2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[747heavy]

The rules limit only the power you apply for acceleration, not the breaking power.

Canada is really heavy breaking. There are 16.7 MJ to harvest if you just figure the seven corners. 4MJ should not be a problem at all on that track.

WhiteBlue please go an read the rules!!!! - Please !!!!

Why there are no rules for 2013 yet, I think it is entirely sensible (at least for me) to assume they will be based on the curent FIA rules/KERS frame work.
And this states very clearly:

5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.
Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap.

I never ever said, that there is not enough energy out there which you can harvest.
I only said, that with a power limit of 120kW the amount of energy you are able to harvest during one lap, is limited by the time spend under braking, which we agreed to be 12s in average.

Even if there would be no power limit, current technology limits the amount of engergy you can transfer into your storage (battery).
And with current battery technology it is highly unlikely that someone would attempt to harvest 4MJ per lap with an electrical solution.

So, I really fail to see, what the purpose of your post was.

The only reason which comes to mind is this, with respect & appologise

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.--Leo Tolstoy, 1897

I know that you are all excited about the turbo engines and KERS, and there is nothing wrong with that, I´m happy for you.

But let´s not loose sigth of the technical limitations and some physics.
More often then not, there is more then one way to do something, and achieve the same result/goal. Which in F1 is winning races/championships.

Nobody has the monopol to do it "the right way", and nobody has the monopol to be right all the time.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year - nonetheless

[piston]

@Whiteblue: Of course you could harvest 4MJ, but as xpensive already said, these are over 300KW average. Your generator would have to be bigger and heavier than a generator for 120KW.


Does anyone know if there will be a minimum weight and COG for the engines again?

[WhiteBlue]

WhiteBlue please go an read the rules!!!! - Please !!!!

Why there are no rules for 2013 yet, I think it is entirely sensible (at least for me) to assume they will be based on the curent FIA rules/KERS frame work.
And this states very clearly:

5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.
Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap.

If the rules are written as they are now then you are right. I have in fact not considered that you are currently restricted to 60 kW in breaking as well. I have simply assumed that they would make a sensible rule after Patrick Head said that they are eying 2,3 - 4 MJ KERS energy for 2013. This idea clearly isn't feasible if the rules would continue to limit breaking power and set a limit of 120 kW.

I cannot give an answer how this problem will be solved by the rules and I don't really care. If they want to make KERS work they probably have to lift useless restrictions.

The Brembo figures show that there is enough energy there and they clearly show that the rate of harvesting must be 333 kW. The harvesting will occur in very short bursts of typically less than 2 s and that should be ok for the A123 prismatic cells to be used in 33C mode. I have given you the written reference to that. Beyond that I can only say that we are not in the same position as the teams who probably have access to customized battery systems with more advanced capabilities.

[WhiteBlue]

There you go WB, 4 MJ in 12.94 seconds, makes for just 309 kW on average, piece of cake really.

Yep, no problem with 333 kW as proposed but impossible if they set a limit of 120 kW.

[747heavy]

so if AWKERS becomes a reallity one day, will we see this again:
(note, this car still has a high nose)

[gridwalker]

747 : which vehicle is depicted in that photo?

[PNSD]

Isnt that the FTT from the BAR 006?

[segedunum]

Yep. I've watched this whole thing unravel with interest. There is certainly the energy out there to harvest, but the limits of the regulations as they stand mean you can't get at it and I'm also highly sceptical about charging an electrical system with the amount of power that can be harvested as others are. The weight of the system and the time required to charge I can't see being practical for Formula 1.

Conspiracy: Maybe Patrick Head is going to 'do a Ross Brawn' and spring some regulation proposals for 2013 that will leave the door open for William's flywheel system as the thing to be using?

[Richard]

From the URL it appears to from the 2004 Italian GP. The paint looks like a BAR-Honda.

edit to add links:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5153

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2004/725/53.html

[xpensive]

Well seg, for some members the most important thing is to always be right, moving goalposts or not, but quite obviously, charging a battery with 4 MJ through six 2 second bursts, each with 300 kW sounds a tad far fetched to put it mildly.

Only goes to show how dangerous it can be to take a single quote litterally. If Patrik Head ever said that about 4 MJ/lap,
which I doubt, it could even be out of sheer ignorance for all that we know, just like the 100kg/hour thing perhaps?

[747heavy]

Yes this is the BAR and there front clutch system, a simlar approach was attempted by Benetton with there (banned) FTT (Front Torque Transfere) system.
Non of these systems has anything to do with KERS, it´s just a way to stop the inner front wheel from locking while braking into a corner.

Similar systems where tried on some FWD touring cars on the rear.

As F1 and most other race series force an equal brake pressure left vs. right at one axle, the ligther loaded (inner)wheel will define your max. brake pressure. And as a locked wheel will loose it´s abbility to transmit sideforce, you don´t want wheel lock ups.

Before most regulations forced you to use the same brake pressure left to right, there where other systems, such as the "pendulum" used susseccful by BMW in their touring cars, which would split the brake pressure left to right dependend on lateral G force.

With systems like this you can brake later and for longer deep into corners.

I just posted the photo, because it shows some drive shafts at the front wheels.
With inboard MGU unit(s) we will see these things again.

[godlameroso]

Maybe it'll throw a spanner in the useless bickering, but here goes; I was under the impression that harvesting energy during braking was only ONE of the ways that energy could be harvested. If we throw different types of energy recovery systems, and combine them to charge one system overall, I'm sure that you could at least marginally increase both the capacity and output of that system.

On a different topic, I'm curious; would a V4 be better balanced than an I4?

[Shaddock]

Maybe it'll throw a spanner in the useless bickering, but here goes; I was under the impression that harvesting energy during braking was only ONE of the ways that energy could be harvested. If we throw different types of energy recovery systems, and combine them to charge one system overall, I'm sure that you could at least marginally increase both the capacity and output of that system.

On a different topic, I'm curious; would a V4 be better balanced than an I4?

I'm sure I read that they were looking at energy recovery from the front wheels as well as the rear? Maybe we will see a HERS in the near future.

[WhiteBlue]

On a different topic, I'm curious; would a V4 be better balanced than an I4?

No, I don't think so. The secondary would be a big or bigger than in an L4. But race car designers are usually not so interested in a smooth engine as expensive supercars. So they will live with the vibration if that is what they get.

Btw, L3 is even better balanced than L4 and that may be a reason why they have defined the configuration. Sooner or later someone would have tried an L3 with 533 cc per cylinder. I have been riding a BMW K75 with L3 engine for ages and it is very smooth. An L3 requires only one very small balancer shaft under the crank shaft where L4 need two diagonally opposed shafts to balance out the end to end vibrations.

[747heavy]

I believe that re-cycling Lithium from bateries will prove a lot easier than recycling the CO2 and pollutants from burning fossil fuels.

What´s the big problem with recycling CO2 autogyro?
Mother nature has a very effective concept - it´s called tree´s.
Let´s plant some more, and we getting there.

Lot´s of people doing it: airlines, race series and others, who feeling in need of beeing able to claim that their business is CO2 neutral.

I´m sure for all the money used on KERS batteries, you can plant a lot of trees.
And they will have a much longer lifespan and other benfits to.