F1technical.net

but why it won't use now?

Scania wrote:

riff_raff wrote:Scania,

Have you not seen your own namesake's Energy Recovery System?

do you have more imfoemation with it?

what the no.2 is?

Scania,

That picture I posted is of a "Turbo-Compound" system on a diesel truck engine, produced (ironically) by a company called Scania (just like you!). The exhaust flow downstream of the turbocharger is passed over a radial inflow turbine that extracts some of the remaining exhaust thermal energy and transmits it back to the crankshaft by means of a fluid coupling and gear reduction drive. Under optimal conditions, it can reduce fuel consumption by up to about 5%. But it does add a fair amount of cost to the engine, so it is only used on Scania's higher cost engine models.

Engine thermal energy recovery systems, like turbo-compounding, have been around for decades. They were used on aircraft piston engines, like the Wright R3350TC and the Napier Nomad diesel, back in the 40's and 50's.

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

Here's an interesting pneumatic hybrid KERS concept from Lotus Engineering:

http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongr ... public.pdf

http://www.theicct.org/documents/Greszl ... ssion3.pdf
is it talking about the same thing?
could it use in F1 2013?

Scania,

That Volvo device you linked is very similar to the Scania turbo-compound device. The only difference is that the Volvo compound turbine wheel is integrated into the turbocharger.

The turbo-compound principle would not be applicable to F1, since it would require turbo machinery, which is not currently accepted in F1. Also, turbo-compounding (exhaust energy recovery) is different in principle from kinetic (braking) energy recovery.

Although it's not F1 racing, the turbo diesels dominated at Sebring.

Regards,
Terry

riff_raff wrote:Scania,

That Volvo device you linked is very similar to the Scania turbo-compound device. The only difference is that the Volvo compound turbine wheel is integrated into the turbocharger.

The turbo-compound principle would not be applicable to F1, since it would require turbo machinery, which is not currently accepted in F1. Also, turbo-compounding (exhaust energy recovery) is different in principle from kinetic (braking) energy recovery.

Although it's not F1 racing, the turbo diesels dominated at Sebring.

Regards,
Terry

but FIA designed to put Turbo & heat recover in 2013

Back to the problem with KERS. I sense that most of us agree that the real problem is in the restrictive framing of the rules for using KERS. They are so limiting that the potential for energy recovery is hardly explored. Why for instance can you use the energy from kERS for only 6.8 seconds? That's the same as saying you can only use full throttle for 6.672 (arbitrary numbers are so much fun!) seconds per lap! If you are going to give more than lip service to environmental concerns you must explore all the potential of this new technology. Making it possible to use KERS at all times will also affect the fuel consumption off-setting some or even all of the weight of the KERS devices.

Nealio wrote:Back to the problem with KERS. I sense that most of us agree that the real problem is in the restrictive framing of the rules for using KERS. They are so limiting that the potential for energy recovery is hardly explored. Why for instance can you use the energy from kERS for only 6.8 seconds? That's the same as saying you can only use full throttle for 6.672 (arbitrary numbers are so much fun!) seconds per lap! If you are going to give more than lip service to environmental concerns you must explore all the potential of this new technology. Making it possible to use KERS at all times will also affect the fuel consumption off-setting some or even all of the weight of the KERS devices.

It was the teams, most notably Ferrari(and possibly McLaren) that required such drastic restrictions on KERS. They did not want it to be a drastic performance differentiater.

Isn't it ironic that post-Oz Ferrari and McLaren are desperate to use KERS to try and offset the speed of the Brawn! HaHaHa!

Looks like there are still some unresolved safety and reliability issues with the electric KERS:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8vn9f ... onen_sport

Tried this example a couple of times before to prove my point, see if there is a physics-student out threre this time?

The kinetic energy availiable for recovery is rather small in comparison to energy wasted through air-resistance.
- A 700 kg F1-car loses only 1400 kJ of kinetic energy from 250 down to 100 km/h.
- At 250 km/h and a Cv*A of 1.4, air-resistance losses for the same car are more than 4000 kJ per km driven.

Conclusively, even if you can do all your braking with a 100% efficient KERS-device, the potential energy-recovery is still limited, while you could easily save much more with improved aerodynamics.

I had a thought,If the restrictions are to be relaxed,there are a lot of possibilities.
More energy allowed to be recovered per lap,less energy allowed to be stored (make it lighter,efficient and relevant).

The proposed higher power KERS wont be viable with batteries unless,min weight is increased or some kind of breakthrough (Something like Li-S).

xpensive wrote:Tried this example a couple of times before to prove my point, see if there is a physics-student out threre this time?

The kinetic energy availiable for recovery is rather small in comparison to energy wasted through air-resistance.
- A 700 kg F1-car loses only 1400 kJ of kinetic energy from 250 down to 100 km/h.
- At 250 km/h and a Cv*A of 1.4, air-resistance losses for the same car are more than 4000 kJ per km driven.

Conclusively, even if you can do all your braking with a 100% efficient KERS-device, the potential energy-recovery is still limited, while you could easily save much more with improved aerodynamics.

There are two aspects. Limiting KERS was a political exercise meant as a safety for the big teams so that they could not get it terribly wrong. We know it worked for KERS but not for the aero changes. KERS was allways meant to be widened and HERS techniques allowed too.

The other issue is the aerodynamic efficiency. How often have I said that the original FIA proposal would have automatically fixed that problem. If you fix downforce then automatically all the research goes to reduce drag at the given downforce level. Then all you need to do is keep lowering downforce when development has boosted the performance too much.

I have a idea: how about don't limit how much energy can use but how much can store for KERS?

The problem is the aerodynamic-drag of an open-wheeled car, WB. Remember that the 1971 Porsche 917K had a Cv*A one third of an F1 car of today, why it could do 400 km/h at Le Mans with less than 600 Hp.