Why is KERS restricted?

[SZ]

Sounds very reasonable to me SZ, but I think something needs to happen with the batteries before this becomes environmentally credible. Spending what, 50 or 100 kUSD per car and race, on batteries as "consumables" is simply not.

Well... I did point out it's true net worth as a good marketing exercise

But it brings up a good point. F1 teams and KERS suppliers don't do batteries - battery manufacturers do - costs and technology are a little hamstrung there... supercaps maybe? Whatever did happen there (not my area...)

[autogyro]

Sounds very reasonable to me SZ, but I think something needs to happen with the batteries before this becomes environmentally credible. Spending what, 50 or 100 kUSD per car and race, on batteries as "consumables" is simply not.

Well... I did point out it's true net worth as a good marketing exercise

But it brings up a good point. F1 teams and KERS suppliers don't do batteries - battery manufacturers do - costs and technology are a little hamstrung there... supercaps maybe? Whatever did happen there (not my area...)

It is sad that you have to open your posts to me, stating that you consider that I am 'thick'.
I am sorry to disappoint you but I think I have probably forgotten more motor engineering than you will ever know.
Without wasting to much of my time, you mentioned the Chevy 'Volt' as some kind of technical pinnacle in hybrid and electric vehicle technology.
It is already hopelessly obsolete, as is the Tesla,so your comments are all invalid.

[Fil]

you mentioned the Chevy 'Volt' as some kind of technical pinnacle in hybrid and electric vehicle technology.
It is already hopelessly obsolete, as is the Tesla,so your comments are all invalid.

its pretty obvious every vehicle that is about to enter, or has just entered, production is obsolete compared to what the R&D departments are thinking of next..
The Volt was given as an example of a roadcar manufacturer progressing the technology further than a race-series.
Herein lies the question of the validity of KERS in its current form.

i doubt you're going to argue against that solely due to your personal differences with forum members.

[autogyro]

The Volt was given as an example of a road ar manufacturer progressing the technology further than a race-series.
Herein lies the question of the validity of KERS in its current form.

GM progressing technology in electric and hybrid vehicles, do me a favor.
It was GM in the 1930,s that replaced all the perfectly serviceable electric buses in the States with PETROL buses.
Their last foray into EV's resulted in their oil baron masters forcing them to remove all the vehicles from use and destroy them.
No do not quote GM at me, that is a joke.
It is just sad that the American public were conned into bailing the company out.

[Richard]

This year, the big boys tried it and failed for a variety of reasons (except Merc). I see the reason for KERS being shelved as due to:

- KERS failures making the system seem to be too immature for implementation.

- Relatively poor performance of Ferrari and Merc respective cars. Ie they had enough of a headache with performance, so ditching KERS got rid of a distraction, and provided a scapegoat.

- Budget pressures on all teams. Little teams can't afford the R&D, and manufacturers needed a fall guy for a budget slash and burn.

IMHO there are enough road vehicle manufacturers developing hybrids to stimulate R&D in this area. Some of those guys may be able to link up with F1 for either publicity, access to high quality engineering, or R&D cash. Once the FIA/FOTA dust has settled, I hope KERS returns in 2011 with a common customer supply agreement for the smaller teams based on competing products from Merc, Ferrari, Williams and maybe one external independent (linked with Cosworth?). Just like the current engine supply arrangements.

[ISLAMATRON]

If KERS came in unrestricted batteries would have never been in the picture, they are only feasable because the low capacity of 400kJ allows them to be, otherwise the electric flywheel Williams has produced or the mechanical one Honda was rumored to have been working on would have been the path most of the developers would have went.

[Giblet]

I know at the end of the day it's about what is best, but batteries are boring, and not nearly green enough, considering some of the idea and image behind KERS. Throwing away lead and lithium or whatever they use can't be good.

The thought of the Flywheel Capacitor spinning up to 65,000rpm to hold it's power is way more cool and racy to me, even if it is just an image thing.

[SZ]

GM progressing technology in electric and hybrid vehicles, do me a favor.

Blah blah blah

You've missed the point totally.

Major automakers do comparatively little for alternative-fuelled vehicle technology. Major parts suppliers - Bosch, Marelli, Continental, Delphi (if they're still around) carry the bulk of this development, part/system manufacturing and ultimately sell the parts that drive/power/suspend/etc whatever vehicle you own/drive.

When a major company such as GM puts a hybrid powertrain out to tender, all the above companies start developing near-production-ready prototypes to suit. In other words, they develop technology to a serious level only - only - when there's an immediate market demand.

The companies that didn't tender successfully for the parts in question end up with a portfolio of components whos development cost they need to amortise. So they in turn tender to other vehicle manufacturers at a lower price point. A technology then becomes more attractive, and these parts - and the technologies that drive them - become more commonplace. It's happened with every major automotive technology previously, hybrid tech in any form is no different. GM is usually the highwater mark - if you're developing for GM, you're developing to massively overengineered production-ready standards and on cost. Something is no longer a concept and is officially in mass production. Thanks to the Volt there's now a range of components available from a wide variety of suppliers, and the cost of an electric or hybrid powertrain in any vehicle in production has dropped dramatically.

