Regenerative systems (KERS)

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66676
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 41620.html

it is a proposal by the FIA by way of letter to the teams.

2009: 60kW of KERS energy from one axle. 400kJ per lap released by 'boost' button.

2011: 120kW of KERS still only one axle (with 800 kJ boost ??)
also 20kW of HERS from the cooling system continously fed to the drive train

2013: Two axles 200kW KERS with a boost of 1.6MJ per lap.
HERS from the exhaust system of a new engine formula.
new engine to be downsized turbocharged 600 bhp was mentioned

some of this sounds reasonable. I just hate the idea to take 5 years to do it. also the boost is completely rubbish. continous feed like the heat recovery would be the good thing to do.

If you add up the regen power you come to something like 300 kW. thats a lot of oopfh. its close to 400 bhp and would bring the total power output to 1000 bhp.

it looks like a usefull figure if only they would forget this stupid boost button.

[checkered]

Of course the biggest gains would be if the engineers were permitted to consider alternatives to the ICE, which might open up some more sensible solutions for recoverning energy, or at least using the energy in the tank more efficiently ... but that's drifting off topic again!

Nah, I don't think

that notion really is off topic. It's essential in questioning the rationales that govern what is actually being done. I believe there's a real trend going on here, one that is moving us ever further beyond "single purpose component" thinking - or even "dual purpose" for that matter (And yes, let's not split hairs here, I know there are more aspects to designing a component but traditionally subservient to a primary purpose still, unless some other use is discovered to surpass the original intent during the process).

Instead of having "an engine", "a transmission", "a chassis", "brakes" and so on we'll have some sort of an "Integrated Energy Management Structure" that is elementally multipurpose. Even if we are to continue with the ICE, I can only imagine a host of unnecessary and costly difficulties in keeping the V8 out of bounds in some unidimensional economising drive. Just consider Marmorini's recent comments on adapting to the SECU.

We received documentation detailing the standard ECU systems but the tuning required testing not only on the dyno but also on the track. It was such a complex revision that there was not time to test everything, although we think we covered most of the uncertainties.

...

People think there was no development at all because we have an engine development freeze and a standard ECU but it was actually a huge amount, comparable to developing a complete new engine. We had a lot of issues involving incompatibilities and had to learn to work within the right parameters.

I took the liberty of "bolding" the truly important bit. Holding on to a common ECU format beyond this one will, I strongly suspect, add to unnecessary cost, cause distraction and therefore we likely need another kind of a control in place. I have not seen a convincing case for standardising anything in F1 to date, but of course we'd make an equally ill advised point in claiming that it could never work. Right now, I suspect, people like to take swipes at standardisation just to prevent the scales from tipping over into a very unfavourable position.

unless I'm very mistaken the top teams are all aiming for electrical KERS. at least at BMW Theissen has given some very robust hints in his launch presentation to that direction in January.

Well, it is my (yet to be confirmed) understanding that Honda has acquired a patent for the Flybrid/Torotrak solution and are likely to run with it (in addition to possible customer teams, presumably). There is some belief that the system will prove to be considerably lighter than originally indicated. Theissen seems to be pointing at another direction and my general impression is that there is some benefit in elements of the system (what Mario belittlingly calls "batteries") doubling as ballast.

I would be surprised to the utmost if Magneti Marelli didn't produce a KERS unit of its own also. Solely by the number of Ferrari powered teams there's quite a sensible market for them in this alone.

[WhiteBlue]

BMW have allways emphasised that they want to exploit F1 as an accellerator to their general R&D philosophy. what they are doing now in their road cars with the efficient dynamics program is electrifying all ancillary functions to save energy.

there is also a general consensus that in the long run things will move towards fully electrical systems based on fuel cells.

knowing this strategical direction it wouldn't make much sense to me to pursue a purly mechanical based system.

on the other side it would be interesting to see different systems competing. so having a flywheel elsewhere would not bother me. it would add to the entertainement.

[Carlos]

BMW is developing a thermal recovery system for their road cars called a Turbosteamer system which may very well be used in the next few years.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12 ... ping_.html

[WhiteBlue]

BMW is developing a thermal recovery system for their road cars called a Turbosteamer system which may very well be used in the next few years.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12 ... ping_.html

yes, that has been mentioned several times. I wanted to emphasise that the connecting technical element in all these development is electricity. the steamer (Rankine Cycle System) will convert thermal energy to electricity. so electric storage and distribution will be the focal point.

[Ciro Pabón]

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.

[WhiteBlue]

Hi Ciro,

I'm not so concerned with "Ordnung" that I would call a mod for such things.

