Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design?

[xpensive]

We've been thru braking-powers on another thread, where with today's xtremely short deccelleration-sequences, said power can be several hundreds of kW, there's simply no way to charge a battery with anything near that level.

As a concequence, 4WD KERS or not, I think it will be very difficult to increase recovered energy very much from 400 kJ,
not with today's technology anyway.

[Just_a_fan]

Williams kinetic energy storage was initially developed for F1 and is now used in other automotive apps.

I know only of Porsche 911GT3R. Anything else?
You won't argue that 911GT3R is indicative of general market, wouldn't you?

The 'general market' in EVs and hybrid vehicles is being prevented from development by vested interest in fossil fuels and ic production.

Here we go again...

[WhiteBlue]

We've been thru braking-powers on another thread, where with today's xtremely short deccelleration-sequences, said power can be several hundreds of kW, there's simply no way to charge a battery with anything near that level.

So why can't they simply have a super capacitor in between? They should be aiming at 2.3 MJ/lap if they want to have some decent energy.

That would provide 10% recovered energy if we calculate with 90 kg fuel ultimately, 44MJ/kg fuel, 30% engine efficiency and 50 laps per average race.

Of course you would not achieve this initially because consumption would be higher. But all systems must evolve with the improving technology. F1 would be aiming for 10% recovery between 2015 and 2018 which would feel right for me.

[raymondu999]

Will the KERS still be a push-to-pass implementation though? I was actually thinking that F1 could have gone the route of the hybrid and actually had the KERS energy hooked up in parallel to the throttle and have it kick in with the throttle if they really wanted to go green. But that sounds more like for the engine changes for 2013

[xpensive]

2.3 MJ per lap would almost certainly mean 4W KERS. A 700 kg object from 252 to 108 km/h is 1.4 MJ, five times per lap and take away 15% for deccelleration by air-resistance means 6 MJ per lap available. 2.3 MJ of those would be aiming at recovering 40% of the braking energy.

Perhaps you could use a supercapacitor and release the stored energy, some 500 kJ, efter every corner, but I don't know enough about those things, anyone who can shed some light on where they are in terms of development and availability?

[raymondu999]

Why not just limit the size of the supercapacitor, but don't limit the usage? So basically a race to make it as efficient, to regain and fit as much energy as you can, but you can use all of it any time. Wouldn't that create a "greener" development push?

[xpensive]

According to Wiki, the supercapacitor, EDLC, has an energy-density of 2 to 100 kJ/kg, while a conventional Lithium-Ion battery can hold as much as 600 kJ per kg, why it seems the EDLC still has some way to go in order to be competitive in that respect.

However, the power-density, how fast it can charge and discharge, of an EDLC is 10 to 100 times as good as a battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

[timbo]

I would disagree with that view. So far MES have integrated every legitimate aspect of controlling a racing engine and a race car into their code. At least I am not aware of any criticism of the teams since the system's initial birthing pains have been overcome. They can be trusted to provide all needed functionality for every physical system that meets the regulations. What they certainly will not do is give code access to teams and violate the FiA regulations for the SECU.

It controls race engine that is essentially spec'd.
Also, what makes you think that teams do not write their own code?
How can RedBull have engine map that Renault didn't have on the same engine then?

[timbo]

So why can't they simply have a super capacitor in between? They should be aiming at 2.3 MJ/lap if they want to have some decent energy.

Super capacitor, huh?
Don't know sh*t about that technology, but quick search provides this

Carbon aerogel capacitors have achieved 325 J/g (90 W·h/kg) energy density and 20 W/g power density.

So, if you want to store 2.3Mj, you would only need 6.9kg of supercapacitors, which looks good, but further reading provides volumetric density

The energy density is more than 47 kJ/L at 2.85 V and power density of over 20 W/g

which gives around 49L volume.
This is all without any electronics, cooling etc.
Also, wiki says that most supercapacitors are made from micro-porous materials which makes 'em really sensitive to vibration/heat.

Not really practical for an F1 car if you ask me.

