Regenerative systems (KERS)

[mx_tifoso]

IMO, Schumacher's statement is definately not contradicting Piero Ferrari's. Piero Ferrari included much more specific areas which affect a team and their spending, as to where Schumacher merely stated the obvious, that F1 has taken a good direction with KERS and that it can and should do even more to be environmentally friendly but that it has to be taken step by step.

Pretty much all of the statements about regenerative systems which are to be made in the near future include already mentioned 'ideas' and 'thoughts' by previous figures in the world of Formula One. Since sadly enough most reporters tend to interview drivers/team personnel but not actual engineers who are working with the actual components. Which leads to repetitive content in most interviews, since drivers 'only' know that regenerative systems are to serve a 'green' purpose, and not much else. Nothing wrong with that at all, since drivers are required to know and do only one thing, drive.

[Carlos]

Some links on flywheels and gyroscopes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
Steering the Hubble Telescope with flywheels. Why? Rocket engines are not good for the optics.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble6.htm
A paper and math for using flywheels to steer spacecraft (35 pages)
http://pubs.media.mit.edu/pubs/papers/A ... -Paper.pdf

[Conceptual]

I think the biggest advantage that the flywheel could posess other than energy storage would be the use to try and control the rear-to-front weight shift under braking. I imagine that it could accelerate and control the "dive" effect. There is going to have to be a gyroscopic consideration in the 2009 chassis along with CFD. Is there such thing as a CGD (Computational Gyroscopic Dynamics) analysis tool?

The future looks bright if the FIA removes restrictions on how much energy can be recovered and reused.

Chris

[sac]

Williams buy into a KERS company:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67006
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=34652

"The Hybrid Power system is based on a flywheel rotating at speeds of up to 100,000rpm"

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 42729.html
Mike Gascoyne confirmed that FI will use an electrical system that is build into the engine by Ferrari. I believe that BMW will do the same. I also believe that the electrical system has weight penalties compared to fly wheel but it will be hugely mor flexible for AWKERS and AWD which is slated to become legal soon. It appears to me that electric storage is also essential for HERS and the later use of fuel cells. this makes for some attraction to companies which want to link up their F1 effort and the road vehicle development.

there was also politicking in Barcelona to delay KERS which was voted down by majority. Jeeze, I'm happy they abolished the veto. these issues would never be resolved with the old system.

F1 teams don't agree on energy delay
Apr.28 (GMM) Some teams' desire to delay the energy-recovery technology KERS until 2010 was voted down in the paddock of the Circuit de Catalunya.

We already reported that, during the now famous team and technical bosses' meeting in the Toyota motor home on Saturday morning, Flavio Briatore argued that the costs of the scheduled KERS implementation next year would be reduced if the technology was delayed.

McLaren boss Ron Dennis vocally backed Briatore's stance, but - as earlier predicted - Honda and BMW are keen to see KERS brought in as planned in 2009.

Williams, meanwhile, is believed to strongly favour the arrival of KERS, as it sees the technology as a way to close the gap to the better funded teams.

Recalling Saturday's meeting, Briatore is quoted as saying by Auto Motor und Sport: "It was like talking to a wall.

"The other teams seem to want to spend money," the Renault boss added.

Dennis, meanwhile, rejected reports that he lost his cool when he realised the intransigence of some rival team managers.

"I didn't get heated, I got passionate," he clarified.

[mx_tifoso]

Something I have yet to fully grasp;

Is 'KERS' a system which is fully required in order to compete in 2009? Regenerative Systems is what I'm basically referring to.

Or can teams compete without the use of a Regenerative System in 2009?

Thank you in advance.

[donskar]

In line with mx_tifosi and others questioning whether KERS is really required, I don't know what to make of this passage from an autosport.com interview with Stefan Domenicali("SD" is Stefano Domenicali):

Q. What is Ferrari's position on KERS, 2009?

SD: 2009 on KERS? It's a regulation, it's not compulsory, so we are working and pushing in order to be able to use this system that potentially and from a simulation point of view it seems to give an important benefit to the performance of the car, but you have to be good on the throttle because otherwise if you put the weight of the system in comparison to what you're going to gain, you really need to find the right compromise.

But it's not a rule, we need to do it. For sure, a step further than the KERS that would be installed next year, the car needs to wait a bit because we don't know the system we don't know the users so we need to wait and see what will be the future of KERS in the next couple of years. (emphasis added)

"it's not compulsory . . . it's not a rule" ????

Is this merely a problem in translation?

Help anyone????

[WhiteBlue]

it is not so difficult.

