some interesting info from the Canadian press conference on the state of KERS
Q: (Daniel Bastien – Radio FM 103.3) How far ahead are you with the energy recovery systems?
GW: Reasonably well underway. Clearly we know what the architecture of our energy recovery system is going to be and we know the type of technology that we are using. In our programme we will be able to test parts of the hardware in a few months time and then look towards final track testing at the end of the year in time for next year’s car.
PS: We are probably in a very similar position. We have run the motor generator unit on a dyno connected to an engine. Layout of the car is going ahead with the positioning of batteries and stuff like that. There is a lot of software and a lot of simulation done. We are well into the safety aspects of the car which are very important on hybrid cars. There is a lot left to do and there doesn’t seem much time to do it but I guess like always we will get it done.
Q: (MC) Geoff, can I come back to you on that: are you doing it yourselves, as Red Bull Racing, or is your engine supplier doing it?
GW: It’s certainly being done in close co-operation with Renault. The system is quite tightly connected with the whole powertrain. The battery technology itself is something that we’re developing independently but we’re using very similar solutions to Renault Enstone, and as Pat has said, we have the same – as most of the teams using this type of technology are going to be using – we have the same challenges of safety, of appropriate packaging. The battery packaging in the car will be quite a challenge. The sheer volume of battery we have to package is not trivial, even with next year’s aerodynamic regulations, it’s still a bit of a struggle to find a safe and aerodynamically effective place to package it, so it’s quite a big challenge, for sure.
Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) Pat, to follow on from what was just being said about the new systems being developed, and about what’s been happening at Viry Chatillon, it’s a strange time to be cutting back on engine R&D when we have new systems needing to be developed and then ultimately new engines in 2013 and perhaps even 2011. Can you talk us through exactly what’s going on, what changes are being made and how long it takes to work on a new engine?
PS: Yes, there are two separate things here. The Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems are very much an Enstone-based development group. Now of course they have to work with the engine, it is a powertrain project but it’s largely Enstone-based, so there’s not a huge knock-on effect on the engine. We are of course allowed to modify the engine to fit the KERS systems, and there are designers involved in doing that.
The other part of the question, new engines, yes, it’s quite a difficult thing. At the moment the plan is for a new engine in 2013. As you quite rightly say, there’s talk of moving it forward. At the moment it has just been talk rather than discussion, I would even say. I think that if we want an integrated approach, and we’ve got to get this one right, we’ve got to integrate a modern engine, a cheap engine – because at the moment, unfortunately, we’ve frozen a very very expensive engine, an engine that’s capable of doing much more than it does at the moment. So we’ve got to get the price down, the integration with Kinetic energy recovery and indeed thermal energy recovery. I think, to do all that, and move it to 2011 is over-ambitious, bearing in mind that we haven’t even run kinetic energy recovery on the track yet. So I think quite wisely the teams have made a – I would call it a statement rather than a decision – that they would like to get a year’s running with kinetic energy recovery under their belts before they really start looking at a new powertrain for a future Formula One. I would say that if we wanted to move the engine change forward, we could move it forward to 2012 and in fact I would welcome that because it is a way of reducing costs. We could make a much longer-lasting, much cheaper engine in 2012 if we chose to do that. And yes, of course, that requires designers and engineers and people doing calculations. What I would say is that at Viry we have kept the core of those sorts of people. What we’ve probably lost is more the development people, because there is no development going on in the powertrain at the moment.
Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) So would it be fair to say it’s a bit like the design modules of the late eighties when Renault cut back a little bit, but kept the core for the next project?
PS: Yes, it is very similar to that and as you saw then, they were able to ramp it back up very quickly when they needed to.
Q: (Niki Takeda – Formula PA) Pat, can you just expand on packaging and positioning of the battery for KERS? Obviously, you don’t want any failure close to the fuel tank.
PS: Yes, the KERS project is actually quite fascinating. It’s rare that we get a chance in Formula One to do something really different. We’ve spent many years producing cars that are ultimately similar. We may have changed from turbocharged engines to normally aspirated engines. We may have had slick tyres and grooved tyres and things like that, but KERS has introduced a lot of new things and the battery technology is a very interesting one. I think batteries recently, particularly lithium ion batteries, have had quite a lot of bad press from laptop computers catching fire and things like that. It’s a very real worry. The management of the state of charge of the batteries is very very important. As Geoff said, they are very difficult to package. There are a lot of little batteries that we’ve got to put in the car somewhere, trying not to have too much aerodynamic deficit. We’ve got to keep them cool. Even if you keep the state of charge good on them, you’ve still got to cool the things to get efficiency. The whole thing is quite an interesting project, it’s the sort of thing I like to see.
what are the significant bits?
Renault and RBR are going to use electrical KERS as BMW are doing. This would indicate that STR are going to do the same. Williams and Honda may be the only teams to rely on flywheels.
The cooling and safety isssues are going to have more impact than might have been anticipated. The chassis integration aspects obviously are more important than the drive train integration hence doing it in Enstone for Renault. I wonder how that is going to be split at BMW.
The impact of KERS on F1 is going to be huge. this is going to be a watershed. I think it is almost irreversible already whatever happens at the FIA. with thermal regeneration going on top there will be all kind of lessons to learned before it makes good sense to commit to another
engine formula. F1 could still be using V10 engines without having missed a great deal of opportunities by switching to rev limiting earlier. they should not make the same mistake again. it will be an exercise of one time design and introductory cost versus running an
engine that may cost a bit more and uses a bit more gas. so waiting until 2012 or 2013 may be the right thing to do considering that
engine design isn't going to be the big issue of the next years anyway. leave it as it is and focus on HERS, KERS and on the question of optimizing aero versus mechanical grip. one should not forget that the regeneration issues will force a rethink of the ECU as well.
