Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[WhiteBlue]

There are strong rumors that the 2013 new engine formula will have completely unrestricted KERS. Surely a big part of the change will come from AW KERS. This is going to have an impact on chassis design if you only think about the need to supply torque to the front wheels and collect it from there.

If we just assume that KERS will be electrical you still have intriguing consequences. The front wheels will need drive shafts. The brake/motor/generator function will probably go at least partially inboard. That should increase the mass in front of the driver's feet considerably and will cause new safety measures to the tub and the suspension/drive compartment at the front of the tub. Energy storage for the front wheels will be required either in the front compartment or connected by use of energy carrying cable ducts through the driver compartment to the rear energy storage.

There is also the question of how dual torque drives to all wheels will be regulated to avoid traction control and ABS.

[riff_raff]

WhiteBlue,

Your proposed FWD electric KERS is a lot to consider. The CV's, drive shafts, differential, motor/generator, wiring, etc. would need space and would add weight to the forward end of the chassis. Most current KERS concepts utilize the existing rear drivetrain for these functions.

The issues that immediately come to mind with a FWD KERS are torque steer during KERS discharge, and accurate control of front braking between the KERS and conventional friction braking system during recovery. This was the same problem that Toyota had with braking on their Prius hybrid. It's not a simple thing to control in practice.

Interesting topic though.
riff_raff

[WhiteBlue]

The issues that immediately come to mind with a FWD KERS are torque steer during KERS discharge, and accurate control of front braking between the KERS and conventional friction braking system during recovery. This was the same problem that Toyota had with braking on their Prius hybrid. It's not a simple thing to control in practice.

I think that this issue needs to be tackled by a common SECU program. If the functionality is the same on all cars and can only be influenced by parametrizing there should be the best probability to prevent abuse.

Although KERS design and component specification should be an issue of competitive engineering I think that the control aspects need to be uniform.

[xpensive]

There are strong rumors that the 2013 new engine formula will have completely unrestricted KERS. Surely a big part of the change will come from AW KERS. This is going to have an impact on chassis design if you only think about the need to supply torque to the front wheels and collect it from there.

And just where do you here these "strong rumors"? The cost of developing such systems would have no limit,
why it will never happen, simple as that. I think.

[WhiteBlue]

ESPImperium wrote about it on this board in the thread about the new for 2013 engines. viewtopic.php?p=191622#p191622

The original FiA roadmap for KERS looked as early as 2011 to introduce AWKERS. viewtopic.php?p=77895#p77895 Please have a look at Ogami Musashi's opening post with means for 2011.

There is also a strong statement by Gilles Simon pro unlimited KERS being used to differentiate between manufacturers of power trains.

With reduced displacement engines and lower torque, you could use additional electrical torque to differentiate between the cars, while at the same time developing and showcasing hybrid technology and performance that will be used in passenger cars.

Road car manufacturers use AWKERS so the FiA would be aware of that when they talk about systems for F1 being useful for passenger cars.

[xpensive]

ESPImperium wrote about it on this board in the thread about the new for 2013 engines. viewtopic.php?p=191622#p191622

We xcuse me, it must be true then?

Btw, I can't read anything in Simon's statement supporting unlimited KERS either, this is just another **-thread.

[WhiteBlue]

I haven't said official announcements but rumors. Besides logic tells us that you can only maximize the KERS energy if you use all wheels. That is what road cars do anyway. So ultimately that is the also the way F1 is likely to go with KERS. What would be the reasons in your view for not introducing AWKERS?

I would invite to look at the issue and collect some ideas. If someone has good reasons why it should not happen it could also be a contribution, if we hear some good technical points made.

[timbo]

What do you mean by unlimited KERS?
Don't believe in such thing as well as "unlimited" engine or aero.

[WhiteBlue]

What do you mean by unlimited KERS?

Unlimited or unrestricted in terms of energy harvested, or power applied, or the number of motors/generators, or the number of wheels you can take the energy from is the issue. All these factors have been limited by previous regulations. On top we had the push to pass mode of power application which I expect to be abolished. As Simon Gilles mentions KERS should be a permanent dual torque drive in acceleration as well as in breaking mode.

[xpensive]

Already the 400 kJ KERS did cost the teams hundreds of millions of Euros. Unlimited KERS would set off a spending-spiral of an xorbitant amount of money, which only the big teams could afford, this is why it will never happen.

[WhiteBlue]

KERS 2013 will be an integrated part of the power train and will be basically developed by the four engine manufacturers that currently supply F1 plus any new manufacturers which will enter the group. The engine cost will be fixed by a target and resources for power train development will be restricted.

All current engine suppliers have agreed on the basic nature of the 2013 engine and that means that KERS should not be a point of dispute. The 2013 power train developments of Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault (if they stay) should also be very close to what they develop for their performance road cars anyway. We might even see McLaren in the group of manufacturers by that time. Cosworth are very positive and I'm not aware that they have criticized the FiA for planning KERS in 2013.

[Dukeage]

The main issue with KERS is ensuring that independent teams get competitive KERS systems at sensible prices. I don't think unrestricted KERS is a good idea, but in 2013 when it will be fully integrated with the powertrain they could significantly increase the amount of energy per lap.

With regards to a four wheel system, couldn't a team put all their KERS energy through the front wheels and effectively made it a 4WD car when the button is pressed, meaning it would be far easier to drive? The question has to be if this would be desirable on a sporting level. F1 is about more than just technology.

[xpensive]

Having the engine-suppliers to go ahead with a no-limit rear-wheel KERS-system is one thing, given that it's shared with their customers. But if you let the dogs out on the front-wheels, where the bulk of breaking-energy is anyway, it would probably start a spending-frenzy of unseen proportions, limited to the grandees of course.

[WhiteBlue]

With regards to a four wheel system, couldn't a team put all their KERS energy through the front wheels and effectively made it a 4WD car when the button is pressed, meaning it would be far easier to drive? The question has to be if this would be desirable on a sporting level. F1 is about more than just technology.

That is a very valid point. As mentioned before the dual torque drive control would have to sit in the SECU. The SECU would also have to be programmed to allow for the ICE power at the start only. Alternatively one could allow for torque from all wheels but not with traction control but with a fixed programmed torque that is proportional to the ICE power.

The main objective of the drive control would be making it the same for all and denying ABS, TC and launch control. It should be possible with a common program that can only be customized in very narrow parameters.

If you let the dogs out on the front-wheels, where the bulk of breaking-energy is anyway, it would probably start a spending-frenzy of unseen proportions, limited to the grandees of course.

It becomes a good point if you turn this around. Spending any money on KERS would produce a poor cost/benefit ratio if you do not allow the bulk of the energy to be harvested from the front wheels. It would be another silly system in the mold of 2009.

[autogyro]

With the main control being a set amount of fuel, it would make sense to make the KERS regulations completely open and simply have the FIA decide on what is or is not TC or ABS. Limit it by purchase price within F1 but allow full technical development outside.
It is time to break the artificial blocks on technical developments of world relevance.