flynfrog wrote:The only way kers makes sense in racing is with a fuel limit formula. Fake rules for worthless technology.
Those are strong words. I agree that KERS makes more sense in a fuel limit formula. It also makes a lot more sense if you don't introduce artificial limits. I don't understand what you mean by fake rules for worthless technology. Fuel saving technology isn't useless. Arcane aero configurations that are abandoned every year are useless.
flynfrog wrote:Hybrids and kers are simply a bandaid. You could get the same power with less weight by taking the rev limit off of the motors.
You cannot! Not if you are running in a sensible formula like 2013. The high revving techno junk of the last 20 years will not be able to compete.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
autogyro wrote:
The most efficient way to cover the same distance, is to turn off the motive power at a calculated distance from the corner and allow the vehicle to coast down to a speed it can go around the corner. [...]
if people drove like this there would be no need for hybrids. Its how I get better mileage than prius with my tdi [...]
It would be easy to have traffic lights send a signal to oncoming cars that they should lift off the gas in advance of the red. It would also reduce queueing.
Auto cars with cruise control could be made to slow down automatically. It would only take one or two cars to slow down in the traffic flow and everyone would lift off the gas.
flynfrog wrote:The only way kers makes sense in racing is with a fuel limit formula. Fake rules for worthless technology.
Those are strong words. I agree that KERS makes more sense in a fuel limit formula. It also makes a lot more sense if you don't introduce artificial limits. I don't understand what you mean by fake rules for worthless technology. Fuel saving technology isn't useless. Arcane aero configurations that are abandoned every year are useless.
flynfrog wrote:Hybrids and kers are simply a bandaid. You could get the same power with less weight by taking the rev limit off of the motors.
You cannot! Not if you are running in a sensible formula like 2013. The high revving techno junk of the last 20 years will not be able to compete.
KERS could not compete with the engines of 3 or 4 years ago. Its much lighter to just put a little extra fuel in the car. Yes once the engines are rev and fuel limited you can get more speed with a KERS car other wise its not worth the weight. Oh thats right we are upping the min weight for KERS .
Yes KERS can save some fuel but at what environmental cost. Teams throwing away the packs after the race is neither good for the environment no a cost saving measure.
-Richard all we need to do is take the human out of the equation. Let the cars drive themselves
The traffic light idea is great Richard.
It has been found to dangerous without a fully dedicated road network for the purpose, to externaly control the primary functions of a road vehicle however.
The closest acceptable is on board cruise control.
flynfrog wrote:Yes KERS can save some fuel but at what environmental cost. Teams throwing away the packs after the race is neither good for the environment no a cost saving measure.
In 2013 the flywheel batteries could be back. Generrally the battery life will have to improve in F1. They will simply mandate longer life spans and develop better control methods. First they need to get rid of push to pass.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
It is also worth mentioning that the REEs contained in the used batteries is still there, unlike fossil liquid fuel which is burnt and converted into extra atmospheric CO2 and pollution.
Re-cycleing is the long term answer to Battery technology.
Ill take a little CO2 Over the water pollution caused by the batteries any day. Fossil fuels are energy dense and plentiful and you still use them even with an electric car.
Back on topic sorta.. White blue I didn't think that the flywheel system was as energy dense as battery and it is harder to package. Both problems if they are going to allow a larger KERS charge. I agree on the push to pass.
If they are going to use KERS they should allow unlimited. There is only so much energy they can recover and only some much power they can put down. Also dropping drag would mean more energy you can get back under braking.
If the flywheel axis is vertical, a charged flywheel (spinning) should provide an anti roll effect like a spinning top. Is anyone mounting the flywheel on this axis? Say: on top of the gearbox, in conjunction with a pullrod suspension (to make room)? Would that be considered active suspension?
If the flywheel axis is vertical, a charged flywheel (spinning) should provide an anti roll effect like a spinning top. Is anyone mounting the flywheel on this axis? Say: on top of the gearbox, in conjunction with a pullrod suspension (to make room)? Would that be considered active suspension?
The effect would be to unpredictable.
Capacitors will soon overtake flyheel storage IMO.
flynfrog wrote:Ill take a little CO2 Over the water pollution caused by the batteries any day. Fossil fuels are energy dense and plentiful and you still use them even with an electric car.
What you are willing to accept Flynn is not the point.
At present it is true that the manufacture of electric cars and batteries uses fossil fuels, just like producing ic cars but this does not have to remain the case.