Your proposal for using the flywheel for steering help is a neat idea. I was wondering whether it would be a desirable application for racing. It fundamentally uses an electronic system to support the driver. is that something we want in F1?

[WhiteBlue]

Piero Ferrari on Autosport today
By Michele Lostia and Pablo Elizalde Wednesday, April 23rd 2008, 10:31 GMT

Ferrari critical of KERS plans


Ferrari's vice president Piero Ferrari believes the Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems will only increase costs and will not improve the racing.

KERS are due to be introduced in Formula One from 2009 in what promises to be a major challenge for engineers.

The system will allow drivers to draw 60kW of energy from one axle on the car to be used in the form of a "push-to-pass" button to increase the chances of overtaking.

Ferrari, however, believes the system will not mean more overtaking and will also see the teams having to spend more money in research.

"We should reflect on many of the technical and sporting decisions taken in F1 lately," he told Italian magazine Autosprint.

"Engines were frozen with the result that all of them now run at 19,000 revolutions, so there's no difference in power nor revs, and therefore there's no way you can take advantage of a possible overrevving to try to overtake.

"We should have done something similar to what NASCAR has done: to set some limits in the regulations, while allowing for researching and re-designing. The way the regulations are right now, we can't re-design a single part to improve it. It's excessive. Ferrari have great engine guys twiddling their thumbs.

"By contrast, they make us spend time and money to design the KERS, for which we can't evaluate the costs precisely because it's a new technology.

"It's also based on knowledge unknown to traditional engine guys, like high-capacity batteries and high-performance electrical engines, for which you need specialized engineers from outside the motoring world.

"To acquire that know-how will cause high levels of spending over the years, it's not the best solution to reduce costs.

"Engine recovery is fine, but not this way. Too many different systems to recover energy have been permitted. They need to be limited, otherwise costs could go sky-high, with the risk of having to cut drastically on other areas to limit spending, as was done with engines, revs, and electronics.

"This way we risk to transform an F1 car into a GP2 car, and that must not happen."

I am not surprised that Ferrari come out strong against KERS. They will never compete on road cars with fuel economy. their USP is performance regardless of cost.

The latest plans are much more considering the requirements of the premium/volume manufacturers as the German and Japanese firms in F1.

Ferrari will be behind the scene puting the brakes on the regeneration issue and will fight it all the way. It becomes obvious now why the teams are not allowed to regenerate as much energy as they can. Ferrari have never done research into the technologies and fear that competitors like Honda can run away with this.

the question is what is in the interest of F1 and of the motorists. if F1 becomes an accelerator to technologies that will save fossile fuels, slow global warming and deliver lower driving cost for road cars I'm for it.

at the same time we obviously want exciting development pace and exciting race cars with top performance. I'm more with the FIA philosophy here and would not agree with Ferrari. quite contrary I would free up the rules regarding KERS and HERS. it will help those companies that have switched their resources to environmental friendly issues.

[Carlos]

Actually WhiteBlue the BMW Turbosteamer Rankine Cycle System transfers energy mechanically to the crankshaft.

"BMW's system uses two fluid-circulating systems to recover exhaust heat from the gasoline engine. The primary high-temperature circuit pumps water through a heat exchanger, surrounding the exhaust gases immediately behind the catalytic converter. Water is heated to 1,022 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steam is converted into mechanical energy in an expander and transferred by pulleys to the engine crankshaft.
The steam flows through another heat exchanger and transfers its remaining heat to a second circuit filled with ethanol. This lower temperature system replaces the engine's regular coolant system.
This system also collects heat in a heat exchanger in the exhaust-gas flow. It releases its energy in a second expander unit that transfers the energy to the crankshaft." Autoweek Magazine

OT - This has been in the news the last few weeks. Concerning biofuel diverting corn from foodstock (human & livestock) to ethanol has been a factor in 70%>200% increases in corn, wheat and rice prices resulting in food/price riots in Haiti, Egypt and Indonesia. No links on this as I spent the time to cheer myself up a bit watching Shakira videos

A Letter to the Editor concerning international food riots -Windsor Star April 23
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/ ... 63ae170ddb

[WhiteBlue]

I did notice that Carlos. perhaps this is why they want HERS only from 2011 and only to feed power to the drive shaft.

I was thinking about immediate applications and what Honda did. They reportedly had the expander run a generator. So both ways are possible and BMW could change their design for F1 if more radical timing could be agreed.

