F1technical.net

Keeping in mind that these cars brake much more quickly than they can accelerate, the braking energy could be stored in capacitors, which would then slowly discharge into the batteries (Say the braking zone is 1-2 seconds for charging, it could then slowly drain into the batteries for 5-10 seconds until the next corner). The batteries could directly power the MGU during acceleration since the rate required for discharge would be less than that needed for charging. Bear with me, no coffee yet this morning...

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:I wouldn't use a centrifugal compressor for gyro's idea. I would use 2 small pistons to compress the air. Pitson compressors can gain much higher pressure ratios.

Ok, now I start to understand what could be done with a compressor. The point is we would not be talking 3 bar like a turbo compressor but 200-400 bar like a heavy duty industrial or diving compressor.

Perhaps one cold actually use the ICE in the breaking phase to compress air and store it in a bottle for later use for boosting. The exhaust gas can then be totally used 100% for some time to drive a turbo compounder while the intake pressure would be fed from the air bottle.

I like this idea. It would be great if the ICE could act as a compressor, but for a petrol engine it only gets up to around 10 bar, or 20 bar for diesel (speaking of, is diesel specifically outlawed for 2013?) and we need up to like ~300 bar as WB mentioned. Variable compression ratio engine designs might be a solution. For sure the whole engine, clutch and transmission would become heavier to cope with the braking forces and high air compression requirements. But if could all be done in same engine, then I imagine overall weight would not suffer much.

The car would essentially be set up for AWD, with front, rear and center driveshafts to transmit power and front, center and rear differentials to split up the breaking forces appropriately. This would all go back through the transmission, clutch and into the engine/compressor. Unfortunately the braking would be geared, so it would be like having brakes that need to downshift. I imagine this would cause traction issues at the limit of adhesion.

The main downside of the capacitors is their volume, so packaging is an issue. I imagine the battery pack could become smaller though if the charge/discharge rate is buffered by the capacitors.



None of this is new by an stretch, did anyone run a similar capacitor/battery setup for KERS storage in 2009?

747heavy wrote: ...
@Xpensive
I´m not 100% sure, I fully understand your hydraulic system.
How would you store the pressure?
As I see it you would need a "springing medium" like air/nitrogene/gas to compress against.
Can´t see how a incompressible fluid could store energy.
Would it in this case, for weight reasons, not be better to use only a pneumatic systems?

Basic hydraulics really, you employ a hydraulic displacement pump as braking means to fill an accumulator of sorts with an, as you say, incompressible hydraulic medium, then you can release the same energy as you stored by reversing the flow, when the pump will now act as a motor, not much unlike last year's MGUs.

The accumulator doesn't necessarily need to be filled with compressed gas, although it is the preferred way, it kan also be a spring loaded piston within a cylinder, allowing the hydraulic medium to simply xpand a cylindrical volume.

Formula None wrote:Keeping in mind that these cars brake much more quickly than they can accelerate, the braking energy could be stored in capacitors, which would then slowly discharge into the batteries (Say the braking zone is 1-2 seconds for charging, it could then slowly drain into the batteries for 5-10 seconds until the next corner). The batteries could directly power the MGU during acceleration since the rate required for discharge would be less than that needed for charging. Bear with me, no coffee yet this morning...

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:I wouldn't use a centrifugal compressor for gyro's idea. I would use 2 small pistons to compress the air. Pitson compressors can gain much higher pressure ratios.

Ok, now I start to understand what could be done with a compressor. The point is we would not be talking 3 bar like a turbo compressor but 200-400 bar like a heavy duty industrial or diving compressor.

Perhaps one cold actually use the ICE in the breaking phase to compress air and store it in a bottle for later use for boosting. The exhaust gas can then be totally used 100% for some time to drive a turbo compounder while the intake pressure would be fed from the air bottle.

I like this idea. It would be great if the ICE could act as a compressor, but for a petrol engine it only gets up to around 10 bar, or 20 bar for diesel (speaking of, is diesel specifically outlawed for 2013?) and we need up to like ~300 bar as WB mentioned. Variable compression ratio engine designs might be a solution. For sure the whole engine, clutch and transmission would become heavier to cope with the braking forces and high air compression requirements. But if could all be done in same engine, then I imagine overall weight would not suffer much.

The car would essentially be set up for AWD, with front, rear and center driveshafts to transmit power and front, center and rear differentials to split up the breaking forces appropriately. This would all go back through the transmission, clutch and into the engine/compressor. Unfortunately the braking would be geared, so it would be like having brakes that need to downshift. I imagine this would cause traction issues at the limit of adhesion.

