Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[WhiteBlue]

@riff_raff
I do not think that turbo compounding qualifies for HERS. The exhaust turbine takes work out of the gas but cannot extract heat unless there is a substantial pressure and speed differential. HERS as I understand it do not extract work directly from the exhaust gas but rely on a heat transfer without work.

[autogyro]

Anyone know how the ceramic chip technology that uses nano tunneling to convert heat directly into electricity is going?

[WhiteBlue]

Unobtainium probably.

[autogyro]

Hahahaha
Probably

[Scania]

how about a small, compact & high efficien steam engine for HERS?
is it possible to go back to water injection?

[imightbewrong]

Why not use a Peltier element? Perhaps the possible power output is too low..

[SiLo]

Why not use a Peltier element? Perhaps the possible power output is too low..

Most likely, that and the fact that they would have to cool one side for it to be effective. They are only about 20% efficient too, meaning they would be pretty useless.

[WhiteBlue]

The bottle neck is the heat transfer from gas to gas or gas to fluid. It makes the recuperators heavy and bulky. So in my view there isn't really any good alternative to a process that relies on evaporation to extract the heat efficiently. That way the evaporation enthalpy helps you to a more compact design. I think that BMW had the right idea with their steamer using a Rankine process. It may not work exactly the way they have shown that because turbo charging or compounding will be requirement in F1 IMO. But a single circuit further down using a low and a high temp recuperator and a cooling circuit for condensing would work.

[xpensive]

...
I also found a fuel consumption of 2.37 kg/5km and a time loss per 5kg of fuel of 0.07s/lap. I would accept a base fuel consumption of 150 kg for Bahrain in 2010 and for an average race.

2.37 kg/5 kg of gasoline equals 0.6 liter per km which of course would be outrageous for any road-car, why I'm beginning to wonder what relevance a fuel-economy improvement of 10 or 20% of the F1 cars could have anyway?

Anyway, 0.6 liters of gasoline holds some 20 000 kJ, which puts KERS recovery of 400 kJ per lap in perspective.

[mx_tifoso]

2.37 kg/5 kg of gasoline equals 0.6 liter per km which of course would be outrageous for any road-car, why I'm beginning to wonder what relevance a fuel-economy improvement of 10 or 20% of the F1 cars could have anyway?

...

Marketing.

[WhiteBlue]

double post

[WhiteBlue]

One should not forget that the target is not to save 10-20% but to save 50%. So F1 race fuel is projected to go down to 75 kg per race by 2018. The new formula is supposed to bring instant saving of 25%.

Naturally the driver for more efficient race cars is marketing. It is the marketing of the manufacturers but also the marketing of the FiA, FOTA and FOM. They all want F1 research and development to contribute to fuel saving technologies that can be used in road cars. Sponsors want that type of image as well. F1 needs a green image in addition to the juvenile VROOOMMM ideology. VROOOMMM is nice to have but it is even nicer if it fits with the global needs for fuel efficient transportation.

Nobody seriously believes that 2013 KERS will be restricted as the 2009 KERS was. KERS will have to make a big contribution and that is why a 2.3 MJ/lap target is much more realistic than a 400 kJ/lap target.

This is the list of efficiency technologies that I see:

• downsizing and reduction of cylinder count
• turbo charging or turbo compounding with electric assisted turbo charging
• throttle less engine control
• spray guided, high pressure direct fuel injection with outward opening piezo injectors
• lower rpm design with lower bore/stroke ratios
• variable valve timing and stroke
• stratified injection at partial loads
• electrification of ancillaries
• KERS from all wheels with true dual torque
• HERS
• low drag and low downforce aero with movable devices

It will take some time to get to the target but there may be other things we cannot see today that will bring performance at lower energy use.

[timbo]

Nobody seriously believes that 2013 KERS will be restricted as the 2009 KERS was. KERS will have to make a big contribution and that is why a 2.3 MJ/lap target is much more realistic than a 400 kJ/lap target.

It is reported that the lightest KERS unit was 25 KG. Do you seriously believe in 150 KG KERS?

[WhiteBlue]

Nobody seriously believes that 2013 KERS will be restricted as the 2009 KERS was. KERS will have to make a big contribution and that is why a 2.3 MJ/lap target is much more realistic than a 400 kJ/lap target.

It is reported that the lightest KERS unit was 25 KG. Do you seriously believe in 150 KG KERS?

I don't think it is correct to extrapolate a spec that deliberately destroys the potential of KERS. The 2009 KERS was initially thought to be a starting point in 2008 with a view to harvest the full potential in 2011. Instead we will have the same impotent spec in 2011. Unless the artificial restrictions for energy efficiency are removed KERS does not make much sense at all.

Race cars need to have the most demanding specs for hybrid drive technology and not something that had its balls cut off in a political meeting by some back room lobbyists. Nobody should refer to a 400 kJ KERS in this thread which is about unlimited KERS. The 2009 KERS spec is an insult to all engineers who have ever worked in the field of hybrid cars.

[timbo]

I don't think it is correct to extrapolate a spec that deliberately destroys the potential of KERS.

What do you mean WB?
That designers deliberately created overweight KERS?

What I mean is that reality of energy saving these days would probably disallow figures in the 2MJ range.

The 2009 KERS spec is an insult to all engineers who have ever worked in the field of hybrid cars.

Might be. But Zytec engineers were apparently very proud of what they achieved with their system. Also note, that their system actually were not as scalable as MM. Which puts my "estimation" of 150 kg unit on the optimistic side.