Motorsport aktuell has a fascinating article. Here the most important in short: - Magnetti Marelli's system was not reliable enough, so Ferrari dropped it. - Ferrari designed two system themselves: One based on Magnetti's idea (similar to everbody else's) but with their own parts and one that stores the batteries in the front wing (Red Bull going that route too) - The batteries in the front wing cost a fortune and carry the risk that the drivers get electrocuted by 800 Volts in case of a crash: The power lines run through the cockpit and carbon fibre is a conductor - Ferrari has put the front wing system on ice (although it does offer better weight distribution) and carries on with the conventional system - Ferrari pays the most of all teams for the development, which makes me think, that once it is up and running, they will ignore the gentlemen's agreement not to use it
A gentlemen's agreement requires gentlemen; I don't think any Formula 1 team principal fits into the category.
I read just last week in an Italian news paper interview with one of Ferrari's technical staff (i forget who it was) that they are using a system that they are developing with Magnetti Marelli. I'm confused why any designer would want heavy battery's placed outside the wheel base of the car and also placed in a fragile area like the Front wing.
I doubt very much they are batteries, or what we consider to be batteries. The are more than likely high energy-density capacitors. My company uses 11Kj capacitors and these weigh 24kg each, they will supply 7Kw-250VDC for about 4 minutes. It`s going to be a heavy wing. If you break off a portion of the wing, there is a very high potential of highly caustic liquids being projected on the drivers or wherever. It is not a good idea to dissipate this amount of energy especially when you are sitting on your butt, strapped in with no where to go.
Designers want as small amount of weight outside of the wheel base as possible, as they want to avoid the pendulum effect.. Also putting the battery's in a area that is most likely to be damaged in a collision is quite ridiculous, it would be like putting the fuel tanks in the nose cone !!!
Has anybody at all successfully tested a KERS? By successfully, I mean a system that actually works reliably and actually provides a performance advantage?
I don't know the name of the company and what the batteries are like but they are associated with NASA and are supposed to be very VERY expensive. As you mentioned the weight of the batteries is significant (I have Nikolas Tombazisin quoted as "about more than 30 kg of weight")but putting that in that weight in the middle of car threw off the weight distribution Ferrari wanted to achieve. As for anyone having success, Toyota has already said KERS will be a no go and everyone else I believe (correct me if I am wrong) is still undecided. Hopefully Ferrari can get it up and running after all the money they spent and the rumored development with Peugeot P1 team
I would have guessed that only Honda, Ferrari, or MCL could have had a chance to make one of these things work. Not Toyota, who seems to be having enough trouble with their conventional engineering. Well, scratch Honda. Looks more and more like it will be 2010 if it ever happens.
I can just hear the commentators now: ''ouch thats a HEAVY crash. However the driver seems to be moving...'' does the Kers weigh 30KG's? Now correct me if im wrong but isnt it worth while for a team to not use the whole KERS system but take the weight to their advantage and place it in an absolute ideal position? The teams design their cars normally a couple of kilo's under the 604KG (inc driver) so they can play with weight distribution. +30 KG's of solid KERS will leave them at serious disadvantage if you ask me, especially since kers can only offer powerboost for .2 of a second isnt it?
6 seconds per lap, I believe...but is 6 seconds of about 40 hp really worth all the complication and the weight? I am skeptical.
6 seconds on the straights... that will almost make up for the weight and all the time lost in the corners and nearly all the time lost during acceleration. I don't like this crappy "Green" system. How much money and pollution have been wasted trying to create these systems. What a load of BS!
Also I thought they would be getting 6-8 seconds of boost per lap? That hardly equates to 6-8 seconds per lap. If it's only a boost button, look for 1-2 seconds per lap maximum.
Especially when we are losing teams due to the costs. What is really horrible is that probably nobody will actally run one of these this year, which means that the development money was just simply wasted.
+1 Big difference between batteries and capacitors! I have an interesting article here about a reluctance machine based KERS system made by a small company in Bavaria. Unfortunately it's German, but if anyone's interested, drop me a PM!
OK, batteries vs the ultra-capacitor: Is there a profound weight/storage advantage to the capacitor, or is the advantage more along the lines of a greater discharge rate for a sudden power burst with the capacitor?
Essentially, yes. While batteries can store much more energy, the power (ie, the amount of energy to be stored or released in a certain timeframe) of capacitors is higher. Imagine the battery like a huge tank with a small valve. The total amount of water in there is very high, but it takes forever to fill or emtpy it. The capacitor would be a bucket full of water - only a few liters, but you can get rid of them very quickly.
Pretty much what I thought. And of course a capacitor can store a lot higher voltage than a battery. Again this hints at the PR dishonesty of this as a truly "green" rule - it will evolve to what makes the car faster, not what will make it get more fuel efficiency.