The piston compressor can be seperate from the engine. Made of Aluminum or CFRP, since it doesn't have to deal with combusting fuel.
One for the rear and one for the front axle. It's basically like a supercharger.
feeding an air tank to store the air. The air can also be pumped into the engine as well, to provide boost at low rpm.

Right, I'm just wondering if it would be feasible to have such a thing as an engine/compressor, wherein it can switch from one mode to the other for acceleration or regenerative braking, eliminating the need for separate assemblies.

If its a separate unit as you propose, I think it could still be attached to the engine mechanically. This would allow it to have access to more optimal gearing as the car slows down (transmitting braking forces through an AWD-type setup). The issue of braking forces that are intermittent (due to downshifting) is still there, though.

WhiteBlue wrote: You need to understand that the parallel concept avoid discharging the battery between 10% and 90%. By coupling three series of cells in parallel you deplete the combined cells only by a third of 80%. It means you will only take a third of the time to charge them back to full 90% capacity. Effectively you only skim the top of the capacity and carry the rest around. It is a big waste but the only way you can go if your charge/discharge rate isn't high enough.

Principally adding serial cells builds voltage and adding parallel cells builds current. To build power you multiply current and voltage. This why the weight increases so rapidly. The only way to improve is having chemical systems that run higher voltage at higher or equal current. The current chemistry is temperature restricted at 60°C. If they find a reaction that tolerates higher temps at equal thermal efficiency and heat conduction they can create a bigger heat flow and from the driving temperature difference and also bigger charging power.

Thanks for your nice little lecture WB, I´m qite familar with the basic concept of serial and parallel combinations of accus/batteries as well as with the concept of P=U*I and R=U/I. But I truly appriciate your effort - thank you.

As far as I can tell you found a way to harvest 1 MJ or 100kW with your system during a 10 sec period.
Did our aim was not to harvest 4MJ or at least 333kW (3.3 MJ) during a lap?
You "pay" around 150 kg (very conservative estimate) for your 100kW advantage.
If we you can still built a car at let´s say 640Kg minimum weight that means you have a power to weight ratio of 450kW + 100kW = 550kW/640Kg = ~0,86kW/kg.

If the FIA would not be so narrow minded and allow free competition I would go with a 450kW engine and 490kg weight (fuel weight will come on top in both cases + 100kg) and arrive at a power to weight ratio of ~0,92kW/kg.

Given that we both would have the same amount of downforce and the same tire, I would know which solution is more "efficient" in my book, and which one I would choose any given day.

Both cars would have the same (lower)fuel consumption.
Sorry, but without the artificial concept of minimum weight, I fail to see the advantge in your KERS proposal.

Czapski Renault F1 team about the 2009 KERS wrote: It’s a very good question because every 10 kilograms of excess
weight in a Formula One car means it is 3/10ths of a lap slower.
KERS as it stands is about 3/10ths of a lap quicker with the current regulations so
you can see if we go overweight by 10 kilos we’ve lost it.

Yes, you "recover" energy which you then need to spend/use to accelerate a much heavier car to the same speed, so that you can "recover/harvest" your energy again.
This maybe is efficient, but it is not very effective IMHO.

By the way.
I do understand your concept as I said you carry a lot of unused battery capacity all the time.
Did this mean, you are allowed to start your race with a fully charged KERS battery (making a F1 car a plug in Hybrid), or does it mean you need 25 laps before your battery is fully charged, and then you can use your proposed charge/discharge cycle?

As for the proposed, and in your point of view o.k., lifespan of 2 batteries per engine or ~ 10 batteries per season and car.
What´s the price of such a battery? (somewhere in the internet 70.000$ was mentioned for a 2009 F1 battery)
If we take this value, that would make 2 (cars) x 10 (batteries/year) x 70 000$ = 1.4 Million$ per team and year.
Now, if we keep in mind that we would need ~ 4 x the 2009 capacity, we´re coming to a point where it doubles the proposed engine lease of 5 Mill $ per team/year.

xpensive wrote: Basic hydraulics really.....

Thanks X,
Yes, I see where you are comming from, it was what I had thought.
I think McLaren had their banned system in the 90´s along these lines.

Maybe, we see a comeback of it soon.

http://fouzanspykid.blogspot.com wrote:
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS:

- Hydraulic KERS:
An alternative to the battery system that could see in 2011 is the use of hydraulics.
This system has its limitations, but with the current energy storage limit may apply.
KERS would include a hydraulic pump instead of the motor-generator, and a rechargeable battery instead.
A simple valve system on the brakes would cause the pump to send oil to the accumulator or KERS button that oil back to the pump by turning and producing power. Its location in an F1 would be relatively simple.

