Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[747heavy]

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.

I can see the MGU in a low nose design, but placing it in the sidepods would require a rather complex transmission (keep in mind you would like to harvest 450KW peak power)-IMHO, which maybe does not add to the overall efficency of the system.

What would be the net gain, keeping in mind, that to harvest the energy you first need to spend it to bring all this extra weight up to speed, and doing so repeatingly over the course of a race.
How much better would a 200kg lighter car handle (tyre wear etc.)with less power (-KERS contribution)if pitched against the KERS car on the ame tire?
Less friction in the drive train, more freedom for aerodynamik design (high nose etc.)
What does this mean for ou weight distribution? 50/50% for 2013 F1 cars?
Is that the most benefical, for an high performance car from a vehicle dynamic poit of view? Will we see different tires ( 15 or 17" rims maybe)?

As some people here where very vocal about the safety aspect in F1 racing when I look at the refueling thread, it`s maybe worthwile to remember that KERS has it´s own safety concerns to deal with.

Drivers jumping out of cars (not wanting to touch the car and the ground at the same time), mechanics wearing rubber gloves and getting nearly electrocuted are not making the racing any safer.
Having high voltage leads running to the front of the car (close to the driver) may does not make things easier, and are a safety hazard in case of an crash.
Just think of the Ferrari/Force India crash, which ripped the complete sidepod out of the Ferrari.
So are we are going to see increased crash test &/or safety features for the 2013 cars, to deal with the increased risk potential?

[ringo]

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.

Not to mention 4 cylinders use heavier flywheels, counter weights, some use balance shafts. I would say it could be about equal to the V8, considering the turbo, exhaust piping, waste gates, blow off valves, intercooler, plumbing, turbo support structures.
Any other additions such as turbo compounding will put it past the v8.
We also have to keep in mind the V8 could have been much lighter had a minimum weight not been in the regulations.

[Formula None]

I think the V10s used to be lighter than the current V8s, due to fewer regs, if I'm not mistaken.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

Not to mention 4 cylinders use heavier flywheels, counter weights, some use balance shafts. I would say it could be about equal to the V8, considering the turbo, exhaust piping, waste gates, blow off valves, intercooler, plumbing, turbo support structures.
Any other additions such as turbo compounding will put it past the v8.
We also have to keep in mind the V8 could have been much lighter had a minimum weight not been in the regulations.

I think you are off on a wild goose chase. Turbo engines and 20,000 rpm engines require different reinforcements because the stresses are coming from different mechanisms. Nevertheless the dimensioning will have less influence than most of you think. The conrod bearings for instance could end up being the same while the conrod cross section may be much reduced due to a more benign nature of the stresses. The block could have dominant rigidity requirements from being a stressed member. An higher internal cylinder pressure may not have an influence at all. Modern turbos do not regulate the boost pressure by waste gates. They will build up only so much pressure as they need by using electric loading of the turbine or regulating the compression with variable vanes. The BMW four pot turbo did not have balancing shafts and I bet the new 1.6L turbos will not have them either. The engines will have very good torque from very low down in the rev band and you can forget the idea that they will need bigger fly wheels than the current high rpm engines. You are simply trying to find complications that will not be there. Eventually the engines will reject less heat and that will lead to reduced weight for cooling installations. Potential weight increases for intercoolers will be compensated. You only need to look at modern downsized engines like the McLaren MP4-12C to see how those things are lighter. McLaren are generating 600 hp and 600 Nm of torque from a 3.8L engine. Compare that to any 7L NA brontosaurus in weight and you quickly see why turbo engines will win the power/weight contest.

[ringo]

Haha, yes you are trying even harder than I am.

You forgot to mention the torque. These turbo engines have almost twice the torque.
And they will vibrate more, bigger flywheels are in order. I don't even think the current V8 use fly wheels much less.

American V8s are very light, don't let the overweight car bodies fool you.
A mclaren Mp412c engine is way heavier than any american all aluminum V8.


I know these engines are pretty old, but they are F1 motors:

Honda 1.5L V6 ---286 lb 1983 F1 engine, twin turbo
Honda RA122E 75 deg V12 ---330----- Formula 1
Honda RA1/22E/B ---352----- (est. weight) also RA121E
Honda RA168E F1 V6 ---329----- 80 deg, 1500cc
Honda 3.5L 72 deg V10 ---331----- 24.4L x 21.7W x 21.3H Formula 1
Honda 75deg V12 ---340----- 1993 Formula 1


some Ilmor

Ilmor 80deg V8 --- 325 -----
Ilmor 2175A 72deg V10 --- 281 ----- 592.5mmL, 519mmW, 555mmH
Ilmor 2175A 72 deg V10 --- 268 -----
Ilmor V-8-A Indy --- 325 ----- 1992 Galmer Indy car, 90 deg V
Ilmor 265A 80 deg V8 --- 325 -----
Ilmor 265D 82 deg V8 --- 272 -----
Ilmor 265D 82 deg V8 --- 272 ----- Indy
Ilmor 265B V8 --- 297 -----

It's highly dependent on regulations. An engine can be as light as you want it to be.

I still think waste gates will be used, I don't know how fast the variable vanes react, and i don't know if they can prevent overboost, also and i don't think the FIA will trust the teams to depend on the turbo itself to regulate the boost pressure.
I think The teams may use waste gates approved by the FIA.