FOTA agrees to drop KERS from 2010

[flynfrog]

You are missing the point, as this is a discussion about KERS, and this is a solution to use already free energy to spin the flywheel.

As you likely know, a turbocharger has two parts, a turbine, that spins from the exhaust, and a compressor, that compresses the intake air going into the engine.

I am proposing using only the turbine half of a turbocharger, and have the turbine shaft spin up the flywheel, likely through some gearing. A turbocharger is not free power, as you need to feed more air into the motor, and burn more fuel as your "cost".

Using this setup would be actual "free power", similar to a compound turbo engine. If you use the exhaust gasses to help spin your crankshaft, or in this case your kers unit, you are not effecting the mileage of the car.

From wiki:

A Turbo-compound engine is a reciprocating engine that employs a blowdown turbine to recover energy from the exhaust gases. The turbine is usually mechanically connected to the crankshaft but electric and hydraulic systems have been investigated as well. The turbine increases the output of the engine without increasing its fuel consumption, thus reducing the specific fuel consumption. The turbine is referred to as a blowdown turbine (or power-recovery turbine), as it recovers the energy developed in the exhaust manifold during blowdown, that is the first period of the exhaust process when the piston still is on its expansion stroke (this is possible since the exhaust valves open before bottom dead center).

EDIT: Sorry, yea did get what I was saying, but I think that feeding wasted exhaust gasses back into the engine with a mechanical conversion is the future, if the regs allow it.

why not shrink the engine down to a smaller displacement and use a turbo you get more power with less weight.

Spinning the fly wheel is going to take energy too its not free.

its also not really kers its more a form of supercharging sorta

[Giblet]

It is free.

How are exhaust gasses, already pumping out the engine straight out the back of the car being used otherwise right now in F1? If these gasses are used to feed the engine more air, then it is not free. Otherwise it IS free. Specifically if you happen to have a KERS unit already.

I'm looking at ways to make KERS more viable, it has nothing to do with looking at a way to make a better engine overall.

Even in a standard turbo setup, you could have a turbo compound (spinning only the turbine and feeding mechanically to the crankshaft) downstream of the turbo, extracting remaining energy that is still in the exhaust flow.

This setup has been time tested in airplane engines for years... here are some numbers.

"The Curtis-Wright r-3350 was used in such notable piston engined airliners as the Douglas DC-7C and the Lockheed Super Constellation. Developed around the same time as the Allison, this 46-litre (2804 cu. in.) mechanically supercharged spark-ignition, 18 cylinder, radial engine had three turbines each fed by six cylinders which were geared via a fluid coupling to the crankshaft. While the basic engine power at take-off and without power recovery was something like 2800 hp, the addition of the 'blow-down' turbines increased this to 3800 hp, without using any extra fuel."

In a fuel tank restricted f1, free power would be good yes? You are not using another means to drive the car, as it still energy for the engine, and you are not force feeding the engine air, both rules are skirted with this tech.

[flynfrog]

Using the exhaust gasses out the back are not free they are adding restriction to the exhaust flow there for reducing the efficiency of the engine. ( a turbo does the same thing) you may be gaining it back but its not free. I like the idea but what if you could also pre heat the A/F mixture ala Smokey Yunick.

Back to my turbo argument. You could run an undersized engine thus cutting weight and make the same power and use the same fuel as the larger engine.

[flynfrog]

sorry for the poor posts my point being why add kers if you dont need to.

(packing eating and feeding the cat all at teh same time flynfrog)

[Giblet]

The overall power gain, after minimal restrictive losses at the exhaust, is about 10% in a standard diesel engine. The higher speeds of F1 exhaust will give far more power, at no expense of fuel whatsoever. The overall output is higher, at no cost.

I don't see where the cost is if at the end of the day the car is faster for the exact same input of fuel. A turbo does do the same thing like you say, but after you get the power back you lost from exhaust restriction, you drink more fuel, unlike the setup I'm talking about.

[xpensive]

Interesting discussion guys. However, I believe both your arguments falls inside what some people are referring to as "HERS", Heat Energy Recovery System, correct?

Back to topic a little bit, something is obviously holding up the application of the Williams flywheel-system, any ideas, besides lack of funding?

[axle]

Interesting discussion guys. However, I believe both your arguments falls inside what some people are referring to as "HERS", Heat Energy Recovery System, correct?

Back to topic a little bit, something is obviously holding up the application of the Williams flywheel-system, any ideas, besides lack of funding?

I *believe* that vibrational and therefore sudden G applications are holding up the flybrid. The single flywheel is suffering from reliability issues when subjected to the NVH from an F1 chassis/engine.

I didn't realise but they aren't going for the multiple small flywheel system, but instead 1 big one...it's this design choice that I feel is the reason for it suffering.

[xpensive]

Good point there, adding chassis vibrations and g-forces to the already challenging issue of bearings and vaccum-sealing, could only complicate matters further of course.

Is here any indication that this system has been tested in a real-life application?

[Giblet]

HERS recovers heat, but a turbine recovers the mechanical energy from the exhaust. This would produce heat, but not use it. So still a KERS system, as the turbin would push the flywheel to spin all the time, recovering more than just braking energy.

[flynfrog]

Great discussion Giblet. Im off for the weekend look forward to continuing later

[Richard]

Sorry for being dim, but why use the flywheel as a storage device via electrical power instead of mechanical power? Is it possible for a clever mechanical coupling from fly wheel to crankshaft?

[xpensive]

In order to store enoguh energy, while keeping the flywheel within reasonable size, you need to reach impressive speeds as energy is mass-inertia times angular speed squared over two.

60k Rpm has been mentioned, which has to be mechanically coupled to the 18k crank. To complicate matters further, during discharge, flywheel speed will decrease over the 6.6 seconds, while crank-speed is jumping up and down with gear-shifts.

Quite a challange to get those differencies in Rpm to co-xist, while conveying power.

[WhiteBlue]

The speed is decoupled because both mechanical systems are only joined by the electrical connection. The flywheel is an MGU and on the other side of the cable also sits an MGU.

[xpensive]

And if you follow the discussion upstreams a little bit, you will find that the Q from Richard Leeds was why this is needful.

[tok-tokkie]

Using the exhaust gasses out the back are not free they are adding restriction to the exhaust flow there for reducing the efficiency of the engine. ( a turbo does the same thing) you may be gaining it back but its not free. I like the idea but what if you could also pre heat the A/F mixture ala Smokey Yunick.

I don't see how you can say that when:

"The Curtis-Wright r-3350 was used in such notable piston engined airliners as the Douglas DC-7C and the Lockheed Super Constellation. Developed around the same time as the Allison, this 46-litre (2804 cu. in.) mechanically supercharged spark-ignition, 18 cylinder, radial engine had three turbines each fed by six cylinders which were geared via a fluid coupling to the crankshaft. While the basic engine power at take-off and without power recovery was something like 2800 hp, the addition of the 'blow-down' turbines increased this to 3800 hp, without using any extra fuel."

Thats something like 30% more power - for free since no additional fuel was required. Physically operating commercial system.