Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[timbo]

Two light weight motor/generators would recover front wheel energy under braking and work as part time four wheeled drive for handling improvement through corners using electronic control over torque bias during apply, (not full four wheeled drive), allowing much lighter shaft drives to the front wheels.
I estimate little change in basic chassis design using this method.

How can recover much energy under braking with light drive shafts?
Or you also think about KERS power/energy figures in the range of 60kW/400 KJ?

Ans WB, take notice, autogyro also talks about using KERS for "handling improvement".

Handling improvement... tempting little thingy, huh?)))

[autogyro]

The drive shafts would 'only' recover braking energy in balance with the wheel brakes and 'only' apply energy to drive the front wheels in cornering with the torque used to balance traction and handling not to apply high levels of torque. There would be no front wheel torque application on the straits and no need for shaft drive from the rear powertrain.

[timbo]

The drive shafts would 'only' recover braking energy in balance with the wheel brakes and 'only' apply energy to drive the front wheels in cornering with the torque used to balance traction and handling not to apply high levels of torque. There would be no front wheel torque application on the straits and no need for shaft drive from the rear powertrain.

I see.
So you also don't see increasing power/stored energy figures practical?

[autogyro]

The drive shafts would 'only' recover braking energy in balance with the wheel brakes and 'only' apply energy to drive the front wheels in cornering with the torque used to balance traction and handling not to apply high levels of torque. There would be no front wheel torque application on the straits and no need for shaft drive from the rear powertrain.

I see.
So you also don't see increasing power/stored energy figures practical?

You can increase the power stored as much as you like if the balance is kept when harvesting energy between the front motor/generators, the balance of braking energy between the front shaft strength and the size weight and capability of the front conventional brakes and the harvesting of braking energy from the gearbox/Kers unit at the rear.
Applying the energy would be mainly through the rear powertrain. The energy applied to the front wheels would be primarily to improve handling.

[WhiteBlue]

The rules for SECU software are not only in the technical regulations but also in the SECU specification from 2005. The key point is that only FiA approved software made by the approved manufacturer MES is allowed.

Any additional functionality must be implemented by MES with the explicit allowance of the FiA technical department. The FiA will determine from case to case if a new functionality is allowed. Sometimes new stuff is privately tested by one team or if it is something public all teams test it. Examples for public tests were seen with the rear light and the safety car target times.

AWKERS control software would be mainly public but may have private additional features if teams invent specials that they can get past the FiA. As usual most private developments in F1 are quickly detected by the rivals and if they involve SECU functions the other teams would be allowed to use these when they ask for the functionality.

Let us assume for example that one team decides to use autogyro's new gearbox invention. Let us further assume that the box needs some additional software functionality that is not currently in the SECU program. The team would make an application of that functionality to the FiA and the FiA would return a verdict that 90% of the new functionality is allowed but one feature which aids braking and acceleration in cornering is not allowed. So MES would implement the 90% allowed functionality for that team.

Now that team is a run away success in the first races and other teams remember the visit by autogyro and decide that they also want this box. They can do this now using the already implemented software which would be revealed to them as soon as they make their own application to the FiA or MES.

I hope this example shows how SW development is handled in the FiA framework by the single supplier MES.

[747heavy]

I would still think, that this solution (SECU) which creates a "bottleneck" at the FIA/MES is/can be a "tun off" for some manufacturers, if we really think that F1 can be the test bed for road car relevant KERS systems.
I would think that manufactuers will see the electronic/control side of KERS as an area of difference, which they don´t like to share with others. (including the FIA/MES)

I understand the SECU approach, and as long as we see F1 as an "sport/entertainment business" it makes sense, to use such a measure to ensure a leveld playing field. IMO
If we want F1 to become a technology leader in the field of KERS, I think it´s a limitation, we could/should do without.

As a sidenote:
Why does the FIA needs a SECU, to control TC and ABS? Would not an seperate FIA data logger be sufficient? Along the lines of "you can do what you like and how you like it, but if we see
this--> wheel speed differences etc. you will be disqualyfied".
In a simlar way they used to impose/control rev limits for example.

[WhiteBlue]

Why does the FIA needs a SECU, to control TC and ABS? Would not an seperate FIA data logger be sufficient? Along the lines of "you can do what you like and how you like it, but if we see
this--> wheel speed differences etc. you will be disqualyfied".
In a simlar way they used to impose/control rev limits for example.

They have tried several times since 1994 to suppress driver aids with individual team controlled soft- and hardware. It never worked out. There have always been accusations of teams pushing into grey areas and the whole paddock was constantly discussing possible electronic cheats. With the SECU all of this is gone. The introduction was a bit of a pain in the neck for some teams but the concept worked so well that few teams would probably want to go back to individual ECUs. The majority of teams would not want to afford a private ECU.

[autogyro]

Why does the FIA needs a SECU, to control TC and ABS? Would not an seperate FIA data logger be sufficient? Along the lines of "you can do what you like and how you like it, but if we see
this--> wheel speed differences etc. you will be disqualyfied".
In a simlar way they used to impose/control rev limits for example.

