. It's like 70 million a piece. The grid goes for 2 or 3 billion. That's a sizable amount of money for research, from the point of view of the GPMA, who is on its way of becoming the largest F1 sponsor.
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Well, it's a good enough

reason for me to revive this topic when Ecclestone ventures to say something about it. Auto, Motor und Sport - a publication that has some status within the automobile business - reports that manufacturers and the FIA have reached an agreement. Basically it's that hybrids come on line in 2010.

So, what are the specifics? Well, it's still a V8 ICE that peaks at around 675 HP, but another 80 comes from a push to pass system that uses energy captured from the brakes. Mosley has also reportedly pushed for an increase in engine life from two to four races. Whether engine designs can be changed yearly, that is still being negotiated. As a quid pro quo Max wants customer engines to come at a maximum fixed price of €10M per season. the trouble with that is that the real market value of one season's engines is likely going to top that, and that puts the customers in a debt of gratitude for their benefactors ... which in turn might not encourage true competition.

Ecclestone was less than impressed, saying that F1 is green enough as it is, hybrids don't change anything in an ecological sense. It should be enough that the engines have become more powerful and consume less. He's also expressing doubt about the manufacturers' true enthusiasm about hybrids. Basically he suspects that the FIA is rushing things to make it appear that they're doing something for the environment.

Original article here - Motorenpläne: Formel 1 mit Hybrid-Antrieb (link)

As it turns out, I'm not impressed by anyone. If we're supposed to go in search of efficiency (and new ideas), there's no point in restricting oneself to a single engine concept, nor to a single kind of energy retrieval. In that regard Ecclestone is right - I'm afraid most of this might actually be window dressing. If someone comes up with a superior concept compared to the others, he will dominate that season - tough, but that's competition. That's the way it has been and here's a (lost?) chance to introduce that larger sphere of innovation back into the sport. It sounds as the FIA and the manufacturers are wimping out. See no competition, hear no competition, speak no competition. Well, there are other sandboxes.

And the push to pass ... sheesh, how unsporting is that from an engineering standpoint? Completely artificial compared to giving the driver complete control over putting all the retrieved energy through the drivetrain just as he wishes, available technology permitting. There's a chance this might increase overtaking. It sure does devalue it though. Something for the F1? Nah, don't think so. Look at series that do have push to pass - they have to point out the remaining seconds of the option on TV for the viewers to have any kind of clue as to what's going on. Thought we were supposed to make the sport more understandable, not less. It's so sad when people are taken for morons that can't link more than two neurons at a time.

Ecclestone, though he may be onto something, doesn't quite think the thing through. Or his agenda doesn't permit doing so publicly. Given his track record it must be the latter option. It's so thinking inside the box to imagine engines in terms of "hybrids" and "non hybrids" ... the teams don't care what it is ("monkey ass drive", anyone?), frankly, as long as they get more bang for the gallon in the race than the next guy. Simply put, that's how you win races. Unless someone comes along and gives such parameters and tolerances to everyone that any developments can amount to just the minutest and most insignificant advances imaginable. Which is what the FIA has done in the most consistent way lately.

The petroleum industry must be happy, who cares that the polar icecap wasn't supposed to shrink to the extent it has this summer for another couple of decades or so? OK, so I'm tired and in a combative mood, but there you have it. Another rant into the endless night that is the internet. It's not even fair towards F1T, there's so much talent and intelligence here on some days it's downright scary. So go on, agree or put me to shame, it's all appreciated. Really, it is.

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Thought I'd

post a link to the following article by BBC: "Will biofuel leave the poor hungry?" I don't have the energy to comment it in any depth. Let's just say that it would seem intelligent for F1 to retain the idea of biofuels coming from non-food sources (included in the "2011" documents), if only to push biofuel production into sustainable directions. Biofuels, as they are, won't solve all, but can already contribute significantly. Future biofuel innovations will be another matter and have even less to do with food production.