FOTA agrees to drop KERS from 2010

[WhiteBlue]

DP

[WhiteBlue]

actualy tweaking the aero is the pinical of optimizing for effecieny. They run as much DF as they can with the least amount of drag per engine output.

That is the wrong strategy. To minimize fuel use and max efficiency you need to limit downforce and allow aero research to concentrate on minimizing drag. If they always change the geometric restrictions there will be a new orgy of downforce research every time you make a change.

To me reving the engine a few hundered RPM is a much better solution then any kers system. The KERS systems are overly complex and expensive not to mention much worse for the enviroment then a few kilo of fuel. This applies to road and F1 so how is that for your road relavance.

A flywheel system like the Williams unit will be environmentally friendly. If the batteries are too expensive F1 would avoid them given a budget restriction.

[Scotracer]

actualy tweaking the aero is the pinical of optimizing for effecieny. They run as much DF as they can with the least amount of drag per engine output.

That is the wrong strategy. To minimize fuel use and max efficiency you need to limit downforce and allow aero research to concentrate on minimizing drag. If they always change the geometric restrictions there will be a new orgy of downforce research every time you make a change.

To me reving the engine a few hundered RPM is a much better solution then any kers system. The KERS systems are overly complex and expensive not to mention much worse for the enviroment then a few kilo of fuel. This applies to road and F1 so how is that for your road relavance.

A flywheel system like the Williams unit will be environmentally friendly. If the batteries are too expensive F1 would avoid them given a budget restriction.

That will never work as they will just do what they do now: get the most downforce they can for the least drag. They will just push up against the edge of the limit.

[flynfrog]

actualy tweaking the aero is the pinical of optimizing for effecieny. They run as much DF as they can with the least amount of drag per engine output.

That is the wrong strategy. To minimize fuel use and max efficiency you need to limit downforce and allow aero research to concentrate on minimizing drag. If they always change the geometric restrictions there will be a new orgy of downforce research every time you make a change.

To me reving the engine a few hundered RPM is a much better solution then any kers system. The KERS systems are overly complex and expensive not to mention much worse for the enviroment then a few kilo of fuel. This applies to road and F1 so how is that for your road relavance.

A flywheel system like the Williams unit will be environmentally friendly. If the batteries are too expensive F1 would avoid them given a budget restriction.

the flywheel is going to be more inefficient than batteries if its not already you are going from mechanical to electrical to mechanical back to electrical. Not to mention its got to be a service nightmare with super high speed bearings. Its also going to weigh more to add all of the crash proofing armor. Not to mention they have yet to put it in a car and probably never will.

KERS would make great sense if you were already electric drive (like our solar car) you add nothing but a few lines of code the controller. To add it to an ICE engine you need to add a complete powertrain. Now you tell me what makes more sense. Adding a ton of weight and complexity and service cost to get a few more hp or mpg. Or focus on making cars light and engine efficient so that there is no need for a kers system


{now with spell check)

[machin]

the flywheel is going to be more inefficient than batteries if its not already you are going from mechanical to electrical to mechanical back to electrical. Not to mention its got to be a service nightmare with super high speed bearings. Its also going to weigh more to add all of the crash proofing armor. Not to mention they have yet to put it in a car and probably never will.

I'm not sure that's all true.... batteries aren't that efficient at storing energy, and they're also not very efficient at discharging the energy they do store, they're limited by charging rate, and they have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles before they need to be thrown away. The flywheel only needs the bearings and vacuum seals replaced....

The problem is that KERS in F1 this year has been severely hampered by the rule which only allows it to be used for a certain amount of time per lap, and this is the reason that other system haven't really been developed; the money is better spent on the stupid double deck diffusers..... Ban the DDD, release the limits off the KERS and we'll see some proper development of all the systems and then we'll see how good a flywheel system is....

[xpensive]

Admitting to be intrigued by the prospect of an electrical flywheel in F1, the storing ability is rather interesting.

Stored energy is mass-inertia times angular speed squared over two.
If we imagine a solid, 200 mm and 5 kg, disc, spinning at 100 000 Rpm, it will hold some 1400 kJ.

More than enough for today's storage numbers, and possibly much more with a larger disc?
But solving the mechanical challenges, bearings, stresses and vacuum, at those speeds? Good Lord.

[tok-tokkie]

Admitting to be intrigued by the prospect of an electrical flywheel in F1, the storing ability is rather interesting.