The difference is the wasteful burning of even more fossil fuel in the vehicle where the process of energy conversion is at its least efficient in the ic vehicle.
They will soon be able to re-cycle batteries you cannot ever do that with fossil fuels.
as long as you don´t start growing batteries on trees, there will be no "Zero Emisson" vehicles, electric or whatever.
It´s just another marketing bogus.
What´s the "well to wheel" efficiency of a current electric vehicle autogyro?
The poduction and recyling of the batteries will use up energy, it hardly comes for free.
And who says that Ethanol and Methanol are not renewable energy sources?
Apart from all this, the thread is going off-topic again.
I´m not against fuel and fuel flow limited F1, but this should be the only limitation.
I find it quite ammusing, that the people who worship the efficiency god now, are happy with an increase of minimum weigth at the same time.
I would like to see, a fuel cap and flow limit, and no minimum weight limit (but keep or increase all the crash tests, so that there is no safety argument).
There are many ways to improve efficiency, but now, they will make KERS/TERS/HERS or whatever you call it, the only game in town. That´s the said part - IMHO
Let´s drop the minimum weight rule and then let´s see how competetive KERS really is.
At the moment it´s just going to waste a lot of money and energy to arrive at the same point in 2-3 years time.
Some will arrive there a bit quicker,and that may tips the balance for a while, but they will not let any manufacturer run with it for long, and establish a permanent competetive advantage, because it would kill off the sport.
The way they are going to go about it, they would be better off, to do a joint venture, develop a F1 drivetrain together and just rebage it, for the manaufacturers involved.
Just as they do with their road car engines.
The times that everybody needs to reinvent the wheel again and again and built practical the same engines are long gone.
Because at the end, that is where they will end up with.
Similar power and efficiency levels, just as it is now. (+/- 5% at max. is all they can tolerate from a sport/show perspective)
F1 it´s not only an engineering mastrubation exercise, and the KERS technology and it´s application is night and day different from any road car relevant system, because who will ever drive a road car in the way a F1 car is driven.
Last edited by 747heavy on 07 Dec 2010, 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
Going to electric vehicles has nothing to do with what energy sources are used to manufacture them or what is used to produce the centralised electricity sources.
Doing away with the inefficient liquid fuel infra structure will save over 50 percent in CO2 production and pollution from road vehicles in use simply by doing so.
Zero emission is indeed a marketing ploy, I use carbon neutral for my suggestions for EV racing, this is achievable.
I agree that manufacturers are loath to change to the new engine formula, unfortunately they have little choice now that public opinion is sliding away from support for gas guzzling car ideals of all sorts.
I do not want to see energy recovery as the only game in town in the drive for more efficiency, we could start by giving the public much more information on what is being done in F1 and why.
The new engine rules are the first step on the way to alternate motive power in F1, it is the writting on the wall. Not easy to stomach but it is surely inevitable.
autogyro wrote:
Doing away with the inefficient liquid fuel infra structure will save over 50 percent in CO2 production and pollution from road vehicles in use simply by doing so.
not quite sure, where you have this numbers from autogyro.
I don´t think it´s quite as simple, as you would like it to be.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
autogyro wrote:They will soon be able to re-cycle batteries you cannot ever do that with fossil fuels.
You can, and much more easily than with batteries. Specially if you talk about bio-fuels. People just don't want us to know, otherwise the whole political and economic "cause" might disappear. And the whole inefficient structure is quite smaller and would very likely emit less than the structure for electrics, as shown above.
I agree with 747. The F1 cars are getting heavier and limited just so that they can showcase a technology in a meaningful way to please a public. What's worse is that they try to please a public that is barely related to the F1 spectator. If some "green" whiner that travels around the world constantly in planes thinks this sport is a crime he should just be left alone thinking this and let them whine all they want. It's a sport, it's barely related to road cars and it's impact on the races is smaller than the impact of a soccer championship.
The cars should have unlimited development, be back to the purpose of being the pinnacle of motorsport, stop doing dumb downs for show only and then all this would be put to best use. Also it would be easier to have and discover lower consumption and emissions techniques that have higher road relevance. It's just easy to say KERS is good for consumption and performance with limited engines and increased weight, but it would only be true if you don't compromise the whole car to it. And they would very likely develop an actually good KERS/TERS/Hybrid out of this instead of out of a crippled car formula trying to please whiners.
Now, what about being back on topic?
I've been censored by a moderation team that rather see people dying and being shot at terrorist attacks than allowing people to speak the truth. That's racist apparently.
.
