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 ...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
gridwalker wrote: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 ...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
Damn stright!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
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: [*]It will be used if the weight is smaller than the weight of the fuel it saves
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 potential is much bigger when it is integrated in a new engine formula
[*]Push to pass is another pointless limitation for KERS
Heh, funny really as this was just discussed in a recent threadWhiteBlue wrote: [*]KERS should be banned at the start to avoid launch control
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: [*]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
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 and HERS must be important elements to reduce fuel use in F1 by 50% til 2015
- Easy, just say it has to be empty at the start. Perhaps energy can be harvested on lap 1 but nothing discharged until lap 2WhiteBlue wrote:KERS should be banned at the start to avoid launch control
Why?xxChrisxx wrote: You should only allow KERS > say 50mph (or whatever arbitrary figure you can think of).
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.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).
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.richard_leeds wrote:Why?xxChrisxx wrote: You should only allow KERS > say 50mph (or whatever arbitrary figure you can think of).
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.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.
Wouldnt it be the top end teams that would be in the best position to develop it tho?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.