There are 10+ cars currently in development from major manufacturers that are using parts directly designed for, or slightly adapted from, the original Volt tender. There are complete research labs at major powertrain research firms (Ricardo, AVL, etc) that didn't exist prior to cars like the Volt changing the market's direction definitively. If you think the research effort dedicated to these technologies doesn't dwarf what's expended on KERS in F1, you can't count.

Yes, part of that is 'blue sky' research, the 'future generation' stuff. KERS is blue sky research. Blue sky research is pretty but it isn't public or what you'll drive on road by any stretch of the imagination. The blue sky work on road car components is fantastic at present, and makes the technology in the Volt look like a toy car. But it doesn't look anything like KERS in F1 - just because F1's KERS requirements are firmly in the 'blue sky' category doesn't mean there's many elements transferable to road car use. Far from it.

You've failed to define what aspects of KERS are technically transferable to road cars. Go ahead. Try. You'll find there are very few; technically, energy recovery in F1 has very disparate aims to road car work. So if it's a limited application with maximum 24-26 units a year on 12-13 potential, unique customers only, why throw stupid amounts of money at it? All that's achieved so far is achieving very low market penetration - of the 12 potential customers this year, two finished the season with it. For the rest - development, integration and the like proved simply unaffordable. The one company that went somewhere with KERS aligned themselves with a firm seeing a small market in energy recovery systems for motorsports application quite early on (Zytek) and did the bulk of the hardware development themselves - at a very significant cost no one else was willing to spend to.

If F1 was really serious about reducing energy consumption, do you really think it'd still be pushing a high/fixed-revving, fixed displacement, naturally aspirated V8? Do you really think that a different IC philosophy wouldn't return greater energy savings than those achieved in KERS, at a far reduced cradle-to-grave environmental impact (as many correctly point out, those batteries do go somewhere when spent)? Me neither. But that's not being pushed. Which all leaves the net value of KERS largely as a marketing exercise.

FWIW GM may have made a serious mistake in canning the EV1 and in passing the Ovonic battery tech patents to Texaco, but I don't remember any other automaker putting an electric vehicle into production at the time either. Give credit where it's due.

I am sorry to disappoint you but I think I have probably forgotten more motor engineering than you will ever know.

Doubtful.

[tarzoon]

If F1 was really serious about reducing energy consumption, do you really think it'd still be pushing a high/fixed-revving, fixed displacement, naturally aspirated V8? Do you really think that a different IC philosophy wouldn't return greater energy savings than those achieved in KERS, at a far reduced cradle-to-grave environmental impact (as many correctly point out, those batteries do go somewhere when spent)? Me neither. But that's not being pushed. Which all leaves the net value of KERS largely as a marketing exercise.

I'm no mechanical engineer, so my question may be quite silly.

You mentioned that a different IC philosophy wouldn't return greater energy savings. I find the 30-40% efficiency of current IC engines pretty low, and they are quite complex. Isn't there any more efficient alternative than these complex V8s? Say, some 50% or over?

Electric motors are far more efficient than that, still they rely on heavy and bulky batteries. Fuel cells are still a bit difficult to sort out, apart from being pure hydrogen.

I thought that there was an optimistic immediate future to KERS, especially with the fuel restrictions. Turbo cars had the same issue, so pilots regulated the fuel intake to reduce consumption.

[SZ]

I'm no mechanical engineer, so my question may be quite silly.

You mentioned that a different IC philosophy wouldn't return greater energy savings. I find the 30-40% efficiency of current IC engines pretty low, and they are quite complex. Isn't there any more efficient alternative than these complex V8s? Say, some 50% or over?

Misinterpreted - sorry if I didn't make it clear - I think a different IC strategy would return greater savings, definitely. There are many more alternatives that involve pistons and the like. F1 currently does nothing with wasted exhaust heat. Diesel engines are inherently more efficient. Cradle-to-grave these are far more efficient than what's currently racing - more expensive, though far less so than engine+KERS currently, and very much more valid to road car technologies. If you wanted to package a generic KERS onto such a solution, all the better, and you're getting into something much, much more relevant to road car engineering.

There have been many proposal to go this way though there's been significant (scarlet) resistance also.

[autogyro]

GM progressing technology in electric and hybrid vehicles, do me a favor.

Blah blah blah

You've missed the point totally.

Major automakers do comparatively little for alternative-fuelled vehicle technology. Major parts suppliers - Bosch, Marelli, Continental, Delphi (if they're still around) carry the bulk of this development, part/system manufacturing and ultimately sell the parts that drive/power/suspend/etc whatever vehicle you own/drive.