Kinetic energy recovery is an option to send some brake energy to a flywheel or alternatively to an electric generator and from there to a battery.

if you have had a little generator on your bicycle to generate power for your head lamp and rear light you know how it brakes the speed of the bike to produce the power. this is the same thing. instead of using the power for light it is stored in a super capacitor or some other battery and when the car needs acceleration the driver can send the electric power back to the generator which will now work as a motor. motors and generators are basically the same thing. a collection of magnets and coils to convert mechanical energy in electrical energy and vice versa.

with fly wheels it is very similar, only that the mechanical energy is never transformed to electrical. it is accumulated in the motion of the flywheel. this is very difficult to do because the required gearing ratio is infinitely variable and of much greater ratio than current gearboxes would handle. enter: the torotrax IGT. this toroidal variable ratio transmission does the required trick.

the regulations allow to extract a certain amount of braking energy per lap from the rear wheels which is expressed in kilo Joule. it also allows to utilise this energy at a fixed maximum rate which is measured in kW (something similar to bhp) and send it back to the rear wheels. everything else in terms of kinetic (motion) energy or heat energy recovery and re use is prohibited. obviously this prohibition applies to the vast majority of the regeneration potential.

to use a kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) introduces a weight penalty which is estimated between 30 - 50 kg. so now the challenge is to use weight that previously was used as ballast to optimise traction and center of gravity. the most elegant solution would be distributing the weight of the KERS so that it matches the ballast distribution and use the additional drive power as a competitive advantage. that isn't going to happen I guess. teams will have to find a compromise. some will ponder if the compromise is simply not using a KERS and use maximum ballast.

[mx_tifoso]

Wow, that is horribly confusing and vague, the interview that is.

Stefano Domenicali says that KERS is a regulation, but is not compulsory. But aren't regulations meant to be followed? Or are they 'limits' to a certain extent. So current teams are developing the KERS systems so that they 'may' be competitive come next season and after that, or at least not fall behind (?) when the said system does become mandatory.

It would be extremely helpful if at least the team representatives would answer the questions asked with simple and to the point responses, instead of beating around the bush and being so vague about it.

In a quote by 'Project Four' there was mentioning of a comparison between the efficiencies mechanical and electrical systems achieve, with mechanical systems approximately 70% and electrical systems approximately 30%. But I believe I read that Ferrari and Force India will share an electrical version of the energy recovery system. Why would a team choose to develop an electrical system with approximately 40% less efficiency than the mechanical systems most other teams will choose?

I'm beginning to believe that KERS will not be as big of an influence as it is hyped to be, at least in the season of introduction. But will in later seasons when it is advanced and improved upon, along with the changes in powertrains soon to be introduced.

I don't mean to be so pesimistic and doubtful about this new addition to Formula One, but I have yet to be fully convinced of it's 'contribution' to our sport. But I happen to very passionate about Formula One's simple yet elegant past from decades ago. I too, like Kimi Raikkonen, sometimes wish that I would have lived in a previous time period.

Ah damn, I hope I don't sound like a moron now that 'WhiteBlue' has posted before I submitted my post.

[WhiteBlue]

the efficiencies that people are quoting may not necessarily apply to the same thing. it is like comparing apples and bananas.

in thermodynamics you have to define a boundary around the system that you want to balance. and then you also define which energies you regard as usefull and which you regard as not usefull. these definitions are not allways handled in a consistent way. hence the apple banana effect.

as I have said above the energy allowed to recover in 2009 is only a tiny fraction of what can be recovered technically. the car has four wheels which are all equipped with a brake. but only two of these wheels can be used to recover brake energy. also the heat of the cooling and exhaust system goes out without chance of recovery. that means 75% of the energy contained in the petrol is released to the atmosphere in heat. if an F1 car has 800 bhp now it effectively could have 3200 bhp if it would use all that energy. it illustrates the huge potential which is currently wasted. the unforunate thing is that it becomes harder and harder in terms of weight penalty to extract more when you go up the efficiency scale. and weight as we know isn't good for race car performance.

I reckon that the FIA have used a low hanging fruit approach here. you just pick the efficiency gains which come with the least weight penalties and do not change the current weight rules. so you force people to consider ballast for KERS. in the future they may have to jack up the minimum weight or perhaps the KERS weight will be quickly optimised.

the other thing is the possible distribution of weight. A flywheel and gearbox isn't as easy to position in a race car as a battery which can be at the end of a tiny wire. so you get a confusing number of factors that will have to be optimized. an important factor for some factory teams will be the applicability of their systems to road car design. if they can keep it applicable they get much more out of their research than WCC points. they get competitiveness for the core business.

[donskar]

mx_tifosi

I happen to very passionate about Formula One's simple yet elegant past from decades ago. I too, like Kimi Raikkonen, sometimes wish that I would have lived in a previous time period.

Amen.

I've been following F1 since the 1960s. I can even remember way back to the time when teams worked on their engines to develop more power. [-X I remember when teams changed engines between races.

For context, when we took our beer-budget top fueler to Indy for the Nationals in the 1970s, we (horror of horrors) used two engines in one weekend. My friends, who ran a low-bucks dirt track stocker changed engines between races.

