F1technical.net

looks like Williams' system is too heavy, 35kg, and thats why they havent been running it... wasnt one of the flywheel concept's pro being lightweight?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75645

ISLAMATRON wrote:looks like Williams' system is too heavy, 35kg, and thats why they havent been running it... wasnt one of the flywheel concept's pro being lightweight?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75645

Maybe this advantage only really takes effect with higher levels of energy storage : rather than doubling the number of batteries, you double the flywheel's rpm ...

gridwalker wrote:

ISLAMATRON wrote:looks like Williams' system is too heavy, 35kg, and thats why they havent been running it... wasnt one of the flywheel concept's pro being lightweight?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75645

Maybe this advantage only really takes effect with higher levels of energy storage : rather than doubling the number of batteries, you double the flywheel's rpm ...

no doubt, i'm sure Williams hopes that KERS energy is increased next year, and that spec KERS doesnt happen.

But we were led to believe that the flywheel solution was already lighter than the battery solution. Assuming that each system uses about the same type of MGU, you would think the carbon fiber flywheel would be less dense and lighter than the batteries.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/11805

I guess that would vary according to how much shielding you would need to encase it with to make it crash-proof.

The functional components of a flywheel may be lighter, but batteries don't turn into high velocity projectiles when they fail ... (they just set off Kimi's fire extinguisher )

There is also the little problem that they only finished development recently. I agree that it would e a shame if they cannot get this thing to work competitively in F1. I hope the spec KERS will not happen. Just this technology is too interesting to can it right after birth.

This is by far the best thread we had on regenerative systems (KERS & HERS). We have been running it since 2006 and there are tons of worthy sources in it. So I would like to see it continued.

Some of the current specialized thread about KERS may be continued alongside it but the fundamental discussion on the value of regenerative technology should be merged with this thread IMO.

Some points I would like to iterate:

• KERS should not be limited for whatever political reason as it was 2009
• It will be used if the weight is smaller than the weight of the fuel it saves
• KERS potential is much bigger when it is integrated in a new engine formula
• Push to pass is another pointless limitation for KERS
• KERS should be banned at the start to avoid launch control
• Braking and accelerating with KERS needs a FiA standard implementation to avoid the use for ABS and ESC
• KERS and HERS as road relevant technologies will attract new manufacturers to F1
• KERS and HERS must be important elements to reduce fuel use in F1 by 50% til 2015
• They need to be augmented by technologies that improve efficient combustion
• They can be combined with the GRE to attract more manufacturers
• They should be a competition differentiator

WhiteBlue wrote:This is by far the best thread we had on regenerative systems (KERS & HERS). We have been running it since 2006 and there are tons of worthy sources in it. So I would like to see it continued.

Some of the current specialized thread about KERS may be continued alongside it but the fundamental discussion on the value of regenerative technology should be merged with this thread IMO.

Some points I would like to iterate:
[*]KERS should not be limited for whatever political reason as it was 2009

Damn stright!

WhiteBlue wrote: [*]It will be used if the weight is smaller than the weight of the fuel it saves

This seems to be slightly irrelevent, as you can use KERS multiple times. You can only burn the weight of fuel once. Basically 30kg of KERS and 30kg of fuel do two different jobs.

WhiteBlue wrote: [*]KERS potential is much bigger when it is integrated in a new engine formula
[*]Push to pass is another pointless limitation for KERS

Very true, as everyone will use it at the same time. And when they inevitably switch to turbos 'push to pass' can be acieved at less cost and faffing about with increased boost.

WhiteBlue wrote: [*]KERS should be banned at the start to avoid launch control

Heh, funny really as this was just discussed in a recent thread

From a racing perspective, yes it should. You should only allow KERS > say 50mph (or whatever arbritrary figure you can think of).

WhiteBlue wrote: [*]Braking and accelerating with KERS needs a FiA standard implementation to avoid the use for ABS and ESC
[*]KERS and HERS as road relevant technologies will attract new manufacturers to F1

Nah. Nothing has ever been road relevent about F1, apart from marketing. The engineering challenges are just so different that solutions don't translate directly (This has been argued to death).

WhiteBlue wrote: [*]KERS and HERS must be important elements to reduce fuel use in F1 by 50% til 2015

I kind of agree. KERS needs to be a 'power top up'. So instead of 700 BHP engine + 60 BHP push to pass. It should be a phased reduction in engine power (through the control of fuel amount available) with the difference made up from regenerative systems.

