After the obvious performance advantages of McLaren Mercedes' KERS system was displayed on track, Norbert Haug has given an insight into the set of components used by McLaren for the system. The complete system weighs a stunning 25kg.
You can take that idea and expand it. If the race track conditions dictate that the KERS application will require a (just a number off the top of my head) 3 second burst as the longest cycle, then the batteries can be sized just for that power requirement. KERS will bring the smaller batteries back up to full charge in the next braking cyckle, and the system is then available to discharge for the next required burst of power.Fil wrote:surely in the spirit of minimising weight the system would be designed specifically to generate, hold, and discharge only enough power for a lap's worth. doing anything over this would be over-engineering which only bears a disadvantage of non-essential weight to lug around.
even more-so since we now know 1 corner after discharging, the system is ready to go again.
And that's the real beauty of this system once it becomes fully mature. The car can capture energy every braking opportunity, and then discharge it exiting the same corner. And theoretically, it can do this each corner of the track. Thus, Max's grand vision achieves reality with a fully functional KERS system that augments the engine acceleration every time, and thus conserves energy. Fuel savings should be realized. Maybe that's why the regulations have been changed so that cars cannot refuel during the race. That way, just by mandating a smaller fuel cell, it would force the teams towards better fuel mileage.So basically, this KERS is that good enough you can have a +80HP car with "only" 25Kg more?
I think its not that simple Conceptual. But you open a nice argument here, that is integrating the two things sharing a part of their casing.Conceptual wrote:What I am saying is that even if they were side by side, the MGU and alternator should be able to use a commom axle. An alternator is in fact a generator, and a generator is in fact a motor, so on that basis they should be able to be integrated into a single unit.
If the windings were done so the 12VDC alternator was always running (even under KERS boosting) there would be no loss to the Alternator system.
You mean Brawn Honda with 20K RPM and 160HP KERS, AWD (they had the front differential in 2004), and movable wings?Ian P. wrote:The rules as I understand them, require the engine controls and electrical power to be 12 Volt. The KERs systems are significantly higher voltage to reduce losses and to reduce weight. Yes a voltage reducer would work but.....
The rules also stipulate that the KERs can only be charged while driving. How do you start and run a car with no power??
The Mercedes system is certainly a marvel of size, simplicity and a credit to the designers. As for using the batteries or controller as balast, you can't move them around too much because of the added weight of the cables. The cooling also needs to follow them and since they are not as dense as lead (not like the rest of us) they don't function quite as nicely as conventional balast at getting into small out of the way places in the chasis.
I expect that the alternator is only collecting charge for the on-board 12 V battery when necessary or when under braking. Other times it would be free-wheeling. Not sure if the alternator isn't part of the mandated engine components and included in the weight of the power unit. In this case there would be no benefit to getting rid of it.
Curious how teams credit the KERs for increased performance but the main contenders at the top of the current order are all non-KERs cars. Honda supposedly had a good working system prior to their withdrawl. Wonder if they will be back under the new budget cap rules.??
If we start a rumor to that effect, does anyone think we could make it happen....???
Dave, Metar: yes, I agree, too. But only because, like Dave already stated in the previous post, the batteries package were designed for a specific duty.DaveKillens wrote:I agree with Metar's statement that the current batteries probably aren't capable of such a brutal cycle, and would self-destruct from the heat and other effects.
That says pretty clearly to me that the charge/discharge rate is fixed at 60kW. Don't know what is going on with this interview then... perhaps Norbert got mixed up somewhere along the line because a half a second to charge 400kJ at a rate of 60kW is not possible.Regulations permit the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) fitted to a Formula One car to collect and store energy during braking at a rate of 60kW. Up to 400kJ of this stored energy can then be re-introduced into the drivetrain each lap at a rate of up to 60kW