[Dukeage]

Will the KERS still be a push-to-pass implementation though? I was actually thinking that F1 could have gone the route of the hybrid and actually had the KERS energy hooked up in parallel to the throttle and have it kick in with the throttle if they really wanted to go green. But that sounds more like for the engine changes for 2013

That's not practical for 2009/2011 KERS equipment, but I think that's what's going to be used at Le Mans.

[xpensive]

@ timbo & WB; The solution could perhaps be to limit charging/discharging to the same 400 kJ/60kW, but allow it for as many times per lap as you can manage, provided that the battery/supercapacitor can live with it?

[timbo]

@ timbo & WB; The solution could perhaps be to limit charging/discharging to the same 400 kJ/60kW, but allow it for as many times per lap as you can manage, provided that the battery/supercapacitor can live with it?

Seems reasonable.
Another idea is allow electric power integration into Engine itself. Imagine powering auxes etc. with recovered energy. Could be much more efficient IMO that straightforward "boost" application.

PS, it seems like 800 kJ were already practical for Magnetti/Marelli KERS unit, so I guess that would be a better target.

[WhiteBlue]

I would disagree with that view. So far MES have integrated every legitimate aspect of controlling a racing engine and a race car into their code. At least I am not aware of any criticism of the teams since the system's initial birthing pains have been overcome. They can be trusted to provide all needed functionality for every physical system that meets the regulations. What they certainly will not do is give code access to teams and violate the FiA regulations for the SECU.

Also, what makes you think that teams do not write their own code?
How can RedBull have engine map that Renault didn't have on the same engine then?

It is defined in the SECU specification that teams cannot write their own code. The FiA checks every race weekend the version of the FiA approved software. All teams are usually on the same version or one version apart. It is in the scrutineering report.

Maps are not programmed. They are parameters that are loaded into identical programs to customize something.

If a team needs a new functionality from the SECU they have to ask permission from the FiA and when they get it MES writes the program. Of course other teams can use that code as well as soon as they become aware of it.

MES are very good at making the SW tamper proof. Any attempt to manipulate the SW would have to avoid many traps they have set for the cheaters. And getting caught cheating with the SECU would get teams banned. Not a nice prospect.

[autogyro]

@ timbo & WB; The solution could perhaps be to limit charging/discharging to the same 400 kJ/60kW, but allow it for as many times per lap as you can manage, provided that the battery/supercapacitor can live with it?

Seems reasonable.
Another idea is allow electric power integration into Engine itself. Imagine powering auxes etc. with recovered energy. Could be much more efficient IMO that straightforward "boost" application.

PS, it seems like 800 kJ were already practical for Magnetti/Marelli KERS unit, so I guess that would be a better target.

Better way would be to remove the conventional gearbox and replace it with a smaller seven speed stepped unit that is also a KERS recovery apply unit
(also making the conventional clutch obsolete and saving this weight and volume also). All engine auxiliaries and the gearbox changes would be electro magneticaly operated freeing up even more volume for the added volume of a useable electrical storage/transfer unit.
Two light weight motor/generators would recover front wheel energy under braking and work as part time four wheeled drive for handling improvement through corners using electronic control over torque bias during apply, (not full four wheeled drive), allowing much lighter shaft drives to the front wheels.
I estimate little change in basic chassis design using this method.

[timbo]

It is defined in the SECU specification that teams cannot write their own code. The FiA checks every race weekend the version of the FiA approved software. All teams are usually on the same version or one version apart. It is in the scrutineering report. Maps are not programmed. They are parameters that are loaded into identical programs to customize something.

OK
but I only found this

All on-car software versions must be registered with the FIA before use.

and this

The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in an manner specified by the FIA.

And few other pieces.
But no explicit ban on team-written code.

However, if you are right, it puts severe limitations on KERS functionality as it would be defined by what SECU manufacturer may envision.
If you are wrong, FIA would have a huge pain in their butts to check the code and electrical connectivity of fully integrated 4WD unit.
Pick your poison.