dumbdave wrote:I dont think that is true of the Flybrid system, they take drive directly from a power shaft via a CVT & store it mechanically, no motors or generators involved (although there are obviously a lot of control electronics!)
According to flybrid this is much more efficient than incorporating an electrical-kinetic conversion of the energy & im inclined to agree, every power transfer process involves losses, the fewer times the energy changes form the less is lost!
I totally agree with you in terms of raw efficiency. But IMHO there are some drawbacks with that solution:
1. You would have to locate it next to the power shaft except you wanted to have another shaft going straight through half of the car. With the kind of balance needed for the tyres in mind that doesn't sound very appealing to me.
2. Unless I miss something it would be limited to a single flywheel solution, which would result in a more or less big diameter or width - making it not that flexible in terms of packaging.
3. A mechanical device needs a direct link between the CVT an the flywheel, which always means friction. The electrical device doesn't need that, so it has almost no friction. It looses only 2% of it's saved power per hour due to deceleration.
But of course I'd be happy if someone brought a mechanical device. Could be very interesting to see, how they'd implement it and how it performed.
@Downforce
Thanks for the info - very interesting. Although 65% doesn't sound that good, i doubt that any kind of KERS will reach more than 70%.
/edit:
Oh, and as a sidenote, Metar:
Maybe the electrical flywheel solution may not but be perfectly efficient. But regarding speed of storing and supplying it is by far superior to a battery storage.