Stored energy is mass-inertia times angular speed squared over two.
If we imagine a solid, 200 mm and 5 kg, disc, spinning at 100 000 Rpm, it will hold some 1400 kJ.

More than enough for today's storage numbers, and possibly much more with a larger disc?
But solving the mechanical challenges, bearings, stresses and vacuum, at those speeds? Good Lord.

But isn't that what F1 should be about? Engineering challenges and innovation. The way the rules are going seems to exactly the reverse. Kit engines from Cosworth next? Good Lord. No - Holy ---.

[James_graham]

Whilst I do agree with the innovation in F1. It can be said though in a period of great innovation most people were using the ford DFV engine? this allowed people to race as it was cheaper than making your own. If the rules eased up a little and allowed inoovation in other areas like energy recovery (not just KERS) the cosworth engine wouldn't be a bad thing

[machin]

But solving the mechanical challenges, bearings, stresses and vacuum, at those speeds? Good Lord.

There's been some good articles in Racecar Engineering about the Flybrid flywheel solution and all these aspects have been design and tested and show good results. One of the solutions was simply to mount the bearings outtside the vacuum casing, therefore they only need to cope with the speeds, not the vacuum. Good lateral thinking.

[xpensive]

Sounds like an intelligent solution machin, though the vacuum needs a reliable contact-seal against the shaft to stay in place.
100 000 Rpm on a tiny 20 mm shaft is still 105 m/s of surface-speed, imagine that?

I also doubt if you can find useful conventional ball-bearings for those speeds, perhaps the new kind of hybrids with ceramic balls, but then there's still the element of friction-losses, heat and lubrication?

An intresesting subject indeed.

[flynfrog]

not to mention rotor burst

also how do they plan to vacum seal a spinning shaft.

how will an electric motor be timed to spin a mass from zero to 25k rpm or higher I would think you need a variable timing motor to do that

Battery technolgy is making leaps and bounds and has no moving parts in its self

you still have cooling storage and longevity concerns

[xpensive]

Vacuum-sealing a spinning shaft is in itself not the problem flynfrog, it's never more than an atmosphere of pressure differential anyway, Busak+Shamban has technology to do that tight enough.

But not at that surface-speed, you can handle perhaps 20 m/s reliably, but not 100 m/s as it will be if you are talking 100 000 Rpm and a 20 mm shaft.

But still interesting, nevertheless.

[flynfrog]

Vacuum-sealing a spinning shaft is in itself not the problem flynfrog, it's never more than an atmosphere of pressure differential anyway, Busak+Shamban has technology to do that tight enough.

But not at that surface-speed, you can handle perhaps 20 m/s reliably, but not 100 m/s as it will be if you are talking 100 000 Rpm and a 20 mm shaft.

But still interesting, nevertheless.

any seal that spins that fast is going to be interesting.

I still dont see a flywheel system making it to road legal status. If it is spinning at 100000 rpm that is 4 times faster than most jet engines. Even small ones.

[Giblet]

Flybrid info form this months Race Tech magazine. The flywheel wheel is more of a drum. A larger version doesn't have to spin faster, it has to be wider, having a wider drum.

- 60,000rpm
- Flywheel is made form Carbon Fibre
- The seal doesn't have to be perfect, as a small electric motor evacuates the chamber when needed.
- Containment system in place to keep everything contained in the event of a failure.
- Entire system weighs 20kg.
- 80% efficiency over a complete cycle of charge, storage, and discharge.
- low cooling requirements
- no flammable parts
- can run many races without attention, where Mclaren throws away their batteries after every race

[flynfrog]

Flybrid info form this months Race Tech magazine. The flywheel wheel is more of a drum. A larger version doesn't have to spin faster, it has to be wider, having a wider drum.

- 60,000rpm
- Flywheel is made form Carbon Fibre
- The seal doesn't have to be perfect, as a small electric motor evacuates the chamber when needed.
- Containment system in place to keep everything contained in the event of a failure.
- Entire system weighs 20kg.
- 80% efficiency over a complete cycle of charge, storage, and discharge.
- low cooling requirements
- no flammable parts
- can run many races without attention, where Mclaren throws away their batteries after every race

I like the vac pump Idea.

carbon also makes better sense from a saftey standpoint as well. it tends to turn into dust when it breaks inconel tubines tend to become bullets

I think the 80% is being a little optimistic it has to go through two electric motors twice. and accelerate a drum

I doubt they give it no attention just like any other part it will be torn down and inspected at least.