WhiteBlue wrote:KERS should be banned at the start to avoid launch control

- Easy, just say it has to be empty at the start. Perhaps energy can be harvested on lap 1 but nothing discharged until lap 2

xxChrisxx wrote: You should only allow KERS > say 50mph (or whatever arbitrary figure you can think of).

Why?

xxChrisxx wrote:Nah. Nothing has ever been road relevant about F1, apart from marketing. The engineering challenges are just so different that solutions don't translate directly (This has been argued to death).

The irony is that the Williams flybrid is implemented on the Porsche GT3. Also, they have active research projects with companies such as Land Rover and JCB.

richard_leeds wrote:

xxChrisxx wrote: You should only allow KERS > say 50mph (or whatever arbitrary figure you can think of).

Why?

Simply a way of not letting them use it to start, but allowing use on lap 1. Though I prefer your idea of just saying it has to be empty at the start. Much neater, and less circumventable.

For what purpose Chris?
When you use Kers is irelevent as the system would be available to all cars at the same agreed power levels.
Kers as an overtaking 'boost' button is a red herring, it is introduced as a way to develop alternate energy use in F1 and to continue F1s brilliant history of engineering inovation, not to cover up the downside of high DF aero.
Making F1 more relevent to road technology not only allows continued development but it is also essential for F1s survival.
Aero development in high downforce has all but played itself out and its dominance will seal the fate of F1 if things are not changed.

autogyro wrote:For what purpose Chris?
When you use Kers is irelevent as the system would be available to all cars at the same agreed power levels.

Just that someone said 'how do you make it so they don't use it at the start'. I personally think it should be totally free technology, and be allowed to be used at starts in the way discussed in the other thread.

autogyro wrote: Kers as an overtaking 'boost' button is a red herring, it is introduced as a way to develop alternate energy use in F1 and to continue F1s brilliant history of engineering inovation, not to cover up the downside of high DF aero.
Making F1 more relevent to road technology not only allows continued development but it is also essential for F1s survival.
Aero development in high downforce has all but played itself out and its dominance will seal the fate of F1 if things are not changed.

I also agree that using it solely as push to pass is a stupid idea. It should be an integral part of the power delivery system.

I don't really agree that any of this technology is really directly relevent to the road apart from appearance that it's relevent especially in it's current form of rapid charge and rapid discharge. This is a point I think we will always not see eye to eye on.

I also agree that aero regs need to change to be massively simplified.

If F1 wants to drop fuel consumption of 55 L/100km to 27 L/100km in 2015 there is probably no option to the use of HERS and KERS. I estimate this could save 10L perhaps with a dedicated maximum integrated solution.

On top it would have to massively increase combustion efficiency by the most modern GDI and dual fuel technologies which may drop another 5L. At least it would avoid catalytic converters that are necessary for diesels. So the noise lovers would still be satisfied.

Turbo technology and max efficiency electric driven ancillaries instead of hydraulics will probably mean that we could drop another 2 L.

The rest has to be made up by running the engines on lower power settings which means less downforce and more mechanical grip to make up the time in the medium fast corners and on the straights. If they drop at least half the downforce they may save another 10L required to make the target. I don't see how F1 will ever reach it's fuel use target without adopting significantly lower downforce and massively lower drag than the 2009 figures.

why not use KERS like the success ballast idea. Top cars will have not KERS,
the opposite for teams on the end.

quick_kill wrote:why not use KERS like the success ballast idea. Top cars will have not KERS,
the opposite for teams on the end.

Wouldnt it be the top end teams that would be in the best position to develop it tho?

Originaly Kers was allowed open budgets outside the cost caps so that the car manufacturers and outside vehicle development centers could work on Kers systems with direct relevence to road Hybrid systems.
The Porsche 911 GT3 Hybrid is a direct result of this incentive as is the less potential Ferrari 599 Hybrid and all future Ferraris from next year.
I hope that at the very least, Kers development is allowed to continue with little restriction. Any restriction IMO will further delay the spin off of improved energy recovery technology into road vehicles, much as the establishment of Fota did last year. Any delay will have a huge effect on world CO2 control and also have a huge negative effect on the worlds perception of F1 as the peak of sensible modern technology and energy use.