F1technical.net

Thank you FOTA,the savior of F1... their rules are soooooo great... and as Luca says its all about the "TECHNICAL DNA", turns around and then says "stupid F1 fans"

kinda dissapointed in merc if that part is true but then again they had the best 400kj system, why agree to a 800kJ one when Ferrari shot that down years ago?

WhiteBlue wrote: The FiA does not even have the right to initiate a rule change according to the concord agreement unless it is safety driven.

As MrM repeatedly proved, almost anything in F1 can be related to safety if needed, where the FIA has the right of interpretation.

Btw, this morning there was six posts on the board from IT and seven from WB, what an amateur I am.

Btw, this morning there was six posts on the board from IT and seven from WB, what an amateur I am

Love your work X

Ahh well, looks like the intention is to delay hybrid and Kers development for as long as they can get away with it.
Damm manufacturers.
Looks like we will be putting out toxic gasses for a bit longer yet.

Ok so I've been reading a lot on this site about the flywheel system that Williams has developed. People said it was too big and heavy to instal in a F1 car. I believe even Williams said that.
Then I found this video on youtube about a company that makes a KERS system with a flywheel. Now the guy in the video claims that the flywheel system is actually up to 50% lighter and more compact than a battery system. Is he just talking bs or is Williams their system not good enough?

This is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcIt0FP ... re=related

Don't know much about the relative weight, but think the biggest problem is where to install the flywheel on an F1 car, where it seems from the Williams videos that they were thinking to place it behind the driver's helmet, which might not to much good to neither CofG or aerodynamics.

putit the same place the batteries would go... done

xpensive wrote:Don't know much about the relative weight, but think the biggest problem is where to install the flywheel on an F1 car, where it seems from the Williams videos that they were thinking to place it behind the driver's helmet, which might not to much good to neither CofG or aerodynamics.

I think the main advantage of the batteries is that they are adjustable so they can become flat and easy to install anywhere. But if the guy in the video is talking sense about half the weight, then the flywheel system could have a real advantage.

ISLAMATRON wrote:putit the same place the batteries would go... done

Stupid enginers at Williams, why didn't they think of that?

xpensive wrote:

ISLAMATRON wrote:putit the same place the batteries would go... done

Stupid enginers at Williams, why didn't they think of that?

cause they're still too busy trying to make the walrus nose work

Yes,

Williams are still working on the "walrus" nose, even though after its first appearance in 2004 it has yet to reappear.
Williams are just waiting for the right moment before unleashing it right?

xpensive,

Porsche seem to like a bit of what Williams have developed, hence why they have invested in using this tech, straight off the Williams shelf.
A German powerhouse using silly old Williams tech...who woulda thunk it.

Dear o dear JET, you need to read up on the thread before you post, nobody's questioned the Williams technology per se, just that it's a bit difficult to package in an F1 car, a GT would obviously be something completely different.

xpensive wrote:Dear o dear JET, you need to read up on the thread before you post, nobody's questioned the Williams technology per se, just that it's a bit difficult to package in an F1 car, a GT would obviously be something completely different.

Im agreeing with you...I posted it in context to islamatron
Perhaps as I have had a beverage or three, my message isnt as clear as it could be.
Apologies...

Perhaps celebrating SA's formidable success in the FIFA World Cup, JET`?

TheRMVR wrote:Ok so I've been reading a lot on this site about the flywheel system that Williams has developed. People said it was too big and heavy to instal in a F1 car. I believe even Williams said that.
Then I found this video on youtube about a company that makes a KERS system with a flywheel. Now the guy in the video claims that the flywheel system is actually up to 50% lighter and more compact than a battery system. Is he just talking bs or is Williams their system not good enough?

This is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcIt0FP ... re=related

This design uses a toloroidal CVT transmission to drive the flywheel storage device. To operate the CVT requires a high pressure to be applied to the mechanism to maintain friction drive contact between the toloroidal disks.
This is all wasted energy. The system is fully mechanical and has some applications in miniature systems and heavy vehicles and plant.
The current systems including the Williams system, use a fully sealed flywheel storage device that is charged/spun up using electrical energy from a generator/motor by induction.
The toloroidal system is to heavy, bulky and limited in energy capacity.
The induction spun units have potential but are similarily limited in energy capacity and bulk. Depending on the weight regulations, there is a trade off point between flywheel storage, which transfers energy faster and batteries which can store more and are potentialy lighter and less bulky for higher energy use.
All three system types use extra gearing and components that have to be externaly added to the powertrain.
(My ESERU is part of the gearbox and does away with the direct engagement clutch making it suitable in any KERS that is decided on in any new regulations. The only extra bulk is the energy storage and the control system.) sorry mod but it is relevent