They have tried several times since 1994 to suppress driver aids with individual team controlled soft- and hardware. It never worked out. There have always been accusations of teams pushing into grey areas and the whole paddock was constantly discussing possible electronic cheats. With the SECU all of this is gone. The introduction was a bit of a pain in the neck for some teams but the concept worked so well that few teams would probably want to go back to individual ECUs. The majority of teams would not want to afford a private ECU.

I think there has to be a high level of common sense shown by the FIA on this.
The principle must IMO open up development in KERS, so almost anything should be allowed.

[747heavy]

That´s all correct (maybe)
But AFAIK, there was never any controlled FIA data logger at the time.
What I mean is that during the Supertouring car era, they FIA went away from
a FIA supplied rev limiter, and insted supplied an FIA supplied/controlled data logger.
You could do whatever you liked, use any ECU you want, but if you rev over 8500rpm (under acceleration), you are DSQ. It worked o.k. at the time.
The FIA has already their accident data logger, why would it be so hard to log the channels needed for ABS/TC functions?

[WhiteBlue]

I think we should bring this thread back on topic. The issue is not "Why do we have a SECU" but the impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design. So my understanding is that the SECU policy will continue and a solution needs to be found for better KERS systems to fit into the existing control.

I agree with autogyro that the approach to dual torque KERS systems that feed and sap electric torque according to some program rules will be a difficult issue. The philosophy for F1 is avoiding the driver aid functions ABS, ESP, TC and launch control. My assumption is that this will stay as well.

I do not know what FiA/FOTA will think about brake steering and acceleration steering support by electric torque. It is theoretically possible if you put separate motor/generators to each wheel. It would be a costly performance enhancer as the number of MGs would significantly increase. In the past expensive performance enhancers have usually been suppressed. It would also be necessary that such a system would be under the total control of the driver. Do we need yet another gimmick that absorbs the driver's attention in the cockpit in addition to movable wings and such?

The answer to such questions are very difficult to predict. I think it would be wise not to open that pot immediately and block it as a future option.

Regarding how the ECU deals with dual torque I would think that the rules should be as simple as possible to start with. In braking the mix should be by a fixed rule that maximizes the harvested energy without giving any discontinuity to the driver. Existing discontinuities like cold carbon brakes are not meant. Brake bias between front and rear could be separately set for the disk brakes and the electric torque.

Under acceleration the rule should look at how much the energy storage is filled and determine accordingly how much electric torque is fed with the ICE engine torque. A front/rear electric acceleration bias may also be adjustable by the driver. Accelerating from a stand still to a speed where downforce kicks in - let us say 100 mph - should be dealt with by a special program that suppresses electric torque in order to avoid any launch control manipulations.

This is basically how I would approach the integration of AWKERS into todays rules framework. So the only real restriction on chassis design for me would be initially prohibiting asymmetric torque between left and right side.

[autogyro]

I do not see the need to suppress electrical torque application at any time, so long as the main application to the rear wheels is controlled with the ic torque by the throttle pedal and without manipulation for TC or LC.
Unless the use of KERS is kept open it will restrict ideas and slow development.
This is no longer acceptable with such a huge world need to make vehicles more fuel efficient and environmentaly cleaner.
Chassis regulations including dimensions, fuel available and weight should be sufficient to restrict any KERS designs to the formula and to keep performance balanced.

[WhiteBlue]

There is no point to control the ICE for TC and the brakes for ABS if you are allowed to do these things with electric torque. For instance you could launch with electric torque only and have perfect traction until the electric drive reaches top power. Only then the ICE would be brought in to fill the gap. But that would not be in the spirit of the rules.

If you are serious about banning driver aids you have to have rules for electric torque as well.

[autogyro]

There is no point to control the ICE for TC and the brakes for ABS if you are allowed to do these things with electric torque. For instance you could launch with electric torque only and have perfect traction until the electric drive reaches top power. Only then the ICE would be brought in to fill the gap. But that would not be in the spirit of the rules.

If you are serious about banning driver aids you have to have rules for electric torque as well.

How is not controlling electric torque other than by using the throttle pedal a problem? You can break traction with electric torque just like with ic torque.
Where is there any 'spirit of the rules' in this. Perhaps if the 'spirit' is defined as maintaining the obsolete macho motor head attitude to the sport.
Bring back a banana in a bowl of custard gear lever for manual shifts just so it looks macho is this the same? If it is then F1 is sadly old fashioned.

[WhiteBlue]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I'm asking for a rule that will tie electric torque to throttle and brake pedal positions like the ICE generated torque and the brake disk generated torque. If there are two torque sources all the time both need to be commanded by the pedal in some form. You cannot IMO make rules for the first torque form and none for the second.

[autogyro]

Sorry WB, I agree if both sources of torque are open to use other than for traction limiting and launch control. This should be in the 'spirit' of the regulations. I do not see a problem with automatic control over front wheel torque bias in the aid of handling.
I also do not see a need to control how the teams harvest energy. This is an essential area of the technology that needs scope for development.
There should be as little restriction as is absolutely neccessary, the fuel restrictions will keep a balance.