McLaren developed in the late 90's a system like this, but was banned before I could use.
If we join that McLaren has said that the KERS in 2011 will be less electronic and hydraulic, and have "creative ideas" for 2011, all this leads us to speculate that the English use the system in 2011.

What would be the weight and oil capacity need for such a system, as well as the max. operation pressure?

It's going to need 2 resoivores. One advantage is that hydraulics package well.
The lines can go to the front of the car. and even onto the wheel uprights with the motor on the upright as well.
That's 4 wheel drive right there, though with added unsprung weight.

Weight, heat rejection and efficiency is the biggest issue.; also there is a safety Hazard with high pressure hydraulic lines some how being ruptured in an accident.

http://electrovelocity.com/2010/12/13/l ... et-points/

Is this wrong then?

Conventional hydraulics typically limits at 25 MPa, up to that you need nothing fancy in terms of fittings, tubing or pressure vessel components. Next level would be 40 MPa, but then you have to a bit more careful with whatever you plan to do.

But As I said earler, it's nothing special really, 25 liters per second at 20 MPa, that's 500 kW. Knock yourself out.

some KERS related podium discussion from back in 2008 during the PMWE in Cologne

http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/wp- ... f/kers.pdf

@X - Thanks

Interesting that they say in 2008 that it was in the same stage as semi automatics were 20 years before.
IMO the two technologies can and should be the same.
Why have seperate gearboxes controlling torque between the two power supplies and the road wheels, when it can be designed to deal with it all in one box?
All the add on systems suggested are not needed.

autogyro wrote:http://electrovelocity.com/2010/12/13/l ... et-points/

Is this wrong then?

not more or less then any other propaganda.

I think the last point is everybodies best guess. (the same as for oil and gas reserves)
Another EV website claims worldwide reserves of 135-160 Million tons, for some reason they come up with only 10 Billion cars out of it.

Others claim:

Wikipedia wrote: The total amount of potentially available lithium worldwide has been estimated at 15 million tonnes, of which 6.8 million tonnes is currently economically recoverable.
Using the figures of 6.8 million tonnes of Lithium and 400g of Lithium per kWh, this gives a total maximum lithium battery capacity of 17 billion kWh which is enough for approximately 320 million electric cars with a 53kWh battery (like a Tesla Roadster).

I guess we will need to wait and see, what turns out to be the truth.

I would be sad to see the salt lakes in the Altiplano (Bolivia/Chile/Argentina) go, but I´m happy that I was able to see them before.
I guess one price we have to pay - can´t have it all.

Maybe, after all, the Americans had not only Bin Laden in mind, as reason for their Afganistan mission.

That the batteries are recyclable (which is true, so is Plutonium and Uranium out of nuclear power stations), does not necessarily mean, you can regain/recyle the Lithium out of them, to re-use it.

I believe that re-cycling Lithium from bateries will prove a lot easier than recycling the CO2 and pollutants from burning fossil fuels.
To start with it does not end up in the atmosphere.
The same with rare earth elements.

I undestand the French government might be demanding that F1 becomes carbon neutral before they will allow any future French GPs.

It is likely that this restriction will develop to include at least all the countries in Europe, so the development of KERS and other energy recovery is essential for F1s future.

Perhaps I will now receive a reply back from my letter to FOTA suggesting an electric formula based on my official paper that the FIA has had for nearly a year. An electric formula 'series' to run alongside the F1 championship and with the potential to make all F1 races carbon neutral.
It is a pity that the motorsport media remains dominated by fossil fuel supporters, or they would have covered this in detail by now.

Autogyro, the engine formula has no significant impact on the carbon footprint of these races, even if all the cars were full electric. While we're off the topic of 2013 engines, though the best way to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases would be to feed all F1 team members a vegetarian diet, eliminating copious methane (the F1 of greenhouse gases) and other livestock effluence. Secondly, all air travel to the venues would need to be banned. Only ships, carpools, (full) buses, airships and trains would be permitted for moving around the support equipment. These are both things that could be done NOW without the need for any battery electric development involved. Only logistics and grocery list inspections would need to be implemented. I'm only half joking here, this would be the quickest way to get F1 carbon neutral. We could still have a nice NA V10 wail while you munch on a veggie burger. The only trade-off would be that Ross Brawn and Mr T would, how you say, improve their power-to-weight ratio.