The point of all this: in many ways, the pinnacle of auto racing is more restricted and less invigorating than much "lower" classes.

I still love F1, but while a lot has been gained, much has been lost.

[WhiteBlue]

Mickey_S, the turning inertia can be used for the advantage of the car, or so I think. I haven't checked if exists something similar, maybe Checkered already said so:

KERS could take part of the job of the steering wheels, or at least be used as "Turn Dampers". By this I mean something like suspension dampers, but not for the suspension but for the steering.

If you point the flywheel in an "upward" direction, then you can brake it or accelerate it to change the attitude of the car: you can actually make the chassis to turn "by itself". Notice this cannot be used for turning the car around the curve: you don't get any extra centripetal force just by changing the vehicle's "attitude", but it can be used for longitudinal stability.



Hence, it's not difficult to imagine a system that actively avoids the oversteering or understeering by continuosly accelerating or deccelerating the flywheel during the curves.

The corrections should be slight: I imagine something like the aileron/rudder coordination that most airplanes has for "coordinated turns".

The system could be used to control the attitude of the car in emergencies. For example, I imagine turning the car 90 degrees, to get maximum braking force, in case you're going to hit the wall.

Well, I don't know if that's what you have to do when hitting a wall, but the point is that you get some kind of "complementary steering system".

I have to mention that this is the third thread that is named "Regenerative systems". The first one was held in March 2005, so some members can be exhausted, WhiteBlue. That's the reason. We've discussed 4WD and regeneration, fuel cells, hydraulic systems, steamers, ultracapacitors, oil, compressed air, electric cars. I counted over 6 threads this morning.

If you want them joined (it's not such a bad idea) just ask Tomba or Principessa, the moderator of this sub-forum.

It took me a while to think about this. I agree that something like this could be done. but is it feasible? I think not! Let me explain how I arrive at this.

The flywheel is nothing else but a mechanical energy storage device. In this F1 application you take motion energy during braking and store it in the flywheel by making the flywheel spin faster using the torotrax IVT and a clutch to connect it to the driven rear wheels.


when you want that energy send back to the rear wheels you reverse the torotrack, close the clutch and this will reduce RPM of the flywheel and accelerate the car.

what is the purpose of the functional desciption?

I want to make the point that changing the RPM of the flywheel is accomplishing the exchange of energy which is the main design purpose of this KERS. Now lets assume the KERS is of also used to influence the attitude of the car via its gyroscopic effect in corners to steer. that would mean you would have to brake or accererate drametically depending of the direction (right or left) the corner takes. that doesn't sound feasible. acceleration and braking requirements cannot be independant of the turn in requirements. to mesh the two in one device isn't sensible.

at least thats the way I see it. were did I get something wrong, Ciro?

[Ciro Pabón]

Thanks, WhiteBlue, almost nobody has commented on that. The other was our mutual friend, Lawrence.

Well, I just wrote in GP almost that same words: it's feasible, but is it practical? We need some simple numbers here, it depends on the amount of rpm you need at the flywheel. BTW, the flywheel cannot point in the direction your drawing shows (the axle has to point upwards), but that's irrelevant. I'm leaving right now for a road, but as soon as I come back I'll make some quick calculations.

[WhiteBlue]

the thing that I do not understand from your concept is the acceleration and decelleration of the flywheel that you need to get a gyroscopic effect.

the flywheel will be designed for minimum mass and max RPM (100,000) to avoid gyroscopic effects as much as possible and maximise the energy storage aspect at low weight.

to use the devise for gyroscopic steering would mean to question the design objectives that were communicated by the engineers. that is possible but is it sensible?

something that you would have to explain is how you would get all the energy required to spin the wheel faster or get rid of the energy to spin it slower. you can't load or unload the wheel by anything else but braking and accelerating the rear wheels. it is prohibited by design specification.

so that means braking hard for right hand corners and full throttle for left hand corners or vice versa. how much sense would that make? it appears to be a fundamental problem with the concept.

I realised that the axis of the wheel should be different, but I thought this little scheme would depict the mechanical KERS nicely and we never had it here.

[checkered]

Well, WhiteBlue and Ciro, some of us

have made (admittedly vague) references to using the gyro (or other mechanical effects to do with KERS) effect during the course of various discussions here, can't remember exactly where. I've seen and discussed a variety of hazy options to gain added control of the vehicle through energy recovery systems. One already publicly stated idea (so I can repeat it, though it isn't mine) to do specifically with gyro is to have not one, but two adjacent flywheels, connected by a dedicated CVT working in unison with steering and the necessary control units.

Like this the energy could be transferred from one flywheel to another with very little losses, affecting the balance of the forces in relation to the axis of the vehicle. Obviously, this would involve packaging issues and an extra weight penalty (save for a complete redesign of the gearbox) and I'm also far from clear about the legality of this. Nor have I considered the feasibility. Just thought to put this "out there" as the issue came up here.