Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[WhiteBlue]

Back on topic I sugest that we look at the total weight of the cars ones you have taken the the excess fuel away and fitted the new lighter engines. Assuming a 79% consumption relative to the maximum fuel flow we would get 105 kg of fuel per race compared to 150 kg today. On average the car would have to carry 22.5Kg less during the race. The engines could contribute 30 kg less weight so we could gain 52.5 kg additional weight for recovery technologies to play with.

If they drop the silly push to pass button mode the MGUs could also become more efficient. I see a good chance that they will eventually have an AWKERS system with a total weight of 80 - 90 kg that would collect 4 MJ per lap at 400 kW peak rate, stores 2 MJ and releases 4 MJ at 150 kW average rate. Perhaps that will not come in the first year but 2.3 MJ with the respectively smaller power rates would be realistic.

Such a system would fundamentally change the chassis design as we have already seen. We would have a drive compartment in front or side ways of the driver's safety cell for the front in board MGUs, the power electronics and the heat exchangers. The safety cell would have a cable duct to connect the energy storage facility in the center of the car to the front MGUs. Weight distribution will be very different potentially.

If we look at the weight to energy ratio of our primary power system and the AWKERS I see the following scenario. Total weight of engine with all subsystems 120 kg. Total average fuel weight 57.5 kg. Total primary system weight 177.5 kg. Total mechanical energy at 46 MJ/Kg and 36.5% efficiency is 1763 MJ. Energy/weight ratio would be 9.932 MJ/kg. The AWKERS system would contribute 240 MJ per race at a weight of 85 kg. So the energy/weight ratio would be 2.824 MJ/kg. From an absolute point of view the system would not be worthwhile but from a conservation point of view it would be a good decision. At that point it would already save us another 14.3 kg of race fuel. If we include the KERS effect in our efficiency calculation we find that it increases the total drive train efficiency from 36.5% to 41.5%. That is pretty impressive for any automotive system.

The calculation shows that modern fuel saving engines and turbo compounding should be higher on the agenda than KERS. But KERS also has to make a contribution that should not be rejected. It is smaller than the original hype made it look like but still worthwhile to pursue.

[autogyro]

If we include the KERS effect in our efficiency calculation we find that it increases the total drive train efficiency from 36.5% to 41.5%. That is pretty impressive for any automotive system.

[autogyro]

[quote If we include the KERS effect in our efficiency calculation we find that it increases the total drive train efficiency from 36.5% to 41.5%. That is pretty impressive for any automotive system.

Just like in 747s chart of well to wheel comparisons for EVs, this shows that the efficiencies quoted are relative.
In this case the KERS gains are relative to the forced heavy braking demanded by racing. If the cars were driven around the lap in an economical way there would be no energy harvesting and no efficiency figure improvement for the Kers.

For EVs the point is that doing away with ic vehicles and the support infra structure, does away with the at vehicle CO2 output and pollution and the added output from the ancient distribution network. It does not matter about the source of energy or the conversion efficiencies, as the issue is CO2 production not energy useage.

The source energy CO2 output at centralised production is another issue all together. Bottom line here is to find the 'cleanest' production sources not the most efficient. A changing economic and political base that is essential to the worlds future.
I believe this to be essential and inevitable and to focus on topic, is why KERS will be developed in F1 to unlimited systems that will have a major effect on chassis design.

[godlameroso]

I guess they want to change infrastructure because it is assumed battery tech will exponentially develop as long as cash keeps being fed, by the powers that be.

[autogyro]

Battery technology and electric traction has been useable since before 1899.
Reducing CO2 from fossil fuels is the end game.
Placing both ic and electric traction in one F1 chassis is far from an ideal.
However until the motor head mentality is dealt with it will remain a stop gap on the way to electric traction.

[Redstorm]

Very interesting things to ponder for the future...

[ringo]

Assuming a 79% consumption relative to the maximum fuel flow we would get 105 kg of fuel per race compared to 150 kg today. On average the car would have to carry 22.5Kg less during the race. The engines could contribute 30 kg less weight so we could gain 52.5 kg additional weight for recovery technologies to play with.

Ever head about refueling?

That is the cheapest most efficient way to promote and demonstrate lowered fuel consumption; but the power of politics wont highlight this.

Another thing is that a turbo charged 4 cylinder can be much heavier than a light alloy v8. The cylinder walls will be thicker, the manifolds will be thicker, the turbo will add weight, the turbo compounding gearing that you requested, the waste gates and boost control system will add weight.

There is little chance that engine will be lighter than the v8.

Then the packaging issue..


Look how high high that motor is, it's basically a transaxle you will have there. The torque of the motor will need a strong frame, and differential as well as cv joints.
The best design is a low nose concept.
High nose is too dangerous for the driver in the event of a crash.