When a major company such as GM puts a hybrid powertrain out to tender, all the above companies start developing near-production-ready prototypes to suit. In other words, they develop technology to a serious level only - only - when there's an immediate market demand.

The companies that didn't tender successfully for the parts in question end up with a portfolio of components whos development cost they need to amortise. So they in turn tender to other vehicle manufacturers at a lower price point. A technology then becomes more attractive, and these parts - and the technologies that drive them - become more commonplace. It's happened with every major automotive technology previously, hybrid tech in any form is no different. GM is usually the highwater mark - if you're developing for GM, you're developing to massively overengineered production-ready standards and on cost. Something is no longer a concept and is officially in mass production. Thanks to the Volt there's now a range of components available from a wide variety of suppliers, and the cost of an electric or hybrid powertrain in any vehicle in production has dropped dramatically.

There are 10+ cars currently in development from major manufacturers that are using parts directly designed for, or slightly adapted from, the original Volt tender. There are complete research labs at major powertrain research firms (Ricardo, AVL, etc) that didn't exist prior to cars like the Volt changing the market's direction definitively. If you think the research effort dedicated to these technologies doesn't dwarf what's expended on KERS in F1, you can't count.

Yes, part of that is 'blue sky' research, the 'future generation' stuff. KERS is blue sky research. Blue sky research is pretty but it isn't public or what you'll drive on road by any stretch of the imagination. The blue sky work on road car components is fantastic at present, and makes the technology in the Volt look like a toy car. But it doesn't look anything like KERS in F1 - just because F1's KERS requirements are firmly in the 'blue sky' category doesn't mean there's many elements transferable to road car use. Far from it.

You've failed to define what aspects of KERS are technically transferable to road cars. Go ahead. Try. You'll find there are very few; technically, energy recovery in F1 has very disparate aims to road car work. So if it's a limited application with maximum 24-26 units a year on 12-13 potential, unique customers only, why throw stupid amounts of money at it? All that's achieved so far is achieving very low market penetration - of the 12 potential customers this year, two finished the season with it. For the rest - development, integration and the like proved simply unaffordable. The one company that went somewhere with KERS aligned themselves with a firm seeing a small market in energy recovery systems for motorsports application quite early on (Zytek) and did the bulk of the hardware development themselves - at a very significant cost no one else was willing to spend to.

If F1 was really serious about reducing energy consumption, do you really think it'd still be pushing a high/fixed-revving, fixed displacement, naturally aspirated V8? Do you really think that a different IC philosophy wouldn't return greater energy savings than those achieved in KERS, at a far reduced cradle-to-grave environmental impact (as many correctly point out, those batteries do go somewhere when spent)? Me neither. But that's not being pushed. Which all leaves the net value of KERS largely as a marketing exercise.

FWIW GM may have made a serious mistake in canning the EV1 and in passing the Ovonic battery tech patents to Texaco, but I don't remember any other automaker putting an electric vehicle into production at the time either. Give credit where it's due.

I am sorry to disappoint you but I think I have probably forgotten more motor engineering than you will ever know.

Doubtful.

I must concede your points now that you have made your opinions clear.
GM do indeed motivate R and D even if it has been the wrong type of R and D on many past occasions.

Your comments on IC engines in F1 are exactly why I do not think anyone involved can afford to sit on their hands.
F1 is getting on to very dodgy ground and needs a major stir up.
Apologies for my comment on your abilities, I was wrong.

[Richard]

Perhaps to stimulate innovation whilst keeping speeds safe, they could open up the engine rules to allow a number of fuels (inc electricity) and only restrict the power output.

That aside, I can't figure out why there are restrictions on engine CofG and other dimensions.

[xpensive]

That aside, I can't figure out why there are restrictions on engine CofG and other dimensions.

Probably to ease interchangeability, to benefit customer teams, which served Brawn well in 2009, don't you think?

[SZ]

autogyro, no problem... misunderstandings happen faster on forums than anywhere else. IC in F1 needs a good kick along.

xpensive... agreed. There's no more 'designing a car for an engine', so no more super-angle vee's and the like. They're all packaged similarly, the idea is that constructors and engine suppliers can swap among each other with relative ease, and no major performance discrepancies owing to packaging are opened up.

[machin]

Perhaps to stimulate innovation whilst keeping speeds safe, they could open up the engine rules to allow a number of fuels (inc electricity) and only restrict the power output.

The FIA recently published a paper on why they wouldn't be doing this; its too difficult to make it "fair" for each of the different types of fuel.

Look at Le Mans with Diesel vs Petrol. (I know its not a perfect example as there were political reasons why Diesel was given a performance advantage, but there was an article in Racecar engineering a while back where one of the Diesel teams were admitting that the FIA simply didn't know exactly what size restrictors to use to make things fair as racing (CAR) diesel engines are in their infancy compared to the amount of money spent on petrol race engines).