[Carlos]

Here is an overview of some other interesting developments: Several are electrical.
Electrical Turbo-Compounding (Caterpillar) : 3 to 10% announced fuel economy
Mechanical Turbo-Compounding : 5 to 10% announced fuel economy
TIGERS : Turbo-generator Integrated Gas Energy Recovery System : 6% announced fuel economy
Thermo-electricity : 20% announced fuel economy
Stirling Cycle in co-generation : up to 40% announced fuel economy but a too low specific power
Rankine Cycle : Turbosteamer : 17% announced fuel economy
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) : up to 60% announced fuel economy (Already discussed)

http://www.heat2power.net/en_benchmark.htm

[WhiteBlue]

brilliant Link Carlos!!!

heat2power offer a very good overview of technogies that deal with HERS. the thermoelectric stuff was a surprise.

[Ciro Pabón]

Hi Ciro,

I'm not so concerned with "Ordnung" that I would call a mod for such things.

Your proposal for using the flywheel for steering help is a neat idea. I was wondering whether it would be a desirable application for racing. It fundamentally uses an electronic system to support the driver. is that something we want in F1?

Well, I just thought that Tomba frequently ask for well labeled threads in the right forum. I would do it if I could.

Thanks, the idea seems pretty cool to me, of course. I don't know if it works. Did I miss anything fundamental here?

I've argued about a "middle road" in the driver aids. Main argument: F1 cars cannot "fall behind" regular cars too much. Things that once were called "driver aids" are now standard equipment: once all cars have active suspension, racing cars will have it. An extreme example: spark timing was advanced manually in remote times, so, is automatic spark timing a driver aid? Some people thought that way in remote times.

You ask if turning the car this way is something we "want". It does not matter, I'll rephrase the idea: can a team use a flywheel to get this advantage? My answer: maybe, and I think it's not against regulations.

Carlos, you always look for great links. Search master: can you find any rotors that are actually used to steer vehicles in this way? Is it practical? Satellites use this system, but are there other vehicles?

Can anyone check if the torque generated by a KERS is enough to turn the car this way?

Can you use a flywheel to turn, for example, a Zeppelin? (another neat idea)

Can you turn a ship? Can you improve its turning radius? After all, the flywheel turns the steering wheels or rudders but also the rear wheels or propellers. You rotate the axis of thrust of the entire vehicle.

And what about Mikey question? How much "gyroscopic effect" generates a KERS flywheel "pointing" to the front of the car?

[Project Four]

Good article in 'The Engineer' about the introduction of energy recovery systems,

It's often hard to argue with the notion that F1 has become little more than a dull procession of millionaire- propelled advertising hoardings whizzing round a track at high speed.

This is why, in what will certainly rank as one of his more sensible decisions, Max Mosley — boss of the sport's ruling body the FIA — last year announced a raft of measures aimed at turning the sport into a proving ground for new hybrid technology, while simultaneously boosting its environmental reputation and reinjecting a bit of excitement into racing.

The main focus of this technical push is the development of kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS). Expected to make their first appearance on some of the vehicles racing in the 2009 season, these devices will store the energy that is otherwise wasted when a vehicle brakes and use it to boost acceleration coming out of corners and overtaking.

Intriguingly, in contrast to the freeze on engine design and other areas of F1 development, the FIA has decreed that teams are free to use any system they like providing that no more than 400 kilojoules/lap is recovered, and energy is only captured or released at a maximum rate of 60kW. F1 chiefs last week announced they are to discuss raising the cars' 605kg weight limit to accommodate the new devices.

With numerous mechanical and electrical systems now enthusiastically vying for a spot on next season's starting grid, Mosley's effort to stimulate new automotive developments has apparently worked. And one of the most promising candidates is a fully mechanical, flywheel-based system jointly developed by a trio of UK automotive specialists — Torotrak, Xtrac and Flybrid Systems.

The 25kg system, which has already been licensed to two unspecified teams, is made up of a flywheel, a control system and an ancillary transmission, or variator, that provides a continuously variable connection between the flywheel and the vehicle driveline.

The device, which on an F1 car would be positioned directly above the trans-axle behind the driver, stores energy when the vehicle is slowing down by spinning the flywheel up to speed. This energy is then released when the vehicle speeds up again by slowing the flywheel down. The energy is received from the driveline, and released back into it through the variator.

Adrian Moore, technical director of Xtrac, explained how the variator — based on technology licensed from Torotrak — achieves the complex feat of matching the flywheel speed to the vehicle speed.

'The flywheel has a speed range of 30,000-60,000rpm and the vehicle goes relatively slowly in terms of rpm and has a speed range of 62-124mph (100-200kph),' he said. 'You've got to match those speeds with some sort of gearbox and the logical way to do that is with a continuously variable transmission (CVT). You need a speed range of about 6:1 and by happy coincidence a Torotrak toroidal CVT is about 6:1.'