[autogyro]

I dont see a low nose as neccessary.
The front application of power will only be used to improve handling not traction.
Might even be possible to design the drive shafts into the front suspension geometry and loose weight and size on those items.
With a chassis mounted motor/generator at the front, it will allow a big reduction in size of the wheel brakes and ducting.
At the rear they are still using a seperate motor/generator (I could change that).
I dont see any problems, it will be the same for everyone wont it?

[ringo]

That is a big problem. Imagine a crash with that motor that high in the chassis.
Imagine how high the COG is as well.

If the front kers is to improve handling alone, that would be a waste of space, time, money and energy.

The wheel brakes will have to be bigger to compensate for the added weight up front.
I don't think the motor will be used to aid braking.

I see a whole bevy of problems and headaches.

This is 2 wheel kers, but in the front look at that mess!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmiJ_EE ... re=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esWT--TE3ww[/youtube]
look on the size of that front axle.

reintroduction of the low nose is imminent.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwij1NWP ... iv-1r-6-HM[/youtube]

150kg system weight.

[Formula None]

Assuming a 79% consumption relative to the maximum fuel flow we would get 105 kg of fuel per race compared to 150 kg today. On average the car would have to carry 22.5Kg less during the race. The engines could contribute 30 kg less weight so we could gain 52.5 kg additional weight for recovery technologies to play with.

Ever head about refueling?

That is the cheapest most efficient way to promote and demonstrate lowered fuel consumption; but the power of politics wont highlight this.

Another thing is that a turbo charged 4 cylinder can be much heavier than a light alloy v8. The cylinder walls will be thicker, the manifolds will be thicker, the turbo will add weight, the turbo compounding gearing that you requested, the waste gates and boost control system will add weight.

There is little chance that engine will be lighter than the v8.

Then the packaging issue..


Look how high high that motor is, it's basically a transaxle you will have there. The torque of the motor will need a strong frame, and differential as well as cv joints.
The best design is a low nose concept.
High nose is too dangerous for the driver in the event of a crash.

They may as well return to inboard brakes at the front to help justify the addition of driveshafts (aero and unsprung weight penalty) as well as a beefier nose section. HERS for the brakes could be added right in there too, much easier to package vs. in-wheel brakes.

[autogyro]

I think you should take another look at the Porsche GT3 with Kers Ringo.
Then you might re-draft your comments.

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo is taking the devil's advocate position there so he must come to the most negative conclusions. Only that nobody will follow most of his points. It is a common experience that downsized turbo engines will have lower weight than the bigger NA engines they replace. I'm not the only person who is pretty sure of that. Patrick Head commented in his last interview that the introduction of the turbo engines may be an opportunity for the flywheel batteries to come back. The four cylinder engines will be much smaller than the V8s and obviously also lighter.

I also don't buy the safety concerns with the added weight of machinery in the nose. The MGUs and the power electronics can be placed in a low nose or in side pots. Obviously there will be changes to the way chassis will be designed. The weight comparison between a GT3 and an F1 is also misleading. An F1 car will have half the weight and so will the hybrid system. The criteria are much harder for such systems. Obviously the Porsche system is a very early iteration of a hybrid racing car and many details will be improved as such systems are refined for the F1 race tracks. Last not least the archaic push button control system will have to go in favor of a dual torque mode.

[Formula None]

Well, can you make a turbo, intercooler, stronger con-rods and beefier block weigh as much or less than the extra cylinder bank (with its blocks, covers, 4 pistons, 2 camshafts, headers, etc) found on the V8? That bank is what, 35-40% of total engine weight?


*Mods feel free to move this to the "What comes after the 2.4 V8" thread.

[ringo]

look 26-27s in the video, you can see that they have 2 separate motors in one long casing.

An F1 car with a front wheel kers might as well have the motors near the ground under the driver's legs.

The lower front of the car will also be broad.this is what a high nose KERs Looks like I have 1 motor in my design and a diff while Porsche has 2 motors instead of a diff. This makes control simpler.

2 motors may not fit in an f1 car.





as can be seen, might as well do without the high nose, and lower it for less draggy shape.

[ringo]

Ringo is taking the devil's advocate position there so he must come to the most negative conclusions. Only that nobody will follow most of his points. It is a common experience that downsized turbo engines will have lower weight than the bigger NA engines they replace. I'm not the only person who is pretty sure of that. Patrick Head commented in his last interview that the introduction of the turbo engines may be an opportunity for the flywheel batteries to come back. The four cylinder engines will be much smaller than the V8s and obviously also lighter.
.

head said the flywheel can't fitfor 2011.that had more to do with carrying extra fuel than engine layout.The 4 cylinder wont be any shorter, it may only be narrower on one side. Williams fly wheel they tested seems to have a 10" diameter or there about. They fitted it bellow the air intake,above the fuel cell It has more to do with tank size than engine size.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvexjr2ax0&feature=fvst[/youtube]
look 45s in.