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.
pipex
6
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 09:27
Location: The net
Contact:

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Putting batteries or electronics near or inside the fuel tank is not a very good location, i may add...
"We will have to wait and see".

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

pipex wrote:Putting batteries or electronics near or inside the fuel tank is not a very good location, i may add...
Actually RBR's location under the fuel tank may reduce the cooling requirements by acting as a very large passive heat-sink. This may explain the lack of additional cooling vents etc on the RB5.
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

xpensive wrote:At the end of the day, KERS is a very good example of how enineering wanna-bees like Mosley can mess up when they try to be technical. 200 litres of regular gasoline holds some 7200 MJ of energy and is filled up in 20s, which by the way means a power-equivalent of 360 MW.
KERS will recover a total of 28 MJ over 70 laps and will cost the teams tens of millions of EUR to individually develop. A giant "green" leap for mankind? Think about it.

For Professor, that was not my quote btw, it belonged to your esteemed countryman in NYC.
KERS is severly limited, not by Mosley, but by the teams... this is 1 time where it wasnt him that got it wrong. read here

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73208

Honestly I could see at least a third of of peak power coming from KERS once they shift to the new engine formula.

Blame Ferrari, and possibly McLaren for how castrated KERS is. KERS is the right direction for F1, even if some of the teams dont have the forsight to understand that.

anyways wht is more important? $1000 wheelnuts or a viable energy recovery system?

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

djos wrote:
pipex wrote:Putting batteries or electronics near or inside the fuel tank is not a very good location, i may add...
Actually RBR's location under the fuel tank may reduce the cooling requirements by acting as a very large passive heat-sink. This may explain the lack of additional cooling vents etc on the RB5.
Actually all the teams main bank of batteries are located under the fuel tanks... how about the decision to put the driver right in front of the fuel tank?

Under the fuel tank is as safe and Isolated a place someone could find in an F1 car except for maybe the driver's safety cell, which happens to have a big hole at the top.

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Even if you could recover ALL kinetic energy when reducing the car-speed from 250 to 100 km/h FIVE times over one lap, you would still not store more than 7000 kJ, or the energy content of 0.2 liters of gasoline.

If you wanna go "green", I believe it would be much better to introduce a flow-limit to increase the fuel-efficiency of the engines. Are you there WB?

Calculations are based om the car weighing 700 kg and 100% efficiency everywhere.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

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

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

The fuel tank is as safe as safety goes.

First, is a rubber bladder built to withstand severe impacts: only approved manufacturers with ample experience can provide it.

Second, it has more conditions than a spanish girlfriend. Located no more than 40 cm from the axis, nor closer than 30 cm to the driver, it has self sealing breakaway valves in all the entrances and integral hatches. It is enclosed in a crushable structure able to withstand the loads given in article 18. No lines can pass through the cockpit, you cannot mantain more than 2 liters of gas outside it. It is filled with foam (normally, you can avoid its use, but then you suffer from "splashing" and foaming), so even if broken (something I believe it's impossible: the rubber bladder is GOOD) it leaks very slowly.

I think that batteries are ideally suited to replace ballast. I would be amazed if people making the cars don't think about it.

I have no idea why batteries can be used as heat sinks: aren't they a heat source?

Welcome, Professor. I don't like that nick so much as other members... the bitter memories are still fresh within some of us after two decades. ;)

xpensive, what you say is true: the main trouble with energy in this world, our main limitation to a better, less expensive life, it's not energy. It's the lack of any portable, clean, significant means to store energy. Batteries, ultracapacitors, dams, flying wheels, you mention them, are too cumbersome, too low on energy density.

If you can invent a high density energy storage you would do more for humankind than all the high efficiency engine designers (with the probable exception of Charles Parsons).
Ciro

Belatti
33
Joined: 10 Jul 2007, 21:48
Location: Argentina

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:If you can invent a high density energy storage you would do more for humankind than all the high efficiency engine designers
Why invent what already does exist?

Its called mass...
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

I was not referring to capacity of energy-storage, what I was talking about was the sheer limitation of the kinetic energy of an F1 car. The bulk of power-consumption comes from air-resistance, why you need some 350 kW just to propel an F1 car at 250 km/h, without any accelleration involved.

350 kW for 20 seconds is also 7000 kJ, see above, energy which is not possible to recover when all it does is heating up the air, no matter what Mosley dreams up.

But KERS is surely good for city-driving, no argument there.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

Professor
1
Joined: 22 Feb 2009, 17:33

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

In reference to battery location, my only concern is thermal runaway, not impact protection. It is unknown what would happen if runaway occured and the batteries failed while in direct contact with the fuel bladder surround.

Thermal runaway was the cause of the RBR factory fire.

pipex
6
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 09:27
Location: The net
Contact:

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

I was looking at the problem in electrical terms, i don't know what kind of bizarre electric coupling can happen between the fuel and the high frequency electric fields around, if high power wiring is placed near the fuel tank. Maybe nothing bad will happen and the system will be safe. I'm sure that if they put batteries there it should be a safe place.
"We will have to wait and see".

pipex
6
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 09:27
Location: The net
Contact:

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Hmm thinking about it, there is little oxygen in the tank to create the case i was proposing... what i wrote was pure bs.
Is there a way a spark can be created inside the fuel tank, without external intervention?
The only way i see is electrostatic via the fuel friction. How the car fuel tank is grounded?
"We will have to wait and see".

pipex
6
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 09:27
Location: The net
Contact:

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote: Second, it has more conditions than a spanish girlfriend.
Ciro, what is the problem with spanish girlfriends? I searched in google and i only found pr0n :lol:
"We will have to wait and see".

Professor
1
Joined: 22 Feb 2009, 17:33

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

prOn - a deliberate text mispelling to obfuscate the truth! :?:

galien
1
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 23:12
Location: France

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

Just about KERS in the nose, then batteries or energy...
First it's not simpliest than puting it near the fuell tank, because of wires lenght, energy deperdition.
For the chassis it's not necessary good, because of mass repartition, and it make the center of gravity higher.
So what for? Is Renault using it?
There is perhaps a response wich is 3 letters, MHD.
MHD is the science of magnéto hydro dynamique, it's the ability of controlling the water, air flow throw charging it with an electrical potential.
It's used for submarine missile, and supposed planes.
Imagine if you can put an electrical potiential on the near of a F1.
You can increase and control air flow speed to the diffuser, and have more down force.
An finaly what is a battery...

Bye.

User avatar
safeaschuck
1
Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 07:18

Re: Regenerative systems (KERS)

Post

well she-ite galien, didn't see that one coming! Just give me an exponential number of hours to find out how that works will you. Good effort with the language by the way, I get enough of it to understand.

I imagine a good many people who have been banging the drum for Hydraulic kers/digital displacement have probably seen this article or a forerunner to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 910106.stm

Just thought those keen on it would enjoy further vindication.

I pretty much skipped the entire concept as I still don't understand it (and I have read all the pages on this thread to date, admittedly I had to skim read some when the going got tough).

Can anyone explain it to me REAL slow??? please?
I know about engineering, or at least I understand how the visible world works and all, but if I can't see it, or can't familiarise it with something I can see, then it's unlikely I'll get it.

Thanks in advance.

Post Reply