The flywheel-based kinetic recovery system is designed to help motorsport’s environmental reputation by using energy that would otherwise be wasted

The other key element of the system, developed by the Silverstone-based project leader Flybrid Systems, is the flywheel itself. Featuring a specially-designed hermetic seal that runs at 64,000 rpm and a containment system that addresses the safety concerns associated with running a flywheel at high-speeds, its developer claims that it represents a fundamental breakthrough in the development of mechanical KERS systems.

'Our flywheel runs at least three times faster than any previously known vehicle-mounted example,' claimed Flybrid's Jon Hilton. 'This makes it nine times smaller and lighter which reduces the size of our hybrid system enormously and gets us to a position where it could almost be considered an accessory.'

Designed to be activated manually by F1 drivers, Moore said the system could be deployed in a number of ways. 'You can't use it until you're doing 100kph, but you could deploy it once you've reached that speed meaning you end up with a potential gain of several metres by the first corner. you could use it to improve your maximum velocity on the fastest part of the circuit — on some you could end up with a 20m or 30m gain by the end of the straight. You could use it as an overtaking tool or to prevent people from overtaking you.'

But while Moore and the rest of the team are keen to explore other opportunities for their system in motorsport (Le Mans, for example, with its numerous corners looks set to really benefit from KERS) the big potential for the technology is to make road cars and other vehicles more fuel efficient. 'Motorsport provides a way of demonstrating that the technology is completely viable,' said Moore.

Indeed, thanks partly to the rigorous challenges of designing a device for F1, Moore believes that the group's fully mechanical system could have distinct advantages over the electrical hybrid solutions that are already on the road.

'There's a very big efficiency advantage because it's mechanical,' he said. 'Obviously there are some mechanical losses, but the wheel-to-wheel efficiency is much higher than it is for electrical systems; you could be talking a 70 per cent-plus efficiency level, whereas electrical systems, which convert energy from kinetic energy into electrical energy, chemical energy and ultimately back in to kinetic energy are down in the 30s.'

And it looks like we may be seeing flywheel-enabled hybrids on the roads sooner rather than later. Hilton said he is engaged in vehicle discussions with a number of road car OEMS, while Moore claimed that the technology is likely to appear on a production prototype within the next three years.

Moore suggested that one way the device may be applied to road cars is as a bolt-on complement to existing electrical systems. 'There are some advantages to using an electrical system and then a mechanical one for bursts of power if you suddenly want some acceleration,' he said.

But unlike the F1 application, the consumer version of KERS is unlikely to feature a 'big red button'. 'You would have no driver input at all,' said Moore. 'the driver will just drive the car and if he requests a certain acceleration mode via the throttle the car would work out whether you do it by battery or whether you use some of the flywheel energy you have recovered.'

Straying even further from the world of motorsport, Moore said that the system could even help boost the efficiency of public transport. Trains, which have a highly structured start and stop cycle are ripe for a KERS device while buses, somewhat ironically given their lumbering nature, have a very similar duty cycle to an F1 car.

'An F1 car goes through a corner very slowly and then accelerates very quickly down the straight and slows again and accelerates and stops every now and then for a pit stop. That's pretty much what a bus does, ' joked Moore.

[WhiteBlue]

pretty good indeed. I must say I'm amazed by the efficiency figures. instinctively I would have placed electric hybrids higher.

amazingly Michael Schumacher has come out with a statement contradicting Ferrari's

chumacher backs KERS for F1
Piero Ferrari critical if FIA rule changes
23/04/08 16:51

Michael Schumacher does not back the Italian team's apparent opposition to the introduction next year of 'energy-saving' KERS technology.

Piero Ferrari, the famous marque's Vice President, ten percent owner and the only living son of founder Enzo Ferrari, said on Wednesday that he disagrees with some of Formula One's rule directions, including rev-limited and frozen engines, and KERS, where braking energy will be electronically re-released by a driver's 'boost button' in 2009 and beyond.

In the Italian magazine Autosprint, Ferrari questions the rules, saying they leave established engine experts "twiddling their thumbs" not only because of the engine freeze, but because outside experts are needed for KERS.

But Schumacher, 39, insists that the technology is "very important" for F1.

"(Ferrari's) road car department and other road car companies will benefit hugely from it, and the environment will as well," the German told the British newspaper The Times.

In fact, Schumacher accepts the principle that F1 can do even more to contribute to the solutions to the world's environmental crises.

"People say F1 should do more but you cannot change the world in one day," he continued.

"It's not possible. You have to do it in steps that are achievable and you have to understand the problem.

"I think that it has been understood, this issue, and formula one is reacting to it," he added.

Source: GMM

it appears that the Ferrari PR machine is a bit out of sync. probably Michael did not know about Ferrari's statement